Manhattan explosion

[smartcooky]

Yes, and as we've seen right in this thread, some people have a double standard

Yes, we do see that, don't we!?

The Cairo Declaration was put together by the governments of some Muslim-majority nations, governments which don't even and never have adhered to it themselves, so it's kind of hard to assert that the Declaration is really all that representative of what those governments actually believe.

but previously,,,,

If it was a terrorist act (and recognized as such) before the French admitted to doing it, it's still a terrorist attack even afterwards.

Ooops!! So, when you say that the governments who put the Cairo Declaration together made a declaration that they no longer believe or follow, then that is valid, but when I say that the governments who were on both sides of the Rainbow Warrior bombing made a declaration that they no longer believe or follow, that is not valid.

OK, now I understand!

Aisha has been granted the right by Allah to move goalposts and hold double standards with impunity. Aisha is always right, and everyone who doesn't agree with her is always wrong and her Allah-given power to hand-wave away opinions that contradict hers is infinite. Got it!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Sorry, but you're trying for a 'gotcha' yourself by using a strawman. That isn't what I was saying at all.
Opposing oppression, wholesale slaughter, sexual slavery and fanatical fundamentalism does not require an extremist attitude "by definition". It requires common humanity, and the will to act on it.

Except that A'isha was responding to the claim that, in order to be considered to be sufficiently opposed to radical Islam, moderate Muslims needed to go fight ISIS. A'isha was only pointing out that not only was going to fight for a foreign army possibly illegal but that breaking the laws of the nations in which one resides in order to support a cause is actually the mark of an extremist rather than a moderate.

 

[A'isha]

Except that A'isha was responding to the claim that, in order to be considered to be sufficiently opposed to radical Islam, moderate Muslims needed to go fight ISIS. A'isha was only pointing out that not only was going to fight for a foreign army possibly illegal but that breaking the laws of the nations in which one resides in order to support a cause is actually the mark of an extremist rather than a moderate.

And not only that, his rant that Muslims aren't doing enough to combat extremism in their own communities is rather odd in a thread where the perpetrator of the attack this thread was started about was once reported to the FBI by his own father for extremism.

 

[A'isha]

Ooops!! So, when you say that the governments who put the Cairo Declaration together made a declaration that they no longer believe or follow, then that is valid, but when I say that the governments who were on both sides of the Rainbow Warrior bombing made a declaration that they no longer believe or follow, that is not valid.

If only there was some difference between governments declaring that a specific terrorist attack is indeed a terrorist attack based on their established criteria, and thinking that a proposal made by a bunch of (entirely different) autocratic governments means those governments are speaking for the 1.6 billion adherents to a major religion worldwide, especially when those governments don't even follow the precepts of their own proposal.

 

[smartcooky]

If only there was some difference between governments declaring that a specific terrorist attack is indeed a terrorist attack based on their established criteria, and thinking that a proposal made by a bunch of (entirely different) autocratic governments means those governments are speaking for the 1.6 billion adherents to a major religion worldwide, especially when those governments don't even follow the precepts of their own proposal.

OK, you are in effect saying that governments are either never wrong, or they never make official statements or do things that later turn out out to be wrong. Unless of course, they are Muslim states.

Special Pleading for Islam applies!

Got it!

 

[A'isha]

Well, your strawman isn't going to win any awards for coherence, that's for sure.

 

[tyr_13]

This is entirely your conjecture. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy, but that doesn't mean it must be destroyed. It could mean something as simple as diving the world between the democratic world, where human values are cherished, where progress is made, and the Islamic world where the entire energy of the society is devoted to bowing down to a 7th century serial rapist and his favorite space rock. That's an imperfect, but entirely workable solution, preferable to gas chambers.

Barring that, there are loads of significantly better options. The best option is to expose Islam to all as a supremacist, racist, misogynist ideology of hate that it is. The main target here are actually Muslims. Any honest Muslim who is interested in an intelligent debate - unlike A'isha, who is only interested in defending her ideology - will be forced to see just what nonsense they've been following all their lives. They will either apostatize or work to change Islam for the better.
In the long run it doesn't really matter whether Islam is changed into something that can function in a modern society, or simply abandoned by it's followers to become a dead religion, like the Greek Pantheon is. The problem is solved in a humanist way that doesn't need to kill or even coerce anyone.

Why would anyone be against that is beyond me. Of course, if this doesn't happen, then the end result will be the gas chambers. I'm not saying this as a threat, it's merely a warning what the alternative is. The only question is whether it would be Muslims or non-Muslims who get gassed. I don't particularly fancy either version, but I would like to hear what A'isha thinks about gassing the Kaffir.

McHrozni

This is hilarious! You don't want Islam destroyed, you just want it dead. This is exactly like the Stewie Griffon quote, "I don't want her dead, I just...don't want her to be alive...anymore."

And here is a clue; saying something is fundamentally incompatible with something and insisting it 'change' to be compatible with it means you have to destroy it and remake it. Otherwise it isn't 'fundamentally' incompatible. Plenty of Muslims prove that your 'better way' is already here, yet you deny it.

I stand by my assessment and amusingly, you agree with my assessment while denying it. Keep repeating the gas chamber thing though, it'll convince people to come to the correct conclusion on the worth of your argument.

 

[A'isha]

I find the idea of gassing anyone horrifying, and the attempts to justify such an action disgusting (one of the reasons I spend so much time and effort fighting Holocaust deniers).

Apparently not everyone in this thread shares my view, it seems.

 

[tyr_13]

I find the idea of gassing anyone horrifying, and the attempts to justify such an action disgusting (one of the reasons I spend so much time and effort fighting Holocaust deniers).

Apparently not everyone in this thread shares my view, it seems.

It isn't that he doesn't find it horrible, but he believes it's inevitable unless Muslims stop being Muslims or learn to live in peace with western values. Which...many already do...

It certainly isn't credible to call it inevitable nor is using gas chambers as the looming threat for fear-mongering wise. It's cartoonish in how over the top it's trying to co-opt the Holocaust.

Although re-reading it, you're correct in a way. The way it's worded as 'us or them' is a kind of justification for it, even if the act itself is still abhorrent and they 'don't want it done'.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, your strawman isn't going to win any awards for coherence, that's for sure.

Its not a straw-man because I didn't change anything you said (a fundamental requirement of a strawman argument), I quoted you verbatim!

Islamic states appear to be allowed make statements that are wrong or that they do not believe but are still valid, and that's OK with you, but France and New Zealand's original false statements must remain valid, even thought they are later retracted.

Sadly, you seem to be blind to your own duplicity. There is no other way to interpret what you have said, so I expect another handwave

 

[quadraginta]

Aren't they fighting and dying every day in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Those don't count.

They're inconvenient to the narrative.

 

[quadraginta]

And not only that, his rant that Muslims aren't doing enough to combat extremism in their own communities is rather odd in a thread where the perpetrator of the attack this thread was started about was once reported to the FBI by his own father for extremism.

That doesn't count.

It's inconvenient to the narrative.

 

[The Man]

That doesn't count.

It's inconvenient to the narrative.

Depends on how the narrative gets framed. For example one such framing could say that evidently enough wasn't done as the attacks were perpetrated (Dad perhaps should have just shot him). In such a framing, in order for Muslims to effectively combat Islamic extremism some Muslims may need to be more, well, extreme than the extremists.



Certainly not a narrative or framing I endorse.

 

[A'isha]

Its not a straw-man because I didn't change anything you said (a fundamental requirement of a strawman argument), I quoted you verbatim!

"OK, you are in effect saying that governments are either never wrong, or they never make official statements or do things that later turn out out to be wrong. Unless of course, they are Muslim states."

That's not quoting me verbatim. That is, in fact, the opposite of quoting me verbatim.

 

[McHrozni]

And here is a clue; saying something is fundamentally incompatible with something and insisting it 'change' to be compatible with it means you have to destroy it and remake it. Otherwise it isn't 'fundamentally' incompatible. Plenty of Muslims prove that your 'better way' is already here, yet you deny it.

You apparently misunderstood my post completely. That's normal for an apologist.

I'll give you a clue, I first proposed a solution that would see Islam coexist with the progress of human civilization. It's a workable solution that you apparently completely missed. I then proposed two scenarios under which Islam could indeed be destroyed, but in a way you are quite unwilling to address.

Tell me, suppose all Muslims decide their religion must be somewhat different, and make alterations to it, all at once and take out the crap that kills people. What's wrong with that?

I don't expect an answer, because there isn't one. That doesn't mean I won't pester you for it incessantly, because that's precisely what you denounced as "hilarious".

Furthermore, please point out where I denied many Muslims are different already. If you can't you owe me an apology

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I see that A'isa has completely given up on attempting to defend Islam from it's most serious errors and will only defend it with a pathetic "But, but France blew up a civilian ship 20 years ago too!" and pretend this is an argument.

That's how failure looks like, A'isha. You might want to reassess what is it you believe in.

You see ...

Quran (9:38-41): O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.
If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.
If you help him (Muhammad) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of two, when they (Muhammad and Abu Bakr ) were in the cave, and he said to his companion (Abu Bakr ): "Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us." Then Allah sent down His Sakinah (calmness, tranquillity, peace, etc.) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while it was the Word of Allah that became the uppermost, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allah. This is better for you, if you but knew.

... if you give up in this little Jihad of yours, you're going to hell. You need to either win or die trying.

Incidentally and not directly related, but what inner struggles exist that can end up fatal?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

That doesn't count.

It's inconvenient to the narrative.

Of course it does. It just shows that not all Muslims follow their scriptures. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the problems with Islam. If the problem was all Muslims and not Islam, the solution would be straightforward. Ugly, but straightforward.

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

Of course it does. It just shows that not all Muslims follow their scriptures. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the problems with Islam. If the problem was all Muslims and not Islam, the solution would be straightforward. Ugly, but straightforward.

McHrozni

The scripture you quoted was about rallying the troops to Mohamed, not a general call to kill non-Muslims. Read it again and you'll see.

 

[McHrozni]

The scripture you quoted was about rallying the troops to Mohamed, not a general call to kill non-Muslims. Read it again and you'll see.

And I posted it as such. Read my post in entirety for a change and you'll see.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It puzzles me why, if so many Muslims are apparently opposed to ISIS, why they are not flocking in numbers to fight against it. Thousands of Muslims are fighting for ISIS. Thousands. I have yet to see any reports of Muslims leaving Europe or other countries to help their fellow Muslims in Syria or Iraq by freeing them from the brutal, savage and (you would have us believe) un-Islamic regime of ISIS.
Looking at the Muslims who are actively fighting ISIS, we have, first and foremost, the Kurds. A people who have been campaigning for their own homeland for decades, yet who are not only being ignored by the Muslim world, are being actively attacked by a Muslim country (Turkey).
Then we have the Syrians. Assad's brutal dicatorship, aided by Russia and Iran ( Iran being also Muslim and a country suffering from oppression) is indiscriminately bombing anyone opposing it. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence among the apologists, as this slaughter cannot be blamed on Americans. Jews or non-Muslims. Fighting ISIS to preserve a dictatorship hardly puts Islam in a better light.
Then we have the Iraqis. The bloody schism between Sunni and Shis is the cause of the fracturing of this country. The fight against ISIS has followed these faultlines, along with an additional leavening of power politics.
The idea that Muslims are uniting to combat ISIS is unfounded in reality. If Muslims were genuinely as outraged by ISIS as you appear to be claiming, then why aren't they doing anything about it? Why is there no Muslim joint task force fightiing ISIS? Apart from the countires directly involved- Syria, Iraq and Turkey, has any Muslim nation sent troops to fight ISIS? Are the numbers of ordinary Muslim citizens leaving their countries to fight against ISIS in any way comparable to those leaving to join ISIS? If not, why not?

Sorry, but you're trying for a 'gotcha' yourself by using a strawman. That isn't what I was saying at all.
Opposing oppression, wholesale slaughter, sexual slavery and fanatical fundamentalism does not require an extremist attitude "by definition". It requires common humanity, and the will to act on it.
It is a fact that thousands of Muslims feel sufficiently persuaded by the call of fundamentalism to take up arms in its cause. It is also a fact that only a tiny number (and I'm being generous here, because I haven't heard of any) feel sufficiently outraged by the barbarism of ISIS, and sufficiently appalled by what is happening to their fellow Muslims, to do the same thing for the other side. That is a strange imbalance.
Fighting extremism is not extremist, it is just. Where are the thousands of Muslims who are actively opposing extremism? Why are the numbers so one-sided?
What's more, you have to wonder why the apparently peaceful, law-abiding, extremist-loathing majority of Muslims are not doing more to root out the cancer in their midst? If they don't want to go to Syria or Iraq to fight, and are happy to sit back and allow others to do the fighting, there are other approaches: why not expose, denounce and expel the jihadist recruiters in their own communities? The British government's attempts to combat extremism have been met with howls of protest from Muslim groups complaining about being stereotyped or persecuted. Fine, then the effort has to come from within the Muslim community. Whatever they are doing, it is clearly not enough: the stream of newly-radicalised jihadis shows no signs of abating.

Aren't they fighting and dying every day in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Those don't count.

They're inconvenient to the narrative.

They are only inconvenient to the narrative if you conveniently snip most of the narrative.