Printable View
Do you think Islam, defined as the fundamentalist version whose activities dominate the headlines, and as exemplified by Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, desires a religious, or holy war?
A yes or no answer, please, supported by whatever reasonings you feel are appropriate...
Does it have to be a holy war? why not political?
I'm sure "fundamentalists" will use religion to poke the flames. And to balance it out I feel that fundamentalist christians, jews etc.etc. desire war. They may try to justify a difference but basically it's the same.
But that is perhaps a like for like generalisation...... better say certain people desire war and use religion as a tool to inflame passion.
Well probably they do..
All the rest of us have had one, can't have them missing out on it :lol:
Seriously though... it relates to my reply in the other thread. I think if it advances the same as any other religion, then there's bound to be one. In fact, in a way, it's already happening, innit?
I think whatever is bred from or by the current situation(s), including Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Aqsa, as well as Iran and Syria, et.al., will be termed a Holy War by those who foment it.
Your average Muslim (however you might qualify that) seems inclined to go along (or, at least, not object), according to extant polls as well as learned opinion, and, in the case of open and wide-spread conflict, cannot be firmly counted in opposition to the extremist arms of that religion.
I don't think it is adequate to say merely that "I don't know any Muslims who feel that way"; that literally points up the anecdotal weakness of the statement, and because none of us know all Muslims, do we?
In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I believe this is a legitimate concern, vid, and I make no apology for your perception that this poll is leading.
I am honestly interested in thoughts on the question I have presented.
A lot depends on who conducts polls, how questions are worded and who interprets the results.
Also who give you your "learned opinion"
then what makes you think your view of the muslims we don't know is correct? How does talking of people you don't know, have never met make the evidence stronger?Quote:
I don't think it is adequate to say merely that "I don't know any Muslims who feel that way"; that literally points up the anecdotal weakness of the statement, and because none of us know all Muslims, do we?
You say "Your average Muslim" is inclined to go along..... prove that they are going along with "religious war".. Why not just for patriotic reasons? to them we may be the enemy...I know it's hard to accept but we are a threat to others in the same way that others are a threat to us.
going with my first post about poking the flames, how much of your opinion of islam has been inflamed by "those with learned opinions" suggesting that islam wants to destroy us....is it possible that there is a counterpart in other lands doing the same?
could it work both ways?
I meant "learned opinion" in only the most cynical way, vid-that you believe I am so informed indicates you haven't read me correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
My point is we have not the least indication that (forgive the term) the "average Muslim" is sufficiently inclined to the peaceful side as considered against the fanatical side to even be termed ambivalent, ambivalence apparently not being a part of the Islamic mindset.
The latest relevant poll I have seen was one reported today, taken amongst "unbiased" Lebanese civilians (those described as "not predisposed" to favor Hezbollah) which stated that something on the order of 79% favored the tactic of kidnapping Israelis for ransom of prisoners.
One can only wonder what ambivalent formulation of polling question rendered that result, huh?
It is precisely this type of data which is available in abundance, and leads me to conclude firmly that I have yet to see that extremist Muslim from the other side of the spectrum who bangs on about letting Israel live in peace, or decries the use of airliners as missiles.
Do you know any Muslims like that, vid? :dry:
If you use "extremist" then you can make any case you desire. You fell off that tightrope by lumping in "Your average Muslim".
On the support amongst "unbiased" Lebanese civilians, would you tend to support any country bombing our homes, killing our wives and children, or would you support the ones firing back?..... tendancy is to overlook "who did what first". If another country attacked america because of something someone in America did, would you support the country bombing us?
As an example: A group of ex North Koreans kill a high up government official in North Korea by blowing up his car and get protection in the USA......Now we are not going to hand them over so North korea starts bombing the area where they reside hundreds of Americans are killed. Do you support the north koreans?
I appreciate there will be a "ah but we are good and they are bad" argument but that will always depend on which side of the fence you are looking from.
To the lebanese israel is attacking them, killing innocent women and children. If that happened to us we wouldn't care who or what started it, we would be on the side that is fighting back against the people attacking us.
The point is perception.
However you came to the conclusion you believe islam wants to kill us.
However they came to the conclusion they believe we want to kill Islam.
Mostly those opinions are based little on fact and mostly on propoganda.
If you stuck to "extremist" and "fundamentalists" you have a reasonable case. But I still say that you are loading the question and singling out just one side when it come to fundamentalist views.
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Let's call them Hezbollah.
Not Lebanese, not terrorists.
What are they now?
If we desire peace, how should we view Hezbollah?
If we can, for the sake of argument, stipulate that those who are religiously extreme and launching rockets occupy a segment at one end of the behavioral spectrum, and those who are religiously extreme but do not launch rockets are at the proximate midpoint of that spectrum, who, if anybody, resides at the other extreme?
Put it this way:
If some of a given group agitate for war, that is an extreme position.
Reason insists that the opposite extreme be peopled by those who agitate for peace.
And I don't buy that you don't buy the idea of a Muslim whose belief in peaceful co-existence is extreme, or fanatical.
I ask again; do you know any of them?
I sure don't buy that "spectrum" reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Mainstream islam does not "agitate for war", being silent (or at least not out on the streets protesting) does not equal supporting extremist. Granted they may support the idea but not the method.
Your opinion I suspect is based on what you are told about islam, and I have to say it is rare to see anything in the media that is not negative and concentrating on extremists. We are bombarded with images and commentary about Bin Laden. We are shown snippets of Mid eastern leaders criticising the US..... What do you think they are seeing of us? do they see commentators giving balanced views or do they see Bush calling them evil? do they see pat robinson or falwell calling islam the devils religion?
I suspect they only see our extremists spouting anti islamic views, and I suspect we are basically seeing their extremist.
There are terrorist that happen to be muslims. This doesn't mean that all muslims are terrorists. There are terrorists that happen to be christians. This doesn't mean that christians are terrorists.
Being an extremist is by definition "out of the norm".....you do know that...don't you :unsure:
it's unfortunate that most people want to live in peace, but somehow get represented by these nutters :dabs:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccI sure don't buy that "spectrum" reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Mainstream islam does not "agitate for war", being silent (or at least not out on the streets protesting) does not equal supporting extremist. Granted they may support the idea but not the method.
Your opinion I suspect is based on what you are told about islam, and I have to say it is rare to see anything in the media that is not negative and concentrating on extremists. We are bombarded with images and commentary about Bin Laden. We are shown snippets of Mid eastern leaders criticising the US..... What do you think they are seeing of us? do they see commentators giving balanced views or do they see Bush calling them evil? do they see pat robinson or falwell calling islam the devils religion?
I suspect they only see our extremists spouting anti islamic views, and I suspect we are basically seeing their extremist.
There are terrorist that happen to be muslims. This doesn't mean that all muslims are terrorists. There are terrorists that happen to be christians. This doesn't mean that christians are terrorists.
Being an extremist is by definition "out of the norm".....you do know that...don't you :unsure:
So essentially, according to your parsing of the situation, there are great hidden (silent) masses of Islamic people whose mood and opinion you've managed to gauge as neutral at worst, unfanatical at best, who will stand and be counted (of course!) at the proper time?
How do you arrive at that?
Do you have special powers, at all, at all.
Amazing how more and more of them are "inclined to go along with it" the longer that the situation re: The way things are happening, doesn't change huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
By the way:
Hezbollah are secular, belonging to the Shi'ite, with a different belief system to the Sunni's.
Hamas are non secular, belonging to the Sunni.
Many Sunni's class Shi'ites as heretics and not true Muslims. Much the same way as many Christian Churches dont class Mormons as Christians.
There are many more sects of Islam..
Exactly what flavour of Islam are you saying is Fundamentalist?
I mean, when i think of Christian Fundamentalism, i dont think of the Anglicans... I think of Southern Baptists... I dont just label all Christians 'mentalists.
Have you any idea how many muslims there are in the world? and of those how many are terrorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Ordinary muslims may stand up and be counted, Which side they will take is another matter. And for whatever reason.
Do you accept that it may be possible that they would stand up to protect their land? or could it only be to support religious extremists.
Ordinary people also want to keep their families safe, ordinary people stand up when they have to, mostly people want to live their lives and don't want to get involved...
As I said if you stuck to extremism you had a case with some foundations, but you couldn't do that.
I vote Yes but then I do not think Fundamentalist Islam is necessarily a mainstream view. There are Christian "end timers" who get a little thrill every time they think Armageddon is about to happen but again they do not represent mainstream Christianity.
It behoves our politicians to ensure that few do not end up in a position the exert leverage on the many. Unfortunately I do not believe cluster bombs and F16 fly-overs are appropriate means to that end but then what do I know.
Syria is not fundamentalist in outlook but they are still sorely pissed about the Golan Heights and bucket loads of Palestinian refugees. With Iran and Syria (and Venezuala for that matter) it is my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Isn't it amazing, then, given all of their differences (which differences only really exist between them), they are so unified in action, purpose, target and method?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
They are all of a piece, and we need not differentiate between them.
I don't have the slightest idea what that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
The trouble is that the methodology being employed is making more and more of them stand up and be counted... against us.
When Hezbollah kidnapped the soldiers, as an example, the Lebanese and most Arab nations condemned their actions.
Now, they're hero's all over the Middle East.
Nice strategy.
Sounds to me like their stances were adopted cheaply and then dumped for their inconvenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Listen:
Hezbollah's catalyzing action involved an incursion over the U.N.-approved border, which Israel had been observing, and for what it's worth, Hezbollah can rather easily be construed as having co-opted Lebanon in so doing.
That Israel has since smacked them around since then doesn't change the fact, and this ill-advised argument over "proportionality" doesn't get Hezbollah off the hook.
That's all there is to that particular argument.
Really... depends whether you believe the official Israeli version, or the version that the Journalists had reported before that version of events was put out when the operation went tits up, doesnt it?Quote:
As the AFP reported, "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning." And the French news site www.VoltaireNet.org reiterated the same account on June 18, "In a deliberated way, [Israel] sent a commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aitaa al-Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, taking two prisoners."
The Associated Press ( http://www.forbes.com/technology/fee...ap2873051.html) departed from the official version as well. "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them," reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. "The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity."
And the Hindustan Times ( http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...6,00050004.htm) on July 12 conveyed a similar account:
"The Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,' a statement by Hezbollah said. 'The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place,' it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border."
So basically, Lebanon is getting the fuck bombed out of it, because Hezbollah had the audacity to stop them illegally crossing the Border in the 1st place...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Didn't you just say, "...depends on whether you believe..."?
Both are likely to tell different stories, each for their own reasons.
What's new?
In a strictly objective sense, upon which you must rely to make the argument, neither is more inherently "true" or "believable" than the other, is it?
Oh wellQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I did..Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
However as the Journalists were quoting Israeli Sources in some of these stories before the official Israeli version was released, i tend to go with them.
Best comment I've seen in this thread. Unfortunately the more accepted term for these nutters is "politicians".Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccOh wellQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You seem to have taken some rather creative liberties with the quote function, sir.
Could have been an extended moment of extreme sloppiness, I suppose...:huh:
You don't like it if I answer each point in it's own quote, you don't like it if I put every word you type in one quote and reply within the quote in a pretty colours as you do.......Is it that you don't like the look of your own words?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
what would make you happy? :noes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccOh wellQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I have emboldened the phrase of mine which you left curiously (or not?) hanging.
Feel free to explain.
I quoted you, not me. You have a habbit of replying within peoples quotes and you have also been complaining that I split quotes to answer each part. I was not replying to myself, I was replying to you, so I removed my words to quote YOU. I used your different color method to answer within the quote so you could tell which were my words and which were yours. If you are confused as to what you had no idea of there is a pretty button that looks remarkably like this http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/chrom...s/viewpost.gif that you can click to see the entire post that was quoted. :P
I have done, and you apparently still don't see what you have overlooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
My statement "I don't have the slightest idea what that means.",
appears in your post as a quote of my post absent the statement of your own with respect to which it was made:
I must take pains now to communicate to you in very clear terms how totally bereft I am just now of appreciation for your having done this.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
and my reply to that wasQuote:
oh well
Please read the last sentence of your post, which is followed immediately by my response to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Isn't it amazing, then, given all of their differences (which differences only really exist between them), they are so unified in action, purpose, target and method?
They are all of a piece, and we need not differentiate between them.
I don't have the slightest idea what that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Please note the context, and compare it to...
[QUOTE=vidcc;1407489]This ^, which is as you used it when you last quoted me.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Now, I hope you will accept my invitation to fuck off.
This is not the lounge.
I explained it several times.
And if you want to resort to that language fuck you right back cuntface
I'll consider the matter sorted, then.