The tempest between Europe and the Middle East

[gc70]

shootinstudent, when you ignore or deny clear evidence that does not coincide with your positions or beliefs, it detracts from your credibility.

Just who are the "Muslim leaders" you're talking about? If you mean religious authorities, that is patently false. If you mean terrorists like Osama bin laden...see above.

Okay, first of all, terrorism is not supported by any "senior leaders" of Islam. Try to name these "senior leaders" and you'll see what I mean. Second, the rank and file are a billion people....compare that to the size of known terrorist groups and you'll get an idea of the proportion.

• Some 200 members of Iran's parliament issued a warning statement reminding anyone who published the cartoons of the death threats made against author Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses.
• Nigerian MPs cheered in the northern majority Muslim state of Kano as Danish and Norwegian flags were burned in a ceremony in the parliament premises.

I consider the elected members of the governments of predominantly-Muslim countries to be "Muslim leaders" and to be representing the electorate of their countries.

I also consider the President of Iran to be a "Muslim leader."

Look around, and you will find that even the Muslim Brotherhood (ie, the party behind Hamas!) publicly condemns terrorism. There are no major muslim organizations on record at all that openly support it.

Hamas now holds a majority of the seats in the legislature of the Palistinian Authority, but by your definition Hamas must not be a major Muslim organization.

You did get one thing generally right - most major Muslim organizations give lip-service to being against terrorism, even as they vigorously support terrorists.

 

[shootinstudent]

I consider the elected members of the government of predominantly-Muslim countries to be "Muslim leaders" and to be representing the electorate of their countries.

This point is fundamentally in error. Is Hugo Chavez a "christian leader"? How about Jean Bertrand Aristide out there in Haiti? There are violent governments occupying the full range of religions in the world, so to associate these with religion when we don't do it with any others is inexplicable except via "we like muslims less" type reasoning.

The President of Iran has zero religious credentials whatsoever. He is no more a leader of Muslims (and at that, he's part of a sect that represents something like 20 percent only of the muslim community) than Slobodan Milosevic was a leader of Christians.

Hamas now holds a majority of the seats in the legislature of the Palistinian Authority, but by your definition Hamas must not be a major Muslim organization.

It's not. It was the only choice in a train wreck of a non-consolidated government. It is also, like Iran, not led by folks with any religious credentials whatsoever. The actual form of Islam practiced by Hamas is more akin to "kabbala" (madonna's kabbala, not the ancient one) than it is to anything else. They are religious and use religion to further their agenda, and their lack of any real economic or military power should show you how much support they get from the rest of the muslim community. They are actually very, very similar to the IRA. (This comparison isn't lost on the IRA; I've seen graffiti of scarf-wearing arabs holding hands with mask wearing gunmen with the slogan "PLO-IRA: One struggle" from Northern Ireland.)

So again...the point stands: you can't pick a violent government here, a violent government there, and then condemn a billion people for it. If you could, then we christians are in big trouble...huge swaths of the christian habitat are occupied by oppressive regimes, ie, Russia, South America, and Africa.

 

[carbiner]

shootinstudent, with all due respect, it sounds like you have listened to one too many Ward Churchill speeches on a college campus.

 

[shootinstudent]

shootinstudent, with all due respect, it sounds like you have listened to one too many Ward Churchill speeches on a college campus.

Reread my posts. Churchill was a nut and his ideas were wrong because he reasoned that, based on some such evil in a remote part of the world committed by allies of America, every last person in the world trade center, by being part of the "economy of violence" or whatever, was personally responsible for that remote evil.

The people who want to bash all Muslims are pulling the Ward Churchill...do you see the similarity? "But their governments fund this, and they don't stop them!"

If you hated what Churchill said, you should oppose all "communal guilt" and any other attack on personal responsibility and individuality...including when it's aimed at people who wear different clothes from you. Otherwise, the Churchills of the world are going to turn their sights on gun owners and all manner of other groups eventually, and we'll have no leg to stand on, having been all too happy to stereotype and punish in the past.

 

[JR47]

I'm sorry that you seem stuck on the IRA, you don't mind supporting this theory with some facts, do you? 100% of the funding for the IRA has never come from the United States. The other interesting thing is that you ignore the Provos, who arte the same as the IRA, but from a different side.

Would the Mullah's from Iran, and the Saudi Prince in charge of Muslim Faith for Saudi Arabia constitute senior leadership? After all, they do represent the governments involved. The Mullahs from the Sudan, from Egypt, and multiple other countries also routinely condemn the Americans, and the West. Either you don't watch much in the way of documentaries, or read much that doesn't support your pet theory.

As far as mentioning the morality of muslims, what did that have to do with my statement that their lack of disapproval for the fundamentalists is guilt by inaction? You're applying the wrong quote, then muddling the discussion.

"After all, if it's tacit...that just means you didn't do anything to stop the IRA's funding in America. Right?"

Wrong, and as simplistic and manipulative as you claim others to be. I didn't ask for the American muslims to physically stop the fundamentalists, but to speak out against them. You are flexing that logic to extremes here, sir.

"As a side note, I haven't seen anyone demand that Irish Americans or Irish immigrants be similarly limited or monitored if they are Catholic (and thus, more likely to be involved in fighting our allies in Britain) as opposed to if they are protestant."

Again, at what point have the Irish ever called for the death of Americans, or even the death of all British? They haven't. This is a battle of ideologies, and territory, not religion. I would certainly restrict the passage of any member of the IRA into America, and we already do. There have been several highly-publicized leagal brouhahas when IRA members attempted to address the UN, but were refused entry into America.

"Look around, and you will find that even the Muslim Brotherhood (ie, the party behind Hamas!) publicly condemns terrorism. There are no major muslim organizations on record at all that openly support it."

Now that should reassure everyone. The Muslim Brotherhood repudiates terrorism, yet actively supports Hamas, one of the most violent terrorist organizations. So.........somebody lies, and you attempt to make it seem like a solid anti-terrorist front in islam? Please, don't insult out intelligence. If that's true, then how can we believe ANY muslim organizations statements?

"Your duck theory would clearly, if we held consistent, make you guilty of funding the IRA. After all, you write like an American, I assume you dress like an American, and you support America. Since other Americans (just like you) sent money to the IRA, and you didn't or couldn't stop them, you're a terror-duck too....or not?"

Statements like that are useless, as they are not true. It only ignores the statements actually made, attempting to substitute drivel for fact.

"I do believe the point is bare here: "Muslims all look like each other and look different from us, therefore, they all are responsible for what any single muslim does."

Really? How does one discriminate a muslim from a Hindu, a Bhuddist, a Christian, or even a pagan, by the way they look? There are those living in the same countries today who practice different religions, due to the weakness of the muslims. They look alike. They aren't the ones calling for jihad, either. Get a grip, that is insulting to both our intelligence, and your attempts at debate.

"This is collective guilt at work. See Marko Kloos's post above...should gun owners be treated as a security risk, since after all, 100 percent of gun crimes are committed by gun owners?"

That, other than mentioning a moderators name, serves only to insult Mr. Kloos' contributions to the discussion, sir. If American Gun Owners were to suddenly sprout into a religion, then call for the death of others, and perpetrate atrocities in the name of this religion, we probably should act against those who didn't at least speak out against them. We constantly curse the gunowners who don't vote, don't become politically active, and support the "cause". There are those who already feel that firearms ownership is dangerous, and who sieze on every occurence to paint all gun owners as bad. So what do we, as gun owners do? Why, we speak out against the abuses of firearms. We organize programs to enforce existing laws on the illegal use of firearms. We attempt to do everything in our power to stop the illegal use of firearms, including force where we may legally do so.

Contrast that with the muslim people's dearth of even lip-service demanding that their mosques refute the fundamentalist approach. If we, as gun owners were that non-responsive, we would no longer be gun owners today.

"Second, the rank and file are a billion people....compare that to the size of known terrorist groups and you'll get an idea of the proportion."

So, are you saying that the people dancing in the streets all over the muslim world on, and following, 9/11 were terrorists? If so, then there are a couple of million terrorists out there. If they aren't, then who are they? Are there only terrorists burning and looting, and killing over the cartoons? Are they only terrorists who burn Uncle Sam, or the American Flag? If you agree that these are all terrorists, then there are apparently millions of them. If they are the peaceful, put upon muslims that you defend, then you must really believe that the people on this board are fools.

 

[shootinstudent]

Would the Mullah's from Iran, and the Saudi Prince in charge of Muslim Faith for Saudi Arabia constitute senior leadership? After all, they do represent the governments involved. The Mullahs from the Sudan, from Egypt, and multiple other countries also routinely condemn the Americans, and the West.

You do realize that the Muftis (not Mullahs in Sunni countries) of those states do not even consider Iran or any Shia to be Muslim, right?

No, they do not represent senior leadership of the religion. See above. Islam has religious scholars just like christianity, and if you'd look, you can find out what they say about Islamic law. Terrorism, and even accidental killing on non-combatants is forbidden.

Again, at what point have the Irish ever called for the death of Americans, or even the death of all British? They haven't. This is a battle of ideologies, and territory, not religion. I would certainly restrict the passage of any member of the IRA into America, and we already do.

You are missing the point. Would you support a presumption that any Catholic person desiring to enter the US could be an IRA member? How about just Irish Catholics? Should they all be searched/suspect/subject to penalty for being part of the religion that the IRA claims to defend? Just as the IRA calls for Catholic rule in Ireland...the Islamist radicals don't call for killing all other religions; they call for Muslim government. Quite similar, yet, again, you seem to be limiting your analysis to "only IRA members" versus "all Muslims."

So.........somebody lies, and you attempt to make it seem like a solid anti-terrorist front in islam?

No, the point is that even the most radical groups can't find justification in the religious material for terrorism, so they have to lie or risk exposing themselves as clearly not Muslim.

How does one discriminate a muslim from a Hindu, a Bhuddist, a Christian, or even a pagan, by the way they look? There are those living in the same countries today who practice different religions, due to the weakness of the muslims. They look alike. They aren't the ones calling for jihad, either.

You missed the point entirely. The fact that someone is Muslim does not make that individual, by itself, any more or less responsible for terrorism than the fact that you are American makes you personally responsible for any sort of crime connected to American identity. That is the point, it is quite simple, and yet you're arguing it...as much as you repeat yourself here, you are not addressing the fundamental point: Why, if you limit your comments to only IRA members and only people who give money to terrorism for the west, do you think that Muslims should be held to a different standard? And if you only want to address Muslims who personally fund terrorism, why do you need to blame the religion (1 billion versus a handful) to do it?

We constantly curse the gunowners who don't vote, don't become politically active, and support the "cause". There are those who already feel that firearms ownership is dangerous, and who sieze on every occurence to paint all gun owners as bad. So what do we, as gun owners do? Why, we speak out against the abuses of firearms.

Alright, so are you arguing that gun owners don't deserve the right to bear arms if they aren't willing to go out and search gang banger's houses or participate in law enforcement activity?

That sounds suspicioulsy like a brady campaign line. If I am a gun owner who sits at home and never leaves my house, does that make me somehow responsible for gun crime, since I don't "speak out against abuse" and don't do anything to stop crime?

But if it's a Muslim at home...he's culpable because he prays the same way as some other guy who commits acts of terror?

If they aren't, then who are they? Are there only terrorists burning and looting, and killing over the cartoons? Are they only terrorists who burn Uncle Sam, or the American Flag? If you agree that these are all terrorists, then there are apparently millions of them. If they are the peaceful, put upon muslims that you defend, then you must really believe that the people on this board are fools

I am going blue in the face from explaining this. You see a mob on TV, and therefore, it's a representation of all 1 billion people or at least millions. If I see a bunch of KKK members with guns at a rally on tv, does that give me license to say "All white gun owners are racist!"????

You clearly understand the concept of individual responsibilty as it applies in America to non-Muslims. What's so hard for you to grasp about the same concept regarding Muslims?

 

[gc70]

by shootinstudent:

by gc70:
I consider the elected members of the government of predominantly-Muslim countries to be "Muslim leaders" and to be representing the electorate of their countries.

This point is fundamentally in error. Is Hugo Chavez a "christian leader"? How about Jean Bertrand Aristide out there in Haiti? There are violent governments occupying the full range of religions in the world, so to associate these with religion when we don't do it with any others is inexplicable except via "we like muslims less" type reasoning.

Chavez does not hold himself out to be a "Christian leader."

Iran holds itself out to be an Islamic country with a religious-based government.

The CIA World Fact Book - Iran:
Country name: Islamic Republic of Iran
Government type: theocratic republic

When 200 members of the parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran issue death threats, it IS the action of Muslim and Islamic leaders.

 

[shootinstudent]

When 200 members of the parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran issue death threats, it IS the action of Muslim and Islamic leaders.

See above. Claiming to speak for a religion does not equal speaking for the religion. Neither does it impute any guilt whatsoever to any individual who is not directly and personally participating in a crime.

Very simple..."punish the man who did bad, not someone else whom he claims to speak for"

 

[gc70]

shootinstudent, you are a consistent apologist for Muslims, regardless of the topic or the facts. Your unwillingness to admit that there are things awry in the Muslim world, as evidenced by the nearly boring repetitiveness of daily news headlines, marks you as a zealot devoted to converting others to your views rather than engaging in discussion.

 

[JR47]

I would also point out that you pick and choose PARTS of quotes to support your opinions. You deliberately mis-quoted me by using only a portion of my explanation to you to support your skewed viewpoint. You sir, are not nearly as expert at debate as you believe when you resort to such means.

You totally refuse to accept the fact that the Muslim leadership, be it what you wish to call it, actively supports the fundamentalist cause. You harp on the IRA, even though they are ideological opponents of the British, and have never called for the eradication of the British people. They routinely publish their numbers, and, even accounting for inflation, they are even less a percentage than the muslim fundamentalists. The fact that they aren't calling for the violent destruction of the British Republic makes them far different than the muslim extremists. The Irish Catholics who don't belong to the IRA, say the entire Irish Republic, have routinely condemned the IRA, and their protestant alter ego, the Provos. Even applying your "flexible standards" to this still doesn't make it the same thing.

You don't actually impart any knowledge in these debates. Your idea of collective guilt is yours, alone. You apply it indiscriminately to anyone who points out the fallacy of your debate, shaping it to fit your rebuttal. Of course, as it's your term, and your meanings, it can fit whatever you want.

The facts you introduce don't change the overall picture of the muslim as a violent person, in a violent religion. It also doesn't change the fact that, out of a billion people, the only ones talking are the ones calling for the death of the West.

"Alright, so are you arguing that gun owners don't deserve the right to bear arms if they aren't willing to go out and search gang banger's houses or participate in law enforcement activity?"

That has to be the dumbest thing that you've said yet, sir. Read the rest of my post, or just the rest of the paragraph. Specious use of quotes, such as mine, is what I mentioned.You obviously, and deliberately, ignored what I actually said. I can only assume that you have no real answer, and the subject of the gunowner as muslim is over.

You're the one ignoring points, sir. Nobody catagorizes the Irish in the same vein as muslims because they aren't. It's actually quite easy. They don't call for indiscriminate deaths, they condemn the IRA, and they don't want the downfall of the West, and the institution of a muslim world.

"Just as the IRA calls for Catholic rule in Ireland."

I will state here that this is part of a paragraph. The problem is that the IRA calls for an end to British rule, and the establishment of a representative government. That is one where the Catholic population is allowed to participate fully. Quite a bit of difference, and a GLARING error on the part of a Catholic. Try not to be so "flexible" with your points.

You, sir, would warm the heart of Neville Chamberlain. However, just like him, you're wrong, and no matter how you phrase it, the cult of mohammad will forever be steeped in violence of it's own manufacture.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Religious discussion terminated for divisiveness.