Why not war against Islam?

[citizenzen]

...never thought I'd actually defend Christianity one day....

One of the aspects that I think gets too easily overlooked in this argument is that different cultures progress differently. There was a time that Christians acted as violently as Muslims and countries were dominated by the church.

Today, by comparison, some Muslim-dominated cultures lag behind.

The question, in my mind, is what is the best way to promote progress?

I certainly don't think people respond well to coercion and violence. So I don't support going to "war" against Islam. I think that if we maintain peaceful, open relationships, then we'll do more to influence these cultures to adopt more progressive policies.

We don't need to go to war with anyone. We simply need to accept that cultures evolve at different rates. And we need to realize that our most powerful tool here is peaceful interaction, not violent intervention.

 

[A'isha]

The question, in my mind, is what is the best way to promote progress?

I certainly don't think people respond well to coercion and violence. So I don't support going to "war" against Islam. I think that if we maintain peaceful, open relationships, then we'll do more to influence these cultures to adopt more progressive policies.

We don't need to go to war with anyone. We simply need to accept that cultures evolve at different rates. And we need to realize that our most powerful tool here is peaceful interaction, not violent intervention.

Encouraging and engaging with Muslim moderates certainly will help. It's been pointed out before in these threads that those who are the most vocal about fighting against the worst parts of Islam (the terrorism, the mistreatment of women, etc.) also are the ones who completely reject the notion that Islam can be anything other than those worst parts and that Muslims who also fight against those parts are Doing Islam Wrong and Aren't True Muslims (or, worse, are actually Stealth Jihadists only using taqiyya to pretend to be moderate as part of their grand scheme to overthrow the infidel).

I've just now started a book by Dr. Khaled Abou El-Fadl where he talks about these issues.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Foster, are you going to answer my questions? I think you won't because we both know what the answer is.

If you find someone who is against Islam do you first assume they are a right-wing hypocrite?

I can't speak for Foster, but I don't. Hitchens isn't exactly right-wing and he shares much of your attitude, if not your sources.

If you have to bet, though, right-wing is the way to go, clearly a higher percentage on the right are alarmed about Islam itself as opposed to Muslim terrorist outfits than on the left. As far as hypocrisy, there's no odds on that...it depends on the person's reasons: if they believe Islam is a false religion to be opposed because only Christianity is the true religion to be supported (with a nod to the Jews because they're the chosen people even though their hard-headed about Jesus being the messiah), that is a consistent position. So hypocrisy isn't a safe bet, you have to know the person's reasoning.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Muslims are in a war against islam (not the religion) right now.

THe word, "islam" means submit. The religion, Islam, conditions Muslim to be submissive. This is the ground on which dictators build the foundation on which to build their dictatorships. One might wonder how Libyans can support Qhadffi. It is easy. Islam conditions them to do so inspite of his faults. They are good Muslims according to "islam" and also to an extent "Islam".

But there is a revolution. The people in the Mid East have found out (what the West have known since the 1700's ) that this is not the way to go.

Muslims are already in a war against the concept of "islam" and they have won in Egypt and they are winning in Libya.

Common sense has caught up and overtaken dogma. It was just a matter of time.

Now, don't be a prat and confuse Islam with Mulsims. A people is not the same thing as a bad idea that the people believe.

Maybe there might come a time when all Muslims will become something of what modern christians are, they will look at the teachings of their religion is if it was a buffet and they pick and choose what parts of their religions they find acceptable rather than take in the whole buffet. They will look at some dogma and consider it to be outdated or distasteful for what they are looking for. It seems to be where things are heading.

I emphasized the part which is what a lot of us have been saying. Eliminating Islam (somehow) and demonizing it is not consistent with achieving this result. However, achieving this result is consistent with reducing the growth of Islam.

 

[Foster Zygote]

One of the aspects that I think gets too easily overlooked in this argument is that different cultures progress differently. There was a time that Christians acted as violently as Muslims and countries were dominated by the church.

Today, by comparison, some Muslim-dominated cultures lag behind.

The question, in my mind, is what is the best way to promote progress?

I certainly don't think people respond well to coercion and violence. So I don't support going to "war" against Islam. I think that if we maintain peaceful, open relationships, then we'll do more to influence these cultures to adopt more progressive policies.

We don't need to go to war with anyone. We simply need to accept that cultures evolve at different rates. And we need to realize that our most powerful tool here is peaceful interaction, not violent intervention.

Well said.

 

[Robrob]

Why is it so many people have been killed, arguing over what happens after you die?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why is it so many people have been killed, arguing over what happens after you die?

I liked the way someone on Youtube who goes by "eequalsfb" put it:

"Historically, the attention people have given to the subtle signs of the gods has gotten a lot of virgins thrown into a lot of volcanos. Perfectly good virgins!"

 

[Bill Thompson]

One of the aspects that I think gets too easily overlooked in this argument is that different cultures progress differently. There was a time that Christians acted as violently as Muslims and countries were dominated by the church.

Today, by comparison, some Muslim-dominated cultures lag behind.
The question, in my mind, is what is the best way to promote progress?

I certainly don't think people respond well to coercion and violence. So I don't support going to "war" against Islam. I think that if we maintain peaceful, open relationships, then we'll do more to influence these cultures to adopt more progressive policies.

Not well said. Well said if you want to believe what we all wish was true. But not well said.


You contradict yourself. You first suggest that Islamic cultures lag behind and then you turn around and suggest that they have reached the conclusion that progress cannot be gained by violence. For them to be that progressed would mean that they are not lagging behind at all.


Your wishful thinking has been proven wrong time after time. Bill Clinton wanted to believe that these cultures would respond to a kind gesture, a gentile nudge and simply looking the other way, but he was wrong.


Clinton's approach to the Cole bombing was to fire of just one cruse missile. A similar slap on the wrist was for the Embassy Bombings in South Africa as well.


Clinton was practically handed Osama bin Laden a number of times but he did not take action out of fear that he would anger the Islamic world who still regarded bin Laden as a champion of Islam.


Not only are you wrong but you are dangerously wrong.

If you think the Islamic world will respond to kind gestures and peaceful negotiations, I suggest you meet and discuss reality with an Isreali citizen.

We don't need to go to war with anyone. We simply need to accept that cultures evolve at different rates. And we need to realize that our most powerful tool here is peaceful interaction, not violent intervention.

No one -- at least no one with a rational mind -- is actually suggesting a shooting war. If you think I am you are wrong again.

You do not stop a religion with violence. Just ask Annon who is at war with Scientology. Or take a look at the downfall of the Roman Empire who was at war with the Christians.

But the idea and belief of Islam needs to be confronted. Not with violence. But still with a steadfast resolve. Islam is a lie, in case you did not know. Lies are not good. And brushing it aside by saying all religions are bad is just the workings of a cowardly mind.

 

[Craig B]

Your wishful thinking has been proven wrong time after time. Bill Clinton wanted to believe that these cultures would respond to a kind gesture, a gentile nudge and simply looking the other way, but he was wrong....Clinton's approach to the Cole bombing was to fire of just one cruse missile. A similar slap on the wrist was for the Embassy Bombings in South Africa as well.

I thought we didn't want a shooting war, Bill.

Clinton was practically handed Osama bin Laden a number of times but he did not take action out of fear that he would anger the Islamic world who still regarded bin Laden as a champion of Islam.

So how come he's dead now, and the Islamic world hasn't gone nuts about it?

If you think the Islamic world will respond to kind gestures and peaceful negotiations, I suggest you meet and discuss reality with an Isreali citizen.

The Israeli citizen I know best lives in a kibbutz in territory annexed illegally from Syria. He was born in Scotland and settled on this occupied territory. His activities are forbidden by international law. What attitude should he adopt towards the Syrians who want their land back? I have discussed this reality with him several times. Tell me what I should say to him. You will earn my gratitude.

No one -- at least no one with a rational mind -- is actually suggesting a shooting war. ...

One cruise missile doth not a shooting war make, eh, Bill? As far as I can see the West is or has recently been engaged in three shooting wars, whether rightly or wrongly, in the Islamic world.

You do not stop a religion with violence. Just ask Annon who is at war with Scientology. Or take a look at the downfall of the Roman Empire who was at war with the Christians. ...

When the Roman Empire fell, Bill, it had been ruled by Christians for a century and a half, and wasn't at war with them.

But the idea and belief of Islam needs to be confronted. Not with violence. But still with a steadfast resolve. Islam is a lie, in case you did not know. Lies are not good. And brushing it aside by saying all religions are bad is just the workings of a cowardly mind.

That last bit is incoherent. If you oppose Islam BECAUSE it is a lie, and if other religions are lies too, then you have to oppose them also. That is not a cowardly mind, but a logical one. More work needs done on your argument at this point, I think.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I thought we didn't want a shooting war, Bill.

Wow. Explain to me how you get a shooting war idea out of what I just wrote.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So how come he's dead now, and the Islamic world hasn't gone nuts about it?

First of all it has. Where have you been hiding? They were marching in the streets in many cities. Secondly, the Cole and the South Africa bombings were small potatoes compared to 9-11. Thirdly, your logic is messed up, man, are you on Clinton's side or against him? It is unclear. It is also unclear what point you are trying to make. I think you are arguing for the sake of having an argument. Otherwise, what are you talking about?

 

[Bill Thompson]

When the Roman Empire fell, Bill, it had been ruled by Christians for a century and a half, and wasn't at war with them.

That is not at all what I wrote. If you are going to comment on what I write, read it first.

The Romans tried to get rid of the Christians by feeding to the Lions. That violence made the Christians stronger and the Romans weaker.

 

[Bill Thompson]

.One cruise missile doth not a shooting war make, eh, Bill? As far as I can see the West is or has recently been engaged in three shooting wars, whether rightly or wrongly, in the Islamic world.

As i remember it, that shot was to take out an Al Qaeda training center. How many people were killed in that strike? As I remember it, none. But I might be wrong.

Again, are you arguing for argument sake or do you have a point to make?

Notice also, you take me out of context. Sentence by Sentence. WHy do you do that? Please explain. The context in which I was giving this example was to show that taking a light approach to Islam is not going to do any good. i was equating Clinton's action to what was suggested that being kind to Islamic radicals would bear peacful results. I was not claiming that Clinton was not engaged in a violent response. Do you understand?

You take me out of context to try to make me seem like I am saying something I am not saying. Why do you do that? I am not asking as a rhetorical question. Why do you to that, man? Do you think you will gain something or do you think I would not notice?

 

[Craig B]

Wow. Explain to me how you get a shooting war idea out of what I just wrote.

OK. Your disparagement of Clinton's mere "slap on wrist" limited missile response. Opposition to "peaceful negotiations" between Israelis and the Islamic world.

Occupying and settling Palestinian and Syrian land, and then refusing peaceful negotiations ... That is not contemplating a shooting war? Or do you believe, along with many of the settlers, that God gave them the land, and their religion is not a lie?

The THREE shooting wars currently or recently in progress.

 

[Craig B]

As i remember it, that shot was to take out an Al Qaeda training center. How many people were killed in that strike? As I remember it, none. But I might be wrong.

Again, are you arguing for argument sake or do you have a point to make?

It was, as you state, a "shot" = "shooting".

This "do you have a point?" stuff has been done to death by you, Bill, and you risk making yourself appear ridiculous.

Yes, I have points. They are clearly stated in my post. Please respond to them if you can.

 

[Leumas]

The Romans tried to get rid of the Christians by feeding to the Lions. That violence made the Christians stronger and the Romans weaker.

So can you draw an analogy and conclude that the West bombing the excrement out of the moslim countries might actually bolster their resolution and misconceptions about the West and in fact strengthen islamic support even among the ones that would have otherwise not cared.

Is it possible perhaps that a victim of "collateral damage" might grow into an embittered hateful vengeful terrorist one day because he thinks life as a maimed orphan in a country without any hope is hell?

 

[Leumas]

This "do you have a point?" stuff has been done to death by you, Bill, and you risk making yourself appear ridiculous.

That particular train has left the station a while back.

 

[Bill Thompson]

It was, as you state, a "shot" = "shooting".

This "do you have a point?" stuff has been done to death by you, Bill, and you risk making yourself appear ridiculous.

Yes, I have points. They are clearly stated in my post. Please respond to them if you can.

HUH?

Where do you get the idea that Clinton's approach was something I agreed to?

Craig, what do you think of the "thunderf00t south park vs islam" video on youtube?

 

[Bill Thompson]

So can you draw an analogy and conclude that the West bombing the excrement out of the moslim countries might actually bolster their resolution and misconceptions about the West and in fact strengthen islamic support even among the ones that would have otherwise not cared.

Is it possible perhaps that a victim of "collateral damage" might grow into an embittered hateful vengeful terrorist one day because he thinks life as a maimed orphan in a country without any hope is hell?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where do I talk about the "West bombing the excrement out of moslim countries...."? What event in history are YOU talking about? I have no idea what you are talking about at all. Do you? When did this happen? When did I discuss this? When did I draw this analogy when I never mentioned this at all.

I think YOU do not know what I am talking about. Am I right?

By the way, what do you think of the "thunderf00t south park vs islam" video on youtube?

 

[Craig B]

Bill

You have amended your post after my response. Or the response crossed. Your arguments are ad hominem, and beside the point. The Roman Empire was Christian when it fell. Palestinians and Syrians have seen their land taken and settled, contrary to international law. Judaism and Christianity, like Islam, are lies. Oppose one on that ground, you must oppose them all.

We are or have been fighting three shooting wars.

Your point about Clinton's action being or not being violence and whether you think it was too weak, while at the same time denying you want a violent reaction, needs restated more coherently. Do you want violence or not? If not, how can you imply (as you did) that Clinton should have used even greater violence?