sebbysteiny Posted July 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 Had a conversation with moderate Muslims at an Islamic store today. Q) Do you believe suicide bombings in Israel are wrong? A) erm, er, The Palestinian situation is very complicated and I have not thought about it sufficiently. That was very funny (and not the first time I've heard it since, and only since, 9/11). Almost all Muslims have VERY strong thoughts on that conflict. He also showed an uncanny knowledge of the Israeli Palestinian conflict only a few sentences later and he had leaflets talking about the problem. This is an example of doublespeak where the Islamic stalls have been told to say one thing to the public to present a good face even though they know they are deliberately concealing their real views. Q2) Would you say suicide bombings in Israel, are a) justified, :shrug: unjustified, or c) absolutely disgustinge. He said (predictably) they are unjustified. I said, so you do not find them absolutely disgusting. He goes 'Islam either justifies something or it doesn't. Therefore I cannot say anything stronger'. That is bogus. It was obvious the only reason he found a great linguistical trick from saying that such suicide attacks are absolutely disgusting is because he did not believe it himself. I could visably see him struggling to maintain the 'official line'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 Q2) Would you say suicide bombings in Israel, are a) justified, :shrug: unjustified, or c) absolutely disgustinge. Why does that ring as a fallacy? It seems like an entrapment question. Like "does your mom know your gay?" Can't put my finger on it, but it seems to have to few of possible responces and seems to be suggesting a given answer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Scott Posted July 9, 2006 Report Share Posted July 9, 2006 All i know that invading the 'muslim' countries and killing them all isnt the solution, but otherwise i believe there is no solution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paigetheoracle Posted July 10, 2006 Report Share Posted July 10, 2006 Should we do anything at all about the situation? Moderates in any religion are against violence and show it by how they live their lives. The ones opting out are getting carried away by their emotions and as with any war that means wanton destruction of anything and everything, including themselves. What people 'believe' is not the truth - it is a tool for action or inaction. By this I mean for example that if you 'believe' your wife is having an affair with your neighbour, you think you're right to act and act in the way you do. The truth may be something completely different - the 'level' of evidence you have may point to his guilt but he may be completely innocent. Then there is the question of what you do, which implies moral correctness in your acts. The disaster that is humanity indicates several reactions to the same scenario as well as decisions on what is the right action to take. The only sane conclusion that can be drawn in my opinion is that nobody is right about anything that they do but they're going to do it anyway and all the rest of us can do is sort out the mess afterwards, unless the mess is us (victim/perpetrator cooling their heels somewhere, left to consider their actions and their results). Survivors have no choice but to get on with the business of survival. It's not a question of bravery but practicality (A child proof law or lock keeps out adults, not kids [or other ingenius idiots with nothing better to do with their time]).------------------------------------------------------------------It is easy to tell a drowning man how to save himself, from dry land, than to be a drowning man trying to save himself in the water Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 I was only talking about the terrorist fraction. Death is the world they know and the rules they live by. It is a mad dog. I beleive many people have their heart on the right place. But this seems to help the terrorist justify their behavior. Think logically, the terrorist see a large fraction of the international first world population dumping on the hardline, which is what they see as the evil of the world. With your support they continue on with their mad dog behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted July 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 Should we do anything at all about the situation? Moderates in any religion are against violence and show it by how they live their lives. [fine speech about the philosophical nature of truth concluding that nobody is right therefore we shouldn't do anything] If we do nothing, the problem will get worse. Threats do not go away simply because you stick your head in the philosophical sand. Also, I have spent almost 12 pages arguing that moderate Muslims are not against violence in certain cases namely Israel and perhaps India. This was (if I remember) belief 1 in my memory. Perhaps you could prove that all the moderates from a religion are against violence? This common assumption I believe comes from living a lifetime in Western society and not realising that racism and violent intentions are alive and well in almost every other culture (ruandan Genocide, Sudan genocide, Egypt's treatement of blacks, Palestinian and other Arab nations lynching of homosexuals, Zimbabwe). Why does that ring as a fallacy? It seems like an entrapment question. Like "does your mom know your gay?"Absolutely right, it was an entrapment question. However those whose beliefs are compatible with Western beliefs would not be trapped. They would answer quite simply, 'c'. However those on the moderate Islamic stand say 'b' (indicating the belief is not disgraced) but even then they have to be really pushed before answering the question and then they spend time trying to hover between 'a' and 'b'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 Sebbysteiny, I think you hit upon an important point. Perhaps you could prove that all the moderates from a religion are against violence. The point has to do with projection. Many people believe that what they believe and how the percieve reality is common across the board. The fact is that many people see and react differently to the same thing. Many of the liberals in this country are projecting virtue on the terrorists, when in fact within the minds of terrorists they are full of just anger and hate. The terrorists, in turn, see this support, as justification for their continued anger and hate. While the liberals see this as a way to appease their anger and hate. A good analogy is a woman in an abusive relationship. She may only want to see or remember the handful of times her man is was nice and try to ignor the other 90% of the time when he is an a-hole. This irrational loving support keeps the dynamics alive. This does not soften the man but helps him justify his majority behavior, which is abusive. It is only when she leaves him that he needs to take stock of his role as a one-man terrorist band. He may have thought that what she wanted since she continued to create the conditions to help him justify that behavior. Some people like this fetish. sebbysteiny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted July 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 I've just thought of a new theory stating a different cause of Islamic terror. It might be that extremist Islamic clerics are not even necessary. More soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted August 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2006 Hey guys, I've just found the perfect video showing everything that I've been talking about (regarding evidence). It shows the 'culture of hatred', statistics and almost everything that fanatics believe using their own words. If you ever want to understand Islamic terror, this is a must. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&hl=en http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&hl=en Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandit73 Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 One big step would be for people to read this book:lulu.com/content/379558It deals with group conflict and the reasons why society fractures. It is wonderful. It is probably the best book I have read in 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 The only thing that will save the world from extremist fundamentalism of all flavours, including the Christian kind which is equally dangerous, would be through massive investment in liberal education facilities world-wide. It's no good being indoctrinated with bullshit throughout your youth and then claim to be 'educated' when you walk away with some phony degree that is simply a testament to your brainwashing. Introducing ID and God into schools is how the religious right is doing it in Christian countries. Humanity should have the courage to stand up and say "enough with this crap. I am not willing to kill or be killed for a fairytale". And then square our shoulders and look reality dead-on in the eyes, without invoking some invisible Big Brother to calm our nerves after sunset when there are funny noises in the undergrowth. The massive facing of reality would be the only way to end the bloodshed in the middle East, or prevent another WTC, or any other conflict inspired by ghosts and spirits. How sad is that? We're living in the 21st century, we as a species have sent men to the moon, we have sent probes all over the solar system, we have split the atom, the list goes on. And yet, our biggest conflict today is inspired by a ghost story. Like Monty Python said - I hope there's intelligent life amongst the stars, because there's bugger-all down here on Earth. Besides - an open question: If our emotions can be so easily swayed by a ghost story, and a pretty juvenile one at that, I might add, can we (as a species as well as individuals) be trusted to take good and proper care of the 10,000+ nuclear warheads we have created out of mutual hatred and mistrust (...and a bit of plutonium)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Q: Islamic terror: the solution ?A: Change the economic systems in Islamic countries where common people cannot own property. They can't get loans for starting businesses without collateral & they have none so they have no hope to advance. Who owns everything in Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Iran? Kuwait? Certainly not women & no men except the royals & minions.PS I heard this view espoused on the radio & thought it merited some discussion as it was new to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 I agree 110%, Turtle. Let the free market level the playing field, so that everybody has the same chance of making or breaking it. There will be a couple of hiccups, though - for instance, those with their fingers on the levers of power in the Middle East would stand to lose the most in such an economic transition; they would fight it tooth and nail. And they have the monetary muscle to enforce the current system for many years to come. I think one way the free market got such a good hold in the US was that initially (forget about the locals, for a minute), all immigrants were equally poor. There wasn't a landed gentry as in England and Europe at the time, there wasn't an established 'system' of wealth where those that were being economically trampled had to be kept down in order to maintian the wealth of those that weren't - as is the case in Saudi, for instance. This was the case in South Africa under apartheid, as well - the common perception of Apartheid is that it all revolved around race. In my view, this wasn't the case. Apartheid was enforced to ensure a vast low-cost labour pool for the few whites who invented the reason (racial segregation) to keep everyone 'in their place', so to speak. So that the poor stayed poor and the rich didn't have to share their wealth. What ended Apartheid, however, was the acceptance of harsh reality and numbers. The same appreciation of reality and cold, hard facts would be needed in places like the chauvinistic patriarchial societies of the Middle East before any movement can take place towards such a solution as proposed above. And nobody from the West would want to rock the boat in Saudi to enforce political change as long as the oil is flowing... which brings in many questions regarding hypocracy and human rights... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinar Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 It may seem a bit offtopic but... I want to ask a question about a significant thing that I noticed in some posts, when everyone writing "islamic counties" do they really mean every islamic country in the world or they just wanted to make an abbreviation and mean arabian countries? what makes me ask this question is there are comments like "in islamic countries common peple has no property "or "women dont equal men "or "they are just ruled with the laws of "Koran" " many things...but it isn' this way in every in islamic country (including mine), is it just all of the Muslim countries seem same from outside or just abbreviations ? I only ask this question cause I really wondered what was your point ,sometimes we just wonder how others think about us,and I'm also wondering that... (I'm sorry if this subject was already disscussed I'm a newbie who hasn't checked every thread yet :D ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted August 19, 2006 Report Share Posted August 19, 2006 It may seem a bit offtopic but... I want to ask a question about a significant thing that I noticed in some posts, when everyone writing "islamic counties" do they really mean every islamic country in the world or they just wanted to make an abbreviation and mean arabian countries? In my post just a couple previous to yours, I used the term "Islamic countries", & then qualified it by listing some specific countries. While I hold to the list of specifics, I see your point that "Islamic countries" is an unjustified abbreviational term.I think you are our first Hypography member in Turkey Pinar, & I look forward to more of your views from your land & perspective.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.