And these are the arguments you use to excuse your "moral equivalence at all costs" line of reasoning?Originally Posted by Rat Faced
en(un)lightened
And these are the arguments you use to excuse your "moral equivalence at all costs" line of reasoning?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Broken
No, and i added a few by the way, I'm demonstrating that you are picking on one Religion vis a vis "Fundamenalism" and "Terrorism".
Hezbollah, are secular .... this means that it would be quite impossible for them to be Fundamentalist. Fundamentalists believe that there should be no distinction between the State and the Church.
By their very nature, ALL religions are expansionist.
They all tell you to convert others to that religion.
This does not mean they are "Fundamentalist".
Correction: Judaism isn't expansionist.. you can convert to Judaism however you will have to go to them, they wont make it easy for you and try to convert you. This is possibly why there are so few Jews compared to the other 2 Religions with the same base, ie: Christianity and Islam
Last edited by Rat Faced; 08-01-2006 at 10:31 PM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
en(un)lightened
Okay.
For the sake of argument I will grant that every religion has a fundamentalist arm, wing, branch, what have you.
So what?
Has the Ku Klux Klan, to use your example, visited it's misbegotten views on, say, South Africa?
Mexico?
Canada?
What borders have they crossed?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Broken
Have Hezbollah crossed a border? Seems debatable considering the first reports out of the area...
Have Hamas? Yes.. but they pretty much concentrate their activities in certain areas against the country that is occupying theirs... so fair does, so is their opposition.
Have the Iraqi Insurgents? No, they again consider themselves:
a/ Resistance Fighters against occupation and/or
b/ Fighting for Islam against heretics (sunni v shi'ite)
Have Al Queda.. most definitely, these are "International Terrorists". They are found in our own backyards, as well as in the areas of strife at the moment.
So we have the 4 largest Islamic Terrorist Organisations/Groupings listed.. and only 1 of them regularly cross borders that doesnt involve their own particular conflict. The others are really quite localised. Although I will grant you there are links between Hamas and Al Queda.. but there were and are links between AQ and the Kurds of Iraq too.
So, i'll name a Christian one that did/does too... its only fair after all. .. P.I.R.A. (or as the active part is now Real IRA) and their adversaries UDA and LVF.
Then there is always Epanastatiki Organosi 17 Noemvri and the Basque Seperatists to mention just a couple.. but as they have absolutely nothing to do with religion, i'll leave it at that, except to remind uyou of various "Red Army" and "Red Brigade" organisations around the world... all of which dont hesitate to cross borders.
Of course, its Islamic Terrorism that newsworthy at the moment, so this is all you hear about. Forget the Tamal Tigers in Sri Lanka (as busy as ever) or what's happening in Somalia.. its only Islamic Terrorism thats reported widely...
Last edited by Rat Faced; 08-01-2006 at 11:24 PM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Manker's web totty
So... how does that make you different from any of the countries in the Middle East?
I believe, as I recall correctly, that this whole thing started because you suspected them to be in the possession of WMD's?
Since there was no proof for it, that leads me to conclude this action was taken because you BELIEVED those weapons were there, no matter what the proof said.
Isn't that exactly what all those 'extremist' movements are doing? Fighting for what they believe no matter what anyone else says?
Most of the world believed it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place and America kindly chose to ignore that and go ahead anyway. Doesn't that make the entire country extremist?
After all, it is a bit extreme to go to war if everyone else disagrees with it
Doesn't it annoy you that most Europeans look at the States and see a nation of religous fanatics, snake handling fools, red necks and an ape for a president?
It can't possibly be the case because there's people like you about, but it only took a couple of nutters to create that negative image.
en(un)lightened
Given that we scratch what itches us, yes, our current focus omits many of those you mention, but, as a fan of your "footie", if you find yourself engaged in a discussion of your favorite club's chances in the upcoming match, you aren't obligated to take account of the state of the game in Brazil, are you?
In any case, my question was about Islam, and perhaps when the discussion began to wander a bit I might have taken a page or six and drawn some of the distinctions between the M.E. groups you've mentioned, but insofar as they are all arrayed in common cause against the U.S. and Israel (and the coalition), to do so seems to be of at best marginal relevance.
In any case, you have performed that service, so I don't have to.
As an aside...for the longest time, I have had, at the back of my mind and just out of recall, an epigram of Belloc's that I happened to trip over today (wonder of wonders, and a nice surprise), and it has so many tiny and finely nuanced applications I find it could be said with application in about every discussion we've had in the drawing room lately-it goes this way:
Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight;
But roaring Bill, who killed him, thought it right.
For what it's worth...
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
en(un)lightened
I might take your last and apply it to Islam, I think.
So... how does that make you different from any of the countries in the Middle East?
I believe, as I recall correctly, that this whole thing started because you suspected them to be in the possession of WMD's?
Since there was no proof for it, that leads me to conclude this action was taken because you BELIEVED those weapons were there, no matter what the proof said.
Isn't that exactly what all those 'extremist' movements are doing? Fighting for what they believe no matter what anyone else says?
Most of the world believed it was a mistake to go to Iraq in the first place and America kindly chose to ignore that and go ahead anyway. Doesn't that make the entire country extremist?
After all, it is a bit extreme to go to war if everyone else disagrees with it
Doesn't it annoy you that most Europeans look at the States and see a nation of religous fanatics, snake handling fools, red necks and an ape for a president?
It can't possibly be the case because there's people like you about, but it only took a couple of nutters to create that negative image.
Yes, in the main, every entity participating in the festivities is doing what it does (and inarguably so) for some reason or felt need, true enough.
To me, though, it is that we are (if we are sentient beings) called upon by loyalties, allegiances, alliances or faiths to determine these things right or wrong, and not waste our time and mental abilities running from that responsibility, or bending over backward or forward in such a way as to avoid judging other humans and their motivations.
I seem to recall, in another current thread, that you have judged your bank to be a den of thieving bastards.
Note, please, that your quarrel, as well as your resulting judgements, have nothing to do with the bank as an institution, but the people who operate it.
By the standards of debate practiced by many here, they should escape your wrath, because (who knows?) they might have a very good reason for having done you over, you see?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Manker's web totty
That doesn't count though.
This bank thing involves moi
ergo, my judgement is clouded by emotions.
Besides, the last statement is exactly my point concerning islam.
I don't believe the religion as a whole is what it's been made to look.
But anyone not having some mental point of view is not heard because it's not spectacular enough
en(un)lightened
Not sure I understand that last.
As to the individual vs. the collective, it seems the entirety of what we have come to term "fundamentalist Islam" suffers an over-emotional view of Israel and the west, no?
Think for a moment about a scenario in which we leave the M.E., and take Israel with us...
According to their rhetoric, they're duty-bound to follow us to the ends of the earth to continue their "jihad"-whether this would actually happen?
Well, Hell-they've got cells here already, right?
Not to mention that, if we did leave, they'd go right on fighting each other over the colloquial issues that undo their regional politics.
They will do what they say they are born to do.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
re-member
BT Rep: +1
I am sure they do..in fact I think that is the basis of their religion.
I heard on the news that one of Al-Qaeda leaders recently suggested that all territory that was formerly a Muslim conquered country, should be retaken ( like Spain) ..I wonder if we should retake all the land that Alexander the Great once conquered.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks