I do not see a significant difference between pride and political powerlessness which is the other component mentioned.
And pride takes it away from the religious and into the cultural, again, anyway.
Well, I said
and you replied
Given the context, I took this to mean: “While not all Muslim’s are terrorists, it’s fair to make the generalization that the religion as a whole is pro-terrorist” just because the tiny percentage of Muslim’s that are terrorists is larger than the tiny percentage of Hindus, etc. that are terrorists (The comment of mine you were responding to was a response to the “not a religion of peace” comments further up thread.")
If that’s not how you meant it, I apologize for misinterpreting you. But if that is how you meant it, I’m saying that even saying “I know they aren’t all that way” doesn’t really make it OK to extrapolate the actions of a small percentage of a group to a description of that group as a whole.
As a comparison:
Suppose that members of race R are more likely to use drug D than members of other races. Suppose that nevertheless only a small percentage of the members of race R use drug D.
If someone were to make some comment about how much members of race R like drug D, and then add the caveat “but I know they’re not all like that”, I’d still find it objectionable.
It’s “painting with a broad brush” to suggest that a negative trait of a small minority is characteristic of the group as a whole, whether you say “But of course they aren’t all like that”, or not.
Again, sorry if you didn’t mean it that way. I definitely think there are people in this thread who are characterizing Islam as a violent religion based on the actions of a small minority. If you aren’t one of them, then good for you.
Agreed, the conflict itself is over the resources and power. Religion is however a very useful tool to motivate the masses, even if they are very unlikely to benefit from the resources and power should the conflict swing in their favour. As a motivator I don’t think it’s significance can be underestimated.
Apologies for not clarifying myself better.
This is one I can’t work out, whether Bin Laden is actually highly personally motivated by religion or whether he is just using it as a tool for other desires. Personally I’m leaning the way you state it since I can’t see a specific material goal from his actions. Unless the goal is purely personal power and/or respect among his people, which doesn’t preclude a genuine religious belief.
Personally my annoyance at this sneering at Islam being a “religion of peace” is also tied to the arguments that come back from Christians when people point out that Christianity is not exactly a peaceful religion either, comments such as;
So it’s just a matter of scale now? Kill, injure, hurt just one person in the name of some cause and you better make absolutely sure that your house is lilly white before you start slinging accusations at the other “side”.
Personally I hold no relgious beliefs at all, but I will defend and respect your desires to hold your own beliefs. Just don’t expect me to be impressed when you point at another kid in the playground and claim “well he did worse”. If you are going to tar a whole community based on the actions of a small minority, you should make sure that no one can turn to you and point out that your own community has it’s faults.
- I’ve probably hijacked this thread way too far now, apologies to the OP, it’s just an interesting discussion
“What we see depends mainly on what we look for.” John Lubbock
This is all pretty effing pointless at the moment since right now the only indication that the attackers were a Muslim group is a single statement by a virtually unknown group taking credit for the attacks.
A tiny terrorist group nobody’s ever heard of is highly unlikely to have successfully pulled off as many as a dozen carefully coordinated attacks within the space of an hour or two, methinks.
Let’s leave the finger pointing and value judgments on world religions out of it until we have some actual evidence, 'kay? Even if it is Muslim terrorists, as discussed on the first page, there’s every chance that they’re terrorists who happen to be Muslim rather than “Muslim Terrorists”.
And World War 2 was soldiers just who happened to be German killing people who just happened to be Jews :rolleyes:
:smack:
Spanish Inquisition.
Holocaust.
Both perpetrated by Christians. See if you can spot the difference.
If we are going to go that far back, which Crusade sacked Byzantium, a fellow Christian city? 
I think who did it and why is yet to be determined. I am sure the US will push an Al Queda connection,even if it does not exist. I think we will have to wait a few days at least.
That statement only makes sense when something is implied. The nature and background of terrorist attacks around the world are known. There is a common denominator. We’re not talking about a couple of wackjobs who commit heinous crimes. These attacks are well planned, and well funded. The attackers come from schools set up by religious organizations for the express purpose of carrying out such attacks. The leaders of these organizations have their own armies and they preach jihadist dogma complete with death warrants for individuals such as Salman Rushdie. There is nothing remotely comparable in scale with any other religion today.
And beyond which, it’s what the terrorists have in common. You have Arabs, Pakistanis, Persians, and Indonesians. They don’t have a common ethnicity, country, or language. Hell, what does Pakistan care about Israel other than that they are Jews and thus the enemy of Muslims. But yet the latest terrrorists went after a building with a Jewish organization.
Apology accepted, I didn’t mean it that way.
I simply meant that even if just a small % of Muslims are terrorists then that is to many
Thee lengths some people are going to to hand wave away the quite obvious and completely indisputable, to any reasonable mind, fact that Islamic terrorism is what it says on the can. Islam is the motivating cause. They say it is. The ideology is Islamic and as numerous polls show - the same polls posted time and time again and which the posters in this thread are perfectly well aware of - this terrorism has frightening levels of support across the islamic world. In the double digit %.
This is not just walking like a duck and quacking like a duck it’s pulled on it’s own ‘I’m a Duck’ T shirt and taken an ad slot during the Super Bowl.
‘Pride’. Give me a friggin break. Is there no knot apologists for superstition won’t tie themselves into to avoid the obvious.
The Crusades? Nothing to do with religion. No. Just a chance to catch a bit of sun.
Is it just me or did the terrorists use the plot of the computergame rainbow 6:las vegas as their playbook ?
speaking of rainbow 6, http://www.myfoxspokane.com/myfox/pages/Entertainment/Detail?contentId=7960435&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=7.1.1 seems like one of the voice acters from Rainbow six was wounded in the attacks
The Counter-Strike mods and action movies (starring either the swarthy guy from Heroes or the swarthy guy from Lost) that are going to come from this incident.
Or maybe another Rambo movie.
No - wait - a joint Rambo/Rocky movie.
This is just the same silly argument that we have repeated a hundred times already.
Everything is relative. What percentage of Muslims support or condone these terrorist acts? I am sure the percentage is quite small.
Now, let us take a nation which says it is a peaceful nation, the United States of America. The fact is that in the last half century it has been involved in countless cases of aggression and killing against other peoples and nations. Right now it is involved in a war of aggression in Iraq. Now, let us answer this question: what percentage of the American people supported this war initially? The percentage is staggeringly high. And this war has resulted in death and destruction on a scale which reduces these terrorist attacks to insignificance.
So just give me a break with the “Muslims are violent terrorists” theme because in the context of things Americans are much more so.
OPEC being the short end of the stick I bloody well want my share of the long end of the stick.
A great deal of what we regard as “Muslim” violence is rooted in tribalism and attempts to control land. It’s only poor news reporting and selective memory that allows one to call Rwandan struggle to seize land “tribal retribution” or Catholic Ireland’s struggle to “make Ireland whole”/seize Northern Ireland “the troubles,” but call Hamas’ struggle to seize the West bank, or Osama’s struggle to seize power in Muslim countries, “religious terror.”
Would the Israeli seizure of land count as religious or tribal?
It seems the only reason Israel exists where it does is because a bronze age book says it should.
No bronze age book, no middle east crisis.
Similarly, if neither the torah, bible or koran existed (and there were no substitutes) would there be tensions anywhere in the middle east now?
Seems to me, alot of the problems are caused by religious zealots from all sides (Muslim, Christian and Jewish).