Saudi Textbooks still teaching hate

_outlaw wrote:

I already acknowledged they are an Islamic government. If Ms. Dowd does not like how the laws are over there, then she should leave because it's no secret that it's a government that makes its laws around its religion. It's a country with a Muslim majority that follows those laws either way. Ms. Dowd's story also sounds kind of fake (not calling you a liar) because I have many friends who are girls who aren't forced to cover.


All I'm saying is that there is a better way of saying it that wouldn't be insulting to a Muslim. Just because you don't agree with the person's religious views does not constitute you calling his/her laws "other worldly"...


Not really "plenty." A VERY small minority do, actually, and they don't just support ANY random violence committed, they support guerrilla fighting for a just cause. Big difference. During the American Revolution, tons of publications were being sold to get people to fight against the British using guerrilla warfare tactics. Are they insane for doing so?



Where did I put words in your mouth? I never claimed you said all Muslims were extremists. My whole point was that you said the "terrible things" Muslims do is "endorsed by religion" when it's not endorsed by the ACTUAL religion but by other people.

It is no secret that woman in Saudi Arabia arent treated well. Whether Maureen Dowd is lying I dont know, but it is no secret that women are treated poorly. And just because she writes a story about Saudi Arabia, doesnt mean she wasnt willing to comply to there laws.

I dont care if there is a better way to say it. What I said is true. Allah, Jesus, Zeus, etc dont live on Earth in their respective religions, so they and there rules, laws, etc are "other wordly". My favorite definition of political correctness is " taking sensitivity over truth". WHich is precisely what you did. Just because the truth is insulting, doesnt mean it isnt the truth (though I really dont see why it is insulting anyway, Muslims do believe in another world and an afterlife, but to each his own I guess). And I specifically called every religions views other wordly, not just Islam.

There were leaders calling for violence due to the Danish cartoons. And again, I never said it was all of Islam, there are obviously some very moderate and I would venture to guess lovely countries that are Islamic in nature. But that doesnt also mean that some of them are completely screwed up countries either. And there are also justified reasons for some of their violence. I never said their wasnt that either.

ANd there are plenty of instances in the Koran that at least with the strictest interpretation, call for violence against infidels. That isnt debatable. I agree, most Muslims today dont go with that, but that is the truth. Just like there are terrible things in the Bible and Torah also.

dg1979us wrote:

My favorite definition of political correctness is " taking sensitivity over truth".

Ain't that the truth!!!

cincybearcat wrote:

What's the difference? Celebrating hs return celebrates his actions...

No, it's not. Celebrating someone returning home after 30 years is not the same as celebrating the actions he committed 30 years ago while fighting an occupation.

_outlaw wrote:

No, it's not. Celebrating someone returning home after 30 years is not the same as celebrating the actions he committed 30 years ago while fighting an occupation.

Killed a 4 year old...c'mon, she's not an "occupation", she was a 4 year old little girl!!!!

It comment like this that ruin the rest of you arguments. Seriously, that comment has me more pissed off then I've been in a while...it sick to think of it the way you do and you need help.

cincybearcat wrote:

Killed a 4 year old...c'mon, she's not an "occupation", she was a 4 year old little girl!!!!

she's not an occupation? I'm not an idiot, I know that. I'm not justifying her murder either. My point is that he still has family and friends regardless of his previous actions who love him and will welcome him back. It's none of our business to judge all those people based on that.

you need help.

I'll look into it.

_outlaw wrote:

she's not an occupation? I'm not an idiot, I know that. I'm not justifying her murder either. My point is that he still has family and friends regardless of his previous actions who love him and will welcome him back. It's none of our business to judge all those people based on that.


I'll look into it.

You seem fine judging some...but not murderers of 4 year olds...interesting.

Comparing American school books with this example of Saudi-Arabian school books and saying they are basically similiar is wrong:

distorting the past for "a cause" is one thing...
making up false facts for a cause is one thing...
using unfit words to describe a group of people and their behaviour is one thing

actually demanding that a group of people is to be considered worthless con-men that have to be killed now and/or in the future is another thing

for some it might be the same (kind of "propaganda"): factually though, it's not, and please don't call it splitting hairs:

and I think it's perfectly valid to critizise the demanding of murder in school books without being hypocritical, no matter in which country you live

but for people who have this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Neumann
as one of their sources of information, I am not surprised.
He downplays the role of antisemitism in the israeli/arab world conflict, while in fact it fueles and justifies actions against civilians, giving them a greater meaning, but to quote him: "Who cares?"

m.

_outlaw wrote:

That's a whole other issue though (pretty irrelevant too)...


I never said she wasn't willing.


Don't live on Earth? That's an entire other debate, and only one who probably isn't a Muslim would argue that..


The truth? Sorry, but what you said can't be proven. I know God's existence can't be technically PROVEN either, and this is a whole other debate, but calling it "truth" is definitely wrong. Taking sensitivity over truth is also open for debate because you act like I'm disrupting you from saying the truth so that you can be sensitive... which I'm not because what you're saying is insulting to muslims because they'd argue that what you say is NOT TRUE.


Not exactly. It's definitely a bit more complicated than just "another world."


irrelevant.


And, AGAIN, I never claimed you said it was all of Islam. Where do you keep getting this from?


Obviously, but the fact that they are screwed up has nothing to do with the fact that they're Islamic.


ok.


Actually, it MOST CERTAINLY is VERY debatable and UNTRUE.


Not, it's not "just like that".

Women being treated poorly due to religious beliefs isnt irrelevant, and it is disgusting. Draping a flag of religion around sexism, doesnt mean it isnt sexism.

And no, Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, etc dont live on Earth in their respective religions. That isnt debatable, and no Muslim would argue with me on that.

And are you a Muslim? Just curious. If not, then who made you the speaker for them to tell me what does and doesnt insult them? Spare me the outrage. Allah is a heavenly otherwordly figure. Again, that isnt debatable, it is what the Koran teaches.

And yes, the fact they are screwed up has much to do with Islam. When your whole society based on religious beliefs, then you cant ignore that when discussing that society as a whole.

And if "other wordly" is somehow offensive, please tell me the correct phrase that Muslims would prefer. You obviously know that it is insulting to them, so please tell me the PC hypersensitive term, so I dont offend you anymore. Thanks.

And yes, the Koran has plenty of instances of "killing the infidel". Maybe you need a different translation, because it is there.

nobody wrote:

Comparing American school books with this example of Saudi-Arabian school books and saying they are basically similiar is wrong:

distorting the past for "a cause" is one thing...
making up false facts for a cause is one thing...
using unfit words to describe a group of people and their behaviour is one thing

actually demanding that a group of people is to be considered worthless con-men that have to be killed now and/or in the future is another thing

for some it might be the same (kind of "propaganda"): factually though, it's not, and please don't call it splitting hairs:

Obviously, there's a difference between it, but when propaganda still plays a major factor in your school books, NEWS, and government reports, then you can't really argue that other countries "have it worse"... I already gave my example with the Nuclear proliferation. The US needs to fix its own problems before trying to fix other countries' problems. Any argument there?

and I think it's perfectly valid to critizise the demanding of murder in school books without being hypocritical, no matter in which country you live

A bit of an exaggeration. I wouldn't say it actually "demands murder" so much as it just teaches a hate... maybe it'll lead to deaths, whatever, you can throw in your own arguments. The point is simple though: This happens all over the world. In the US, many murders and deaths and wars are played out so that most people don't understand who the true victims are. You can argue it's "not as bad" as the Saudi propaganda, but how is that a real argument?

but for people who have this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Neumann
as one of their sources of information, I am not surprised.
He downplays the role of antisemitism in the israeli/arab world conflict, while in fact it fueles and justifies actions against civilians, giving them a greater meaning, but to quote him: "Who cares?"

m.

I'm curious as to how much, if any, of his work you've actually read?