quote:

---

Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee:
^^ Agreed. My blood boils that the world seems to care so little about what's happening in Sudan.

---

For real. It is very upsetting.........Well, thank God that if there isn't mankind type of justice, that there is divine justice. It doesn't make sense to me why people do evil to another in this world. Don't they realize that they will, in time, reap what they have sown? Anyway, salaam and blessings.
 

---

Posted by SayWhatYouSee (Member # 11552) on :
 
Salaam, Israel. I agree that we shall all reap what we sow, one day.
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by humanist:
And people moan and whine on a daily basis as to why Muslims are hated?

---

You know humanist, I'll make a comment that I'm not very keen on pursuing....because I'm really not into internet arguments but I thought I should at least give you a glimpse of the other side

They whine because they are frustrated that the likes of Sudanese government, Taliban and OBL and his murder squad are seen as representative of them..... Mainstreem Muslims see them as twisted sorry miscreants but unfortunately, their publicity is so wide due to the very atrocity of their acts and they sell themselves as THE true Muslims....THEY'RE NOT, I promise ya.

I mean,look, I'm Muslim and I do know my religion and its many labyrinths and there are arguments among Muslim religious scholars about whether the stoning penalty exists at all in Islam and even the lesser penalty is only applicable not for adultery but for adultery in public where the actual act of "penetration" is viewed and testified on by four people, not one , not two, not three but four people. That's how it is in the Quran. It's like it can almost never be proved unless maybe in the case of porn...and not even then because the movies can be doctored....it's got to be a live show or find four witnesses from the film crew if you can get them to do it

I could back this up but I didnt think you'd be interested in looking at the details. I do expect one of the misguided eternal defenders of the faith who keep patrolling the internet to spread their message about what they think is true Islam to come in and contradict me. There's so much wrong information out there that our own kids are at risk of getting sucked into the wrong streams....so I cant blame you for not knowing which is the right one.
 

---

Posted by Âutomatic For The People (Member # 12634) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by humanist:
And people moan and whine on a daily basis as to why Muslims are hated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
Mainstreem Muslims see them as twisted sorry miscreants but unfortunately, their publicity is so wide due to the very atrocity of their acts and they sell themselves as THE true Muslims....THEY'RE NOT, I promise ya.

---

quote:

---

I mean,look, I'm Muslim and I do know my religion and its many labyrinths and there are arguments among Muslim religious scholars about whether the stoning penalty exists at all in Islam and even the lesser penalty is only applicable not for adultery but for adultery in public where the actual act of "penetration" is viewed and testified on by four people, not one , not two, not three but four people. That's how it is in the Quran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
And whats the difference between a "mainstream" Muslim and the Taliban?

Are "mainstream" Muslims those who turn a blind eye to many of the Qu'ran's or Hadith's more indigestible commands?

While the Taliban and others of their ilk embrace the Qu'ran and the Hadiths in all their tainted glory?


~Alistair

---

quote:

---

The fact that a stoning penalty is even being debated says much..

~Alistair [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
The stoning penalty was there before Islam.

---

quote:

---

Laws have nothing to do with truth or falsehood. We make laws because they are useful and reduce human friction/conflict. We change them when they outwear their utility. As the society changes, so should the laws governing it. Laws have noting to do with right or wrong or truth and falsehood. In England the law say you must drive on the left side of the road. In France the law requires that you drive on the right side. Is one of these laws false?

Some laws however are oppressive, outdated and they must be changed. They have been devised for times and societies very much districts from ours and they are not fit for our world. Most of the laws of Islam existed prior to Islam among the pagans. Take the law of cutting the hand of the thief. In those days and in that primitive part of the world, jails did not exist and the society could not afford keeping the criminals in jail. Jails are expensive. You must not only feed the criminal, you must also pay the salaries of a few guards and have secure prisons. These societies were mostly villages and nomads and such thing was superfluous. It was not feasible in those days among the primitive tribes of Arabia to have prisons. So the only way they could punish a criminal was to harm him physically. They either beheaded him or maimed him, according to the gravity of his crime. This was a very cruel form of punishment. Nonetheless it was the only thing those primitive societies could think of and do. Now the world has changed and we have much more humane ways for punishing the criminals. Also we are wiser and know that the criminals are victims of childhood abuses. So we create secure jails to separate these disturbed and dangerous people from the society. The idea is not to punish them but to protect the society from their harms and if possible correct them so once released they can be useful to the society.

The law of chopping hands is barbaric. It has been devised by very primitive people prior to Islam and adopted by Muhammad because he was not a visionary and could not think beyond his experiences. But it is backward and draconian for our time. This law is wrong now, even though it had its utility thousands of years ago.

In democracies, where people make the law, we can change inhumane laws. In theocracies we can’t. This and the example of Galileo’s theory about heliocentricity show that although democracy is not about right and wrong or truth and falsehood, it provides a milieu where right and truth can triumph over wrong and falsehood.

Theocracies and all other forms of autocracies, can't tolerate criticism. They rely on falsehood for their survival and censor the truth. A good example of that is the Islamic Republic of Iran where those who speak against it are jailed or executed and dissidents outside Iran are assassinated. Iran is not the exception. In all Islamic countries, thoughts are suppressed and truth is nipped in the bud. Falsehood must rely on violence, censorship and suppression of truth to survive. Without that it will vanish like darkness faced with light.

So although democracy is not about truth and falsehood, in democracy you have the chance to right the wrong and reach the truth while in dictatorship you don't have that chance.

---

 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
But he didn't, Undercover. That's what the debate is about. This particular penalty was stealthily squeezed into the muslim heritage and can never be supported from the quran.
 

---

Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
 
homing piegon...(nice nick by the way haha)

How can you say that Muhammad did not endorse those laws? Isn't Sharia for all times?

Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported Allah’s Messenger as saying, "The hand of a thief should be cut off but for a quarter of a dinar and what is above that." (Bukhari 8:6789; Muslim 3:4175-79)

Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, "God curses the thief who steals an egg, for which his hand is to be cut off, or steals a rope for which he has his hand cut off!" (Bukhari 8:6799; Muslim 3:4185)

A woman committed theft during Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca, and she was brought to him. A devout Muslim interceded for her, wanting her repentance to be accepted before the penalty. But Muhammad’s face turned red with anger and he rebuked the intercessor, saying that even if his own daughter were to steal, he would have her hand cut off. Allah’s command must be carried out no matter what. So Muhammad had the woman’s hand cut off, and Aisha reported that her repentance afterwards was sincere. Narrated Aisha: The prophet cut off the hand of a lady ... and she repented, and her repentance was sincere. (Bukhari 8:6800; Muslim 3:4187 and 4188)

Abu Abudallah said: "If a thief repents after his hand has been cut off, then his witness will be accepted" .... (Bukhari 8:6801)

homing pigeon,

don't you think that Muhammad should have set a better example?

In what ways was he revolutionary for his time? I don't think he was. Did Muhammad come to guide people to the right path or was he a victim of the bad traditions of his people? Didn’t he call the pagans ignorant? If so, why did he follow their ways? The man who taught his followers with how many stones they should wipe their rears after the call of nature (sorry if I am offending you, but it's true!) did not know that excessively harsh punishments are not appropriate, he should not set that kind of examples.
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
Undercover, this is a different discussion thread really...My comment was specific to the stoning penalty.

I'm sorry I cant go into a lengthy converstion about these things. I'm sure you would appreciate . I have assignments to submit by noon next Monday...oh, and also I am trying toi keep my peace and quiet because I'm taking reductil to lose some weight and if I get my adrenaline going my blood pressure would rise and I wont get a repeat prescription .



but just a quick comment there is a lot what relates to hadith and the other stories you hear like rear wiping and this stuff that is subject to criticism in terms of authenticity. They were never written down at the time of the prophet and they were collected hundreds of years later at a time of political strife. Some of them are decidedly false.

However, the hand choping off is another matter..we could talk about that after assignment time, though.
 

---

Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
 
The Tragedy of Darfur

Double Standards Being Applied

Why is it that - in contrast to the attention given to the Middle East conflicts - Arab media and politicians are largely ignoring events in Darfur? Moataz El Fegiery and Ridwan Ziyada look for answers


For many people in the Arab world the "humanitarian catastrophe" unfolding in Darfur just doesn't exist – and the simple reason for that is that the Arab media has ignored it. So it's little wonder that there has been no unease or disapproval voiced at the ignorance exhibited by the Arabs on the subject of crimes against humanity in this region of Sudan.

What makes things worse is a suspicion that what we are faced with here is the kind of unscrupulousness that borders on a denial of history; one need only recall the role of some Arabs in the African slave trade.

Let's assume for the moment that Arab governments' displaying a less than clear cut commitment to the human rights issue in Darfur is only to be expected – in fact it is just about the last thing an Arab government is going to place on its list of foreign policy priorities – but what about Arab journalists, intellectuals, political activists and artists? How is their behaviour, particularly those whose job it is raise public awareness of such things on behalf of the United Nations, to be explained?

Turning a blind eye on the Darfur crisis

How can they justify their silence on events in Darfur? No explanation, no honestly expressed shock at what is happening in Darfur has been forthcoming. The only rent in this curtain of silence being the statement of 17 October 2006, when at least some few Arab intellectuals were prepared to express their disapproval of "the silence of the Arab world in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur."

Since 2003, a combination of the armed hostilities, generally poor living conditions and widespread disease and malnutrition has brought the death toll in Darfur to somewhere in the region of 300,000 – 400,000. Over two million refugees are on the move or have fled the country completely. The violence has left three and a half million people dependent upon humanitarian aid money.

The peace treaty signed at Abudja on 5 May 2006, between the Khartoum government and one of the most influential of the province's guerrilla groups has failed to bring either security or peace to Darfur. The indications are, in fact, that far from improving, things are getting worse.

In Darfur, in contrast to what is happening in other Arab regions, what we have is an internal Sudanese conflict that is being fought out between the central government and armed opposition groups, against a backdrop of decades of backwardness in development and government greed for power – and this in a region where ethnic, cultural and religious disharmony has brought a catalogue of wars, one after the other.

The fact that the Arabs have ignored the subject, despite the vicious bloodletting, may be down to the central importance attached to the Middle East, particularly to the conflict with Israel. Certain sections of the political and intellectual elite of the Arab world are choosing not only to ignore, but also even to deny the situation in Sudan. This has been suggested by reports from both the Arab Doctors and Muslim Lawyers unions, amongst others.

The role of the Arab media

Darfur, then, unlike the Middle East conflicts, is a non-event as far as Arab media interest is concerned – "as if Darfur were really none of our business, or we didn't want it to be any of our business," was how one female Arab journalist put it.

Some sections of the Arab media even insist on referring to the Darfur crisis as "a Zionist-American conspiracy" whose aim is to carve up and depredate Sudan. It's a belief that conveniently allows them to ignore the crimes committed in the region itself. Some national media, the Egyptian in particular, are choosing to lay increasing importance on the question of national security to the detriment of all other humanitarian concerns.

The Egyptian media, in fact, has not only continually denied the existence of the humanitarian crisis in Sudan; it continues to adopt an arrogant attitude to the subject. Egyptian press reports on the crisis of the Sudanese refugees, dozens of whom were killed after they gathered in a square in Cairo to protest against policy on refugees, clearly illustrated this.

The official Egyptian press vindicated the action of the security forces and were arrogant and racist in their reporting of the fate of the defenceless Sudanese, who had fled the misery of Sudan only to make the acquaintance of clubs wielded by the Egyptian security forces.

Much of the current debate is taken up with protest over the presence of the UN peacekeeping forces in Sudan. On the one hand, the Arab regimes accuse the international community of incompetence and of applying double standards with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, however, there are constant demands made for international protection for civilians in Palestine.

Double standards

The same double standards are also recognisable in Arab thinking. The blinkered political rationale has cost millions of civilian lives in Darfur, with innocent people suddenly becoming expendable pawns in the conflict being waged by the political and intellectual Arab elite against the West.

What some, in particular the Khartoum government, have overlooked is the fact that a 10,000-strong UN troop, made up mostly of soldiers from 60 different African and Asian countries, is currently stationed in Sudan.

It was the peace agreement of 2005 that brought an end to twenty-one years of civil war between the government and the Sudanese liberation movement and led to the troops being deployed in central and southern areas of the country.

Collaboration with the international community for the purposes of securing peace in Darfur does not contravene international law nor undermine the sovereignty of the Sudanese leadership; it is in fact the duty of the international community.

The Arab world's response to the Darfur crisis has been a miserable failure. It's the moral failure, however, more than the political failure, that is the real tragedy. And it is a failure of the intellectuals just as much as it is of the Arab governments.

Because it is better late than never, Arab politicians, intellectuals, lawyers and journalists must act now. They must come together to protect the people of Darfur. It may, perhaps, still be just enough to help ease a little the pangs of remorse and grief which are the lot of all who indulge in misplaced silence and ignorance.


Moataz El Fegiery and Ridwan Ziyada


©Qantara.de 2007
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Undercover:
In what ways was he revolutionary for his time? I don't think he was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
Mainstream Muslims are the ones who understand the "undigestible commands" correctly and have a deep and proper knowledge about how and when they are used .... they dont feel quite so undigestible when they're correctly understood

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
Mainstream Muslims are the ones who understand the "undigestible commands" correctly and have a deep and proper knowledge about how and when they are used .... they dont feel quite so undigestible when they're correctly understood

---

Your comment exposes the weakness of religion..

Are YOU the sole arbiter who gets to decide how to interpret the indigestible commands correctly?

How do you even know you have a proper understanding?

Especially when there are formally trained Islamic Mullahs whos' interpretations may differ from yours, and in a negative manner I might add..

~Alistair

---

Exactly, there are formally trained Mullahs that I trust and that MANY MANY mainstream muslims trust ... and these are the ones I get my info from....The ones you get your info from, unfortunately are recognized as aberrant groups by the mainstream Mullahs ...We dont use the word Mullahs , by the way among Arabs or at least the Arab mainstream...we call them sheikhs or Imams....I could mention to you a few names and you could go cross reference what I say with what they say if you want. Sheikh Mohammad Alghazaly, Sheikh Yousef Alkaradawy, sheikh Taha ELAlwany...and others..check the Azhar website and the Egyptian DAR AL IFTAA (House of fatwas)
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
Oh, forgot to tell you, My mum is formally trained.
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
Exactly, there are formally trained Mullahs that I trust and that MANY MANY mainstream muslims trust ... and these are the ones I get my info from....The ones you get your info from, unfortunately are recognized as aberrant groups by the mainstream Mullahs ...They're not called Mullahs , by the way among the mainstream...they're just sheikhs or Imams....I coudl mention to you a few names and you coudl go cross reference what I say with what they say if you want. Sheikh Mohammad Alghazaly, Sheikh Yousef Alkaradawy, sheikh Taha ELAlwany...and others..check the Azhar website and the Egyptian DAR AL IFTAA (House of fatwas)

---

But that wasn't my point dear Pigeon..

My point was, what makes you think YOUR interpretation of the Qu'ran is correct, over those of anyone elses?

Islam, like the other Abrahamic religions, are subject to interpretation.

Interpretation is then subject to PERCEPTION, and everyone has a different mode of perception.

For example, look at the contention in Islam over something as seemingly simple as whether the Hijab/Niquab is mandatory or not?

You say that fundamentalist Muslims interpret the Qu'ran incorrectly, but then they claim the same thing about you.

Thats basically what I'm saying, hence my earlier comment about the "weakness of religion."

BTW, I like the way you argue and present your opinion on Islam..

A sharp contrast to most other Muslims on this website

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
wELL, YOU HAVE a point there...All I can say is that I believe that what I learned was true. I subject it to common sense tests and it gets through very well everytime so I believe it more. I try and subject the other perspective to scrutiny and it doesnt work so I believe more and more.

But , of course, if you want to take the the relativity approach, then.... your choice as long as you allow me my interpretation. All I want is to be able to show that maybe Islam is not quite as bad as it is being made out to be.
 

---

Posted by Undercover (Member # 12979) on :
 
So whose commonsense is the standard?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002988;p=2
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
I believe we'll all get the answer to this question on the other side of this life
 

---

Posted by Âutomatic For The People (Member # 12634) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:


BTW, I like the way you argue and present your opinion on Islam..

---

Wait till she gets to know you well. She will then tell you what we've all been telling you for years.....**** off
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 
Correction Auto.. You mean what YOU'VE been telling me for years..

And ofcourse, my reply has always been,"Go hack yourself to death...preferably with a sharp, jagged, rusty object."

And, lots of others have told you the same thing I might add! You know, to **** off

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by Sobriquet (Member # 13217) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalia*:
The Tragedy of Darfur


Turning a blind eye on the Darfur crisis

How can they justify their silence on events in Darfur? No explanation, no honestly expressed shock at what is happening in Darfur has been forthcoming. The only rent in this curtain of silence being the statement of 17 October 2006, when at least some few Arab intellectuals were prepared to express their disapproval of "the silence of the Arab world in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur."

Since 2003, a combination of the armed hostilities, generally poor living conditions and widespread disease and malnutrition has brought the death toll in Darfur to somewhere in the region of 300,000 – 400,000. Over two million refugees are on the move or have fled the country completely. The violence has left three and a half million people dependent upon humanitarian aid money.

The peace treaty signed at Abudja on 5 May 2006, between the Khartoum government and one of the most influential of the province's guerrilla groups has failed to bring either security or peace to Darfur. The indications are, in fact, that far from improving, things are getting worse.

In Darfur, in contrast to what is happening in other Arab regions, what we have is an internal Sudanese conflict that is being fought out between the central government and armed opposition groups, against a backdrop of decades of backwardness in development and government greed for power – and this in a region where ethnic, cultural and religious disharmony has brought a catalogue of wars, one after the other.

The fact that the Arabs have ignored the subject, despite the vicious bloodletting, may be down to the central importance attached to the Middle East, particularly to the conflict with Israel. Certain sections of the political and intellectual elite of the Arab world are choosing not only to ignore, but also even to deny the situation in Sudan. This has been suggested by reports from both the Arab Doctors and Muslim Lawyers unions, amongst others.

©Qantara.de 2007

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
But , of course, if you want to take the the relativity approach, then.... your choice as long as you allow me my interpretation. All I want is to be able to show that maybe Islam is not quite as bad as it is being made out to be.

---

I have no problem with your interpretation persay and you're most welcome to it..

I'm not a Muslim, nor Christian or Jew..

I am simply anti-religious in general, although I'm not an atheist.

As for whether Islam is "bad" or not, I have an opinion on that.

From the view of someone like me who's a non believer, Islam appears to be overtly constrictive and dogmatic.

There are rules and regulations all over the place. Halal vs Haram and so on.

This can be appealing to some though, because of the greater discipline required to live as a Muslim.

As for whether Islam is inherently "evil" or wicked now, I don't believe that.

The Qu'ran is a reflection of the era in which it was written, and as such, it contains many teachings and sayings which in the Modern World today, many would find "indigestible."

But this does not make it evil or bad.

So, why do some Muslims use Islam as a crutch for their abominable deeds?

Because, from what I've been able to garner, Islam allows alot of leeway in regards to using violence to either defend itself, or Muslims from perceived aggression from outsiders.

The other provision ofcourse deals with aggression and violence towards unbelievers aka infidels.

And ofcourse, Islam has not undergone the level of reform that Christianity has in the West, nor been balanced by the opposing force that is SECULARISM.

Until these things happen, Islam will continue to be increasingly villified as a backward, archaic religion by many in the World I'm afraid; even if it shares many things in common with Christianity.

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
Religion -any religion- only tries to set guidelines for people to live with and be good. You might chose to ignore religion and yet have your own moral code which fulfills the role of those rules and regulations... instead of chosing one thing over another because it is halal; you'll be chosing it because it's the right thing to do, from your perspective.

I often dont think of things in terms of halal and haram but in terms of right or wrong...and many muslims do the same. However, we all ahve our weaknesses and we cant be good all the time. We WILL do some haram stuff (at different rates)because it is human nature.One side of Islamic dogma that never gets advertised is the forgiveness of the merciful creator and how much leeway you are given to repent and atone for your errors. Of course, I know what makes it difficult for non Muslims to see that side of things when ,continuously, you hear about stoning and hands chopped off with reprentance to follow. But between this and that, there appears to be a big chunk of terra incognita (for non muslims...ummm,maybe for some muslims, too, I suppose )

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:


So, why do some Muslims use Islam as a crutch for their abominable deeds?

Because, from what I've been able to garner, Islam allows alot of leeway in regards to using violence to either defend itself, or Muslims from perceived aggression from outsiders.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

And ofcourse, Islam has not undergone the level of reform that Christianity has in the West, nor been balanced by the opposing force that is SECULARISM.

[/qb]

---

That's a thorny issue! One thing that appears to be much less of a controversy among Muslims is that the religion cannot be subjected to the same reform that Christianity has been subjected to...because, this in effect means tampering with it and altering its content...which is exactly the problem that Islam sees with the way Christianity has evolved over the centuries.

But that is, of course, what you are advocating to make it more "digestible"....deadlock, there, I'm afraid.
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
Now, I have a suggestion, why dont we allll ****off and get some sleep!
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 
You know, guys, your argument about whose common sense IS commonsense is faulty. It should be fairly easy to define common sense using the "central limit theorem" that we use as basis for all biomedical, social and behavioural research. The gist of it is that most people are "middling" in all their characteristics and will aggregate towards a central point and there will be a few scattered around it on both sides, less as you go further out. More about that on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

This distribution is represented by the normal distribution curve which you all saw in high school.


http://i7.tinypic.com/34dn5kx.jpg


The mean value, right at the middle of the curve will represent the point where most number of observations (number of people agreeing on a certain concept of common sense, here) will be seen. The majority of people (68%) will lie within one standard deviation of the mean and 95% will fall within two standard deviations of the mean. The remaining 5% on both sides will be the "extremists"

When this distribution was used in biomedical studies, behavioural scientists didnt think it was applicable to them but LO nad BEHOLD, it turned out it does apply....so if you ask a group of people "what is LOve" for example, you'll find a central aggregation of ideas at some point and a scatter around it. Similarly if you give them a list of choces for what can be counted as commonsense and what not the majority will aggregate within one standard deviation of the mean.....this could also be used to identify who are the "mainstream"....It should make "sense" that it is where the majority is.

Now, how do you,Pigeon, know that your views are shared by the majority. It should be fairly easy, in a country, like Egypt to know what is the majority concept of something if you live there. It can be seen on Arabic speaking discussion boards as egyptianoasis, egyptiantalks, normandy...where you can clearly see an internet community (dynamic) where the ideas that are perpetuated by salafis (niqab, abrogation and the like)... are received with horror, disbelief, outrage, sarcasm....and then the number of members who start posting what they know supported by evidence hugely outnumbering the few salafis who are trying to shove in those concepts. And what's more, the proofs make sense, too and are obtained from reliable sources. The story is repeated over every one of those boards. Time goes and comes and people change and the same story keeps on repeating itself over those boards.

Another proof is the sheer number of books that keep on being published by mainstreem muslim clerics to respond to these allegations and describe them for what they are.Unfortunately they dont get translated because the focus of these books is to protect the muslim society from being drawn into these ideas.

The third thing that I dont expect non muslims to share with me , but it is for muslims to look into is that we have been warned about the emergence of these groups and about what concepts they will try to spread among us: Our prophet called them KHAWAREG (OUTLIERS, in direct translation: explained as somebody who breaches the limits of religion)
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
That's a thorny issue! One thing that appears to be much less of a controversy among Muslims is that the religion cannot be subjected to the same reform that Christianity has been subjected to...because, this in effect means tampering with it and altering its content...which is exactly the problem that Islam sees with the way Christianity has evolved over the centuries.

But that is, of course, what you are advocating to make it more "digestible"....deadlock, there, I'm afraid.

---

Yep, it's a thorny issue, which is why I brought it up

Not that I advocate it necessarily, but I see no other option because insofar, no one has been able to contain radical Islam.

If Islam remains as it is for an indefinite period of time, and Islamic countries continue to use Sharia Law for guidance and remain firmly under the hold of religion and nothing serious is done to combat fanatacism, then the rift between the Middle East and the West (actually, not just the West), will continue to widen even more.

This could prove dangerous for Islam and it's followers in the future; unless moderate Muslims like yourself find a way to curb the extremists..

If another attack similar in scale to 9/11 or greater occurs either in Europe or the U.S, then there would such a severe backlash towards Islam and Muslims that you could not imagine!

Muslims living in Western nations may be forced to flee for their own safety, because the atmosphere will be so hostile against them.

Remember, this is how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started..

Islam and moderate Muslims cannot afford to let extremists continue to act as dictators of their faith.

In an ideal World, people would realize that Islam is simply a religion and it's followers vary in character and morality just like anywhere else..

But, this isn't an ideal World, and like I said, if another attack were to occur on Western soil courtesy of Islamic militants, then the backlash would be severe; and it would affect all Muslims to some degree regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by Âutomatic For The People (Member # 12634) on :
 
We're getting very close. It can't be much longer now

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

Not that I advocate it necessarily, but I see no other option because insofar, no one has been able to contain radical Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

If Islam remains as it is for an indefinite period of time, and Islamic countries continue to use Sharia Law for guidance and remain firmly under the hold of religion and nothing serious is done to combat fanatacism, then the rift between the Middle East and the West (actually, not just the West), will continue to widen even more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

This could prove dangerous for Islam and it's followers in the future; unless moderate Muslims like yourself find a way to curb the extremists..

If another attack similar in scale to 9/11 or greater occurs either in Europe or the U.S, then there would such a severe backlash towards Islam and Muslims that you could not imagine!

Muslims living in Western nations may be forced to flee for their own safety, because the atmosphere will be so hostile against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:



Remember, this is how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

Islam and moderate Muslims cannot afford to let extremists continue to act as dictators of their faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Âutomatic For The People:
We're getting very close. It can't be much longer now

---

You know, what I like about Pigeon, is that she can argue and present her side of the debate without letting her emotions get out of whack....unlike you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
You definition of radical Islam is anything you don't agree with. It's total westernization of we're all radicals.

---

quote:

---

Oh, it's fanaticism you're worried about. I thought it was all them radicals.
The "rift between the Middle East and the West" is a ploitical and conommic one. It has zero to do with religion or idiology.

---

quote:

---

But just for my own personal entertainment why don't you describe to me in very simple form as the reason for that so called rift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
It is not dangerous for Islam it is dangerous for the west. Those "moderates" you're talking about have so far failed to combat the real threat and that is corrupt governments supported by the west.
The threat you perceive as coming from Radical Islam is a result of that failure. People resort to Islam to unite them against a common enemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
Really! You still living in that fantasy land of yours. Ok, let's say Afghanistan was a result of 9/11. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11.

---

quote:

---

Moderate" Muslims, intellectuals and any one with any brain are being persecuted buy driminal regimes supported by the west and specifically the US. If the "west" is so interested in helping "moderates" it should at end it's support or better yet exert some pressure to help and protect those "moderates" you love so much.

---

quote:

---

The problem with all your arguments, as always, is that they are completely void of reality. Anyone with any brain knows that the US and the west support governments for the west's benefit not to help moderates or combat "radical Islam". They routinely support Radicals, Extremists and criminals to suppress national movements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Âutomatic For The People:
We're getting very close. It can't be much longer now

---

sounds like a ticking time bomb!!
 

---

Posted by homing pigeon (Member # 8039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
Yep, it's a thorny issue, which is why I brought it up [/QB]

---

Naughty boy We can discuss this at length sometime, though....just not in a hurry coz I just cant keep up this way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
Not that I advocate it necessarily, but I see no other option because insofar, no one has been able to contain radical Islam.

If Islam remains as it is for an indefinite period of time, and Islamic countries continue to use Sharia Law for guidance and remain firmly under the hold of religion and nothing serious is done to combat fanatacism, then the rift between the Middle East and the West (actually, not just the West), will continue to widen even more.

This could prove dangerous for Islam and it's followers in the future; unless moderate Muslims like yourself find a way to curb the extremists..

If another attack similar in scale to 9/11 or greater occurs either in Europe or the U.S, then there would such a severe backlash towards Islam and Muslims that you could not imagine!

Muslims living in Western nations may be forced to flee for their own safety, because the atmosphere will be so hostile against them.

Remember, this is how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started..

Islam and moderate Muslims cannot afford to let extremists continue to act as dictators of their faith.

In an ideal World, people would realize that Islam is simply a religion and it's followers vary in character and morality just like anywhere else..

But, this isn't an ideal World, and like I said, if another attack were to occur on Western soil courtesy of Islamic militants, then the backlash would be severe; and it would affect all Muslims to some degree regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.

~Alistair [/QB]

---

I do have a problem with this post, though, Alistair. I feel a vaguely disguised threat to Muslims all over the world. If-this-happens-again-u'll-regret-it sort of thing!

The threat is real, though....so cant say I blame YOU for mentioning it. Most are prepared for it, though, so dont worry about us. My estate agent just mentioned to me he's got all his stuff in order because "this could be Bosnia tomorrow"!!!

But, hey, that is unfair. Isn't it enough we could get caught up in the explosions just like u guys.... for us to be in the position of victim and accused at the same time!!! Don't you recognize that we have our own problems with Islamic militants even inside Islamic countries?

The answer may not be in reforming Islam. And certainly not in barging with troops into every Muslim country on the globe. I 'd have thought the Iraq experience was enough proof. (looks like u maybe right, Auto )

I got a suggestion that I'm surprised how the West (which is a grandiose designation for the US ) did not notice. Investigating the moderate side of Islam and propagating its message!....what? not a good idea? You know, if Tony Blair, for example, thinks of this option as a way for promoting safety in the UK, he could easily work with chosen groups and actually manipulate the culture...I'll depend here on the discretion of the moderate clerics he'd be working with to identify what needs manipulation and what doesnt. Looks to me like there is enough scope for agreement. Targeting certain concepts of violence that can be discredited by proof from within Islam should be an achievable goal. And the country has myriads of scientists who can do this...people who have experience working with communitites and actually bringing about social and behavioural change in the most difficult of cases. I could list half a dozen off the top of my head this minute!

Dont tell me you Americans dont have the same and can export to the Middle East, too ....was it ever considered?

P.S. I still feel friendly inclined though....so do take this stuff in good humour

Hey, but no guarantees my fuse wont get shorter
 

---

Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
I got a suggestion that I'm surprised how the West (which is a grandiose designation for the US ) did not notice. Investigating the moderate side of Islam and propagating its message!....what? not a good idea?

---

Not wanting to interfere in this discussion, but a short while ago I was watching a brief video containing, among other things, a debate between Reza Aslan and Jack Cafferty. And reading this thread just brought the following exchange to my mind:


CAFFERTY: Let me go back to something I asked you a minute ago. If that's the case and they have succeeded arguably beyond their wildest expectations, where is the organized voice of the moderate Muslim in the Middle East saying these people do not represent us? This is not what we stand for. Here is what we do stand for. Here is how we would like to, you know, change our image, change our ways, engage the west in whatever ways they choose to engage us, or not? I mean, I'm not hearing anything from the organized moderate voice of Islam in the Middle East. Why not?

ASLAN: Well, I hate to say this, but you're not listening hard enough. I mean this is a movement that is just enormous and overwhelming, unfortunately, for some reason, we are not that cognizant of it here in the United States. Perhaps that may be because it's just not sexy enough for the media. But I can tell you from traveling throughout the Middle East and I think anyone who has in depth knowledge of the people and the cultures of the Middle East will tell you the same thing.



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/01/cnnitm.01.html

www.myspace.com/rezaaslan
 

---

Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

I have no problem with your interpretation persay

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:


But, Islam has alot to do with the current rift between the West and the Middle East.. It's undeniable as far as I'm concerned.

---

quote:

---

Islam is a test. a test to see how stupid we really can be. a test to prove that we are so eager to appease and deny moral and universal truths that we will actually see Red as Blue and up as down, and wrong as right.

I'd say Humankind is failing this test.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
My definition of radical Islam mostly pertains to using violence and other undesirable means against Civilians to make a statement or to influence events using force, all under the banner of Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:


For example, the U.S's support of Israel among other things, has infuriated Arabs for years. Then there is the Colonial history with the old European powers and it's consequences, which can still be seen today..

Those do matter. Actually now that I think of it, it would be accurate to say that religion and idealogy never really became an issue until radical Muslims started attacking the West and or Western interests IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

9/11 spawned two conflicts over in the MIDDLE EAST, that has taken tens, or even hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives, innocent and guilty.

You fail to realize that Western powers will do everything in their considerable power to stop Islamic militants from bringing the conflict to Western soil.

Instead, they will send forces to the Middle East, an already volatile and chaotic region of the World, to get at the heart of the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

Should another major attack occur, the West will send even more forces into the Middle East, thus escalating the violence in the region even more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

And what can the local governments do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:


And although I personally think Saddam may have had something to do with it, I can't say so with any certainty.

However, it is clear that Saddam did sponsor terrorism, and was actively courting Al Quaeda before 9/11 occurred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

Whether these are grounds enough to go in and uproot him, I'm not so sure anymore to be honest.

At first, I was 100% for the War, but in hindsight, I think it was too excessive a reaction..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:


However, your statement fails to take History into consideration.

For the longest, the West's primary interest in the Middle East was OIL, and because of this, they interfered in the local politics and installed or aided regimes that would support their need for the "black stuff," regardless of any other factors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

But now, due to radical Islam, the focus has changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

The West may do as you say, and start to actively support moderate Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

I am fully aware that the Western powers are acting foremost in their own interest.

I've never said otherwise..

Thats the nature of global politics though I'm afraid, and nothing will ever change that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by homing pigeon:
Naughty boy We can discuss this at length sometime, though....just not in a hurry coz I just cant keep up this way.

---

Yes, I'm very naughty and I agree with you

These debates can take alot out of people, so I will definitely take it slow aswell..

quote:

---

I do have a problem with this post, though, Alistair. I feel a vaguely disguised threat to Muslims all over the world. If-this-happens-again-u'll-regret-it sort of thing!

The threat is real, though....so cant say I blame YOU for mentioning it. Most are prepared for it, though, so dont worry about us. My estate agent just mentioned to me he's got all his stuff in order because "this could be Bosnia tomorrow"!!!

---

quote:

---

But, hey, that is unfair. Isn't it enough we could get caught up in the explosions just like u guys.... for us to be in the position of victim and accused at the same time!!! Don't you recognize that we have our own problems with Islamic militants even inside Islamic countries?

---

quote:

---

The answer may not be in reforming Islam. And certainly not in barging with troops into every Muslim country on the globe. I 'd have thought the Iraq experience was enough proof. (looks like u maybe right, Auto )

---

quote:

---

I got a suggestion that I'm surprised how the West (which is a grandiose designation for the US ) did not notice. Investigating the moderate side of Islam and propagating its message!....what? not a good idea? You know, if Tony Blair, for example, thinks of this option as a way for promoting safety in the UK, he could easily work with chosen groups and actually manipulate the culture...I'll depend here on the discretion of the moderate clerics he'd be working with to identify what needs manipulation and what doesnt. Looks to me like there is enough scope for agreement. Targeting certain concepts of violence that can be discredited by proof from within Islam should be an achievable goal. And the country has myriads of scientists who can do this...people who have experience working with communitites and actually bringing about social and behavioural change in the most difficult of cases. I could list half a dozen off the top of my head this minute!

---

quote:

---

P.S. I still feel friendly inclined though....so do take this stuff in good humour

Hey, but no guarantees my fuse wont get shorter

---

Hey, I feel the same way. We are just debating thats all, and there's no need for either of our emotions to get out of whack.

As for "fuses," mine can either be terribly short, or terribly long depending on who I'm dealing with..

With you, it will be the latter I'm sure

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LaZeeZ:
Islam isn't a monster going after you and other western people to hunt them. In fact the very basics of Islam makes no distinction in value between races.

---

For God's sake, when did I say Islam was a "monster" who's sole purpose was to wage War against the West and Westerners?

Lazeeze, if you're going to participate in this debate, then you should atleast read the thread in it's entirety because I already went over this with Pigeon.

I don't think Islam is bad, or evil. But, because it is subject to interpretation, there are many people who wish to commit terrible deeds under it's banner.

Thats what Radical Islam is.. However, it's not so much what I think, because I've been hanging around Muslims for years, both on the net and in real life so I know that it's wrong to put all Muslims in the same category.

The problem is, that with repeated attacks against the West, Westerners in general (and I don't just mean Americans) will continue to view Muslims and Islams in a very negative manner..

This is, and has been happening for quite some time (especially since 9/11), and every time some incident happens on Western soil (the last was the bus bombings in London I believe), the hostility against both Islam and Muslims will increase dramatically.

Notice that many European nations are starting to drastically curb immigration from Muslim countries, banning the Niquab when for years it was tolerated, or limiting or halting funds from Muslims nations which were used to build Mosques in Europe.

These are just a few examples of anti-Islam or anti-Muslim sentiment happening in the West right now..

So take the focus off me, because I'm not the problem here..

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Âutomatic For The People:
Using your definition of Radicals, how many of them are there and how did you arrive at the number?

---

quote:

---

Well from what you're saying, everything was fine from your point of view until people started attacking your interests. So for as long as the US was supporting Israel and criminal regimes that oppressed the people and bankrupt their economies everything was cool with the west. But, it wasn't fine with Middle Easterners. It was OK for people to suffer at the hands of the west but it is not OK for them to fight back. They are expected to behave themselves and be like good little slaves. Only when they snapped back the "rift" came to your attention.

---

quote:

---

And attacking the west in the name of Islam doesn't change the rift from political.economic to ideological. The objective is not ion any way ideological.

---

quote:

---

9/11 did not spawn any conflicts. The west's actions spawned the conflicts that were going on way before 9/11. Why do you think they attacked the US? What do you believe were the reasons ?

---

quote:

---

The way things are going another attack or attacks are coming for sure. It's the only logical progression of events possible.

---

quote:

---

If you don;t have evidence you should at least be able to logically support your conclusions. Not just a hunch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
You supported a war where Hundreds of Thousands of people died and now you're not sure. How do you live with yourself. What's more, why do want them to leave you alone an not attack you for what you;very don to them?

---

It's not as cut and dry as you believe.

Sure, I was pissed off that foreign terrorists had dared to attack the mainland U.S, and Civilians no less, and I wanted revenge!

But, the MAIN reason why I supported the War in Iraq initially was because Saddam was an evil son of a bitch no matter how you sliced it, and deserved to be removed..

Saddam commited countless atrocities, against his own people and the people of Kuwait and Iran aswell..

The man was psychotic, and his mere existence was very destabilizing to the Middle East.

More Iraqis were dying under his rule, than they are now actually.

The U.N sanctions which he brought upon his people through his own failure to respect the post war agreements caused tremendous loss of life in Iraq from starvation and illness.

And as I mentioned earlier, if he had been allowed to live, his sons would have taken over eventually, and the cycle would begin anew because his sons were even more deranged than he was.

quote:

---

And what would YOU do if all that was done to you?

---

quote:

---

Well the focus havent really changed. The primary goal is political/economics but now they realize that "Radical Islam" could be an obstacle. "Radical Islam" proved to be and effective fighting force against the west's agression.

---

quote:

---

Then war it is...see you in hell.

---

War? I'm a live and let live kinda dude, so I doubt you'll be seeing me in hell

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 
Man, I need a break!

I'm facing down a triple threat from Pigeon, Lazeeze and Auto..

There must be another conservative somewhere on E-S that could help my a$$.

And Dalia is playing spelling nazi aswell. Would you like me to correct all the punctuation and spelling errors in your posts?

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by Dalia* (Member # 10593) on :
 
Alistair, you are very welcome to point out my spelling and punctuation errors because I'm always trying to improve my written English. In fact, punctuation is one of my weak points because I have no clue about the rules, I use my commas quite intuitively.


I don't pick on you or anyone else because of their spelling, sorry if it came across that way. I know you're being a bit sensitive in regards to anything I say to you, so maybe I should have refrained from commenting.
But I pointed out this one because the way you spelled it actually gives the word a totally different meaning, at least to someone with a basic knowledge of Latin. I had to read the sentence twice in order to understand what it was supposed to mean.


And I would appreciate it if you could refrain from calling me a nazi. It's not the first time you're doing this and it's not funny.
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 
Dalia, who are you trying to kid here?

Aslong as I've been posting on E-S, E-T and E-M, I've NEVER seen you correct anyone's spelling errors other than MINE!

Not that it really bothers me mind you, because I prefer to practice good written English myself, but it seems that you really are singling me out.

quote:

---

I know you're being a bit sensitive in regards to anything I say to you, so maybe I should have refrained from commenting.

---

quote:

---

And I would appreciate it if you could refrain from calling me a nazi. It's not the first time you're doing this and it's not funny.

---

OK, I know that you are German and so you would obviously be "sensitive" towards my use of the word nazi so thats understandable.

However, the word "nazi" when used in conjunction with certain verbs, doesn't mean I'm referring to REAL nazis.

In this case, the word nazi means someone who pays great attention to detail, down to the minute.

There are cooking nazis, spelling nazis, barber nazis, cleaning nazis etc.

So, I could be a spelling nazi, although I have not one drop of German blood; atleast to my knowledge.

Therefore, me calling you a "spelling nazi" wasn't really an insult, but if you don't want me to do so again, I have no problem..

Anyway, thats my English lesson for the day!

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by LaZeeZ (Member # 10655) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
For God's sake, when did I say Islam was a "monster" who's sole purpose was to wage War against the West and Westerners?

---

quote:

---

But, Islam has alot to do with the current rift between the West and the Middle East.. It's undeniable as far as I'm concerned.

---

quote:

---

I don't think Islam is bad, or evil. But, because it is subject to interpretation, there are many people who wish to commit terrible deeds under it's banner.

Thats what Radical Islam is.. However, it's not so much what I think, because I've been hanging around Muslims for years, both on the net and in real life so I know that it's wrong to put all Muslims in the same category.

---

quote:

---

The problem is, that with repeated attacks against the West, Westerners in general (and I don't just mean Americans) will continue to view Muslims and Islams in a very negative manner..

This is, and has been happening for quite some time (especially since 9/11), and every time some incident happens on Western soil (the last was the bus bombings in London I believe), the hostility against both Islam and Muslims will increase dramatically.

Notice that many European nations are starting to drastically curb immigration from Muslim countries, banning the Niquab when for years it was tolerated, or limiting or halting funds from Muslims nations which were used to build Mosques in Europe.

These are just a few examples of anti-Islam or anti-Muslim sentiment happening in the West right now..

So take the focus off me, because I'm not the problem here..

~Alistair

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
However, the word "nazi" when used in conjunction with certain verbs, doesn't mean I'm referring to REAL nazis.

---

quote:

---

There are cooking nazis, spelling nazis, barber nazis, cleaning nazis etc.

---

You forgot your favourite - the feminazi.

quote:

---

Therefore, me calling you a "spelling nazi" wasn't really an insult, but if you don't want me to do so again, I have no problem...

---

Yes, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

quote:

---

Anyway, thats my English lesson for the day!

---

That's it? I'm disappointed. I had hoped for a lecture on punctuation rules.
 

---

Posted by Âutomatic For The People (Member # 12634) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Âutomatic For The People:
Using your definition of Radicals, how many of them are there and how did you arrive at the number?

---

Heck, how the hell am I supposed to know how many there are?

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say they definitely constitute a very small minority..

Muslims represent 1/5 of the World's population, and radicals compromise a VERY small percentage of that number.

It is extremely difficult, if nigh impossible to get accurate numbers because radicalism is not a constant.

It's dynamic, depending on numerous factors..

quote:

---

Well from what you're saying, everything was fine from your point of view until people started attacking your interests. So for as long as the US was supporting Israel and criminal regimes that oppressed the people and bankrupt their economies everything was cool with the west. But, it wasn't fine with Middle Easterners. It was OK for people to suffer at the hands of the west but it is not OK for them to fight back. They are expected to behave themselves and be like good little slaves. Only when they snapped back the "rift" came to your attention.

---

Look, I already said that the West is much at fault here.. And by West, I don't just mean the U.S..

But, thats how global politics is. The West (and any other Power) will ALWAYS act in it's own best interest, regardless of the consequences. And when the consequences do pop up, then they are summarily attended to.

I can't change this, anymore than you can.

It's been like this for millenia, and will continue to be.

quote:

---

And attacking the west in the name of Islam doesn't change the rift from political.economic to ideological. The objective is not ion any way ideological.

---

I still disagree on this.. These Radical Islamists feel they are defending Islam and Muslims from Western aggression, but how many times have they claimed they want to return to the "good old days" when there was an Islamic Empire?

I've heard more than one radical state they wouldn't stop until they've conquered and "Islamicized" the West.

quote:

---

9/11 did not spawn any conflicts. The west's actions spawned the conflicts that were going on way before 9/11. Why do you think they attacked the US? What do you believe were the reasons ?

---

9/11 spawned both the War in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq.

Now, you may argue that the West's actions prior to 9/11 brought the attack, and in some ways, you are right. I recall Bin Laden threatening to attack the U.S if they did not pull their troops out of Saudi Arabia..

Anyway, my point is that from an AMERICAN perspective, 9/11 was the catalyst for the Wars in the Middle East.

Had 9/11 not occurred, then Saddam would still be in power and under sanctions, and the Taliban would still be in power aswell.

quote:

---

The way things are going another attack or attacks are coming for sure. It's the only logical progression of events possible.

---

Yeah, and who do you think is going to pay the greater price? Westerners? Or Muslims in the Middle East?

Close to 3,000 people died on 9/11, and another 3,000+ U.S soldiers have perished fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan..

However, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanistanis have died either from the Western War machine, or it's side effects.

This has been my point all along. The people who are punished the most, are Muslims; not Westerners.

quote:

---

If you don;t have evidence you should at least be able to logically support your conclusions. Not just a hunch.

---

Logically, the arguement can be supported (but not conclusively) because like I said, Saddam was actively courting Al Quaeda before 9/11 occurred. There was also a terrorist training camp located right outside of Baghdad, and not to mention, Saddam was well known to sponsor terrorist organizations..

But, the problem, is that this is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, and not really proof.

Regardless, nobody is going to miss Saddam. He killed hundreds of thousands, or even millions of Muslims himself, and was a severe threat to other Middle Eastern nations.

This man started two Wars in the Middle East, the first against Iran and the second against Iraq..

If he had lived, his sons would have taken over and the cycle would have been repeated I'm sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
You supported a war where Hundreds of Thousands of people died and now you're not sure. How do you live with yourself. What's more, why do want them to leave you alone an not attack you for what you;very don to them?

---

It's not as cut and dry as you believe.

Sure, I was pissed off that foreign terrorists had dared to attack the mainland U.S, and Civilians no less, and I wanted revenge!

But, the MAIN reason why I supported the War in Iraq initially was because Saddam was an evil son of a bitch no matter how you sliced it, and deserved to be removed..

Saddam commited countless atrocities, against his own people and the people of Kuwait and Iran aswell..

The man was psychotic, and his mere existence was very destabilizing to the Middle East.

More Iraqis were dying under his rule, than they are now actually.

The U.N sanctions which he brought upon his people through his own failure to respect the post war agreements caused tremendous loss of life in Iraq from starvation and illness.

And as I mentioned earlier, if he had been allowed to live, his sons would have taken over eventually, and the cycle would begin anew because his sons were even more deranged than he was.

quote:

---

And what would YOU do if all that was done to you?

---

I would most likely do the exact same thing.

Thats just human nature I suppose.

quote:

---

Well the focus havent really changed. The primary goal is political/economics but now they realize that "Radical Islam" could be an obstacle. "Radical Islam" proved to be and effective fighting force against the west's agression.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

Then war it is...see you in hell.

---

War? I'm a live and let live kinda dude, so I doubt you'll be seeing me in hell

~Alistair

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LaZeeZ:
And who would be the problem? Muslims?

---

quote:

---

Anyway what does Islam has got to do with all this is beyond me. the fact that you talk about Islamic countries as if they run by Islam, speaks volumes about your knowledge of Muslim countries.

---

quote:

---

Those countries are more into secularism than Islam. Sadam wasn't Islamist, he ran a secular society and he hated Bin Laden more than he hated Bush. Actually Bin Laden would have killed him if he got the chance. Mubarak is secualrist who just made a law to ensure no MB will ever come close to ruling Egypt. Syria is same as Iraq, they killed 10 thousands of MBs in Hama before. Morroco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, and most gulf countries, Indeonesia, Malaysia, ...etc

---

quote:

---

more than 90% of the Muslim countries are no different in their politics from the USA and the west when it comes to religions, in fact they are more of being radical secualirsts...Take Turkey as an example.

---

quote:

---

The fact that you associate the downfall of those countries with Islam is hard for me to understand when we look at the real world.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, one more real thing you should realize is that USA is going to be finito very soon and probably the chinese will come over. Hopefully ,with their small dicks, they wont think about fukcinging with the world.

---

Haha, made me laugh

But, I seriously doubt China would be a more benevolent Super Power than the U.S..

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Âutomatic For The People:
Re-read your replies int this thread. Form them you can easily conclude that:

1- Radical Islam is a reasons to Western Aggression.
2- In the face of criminal and decades long aggression ,it's human nature to defend one's self by any means possible.
3- Killing hundreds of thousand of people will make them hate you any less but rather the opposite. And therefore the best way to eliminate Radical Islam is to stop, directly and indirectly, killing Muslims.


I can tell you this. A couple of years or so before 9/11 I contemplated moving to the US. Now and with all honesty I hate everything American.
Last night I was changing to language setting in my PC to type in Arabic and after I finished to change it back to English I noticed the option on my tool bar:

English (United States)
Arabic (Egypt)
English (Canada)

Even at something as simple as that I consciously avoided the first option.


Trust me when I tell you , I WILL see you in hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalia*:
That's it? I'm disappointed. I had hoped for a lecture on punctuation rules.

---

Try this

I'm the last person you want to learn punctuation from

I'll tell you one thing, English isn't that difficult of a language to learn; unlike German.

But learning to use it effectively is pretty damn difficult as it's so extensive and complicated.

~Alistair
 

---

Posted by Âutomatic For The People (Member # 12634) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:

If you choose to hate America, and perhaps even act against it, there will be consequences involved.

No one can act with impunity.

Not me, not you, not the President... No one.

Thats Divine Law.

~Alistair

---

LOL..... Are you threatening me
My concern is for Egypt first and foremost and I don't believe taking action against the US is of any benefit to us. The change will come from inside and there will be nothing the US can do.

You get distracted quite easily. The discussion between us was about Radical Islam and it's supposed threat. Not about how much the west helped the Middle East. You conceded that if it wasnt't for the West's policies those radicals would not have that many followers.

This is not rocket science. Muslims around the world don't walk around all day thinking of ways to destroy the west and take over the world. That's just stupid. What is also stupid is to expect any group of people to just sit back and be abused for decades and not do anything. They will fight back with whatever they've got and regardless of the odds against them.
 

---

Posted by The Conditioned (Member # 12020) on :
 
Damn, I didn't think you'd reply this quickly.

Anyway, I'm not threatening you. You know, when I typed that out, I wondered if you were going to take it that way

I was just stating what I believe to be, a Universal and unavoidable Law.

That being, we all suffer the consequences of our actions, no matter who we are or how much power we think we have.

quote:

---

You get distracted quite easily. The discussion between us was about Radical Islam and it's supposed threat. Not about how much the west helped the Middle East. You conceded that if it wasnt't for the West's policies those radicals would not have that many followers

---

quote:

---

This is not rocket science. Muslims around the world don't walk around all day thinking of ways to destroy the west and take over the world. That's just stupid. What would be stupid is to expect any group of people to just sit back and be abused for decades and not do anything. They will fight back with whatever they've got and regardless of the odds against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Âutomatic For The People:
threatening me
My concern is for Egypt first and foremost and I don't believe taking action against the US is of any benefit to us. The change will come from inside and there will be nothing the US can do.
]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Conditioned:
Damn, I didn't think you'd reply this quickly.

Anyway, I'm not threatening you. You know, when I typed that out, I wondered if you were going to take it that way

I was just stating what I believe to be, a Universal and unavoidable Law.

That being, we all suffer the consequences of our actions, no matter who we are or how much power we think we have.

quote:

---

You get distracted quite easily. The discussion between us was about Radical Islam and it's supposed threat. Not about how much the west helped the Middle East. You conceded that if it wasnt't for the West's policies those radicals would not have that many followers

---

Yes, but I felt it needed to be put into context. I agree that Radical Islam is in many ways, a response against Western incursion.

But it is also an internal affair aswell; an idealogical battle within the Muslim World.

In other words, Radical Islam would exist even without Western involvement in the Middle East.

quote:

---

This is not rocket science. Muslims around the world don't walk around all day thinking of ways to destroy the west and take over the world. That's just stupid. What would be stupid is to expect any group of people to just sit back and be abused for decades and not do anything. They will fight back with whatever they've got and regardless of the odds against them.

---

Never said it was Rocket Science. But, I think you are putting too much focus on the West.

Alot of problems in the Middle East are internal, and self inflicted.

Otherwise, how would you explain the fact that certain countries are relatively successful, peaceful and stable; while others are decadent, unstable and regressive?

The average Muslim isn't preoccupied with fighting against the West..

The average Muslim has concerns, much like the average HUMAN does ie getting married, raise a few kids, get that nice job with a good salary etc..

However, there is propaganda being spread on BOTH sides.

The Muslim World is being conditioned to believe that the West is perpetually trying to screw them over..

And now Westerners are being conditioned to believe that the Muslim World is inherently decadent and regressive.

But is still hasn't gotten nowhere near the point where the average Westerner outright hates Muslims, and the average Muslim outright hates Westerners.

For the sake of the World, I hope it never gets to that level.

OK break time again!

~Alistair

---