Yes...Muslims want all non-Muslims dead

Mariner said:
a very good point about Muslim moderates. I think that, unfortunately, they're in a position where speaking out makes them appear "weak" to the more hard-line Muslims. It's very similar to Americans sometimes feeling that we have to talk tough or else be considered wimps. Also, there are few Muslim democracies, and no developed forms for peaceful public protest. Without separation of church from state, without free unfettered media, and without democratic institutions, Muslim moderates are silenced.

We shouldn't forget that the Muslim extremists hate their moderates just as much as they hate us. Osama bin Laden's big beef is with his own country's moderates--hating the U.S. is incidental to him because of our ties to the Saudi Gov't, esp. our military bases there.

That is why moderate governments like Indonesia's should be so carefully supported by the U.S., and why other governments should be helped to remain as moderate as possible.

In other words, just because Muslim moderates don't always speak out, doesn't mean they aren't against fundamentalism. Don't lump all Muslims with the extremists, who are a fringe element of Islam. The big problem really is that they haven't figured out how to separate church from state, so e.g. in Iran, they keep trying to create a theocracy, which naturally gets taken over by the hardest-line religious leaders, who can accuse everyone else of being soft.

Mariner.


I was impressed when I read about the protest against Terrorism led by Her Majesty Queen Rania. However there has been little evidence that moderate Muslims harbor any type of resentment for the Terrorists otherwise. Here in the US we have a growning population of Muslims who also seem to be largely silent on the issue when surely it would behoove them to be vocal in our society against the attacks.

The problem that I have is they are allowing the worst of the religion to define the religion for them to the detriment of all the Muslims in the world. It cannot help them to be seen as silent against terrorism. The only time you hear word one about it is only when somebody is complaining about the stereotype, and oddly enough they complain about the stereotype without once denouncing the action of those who would terrorize in their name except in the most offhand way.

Something like this, "We are a peaceful religion! You shouldn't see us all in the same way as Terrorists!" But this leaves out the fundamental idea that what the terrorists have done is against their beliefs in every way.

I think they should say something more like this, "We are a peaceful religion, hijacked by unmerciful criminals without regard to humanity with a depth of hatred not taught in the Koran! A view of the world against the actual teaching of the Koran that Christians and Jews are not Infidels! We will not stand for these people to define our religion in the world view! We stand with you against this terrorism!"

Since we never get the latter, only the former it seems to most of the world that there is a quiet acquiescence to and approval of the attacks. They want to be taken as peaceful people and treated fairly, but do not want to vigorously denounce the attacks from the terrorists and hope to be found agreeable to both camps, those who perpetuate the terroism are those who stand quietly by and allow it to be accepted in the streets of Muslim countries.

In other words it seems to me that they want their pie, and to eat it too.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
No. Now. Can YOU show me where I can find the voice of moderate islam?

My Muslim freinds have many times decried the actions of the radicals, maybe you should try coming to Arkansas?
 
deaddude said:
My Muslim freinds have many times decried the actions of the radicals, maybe you should try coming to Arkansas?

Find me one article. One column from someone in Islamic leadership. Someone willing to go on public record. What you have offered is mere hearsay.
 
Mariner said:


Did you read this? They say that fighting terrorism may cause the death of innocents in Afghanistan. This may be true, but not fighting terrorism would cause the death of innocents elsewhere in perpetuity.

They also expressed concern "that confronting terrorism could lead to casualties among innocent civilians in Afghanistan and asserted the importance of assuring the territorial integrity of Afghanistan and its Islamic character,"

They call for no military action, but discussion of terrorism at the UN?!

Condemning terrorism in words but not action is not what we have been talking about. This just underlines my previous post that the condemnation from Muslims is lukewarm at best, this one is simply tepid.
 
When are some people going to understand terrorists know no other way but to kill............Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?????????????? :huh:
 
"terrorism" isn't a nation. It's the extreme end of a giant and generally peaceful worldview called Islam which is more like Christianity than different from it. Of course it's not hard to grasp that someone who is already a terrorist has chosen to kill due to his/her beliefs. But take a moment to imagine the opposite side of the coin: if you were a moderate Muslim, pictures of Abu Ghraib and the American soldier shooting the unarmed, wounded Muslim fighter are all over your news. You're painfully aware that as many as 100,000 Muslims have been killed during the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Johns Hopkins researchers' estimates). If anyone invaded the U.S. to improve our gov't at the cost of 100,000 dead Americans, would we embrace them? Or would some of us embrace terrorism against such an arrogant invader?

I'm not saying I hold that position myself, but I think it's worth it for people to take a moment to imagine what it would feel like to be on the other side.

As a thought experiment, I have no trouble imagining that if the Ottoman Empire had conquered Europe, and established a vast wealthy state in, say, Malaysia which had fickle, self-interested policies towards the poor, puny Christian countries in the Americas, a few disgruntled Americans might go blow up a couple of the Malaysians' tallest buildings.

Once more, I don't condone such terrorism, but I don't think it's so hard to see where it originates--and then realize the the correct responses might not be the obvious "kill them all" that I keep hearing on this board.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
"terrorism" isn't a nation. It's the extreme end of a giant and generally peaceful worldview called Islam which is more like Christianity than different from it. Of course it's not hard to grasp that someone who is already a terrorist has chosen to kill due to his/her beliefs. But take a moment to imagine the opposite side of the coin: if you were a moderate Muslim, pictures of Abu Ghraib and the American soldier shooting the unarmed, wounded Muslim fighter are all over your news. You're painfully aware that as many as 100,000 Muslims have been killed during the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Johns Hopkins researchers' estimates). If anyone invaded the U.S. to improve our gov't at the cost of 100,000 dead Americans, would we embrace them? Or would some of us embrace terrorism against such an arrogant invader?

I'm not saying I hold that position myself, but I think it's worth it for people to take a moment to imagine what it would feel like to be on the other side.

As a thought experiment, I have no trouble imagining that if the Ottoman Empire had conquered Europe, and established a vast wealthy state in, say, Malaysia which had fickle, self-interested policies towards the poor, puny Christian countries in the Americas, a few disgruntled Americans might go blow up a couple of the Malaysians' tallest buildings.

Once more, I don't condone such terrorism, but I don't think it's so hard to see where it originates--and then realize the the correct responses might not be the obvious "kill them all" that I keep hearing on this board.

Mariner.

No one is advocating the killing of innocent muslims or anyone else, and why do we need to understand them or the terrorists? especially the terrorists. Sure from their point of view given the propaganda they are fed constantly it is consistent with what they believe America to be, I suppose we can try and educate them differently, I don't see the point, better to have them live in a free, economically prosperous militant free society, then they have an actual stake in their countries and their governements and may come to appreciate what we have here in America than to despise it. Regarding the terrorists yes kill them all or capture them, question them, then kill them. I don't think it's that difficult??
Regarding that 100,000 figure, Id like to see a link if you can provide one, as Id like to see the actual breakdown in how they arrived at that number?.
 
was considered a conservative estimate, and was based on some sort of advanced study design in which they interviewed actual families about missing relatives, verified their claims, and then extrapolated. Supposedly, it's as accurate a number as can be obtained under current conditions, given the fact that our own government refuses to count Iraqi civilian dead.

(This fact, by the way, really bothers me--we would look a lot more humane if our front pages listed not only the number of American troops killed every day, and their names and stories, but also the numbers, names and stories of the innocent civilians whom we are killing. By paying attention to one while ignoring the other, it makes us look like we feel American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives.)

As for "it's not that difficult" to catch the terrorists--well, it really IS that difficult, or we would have identified and caught them long ago. As it is, Bush officials are saying we're almost guaranteed more attacks--and there's no reason they'll ever stop if we set ourselves up like Israel vis a vis the Islamic world, which is how Bush seems to be positioning us.

And why should we appeal to or worry about Muslim opinion in general?--because terrorists are made, not born. They are made when they get angry enough to lose perspective and become willing to kill. So rather than trying to hunt down the needle-in-a-haystack Muslim who just got angry enough yesterday to become a terrorist but hasn't yet told anyone, why not pay attention to what they all might have to be angry about in the first place, or at least be careful not to add to the anger. In addition, moderate Muslims are the ones who can report the extremists to us--another reason to reach out to them rather than alienating them, in my opinion.

Mariner.
 
Screw Arab opinion. Frankly I don't give a flying f*** what got them all pissed off. The second they knock down those towers and kill thousands of people, they become nothing but future red splatters on pavement; as do all who support them.
 
Mariner said:
was considered a conservative estimate, and was based on some sort of advanced study design in which they interviewed actual families about missing relatives, verified their claims, and then extrapolated. Supposedly, it's as accurate a number as can be obtained under current conditions, given the fact that our own government refuses to count Iraqi civilian dead.

(This fact, by the way, really bothers me--we would look a lot more humane if our front pages listed not only the number of American troops killed every day, and their names and stories, but also the numbers, names and stories of the innocent civilians whom we are killing. By paying attention to one while ignoring the other, it makes us look like we feel American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives.)

As for "it's not that difficult" to catch the terrorists--well, it really IS that difficult, or we would have identified and caught them long ago. As it is, Bush officials are saying we're almost guaranteed more attacks--and there's no reason they'll ever stop if we set ourselves up like Israel vis a vis the Islamic world, which is how Bush seems to be positioning us.

And why should we appeal to or worry about Muslim opinion in general?--because terrorists are made, not born. They are made when they get angry enough to lose perspective and become willing to kill. So rather than trying to hunt down the needle-in-a-haystack Muslim who just got angry enough yesterday to become a terrorist but hasn't yet told anyone, why not pay attention to what they all might have to be angry about in the first place, or at least be careful not to add to the anger. In addition, moderate Muslims are the ones who can report the extremists to us--another reason to reach out to them rather than alienating them, in my opinion.

Mariner.

God mariner, what a brainless appeaser you turned out to be. Heaven help us from those who think like you. It's ok. Your party's done in this nation.
 
stopped using arguments and started calling names.

Why not instead try to convince me how turning off Muslim opinion actually enhances our safety? I think many Americans make the same mistake you do here--looking at all brown people as "them." For example, there have been reports from Iraq that the majority of the insurgents themselves are disgusted by the beheading and kidnapping tactics being used by a few of them. Yet your response here would simply be "blow them all away." And here we are in Iraq, a country we could never have invaded had Bush actually shared with all of us his supposed "hard evidence" of WMD there: aluminum tubes that were known to be useless for centrifuges. We invade and find out that the U.N. tactic had worked just fine--there was no imminent risk. But by invading a sovereign nation and killing perhpas 100,000 of its people, we have now created a negative focus on ourselves in the Islamic world--a focus which, to me, increases the risk of terrorist attacks rather than decreasing it. The bulk or our armed forces are tied up fighting a war in a place where the guy didn't even have a weapon he could get us with. And it's all cost rather a few of our tax dollars. I'm surprised so many taxophobes here can support it nation-building of this type.

That's my argument. If you have an opposing argument why not post it, rather than calling names?

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
That's my argument. If you have an opposing argument why not post it, rather than calling names?

:piss2: Mariner.

You call that collection of twisted tripe an argument?

Please. Your views are so far removed from reality that only psychiatric analysis would serve any purpose.

Your illogical, obtuse and specious arguments do not merit a reply simply because of their source - that being that you pulled them out of your ass.
 
take your word for it that your views are so much more advanced and sensible than mine, Merlin, since you won't deign to respond to any of my actual arguments but continue to insult instead. I challenge you to explain exactly how the kind of generalized anger towards Muslims that started this thread, or the attitude that Muslim opinion is not important to our safety, makes any sense at all. It's this attitude that people in the rest of the world perceive as arrogant and self-centered--all this chest-thumping.

As for my comment about the aluminum tubes, it's all in the record that Bush kept this information secret from the public, and that had they known, many weapons experts would immediately have seen that the tubes were not usable for WMD, which would have undermined Bush's case for war. Reference: massive October investigative article in the New York Times, which Bush did not deny.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
As for my comment about the aluminum tubes, it's all in the record that Bush kept this information secret from the public, and that had they known, many weapons experts would immediately have seen that the tubes were not usable for WMD, which would have undermined Bush's case for war. Reference: massive October investigative article in the New York Times, which Bush did not deny.

Mariner.

Nor did he acknowledge it. The only record of this is in opinion columns because that is what it is, opinion. Read the articles, they even say it directly in them, "It is the opinion of.... or It is my opinion..." Your assumption seems to be that those with matching opinions to yours are spreading fact, even when they say it was their opinion, and those with opposing opinions are lying, even when they openly say it was an opinion.
 
Mariner said:
I challenge you to explain exactly how the kind of generalized anger towards Muslims that started this thread, or the attitude that Muslim opinion is not important to our safety, makes any sense at all.

Mariner.


Well when your dumb uniformed ass starts to do some damn research on muslim websites THEN you will understand how they all want to jihad our ass!


http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/




http://www.palvoice.com/

Site of designated terrorist organization al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Backup site for fateh.org


http://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/index.php

This is an interesting web site of Shuhada al-Aqsa and the opposition inside Fatah, managed in Gaza. They have interesting material there.



http://www.kataebaqsa1.com/

Official site of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade


http://www.iu-shabeba.org/index/

Official site and forum of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Youth Organization at the Islamic University in Gaza
.


And I have many many more where THOSE came from. But OOOoooooooooo....I forgot. You wont bother to do your homework since as a Nazi collaborator you are rootin for the Muslims to take over the world!
 
some Muslims want us all dead does not mean ALL Muslims do. If all Muslims did, we'd be fighting a world war right now.

Mariner

P.S. No1ToVote4--As for the aluminum tubes, it's not opinion. It's on record that these were the primary "hard evidence" for Iraq's possession of nuclear warheads that Bush refused to share with us before the war. Bush has not denied that, because he can't--there wasn't any other hard evidence (except for the uranium question, which the CIA also informed the administration, before Powell or Rice made their cases to the public, was false). The NYT piece I referred to was investigative not opinion. It was based on CIA and Energy Dept. officials' statements and documents that the Times was able to obtain. It was about 4 full, top to bottom pages of details that are quite damning to the Bush case that they really, really thought Iraq could hit us with an ICBM. Did you have the chance to read it? But this isn't the subject of this thread, so I'd be happy to drop it here.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top