Islamic terrorism and the silent majority.

[simulatedworld]

Don't worry Tiny, Victor's just going through his usual Islamophobe phase. Give it a few days, and he'll start bashing Catholics in no time, or denoucing religion altogether as nothing more than a cover for child molestation fuhfuhfuh.

Don't forget declaring typology a religion, blatantly ignoring everything he's told to the contrary, and carrying on the biggest trolling campaign since Rick-rolling blew up.

 

[Mole]

I don't see why this matters when you are spreading hatred neatly through your posts. I could just as easily say America will be benevolent only when they have taken over the world. How many innocent children died in Iraq? In Afghanistan? We can keep going; Vietnam, Korea. But I suppose they deserved to die because they were part of "the silent majority" and had already indicated their assent. Essentially, they deserved to die for being "infidels" by your weak standards.

Unfortunately the Islamists have declared war on us.

And war is evil if for no other reason that one is required to take sides.

And I choose my own people.

What do you do?

 

[Tiny Army]

I will not take the side of anyone who believes mass murder is alright in any way shape or form. An entire faith did not declare war on anything. In fact I believe the only declaration of war I saw out there was the Americans against the innocent people of Iraq to serve their own greed.

The killing of innocent people will always be wrong. I despise extremism in all forms.

Is the western opinion of Islam not extreme in itself? I choose the side that does not kill. Oh whoops that side doesn't exist!

 

[Sniffles]

In fact I believe the only declaration of war I saw out there was the Americans against the innocent people of Iraq to serve their own greed.

Actually that wasnt a declaration of war formally.

Is the western opinion of Islam not extreme in itself?

Depends on what you mean by "Western opinion"; cause on many levels I could agree.

 

[Tiny Army]

The bizarre belief that Iraq was a series of mud huts filled with terrified women married to their abusive cousins. That the middle east are a load of savages in caves. Iraq was a modern nation. 50% of the work force was female and covering your heads was not required by law (as it seems to have become NOW after the occupation. What a coincidence!).

I have yet to meet an American who knew that Iraq was not an Islamic republic before the war.

 

[Sniffles]

I have yet to meet an American who knew that Iraq was not an Islamic republic before the war.

Well it's always nice to be first I guess.

Iraq was largely a secular state under Baathist ideology. In fact Iraq's native Christians enjoyed equal rights and some were able to achieve significant positions of power - most famously Saddam's vice president Tariq Aziz(who's Catholic).

 

[Stanton Moore]

Don't worry Tiny, Victor's just going through his usual Islamophobe phase. Give it a few days, and he'll start bashing Catholics in no time, or denoucing religion altogether as nothing more than a cover for child molestation fuhfuhfuh.

Your own rhetorical hyperbole aside, he would be correct to refer to the catholic church that way.

 

[Sniffles]

Your own rhetorical hyperbole aside, he would be correct to refer to the catholic church that way.

Yeah I guess if one relies on grade-school history.

 

[Tiny Army]

I reject the idea that America came in to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Why then did they install the Iraqi interim governing council (most of whom have terrorist affiliations) based on ethnicity and religion? That idea is abhorrent to a secular culture. Why then were the Jewish and Christian minority not represented? Why did they try to bring in Turkish soldiers to the northern regions to enforce peace? Did they some how miss the conflicts between Turks and Iraqis? Apparently it was important to have "muslim" soldiers in the area, nevermind that the Turks are primarily Sunni and northern Iraq is primarily Shi'a. What if (say) India occupied the US and then brought in Cuba to enforce peace. Moved Cuban soldiers into Florida. "You're all Christians. You should get along just fine! See how culturally sensitive we are?"

Why did the American government, so big on freedom of speech, shut down the newspaper Al-Hawza? Apparently they're only free to say what the Americans want them to say.

It was not a liberation. It was a conquest. The conquered have a right to fight back.

You may cite examples of Islamists killing people but what about the reverse? It was American soldiers that killed my ten year old cousin in Baquba during a raid. Tell me how this child deserved to die. Tell me why the lives of your people are worth more than those of others.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Why has everyone forgotten that Iraq was a secular government before L. Paul Bremer installed the nine rotating religious fundamentalists and gave them power? And then shut down a bunch of newspapers and started forcing women to cover their heads?

Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

1.) If you think the regime of Saddam Hussein was preferable to what is currently in place, I would reccomend you study its history and characteristics. Also, the ineptitude of the occupation phase notwithstanding, the medium and long-term consequences of the Iraqi invasion are most likely better (in the utilitarian sense) for the Iraqis than the continuation of the previous regime (which would eventually have been followed by a civil war unrestrained by outside military intervention, anyway). Frankly, American nationalism is a better reason to hate the Iraq war than humanitarian concern for its citizens.

2.) I'm not talking about terrorism, I'm talking about Islamism (which is what orthodox Islamic interpretations lead to); even amongst its supporters, terrorism is but a tool of jihad (in pursuit of Shariah law) employed by those who lack the means to wage a coventional war. The relationship between Islamism and jihad/terrorism is like the relationship between white supremacism and segregationists beliefs* and the KKK and racial lynchings in the old South; the fomer provides a defacto support network and ideological incubator for the latter. This also makes the former far more dangerous in the long-term, which is why I'm not impressed by the fact that most Islamists (i.e. orthodox Muslims) genuinely oppose terrorism and jihad.

This soapbox has nothing to do with spreading hatred, but rather is a means of defending human liberty and encouraging much-needed reform within the Muslim world-reform which cannot take place so long as Shariah law, and the core beliefs which sustain it, is in place.


*which I suppose non-Southerners would have had no business opposing, onemoretime? Moral relativism is just as intellectually lazy as ethnocentricism...in any event, Islamism leads to expansionistic jihad, which IS a threat to other civilizations.

 

[Sniffles]

Frankly, American nationalism is a better reason to hate the Iraq war than humanitarian concern for its citizens.

Well that maybe true from the American perspective; although the two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I mean one can be a staunch American patriot and still be concerned about the rest of humanity as well.

 

[Tiny Army]

What about your own "silent majority", those who opposed the invasion of Iraq? Did they assent, too?

 

[Tiny Army]

1.) If you think the regime of Saddam Hussein was preferable to what is currently in place, I would reccomend you study its history and characteristics. Also, the ineptitude of the occupation phase notwithstanding, the medium and long-term consequences of the Iraqi invasion are most likely better (in the utilitarian sense) for the Iraqis than the continuation of the previous regime (which would eventually have been followed by a civil war unrestrained by outside military intervention, anyway). Frankly, American nationalism is a better reason to hate the Iraq war than humanitarian concern for its citizens.


This soapbox has nothing to do with spreading hatred, but rather is a means of defending human liberty and encouraging much-needed reform within the Muslim world-reform which cannot take place so long as Shariah law, and the core beliefs which sustain it, is in place.

What right did the Americans have to decide whether or not the Iraqi people were happy? They were enjoying economic stability and many personal freedoms. Shari'a law was not imposed in Iraq. If civil war had occurred it would have been the choice of the Iraqi people. Apparently the freedom to run one's own country doesn't apply to Iraqis.

I will not defend Saddam's foreign policy. I think the sheer number of attacks on other nations by Iraq under Saddam's rule was unjustified and vile, but he was no better or worse a leader than George W. Bush. In fact, I see an eerie number of similarities between their regimes.

I do not think occupation has helped Iraq out in the long run. I think the re-imposition of many aspects of Shari'a law is actually a step back. The destruction of their country by outside forces is a step back. I also don't think "rebuilding Iraq" has helped out the Iraqi people in any way other than to place them under incredible debt (by putting foreign contractors in charge of the reconstruction effort) and thereby under the thumb of America. If Saddam was to be deposed, it should have been done by the Iraqi people and not by foreigners waving guns.Who gave America the right to decide that they weren't doing it right or fast enough? It's their country not yours.


Well I guess it's yours now.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Yeah I guess if one relies on grade-school history.

Well, they rightfully refrain from discussing the problem of paedophilic priests in any book written for children.
So by that statement, I assume that you deny that there is an endemic problem in the catholic church.
I will admit that it must be a Sisyphean task to try to rationalize something that is patently irrational. Perhaps your faith can stand on it’s own without this kind of useless and insulting grasping at straws.

 

[Sniffles]

Well, they rightfully refrain from discussing the problem of paedophilic priests in any book written for children.
So by that statement, I assume that you deny that there is an endemic problem in the catholic church.

Well considering that investigations showed that at best 1.8-2% of all priests ever had pedophile accusations made against them, I guess you could say that.

There's higher rates of pedophiles among public school teachers.

 

[Alwar]

There's higher rates of pedophiles among public school teachers.

This is true and it's a big problem. Read awhile back that administration tends to make a deal where the pedo resigns and simply goes to a different school so the admins can avoid legal issues. They found that many of these pedo's go from school to school with a trail of accusations and never get caught.

 

[Galusha]

It wasn't Anglicans that murdered my fellow Australians at breakfast yesterday.

Nor was it Baptists or even Catholics.

It was Islamists who spread body parts over the breakfast table.

And they have promised to keep on spreading our body parts in keeping with the teaching of the Koran.

May I use some logic here?

Your premise: The people who killed your fellows were Muslim. We will symbolize this by:
Killers --> Muslim

Your conclusion: All Muslims are killers. We will symbolize this by:
Muslim --> Killers

MY premise: Isaac Newton was a genius (genius being a characteristic of the individual).
Newton --> Genius

Conclusion: All geniuses are Isaac Newton.
Genius --> Newton

Notice the parallel reasoning of the two examples? Insanity- the lack of reason- is doing the same thing and expecting different results. If the example that I gave made no logical sense, how can yours make sense, if you're using the same system of logic?

What you're using is an emotional appeal, which is never a good argument because it's just assaulting the facts and ignoring the real issue. Come back when you've finished your survey that says all Muslims want to kill you-- or rather, stay in your safety bunker, where you belong. Here's hoping it has padded walls.

 

[Eiddy]

May I use some logic here?

Your premise: The people who killed your fellows were Muslim. We will symbolize this by:
Killers --> Muslim

Your conclusion: All Muslims are killers. We will symbolize this by:
Muslim --> Killers

MY premise: Isaac Newton was a genius (genius being a characteristic of the individual).
Newton --> Genius

Conclusion: All geniuses are Isaac Newton.
Genius --> Newton

Notice the parallel reasoning of the two examples? Insanity- the lack of reason- is doing the same thing and expecting different results. If the example that I gave made no logical sense, how can yours make sense, if you're using the same system of logic?

What you're using is an emotional appeal, which is never a good argument because it's just assaulting the facts and ignoring the real issue. Come back when you've finished your survey that says all Muslims want to kill you-- or rather, stay in your safety bunker, where you belong. Here's hoping it has padded walls.

Nice examples.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Well that maybe true from the American perspective; although the two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I mean one can be a staunch American patriot and still be concerned about the rest of humanity as well.

I think you misunderstood my point-it is my contention that American intervention in Iraq benifited the Iraqis in the medium to long-term, so opposition to the Iraq war (by American patriots) on humanitarian grounds should not be an issue, except insofar that A.) it wasted resources which could be put to more effective ends (humanitarian and otherwise) elsewhere, and B.) the occupation phase was FUBAR, largely because of terrible intelligence and even worse executive judgement. I assure you, I was not trying to say that Americans should be unconcerned with the rest of humanity.

To Tiny Army:
The war was undertaken due to a combination of Iraq violating the terms of surrender (intended to contain the threat it posed), terrible intelligence combined with deliberate misinformation by the Hussein regime (his own fucking Generals believed they still had WMD's), a failure to realistically access the cost versus benifits of an invasion without UN approval, and unrealistic "the mouse that roared" fantasies (in that sense we were the victoms of our own post-war successes in Japan and Germany). My point (regarding a topic that has nothing to do with the OP) is that the Iraq war is an example of well-intentioned American naivity, arrogance, stupidity, and yes, even percieved national interests-but not American perfidity.

Also, GWB was well-intentioned, stubborn, and incompetent, not a hilteresque embodiment of evil As for the Hussein regime, it was bitterly opposed by about three-quarters of the population, for the past decade preceeding the war it had brought about economic disaster as a result of Hussein's policies, and if Hussein had not decided to play a self-defeating game of misinformation and deceptive defiance of arms inspectors we (i.e. Americans) would have been content not to militarily intervene in Iraq. As for Shariah law, you are right that that is a short-term downgrade from the previous regime (outside of Iraqi Kurdistan), but anything better is unsustainable under current cultural conditions. Secular despotisms tend to further radicalize the population in an Islamist direction over time, while democracy within orthodox Muslim countries tends to result in the implementation of Shariah law in the short to medium term, absent sufficient protections from an imposed constitution (even those are insufficient for some populations)-its a dilemma.

 

[Edgar]

What right did the Americans have to decide whether or not the Iraqi people were happy?

Because we are stronger than them, and therefore know better.