violence problem? ya think?
 

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the "worshippers of the cross" in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.

"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement.

Um, maybe Benedict had a point.

The knee jerk reaction of Muslims to the Pope's statement (which the majority have still not read in context) only goes to prove that they do indeed use violence to further the cause of Islam (a nun in Africa has already been shot and killed by muslims). In fact you only have to check out the history of Islam over the centuries to see that they have used barbaric methods to convert and enforce their beliefs onto non-believers. We all know what horrors Christianity has perpetrated over two millennia to keep its stranglehold on the populace, ditto Islam now (and possibly the future).

Also, if Islam is so wonderful and the faith of its followers is so strong why the need for so many harsh laws to enforce it. One wonders just how many of Islam's followers would still be muslims if it wasn't for Islam's Dark Age laws.

We hear so much about Islamic tolerance and yet we're still waiting to see it put into practice. Perhaps it's only reserved for themselves.

Remember one thing, the central tenet of Islam is the conversion of ALL the people on Earth to Islam. Failure to convert means your death (that's usually after torture and/or mutilation).

Ain't religion wonderful.

Daily Mail: The Pope must die, says Muslim

Just to clarify,Yeah, I'm talking to you, Tin Man. Mr. "Remember one thing, the central tenet of Islam is the conversion of ALL the people on Earth to Islam." What are your credentials for speaking with such authority on this subject? Besides being a(nother) hate spewing dittohead?

For the record, according to several sources, including my own conversations with the Muslims I know personally, the central tenet of Islam is that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. **NOT** "convert or die".

When your remarks are on par with those of the subject of the article above you both deserve the same response. Shut the f*ck up.

From UT's link:

Larger Islamic groups in Britain said they accepted the Pope's apology. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The Vatican has moved quickly to deal with the hurt and we accept that.

"It was something that should never have happened - words of that nature were always likely to cause dismay - and we believe some of the Pope's advisers may have been at fault over his speech."

Yesterday's sermon by the Pope was the first time a pontiff has publicly said sorry.

Frankly, extremists on both sides say inflammatory things (I'm not counting the Pope as an extremist -just foolish). Christianity and the Muslim faith BOTH have a very bloody history that adherents of BOTH religions should feel ashamed of. Alas, we never seem to learn. Sometimes I get very fed up with the human race - self included.

We should all just go solar and leave Jesus and Mohamed out of our little human power plays. :(

From Wiki

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said, "Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."

A Supreme Islamic Courts Council of Somalia cleric has called for the Pope's assassination, urging Muslims to "hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements."[44], another demanded that "whosoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim"

Just to clarify:
Do not be mislead by their (current) official sounding title. Just because they banded together and called themselves the "law" doesn't make it so. In our own country, in my own state even, there's a group of community leaders who have banded together raise "a call to voices seeking a peaceful and respectable resolve to the chaotic neglect by members of our local, state and federal governments charged with applying U.S. immigration law." They've declared their desire to enforce the laws that they feel are being ignored. Do they speak for all Americans? No. We would do well to apply the same sanity check to all such ad hoc groups, regardless of their press releases to the contrary.

Murder, not divine intervention. Not scoring points with the Big Guy. This is not hard to grasp, people.

I am...

From what I've read Benedict's prose is usually pretty dense and this was no exception. He could get away with writing like that when his audience was limited but he needs to keep things much clearer now that he is a major player. He needs to start letting folks look at his speeches before delivery. He's very conservative but I wouldn't call him an extremist. We are presently fighting for the hearts of moderate Muslims and we need to be very clear that condemning extremists does not mean condemning Islam. Islam does have a violence problem and our missteps are not helping.

If the Wikipedia article is acurate, I have to disagree with your comparison of these 2 groups as far as their influence and who they might speak for.

There have been many Muslim leaders in the media here denouncing this over-reaction by their fellows.

As with every other instance similar to this one, I would suggest it is pertinent not to judge a whole religion by the actions of a few.

surely every one of us knows someone who follows Islamic law? Surely most people realize that the majority of Muslim people are are peaceful and thoughtful. In fact, I would comment further by saying that I have not met one single Muslim person, man or woman, who has made me feel in any way frightened or threatened.

Surely these are the things we should all remember when we try to practice tolerance of other people's actions.

The Pope should be a bit more sensitive next time he decides to run his mouth off although it's true that the particular passage which has caused this reaction has been quoted out of context.

Diplomacy! Even Popes need it!

I have just as much power as the Pope.
I just don't have as many followers.

This Pope is a German, formerly in charge of maintaining the "purity" of doctrine for the Catholic Church. How tollerant do we REALLY expect he is going to be of what other people believe? :neutral:

Yeah, it's not when they're onsies and twosies that there's a problem. It's when they form mobs or take over governments.

It's true that all the Muslim people I know personally are indeed peaceful. But one way even peaceful Muslims contribute to this problem is when they are reluctant to criticise or distance themselves from their more violent and autocratic coreligionists; this silence is widely taken as tacit endorsement, and leads to bogus accusations of religious prejudice against those who oppose them.

BigV: Nobody said "convert or die" was as central to Islam as the Shahada. But the fact that anybody is saying "convert or die" (and don't kid yourself, far too many are; one is too many) is a supremely serious and dangerous problem.

Funny you should call that a "Tin Man", when saying "it's not the Shahada" is a fairly transparent straw man itself.

Any group is a problem if they 'take over' a government. For someone so seemingly educated Maggie, you certainly seem to have some archaic views on social/political issues.

With regard to Muslim people not speaking out against their fellows who are extremists, perhaps that is the case in your country however, there have been strong criticisms by Muslim leaders in this country and this has done much to amend relations between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens. Also, the Pope has been criticised heavily by Catholic leaders for his careless commentary.

Convert or die? How does that compare to, Confess or burn in hell?

Emphasis mine.I don't make this shit up, I only call people on it.

Is it a serious problem? Is one too many? Yes and yes. Is it dangerous inflammatory violence inciting speech **regardless** of whose mouth it spews from? Yes.

You're right again, as you often are, when you say this:
Well said. But I would extend your remarks this way. You could easily omit Muslim, or even substitute the name of any other religious tradition in its place and leave your remark unchanged, or even strengthened. And the part about inferring tacit endorsement, well that applies to everyone. Especially someone who knows Muslims personally, all of whom are peaceful, and who fails to refute such "serious and dangerous" and libelous remarks.

No "tacit endorsement" of such hate may be inferred from my actions, and I urge all those reasonable *silent* people who know otherwise to stand up and call bullshit when they see it too. Letting any of these remarks slide is forgoing and opportunity to spread peace by fighting hate.

"Tin Man" is the handle of the idiot, not the type of argument. See post #2

Convert or die(or something close to it) is a message we've seen, almost weekly, for the last few years. I'm sure a lot of westerners believe it's the basic tenet, indeed the theme, of the Muslims. We're hearing it in the Media because the Radical fringe are the only ones making news. The rest of the Muslims not speaking up, is part of the problem, whether it be from agreement with or fear of, they help the Radical fringe with their silence.

Going off in a violent binge or even just a demonstration threating everyone, because the Pope quoted an anti-Islamic ruler from history, is not acceptable behavior in a civilized society. Even if he had said outright, Islamics are violent people, which I remind you he did not, the reaction by the radical rabble is unacceptable. It makes as much sense as UG killing someone for insulting Bush.

The Pope or anyone else, should NOT have to pussyfoot around these assholes for fear of them blowing something or someone up. In free societies of the west, where people are allowed to demonstrate, making inflammatory, threatening, statements, in speechs, chants and signs, are not allowed from any other group. Why should it be tolerated from this scum?

The only thing that's accomplished, is it convinces Muslims that feel they don't get enough respect, that this is the way to go. Yeah, make them fear for their lives, then they'll respect me. :rolleyes: Blurring the line between fear and respect is a big mistake that leads to bad behavior.

Ahuh...well, there are many different ways in which different groups/religions/countries use fear to achieve their purpose. As far as fear and respect go, there are other threads on this very forum talking about why the US is getting so much bad press in other countries and in part and from my own personal perspective I would say that this is because the line between respect me and fear me has been blurred by the Bush administration.

My point is that no entity anywhere is innocent of this respect/fear bastardisation. I believe that media sensationalism is a huge factor in this problem and until people learn to pay less credence to what the media spoon feeds them and become more discerning in what they accept as fact, it's a problem we'll always have to face.

One is a prediction, the other a threat.

Muslims have a distinct and particular responsbility to disclaim the acts of other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam, especially if they complain of being discriminated against because those actions.

Were I to make claims about the "true nature of Islam", surely someone would be upbraiding me for my presumption since I do not follow Islam.
Sorry...since you were quoting UT I thought you were addressing him.

Have they not murdered a nun in Africa over this already?

Hey, who is this "they" you're talking about?

You honestly cannot figure that one out?
"Gee Bob... musta' been a buncha' Mormons"

Men! Fuckin MEN!!! Murderers!

wait.


Right handed people!!!! They should be shot!!!


wait.


Brown skinned humans!!!!! Hangin's too good for them!!!!!


Seriously. It's your "they", you fill in the picture above your label.

I'm sure this is a fun game for you... so go ahead and play.

Are you content with the categorizing happening in this thread? Do you placidly accept the de-humanizing of others? Does this oversimplification of people and events reduce the world to shapes and sizes you can more easily comprehend? Does this represent the limit of your understanding?

It's not a game. Stereotypes and prejudices are not useful tools for understanding the truth. The map is not the terrain.

We have no direct experience of the terrain; we know it only through elaborate systems of maps.

Of course, *your* maps are better than everybody else's, being free of stereotypes and prejudice :-)

Yet another reason why I find it hard to believe that Muslims and Christians keep killing one another. After all, they have an enormously similar heritage.

Just think of "Life of Brian". No greater animosity than between the Judean People's front and the People's Front of Judea.

Splitters!

I'm certain you did not misunderstand me, MaggieL. I'm not in the mood to spar with you on the quality of my analogies.

For anyone else in need of a tedious explanation of my example, I intended "stereotypes and prejudices" to be represented by "map" and "understanding the truth" to be represented by "terrain". By saying that the map is not the terrain I meant that even though we can use a map to imagine the terrain, to help us shape our ideas of something beyond our direct experience, the terrain is what it is, regardless of the map. The map may be more or less accurate, but it is an abstraction, and the terrain is the reality. Stereotypes and prejudices exist, they have a function, but they are not the reality. You can complain loudly that the map shows the road crosses the river, but if the bridge is washed out when you get there, what happens? Fold your little map into a boat and sail across?

Specifically, MaggieL, if it is indeed true that then you do have direct experience of the terrain. Additionally, you may have an elaborate system of maps. But responding to the map while ignoring the terrain is not wise.

Well, duh! :eyebrow: Right. That's helpful. If you wish to share my map and join me as I travel toward the truth, I welcome you. But if you're going to yammer on about why the road isn't the same color blue as it is on the map, I'll let you out at the next light.

I don't see a vast majority of Muslims endorsing violence by silence or by distancing themselves. We have a perfect example. How was that recent terrorist ring detected in London? Muslims in large (and vague) numbers went to the police with their concerns about this small group. As this small group attempted to recruit from their mosque, those other mosque members then went to the police. Reported in such great numbers that British security was all over that plot from its very start.

Is that Muslims distancing themselves from their radical brethen? Or do a vast number of responsible Muslims just not get reported in the press - not appear on maps? I see many radical Christians as I see radical Muslims. Those Christians that worry me most are the same that also feel concealed weapons are necessary; who 'feel' their enemies are everywhere.

How are concealed weapon laws and Christianity related?
I feel the laws protecting concealed weapons should be protected... I am not a Christian, nor do I think it has anything to do with religion in any way. I just don't see how you make that jump.

tw is nothing if not agile.

Do all Christians fear? Of course not. Do we all need concealed weapons to be safer. Of course not. Did you get that far into the post? Good. "Mission Accomplished". Who has the next question.....

Whatsamatter, tw, did you flunk the Instacheck? Was it just a past felony, or was it a record of involuntary mental comittment? I know *I'm* safer with my sidearm. But you might not be...if you're not up to the responsibilty, you should stay away from it. They defiinately are not for "us all".

Those were contradictory propositions. A person who is silent is obviously not distancing themselves.

You've presented one counterexample in a span of at least five years. Have you any others? It's not happening often enough.

Experience is itself "an elaborate system of maps", too. Perception operates by trying to construct a model--a map--by interpreting sensory input. But it's still a system of maps and models, from beginning to end. Nobody has "direct experience of the terrain". When you believe you do (which is apparently a part of the map you're offering to share), you're actually only reifying one particular map.

No, thanks...I'll steer by my own lights.

Again, feeling safer has nothing to do with it. You keep making assumptions and speaking for others, does not work.
Someone asked you?

You don't find the thought of your everlasting soul burning in hell for all eternity and being told so by someone who is supposed to be a figure of authority threatening?

The Catholic religion is based on threats designed to keep people in line. There is no difference. According to Catholics, your body isn't the thing that matters anyway. It's the torture of the soul that's the killer. This is basic stuff Maggie. I expected you to catch on quicker than that!

Nonsense. 'God will hurt you later' is very, very different from 'I'm going to hurt you now.' The former only works on believers, the latter applies to everyone.

Well that depends on whether you think your body or your soul is more important.

In any case, both statements are motivated by religious beliefs and as such, demonstrate that there's not much difference between the two for the believers of either one. A Catholic is motivated to follow the laws of the Church in order to avoid going to hell. A Muslim is motivated to follow the laws of the Church in order to get into heaven.

No, because I don't beleive it. A threat has to be backed by credible capability. I beleve in jihadist capability. The Catholic God doesn't worrry me much.

And the bogus "moral equivalance" argument fails again.

Do you really find "Convert to Christianity and live by its rules or after you die you will be judged before God and condemned to eternal torment" to be the same as "Convert to Islam and live by its rules or my brother will blow himself up in your pizza shop with a Semtex vest full of nails, which will kill you, whereupon you will be judged before Allah and condemned to eternal torment".

I'm a Catholic. I'm motivated by a desire to leave this world better than when I arrived. A medieval construct of hell does not figure into it. In my experience, there is a vanishing minority for whom hell is a motivator and that is terrible but please don't assume that motivates most educated first world Catholics. It may be that in places like the Phillipines the lack of rationality in the faith is comparable to that of extremists in other religions and there your comparison might hold water.

We (American Catholics) have our nuts but they don't hold much power because of the structure of the Church. The mentality for most of the anti-rationalists is that their passion for the Church is expressed by a willingness to submit themselves to the authority of Church leaders, whose natural conservatism is a buttress against radicalism. I normally prefer decentralized power but that is not working for Islam right now and maybe doesn't always work where the dangerous rather than uplifting passions of religion are concerned. That heaven motivator you write of is probably much more powerful in a third world situation as well since the great masses of people have little tying them to this world. Unfortunately, there are some unhealthy ideas in the world as to how heaven is to be attained because of the fragmented nature of Islam. As always, I could be completely off base.

Is there a difference between "convert or die" and "kill all who are not our religion"?

Are people really suggesting that all Muslims are radical Muslims because that's who we hear about in the news?
Fun psychological term of the day:
Availability heuristic
MaggieL: why do you believe in jihadist capability?

"Do you beleve in the Bible?"
"Of course, I've actually seen one."

Do you not beleive that jihadists have violent capability? If not, perhaps you should explain why to the people of Manhattan, the Pentagon, London, Madrid, Casablanca, Mumbai, Bali, Jakarta and Israel.

I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that. But it's a tautology that all radical Muslims are Muslims, and it's unquestionable that they justify their actions by pointing to Muslim dogma.

What's your point?

Why are people afraid of terrorists? Yeah, they've done some nasty shit. But relatively speaking, they just aren't that effective unless the people that they're striking allow their fear to control them. Unfortunately, we (the US) are doing exactly that (what with the PATRIOT Act, domestic spying, rendition, and general pissing on the Constitution without public furor).
Oh, and don't change your argument. It went from jihadist capability to violent capability. Yes, they're capable of being violent, but are they effective at it? I don't think so. Not without the above mentioned culpability of the target.

Well, one of the reasons that the terrorists have been less effective than they would like is that we have that legislation, along with secret prisons and some aggressive interrogation.

We are doing the right thing, in spite of the liberal idiots who have done what they can to undermine the war on terror.

Let's face it: the terrorists want to kill us.

So far as ordinary Muslims are concerned, I find it very difficult to trust any of them. Remember those nice high school Muslim kids around Rochester NY? Seemed ordinary enough, but then they went to summer camp for terrorist training, and come back with a bunch of money. Everybody was shocked.

And let's face it: the current Muslims have done some horribly stupid stuff recently. Like not allowing polio vaccine, and causing an epidemic in Africa, for example. And teaching, in a mosque in Alexandria VA, that slavery is just fine. And lots of domestic violence. When my son goes to a Muslim house to install stereo stuff, he is not allowed to talk to the wife in many cases. It remains to be seen whether those things are the exception or the rule. In fact, the religion is a mess, as illustrated by Manji's book, and the fact that she has been threatened by death for writing it.

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/

Oh yes, and there was a cleric in Spain who wrote a book on how to beat your wife so that there would be no marks and the authorities would not arrest you. Was there any outcry from the Muslim comminity about the travesty of the book? Not that anybody heard.

With stuff like that, I repeat that I find it difficult to trust any Muslims. Maybe some of them are OK, but it is really difficult to tell which.

joelnwil, I take it you don't know any muslims personally....socially....you know, friends. :confused:

Let me torture you, to find out if you know anything more about terrorists.;)

Exactly... then it will just be "no hard feelings" I'm sure. LOL!

When you use the tactics of the enemy, you ARE the enemy. When we ceased to live by what made us a free nation and Americans, they won... we should have just given them the keys the day they snuck the Anti-Patriot Acts through.

That Us-&-Them bigot speech was disgusting.

Rkzen, did killing and bombing Nazi Germany (they were famous for killing and bombing) turn us into Nazi America? No. It didn't because we Americans are of the human-liberty and democratic-governance mindset, both then and now. That other societies lack this mindset and these expectations of their governance is the reason they come up with the crazy shit they do.

A man who wants to be moral has to understand countervailing violence, and the just-war concept of resisting/neutralizing oppression and attempts at oppression. The above extremists have set forth in so many words a program for oppression. They may be trying to sell it by making the oppression slight, but oppression has a way of growing over the years and the generations.

Far better simply to string the oppressors up as an example. You can't oppress anybody with a rope around your neck.

By "jihadist capability", I meant "jihadist capability for violence". Their capability for cookie baking is irrelevant. As for effectiveness, I refer you to the target list I mentioned earlier.

As far as I can see, "culpability of the target" translates pretty directly to "blame the victim". What nonsense.

Are you sure? Does our government punish those who are in opposition to it? (that would be pronounced Plamed) Do we hear "Ve vant to zee your paperz"? getting there. Do we have secret police who monitor various types of communication? You bet. Do we torture those suspected of wrong-doing? Apparently W is trying like hell to make that legal. Seems like we haven't been them, but the current administration is full of Nazi wanna-bes

At least in WWII, we fought the people who officially declared war on us, and we went after the REAL enemy. If we fought WWII the way we are fighting the war in Iraq, we would have bombed Tahiti in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. :eyebrow:

Nope... though had we killed those in our concentration camps we would have been, had we continued to turn the Jews away like we did from Key West we would have been, had we tortured the Nazis and treated them in defiance of the Geneva convention we would have been, had we held them indefinitely we would have been, had we declared war on our own people like now we would have been.
Dubya used 9/11, perhaps let it happen, perhaps held the door, so he could have his own little Reichstag fire and has raped the Constitution and Bill of Rights while using fear to suppress what should have been our natural reaction to having our rights stripped. Rights being stripped that need not have been because the job could be done with existing laws EXACTLY as they would be for all foreign agents. We are well on our way... we have invaded a nation that was NO threat and fully admitted it... right now we occupy that nation with no explanation by the current administration as to why. By international law the current resistance force that is killing our soldiers is perfectly within their rights and is doing EXACTLY what you and I would be doing if someone invaded and occupied our nation. But, they are not who is murdering those soldiers... not really, those keeping them there are doing it every day. While killing every soldier that dies in Afghanistan, every day, for being understaffed, under supplied and under supported because of Dubya and Co's little game of revenge and the Kissinger pipeline.
It is pretty simple. Yes, if we adopt the form and tactics of the Nazis, we ARE Nazis.

So this part of your argument, Robert, is "if, if, if, if, if."

That's a lot of ifs, none of which came to pass -- because, I think, we recognize them for the pitfalls they would be and are.

Strapping bombs onto children and detonating them in employment lines? Maybe you. Not me.

This noble "resistance force" is so brave. So patriotic. All they want is for the mean Americans to go away so they can return to the simple life of farming and rug weaving, right? Luckily, they have a good portion of the US Congress mirroring the sentiments, if not the exact words, of their imams. It's good to have friends in high places.