As a New Yorker, and as a human being, my heart goes out to those affected by this tragedy.
Does anyone have a good recommendation for a charity in the area that knows what they’re doing? It’s time to do what we can to help.
“So what did you see?”
“It was a large space ship, shaped like a yarmukle”.
“Did they analy probe you?”
“No, but they did cut a little bit off the end of my penis”.
CNN reported that the Rabbi and his wife were Israelis who moved to Queens.
So, in your mind, intra-group violence among neighbors is exactly the same as “spreading” a religion?
Odd.
Of course you don’t want to “quibble over semantics”; you want to invent new definitions of the terms whenever you want to make a new point. It would appear that you wish to portray Islam (or some significant subset of Islam) as inherently different from any other organized group, rationalizing any fear that gets churned up at the mention of the word. The murder of Egyptian Copts is no different in rational terms than the murders of hundreds of Muslims as Yugoslavia fell apart or hundreds more at the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon or the murder of Hindus by Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Societies under stress look for scapegoats and tend to behave violently toward them. Most of the MENA region has been under significant stress for a long while. The clearest cultural marker in those areas has been religion, so the victims tend to be defined by religion and claiming that one side or another is inherently more violent obscures what actually happens. The cultures in Rwanda and Congo are tribal in nature, so the violence in those places is not defined by religion. In the U.S., most religious expression is pretty similar, so when we have sought to scapegoat one group or another, we have tended, (at least since the Catholics have been mostly assimilated), to burn neighborhoods or murder people according to whether they are recent immigrants or whether they are of a different perceived race rather than based on their religion. Again, I am not denying the ruthless nature of and the hatred generated by al Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood or similar groups. But when those actions are generalized to “Islam,” they begin to fail the reality test.
No. It is not doublespeak to seek to keep the issue clear. I condemn the terrorists in Mumbai and if they are Muslim, as I would guess it will turn out they are, I will still condemn them. My objection in this thread has been to the loose transference of blame from “these extreme Islamist groups are evil” to “Islam is an inherently violent religion.” To the extent that that transfer occurs, I will continue to point out that it is an error.
:rolleyes:
Al Qaeda has said specifically that they want to setup a new Caliphate.
Maybe just maybe Al Qaeda’s motivations are exactly what they say they are.
Therein lies the difference.
People are attempting to spread Islam through violence right now, as we speak. It just isn’t working very well.
:rolleyes: What strategic significance to the regional struggle did the Holzberg’s have again? I haven’t seen the info on that.
You’re the one attacking straw men here not me. What other religions do or do not do is irrelevant. We’re talking about Muslims right now. Yes, other religions kill people in the names of their religion too. What relevance does that have?
I didn’t generalize it to ‘Islam’, you did. I even attempted to clarify that I was speaking about a large minority within Islam. You ignored that. That’s your problem not mine.
You aren’t seeking to keep the issue clear you are trying to advance a multicultural PC fantasy. “The extreme Islamist groups are evil”, is precisely what I am saying. There is no denying that there is a large subsection of Muslims that interprets Muslim theology as not only condoning but mandating violent Jihad. Denying that is just more Unitarianism run amok. ‘All religions are equally valid.’, stuff is great for tea and cakes at the local Unitarian church, but the reality is all it does is confuse the issue with a stone-wall argument that relies too much on Straw men. I haven’t seen a single person in this thread advance the notion that ALL MUSLIMS are violent Jihadists. Not a single person. You are advancing a straw man by claiming this. The reality of it though is that a really vast minority subsection of Muslims believes it is a valid way to spread Islam and that spreading Islam is a moral imperative.
You are not the only poster in this thread and you interposed your comments into a discussion in which Islam had already been generalized to be inherently violent and evil. If you did not mean to take that position, then you should have been much clearer from the very beginning regarding your intent and, perhaps, paid a bit of attention to the actual discussion. (Throwing in a bit of backpedalling disclaimer while continuing to argue the same points makes your current claim a bit suspect.) Trying to attack me when you have wandered in from left field may be part of your contrary nature, but it is a poor discussion tactic.
Look, I stated explicitly which Muslims I was talking about. Not allowing me to clarify what I meant is a poor discussion tactic. I clarified, and in your direct response to my clarification you ignored it completely. So don’t give me any of this high-minded bullshit.
I said, Jihadists, Islamists, Al Qaeda types, by way of clarification. You responded to the, “I don’t want to argue semantics.”, comment so you could make a cutting remark, but ignored the clarification that it prefaced.
Maybe I missed the posts where people were blanketly condemning Islam. Mostly I paid attention to Tagos because I thought he was saying the most interesting things. What he said was not a blanket condemnation at all, and I saw many attempts by him as well as other posters to talk about a significant minority that was within the double-digits.
May I ask why almost all terrorists are Muslim? No, this is sincere. Does anyone notice or this an amazing coincedence?
Well, it’s not true. There are plenty of terrorists who are not Muslim. There just happen to be a lot of prominent Muslim terrorists.
There may well be plenty of other terrorists but all we seem to hear and read about are mostly Muslim ones.
Latest info news.bbc.co.uk/
May I ask why Most bombings from the air are done by America? Maybe because America has airplanes? Does that make it any better than killing at street level? Does this mean all Americans support and condone the killing of other people from the air?
America has been killing in Iraq in large numbers since 2003. It’s been all over the news. The death and destruction done by America in Iraq has no parallel in any Muslim terrorist group.
Is the number of civilians killed by America in Iraq greater than the number of civilians killed by terrorists on 9/11 or 7/7.
I doubt it
Of course; many times more.
Because we define them as such; while not defining ourselves as terrorists when WE are the ones killing indiscriminately. “Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army” has a lot of truth to it.
No matter
Terrible scene over there. So far, my teammates’ families are safe (and not in Mumbai). Woohoo on that.
Mr. K noticed that the Indian anti-terror teams were using WWII weapons, for the most part. Does anyone know where they stand (aside from The Bomb) with regard to military sophistication and strength?
Another thing I noticed was that they had virtually no crowd control, with passers-by just kind of hanging around outside the hotels, watching the action, talking on cellphones, rubbernecking (and getting shot!). I can’t imagine anyone outside police and special forces (and maybe some press) being anywhere *near *the scene had this happened in the US. What’s with that?