Question that perplexes me

[Montalban]

Keep in mind, though, that "people" in ancient Greece meant "males of prominent standing". Bottom feeders and women needn't apply.

Absolutely agree. And even when Americans said "All men are created equal" they meant all white men (with a possible exception for Catholics)

 

[clirus]

Ah. How many nations do - according to your ideology of armed retaliation - have the ideological requirement to hit back against the US? Quite a few. So, what makes your position so righteous that you can attack and kill anyone you like without any reprisal being justifiable, whereas your own retaliations against retaliations against you suddenly becomes legitimate?!

You say "whatever it takes to win" is justifiable. Well, what about all the unjust wars the US has started? And what about all the innocent civilians the US has harmed or killed with these wars? Aren't they entitled to retaliation as well? And given that it does not seem the US is willing to let it's aggression go, aren't they - by your own logic - entitled to bombing the US back into the stone age?

I am well aware the Muslims (and other enemies) have created a justification for attacking America and that justification they created, allows for an attack without warning, plane highjackings, hotel bombings, suicide bombers, etc.

When attacked, America responded with a declaration of war and proceeded to deal with the enemy that had created a justification for attacking America. The purpose of the war was to find out who was right.

You can say America has been involved in unjust wars all you want, but I believe you are wrong.

Pacifists take a "holier than thou" attitude against the people that provide the protection for the pacifists, and that is why I say pacifists stab the soldiers in the back.

If it were up to me, I would send pacifists to talk the enemy before the battle begins and not allow the pacifists back, except if they obtain a absolute surrender by the enemy. That way you don't have to battle the enemy within.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Let's take a look at my original post, which I think has been blown out of all proportion:

Yep, you can't exactly blame the people of the Middle East and Afghanistan for not trusting the West, after the hijinx Westerners have gotten up to over the last few centuries

Nothing about loathing Western society, in fact, not even anything demonstrably false. I never said that the West was completely to blame, just that it was understandable why people in the Middle East don't trust the West after things like Iran Contra, and the deposition of Mossadeq.

That's different from YOU imposing democracy upon them.

New political system subject to a referendum. Sorted. And it's not like I'm suggesting invading every single country in the Middle East, and imposing a Western Democracy upon them. Fact is, the coalition forces already control areas of the middle east, and need to establish some form of government there before they leave. Bearing that in mind, a democracy is far better than some puppet dictator.

You made a blanket statement that is patently false. If it's your premise to make inaccurate statements because you just assume everyone knows what really happen then I believe you've got a very unique way of conversing with people.

Read my statement again, and tell me which bit was patently false. If you are talking about a different post to the one I have quoted above, feel free to point it out to me, and I'll discuss that with you as well.

No doubt. It's not inherently western to be at fault

But there you are both bagging the West and yet wanting to impose a western value on them yourself - democracy!

You're assuming that I believe the West is at fault simply because they are the West. Neither part of that is true. I believe the West is at least partly to blame, because of a list of things that they have done, as well as cultural attitudes in the Middle East.

Based on your understanding of the Bible... no I didn't miss that at all

Yes, I get that a lot. I provide evidence from Islamic experts, but you know a few people!

I can provide the same sort of "evidence" from Christian "experts", such as Fred Phelps, or, indeed, our very own Clirus. Just because there are varying numbers of nutters in each religion, who take certain verses to mean a certain thing, does not mean that every single person associated with that religion holds the same point of view. Case in point; the many decent Muslims who I know. Your citing of "expert" opinion cannot erase their existence as evidence that Muslims are not necessarily terrorists.

Again you're imposing your views of this, this time on me

I didn't reduce my argument to just that. Which is why your attempt was a massive misrepresentation

There's T-shirts, books, movies, democracy, telephones, television, medicines, educational systems, cars, etc.

Granted that many of the products are now made in the east, but they are 'western'. The ideas are western too.

I'm not sure what your point is here. That certain people in the middle east like certain aspects of Western technology and culture so... ?

So where are we up to now?

You making broad sweeping statements that have nothing to do with reality because it misses Islamic hatred pre-dates western imperialism. Oh, but you have weighed this up against your interpretation of the Bible and you know a few Moslems!

The only broad sweeping statement I have continually made is that not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, in the same way as not every Christian burns witches. You're arguing with a strawman.

What you've done is repeatedly posted yourself as an expert and then oddly enough reduced my argument to being of my opinion - that is, to the same level of your post.
[snip]
There's much more on their opinion of Jews and Christians in total

I have never claimed to be an expert. I'm trying to make one simple point, and you're refusing to even consider it.

 

[TheReasoner]

You're more than welcome to resort to evidence

You don't see it? Well. Sometimes we miss out on what we ourselves say and do.

You called Islam "evil at heart". This is an OPINION, maybe valid maybe not. It is regardless not an absolutely certain truth and depends upon one's definition of evil. You have also been rather free with the word "them" which can certainly be interpreted as a blanket statement embracing all Muslims and slamming a label on them. You ALSO seem very eager to make absolute claims about how Moslems interpret their own faith. Yet I see no credentials behind your name, nor am I aware of any phd thesis you have written making you a world-leading expert on the field.

If you are going to promote your view as the only right one, back it up with insults and very rude behavior while accusing others of a behavior you yourself are guilty of at LEAST don't do it in the name of Jesus!

 

[Montalban]

Let's take a look at my original post, which I think has been blown out of all proportion:

Nothing about loathing Western society, in fact, not even anything demonstrably false. I never said that the West was completely to blame, just that it was understandable why people in the Middle East don't trust the West after things like Iran Contra, and the deposition of Mossadeq.

The very post is loathing of the west - that we're to blame. Perhaps you missed my points saying we're not

But also thanks for showing nil evidence. Your opinion is, seemingly good enough

 

[Montalban]

You don't see it? Well. Sometimes we miss out on what we ourselves say and do.

I posted evidence FROM MOSLEMS regarding what they think of non-Moslems, just on the issue of close friendship. That's just a start. But seeing as neither you nor another choose to engage in that but simply counter with your own opinion, then so be it.

 

[Ar Cosc]

The very post is loathing of the west - that we're to blame. Perhaps you missed my points saying we're not

But also thanks for showing nil evidence. Your opinion is, seemingly good enough

Perhaps you'd take the time to look up the word "loathe" in a dictionary. You might be surprised. I'll be back and ready to have a polite and civilised discussion when you're back.

 

[Montalban]

I am well aware the Muslims (and other enemies) have created a justification for attacking America and that justification they created, allows for an attack without warning, plane highjackings, hotel bombings, suicide bombers, etc.

If you read Ar Crosc it's a justifiable reaction to western imperialism.

All that takes is ignoring the fundamentals of Islam and the view that Islamic history began to turn violent only in the last few centuries.

But then he knows a few Moslems!

 

[Montalban]

Perhaps you'd take the time to look up the word "loathe" in a dictionary. You might be surprised. I'll be back and ready to have a polite and civilised discussion when you're back.

You're more than welcome to continue to ignore evidence I presented.

You continue to offer NOTHING against this but your opinion, then reducing my posts to a matter of opinion. Hey, but you know a couple of Moslems.

You've offered NO evidence for the past several days regarding your statement about Islamic reaction except to touch upon 'everyone would know this' who's read history.

Perhaps you think that this is part of a civlised discussion (but perhaps not 'western' civilisation )

 

[Montalban]

It sounds more like someone's bunch of assumptions that it just is has never been challenged before.

I meet a number of people who've read just cursory accounts of these matters and it fits in with their loathing of their own culture.

The odd thing is that these people usually call themselves 'free thinkers'!

 

[Ar Cosc]

You're more than welcome to continue to ignore evidence I presented.

I addressed the "evidence" you presented, several times, and I'm not going to repeat myself again.

You continue to offer NOTHING against this but your opinion, then reducing my posts to a matter of opinion. Hey, but you know a couple of Moslems.

A couple of Muslims whose very existence proves that Islam does not inevitably lead to terrorism. Also, I've mentioned Mossadeq before, read up on him.

You've offered NO evidence for the past several days regarding your statement about Islamic reaction except to touch upon 'everyone would know this' who's read history.

Again, Mossadeq. Also, the British rule in Iraq, and the creation of Israel are important events in the history of resentment of the West by the Middle East.

 

[Montalban]

I addressed the "evidence" you presented, several times, and I'm not going to repeat myself again.

Offering your own opinion.

My humble 'opinion' backed by facts makes for a more interesting conversation.

Again, Mossadeq. Also, the British rule in Iraq, and the creation of Israel are important events in the history of resentment of the West by the Middle East.

More self-loathing. Islamic hostility pre-dates these events. Appealing to 'everyone who's read history knows...' is not addressing it

 

[TheReasoner]

I posted evidence FROM MOSLEMS regarding what they think of non-Moslems, just on the issue of close friendship. That's just a start. But seeing as neither you nor another choose to engage in that but simply counter with your own opinion, then so be it.

Montalban, this is ridiculous. I fail to see any sources - maybe you posted but i have not seen them. Furthermore - even if you did you posted evidence from SOME MOSLEMS. Hardly ALL. You cannot on the basis of "some" conclude "all".
I would also chastise you for picking one single point in my fairly short post and looking exclusively at that. Another logically fallacious move, Montalban. But I guess me pointing out mistakes in your behavior is simply a case of a "liberal being smug" whereas your own fallacious argumentation is right by virtue of being from you?

 

[TheReasoner]

-

 

[clirus]

Ar Cosc quote

The only broad sweeping statement I have continually made is that not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, in the same way as not every Christian burns witches. You're arguing with a strawman.

Response

I believe it is always good to look to what the Bible says about issues. The following is what the Bible says about Ishmael that produced the Muslims

Genesis 16:11-12 says, And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, but based on the Bible, there is reason to be cautious.

 

[Jerry Horse]

Not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, but based on the Bible, there is reason to be cautious.

So if a person of non-Arab origin that was a Christian, converts to Islam, all of a sudden there should be caution paid to them?

 

[TheReasoner]

So if a person of non-Arab origin that was a Christian, converts to Islam, all of a sudden there should be caution paid to them?

While I do not agree with Clirus I can see an analogous situation (to him/her/it anyway) which would warrant that, yes.
If a person converted to extremist devil-worshipping I'd advice caution too. Or if a person joined the KKK. Same deal.
I think Clirus is saying that like extreme devil-worship and different flavors of extreme racism Islam is inherently evil and as such should always be seen as a potential threat.

Mind you this is my interpretation of Clirus' words. I may be wrong.

 

[merryheart]

Ar Cosc quote

The only broad sweeping statement I have continually made is that not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, in the same way as not every Christian burns witches. You're arguing with a strawman.

Response

I believe it is always good to look to what the Bible says about issues. The following is what the Bible says about Ishmael that produced the Muslims

Genesis 16:11-12 says, And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, but based on the Bible, there is reason to be cautious.

so this is ishmael... are you saying it applies to all of his descendants as well???

i know arabs who are not wild donkeys, and non-arabs who are. always bad to make sweeping generalizations about people by race :\

 

[Nooj]

Ar Cosc quote

The only broad sweeping statement I have continually made is that not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, in the same way as not every Christian burns witches. You're arguing with a strawman.

Response

I believe it is always good to look to what the Bible says about issues. The following is what the Bible says about Ishmael that produced the Muslims

Genesis 16:11-12 says, And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Not every Muslim is necessarily a terrorist, but based on the Bible, there is reason to be cautious.

So the Bible is racist.

 

[clirus]

While I do not agree with Clirus I can see an analogous situation (to him/her/it anyway) which would warrant that, yes.
If a person converted to extremist devil-worshipping I'd advice caution too. Or if a person joined the KKK. Same deal.
I think Clirus is saying that like extreme devil-worship and different flavors of extreme racism Islam is inherently evil and as such should always be seen as a potential threat.

Mind you this is my interpretation of Clirus' words. I may be wrong.

We agree, we agree, oh happy day.