muslims PART 2

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I always wondered whether it had anything to do with how those people are informed. Some regions barely have any international news broadcasts but they'll know who insulted the islam again before the day's done. We may know that the pope was quoting somebody else, but how was the news brought on the many different islamic channels. I'm betting some part of those protesters hardly knew the context of the speech. And I bet some were just looking for any excuse to kick up some dust.

A sarcastic part of my mind is waiting for the moment someone's gonna stand up and declare to the world that all muslims are short-tempered, have no sense of humour and are prone to over-react. It would be... interesting to see the hotheads' reaction. I can already imagine one jumping up saying: "That's not true! Hang the infidel! We demand apologies, we... oh, wait a sec..."

But Earniel, it has come to pass already...and I feel sorry for the Muslim in the limerlight than in the limest-of-all-light. I don't think that peace-loving muslims have much of a voice. I pretty much automatically exclude them from protests...

No offence, but I'm getting rather tired of being pushed in the 'non-american so doesn't know what she's talking about corner'. I'm open for debate, not gratuit judgements on what I may or may not know or think. I had hoped we had moved on beyond that point.

Here again my deep ineloquence...I just wasn't willing to list any nationalities that actually seemed to think...well, you get the point. And btw, could I help it if comments that "the media covers whats loudest" came from all european, scandinavian etc...?

It has NOTHING to do with what I think you do or do not know, however ...

And on a personal note, Hector, given all the mails we traded, I kinda had expected better from you.

So before you go accusing me of anything, I'll haver you know that I was including my own national media in my statement.

I'm afraid your generalisation was too specific!

You used the word bias, not me.

Well, that's because it's rampant, being a normal part of opinion forming

If there is any bias of the media I had in mind, than it was the preference of ANY media to go for the sensational topics, not the quiet, rational ones. Do you disagree with me on that?

Of course not! I completely agree. As Donald Rumsfeld recently said, you can pull up hundreds of stories on the alleged evilness of our troops, but none for the recipient of the special awards for services to our country.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Is the fact that not ALL christians are pedophile priests undeniable? It is.

Is the fact that NOT ALL Muslims get violent, in word or deed, undeniable? It is.

It is indeed not a biggie, BB...but I wonder why specks of evil can be protected by bigger goods. Just because NOT ALL priests are pedophiles does not mean that there aren't any pedophile priests, and that they shouldn't be shaken from the tree. And in Christianity pedophilic priests can galop through tons of quagmires because of political correctness. When there is something with the toilet, fix it! I'm not saying, nor was ever saying that all toilets are evil, only that increasingly, they are getting out of hand, and that there is something wrong.


And it seems to be that you guys seem to carry the same big brush you've all been accusing me of using, because you guys sure paint me wide...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Well, "I think violence isn't the solution" just doesn't quite compete with "Kill the Pope! Kill all Catholics! This is another attack from the american-zionist-Santa Claus-conspiracy in their crusade against the Prophet's people" in our media-world.

Her's a list of various reactions.

Considering there are 1 billion muslims around and only a few of them have burned any churches yet, I think it's safe to assume most muslims aren't that inclined to violence.

If there are enough of them, it shouldn't have to compete. And secondly, there's really no other choice...it's sorta compete or be trampled.

But I'm not asking them to whisper non-violence, they need to shout just as loud as the jerks.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And in Christianity pedophilic priests can galop through tons of quagmires because of political correctness.

Pedophiliac priests are not the primary problem, but pederastic priests.

I'm not saying, nor was ever saying that all toilets are evil

Thank goodness.

only that increasingly, they are getting out of hand, and that there is something wrong.

*envisions the Toilet Revolution*

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

As Donald Rumsfeld recently said, you can pull up hundreds of stories on the alleged evilness of our troops, but none for the recipient of the special awards for services to our country.

Actually, you can pull up hundreds on both sides of any story, be it about the evils some of our troops commit or the good deeds most of them do; or the muslims who are pro-violence compared to the vast majority that are anti-violence.

Rumsfeld's statement is an example of spin. He tries to lessen the importance of the fact that some troops are evil by making the true statement that stories about the relatively few evil troops are more high profile than the much more common stories about good troops.

Instead of addressing the problem that some of our troops do evil things, he shifts the focus to the media's coverage of the troops. Something that is completely irrelavant to the topic at hand.

If one story gets more coverage and you, the reader, assumes that it represents the majority because of this, it is your fault, not the media's fault. Anyone with an internet connection can find plenty of information that point to the facts that most of our troops are not evil and most muslims are not evil either.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

If there are enough of them, it shouldn't have to compete. And secondly, there's really no other choice...it's sorta compete or be trampled.

But I'm not asking them to whisper non-violence, they need to shout just as loud as the jerks.

Doesn't matter much whether they're many or not, it's the most controversial and hateful statements that get the screen-time. And they don't really have to compete, they can just continue in silence - as I think many of them do. How do you 'scream' non-violence'? Do they have to prove themselves every time something stirrs in the east? The Islamic Council of Norway has published an article with the header "A terrorist has no religion"; if anyone wonders where they stand they can just do a bit of research.

[Spock]

....BB-"most muslims are not violent"....that's easy to say but when we do not hear from the non-violent ones it makes the case that much harder to make.

Hector......to quote a line from "Signs".."swing away".......some will never get it.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Falagar

The Islamic Council of Norway has published an article with the header "A terrorist has no religion"; if anyone wonders where they stand they can just do a bit of research.

.......There are not enough items like this to sustain the theory that there are non-violent muslims. What is needed is more organizations and more people making that case for the rest of the world to begin to realize it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Doesn't matter much whether they're many or not, it's the most controversial and hateful statements that get the screen-time. And they don't really have to compete, they can just continue in silence - as I think many of them do. How do you 'scream' non-violence'? Do they have to prove themselves every time something stirrs in the east? The Islamic Council of Norway has published an article with the header "A terrorist has no religion"; if anyone wonders where they stand they can just do a bit of research.

Oops, maybe IRex and I are wrong...screaming and protesting constitutes violence after all...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Actually, you can pull up hundreds on both sides of any story, be it about the evils some of our troops commit or the good deeds most of them do; or the muslims who are pro-violence compared to the vast majority that are anti-violence.

Rumsfeld's statement is an example of spin. He tries to lessen the importance of the fact that some troops are evil by making the true statement that stories about the relatively few evil troops are more high profile than the much more common stories about good troops.

Instead of addressing the problem that some of our troops do evil things, he shifts the focus to the media's coverage of the troops. Something that is completely irrelavant to the topic at hand.

If one story gets more coverage and you, the reader, assumes that it represents the majority because of this, it is your fault, not the media's fault. Anyone with an internet connection can find plenty of information that point to the facts that most of our troops are not evil and most muslims are not evil either.

I Do believe he specified newspapers.

And he also said that comparing Guantanomo with the Gulag was stupid, since the Gulag didn't have a tennis court, and wouldn't have let you read Harry Potter...

I think the secretary of defense has just as much right to say what he needs to; just because he's not a pedestrian doesn't mean cars have a right to run over him.

Originally Posted by Spock

....BB-"most muslims are not violent"....that's easy to say but when we do not hear from the non-violent ones it makes the case that much harder to make.

Hector......to quote a line from "Signs".."swing away".......some will never get it.

Indeed...

...and thank you Spock

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

1) Muslims are not "half" the people.

Well more then half the worlds population is non Christian is my point. And what does it matter really? If you offend 1% of the people that’s ok?

2) He did not, I expect, intend to aggravate.

Oh I feel the same way. But again that’s not the point. He MAY have meant to sound to some extent superior however.

3) The derogatory comments which were quoted, not agreed with (he specifically stated that he disagreed with Manuel), were all merely tools he used to get into the discussion of faith and violence, and to say that a "holy war" is contrary to God's nature.

But theres SUCH better ways to deliver that message without insinuating what people think he may have been insinuating until he denied it later.

If you say something, intending to promote peace and condemn religious violence, and people take it as insulting, that's their problem, not yours.

Not when yer Da Pope. He has some responsibility to be measured and careful in his words and tone and insinuations. Unfortunately, that comes with the funny hat and pretty robes. He does us all a great disservice when he has the kind of attitude you display in your last sentence there.

It's clear that you are one now.

Whats clear is that you are wrong since Im me and I think I know what I think. Fair enough? Now if you want to make me The Monster well that’s on you. They don’t do that to me when ever I attend services or interact with the religious members of my family. Go figure…

In fact, as long as I've known you, you've had very little positive to say about the Church at all

Probably because you don’t frequent the boards where Im one of the few defending the concept of religion in general as NOT some innately evil concept designed by evil doers to oppress the masses and Christianity in specific as a useful and sensible crutch in a cruel and hard world. You see here you and your ilk have quite the monopoly on the trumpeting the positives of the church. So the role is filled and unlikely to be stolen by a dour agnostic who has issues with every organized concept and leery of the potential abuses possible in the name of religion. So maybe if you guys all shut up youd get to see the full spectrum. Or ask some of the other folk who post with me on other sites and they’ll tell you ive often been the defender of the concept of religion not the head bozo leading the rest of the village mob on a crusade against it.

whether or not you wanted to give Benedict a chance, to see if just maybe he would declare ex cathedra that Catholicism is actually false, and will everyone please go home.

I was thinking more along the lines of not being antagonizing (intentionally or not) or speaking down to non catholics.

Even granted that John Paul's delivery was good (which I think it wasn't; it tended to be too ambiguous), that doesn't mean that it's the only good way.

And your suggestion is……?

Do you feel its important to be rigid and divisive if being so reflects accurate doctrine even if it means infuriating masses of people to the point of threat of a clash of cultures?

And you know this from your long tenure as Pope? Or is it from your careful studying of the lives and careers of the Popes?

I know this from how I see people react TO the pope. Other then Allan Greenspan theres no one person on earth who is so carefully listened to whenever he speaks or acts. And Allan Greenspan is retired… The Pope is a walking breathing symbol. Even to those outside the Catholic faith. Perhaps even MORE to those outside the catholic faith… Because to them that’s ALL he is.

Sorry Jack, that's dogma.

Again, its how you go about it. Some people choose to scream and spit and condemn people as SINNERS because of their religious concepts. I submit theres better ways of approaching it…

"(The church has been shaken by) numerous ideological currents. The boat has been unanchored by these waves, thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, up to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and on and on. An adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelty."

What exactly do you find offensive? Can you give us something more concrete that a vague "us against them" delivery?

I find offense in his insinuation that agnosticism (among other things) is somehow a flawed and destructive way of thinking. Now you can say well its his job to talk down to me because Im not Christian but you cant take away the fact I find it insulting. Insulting enough to go out and burn pope dolls? Probably not. In fact I don’t even lose sleep over it. I think hes is as silly as he thinks Im flawed.

As if you didn't belittle others. How hypocritical.

Hey Gwaimir? Am I the POPE? Last time I checked when I sneezed it didn’t have the potential to result in riots.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

1) You're right.
2) What exactly is wrong about lumping these extremists with the extremists who shot the nun, etc.?

Which extremists? Whats wrong is lumping people marching and carrying signs in Indonesia somewhere with ONE person who shot a nun in Somalia… Do you really need further explanation on that? Or are you like Hector seeking the very opportunity to find ways to condemn and divide in whole swaths and thereby continue the downward spiral. A criminal is a criminal. A Muslim is a muslim. Even if hes is a muslim protestor. EVEN if he is a twit with a sandle and a pope doll. Don’t confuse the two words. Do you condemn all Christians because a few bozos protest at military funerals in the name of christianity? I don’t.

[Spock]

Well Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. etc. are infidels soooo....we don't count?

Of course the Pope is superior: Can YOU wear white all day and not get it dirty?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well more then half the worlds population is non Christian is my point. And what does it matter really? If you offend 1% of the people that’s ok?

It doesn't.

Oh I feel the same way. But again that’s not the point. He MAY have meant to sound to some extent superior however.

And what is your justification for that?

But theres SUCH better ways to deliver that message without insinuating what people think he may have been insinuating until he denied it later.

But he wasn't insinuating it, so it doesn't matter.

Not when yer Da Pope. He has some responsibility to be measured and careful in his words and tone and insinuations.

He has a responsibility to speak the truth, and to try to do so gently. He does not have the responsibility to avoid ever quoting any source which anyone might find offensive, especially when he disagrees with them.

Whats clear is that you are wrong since Im me and I think I know what I think. Fair enough? Now if you want to make me The Monster well that’s on you. They don’t do that to me when ever I attend services or interact with the religious members of my family. Go figure…

Probably because you don’t frequent the boards where Im one of the few defending the concept of religion in general as NOT some innately evil concept designed by evil doers to oppress the masses and Christianity in specific as a useful and sensible crutch in a cruel and hard world. You see here you and your ilk have quite the monopoly on the trumpeting the positives of the church. So the role is filled and unlikely to be stolen by a dour agnostic who has issues with every organized concept and leery of the potential abuses possible in the name of religion. So maybe if you guys all shut up youd get to see the full spectrum. Or ask some of the other folk who post with me on other sites and they’ll tell you ive often been the defender of the concept of religion not the head bozo leading the rest of the village mob on a crusade against it.

There is a difference between religion and the Church, IR. I don't find you to be derogatory towards the former very much; I find to be nothing else towards the latter. Or am I mistaken, and can you point to places where you have spoken positively of the Catholic Church? Maybe it's just a case of "insults stick more", but I don't recall anything positive.

I was thinking more along the lines of not being antagonizing (intentionally or not) or speaking down to non catholics.

You unintentionally be antagonizing. The state of 'being antagonizing' is an intentional one. There's a difference between 'being antagonizing', and people getting offended because of something you say.

And your suggestion is……?

Simply that there can be more than one good way to give a delivery.

Do you feel its important to be rigid and divisive if being so reflects accurate doctrine even if it means infuriating masses of people to the point of threat of a clash of cultures?

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is a question of weighing alternatives, which can only occur when their is consciousness of the alternatives.

I know this from how I see people react TO the pope. Other then Allan Greenspan theres no one person on earth who is so carefully listened to whenever he speaks or acts. And Allan Greenspan is retired… The Pope is a walking breathing symbol. Even to those outside the Catholic faith. Perhaps even MORE to those outside the catholic faith… Because to them that’s ALL he is.

Don't forget the Antichrist, to the Protestants. And in other circles, 'senile celibate authoritarian geriatric'. He's more than a symbol to a lot of non-Catholics.

Christ had no trouble outright condemning people, or whipping them out of the temple; it's foolish to think it un-Christian for his vicar to accidentally offend people.

Again, its how you go about it. Some people choose to scream and spit and condemn people as SINNERS because of their religious concepts. I submit theres better ways of approaching it…

That is hardly what Benedict does.

I find offense in his insinuation that agnosticism (among other things) is somehow a flawed and destructive way of thinking.

But isn't it clear it would be impossible to think Catholicism true and agnosticism flawless? So essentially, you are offended because the Pope is not agnostic? As for destructive, he only indicated it as being destructive of Catholicism, which I don't think you can deny. One can't be both.

Now you can say well its his job to talk down to me because Im not Christian but you cant take away the fact I find it insulting.

I don't find it insulting that you think Catholicism to be wrong. It's silly to be insulted because someone disagrees with you.

Hey Gwaimir? Am I the POPE? Last time I checked when I sneezed it didn’t have the potential to result in riots.

I'll work on it.

But seriously, I strongly oppose a double standard like that. Double standard is the definition of "hypocrisy"; saying one thing, and doing another, and condemning someone for doing what you yourself do. Give all the reasons you want, but what it comes down to is "Double Standard".

Which extremists? Whats wrong is lumping people marching and carrying signs in Indonesia somewhere with ONE person who shot a nun in Somalia…Do you really need further explanation on that? Or are you like Hector seeking the very opportunity to find ways to condemn and divide in whole swaths and thereby continue the downward spiral. A criminal is a criminal. A Muslim is a muslim. Even if hes is a muslim protestor. EVEN if he is a twit with a sandle and a pope doll. Don’t confuse the two words. Do you condemn all Christians because a few bozos protest at military funerals in the name of christianity? I don’t.

When did I condemn all Muslims? In fact, I frickin' explicitly stated in the other thread that the response of Muslims of the Western world is much milder. Why do you delight in trying to pidgeonhole everyone who disagrees with you? I am not anti-Muslim; I disagree with most of what I read conservatives say about Muslims (yes, that means you too, hector). I very much believe that they are wrong. I think Spock saying "There are not enough items like this to sustain the theory that there are non-violent muslims" is absurd. Most of what conservatives say about Muslims is I think just plain silly. But as regard the sign-carriers, read the signs. They are threatening. Sending a threatening message isn't that far from carrying out the threat.

But, ****, you are insidious. You will make me anti-muslim before you're done. If the hole doesn't fit the pidgeon, as it were, make the pidgeon fit the hole.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

in the same way that the Christians are all peodophile priests, is stating a fact?

Is it not rather the point that we do not define ourselves or others by the actions of the few?

Could we thus define all chrisitians as TV evangelists as a fact because some Christians are TV evalengelists?

One can only read and take meaning from what is there Hector old boy.

And as sweeping generalisations go from (whaetver) 1 billion muslims etc, a few hot headed or fanatical nutters (joyfully leapt upon by the global media and broadcast into the west, as the Pope's words were into the east) does not mean THE MUSLIMS -

You make a good point about not generalizing to all people, BB. Hector has said that he was not generalizing to either all Muslims or the majority, and that's important. Your point also is important- it's easy to go too far and make improper generalizations.

I think we should shelve the idea that this is a "few hot headed or fanatical nutters," though.

Originally Posted by CNN

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- About 1,000 clerics and religious scholars at a meeting in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of the pope for making "insulting remarks" against Islam, and warned the West of severe consequences if it didn't change its stance regarding Islam.

Pope Benedict XVI "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention in the eastern city of Lahore.

The "Pope, and all Infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad).... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

The meeting, organized by the radical Islamic Jamaat al-Dawat group, came days after the pope apologized for his remarks on Islam.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html
Muslims believe their religious leaders because (at least in the Middle East) they are taught that certain individuals have been given the right to interpret the Qur'an. It's not like Protestant Christianity, where anyone can interpret the Bible in the way they like. Hence, when the religious leaders speak in this way, a huge number of people are going to blindly agree with whatever they say. Osama Bin Laden did not have the authority to call his jihad against the US himself. He had to appeal to Pakistani clerics and clerics from other places to release the fatwa, the religious document that justified his actions in the name of Allah. They did this, and so his war against the US gained religious validation to many people.

But this Pakistan problem is just one sample of the threat we face. While I agree that we definitely should not generalize these views to the majority of Muslims, it is important not to underestimate the scale of the danger that exists. One historical point:

Jihadis defeated the mighty Soviet Union in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that the USSR didn't care how many civilian casualties the country suffered and engaged in extensive and widespread destruction of the population. A million people were killed in that war, but the USSR lost anyway.

In more modern times, the Iraqi insurgency that is causing the US so much grief in Iraq calls itself "Al'Qaeda in Iraq." Al'Qaeda and the Taliban are fighting us in Afghanistan as well. Radicalism is growing very rapidly and is already very widespread in the Middle East. Many people in Iran are strongly radical, and anyway, their government is certainly radical. The Palestinian territories obviously are. Syria is extremely radical- so much so that there is growing concern that if we do succeed in getting democracy established there, it would be a radical democracy like Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Somalia has a radical Islamic government in charge of the capital and a growing amount of the territory. Sudan is just ruthless. I don't know whether it fits with the radical Islamic ideology or not, but to me, it probably is the most evil government on the planet right now. The very large and only opposition party in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a former terrorist group and still is right in there with the radicals in much of its ideology. Malasia is a highly aggressive Muslim power that is very like Iran in ideology.

Then one can point at other Muslim countries where radicalism is not dominant or an extremely powerful force, yet in these places, there is or has also been bitter violence going on between the ruling powers and the radicals. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Pakistan there has been much violence between government forces and extremists. In Indonesia, perhaps less than in the other places mentioned. Radicalism also has been growing rapidly in the US and in Europe- pretty much it's been growing everywhere.

This doesn't mean that all Muslims are violent or that the majority are. I strongly believe that the majority is not violent. All I'm saying is that this is a very widespread threat we face, and it's getting worse and worse at a great speed.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I think not, Irex, since your mentality seems to be that whoever says it deserves it. And since the pope said it, he's obviously causing all this strife!, Right?

Wrong. My “mentality” is when you can cause great strife by your words alone then be careful what you say. What is it you think I think the pope “deserves” exactly Hector?

I'm saying that if they're so peace-loving, they're sure as heck doing a great job of showing it...

What about the vast majority that’s not being violent? Why do you jump up and down and focus on the tip of the elephants trunk and ignore the quiet elephant behind it?

If you didn't notice, the same Iraqis that we're helping out over there are the same ones who were cheering Hezbollah on!

Not the Sunnis. They are the ones getting kidnapped and wacked by the Shiite supporters of the Hezbollah. Or oh wait, theres no need for that kind of distinction nonsense. They are all just “them” anyway right? Be careful not to trip over the facts too much Hector… And what does Shiite Iraqis supporting Shiite Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel have to do with us “helping” them anyway?

You always seem to want to splash gray when it's the evil US, but when it comes to Muslims, no, it's the black terrorists and White non-terrorists.

Youll note I use the word “extremist” more often the terrorist. And I also use the word “fundamentalist” and “moderate” as well in these kinds of discussions. Why? Because I DON’T think any of this is simply a “black and white” issue in the remotest. It IS clear to me however that a CRIMINAL shot a nun. Not “those muslims”. So who is being black and white exactly…

[quote]Well, were the people at the funeral Christian or not?[quote]

Yes they were. Fred Phelps.

You seem to think that I can only condemn either the whole world or just some cute little nutcase.

Actually the feeling I get is you find some issue with anyone that thinks outside of the box you do. In my experience. But then you are in good company there. We all do that for the most part. The problem is you so easily fall into the concept of condemnation by association and that’s a logically flawed approach.

Well obviously now it's you who need the remedial! It's pretty obivous that the "protests" went beyond just that...but I wasn't going to lump ALL the protesters as violent , so I just settled for "Protesters"

So let me get this straight then… you were speaking of the few violent folk but you didn’t want to be too specific because that might confuse us… so you just called them “protestors”, even though 99% of the protestors were NOT violent… No that’s not a convenient misrepresentation at all…

Shooting a Nun is freedom of expression, I understand .

Another attempt to directly link cold blooded murder with “those muslims” again?

Don't quote free speech to me when you've been critisizing the Pope for speaking the truth? He's evil now, for "free speech", but they...holy they...

You have a fundamental problem understanding the concept don’t you Hector. The popes right of free speech is NOT what this is about. Its about simply taking some care in what you say when you have such enormous influence on people and therefore world events. He can SAY ANYTHING. But do you think its wise TO say ANYTHING at ALL even if its justified? Meanwhile you condemn “those muslims” for protesting…

What you say is that I should spend my whole time dancing the jig of political correctness.

YOU can be a loud mouth buffoon spouting generalizations and stereotypes all you like (not saying you necessarily are of course... ). I dont think it does us any good but chances are you wont spark a riot in far off countries. I was talking of the pope here.

The violence of the protesting, the vicious signs: they bring out what the Pope was talking about in the first place!!!

They bring out a wholescale condemnation of Islam as a violent religion? Or does this say more about differences in culture do you think? And the power of the radicals to foment anger among the masses?

He is the leader of the Catholic Church....there is no way he was ever supposed to be the leader of world religion.

When did I say he was the leader of “world religion” exactly? I said he is a massive symbol to catholics and noncatholics alike. He is for better or worse the living face of Christianity. Ironically he is more so that to non Christians then to Christians (since only Catholics feel that way about him). Therefore he wields great influence. Even among non believers. People react to what he says and does.

You aren't suggesting that because of someone's extreme popularity that they are the leaders of that in the whole world, are you?

You aren’t suggesting that the Pope is just some Joe Blow are you? And that he ISNT a Christian symbol?

So you're admitting...?

That millions of people around the world get their information from second hand sources who may use it to their own benefit? Do you disagree or something?

This is the real nonsense. It's quite the opposite, it's the political correctness of our age that is bringing us into the hands of radical Islam in the first place! This is how they're winning! You keep saying that as soon as we think something Bin Laden is going to mind read us; well I submit to you, he doesn't have to: He's playing the PC media up over the "death of civilians", the alleged ruthlessness of our soldiers ---and glory of glory? They conveniently don't allow autopsies ...and we're forced, through political correctness to "value their culture" ...and we're left not proving for sure that one our soldiers raped her! And yet they dare to call for his death!---

What an uninformed diatribe… If you think for a second that handing the extremists metaphorical ammunition that they can use to bring the common folk more to THEIR side and make us look evil and play right into the paranoid fantasies that plague the second and third world in the middle east is a better idea then not riling up the masses by doing things (over and over) that offends them (inexplicably or not) then perhaps it’s a study in logic you need (and diplomacy) rather then the remedial reading I suggested.

Dancing frantically to please the enemy is only going to amuse them...I don't ever recall it working in other wars...

Going out of your way to rile up a billion people to think you are the great satan is worse. My suggestion is the middle ground. Be sensible. Your suggestion is I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT! YOU GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT??!! Now do you really think approach number 2 is more likely to lead to understanding and therefore limit hostilities? See the last sentence of the above paragraph if so…

Umm...no. I think you have. Remember, he started it all...he who says it, deserves hell.

This is your approach to debate? Let me know when you take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying “DID TOO!” ok?

Simple, you simply make all muslims out to be innocents who don't have a temper

“all muslims” eh Hector? Would you like me to quote directly from my post that directly refutes this or would you just like to pretend you didn’t say this?

Hey, it's kinda how I feel when you say I'm generalising ALL muslims etc...

Well then don’t do it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

.......There are not enough items like this to sustain the theory that there are non-violent muslims. What is needed is more organizations and more people making that case for the rest of the world to begin to realize it.

To quote C.S. Lewis...

What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what kind of a person you are

I'd argue that for some people, there would never be enough.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Spock

.......There are not enough items like this to sustain the theory that there are non-violent muslims. What is needed is more organizations and more people making that case for the rest of the world to begin to realize it.

Well, that document would indeed be enough to sustain the 'theory' that there are non-violent muslims. I suppose you have researched this? I'll admit I haven't, but it didn't take me long to find that site. I bet there are quite a lot of more around, if you look.

Oops, maybe IRex and I are wrong...screaming and protesting constitutes violence after all...

Not sure if I got your point here, sorry.

Well Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. etc. are infidels soooo....we don't count?

Christians and Jews are people of the book.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Wrong. My “mentality” is when you can cause great strife by your words alone then be careful what you say. What is it you think I think the pope “deserves” exactly Hector?

I do not disagree on the point of controlling words.

What about the vast majority that’s not being violent? Why do you jump up and down and focus on the tip of the elephants trunk and ignore the quiet elephant behind it?

Why am I not paying attention to the quiet elephant? Well, because it isn't being an elephant!

Not the Sunnis.

Roughly (because I hate polls) 75% of Sunnis in Iraq support the insurgency.

They are the ones getting kidnapped and wacked by the Shiite supporters of the Hezbollah. Or oh wait, theres no need for that kind of distinction nonsense. They are all just “them” anyway right? Be careful not to trip over the facts too much Hector… And what does Shiite Iraqis supporting Shiite Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel have to do with us “helping” them anyway?

Well it had to do with "getting" all the jerks you said were the ones being violent...and not the regular muslim. I say the soldiers were seeing familiar faces...

Youll note I use the word “extremist” more often the terrorist. And I also use the word “fundamentalist” and “moderate” as well in these kinds of discussions. Why? Because I DON’T think any of this is simply a “black and white” issue in the remotest. It IS clear to me however that a CRIMINAL shot a nun. Not “those muslims”. So who is being black and white exactly…

you are being black and white, you keep saying that there are peaceful muslims for which you have no evidence (not that that makes it worth doubting...), and you say that the extremists are the ones killing etc...

...which makes me bring up another point: if you don't believe they are born terrorists, where do you think they come from?

I find the issue very gray in this respect; because I think a lot of the Iraqi Army are just insurgents who want to exploit the position...

Actually the feeling I get is you find some issue with anyone that thinks outside of the box you do.

Yes, I do. Absolutely right.

In my experience. But then you are in good company there. We all do that for the most part. The problem is you so easily fall into the concept of condemnation by association and that’s a logically flawed approach.

Ok, I see...you think that when I say "those toilets aren't working!" that I mean all toilets. Understandable, but would it not make sense to read between the lines and assume that I am speaking of however many toilets are not working? I know this sounds ridiculous...

The innocent peace-loving Muslim is not going to matter until he comes up from under the depths of the water. Meanwhile, as everyone has been saying, the cameras are rolling where it's hot.

So let me get this straight then… you were speaking of the few violent folk but you didn’t want to be too specific because that might confuse us… so you just called them “protestors”, even though 99% of the protestors were NOT violent… No that’s not a convenient misrepresentation at all…

Are you SURE it's 99% percent?

I cut it like this: burning, anything...counts as extreme protesting - though not violence-, especially when it is another country's flag...which of course, it always is, except with American communists...

Another attempt to directly link cold blooded murder with “those muslims” again?

Well, did they do it because they were protesting the pope or not? It was murder either way, I don't care what they did it for, really; but it seems to me that if you can provoke that just by saying something, it shows a general mentality of violence, even the burning.

You have a fundamental problem understanding the concept don’t you Hector.

I don't claim to be Cicero...I'm pretty dense.

[quote] The popes right of free speech is NOT what this is about.
Its about simply taking some care in what you say when you have such enormous influence on people and therefore world events.[/quotes]

Whackos who go out and burn and kill (respectively, in some cases) don't have a responsibility? They have freedom to do whatever they want just because they're mad and protesting?

I say each radical muslim extremist has the lives of his brethren in his hand far more than any Pope ever did or could...

He can SAY ANYTHING.

but He can't DO EVERYTHING...that is left up to the violent ones.

But do you think its wise TO say ANYTHING at ALL even if its justified? Meanwhile you condemn “those muslims” for protesting…

What? Here we are again, trying to clarify what is condemnable about the protesting, when I think it should be pretty obvious: that the protests (namely in the middle east) were violent...and don't think that all the non-violent protesting was inexcusable either, because calling for the death of the pope is kind of extreme, wouldn't you say?

YOU can be a loud mouth buffoon

As they say, you can always see the log in your brothers eye better than the one in your own...

...that certainly includes me.

spouting generalizations and stereotypes all you like

I have to go back to the toilet anology; how do you know you aren't generalizing about me when you say I generalize? And besides, how are you not generalizing about peace loving muslims when you say they're peace loving? Perhaps they only want peace on their own terms...

I have said before, that while not everyone is stereotypical fitted, that stereotypes exist for a reason. Those girls who say "like" like, all the time, they exist. That's pretty much as far as you can carry stereotyping them however...

(not saying you necessarily are of course... ).

I admit that I can do it more often than I should...

I dont think it does us any good but chances are you wont spark a riot in far off countries. I was talking of the pope here.

But see, it doesn't take a Pope in Rome to start a fire, it takes the people who react to him. This is where I keep saying, that it brings out the violent culture (in their respective areas etc...may pc live forever...) of the mideast.

Let me expound *looks at clock* on this...

Not all insurgents (gasp! Hector! ) want the destruction of the west per se, and I think a lot of them do it for pay or security (ironically)...pretty much why you would join the mafia, they want to be on the side that they think is winning. These are the desperadoes, but it does not make what they are doing good in any way, especially since they seem not to mind killing their brethren.

In the same way, not all of the protesters are terrorist-minded, but even the ones who didn't kill nuns, are, IMO displaying violent behaviour. And this is why I say that there are not the Black terrorists, and the White peace lovers...it is very much gray.

Hezbollah support (from Shiites, as you point out) showed this. Our soldiers can't attack these people, becuase they are not extremists WHO KILL, and they're faces are familiar.

They bring out a wholescale condemnation of Islam as a violent religion? Or does this say more about differences in culture do you think? And the power of the radicals to foment anger among the masses?

Fomenting the anger of the masses, if you like, Yes.

When did I say he was the leader of “world religion” exactly?

Well you and Gwai were talking about all that "bringing together"...

I said he is a massive symbol to catholics and noncatholics alike. He is for better or worse the living face of Christianity. Ironically he is more so that to non Christians then to Christians (since only Catholics feel that way about him). Therefore he wields great influence. Even among non believers. People react to what he says and does.

A lot of christians think he is basically the devil incarnate...by default almost, as if they believed that the position itself made the man, something they supposedly fight against.

You aren’t suggesting that the Pope is just some Joe Blow are you? And that he ISNT a Christian symbol?

I meant that just because Osama is Islamic and famous that he should be seen as the head of the islamic world. Apply that to the pope; he is not the face of all christians.

That millions of people around the world get their information from second hand sources who may use it to their own benefit? Do you disagree or something?

Actually I see your point, all the muslim world media is of course going to paint the Pope badly...

What an uninformed diatribe…

Are you discriminating against uninformed diatribers? Are you trying to break our culture? The culture of the Uninformed Diatribic Community?

Ok...sorry

If you think for a second that handing the extremists metaphorical ammunition that they can use to bring the common folk more to THEIR side and make us look evil and play right into the paranoid fantasies that plague the second and third world in the middle east is a better idea then not riling up the masses by doing things (over and over) that offends them (inexplicably or not) then perhaps it’s a study in logic you need (and diplomacy) rather then the remedial reading I suggested.

For the love of crikey, use more commas...

But basically, my idea is delusional it could never happen. But your idea that since we keep discriminating against muslims and want to profile them, Bin Laden is going to read our minds and start recruiting blue eyed terrorists...

Going out of your way to rile up a billion people to think you are the great satan is worse.

I wish I was as fired up as yesterday Rex, so I wouldn't have to be as calm and feel so superior... But that above statement is just hilarious...

My suggestion is the middle ground. Be sensible.

If you mean being sensible as in sensitive: "feel" their culture, "respect" the cultural differences...then I have to disagree. And I don't mean that there is only terrorists culture there, but that it will NOT help any in defeating the fundamental problem of Radical Islam.

And whoever said the middle ground, was the ground that solved everything?

Your suggestion is I CAN SAY WHATEVER I WANT! YOU GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT??!!

No, I say that political correctness puts you in the chains, and that it assumes racism wherever it can.

Now do you really think approach number 2 is more likely to lead to understanding and therefore limit hostilities?

You assume that all muslims, even the peace loving ones, have the same mentality about "hostility" and "peace" as you do...now that's what I call generalizing.

This is your approach to debate? Let me know when you take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying “DID TOO!” ok?

I forgot what I said now...so I'm not sure what to say back.

“all muslims” eh Hector?

One has to be careful when one can't remember...I'll edit my response when I recheck what I said.

Would you like me to quote directly from my post that directly refutes this or would you just like to pretend you didn’t say this?

Post...I can't remember what it was about anymore...

Well then don’t do it.

Don't make me do it...


Note: if you notice a certain "drabness" from absence of smilies, it is because the amount of them were too much for posting...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

They bring out a wholescale condemnation of Islam as a violent religion? Or does this say more about differences in culture do you think? And the power of the radicals to foment anger among the masses?

The Pope wasn't talking about that, it was just in a brief quote; he was talking about the incompatibility of violence with God's nature.

Ironically he is more so that to non Christians then to Christians (since only Catholics feel that way about him).

Actually, I know a number of non-Catholics who do.

What an uninformed diatribe… If you think for a second that handing the extremists metaphorical ammunition that they can use to bring the common folk more to THEIR side and make us look evil and play right into the paranoid fantasies that plague the second and third world in the middle east is a better idea then not riling up the masses by doing things (over and over) that offends them (inexplicably or not) then perhaps it’s a study in logic you need (and diplomacy) rather then the remedial reading I suggested.

What "over and over"?

Going out of your way to rile up a billion people to think you are the great satan is worse.

Gah...he did not go out his way to rile them up, it is purely accidental. Even if he HAD meant to rile them up, as some people seem to imply, then I doubt very much he intended for them to think him to be the "great satan".

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Wrong. My “mentality” is when you can cause great strife by your words alone then be careful what you say.

I agree with you that the pope should be carefull in what he says. However, I also think it's pretty obvious that he was careful in what he said. He made it very clear that he wasn't saying what the emperor he was quoting said, and he has since been very careful to make his real meaning clear. Many Muslims are still angry with him in spite of that. Many are being way too sensitive. And many others are simply assuming that he's wrong (in my view),

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What about the vast majority that’s not being violent? Why do you jump up and down and focus on the tip of the elephants trunk and ignore the quiet elephant behind it?

I described some of the size and threat posed by this "tip of the elephant's trunk," in my last post. That post is very much directed at statements like this that seem to me dangerously ignorant. We're not talking about a handful of lunatics but about a very strong worldwide popular movement. It is very, very dangerous, is dominant or close to dominant in multiple countries and is growing rapidly. I think that when you make your very correct and useful point that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists or extremists, you go too far in minimizing the threat we face.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Not the Sunnis. They are the ones getting kidnapped and wacked by the Shiite supporters of the Hezbollah.

Where most Shi'ites support Hezbollah, many Sunnis are supporting Al'Qaeda. The insurgency we're fighting in Iraq is "supporting" ( ) the Sunni cause, and it's named Al'Qaeda in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So let me get this straight then… you were speaking of the few violent folk but you didn’t want to be too specific because that might confuse us… so you just called them “protestors”, even though 99% of the protestors were NOT violent… No that’s not a convenient misrepresentation at all…

And most of the Aryans in Germany under Adolf Hitler were not in the army. And the vast majority of the Japanese in Japan during WW2 weren't committing violence either. When protesters espouse extremist positions, they show themselves to be extremists.

Not that I'm saying all of these protesters are extremists. The British Muslim Council accepted the Pope's apology quickly, and many of the moderate protesters have not been protesting with "death to the pope" signs. But when protesters do espouse extremist ideology in their protests, one can call them extremists and part of the danger we face, even if they are not yet actively involved in supporting terrorism.

Thus protests can be very significant. If you're saying that because the protests have been largely non-violent, the only extremists we saw among them were those who burned six churches in the West Bank and the one who murdered a nun, which probably amounts in all to two or three hundred people, then you're using a very slanted means of calculating. When people burn pope efigees, I call that extremism. When they say, "Death to the pope," I call them extremists.

Protests were taking place in many places . . . one important point that should interest us as far as extremism goes is knowing how many of them were calling for violence. An important piece of knowledge we can gain from the scale of these protests is that many Muslims worldwide are offended by the words of the pope.

When I read about the words of the pope, I knew that he was being misunderstood immediately. This is because I have a significant amount of trust for him, in addition to the fact that there was plentiful evidence that he was innocent of bad intentions from what he said. If people don't trust the West though, this they might be biased into thinking that the pope actually means these words himself. This is all just my perspective talking; I don't have evidence that this was what was going on in people's minds. But I know that for myself, I immediately knew he was misunderstood because I trusted him. For others, if they distrusted him, they might read into his words things that aren't there.

So the very sad way that I interpret the scale of these protests is a strong indicator that distrust of the West and perhaps also anti-Western feeling are very widespread.

This is not the fault of the pope. He made himself clear in his original speech. But the reaction to this speech shows that anti-Western feeling (note that I'm not saying extremism here, for it's a certain degree of opposition I'm talking about here, not the full growth of it) is widespread in the Muslim world.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Another attempt to directly link cold blooded murder with “those muslims” again?

Please don't try to frame Hector as an ignorant lout. The murder of the nun was an extremist terrorist act committed in Somalia, a radical Islamic country that the Bush Administration fears is secretly supporting Al'Qaeda. He's pointing out that this was an extremist act, not saying that all Muslims are responsible or that they'd all do the same. He has made his position on this clear in previous posts.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You have a fundamental problem understanding the concept don’t you Hector. The popes right of free speech is NOT what this is about. Its about simply taking some care in what you say when you have such enormous influence on people and therefore world events. He can SAY ANYTHING. But do you think its wise TO say ANYTHING at ALL even if its justified? Meanwhile you condemn “those muslims” for protesting…

I agree with you, Insidious Rex, that it's about whether it's intelligent to say what he did and not about whether he has the right to. The same goes for all Western leaders, especially in light of the crisis in the Middle East and the spread of radicalism. But looking at the text of what he said, it is obvious that he was not condemning Islam. He made that clear as he quoted the Byzantine emperor. Since they are reacting to something that didn't exist and which his speech was purposely crafted to prevent (the saying "I quote" twice), the reaction is hard to predict.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That millions of people around the world get their information from second hand sources who may use it to their own benefit? Do you disagree or something?

I say this would have been a tough one to predict. But this explosion of anger does show that anti-Western feeling manifested in distrust has grown among Muslims in many parts of the world.

Originally Posted by Hector

Roughly (because I hate polls) 75% of Sunnis in Iraq support the insurgency.

Hang on . . . where does this statistic come from? Because it doesn't jive with a Pentagon memo that said most of the Sunnis and most of the Shi'ites in Iraq still want democracy and peace.