Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on February 16, 2009, 08:46:28 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7887540.stm
My least favorite politician Geert Wilders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7314636.stm) has been banned from visiting the UK, where he was planning to show his anti-quran movie 'Fitna (http://wikileaks.org/leak/fitna-flash-video/index.html)', because his visit 'would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the uk'.
As you may have noticed, Geert Wilders is one of those (xenophobic) anti-Islam types (He is specifcly not targeting the Muslims, he is targeting the Islam only. For a reason, since if he would do the former he could get prosecuted for racism). He believes that the only way to secure the Freedom of Speech is to ban the Islam and the Quran (so the only way to get freedom of speech is to... undo it.)
-
Man that guy is ugly.
-
This made me ashamed to be British. The reason for turning this man away was concerns about public safety. Read: they were worried about Islamic fundamentalist lead riots. So they sent him home. Wilders is certainly extreme himelf in his views but by turning him away the government have simply chosen a preferred form of extremism (Islamic fundamentalism) and struck a blow against freedom of speech in the process. Double trouble. It also seems to me that as extreme as this man's views are it might have been a catalyst for some more moderate and considered debate on Islam and it's links with violence. Unfortunately someone's religious views are politically incorrect to question and so this debate continues to not happen, and will probably continue to not happen until it is forced upon us by events. I would like to confess now my belief in the Celestial Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot). Teapotism will eventually rule the world and all infidels will burn by my hand or that of the fiery tea spew of the Teapot. If you disagree you can get on a plane because here in the UK religious extremism trumps all. This man also has entertaining hair that I would have liked to have seen more of on the news.
-
The reason for turning this man away was concerns about public safety. Read: they were worried about Islamic fundamentalist lead riots.
Honestly, that is really pathetic. Have we been so blinded by political correctness that we can't see those assholes for what they really are?
-
ONOES SATANIST RELIGION ISLAM IS GAINING GROUND IN UK WE MUST BOMB
-
Not as if it were a public viewing of his film too.
-
The film has not really been publicly viewed, as it was only avaible on the internet (no dutch company wanted to broadcast the movie)
For those of you intrested:
http://wikileaks.org/leak/fitna-flash-video/index.html
-
Those are old news, anyway.
Why don't them let that guy visit the UK? If his opinions are so bad then they shouldn't pose a threat and no one should care about him. The whole banning affair looks like an attempt to prevent this guy from spreading weird "philosophies", even if the British are (supposed to be) smart enough to ignore him... :nervous:
-
Those are old news, anyway.
Why don't them let that guy visit the UK? If his opinions are so bad then they shouldn't pose a threat and no one should care about him. The whole banning affair looks like an attempt to prevent this guy from spreading weird "philosophies", even if the British are (supposed to be) smart enough to ignore him... :nervous:
This whole episode (combined with no dutch company wanting to touch his film) actually goes pretty far towards proving his point. It seems impossible to have an honest an open public discussion about Islam, especially its dark side because of harassment and death threats by, you guessed it, islamists.
We shouldn't forget that Islam in general (with some exceptions of course) is 6+ CENTURIES behind us, and clearly there is a significant number in Europe who want to drag it back to their 15th century utopia.
-
ONOES SATANIST RELIGION ISLAM IS GAINING GROUND IN UK WE MUST BOMB
You are on the way to destruction.
-
I can kinda see the reasoning behind him being barred from the country. If someone came to Aus as an anti-Sri Lankan SOB who wanted to screen a movie about all our bad points, I would gladly break a few Federal Laws in exchange for a few of his bones. So would many other Sri Lankans here. Allowing him in the country, while a wart on the face of Freedom of Speech, is probably neccessary for public safety.
-
We shouldn't forget that Islam in general (with some exceptions of course) is 6+ CENTURIES behind us, and clearly there is a significant number in Europe who want to drag it back to their 15th century utopia.
:\ I don't see the relevance. Who is "us"? Christians? Because Christianity came a while after Judaism... And for a while there, the Arabs were waayy ahead of the West...
-
We shouldn't forget that Islam in general (with some exceptions of course) is 6+ CENTURIES behind us, and clearly there is a significant number in Europe who want to drag it back to their 15th century utopia.
:\ I don't see the relevance. Who is "us"? Christians? Because Christianity came a while after Judaism... And for a while there, the Arabs were waayy ahead of the West...
Well their society is behind ours. Trying to bring democracy over their just doesn't work, they don't need/want it. That's how things have been going and no-one there seemed to have a problem. Until we (tried to) introduce it over there.
-
We shouldn't forget that Islam in general (with some exceptions of course) is 6+ CENTURIES behind us, and clearly there is a significant number in Europe who want to drag it back to their 15th century utopia.
:\ I don't see the relevance. Who is "us"? Christians? Because Christianity came a while after Judaism... And for a while there, the Arabs were waayy ahead of the West...
Well their society is behind ours. Trying to bring democracy over their just doesn't work, they don't need/want it. That's how things have been going and no-one there seemed to have a problem.
Not wanting our easily-corrupted, barely-functioning system makes their society behind?
-
We shouldn't forget that Islam in general (with some exceptions of course) is 6+ CENTURIES behind us, and clearly there is a significant number in Europe who want to drag it back to their 15th century utopia.
:\ I don't see the relevance. Who is "us"? Christians? Because Christianity came a while after Judaism... And for a while there, the Arabs were waayy ahead of the West...
Indeed, and so was China. The problem in China was that the conservatives took over, so when Great Britian attacked China in the 19th century with warships with rapid-fire cannons, the chinese came with their impressive rapid-fire... crossbows (That's how they lost Hong Kong, for example). In the case of the 'islamitic empire' (It had a name, but I forgot) the same conservatism and a nice civil war put them waaay back, and as they had lived in peace for centuries, they did not develop very much before that happened (since they essentially didn't need to).
In turn, because we europeans kept killing each other, we kept researching new technologies to show off to others or to kill each other outright. That gave us the advantage that we have now.
Many oil countries have the potential to become just as powerfull as the west, which some of them have realized and are now utilizing all the money they have to gain a nice foothold. See also the take-over of American Micro Devices.
---
The arabian world is 'behind' on us because they did not have things like the beetles, the hippie movement, and the rise of feminism... Because the people in charge want to stay in charge, and keep a lid on those things.
I don't see 'new' things like democracy and such crop up in 'muslim' countries very soon. In our countries, revolts where needed. To start a revolt, the people need to be unhappy about something. Usually, that is because they are starving. Since giving to the poor is something islam conservatives actually do (as opposed to the christian conservatists before all those revolts and stuff), I don't see revolts happening soon, since life is pretty good.
-
Homogenous culture. Well, except for the Sunni-Shi'ite thing. :P
-
I don't think democracy and an Islam based faith, or moderate shia law for that matter, are necessarily mutually exclusive.
I read recently they reckon the hard line goverment of Iran probably won't last more than 20/30 years as the revolution was is getting on for 30 years ago. Ofcourse, that's what they said back then and they're still at it now.
-
I don't see 'new' things like democracy and such crop up in 'muslim' countries very soon. In our countries, revolts where needed. To start a revolt, the people need to be unhappy about something. Usually, that is because they are starving. Since giving to the poor is something islam conservatives actually do (as opposed to the christian conservatists before all those revolts and stuff), I don't see revolts happening soon, since life is pretty good.
You missed an important point. Grassroots revolutions like the ones that brought democracy into the Western tradition (take the French Revolution as the penultimate example) occurred because ordinary people, spurred by ideals, targeted the corrupt nobility as the source of their poor quality of life.
In radical Islamic countries, political and religious leaders use Western nations as a scapegoat to divert attentions. Thus, we end up with extremist violence which is targeted at the West as the source of their misery, rather than the political/religious leadership of these nations.
Iran is an exception to this - the Iranian populace knows full well how bad their government is and is presently unequipped to force a change in government. But it's coming. However, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon all fit the pattern I've outlined.
-
I can kinda see the reasoning behind him being barred from the country. If someone came to Aus as an anti-Sri Lankan SOB who wanted to screen a movie about all our bad points, I would gladly break a few Federal Laws in exchange for a few of his bones. So would many other Sri Lankans here. Allowing him in the country, while a wart on the face of Freedom of Speech, is probably neccessary for public safety.
And that makes you as bad as him, if not worse. Because while he's simply exercising his right to free speech, you're resorting to violence.
Honestly, we need to get over the whole "oh gawds people might be offended" bull****. This guy may have had a point, he may have been an idiot, but our government had no right to ban him just because he might offend people. That's the price of democracy.
-
The arabian world is 'behind' on us because they did not have things like the beetles, the hippie movement, and the rise of feminism... Because the people in charge want to stay in charge, and keep a lid on those things.
They are behind us because their society hasn't changed at all in many centuries, and the price is to be forever backward. (http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml) The fact is they live in a dark age, in many ways similar to our own dark age 600+ years ago, only much longer lasting. Their problems are much more deeply rooted than not having the Beetles. While this isn't politically correct, the truth is they don't belong in this century. It would be one thing if they tried to modernize themselves, but they don't, and in several cases wish to pull the developed and, to a lesser degree, the developing world back to their level. You can never reason with fanatics.
Let's look at what is happening to science in Pakistan because of the islamic fundies:
`Islamic Science' in Pakistan
If all these steps taken down the Hindutva road present but a preview, where does the road of full-blown fundamentalism take science and technology? To answer the question a brief look at mathematics and physics in Pakistan is sufficient. In an essay on ``Ideological Problems of Science in Pakistan,'' the Pakistani physicist Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy (see Khan, 1985) presents a graphic picture of the collapse of attempts made in the 1960s and 1970s to build science in Pakistan. By the 1980s the Department of Physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, which a decade or two earlier was an active centre of research in theoretical physics, had lost its founder and a number of other scientists, who were dismissed or resigned. Mathematics, according to the author, has ceased to exist as a research discipline in Pakistan and a prize committee for young mathematicians was unable to find a single applicant with a record of original publications. An admissions test for entrance to graduate studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (U.S.A) was not cleared by a single student, most students falling significantly below the minimum required. In contrast, a decade ago several students would have made the grade. Chemistry and biology are perhaps somewhat better placed, but research is confined to one or two centres.
Serious scientists work heroically under overwhelming odds in such circumstances; good or outstanding scientific work done is despite the milieu. ``Islamic Science,'' whose proponents claim that the Koran contains all possible science, makes constant inroads into positions of power in educational and Research and Development institutions, and obscurantism has been elevated to a position of dignity. The author cites a number of examples of the non-science that is produced as a result. A senior scientist of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, committed to `Islamic science,' argues that Koranic evidence supports the existence of jinns as fiery beings possessing unlimited energy, and that this energy can be used as fuel. Another author proposes that atomic charges are carved out of ``spiritual forces'' and ``not simply the blind electromagnetic forces that the materialists would make us believe.''
Prof. Hoodbhoy concludes: ``Indeed, the reaction against science as an instrument of reason, whether applied to social matters or even natural phenomena, appears to intensify with increasing technological dependence on the West ...However, one clear consequence has been the tremendous elevation in importance of the transnational corporation, the most important purveyor of modern technology. The import of technology makes possible the simultaneous coexistence of mediaevalism with the space age.'' The relevance of these words for India is too close for comfort.
Source (http://www.imsc.res.in/~jayaram/Articles/lfrontline/node8.html)
-
Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE (and quite often the one who conducted the "speech" is nowhere close to be seen). It appears like "freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself. Because no-one lives, eats or breathes free speech. "Free speech" as itself is just a cause, separated from the effect its nothing of a value.
-
Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE (and quite often the one who conducted the "speech" is nowhere close to be seen). It appears like "freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself. Because no-one lives, eats or breathes free speech. "Free speech" as itself is just a cause, separated from the effect its nothing of a value.
QFT
Good post :yes:
Recommend you sig it.
-
Do you people read history books or do you just skim the summary on the back page?
-
Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE (and quite often the one who conducted the "speech" is nowhere close to be seen). It appears like "freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself. Because no-one lives, eats or breathes free speech. "Free speech" as itself is just a cause, separated from the effect its nothing of a value.
I am stunned by the inadequacy of your reasoning. The second sentence alone demonstrates two misapprehensions regarding the nature of reality. The third and fourth are breathtakingly inane and demonstrate a criminal lack of understanding of both history and how society functions. The fifth is complete non sequitor. The sixth is both a patently ridiculous straw man that can be turned upon you or any other subject with such ridiculous ease I'm not even going to bother, and undermining your posistion that it is dangerous from the second sentence. Creating a fallacy that doubly damages your argument is an impressive feat.
And your first sentence is not even a sentence, and also a demonstration you don't know how to create an ellipses.
-
Now I read that post again, I disagree with
"freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself
Freedom of speech has contributed to many great things, however this also stands out
Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE
Carelessly used I agree with, but as an ideal? I don't think so.
-
Look at it this way, if he came over and said 'Islam is a blood-thirsty, hate-filled religion', 94% of people would just ignore him and think he was a twat, 3% would agree, and 3% would call for his death. The tragic part is that the Tabloids would pay more attention to what the 3%ers said, claiming it 'proved the case', rather than paying any attention to the other 94%.
From my perspective, the danger isn't really what he thinks, it's how it would be reported.
-
Look at it this way, if he came over and said 'Islam is a blood-thirsty, hate-filled religion', 94% of people would just ignore him and think he was a twat, 3% would agree, and 3% would call for his death.
I challenge you to raise that poll here on HLP and back up those numbers.
-
This board isn't the UK, and it's an approximation, not a statement of exact fact.
-
Well I for one would like to see what the average HLP user's opinion is on this. Somebody set us up the vote.
-
The sixth is both a patently ridiculous straw man that can be turned upon you or any other subject with such ridiculous ease I'm not even going to bother, and undermining your posistion that it is dangerous from the second sentence.
Ok, let me put it in another words, maybe you'll get the point:
By all means, feel free to speak, but if due to this freedom someones neck is to be cut, let it be your own. Thanks.
-
hey guys I found this (on wikipedia so it must be correct :p)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
in summary, it is a criminal offense to express racial hate. But it goes on to say that "In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behavior, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting"
So, was the UK gov right to sent this guy back or not? I haven`t seen his film so I cannot tell. If it incites people against Islam then yes, If he just states his opinion then I guess no.
I can see a bright future where you will be prosecuted for any kind of hate.
"You will be imprisoned because you told Mr Smith that you "hate his green garden chairs". According to Article 208349 Par 34322 line 343 you are in violation of the freedom of expression of Mr Smith and your comments fall under the "Hate speech" discrimination act which is a criminal offense. Your comments have the potential to incite other neighbors to dislike Mr Smiths green garden chairs with catastrophic results to the community spirit of the town."
yeap. lovely...
-
So, was the UK gov right to sent this guy back or not? I haven`t seen his film so I cannot tell. If it incites people against Islam then yes, If he just states his opinion then I guess no.
Ironic given that the people he was targeting are guilty of hate speech themselves. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs)
-
Look at it this way, if he came over and said 'Islam is a blood-thirsty, hate-filled religion', 94% of people would just ignore him and think he was a twat, 3% would agree, and 3% would call for his death. The tragic part is that the Tabloids would pay more attention to what the 3%ers said, claiming it 'proved the case', rather than paying any attention to the other 94%.
From my perspective, the danger isn't really what he thinks, it's how it would be reported.
heh, if anything it seems that you'd be sorely wrong on those numbers.
The percentage of people in Europe that agree that islam is a threat to our way of lafe and values is pretty high, and raising.
as for being anti-islam? what's wrong with it anyways? It's no different than being anti-christianity or anti-communist or so. It's certainly not racism (unlike the anti-sri-lankan example given) as there are muslims (christians, communits, etc) of many different races.
Muslims (and other religionists) will just have to learn to accept that their believes will be mocked/critised/persiflages/etc by others. Being able to criticise and mock religion is one of the historical and essential fundaments that make up the right of free speech. Enough people were killed or imprisoned to give us that right, and we'd be damned if let some intolerant twats take it away.
In other words: it's not because muslims venerate (spilling over into worship almost) muhammed that others should, or that he's even worthy of respect.
-
hey guys I found this (on wikipedia so it must be correct :p)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
in summary, it is a criminal offense to express racial hate. But it goes on to say that "In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behavior, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting"
So, was the UK gov right to sent this guy back or not? I haven`t seen his film so I cannot tell. If it incites people against Islam then yes, If he just states his opinion then I guess no.
His fitna-film is basically a sequence of facts: terror-attacks or hate-speeches made by muslim clerics backed up by suras from the Quran (overlaid on the image), this to show that the actions takes and the speeches given are backed up by the 'holy' book.
And given the reality of todays world: islam incites others against it just fine on its own. Personally I don't like to be called a (decendent of) dog or monkey.
-
Well the monkey one is nearly correct, like it or not. :p
I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too. I get very suspicious when someone calls for the banning of the Koran because it is violent and yet says nothing at all about the Bible.
-
I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too.
True but I don't think they bombed the underground or flew airplanes into buildings lately. You're right though, we shouldn't just stop at islam.
-
I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too.
True but I don't think they bombed the underground or flew airplanes into buildings lately. You're right though, we shouldn't just stop at islam.
Christians in the US don't mind bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors to, uh, save lives.
Or beating teenage boys to death on the *suspicion* that they are gay...
Et cetera. :\
-
I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too.
True but I don't think they bombed the underground or flew airplanes into buildings lately. You're right though, we shouldn't just stop at islam.
Christians in the US don't mind bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors to, uh, save lives.
Or beating teenage boys to death on the *suspicion* that they are gay...
Et cetera. :\
Every side has its warts, the media goes with what works so Islam is on the receiving end of most of this regardless.
-
people say the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but what they actually mean is my grass is greener than yours so burn in hell :hopping:
especially since some western ppl think that their way of life is the true way of living, democracy is the best, freedom of speech, expression, etc etc
but who actually knows what is best? do you measure people's happiness? financial power? corruption? level of education?
Saddam's regime made many people unhappy in later years but at the same time he improved the general quality of life of his country, built schools, established free education etc etc. Look at the state of Iraq now.
It is very easy to speak about others and their deficiencies because it is so difficult to look at one's self. That is why we have freespace, we can blame it all on shivans and the GTI, and if you are GTI you blame the vesudans :lol:
-
It's also worth pointing out that the reason that Islam has turned on the West is due to years of meddling in the Middle East by the West. Often helping to depose democratically elected governments. The result has usually been that the Western puppet gets kicked out 4-5 years later and everyone in that country hates the West for forcing them to have to go through a revolution.
I very much doubt the West would be any better in the same place. The Oklahoma City bombing should be very good proof of what happens when you let nutcases get the feeling that someone is repressing them.
-
Look at it this way, if he came over and said 'Islam is a blood-thirsty, hate-filled religion', 94% of people would just ignore him and think he was a twat, 3% would agree, and 3% would call for his death. The tragic part is that the Tabloids would pay more attention to what the 3%ers said, claiming it 'proved the case', rather than paying any attention to the other 94%.
From my perspective, the danger isn't really what he thinks, it's how it would be reported.
heh, if anything it seems that you'd be sorely wrong on those numbers.
The percentage of people in Europe that agree that islam is a threat to our way of lafe and values is pretty high, and raising.
as for being anti-islam? what's wrong with it anyways? It's no different than being anti-christianity or anti-communist or so. It's certainly not racism (unlike the anti-sri-lankan example given) as there are muslims (christians, communits, etc) of many different races.
Muslims (and other religionists) will just have to learn to accept that their believes will be mocked/critised/persiflages/etc by others. Being able to criticise and mock religion is one of the historical and essential fundaments that make up the right of free speech. Enough people were killed or imprisoned to give us that right, and we'd be damned if let some intolerant twats take it away.
In other words: it's not because muslims venerate (spilling over into worship almost) muhammed that others should, or that he's even worthy of respect.
Actually, I disagree, they are probably closer than people realise, the fact of the matter is that, as long as no-one bothers anyone else, there isn't a problem, Muslims have been part of the UK for centuries, but these problems only started post 9/11 and the reason that resentment is growing is the very thing I posted:
From my perspective, the danger isn't really what he thinks, it's how it would be reported.
The biggest danger to inter-racial tensions in this country today is biased reporting by the Media. A Vast percentage of Muslims, particularly the more western ones, couldn't be less interested in converting people by the sword, any more than Jews or Christians are insistent that everybody follow their religion. It's just that the deliberate blowing up out of all proportion has two effects, one, it makes people think it is bigger than it is and, two, it makes things bigger than they are, it's a vicious circle.
The problem is, people say 'Muslim' and people immediately get an image of a bearded man or a women dressed from head to foot in robes, the truth is that you could pass a very large percentage of Muslims on the street and not even realise that they were muslims. Yes, the radicals would also like to 'convert' all of those Muslims over to radicalism, but I'm not more inclined to judge Islam by Bin Laden than I would judge Christianity by Fred Phelps.
So yes, I would say those numbers are pretty accurate, but they are changing on both sides of the divide because of deliberate manipulation of facts by the Media. There is a growing hatred of Non-Muslims in many Islamic countries bought about by the Media, and exactly the same thing is happening here.
-
A Vast percentage of Muslims, particularly the more western ones, couldn't be less interested in converting people by the sword, any more than Jews or Christians are insistent that everybody follow their religion.
Cite your sources.
-
Interesting thing to say when I'm talking about Media Bias.
'If it's not in Wikipedia, it can't be true!'
It's of those situations where if I post information that claims this everyone's going to say 'It's biased!' anyway because (a) It will obviously come from a pro-group, since anti-groups don't cite information like that, and (b) goes against all the stuff they've read (which obviously isn't biased at all).
Edit: That's why sometimes it's good to open the door and look, rather than browse, it gets easy to confuse the institution with the people.
-
Well surely there have been studies done about this kind of thing by social scientists. What you're doing instead is throwing out vague descriptions, and then dodging the issue when someone asks for sources, more specifically how much is a "vast majority"?
-
It's also worth pointing out that the reason that Islam has turned on the West is due to years of meddling in the Middle East by the West. Often helping to depose democratically elected governments. The result has usually been that the Western puppet gets kicked out 4-5 years later and everyone in that country hates the West for forcing them to have to go through a revolution.
far to easy a copout by blaming the west.
Remember that they don't like hindus or non-muslim africans either, neither of which are as meddling in the region as the west supposedly is.
Also remember that whatever happens in the Mid-east, or to muslim nations in general, it's alsways -somehow- the americans or the jews that's behind it.
-
I'm not blaming the West for violence. I'm blaming the West for violence against the West. Had they kept their nose out of it no one would have bothered them.
-
Well surely there have been studies done about this kind of thing by social scientists. What you're doing instead is throwing out vague descriptions, and then dodging the issue when someone asks for sources, more specifically how much is a "vast majority"?
Nope what I'm saying is that nobody has ever done a report on that specific question of 'If someone started preaching anti-Islamic dogma, would you agree with them'. however, both sides have stressed time and time again that the problem people are a minority, and, being a UK resident in a Multi-Ethnic area, I can tell you from personal experience that if that wasn't the case, there would be blood on the streets every day.
No, I haven't done 'official research' on the matter, I've simply gone out and talked to my neighbours, who I trust far more than statistics, and they always, quite rightly, point out, there are parts of the Testaments that we ignore because they were written for people living thousands of years ago, same with the Quoran, this whole thing that every Muslim follows every single word to the letter is, at least from those who I've spoken to's point of view, 'Silly'. They love their God, they respect Him, but Muslims, like everyone else, are still human beings, and believe it or not, it's harder to turn an educated person into a mindless killing machine than most Newspapers would have you believe, they constantly bring up the fact that the Glasgow bombers were Educated, and yet consistently fail to mention that they were ostracised not only by their profession but by their religion as well.
For every person that cries 'Something must be done about religion X! Our religion must be supreme!', there are hundreds who are of the opinion of 'I have a mortgage to pay, and a family to feed, I will respect my God, but I will also live my life, and leave other people to live theirs.'
-
I'm not blaming the West for violence. I'm blaming the West for violence against the West. Had they kept their nose out of it no one would have bothered them.
Keeping their noses out is, of course, an impossiblity considering all that goes on there. The Iranians remember us poorly because we shattered their navy and airforce a few times during the Iran-Iraq War...but we didn't have much of a choice in the matter when they were trying to kill the flow of oil from the Gulf.
It's hardly that simple.
-
And exactly who armed Saddam and suggested that he fight the war?
But actually I'm going way past that to the whole business with the Shah.
-
And exactly who armed Saddam and suggested that he fight the war?
But actually I'm going way past that to the whole business with the Shah.
There was all that plus America's support of Saudi Arabia, who has been funneling billions of petro dollars into pushing islamic fundamentalism.
No, I haven't done 'official research' on the matter, I've simply gone out and talked to my neighbours,
Annecdotel evidence has a limit.
Nope what I'm saying is that nobody has ever done a report on that specific question of 'If someone started preaching anti-Islamic dogma, would you agree with them'. however, both sides have stressed time and time again that the problem people are a minority, and, being a UK resident in a Multi-Ethnic area, I can tell you from personal experience that if that wasn't the case, there would be blood on the streets every day.
And who said that there would be? Take for example the debate about introducing Sharia law in the UK. While people may support it and even desire it, they wouldn't go around slaughtering the infidels if they don't get it. That being said they would still hold a great deal of contempt for modern society.
-
I'm not blaming the West for violence. I'm blaming the West for violence against the West. Had they kept their nose out of it no one would have bothered them.
nonsens of course, as you well know.
There's only 3 western countries (and 1 not so western one) that have had any real business in the mid-east and those are the US, France, the UK and Russia (USSR). Italy and Israel can be considered either minor or local. Yet these so-called fundamentalists (personally I'm more of the conviction that they are closer to the mainstream that the PC-brigade likes us to believe) hate all of the West, as well as so many other non-western non-muslims places, regardless of their involvement in the middle-east.
Islam attacking others is innate to islam I'd dare say. It's inevitable, and it has been ever since muhammed charged to war and divided the world into a house of war and a house of islam.
It has , in other words, nothing to do with us being the West (or Indians being Hindu, a.k.a. reviled polytheists) and everything with us not being muslim.
-
And exactly who armed Saddam and suggested that he fight the war?
Truth? Mostly France. They even loaned French Air Force pilots for antishipping strikes since Saddam's own pilots weren't entirely capable when handed an AM.39 Exocet.
But actually I'm going way past that to the whole business with the Shah.
We did back the Shah, but what happened to him was in a lot of ways his own fault, as he tried to accomplish too much too fast and he was warned of this.
-
It has , in other words, nothing to do with us being the West (or Indians being Hindu, a.k.a. reviled polytheists) and everything with us not being muslim.
So why don't they hate South America then?
-
Probably not important/rich enough.
-
Alright then, why don't they hate Russia and China?
-
Because Al-Queda is located somewhere in the Middle-East?
(Secretly, they are located in my brother's appartment, but that is not the issiue. The Issiue is that "everyone" thinks that they are there, and that "everyone" here thinks that "everyone" there agrees with them)
-
Because Al-Queda is located somewhere in the Middle-East?
Which is closer to both China and Russia than the West.
-
Oh wait, I am missing the point here (I messed up who hated who).
Stand-by.
The 'terrorists' are just using the Islam as an silly excuse to kill people, because they are jealous at the west's wealth and power and want a good part of it, probably everything. Which is not a good idea. Buying stock in AMD is. Why they don't aim at China or Russia? Russia and China don't really give the impression that they are wealthy though. We do, we like to.
Same goes for the crusades and Christianity. In the Middle-Ages, you passed on your castle to your oldest son. The younger sons, however, had no land at all, and had to conquer it. So they went and conquered the Middle-East, everything east of germania, raided the byzantine empire, and so on. They were using 'God wants us to' as an silly excuse, as everyone here knows that God does not like people doeing things like that. Still, it made them feel good about it.
-
That's almost as bad an explanation as "They hate our freedom"
-
In the Middle-Ages, you passed on your castle to your oldest son. The younger sons, however, had no land at all, and had to conquer it. So they went and conquered the Middle-East, everything east of germania, raided the byzantine empire, and so on.
:wtf:
-
Alright then, why don't they hate Russia and China?
They did hate Russia at one point, but the Soviet Union is gone and with it went a great deal of Russian influence/prestige in the world, until recently. China has had almost no influence/prestige until the past few years, not really enough time to make mortal enemies (any more than they already have). The West is a big target to vent anger at because it is still the most influencial/prestigious group of nations in the world.
-
So you're claiming that hatred of Russia had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan and was simply cause they were jealous?
I'm sorry but I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone believes that a multi millionaire like Osama Bin Laden used to be would leave his life in Saudi Arabia so he could live in a cave organising terrorist attacks against other country just because of jealousy.
They hate the West because the West keep sticking their nose (rightly or wrongly) into what they perceive as their business. If the West didn't do that they'd be happily terrorising their own countries instead.
-
So you're claiming that hatred of Russia had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan and was simply cause they were jealous?
No, but why didn't they keep pushing Russia after the Soviet Union fell apart?
I'm sorry but I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone believes that a multi millionaire like Osama Bin Laden used to be would leave his life in Saudi Arabia so he could live in a cave organising terrorist attacks against other country just because of jealousy.
On the other hand why would a kid from suburbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh) run with the Taliban? Of course there is more to it than just jealousy, but that certainly is a factor.
-
So you're claiming that hatred of Russia had nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan and was simply cause they were jealous?
No, but why didn't they keep pushing Russia after the Soviet Union fell apart?
You're expecting rational behaviour from terrorists? You won't get it. Once you hate someone you don't stop just because they stop doing what made you hate them in the first place. That said, one of the major reasons was cause of Chechnya. I wouldn't claim it was the cause so much as a justification for the hatred they already felt. Much the same as US policy on Israel/Palestine is.
On the other hand why would a kid from suburbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh) run with the Taliban? Of course there is more to it than just jealousy, but that certainly is a factor.
Okay, how is that an example of jealousy? He was jealous of his own freedom? He was jealous of how his county had too much power and decided that it shouldn't?
To me that's an example of a convert taking on the prejudices of the people who converted them. In which case the reason for the hatred stems from the reason why the person converting him had those prejudices.
-
Alright then, why don't they hate Russia and China?
They do hate China, matter of fact. The problem is that China's rather lethal and comprehensive law enforcement and their generally somewhat amateurish methods and tactics make it impossible for them to operate there. They need one of two things, an open society, or a society where their behavior would not be viewed as strange. Thus, they can operate in the Mid-East or the open West fairly well.
-
Okay, how is that an example of jealousy? He was jealous of his own freedom? He was jealous of how his county had too much power and decided that it shouldn't?
No, my point was that sometimes money isn't enough for some people.
The point I was trying to make is why hasn't there been a 9/11 in China or Russia? They aren't such big targets. Declaring jihad against communists (or former communists) doesn't have the same appeal as it used to.