Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[vnbalakrishna]

Some posts hint that I am a hate monger or some sort of pervert.

Let me say this; there are good Muslims, like good Christians, good Jews and so many other good guys. This does not prove or disprove anything.

Ask a pious Muslim, I did ask one after 9/11, and he said to my surprise that what Osama bin laden did needed lots of courage in bringing down the two towers. What did he mean?

I want to warn apologists of Koran, both Muslims and non muslims, that a true Muslim would treat a criminal like OBL as a devout Muslim who went by the Koran's diktat which are nothing but shibboleths of a demented man who called himself prophet to fool simple, desert tribals. Why then blame some individuals who are truly "guided" by the Koran?

I have Muslim friends. Yet I hate the sin that is preached in koran and not the sinner. I hope at least nobody attributes motives to me. If anyone is ignorant of koran it is at his own peril.:doh:

[InfiniteNow]

Part of me hopes you are being sarcastic, vn, but I'm unfortunately confident you make such comments sincerely. Clearly, the war on terror has changed us... It's made many people give up and practice the same hatred they demonize in others.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I have many Muslim friends who are perfectly decent people.

I have Muslim friends.

 

That sounds familiar to me.

 

:doh:

 

Which one of you is going to be the first to say "I'm not a racist but..."

 

TFS <- No Muslim Friends.

[Boerseun]

I think the replies in this thread is a perfect illustration of the question raised in the first post.

 

The above posts perfectly shows how the "War on Terror" changed us. We can only hope to the deities of our choice that those in power are a little more clear-headed and unmoved by this war. Then again, it was them who started it in the first place.

 

That being said, its pointless to keep on rapping about Sebby's and vn's personal stances. They have has shown themselves to be what they are, and trying to change it will only poison this thread further. I suggest you guys try and view the question objectively, and stop this mud-slinging. The thread has become pretty much pointless as to the topic, and if this don't change, this thread will be closed.

 

Thank you.

[Allareequal]

I think the replies in this thread is a perfect illustration of the question raised in the first post.

 

The above posts perfectly shows how the "War on Terror" changed us. We can only hope to the deities of our choice that those in power are a little more clear-headed and unmoved by this war. Then again, it was them who started it in the first place.

 

That being said, its pointless to keep on rapping about Sebby's and vn's personal stances. They have has shown themselves to be what they are, and trying to change it will only poison this thread further. I suggest you guys try and view the question objectively, and stop this mud-slinging. The thread has become pretty much pointless as to the topic, and if this don't change, this thread will be closed.

 

Thank you.

 

Though new to this forum I read all the postings with avid interest. I could guess some serious concern of some posts. If the idea is to convey that there is new look needed on "religious terrorism" then the point needs to be taken in proper spirit.

 

History is full of instances where routine terrorism and banditry were met and extinguished successfully by the might of the state, a case in point is the Wild West madness of yore. But when it came to dogmas and terror- induced dogmas clothed in the garb of religion the might of state dissipated.

 

Today, I think humanity stands at the crossroads of terror and yet confused. Should the bull be taken by its horns? Should the powers that be openly say that if a religion has obnoxious passages it should be clipped to make the religious fervour more humane for hotheads to understand? THIS IS NOT BEING DONE. BAD PASSAGES ARE CONNIVED AT OR GLORIFIED IN PIOUS PLATITUDES TO PLEASE A GROUP. The net result again is coming back to square one and expose large part of humanity to risk.

 

Let us hope that these posts give us a new feeling and a basic need to discuss what we can and what we want to be in the future. Either make strenuous efforts to integrate the humanity or let the pillars of humane behaviour tumble one by one at the altar of religious expediencies with untold consequences.

[jackson33]

Alla; all of your post is true and the points of the pros or cons on the issue.

interpretations i read are from words said by individuals with in groups, not the words of the literature.

 

you have a segment of a religion that has massive public support toward certain goals. these goals do not seem to have mankind's interest at heart. even their own peoples are deemed wrong with out some total compliance.

 

yes history is full of what you suggest and this history is what lays at the base of the problem. revenge of something said to have happened so long ago, no one really cares.

 

Russia, US, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, China, India, Israel and a host of nations have fought over everything possible; but now live in peace and show respect for other national affairs and their people. they show no signs of destroying any group of people or the country and only request some privacy of to their affairs. there however is one group that has claimed rights over world and national affairs. they have "stated" many things unacceptable to the rest of the world and have made clear their intentions. they also do well at practicing what they preach.

 

i have asked before and will ask you; what solution could there be to this issue...?

[jackson33]

I think the replies in this thread is a perfect illustration of the question raised in the first post.

 

The above posts perfectly shows how the "War on Terror" changed us. We can only hope to the deities of our choice that those in power are a little more clear-headed and unmoved by this war. Then again, it was them who started it in the first place.

 

That being said, its pointless to keep on rapping about Sebby's and vn's personal stances. They have has shown themselves to be what they are, and trying to change it will only poison this thread further. I suggest you guys try and view the question objectively, and stop this mud-slinging. The thread has become pretty much pointless as to the topic, and if this don't change, this thread will be closed.

 

Thank you.

 

those responding to this thread are showing nothing more or less than the general public on the issue itself. even your moderators have joined in on the passive side. many folks, normally passive good people, are showing signs of pointed opinion and this has become an issue to address in world governments. there is no solution and the problem will exist for generations to come. i wish there were a solution.

 

the folks that you and some others feel are biased or bigots in opinion may or may not be, i don't personally know them. the ones they talk about are and there is no question.

 

this thread has taken on a life. rare but some do and this one has interest. i would suggest you show a little pride in one that gets 150 hits per day and a variety of opinions. for those you think are incorrect, i think you will find they know it but are giving honest, to them, responses. also rare...

[InfiniteNow]

Strong emotions rule the issue. Pride, anger, and territoriality are deeply ingrained in the human psyche. There was a comment that a poster made above... that things will only change when Palestinians decide to love their children more than they hate the Israeli's.

 

Well, that's close, but really not quite there. This Middle East conflict is not a "one side is wrong, one side is correct" type issue. If it were, it would have been resolved decades ago. Clearly, there is significant validity in each stance, and each side has a huge investment in the final outcome. Unfortunately and repeatedly, members representing each side have made serious mistakes which have hindered the compromise process and prevented progress toward peace.

 

According to social learning theory, we learn the most significant and impactful lessons by modelling the behavior of those close to us (friends, family, or otherwise). If our parents hate a group of others, chances are high that we will hate that group as well. Curiously, many individuals will take the opposite stance of their parents, but really only when that stance is subscribed to and supported by other people of importance in their lives. A friend, a religious leader, a teacher, really anyone with whom they've connected on more than a topical level.

 

One thing, though, is clear. If enough people teach themselves to let go of hate and make the decision to move forward peacefully together, then that approach will grow in strength and numbers. That growth will also continue exponentially and will impact each successive generation to a greater and greater degree. The importance the people attach to the release of their hated and cultivation of peace will become the dominant social gestalt as time passes.

 

A young Palestinian child and an Israeli child, if put into a room to play, will interact with one another as friends and companions do, showing nothing but joy. They will laugh, they will learn, and they will have fun sharing experience with each other. They have not yet learned to hate, and even if one child upsets the other, the offense is forgotten in minutes, and they return to their joyous encounter... because that's what kids do.

 

Hate is not a natural position, it is not something we are born doing. It is taught and becomes a habit; a tradition, and people just tend to forget how to do anything else. It becomes what they are used to, and most do not know how to define themselves were they to let go of their hatred. Letting go is scary, the hate becomes a source of comfort, so they hold it closely as something to protect.

 

Ultimately, everyone must just let go, and remind themselves how to be a child and get along with the other children. Kids don't see religion, they don't see color, they don't judge on economic status, and they don't care about territory. They just ARE with one another, and that's how the groups on each side must approach the other. Just as a thousand mile journey begins with a single step, letting go of hatred and cultivating peace begins with a single person.

 

Really, it's easy. Even a kid can do it. ;)

 

 

InfiniteNow (Online)

∞ňǿω

Posts: 5,000

Threads: 102

Join Date: Dec 2005

Location: Austin, TX

 

:phones:

[Dov Henis]

I would sincerely appreciate remarks re the reasons and issues listed in the post draft below.

 

A Contemplated

 

Farewell Message to Hypography SF

----------------------------------

 

Sad for me. I departed from another forum circa one year ago in similar circumstances.

 

It is sad for me to find again and again some expressions of any degree of "understanding of justifying circumstances" for fundamental-muslims' terror. It's sickening for me to find again that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dragged in as a major understanding-justifying factor for

fundmuslims-terror.

 

The discussion in this thread has bared attitudes and opinions of several moderators that add up to 'the essence of fair moderation: in discussing a commited crime point out that both the perpetrator and victim are to blame and urge resolution only by discussion between the perpetrator and the victim'...

 

My worldview and worries, being a member of a specific endangered minority cultural group, comprise vital issues actually and seriously threatened by the above attitudes and opinions and their application.

 

 

Leaving this forum, even with appreciation of its quality and of the interest and stimulation it has been for me,

 

end of draft of contemplated farewell message,

 

Dov Henis

[Cedars]

 

According to social learning theory, *snipped content*

 

While thats all happy - shiny (feels like singing kumbiya), the social theorist ideas make me laugh sometimes.

 

I personally dont fear a suicide bomber on a city bus due to my location. I personally dont fear eating at a resturant because a suicide bomber may walk thru the door and blow himself to bits. I can only imagine what it is like for these people living in places where mortar shells are dropped from the skys on their heads, while they sleep, while they work, while they play, by people who have declared "we intend to drive you from these lands and into the sea".

 

I cannot imagine reacting any differently myself, than the people in these various parts of the world who face this violence each day. I am not so detached from my own pursuits to deny that I would not react exactly the way they do when faced with such irratic rage. There is a difference between hate and self defense.

 

I can imagine what my reaction would be if the baptists declared a crusade on the muslims and began using the methods of the palestinians. I know what my countries reaction would be if Minnesota declared itself an independent nation and blew up the bridges between MN and Wisc, sending suicide bombers into Packer/Brewer sports bars of Wisconsin and began hurling mortar shells at Iowa from the parking lot of the Mayo clinic.

 

Hate is not a natural position, it is not something we are born doing. It is taught and becomes a habit; a tradition, and people just tend to forget how to do anything else.

Yeah, well we are not born fearing fire either, but we teach our children not to play with matches. We teach our children not to talk to strangers. We teach our children not to pet strange dogs. Theres alot we teach our children to avoid because they are not born with an internal knowledge to protect themselves from unknown/unimagined dangers. Can you really say for sure, were you to be raising your children in these places of violence, you would teach your children differently?

 

Are there are places in your own state/city you will teach your children to stay the hell out of because its too dangerous? And these areas you would warn your own child to avoid, are they predominatly an area of different race? Different religion? Different culture? Are you teaching them hate or are you trying to ensure they survive the unknown/unimagined?

[jackson33]

infinite; "winning the hearts and souls", is normally the method used to win a point or move an opinion. abortion, one here in the US. when you have to start from the very foundation of a society, the basic religious infrastructure and those preaching to the masses or teaching, the problem would seem insurmountable. from this starting point and it truly is the point, you have a long way to go to reach the people you need to reach. if you come back with setting an example and a good premise, i will suggest this has been going on for thousands of years. the Hindu to the Jewish and all in between have done just that, while the remaining society watches and talks pretty little passive nonsense.

 

i have heard the stories out of Israel where Arabs and the Jewish, live very well together. one Muslim lady was amazed when at a clinic was given service first over a male Jew, with much the same problem. all this is nice and no doubt true, but this is not true in reverse. you know this and most including the Muslims know this to be true. try to carry a bible in hand while in Saudi Arabia or let your wife show her face in many places.

 

Islam is not going to go away, nor the radical factions. no one is going to try and exterminate them or any one else. my concern is the head in the sand attitude thats been around way to long. i am not qualified to present a solution, but i do feel the solution is in the Muslim or Arab people. they need to change some attitudes and do as the Amish in the US do. the Amish are no less radical in thought then the Muslim and have managed to do just fine in the US. they however practice what they preach...

[PsyCho]

So do I waste more time providing evidence for people who are willfully blind?

Sebbysteiny

 

RRRIIIGGGHHHHTT.... Just because have a different pov that clearly makes us wilfully blind (get some insight).. :hihi:

 

Yup still reading, but working hard and have no time to reply properly. Your evidence and arguments suffer the same flaws as always, as has been repeatedly pointed out by others; I don't have time to dissect at the moment. But nice of you to start trying to provide evidence, cheers :shrug:

 

That being said, its pointless to keep on rapping about Sebby's and vn's personal stances. They have has shown themselves to be what they are, and trying to change it will only poison this thread further.

 

A most sensible notion, though it's nice to try sometimes (not "rapp" more try to point out the hypocrisy and flaws inherent in the arguments; and to be fair it has led to some excellent points by various folk).

 

It's a shame that people like Don are forced to quit because they can't face the arguments put forward by others, that appears to be one of the big problems with this issue.

 

Pity....

[PsyCho]

List of terrorist organisations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

try to carry a bible in hand while in Saudi Arabia or let your wife show her face in many places.

 

Jackson it's called respecting cultures, often it's a good idea to do that when visiting someone elses land... And the former, well why would you really want to?

[jackson33]

List of terrorist organisations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Jackson it's called respecting cultures, often it's a good idea to do that when visiting someone elses land... And the former, well why would you really want to?

 

ok, just take your wife to the nearest Mask in the US and carry the book of choice. the response will be the same. well maybe she won't lose her head...

[Buffy]

Dov,

 

I for one do appreciate many of your posts, and your viewpoint is valuable to all of us. What I'd continue to try to emphasize is that you may benefit from listening to what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are saying.

 

It is sad for me to find again and again some expressions of any degree of "understanding of justifying circumstances" for fundamental-muslims' terror. It's sickening for me to find again that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dragged in as a major understanding-justifying factor for fundmuslims-terror.

Do you see "understanding" and "justifying" to be the same thing? Is it your position that anyone who expresses this opinion believes that either one is true themselves, or is it possible that they are merely expressing how others under durress or misconception or influence of nefarious spokesmen *do* react, whether it is justified or not?

 

Its hard for me to figure out why you've reacted in the way that you have unless you truly believe that explaining this fact--Arabs do blame their "support" of extremists on the Israel/Palestine issue--is tantamount to agreeing with the reasoning. You would seem to be accusing anyone who does so of being a supporter of terrorism by mentioning data that is well supported by polls.

 

Do you think that maybe accusing anyone who ponders why Arabs feel this way of being a supporter of terrorism might be a good way to get them mad at you?

 

The discussion in this thread has bared attitudes and opinions of several moderators that add up to 'the essence of fair moderation: in discussing a commited crime point out that both the perpetrator and victim are to blame...

I'll be the first out of my chair to rip the head off of whoever says something like "she deserved to be raped because of what she was wearing" which is the essence of this statement. Do you think that it is hard *even for partisans of the "victim"* in this conflict to say that there is absolutely, completely no justification whatsoever for any grievances on the part of the "perpetrator?" This situation is not so clean, because the hostility between the parties goes back hundreds, arguably thousands of years. For each act, each party can point back at an earlier act by the other party.

 

However it seems by even mentioning this *fact* of a long history of conflict, that any expression that *some people*--again maybe not the speaker--could interpret even a single action by Israel as not being fully justified, that you believe is unfair and slanderous.

 

Can you see that this might make people angry at you for insisting that they must not have any sense of right and wrong?

 

and urge resolution only by discussion between the perpetrator and the victim'...

This seems to imply that you believe that *any* suggestion of "discussion" means that one has no right to defend oneself?

 

Do you see how that might make people mad for making them sound like the solution they're suggesting is equivalent to surrender?

 

Here we get to the issue I have asked you about: You have not ever said what Israel might do about the current state of affairs. I've suggested three broad alternatives:

• Status-quo: low-level warfare built around seemingly unending, tit-for-tat retaliation for each act by the other side. But under no circumstances talk to them because there's no point because Arabs will never compromise.
  
• All out war: Get it over with. Arabs are all hostile, always will be, so hit them all so hard they never will try again.
  
• Maintain vigilance and defense, while continuing to talk as much as possible, offering reasonable compromises, bringing the increasing support of the rest of the world behind those compromises that can be lived with.

Not one of these says "surrender." Do you see why people might get mad if you tell them that any alternative to ongoing or all-out war is surrender?

 

I have close friends in Israel who sit on both sides of this divide. Its important for those watching this debate to realize that this belief that negotiation and compromise is a strong one in Israel, even among those who consider themselves to be political moderates. Do you think that these Israelis are "pro-terrorist"? Do you think they might get mad at you for saying so?

My worldview and worries, being a member of a specific endangered minority cultural group, comprise vital issues actually and seriously threatened by the above attitudes and opinions and their application.

Your worldview is formed by your experience, and I cannot take that away from you nor can I say it is unjustified.

 

I would suggest however that your worldview is preventing you from listening to people who you really should consider your allies. As I've pointed out above, even people who strongly support Israel can have opinions that you would appear to find distasteful, but by calling them terrorist sympathisers, enablers, or supporters, you alienate them and make them react with hostility toward you.

 

You may want to consider how this method of interacting with those who disagree with you affects your experiences in forums such as these.

Leaving this forum, even with appreciation of its quality and of the interest and stimulation it has been for me,

I hope you don't leave. I do hope you realize though that the whole point of discussion forums is not just to speak but to listen and to seek points of understanding with those you may not agree with.

 

Thank you very much for your participation here Dov, and I look forward to seeing more posts from you.

 

Cheers, :shrug:

Buffy

[Dov Henis]

It's a shame that people like Dov are forced to quit because they can't face the arguments put forward by others, that appears to be one of the big problems with this issue. Pity....

 

To set the records straight:

 

- It's not 'people like Dov' but simply 'Dov'.

 

- I'm not 'forced' to quit; I contemplate to leave this forum.

 

- I explicitely and clearly explained that I think of leaving due to attitudes/opinions applied in this thread by some of the moderators. Definitely and absolutely not because of what you ascribe with apparently rich imagination.

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

To set the records straight:

 

- It's not 'people like Dov' but simply 'Dov'.

...

- I explicitely and clearly explained that I think of leaving due to attitudes/opinions applied in this thread by some of the moderators.

So, instead of saying "people like moderators," how about you call one out specifically and directly address the issues you have with their attitudes/opinions?