Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Articles on the war between the U.S. and Islam

30 posts in this topic

 

I've never heard broad Muslim condemnation of their fellow Muslims' murderous acts committed in the name of their God.

Obviously not watching enough news then...(or selective hearing perhaps?!)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the record, I am bothered by the intolerance.

Which intolerance? The intolerance of the columnist, or the intolerance of readers that agree/disagree...? :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he says is true. Muslim extremism (like any other extremism) is a problem in today’s world. Just look at the recent honour killings – the stoning to death of the Kurd girl in Iraq – several other honour killings in the UK by Pakistanis. This is not a modern civilised behaviour. The Islamic faith must become more tolerant of its own followers, followers of other faiths and non religious people.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all of the Muslims I know are all of those things, tolerant, kind and wonderful people. Fundamentalism, Terrorism is a problem - it has always been a problem somewhere, from some group of people. I completely agree, I just think that it's a little unfair to assume that the majority tend towards fundamentalism and intolerance just because generally the words of the violent are heard a little louder. Re intolerances you could also say the same for some people of any religion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which intolerance? The intolerance of the columnist, or the intolerance of readers that agree/disagree...?

the intolerance expressed by the individuals on those websites, especially on citizensoldier.org, where some idiot claims that Muslims are committing a criminal conspiracy under US law by practicing Islam (you have to scroll down pretty far towards the bottom to get to that).

It's also nutty to think that if Syria and Iran were destroyed (read "war crimes"), that there would be no US deaths. What alarms me even more is that some fools actually think that this Williams should run for president:

 

Article 1 of 2{FOUNDITEMS:-0}, Article ID: 5200702090356170010002

Published on February 9, 2007, Washington Times, The (DC){PUBLICATION2}

Williams can't duck campaign pushes

Professor urged to run in 2008

 

Conservative economist Walter E. Williams says he's flattered at being urged to seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination - even if the draft committee is headed by a cartoon duck.

 

The "Mallard Fillmore" comic strip has spent the past two weeks promoting the George Mason University economics professor as a 2008 candidate - with some success, judging from Mr. Williams' e-mail in-box.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but you have to admit that Muslims seem to take intolerance to level of extreme rarely equaled. Angry Muslims will protest, attack embassies, burn flags, and call for the murder of someone at any real or imagined slight.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the intolerance expressed by the individuals on those websites, especially on citizensoldier.org, where some idiot claims that Muslims are committing a criminal conspiracy under US law by practicing Islam (you have to scroll down pretty far towards the bottom to get to that).

The author in question is intolerant, I agree but allowing him to express his opinion (regardless of whether or not you agree with it) is the height of tolerance. In fact, by condemning these articles you are displaying the very trait you accuse these individuals of.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record: I criticize anyone's violent behavior, whether in the name of religion or not. That said, World War II was more destructive than all of history's other wars put together. Muslims played only a tiny role in its fighting, and certainly did not start it or make command decisions. Who are history's greatest mass murderers: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. None of them Muslim. Let's keep things in perspective here.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eleanor, there is wide gulf between tolerance and approval. I am not interfering with these idiots' right to free speech. I am merely exercising my own in criticizing their extremism, and I do not think that any religion's adherents should be persecuted and discriminated against. I am expressing that I do not approve of these viewpoints and would not tolerate the implementation of such extreme, illegal measures. By the way, profiling is unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal, in the US. Do you think it is legal in the US to charge Muslims with a criminal conspiracy for exercising their right to practice their religion?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not at all but I fail to see how that or any part of your response relates to my post.

 

I haven't offered any kind of opinion on the issue because no matter what the issue, someone will alwys take an extreme stance and making an example out of it only lends to their credibility. I only declared that a person should have the right to express their opinion. Nothing more, don't read into my post what isn't there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The author in question is intolerant, I agree but allowing him to express his opinion (regardless of whether or not you agree with it) is the height of tolerance. In fact, by condemning these articles you are displaying the very trait you accuse these individuals of.

Don't quite agree. By saying that the kind of stuff these people write on their website bothers you is nothing more than expressing an opinion. Everybody has the right to an opinion. What these guys on Christiansoldiers are doing is pure incitement of the people. It's more than expressing an opinion.

 

In general though, when I read the links I was thinking the same thing though. On the one hand I was thinking, thank TheRubberyOneWhoShallNotBeNamed for the right these people have to express their opinion and not have to fear persecution and on the other hand I felt sickened by their views. It's kind of like the banning-tom-cruise-thing.

 

Should Goebels have been forbidden to spread his propaganda? You cannot deny that the propaganda they used was responsible for the deaths of many many people on all sides. Or is it a case for you of not being able to make an omelette without breaking a few eggs?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True, but you have to admit that Muslims seem to take intolerance to level of extreme rarely equaled. Angry Muslims will protest, attack embassies, burn flags, and call for the murder of someone at any real or imagined slight.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you deliberately target Muslims or discriminate against them, you are not going to solve the problem either.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot this one earlier. This is where Williams muses about destroying Syria and Iran without the loss of a single American life. If he really believes that he is as delusional as can be...

 

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082306.php3

 

Discrimination against Muslims also gives a propaganda coup for those who hate non-Muslims and undermines rule of law in democratic societies.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there had been a strong, independent press while Goebbels was goebbeling along his voice would have been drowned out. It's when you gag the independent media that propaganda becomes dangerous as the mass of the population would rather have a ready-made opinion dropped into their brains than step back and take the time to think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True, but you have to admit that Muslims seem to take intolerance to level of extreme rarely equaled. Angry Muslims will protest, attack embassies, burn flags, and call for the murder of someone at any real or imagined slight.

kind of reminds me of the catholics some (ok many) years ago...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The author in question is intolerant, I agree but allowing him to express his opinion (regardless of whether or not you agree with it) is the height of tolerance. In fact, by condemning these articles you are displaying the very trait you accuse these individuals of.

By posting the websites and asking for comments, I obviously have allowed them to express their opinions. In condemning their extremist remarks, I have merely expressed my own opinion in a peaceful, logical manner.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there had been a strong, independent press while Goebbels was goebbeling along his voice would have been drowned out. It's when you gag the independent media that propaganda becomes dangerous as the mass of the population would rather have a ready-made opinion dropped into their brains than step back and take the time to think.

Possibly. I wouldn't be so sure though. I am not a very optimistic person(understatement of the year) and unlike some philosophers I do not believe that people are inherently good. Combine this with the fact that the majority of all people are of below average intelligence and the fact that most people inherently carry some sort of prejudice within them, I think one should be very careful about how far one should allow the direct targeting of a specific people by the media. We are sheeple and dangerous ones too. If it weren't the case, marketing wouldn't work as effectively.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Forgot this one earlier. This is where Williams muses about destroying Syria and Iran without the loss of a single American life. If he really believes that he is as delusional as can be...

Technically speaking, he is right though: If you launch enough nukes, everyone in Syria and Iran will be dead, and there wouldn't be any American fatalities (except those unfortunate enough to be in Syria and Iran). What the indirect longer-term consequences would be is another matter... And later on he explicitly says that he is only discussing the theoretical ability of the US to do so, but does not advocate using nuclear weapons against Syria and Iran.

 

Edit:

OK, correction, he doesn't say that he isn't "advocating" nuclear weapons, he only says the US shouldn't "rush" to use them...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0