Up until the widespread opposition to and systematic rejection of pedophile priests and abortion clinic bombers, yes.
Look, are actions like this and others that happen within Muslim societies reflection of Islam? Not really, no. They are, however, a reflection of a brand of Islam and the pathetic societies that grow out of it. And like it or not, those pathetic societies dominate places in this world as opposed to being fringe elements in those places. That's where the moral equivalency starts to fall apart, and the comparison you make above starts to look ridiculous.
We're witnessing a severe schism amongst secular and fanatical Muslims. To ignore the existence of the former is to ignore the greatest hope of progress. However, to ignore or attempt to rationalize the immorality and horrors of the latter is to further invite it into your lives.
I'm not rationalizing it, at all. I'm just not so quick to believe the people of these regions are supportive of these actions and as happy with their leadership, as it is portrayed they are.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't think the Muslim community in the US and especially in Europe has those fears. There are plenty of leaders of the Muslim community that could have said nothing. I find that you are just rationalizing and apologizing for something horrible that is going on.
Nope, I just trying to understand their silence or our lacking of hearing their voice in the matter.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nope, I just trying to understand their silence or our lacking of hearing their voice in the matter.
Ok, so according to your understanding, why is the Muslim community in Europe and the US silent? Does it not give the impression of condoning these kind of actions if they do not speak out against it?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I'm not rationalizing it, at all. I'm just not so quick to believe the people of these regions are supportive of these actions and as happy with their leadership, as it is portrayed they are.
Well, I think you're maybe half right here. Certainly all people in these regions are not supportive or happy with their leadership. But when you look at places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and a handful of other Muslim societies, I think you're mostly wrong. Places like Iran, I think you're definitely right.
The scariest practical element of Wahhabism and similar cultural systems is the popular support they have. Portraying the common Muslim in many nations as an oppressed moderate as incredibly foolish as portraying him or her as some bloodthirsty terrorist.
I agree. And I certainly realize that we arent talking about 2 even playing fields here. But still, when was the last time you heard a christian leader calling for riots because Christianity was insulted?
That's very true. There is definitely are much larger sense of desperation with these people, like their lives are at stake...I don't know. They are deeply religious, as most poorer people seem to be. And now that's being demonized out from under them as being evil and they don't see it that way. They're methods of violence is obviously wrong and counterproductive but it would be an injustice to simply judge and not try to understand the root of the problem. It's not as simple as Muslim culture is evil.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, I think you're maybe half right here. Certainly all people in these regions are not supportive or happy with their leadership. But when you look at places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and a handful of other Muslim societies, I think you're mostly wrong. Places like Iran, I think you're definitely right.
The scariest practical element of Wahhabism and similar cultural systems is the popular support they have. Portraying the common Muslim in many nations as an oppressed moderate as incredibly foolish as portraying him or her as some bloodthirsty terrorist.
I view the religous leadership of these places as twisting the religion for their own puposes and they using the peoples devotion to it for their own advantage and power. I think the larger problem is with the leadership not the people.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok, so according to your understanding, why is the Muslim community in Europe and the US silent? Does it not give the impression of condoning these kind of actions if they do not speak out against it?
So you're saying that these people in Europe and the US condone these violent acts and agree with it because that's how Islam is supposed to be? I've already said what I thought about it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I view the religous leadership of these places as twisting the religion for their own puposes and they using the peoples devotion to it for their own advantage and power.
Definitely. However, I also view the religious followership accepting that twisted religion, granting their devotion and ceding their power to them.
I think the larger problem is with the leadership not the people.
So you're saying that these people in Europe and the US condone these violent acts and agree with it because that's how Islam is supposed to be? I've already said what I thought about it.
I'm saying that by being silent they certainly give that impression and it would be wiser for them to speak up. Do you not think that silence does not give the impression of condoning?
All you've said is that they haven't spoken up because they fear they are in danger and thus won't speak up. OR that they don't want to bring attention to this and thus have their religion demonized more. However, I still believe that they would be better off separating themselves off from it by condemning these sorts of acts.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
That's very true. There is definitely are much larger sense of desperation with these people, like their lives are at stake...I don't know. They are deeply religious, as most poorer people seem to be. And now that's being demonized out from under them as being evil and they don't see it that way. They're methods of violence is obviously wrong and counterproductive but it would be an injustice to simply judge and not try to understand the root of the problem. It's not as simple as Muslim culture is evil.
No I realize that. But I certainly think there is a level of brainwashing, especially with regards to Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia. I think what we have is more or less a religion with very faithful followers, living in countries with very corrupt governments. You throw in Western greed and you have some serious issues. However, I mentioned Theo Van Gogh earlier, who was murdered in Holland, one of the most open minded free countries on the planet. The riots were in Denmark. So, its not just as if all of these actions are happening in ME countries. There is certainly a strong element of the religion itself which causes some of these responses.
In the muslim world? for the past long time I don't think it represented it's people. The american backed Shah for example, can he also be considered from the people? Saddam?
I agree with books, it is for the most part leadership.
In the muslim world? for the past long time I don't think it represented it's people. The american backed Shah for example, can he also be considered from the people? Saddam?
In both cases, of course. Both the Shah and Saddam were very much a part of "the people". Neither was exempt from the dominant culture. Saddam in particular.
I agree with books, it is for the most part leadership.
That's an easy out that, honestly, becomes laughable when the leaders change but the people don't.
No I realize that. But I certainly think there is a level of brainwashing, especially with regards to Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia. I think what we have is more or less a religion with very faithful followers, living in countries with very corrupt governments. You throw in Western greed and you have some serious issues. However, I mentioned Theo Van Gogh earlier, who was murdered in Holland, one of the most open minded free countries on the planet. The riots were in Denmark. So, its not just as if all of these actions are happening in ME countries. There is certainly a strong element of the religion itself which causes some of these responses.
But remember, these examples in Holland and Denmark are isolated cases that don't represent the whole population of Muslims living in these areas.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course not. But they do represent the views of many. And they also came from the very same group called "the people".
I think they do what they want without representing the people much these days, at least not the majority. And I think they lie and manipulate to get this done...would you disagree?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
In many countries, sentences like this are handed down by tribal councils, which operate independently of the government. Opinion polls show that significant percentages of people in Muslim countries support sharia law. It is not always a matter of punishments being imposed from above on a helpless public.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Of course not. But they do represent the views of many. And they also came from the very same group called "the people".
Both the shah and saddam along with many other leaders in history were US backed and do not represent the people. The differences between the shah and mossadeq were huge. One main diff was that one was corrupt and US backed. Then the revolution came. So I think Iran is a great example of people rising up against a powerful government but it's not easy.
Then why aren't there more cases of this kind of violence from Muslims in these places?
Why aren't two examples enough? How many examples do there have to be in order for it to be considered significant? Also, I think the lack of a response from the rest of the Muslim world outside the ME certainly seems like another example.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I think they do what they want without representing the people much these days, at least not the majority. And I think they lie and manipulate to get this done...would you disagree?
except they dont condone jailing or killing anyone who opposes their beliefs or religion.
but I think you are right, I wont argue that politicians suck, even your buddy kukinich.. luckily we get to make our own choices without much government involvement and are allowed a loud voice if we oppose.
Both the shah and saddam along with many other leaders in history were US backed and do not represent the people.
Huh? Did the US make them in a lab somewhere?
The differences between the shah and mossadeq were huge. One main diff was that one was corrupt and US backed. Then the revolution came. So I think Iran is a great example of people rising up against a powerful government but it's not easy.
It is a great example, but they simply replaced one bad government with another. Are the "leaders" responsible for this?
In many countries, sentences like this are handed down by tribal councils, which operate independently of the government. Opinion polls show that significant percentages of people in Muslim countries support sharia law. It is not always a matter of punishments being imposed from above on a helpless public.
Werent there muslim groups in Canada recently that wanted Islamic courts?
I think they do what they want without representing the people much these days, at least not the majority.
Really? The majority in this country recently (re)elected a whole bunch of people that are largely continuing their policies or were partly responsible for those policies to begin with.
And I think they lie and manipulate to get this done...would you disagree?
Lie, sometimes. Manipulate, lots. But again, it takes people to believe the lies and accept the mainpulations. There are many people lying and manipulating here in the states that enjoy little to no popular support. Simply lying and manipulating won't get you power. You either have to tell people what they want to hear or point guns at them and force them to "agree".
It is a great example, but they simply replaced one bad government with another. Are the "leaders" responsible for this?
yeah yeah yeah, in a lab.
---
I'm saying that the shah was corrupt and US backed, the US replaced an elected government with a corrupt one. this is the point. the US is responsible for the mess in Iran when it did that in 1953.
Now your last point, let's swing this to america now, the clinton government was corrupt, it was then replaced by a corrupt bush government. the best thing about this? It was the american people who chose it. But then again it's also unfair that in america people are given so few choices of mostly corrupt politicians. wheres the protesting? wheres the revolution?
You would think that after everything Bush has done, some americans would already be screaming revolution and ready for one. what's the excuse?
The many human rights violations done by the US not enough? at what point are we gonna make the change here at home?
I'm saying that the shah was corrupt and US backed, the US replaced an elected government with a corrupt one. this is the point. the US is responsible for the mess in Iran when it did that in 1953.
Now your last point, let's swing this to america now, the clinton government was corrupt, it was then replaced by a corrupt bush government. the best thing about this? It was the american people who chose it. But then again it's also unfair that in america people are given so few choices of mostly corrupt politicians. wheres the protesting? wheres the revolution?
You would think that after everything Bush has done, some americans would already be screaming revolution and ready for one. what's the excuse?
The many human rights violations done by the US not enough? at what point are we gonna make the change here at home?
But we did just vote in the democrats to the majority in congress. Which I think was mostly a vote against Bush, and against the war. I dont think we need a revolution, we just need to vote for better candidates.
But we did just vote in the democrats to the majority in congress. Which I think was mostly a vote against Bush, and against the war. I dont think we need a revolution, we just need to vote for better candidates.
It's symbolic. it means nothing, think about it, most dems voted and supported the war to begin with, so replace some vipers with some hawks.
It's not like they voted in the complete opposite of who was already in power positions.
A few things will change with the dems, surface issues. not much else.
It's symbolic. it means nothing, think about it, most dems voted and supported the war to begin with, so replace some vipers with some hawks.
It's not like they voted in the complete opposite of who was already in power positions.
A few things will change with the dems, surface issues. not much else.
Oh I dont disagree with you on that. But, the fact remains that we did show our displeasure with Bush and with the war, and at least tried to put in people to balance Bush's policies. Whether the dems step up is yet to be seen. I would certainly like to see another strong party emerge to offset the repubs and dems however.
Comments
I'm not rationalizing it, at all. I'm just not so quick to believe the people of these regions are supportive of these actions and as happy with their leadership, as it is portrayed they are.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nope, I just trying to understand their silence or our lacking of hearing their voice in the matter.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok, so according to your understanding, why is the Muslim community in Europe and the US silent? Does it not give the impression of condoning these kind of actions if they do not speak out against it?
Well, I think you're maybe half right here. Certainly all people in these regions are not supportive or happy with their leadership. But when you look at places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and a handful of other Muslim societies, I think you're mostly wrong. Places like Iran, I think you're definitely right.
The scariest practical element of Wahhabism and similar cultural systems is the popular support they have. Portraying the common Muslim in many nations as an oppressed moderate as incredibly foolish as portraying him or her as some bloodthirsty terrorist.
That's very true. There is definitely are much larger sense of desperation with these people, like their lives are at stake...I don't know. They are deeply religious, as most poorer people seem to be. And now that's being demonized out from under them as being evil and they don't see it that way. They're methods of violence is obviously wrong and counterproductive but it would be an injustice to simply judge and not try to understand the root of the problem. It's not as simple as Muslim culture is evil.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I view the religous leadership of these places as twisting the religion for their own puposes and they using the peoples devotion to it for their own advantage and power. I think the larger problem is with the leadership not the people.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So you're saying that these people in Europe and the US condone these violent acts and agree with it because that's how Islam is supposed to be? I've already said what I thought about it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Definitely. However, I also view the religious followership accepting that twisted religion, granting their devotion and ceding their power to them.
Meh. The leadership was once the people, abook.
I'm saying that by being silent they certainly give that impression and it would be wiser for them to speak up. Do you not think that silence does not give the impression of condoning?
All you've said is that they haven't spoken up because they fear they are in danger and thus won't speak up. OR that they don't want to bring attention to this and thus have their religion demonized more. However, I still believe that they would be better off separating themselves off from it by condemning these sorts of acts.
No I realize that. But I certainly think there is a level of brainwashing, especially with regards to Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia. I think what we have is more or less a religion with very faithful followers, living in countries with very corrupt governments. You throw in Western greed and you have some serious issues. However, I mentioned Theo Van Gogh earlier, who was murdered in Holland, one of the most open minded free countries on the planet. The riots were in Denmark. So, its not just as if all of these actions are happening in ME countries. There is certainly a strong element of the religion itself which causes some of these responses.
In the muslim world? for the past long time I don't think it represented it's people. The american backed Shah for example, can he also be considered from the people? Saddam?
I agree with books, it is for the most part leadership.
In both cases, of course. Both the Shah and Saddam were very much a part of "the people". Neither was exempt from the dominant culture. Saddam in particular.
That's an easy out that, honestly, becomes laughable when the leaders change but the people don't.
Does our leadership here represent your views, ffg?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But remember, these examples in Holland and Denmark are isolated cases that don't represent the whole population of Muslims living in these areas.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course not. But they do represent the views of many. And they also came from the very same group called "the people".
But they do represent the views of a significant part of the population.
Thanks for posting this article.
I think they do what they want without representing the people much these days, at least not the majority. And I think they lie and manipulate to get this done...would you disagree?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Then why aren't there more cases of this kind of violence from Muslims in these places?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Both the shah and saddam along with many other leaders in history were US backed and do not represent the people. The differences between the shah and mossadeq were huge. One main diff was that one was corrupt and US backed. Then the revolution came. So I think Iran is a great example of people rising up against a powerful government but it's not easy.
Why aren't two examples enough? How many examples do there have to be in order for it to be considered significant? Also, I think the lack of a response from the rest of the Muslim world outside the ME certainly seems like another example.
except they dont condone jailing or killing anyone who opposes their beliefs or religion.
but I think you are right, I wont argue that politicians suck, even your buddy kukinich.. luckily we get to make our own choices without much government involvement and are allowed a loud voice if we oppose.
Huh? Did the US make them in a lab somewhere?
It is a great example, but they simply replaced one bad government with another. Are the "leaders" responsible for this?
Werent there muslim groups in Canada recently that wanted Islamic courts?
Really? The majority in this country recently (re)elected a whole bunch of people that are largely continuing their policies or were partly responsible for those policies to begin with.
Lie, sometimes. Manipulate, lots. But again, it takes people to believe the lies and accept the mainpulations. There are many people lying and manipulating here in the states that enjoy little to no popular support. Simply lying and manipulating won't get you power. You either have to tell people what they want to hear or point guns at them and force them to "agree".
yeah yeah yeah, in a lab.
---
I'm saying that the shah was corrupt and US backed, the US replaced an elected government with a corrupt one. this is the point. the US is responsible for the mess in Iran when it did that in 1953.
Now your last point, let's swing this to america now, the clinton government was corrupt, it was then replaced by a corrupt bush government. the best thing about this? It was the american people who chose it. But then again it's also unfair that in america people are given so few choices of mostly corrupt politicians. wheres the protesting? wheres the revolution?
You would think that after everything Bush has done, some americans would already be screaming revolution and ready for one. what's the excuse?
The many human rights violations done by the US not enough? at what point are we gonna make the change here at home?
But we did just vote in the democrats to the majority in congress. Which I think was mostly a vote against Bush, and against the war. I dont think we need a revolution, we just need to vote for better candidates.
It's symbolic. it means nothing, think about it, most dems voted and supported the war to begin with, so replace some vipers with some hawks.
It's not like they voted in the complete opposite of who was already in power positions.
A few things will change with the dems, surface issues. not much else.
Oh I dont disagree with you on that. But, the fact remains that we did show our displeasure with Bush and with the war, and at least tried to put in people to balance Bush's policies. Whether the dems step up is yet to be seen. I would certainly like to see another strong party emerge to offset the repubs and dems however.