Moderators: MiNeRvA.
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Good points, Chunk...
I don't have a problem w/the Pope saying whatever he wants. It was my opinion that he should have known that his comments would cause an uproar. I thought that it would have been more effective to including both sides atrocities (as long as you're listing them.)
A thought about comparing the Imams' techniques (words) to the Pope's... It is quite obvious that they (Imams) have a violent agenda to push forward. They are going to use slanderous words that drive the moderates to join their fight. If you want the opposite (Pope = peace - right?), then you're going to have to choose your words carefully. That's working w/human nature. This is oversimplified, but how willing would you be to help me out if I poked you in the eye? I like your post because it makes one think about the passive attitude of moderate Muslims when it comes to condemning the violence of their Islamic brothers. Westerners should stand against the violence and if Islam is as peaceful as they claim it to be, then prove it. (Burning effigies not included.) -Strych- |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Stryychniine, the Crusades are in fact completely irrelevant. They're over and have been for a very long time. Islamic "holy war" is very much part of present reality and doesn't seem to be in any danger of stopping anytime soon. It is very important to make a distinction between historical reality and present reality. Yes, the Crusades really sucked, especially for Jews and pretty much for Muslims. That was centuries ago. Muslims are engaging in the same behavior now, and have been since quite literally the inception of their faith.
The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
So what your saying is that the Muslim reaction wouldn't be expected upon making the reference to Muhammad? Especially coming from the current leader of the organization that was responsible for what Muslims see as a travesty perpetrated upon them - knowing that they don't differenciate between the past and the present. (Hence - "Muslims are engaging in the same behavior now, and have been since quite literally the inception of their faith.")
Whether YOU view the Crusades as irrelevant is irrelevant. Muslims don't see it that way and that's all that matters. When you're the leader of a powerful organization who's addressing the world (the immediate audience isn't the only audience), it is your responsiblity to choose your words carefully...otherwise you just make things worse. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
The Muslim reaction is entirely predictable - violence first, last and always. Which is no way makes it the responsibility of the Pope. In case you and the Muslim World missed it (well, I know they did, but it's deliberate) the Vatican now isn't nearly the same as it was a millenia ago. They don't launch crusades and don't call for violence against anyone. The Crusades harmed Jews more than Muslims, and yet Jews and Catholics get along very well.
Horsehockey. Absolute bunk. The Pope is in no way responsible for nor beholden to any Muslims. End of story. Let's extend your logic further. Every Friday at the Al-Azhar and Al-Aqsa mosques there are sermons that vilify and dehumanize Jews as well as sometimes Christians. Those are two very influential mosques. Yet somehow I haven't seen any Jews or Christians respond with violence or even threats of violence to these weekly occurences. This is a Muslim problem, not a Catholic one. Until Muslims begin to accept responsibility for their own actions and own problems it's not going to get any better. No more apologetica, just reality. Muslims need to start dealing with their own issues and stop blaming them on everyone else. The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
Good points Geist. @stryychniiine If the Muslims were consistent, then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be burned at the stake for calling for the destruction of Isreal. Muslims are the ultimate hypocrites, they can crticise everyone, but they cannot take criticism in return. Also, who are they to call for the religious leader of another faith to step down? Would they conceed to requests for their leaders (who OFTEN tend to be agressive in their speeach) to step down? Also, who are they to move into other people's countries and then demand for the host countries laws to work around their beliefs? You don't see Christians calling for all businesses to shut down on Sunday, nor do you see Jews calling for a closing of businesses on Friday night through Saturday. Muslims are VERY intolerant, and frankly I find them to be the scourge of the world today. |
||||
|
No - He's not responsible to Muslims...he's responsible to diplomacy. Your attitude seems to be..."It's there fault and I'm not gonna do anything until they change their ways." They DO need to change their way of thinking - NO DOUBT. But every effort needs to be made on both sides to effect change.
Good for us! Do you want to see that start happening? Would that be better?
I agree. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Plenty of honest effort has been made by Christians and Jews to reach out to Muslims. It has neither been appreciably recognized nor effective, and certainly not reciprocated. As always, the only response that comes from the Muslim world is violence, threats of violence and demands for the West to change. It's not the West's problem, it's Islam's problem. Until the West admits that, we're going to keep having more problems.
This is only a problem with Islam and Muslims that they are solely responsible ofr dealing with, no other major religion or group has any obligation to them. The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
Who said they shouldn't do their part? Does that mean we have no part in this too?
Shouldn't that read "'Extreme' Muslims...are the scourge of the world today"? The worst thing is that you're grouping moderate Muslims in w/extreme Muslims. Unfortunately, this is going to happen more and more as the moderate Muslim sits in silence. |
||||
|
I do. I live in Colorado where blue laws are in effect. Many businesses are forced to close on Sundays. Sucks when you want to shop for a car on the weekend. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Negotiations require a give and take in both directions. So far the West hase given and Islam has taken. Moderate Muslims have had every opportunity to raise their voices and their doing so is in no way dependent on the West. Do you see a double standard as reasonable?
History has taught us that it is not only possible to see rapid changes in religion, but that when there is either a desire or a necessity for change it takes place relatively rapidly. Rabbinic Judaism, Church of Englad, etc. And that's the point - they have been acting as tribal Arabs for thousands of years (Islam isn't that old) and they want to keep acting as tribal Arabs and force others to do so as well.
Are you calling me thickheaded? That's a rather childish insult to someone with a very well-informed point of view that differs from yours.
It's resolved. If you want to try and resolve it further you're welcome to speak to Muslims about all of the churches and synagogues they took over, turned into mosques and/or destroyed. Christians and Jews have moved well past that phased, but Muslims seem hell-bent on draggin the whole world into it again.
So if one of my kids hit the other one ten (or a thousand) years ago, and then the other one hits him today for "revenge," clearly there are some deeper issues to deal with. The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
|
Moderator |
Blue Laws do suck, but they're also not modern. They're remnants and in many cases are kept on the books for non-religious reasons. To my knowledge there are also not large numbers of Christians advocating for more of them. The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
You keep talking about moderates as if they make up the majority of the Muslim world. They don't. Also, how moderate is a person who is willing to look the other way when extremists are in their mist? I question the sincerity of many so called moderates. Some of these people are nothing more than extremists that put on a "kind face" in order to look more acceptable in the public eye. Look at the amount of celebration that went on across the Middle East when the WTC towers were hit. Where were the moderates calling for reason and support of the United States? You might be able to say that Jordan has a good number of moderates in its borders, I'll grant you that, but in most of the other nations I would have to say that the moderates are the minority. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Personal insults of any kind are uncalled for an inappropriate as well as a violation of forum rules. "No matter what has been said" has yet to include any form of compelling argument. More to the point, you're making an unwarranted and unjustified assumption about what I have and will consider. I'm a huge fan of diplomacy, but I also recognize situations in which it has been tried and will not work. Are you familiar with the definition of insanity that is "doing the same thing and expecting different results?" That's pretty much what that is. The West has made repeated diplomatic overtures to the Muslim world only to be told they were insufficient. If the Muslim world isn't willing to at least meet the Western world halfway, then there is very little to discuss especially when their first answer is always violence both internally and externally.
I am well informed, and do not have an axe to grind. That is your assumption. Being well-informed does tend to give one the prespective to stake out positions that make sense in reality as well as in theory.
The latter point I will agree with, but the former point seems to be what you have been doing. I recognize that there are many sides here, and there is nothing that I have written that even implies otherwise.
Actually I don't take offense at it, it's simply uncalled for and inappropriate. It's a label that you're trying to pin on someone to curtail argument because so far you haven't been able to argue convincingly to support your point of view. That's unfortunate, but has no bearing on me.
So nice of you to ask rather than make another foolish assumption. We've been trying and trying, and now it is time to try something different. Really not all that challenging a concept (see "insanity" above). The Muslim world's problems are not the problems of the rest of the world nor were they caused by the rest of the world. The West needs to stop apologizing and get on with things. A threat from Muslims to the West should be treated as any other threat and dealt with rather than being the subject of hand-wringing and people crying about how it must be the fault of the West because of something that happened a thousand years ago. The West should not and can not be held hostage by the threat of Muslim violence. It's not right in Denmark and it's not right in Israel and it certainly isn't right anywhere else. The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
Well, with every day that passes, the # of moderates are shrinking - I'm sure of that. I can't agree that most are extremist though...that's illogical. Where do you get your figures from? As far as the celebration on 9/11... Were you there? Did you talk to all Muslims on that day? Or did you see it like the rest of us... on TV...where networks only cover what will make people watch their network. As I've said before, it's not up to the West alone... The moderates DO have to step up if they truly want 'World' peace, because they won't like what happens if this attitude continues and it gets to be them against the world. At this point they think it's enough to say they're not violent. I don't see any harm in the West choosing the right words while they wake up. I think it's necessary to use words like "extremist" and keep them seperate from the moderates. Making them more angry isn't going to make things better. If we do our best to hear their side, then we can say you've tried everything if they eventually force our hand. ...and no...they haven't forced our hand yet. |
||||
|
There's no personal insults going on here unless I'm to take it that you think I'm an insane fool. You seem to like argueing. I've been trying to see your point of view since your first reply. You are a big fan diplomacy, but seem to think that you'd be losing if you admit that part of diplomacy is being politically correct. That's the only point I've been arguing about. You can't foster positivity by being hypocritcal and pointing fingers. No matter how many times we try to make nice and they throw it in our faces...we still need to lead by example if we want to show that our way is better. I wondered why the Crusades weren't mentioned by the Pope because they were a percise example that can be researched (not my opinion) of what is going on today (a holy war.) You discount them because they were in the past as if their existence - alone - doesn't prove my point...and then proclaim I have brought nothing to the discussion. You're sick of the West's deference to the Muslim point of view. I get that. Does that mean you've decided that the West's point of view can't be questioned from now on? |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Calling someone "thickheaded" is both personal and an insult. I'm skilled enough in psychology to not attempt to diagnose over the Internet and I've given very little thought to either your sanity ot intellectual ability. Nor would I do you the discourtesy of making such assumptions, particularly in a vaccuum.
Assumption on your part, and I recognize that the use of the word "seem" indicates that it is your perception.
Good to know.
Then I disagree with you at a very fundamental level. First, you clearly have no idea what I think. Second, there is a very large divide between "political correctness" and politesse. The former is generally a load of junk while the latter generally precludes someone from insulting another person because he is unable to understand that person or recognize their point of view. Politesse is necessary, political correctness is not and often causes far more problems than it solves.
There is nothing hypocritical about pointing out a flaw that is present. Leading by example is great, as long as people are following. This really is the crux of the issue and represents a sadly very common fundamental failing on the parts of most Westerners to recognize that situation and call it for what it is - must be more of that political correctness I suppose. The Western World can be as polite as it wishes. None of that will make a difference. Muslim culture is based on 7th century tribal Arab culture. It is not politically correct to say this, but it remains no less true for all that. As such, it divides the world very sharply into ingroup/outgroup (actually three categories, Dar al-Islam, Dar al-Souk and[/i] Dar al-harb[/i]) and demands that anything be done from a position of strength that rightfully belongs solely to Muslims. Any negotiation that is not from this position is considered to be temporary at best until the Muslim is able to dominate. If we want to show that our way is better, we must first show them that their way is worse.
There is no reason for the Pope to have mentioned the Crusades. It's not at all what is going on today and it is a failing of Western educational systems that people are unaware of that. The Crusades weren't universal and by and large miserable failures. Jihad is intended to be universal and is doing quite well.
Sick? No. Aware of the danger and futility of it? Absolutely. What do you mean by "the West's point of view?" Why would you assume that I would demand it be unquestioned? The Right to command is bought with Duty, the Privilege of rank is Service. |
|||
|
On Site Archivist |
Let me remind you of a few more points...
Source: Gulf Times
Source: HindustanTimes
Source: WND These are just some examples... how do we use "diplomacy" with this kind of barbarism? |
|||
|
“Since the Second World War, the United States has been the dominant world power in the Middle East. Every U.S. policy shift, every military intervention, every CIA plot has been carried out to secure one main aim: to ensure the cheap and plentiful flow of the world's most important energy resource--oil.†- Paul D'Amato
Maybe it is time to stop claiming that Muslims need to clean up their own backyard, and start taking some of the blame for Muslim anger towards the United States. If we are partially to blame for the hatred and resentment, then maybe we should try to do something to curb it. I believe it to be close minded to say that the United States has no responsibility in this matter. If we had no presence in the Middle East, would the fanatical Muslims hate us so? Or do you believe that their hatred is simply based on their religious teachings, and they have no choice but to hate outsiders; Similar to the way in which westerners are taught to love thy neighbor. We have no choice in that matter either, do we? To say that Muslim actions render the people uncivilized is one thing. But to say that we, as a “more civilized society†should do nothing, because, “we’ve tried, and it’s useless to try any longer†is hypocritical. How are we civilized if we do not see ourselves as more strong, and more wise than those who we deem uncivilized? Isn’t it our responsibility to use every diplomatic means to achieve rational discourse with other peoples? Muslims are not Nazis. Radical Muslims are. We have a few of our own fanatical militant types in the US (Oklahoma City bombing). The argument that Muslims as a people don’t deserve our consideration because of the violent depictions that we see on the news is irrational. The reaction to our policy in the Middle East has come back to haunt us. This is known as a “blowback†in the US government. If the countrymen of Iran and Lebanon are too oppressed and scared to rise up against their governments, does that mean that they deserve the same fate as their leaders? I realize that their leaders and spokespeople present a huge stumbling block in this matter, but the question is still valid. How do you feel about welfare in America? Should the poverty class pick itself up by its boot straps and make something of itself? What are we to do with those who don’t comply? Ship them to labor camps to ensure that our tax dollars don’t pay for the boot straps they refuse to pick up? I am curious as to how some of you live your every day lives. Do you ever turn the other cheek to an offender? Do you ever change the way you view the world? Or have you reached an age where you have learned it all, and experienced it all. And now you are able to believe only facts, and no longer have to bother with petty opinion? Diplomacy, compassion and reason are the first steps that need to be taken as members of the richest and most powerful nation in the world. It is only civil, even if we are dealing with uncivilized groups. |
||||
|