Apology/condemnation? That’s rather like Porsche/Volkswagen, isn’t it? No one asked him to apologize. In fact, no one asked him to condemn. What was said was that all Muslims should condemn that and all other acts of terrorism committed by Muslim extremists. It’s just common fucking sense. No one said anything to or about Aldebaran until he swooped into the thread basically to condemn the calls for condemnation and took upon himself personally the whole issue. His “reasoning” was that he shouldn’t condemn it because he didn’t do it. I mean hell, even the Pope condemned it and he sure didn’t do it. I condemn it, and I didn’t do it. What the fuck is wrong with condemning the torture and mass murder of children?
OK, delete the word “apology”; my point remains. These hostage takers were primarily motivated by a desire for (a) independence for Chechnya, and (b) revenge for the slaughter brought upon the Chechens by the Russian government. And before anyone accuses me of sympathising with the terrorists - I don’t, I am merely stating how they justified it to themselves. The Muslim angle seems to me to have been greatly overplayed, mostly it would seem for political reasons.
It isn’t. But strangely we never hear demands that, for instance, Christians ought to condemn and apologise for all the thousands of civilians, including children, killed by George “God Bless America” Bush. Can you see the difference? Bush plays the “good Christian” card for all it’s worth, so why aren’t churches across America being prevailed upon to attack the evil that he perpetrates in the name of his/her religion?
Sorry, my mistake. Thank you.
It should be as obvious as the nose on your face that the extremists are paying no attention to the moderate clerics here and there. That’s why the call for ALL Muslims to unite in one voice and condemn the terrorism. So long as the terrorists perceive “normal Muslims” as potential recruits, nothing is going to change.
Apparently they did - finally - denounce the slaughtering. Good for them. If only aldebaran could ‘lower’ himself to do so.
From: http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=1620
Muslim and Arab newspapers were unanimous Monday in condemning the bloodshed.
One Arab editorial writer wrote a scathing rebuke of Muslims around the world.
“Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture,” Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television wrote in his daily column published in the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. It ran under the headline, “The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!”
Al-Rashed listed recent attacks by groups claiming to represent Islam — in Russia, Iraq Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen — many of which he accused of falling under the influence of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi-born leader of al-Qaeda.
“Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims,” he wrote. Muslims will be unable to cleanse their image unless “we admit the scandalous facts,” rather than offer condemnations or justifications.
Are you joking? Plenty of Christians on this board — including me — unequivocally condemn the rampant destruction of lives and property in Iraq by the Dickhead in Chief. We’ve been doing it for some time now. And no one had to ask.
One of the major problems I have with A. is his seeming inability to seperate church from state. I have read about where his posting ISP is located and that he has been granted exceptional leniency by the Admins.
I probably started lurking after he started posting, but his English has definitely improved, and promoting learning is one step on from fighting ignorance, isn’t it?
I have a feeling - no more - that A. is a low-level diplomat or the child of one.
Hmmm… can one claim Diplomatic Immunity for posts on the SDMB? 
If my opinion matters in the least here:
Aldiehas slammed me (by proxy, politically and religiously) so many times I’m ready to “meet” him. But that’s tempered by his latest posting style.
He’s probably still the same guy that wants to kill me and my wife because I’m Catholic. I can handle that, all the guns in the house are loaded. 
I almost opened a thread in MPSIMS to welcome him back a few weeks ago to tout his new “friendly” posting style. He seemed to have followed the path I’ve begun. i.e. Post stuff that won’t arbitrarilly piss people off.
Maybe it didn’t happen. I was hoping he was ready to try the whole dialogue thing, but maybe not. I wanted to learn of Islam from a practitioner, but I suspect he’s not the one. Not accusing him of being a t*** but it’s a little suspicious that he ends up in all threads related to Islam/Judaism.
He built some major points with me by appearing to take a less militant tack for his views.
However…
That’s exactly my point! No one had to ask, and no one did ask. You condemn it; I condemn it, just as we condemn the killing of Russian school children. But no one demands that we condemn it because we share a religion (or not, in my case) with him; rather, we condemn it because we are human.
Let me reiterate; if a dickhead does something dumb or evil (or both), it makes no odds whether he claims to share a religion with him. He’s still a dickhead. Nowhere did Aldebaran defend the terrorists; he simply took offence when people tried to link their actions to him and his religion.
Point of order: A linked himself, which was a typcial A strawman.
What are we if we refuse, as Aldebaran did, to condemn it? Jackasses? Why not just say, “I resent what I perceive as your implication, but I condemn the act nonetheless.”?
No one said anything about him. He dropped into the thread and identified himself explicitly as someone who had no obligation to “apologize” — despite that nothing was even said about apologies.
Colophon “we condemn it because we are human”
What are you saying? :eek: ** A ** isn’t human? :eek:
I do hope he’s not of canine decent. That would be confusing.
It’s perfectly obvious, although I have strong doubts that they’ll listen to any level of condemnation. But this is irrelevant. My point is that demanding things of people who have done nothing wrong rarely results in a favourable response. Muslims don’t owe us anything in terms of condemnation. All I’m saying is that when you post things like…
…in which you appear to demand that people speak up or else be held “insane”, then said people aren’t going to react well, no matter how repugnant they may find the school killings. That’s all.
He didn’t refuse to condemn it, he said that it ought to be obvious that he did. He has a point. It seems to me to be the very minimum of courtesy to assume that people do, in fact, condemn child-murder without forcing them to say so.
It’s offensive because it implies that he has some especial responsibility to disclaim the actions of these people. I don’t know why you folks are so quick to associate Chechnya with “Islamist extremism” anyway - I’ve never heard of Chechens characterizing it as some sort of holy war; this is a war for independence like Northern Ireland or the Basques. It’s offensive because it’s based on the implicit idea that this shit is happening in the name of Allah; some terrorism is indeed perpetrated for religious purposes, but in this case, the religion of the offenders was completely frickin’ irrelevant because it’s not a religious issue.
I’m offended by the notion that one believer has any particular responsibility or duty to disclaim all the acts perpetrated by others; I’ve never demanded a ‘condemnation’ of abortion clinic violence from any of my fundamentalist Christian friends, I’ve never demanded that any of my Catholic friends or family disclaim association with the Irish Republican Army, I’ve never bitched at a Jewish person about Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, and I sure as fuck don’t see where you guys get off insisting that Muslims everywhere need to show the world that they’re opposed to terrorism. The decent (and rational) thing to do is assume that most people are opposed to terrorism; why would it matter to you whether or not Aldebaran explicitly declares it, when you know perfectly well that he’s against it?
And why, once again, is this being characterized as “Muslim violence” when Catholics everywhere aren’t expected to cough up condemnations of the IRA and ETA?
Aldebaran, by the way, has certainly seemed both intelligent and interesting since the beginning of my tenure here; I greatly enjoy his contributions to a lot of threads, and appreciate his giving me some information on his religion. He comes across to me as quite learned about Islam and it’s nice to have him around, as with all the other people who are experts in particular subjects.
Might be because in the past he has defended “suicide bombers” . Didn’t sound like he was supporting innocents at the time.
I can see how we were all wrong.
Huh? Not in the slightest. By “we” I mean you, me, Liberal, Aldebaran, and everyone else on this board (I hope). We condemn child murder because it is an obviously abhorrent thing. The implication in that Pit thread seemed to be that unless Aldebaran specifically came up with a condemnation, his default position, as a Muslim, was to support the murderers.
It should go without saying that he condemns it. He shouldn’t be put on the spot and made to condemn “his kind” any more than I, as an Englishman, should be forced to defend Love Thy Neighbour. (Although we are truly sorry about that…)
Condemn! Not defend, condemn :smack:
It’s pretty clear that for some, it is a religious issue.
We would not be seeing denunciations of the school attack by elements in the Arab world, were it not for the fact that a number of Muslims from around the world have joined the Chechens and a sizable proportion of the school terrorists were reported by the Russians to be foreign Muslims.
“The hostage-takers were reportedly demanding the independence of the mostly Muslim Russian republic of Chechnya — a caused embraced by Arab Islamists. “Holy warriors” from the Middle East long have supported Chechen fighters, and Russian officials said nine or 10 Arabs were among militants killed when commandos stormed the Beslan school on Friday.”
I can’t vouch for how general the feelings expressed here are, but it seems to be more of the same holy war crap.
Did I hear a “whoosh”? I could be wrong but gum appears to have used an Aldebaran-style strawman.
Well, aside from the breathtaking rudeness, the hypocrisy, the refusal to let us know where he’s posting from while he ruthlessly stereotypes the rest of us based solely on our locales, the willingness to play the race card even though he’s half-Belgian (and Arabs are Caucausian, anyway), the threat to decapitate me once, the five or six Pit threads that have been started about him, his flaunting of the lifestyle of a rich and ill-educated idler, and his sheer bullheaded unwillingness to see anybody else’s point of view or engage in honest non-whining debate, I have no trouble with the guy.
Why he is so protected by the mods when lesser offenders are banned is a Mystery of the Boards that I have given up pondering.
I’m confused about why he gets so much flak, too. I mean, how the hell can anyone tell when he’s being offensive? I haven’t yet been able to parse a single post of his into anything half-way coherent. People complain about him, and then link to a post that reads like this.
