This is clearly not true.
There is no “Islamic hatred of Westerners” or else there would have been no Western tourists in Muslim dominated locations throughout the world prior to the current violence, (and continuing despite the violence, in many places, today), no treaties between Mulsim countries and Western countries, no expressions of regret and condolences from Muslim countries following the WTC/Pentagon attacks*. There is a hatred of Western social values among the most extreme of the Islamist fundamentalists–and it has been furthered by those occasions when Western countries have supported corruption and persecution.
Those responsible for the Bali attacks included Westerners among their targets because they perceived “the West” to have been a strong agent supporting their own repression. That feeling did not go away just because Suharto had died. That they practice an extreme form of fundamentalist Islam certainly played a part in their actions, but blaming the attack on an “Islamic” hatred (rather than on its fundamentalist subdivision) is simply nonsense.
Only two countries demonstrated glee at the attacks, Islamist Afghanistan and secular Iraq. There were groups within Muslim countries who celebrated, but they were nealy all in locations where the U.S. is perceived as an active outside agent of repression.
I cited the anti-western sentiment promoted by Imams in the earlier posts. You’ve cited nothing but your opinion. There is no rational reason behind targeting innocent people in the Bali attack.
This all goes back to your irrational comparison of Limbaugh and company to the violence in question.
You cited the anti-western sentiment of the specific group that was involved in the Bali attacks, then came back with a broader assertion that the anti-western view was “Islamic” as though it involved all of Islam, despite the lack of evidence that that view was anything but a minority view.
This discussion arose when you claimed that there were no outside factors involved with the the “anti-western” views of “Islam” and fell back on citing only the Bali attacks when I demonstrated that there were outside factors in all areas where Muslims have been involved in recent violence. As to the Bali attacks, you have simply hand-waved away the evidence I provided that the group responsible had been persecuted.
= = =
There are clearly groups within Islam who preach hatred and violence. I have never claimed otherwise. Our difference is that you want to pretend that Islam is the source of that hatred and violence while I see that many outside factors play a part in various separate situations.
Right, because choosing to be a muslim and choosing to be a human is the same thing. I’ll remember that if I ever fall overboard on a cruise ship so I can turn myself into the incredible Mr. Limpet to survive.
What is the default position of the constitution? Something about providing for the common defense? Any directions on how that is done? Anything about slaying them where you find them and only making deals until you can get the upper hand and then kill, tax or enslave them?
No, as has been pointed out by myself and others, it is astounding the lengths you will go to rationalize or excuse Islam. One would think that someone so well educated and informed as you would have nothing but scorn for a group—religion or not—that is living in a barbaric past. We’re talking about a religion that—now, in 2010—condones the killing of innocents. And doing so for the oh-so-horrible sin of drawing a cartoon of their leader, or burning their so-called holy book. On would think that, but then one would see your pattern of consistently running to the defense of that barbaric religion and seeking to protect it. Telling people to look away. Telling people they’re so silly for equating the violence that the adherents perpetrate in the name of the religion really have nothing to do with the religion. No matter how numerous the murderous, attacks by these ignorant, hateful barbarians.
There are “outside factors” involving people all over the world every day. The deciding factor (to act) in the Bali attack was religiously driven. I cited the anti-Western sentiment that was preached by Imams and in schools. It is not just a function of disagreeing with other religions, it’s outright hostility. This environment, combined with the words and actions of Mohamed not only justify the actions but mandate it.
All religions have people with varying degrees of fervor and commitment. The difference with Islam is that the closer one gets to core beliefs, the more likely they will follow the words and actions of their leader. This is clearly manifested in the number of terrorist attacks that occur around the world and they are not committed my people who happen to be Muslims, they occur by religious decree. The deciding factor is religion and not all the other factors that affect other people of different faiths. It is the reason why more people were murdered in one day by the mention of burning a book than all the doctors over the years who were murdered because they destroyed unborn babies.
Governments around the world have spent billions defending their citizens right to free speech, unencumbered travel, or just liberty in general. Islam’s most devoted followers are exponentially more likely to commit acts of terrorism than other religions. That is the reality of the situation.
I have never denied that the deciding factor to act was religiously driven.
I noted that all regions with Muslim violence have experienced social disruption.
You claimed that that was not true in the case of the Bali bombings.
You were wrong; social disruption was clearly part of the background.
I never claimed that religion played no part in it. I merely noted that your claim that there was no social disruption was wrong.
You continue to hammer away on a claim I have never made while refusing to recognize your error.
And after whining (incorrectly) that all I offered was “opinion,” all you offer is opinion.
The most extreme fundamentalist Muslims are clearly violent. Given the behavior of Buddhist and Hindu opponents on Sri Lanka, Hindu and Muslim opponents in India, and Christian and Christian opponents in Spain and Ireland, I deny your claim that only Islam produces those behaviors. Islam has the most visible number of violent groups at this particular moment in history, because Islam was the most prevalent religion in the largest number of socially disrupted regions of the world.
Your opinion is that it is “Islam” and my opinion is that religion, (in this case, Islam), is simply the handiest social organizing force in less developed regions. We are not going to agree.
What is very believable, given your views on various topics, is that you are willing to claim that “Islam” is doing any particular thing when any examination of the facts will demonstrate that it is not “Islam” but specific factions within Islam.
Your false claim that I “excuse” Islam is nothing more than your frustration that I will not simplisticly condemn an entire religion for the actions and beliefs of the various factions within it, preferring to examine and condemn the actual adherents to the specific factions that promote barbarism and violence. You prefer to ignore the differences among varied Muslim groups and just condemn them all without giving it any thought and it irritates you that I will not cave in to your desire for unthinking condemnation.
That has been my point throughout. You keep mentioning other factors in a nebulous attempt at explaining the behavior. You then attempted to dilute it further by comparing the violence to right wing talk show hosts.
You’re equating the conflict between the Irish and the British as a religious one. Not only was this a war of independence but the violence was condemned by the Catholic Church. What’s the point of having a discussion if this is your line of logic.
Piffle.
Your point, throughout, has been to deny any other factor than religion and you have had to focus exclusively on the Bali bombing because of all the Muslim violence, it is the only one for which you can erroneously claim had no other sources.
I mentioned multiple conflicts and you have now falsely claimed that the Irish fighting the Irish in Northern Ireland was only a political fight with Great Britain.
You have an odd way of ignoring and distorting facts.
As to the your attempt to reword my comment about Right Wing nutcases, you claimed that the Iranian theocrats had condemned people to death. I noted that your citation had mentioned that they had actually not condemned anyone to death, then remarked on how different nutjobs make stupid statements all the time. You are trying to turn my statement into something different than what I said–which is on a par with your ignoring Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian violence, (some of it against peaceful Muslims), and changing Irish-on-Irish terrorism to a fight between Brits and Irish.
I have mentioned only a handful of incidences for which you consistently attempt to find other reasons behind the violence. I focused on the Bali incident because you knee-jerked it with a bunch of contributing factors nonsense as if social strife doesn’t exist outside of Muslim countries.
The fact is that it wasn’t a religious war and was condemned by religious leaders. Condemned, not promoted. And yes, Ireland wants the entire island under their political rule. If it were religious in nature then other Christian religions wouldn’t exist within their border.
This is a specious argument. the article clearly stated that fatwas were issued calling for those involved to be killed. It is the same process that put Salmon Rushdie in hiding. That they stipulated it had to be carried out with the authorization of an Islamic religious judge doesn’t change anything when they control who is a judge. Do you think a country willing to execute gay teenagers would flinch over killing the pastor in question?
Then why haven’t they? If they are as savage and bloodthirsty as you claim, why is he yet amongst the living? If their holy text compels them to murder, why is he still walking around? There are several million Muslims in America, why hasn’t one of them taken him out?
Because they aren’t. Because my Congressman, Mr Ellison, is as mild and normal a Minnesotan as any other, save that he is Muslim and not Lutheran. Because there are two kinds of people in the world, people who believe that there are two kinds, us and them, and people who know better.
Well I guess I missed the part where I said that Muslims are savage and bloodthirsty.
As I stated before, all religions have varying degrees of intensity within their ranks. In the case of Islam, the closer one gets to the core behavior of the prophet, the more likely they are to emulate his behavior. Most Muslims are not that wrapped up in their religion.
But back to your question, the American cartoonist who started the “draw Mohammad day” is in hiding 4 months after the event. She is not hiding from Fred Phelps. She’s hiding from Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who was the Imam who counseled the Fort Hood Shooter.
It’s a good bet that the Reverend’s life is in danger.
Once again you spectacularly miss the point, so I’ll try and be more clear: You seem to think that the problem with radical Islam is the “Islam” part, whereas I maintain that it’s the “radical” part. Given that the vast majority of Muslims don’t commit or support terrorist acts, and given that many non-Muslim radicals do (hint: there have been multiple terrorist acts by extremist environmentalists in the past decade in America alone), I think the facts are on my side.
Does the Constitution say that? No. Has America done just that many, many times over? Yup.
Clearly you’re more bothered by those who ignore the more violent elements of their ideologies and live peaceful lives than those who purport to live by a peaceful document but sanction violent acts. But hey! You could always renounce your American citizenship. It’s a choice, after all. If you aren’t willing to take that step, then I guess we’ll have to assume you approve of all the wars, coups, assassinations, etc that the US has instigated around the world over the years.
And you fail to understand that the religion itself leads to terrorism the closer you get to the core of the religion. If you follow it closely then the only correct response is one of militancy. There are few other options. The religion itself is not designed to ‘play nice’ with others.
No it doesn’t say that which is why the US hasn’t been in many (any?) conflicts just because of religion. Imagine if there were entries equivalent to what is in Islam in how to treat your enemies?
That most people don’t want to kill others, even if their religions demands it of them, says more about the people than the religion. But, you can’t ignore that the book itself gives them permission with god’s authority to do so.
I’m not an American.
You know I wouldn’t be having this conversation if their book said that fluffy magic bunny wanted snuggles for everyone. No, I’d be having these ‘people are crazy to believe in fluffy magic bunny’ even though the message might be a good one.
And if the people who followed FMB’s commandment went around hugging people no one would argue that the reason they did it would probably be because of their religion. Yet, some guy blows himself up in a crowded cafe and we can point to the Quran where it gives him permission to do so, and there are all sorts of argument about how he hasn’t interpreted it correctly, or he must be socioeconomically repressed, etc. All sorts of reasons why it has little or nothing to do with what the religions commands when people do bad things, yet all sorts of thanking god(s) when people do good things.
So why is Islamic terrorism so rare? I mean, with 1.5 billion Muslims in the world following a religion that inescapably leads to terrorism, why don’t we see a 9/11 at least once a day? Or are most Muslims just really not that in to it?
Compared to what? Christians? Hindus? Maybe a comparison per person is more appropriate.
An interesting article on monotheism and violence.
I’m not sure I agree that the way they collected data would result in entirely accurate results, but they recognize it. Their conclusion about authoritarian sociopathic personalities high-jacking things like religion is spot on. Actually, it might even make me rethink on whether Islam is any worse than any other monotheistic religion. Given this they could all be equally evil.
I still think a religion giving a person license to do bad things to other people is more likely to result in that action being taken, though.
There are more Christians than Muslims yet the worldwide terrorism linked to Muslims greatly exceeds that of Christians. And by greatly I mean exponentially. Why is that? If you figure that X percentage of every religion has it’s fanatical element why aren’t the Fred Phelps followers killing gay people? It’s crystal clear that he does not like them. Iran has no trouble putting gay teenagers to death. Teenagers.
The difference is that there are clearly delineated examples of Mohammad butchering people who did not conform. Butchered them. This is not in dispute. When people go down the road of religion and turn on Fanatical Blvd they have a blueprint of behavior based on their leader.
The Reverend was threatening to burn a book that talks of harming people like him. The reaction to it was that 6 Christians were burned to death. Do you see a difference between the Reverend’s actions and the people he protested against?
Let me see if I can simplify this for you. Let’s say there is a quantifiable measure for fear and hatred, and that number is N. Any number N is a bad thing. Now, lets say that the quantified measure of fear and hatred provoked by the “reverend” amongst Muslilms is X. If N is bad, N plus X is worse.
Now, this is a fairly sophisticated bunch here, so its unlikely in the extreme that your efforts to foster similar fear and hatred are having much effect, certainly not anywheres near the amount represented by X. Lets call it M, and peg it at about X times 10 to the minus fourth power. A puny amount in comparison, to be sure but still! N plus X plus M > N plus X.
I’ll give you some time to absorb that, let me know when you’re ready.