To think, a girl wrote this for Pakistan Today. Shows how real the problem is, and how malignant the libs are for ignoring it because there;s... "not enough data". Pakistan Today: an open letter to Ben Afleck
All kidding aside, I would really recommend reading what she wrote, especially if you sided with Affleck.
What do the moderates have to say? Conveniently quiet on topics such as these (as well as the chatty libtards).
Getting really sickening watching people who don't live here pick out people in the Middle East who corroborate what they believe and claiming "this person really gets it!! why don't the rest of them??" There are plenty of people who hold her views. The answer to her questions are simple: moderates don't feel any sense of responsibility towards extremists because they are fundamentally different in any way except a a name (Muslim) which is loosely thrown around as if there's some shared sense of morality. They don't share any sense of responsibility just like a Jewish person, a Christian, an atheist don't feel responsible for Islamic extremism. It sucks because these are people who are in the same geographic region and tend to share communities with extremists in one way or another yet they are not any more bothered to take on responsibility than a politico living in Kansas. It has happened because moderates have been grouped with extremists (in fact you see it on this board all the time) far too much, and so now they feel the need to distance themselves as much as possible, and taking on any responsibility (which is voluntary and not their duty in any logical sense) would be an acknowledgement that they share SOMETHING with those people. I think there's a great opportunity being missed here. If non Muslim dominant countries up their education of Islam as a historical study, then people will begin learning how to differentiate moderates from extremists, and when those moderates feel a sense of belongingness to moderates of all other creeds then they will be willing to join in more sincerely on this fight against Islamic extremism. Not by rioting and setting fires and breaking **** as we've seen recently in Europe, but by attacking the extremism at its spiritual, historic, cultural, political roots. This is of course an idealistic path to appeasing a major issue. The issue can only start to be solved at its root, as we all know, when colonization ends. Until that happens, liberals, moderates and extremists in the Middle East will continue to have the one thing that connects them all: not religion, but politics and in particular: rejection of foreign policies which have and continue to rob Middle Easterners of aspiring towards the same rights held by citizens of colonial powers. Seems simple enough, if you believe that freedom is so fundamentally important that you celebrate the day your necessitated violence succeeded in achieving independent freedom, then you don't get to act surprised when someone else tries to spring a boston tea party on you. You also don't get to act like Muslims are ignorant hollow brains without real lives and dreams and that they passively accept a terrorism that kills LITERALLY hundreds of TIMES more Muslims than non Muslims. Wreaks of ignorance. In this case, I think it's more a case of inexperience on the part of the person who wrote the article or perhaps she meant it within the context of Pakistan only, which is a context totally irrelevant to the rest of the region except Afghanistan, Yemen and to a far lesser extent today's Iraq.
What brought the Europeans out the dark ages? Was it the people that wanted the changes or was it the leaders that brought the changes to the people? It seems like many people in the Islamic nations do not want to move forward, not only that, many want to move backward, why is that?
I enjoyed parts of it very much. Have you ever lived in a place like what he mention? Until you do, you really do not understand. Reading and hearing is not quite experiencing.
They got tire of the nut sense. I think people everywhere are the same. They all want to be happy and have freedom. They will get there.
OK - you have explained fairly eloquently that people who don't live in the middle east can't fully appreciate the factors at play. But I can't help but feel like you've attempted to deflect any negative criticism of the Middle Eastern values in question by speaking too generally. Are we allowed to hold any negative opinions on Islam based on years of repeated, highly visible actions, despite not having lived there? Please advise.
Or maybe some liberals, who may have some critiques of Islam, simply don't want to engage with somebody who starts of the thread with "libtards."
And, for what it's worth, I agree that the supposed "silent majority" in the Middle East needs to reclaim their faith. There is no place in the world for respecting the views of those would soon kill you for not believing in their faith. However, I cannot attest to the mindset of normal people in Egypt, Palestine, etc. I do not know if they do not stay silent out of fear or tacit agreement. I cannot speak to that and won't pretend that I know their mindset. The intertwining of religion into politics in the Middle East has created what feels like an unsolvable problem so long as there are young, poor, uneducated, angry men willing to listen to somebody who promises them power and honor. Right now, that void is being filled by clerics who wear Rolex watches and denounce Western excess. But, so much of identity is tied up in who you are and what you believe. If you're taught, first and foremost, that you're Muslim above Pakistani, Egyptian or Libyan, you'll be more loyal to the faith than the state and it's in a state where people are forced to live and interact with diversity of thought and creed.
Get used to it because it is not unique to the Middle East. The same thing happens virtually everywhere. Outside of the USA people do the same thing about the USA and even within particular countries people rely on "outliers" to justify an opinion about a larger group of people. No, a moderate Muslim is still a Muslim. To compare their level of familiarity to a Jew, Christian or atheist is false. Likewise, a liberal Catholic is closer to a fundamentalist Christian than a Muslim or does. There is still cross over and shared values and beliefs. "Taking on any responsibility (which is voluntary and not their duty in any logical sense) would be an acknowledgement that they share SOMETHING with those people." This is the biggest load of BS. Let me ask you, should Germans in the 1930's share blame for what the NAZI party did? If they said that they did not take a stand, because that would be an acknowledgment of sharing something with the NAZI, would you accept that? Look, if you want to say that moderate and liberal Muslims are scared to take a stand, or are not in a position to do so, I can buy that. However the idea you postulate is insulting. It isn't the responsibility of other nations to learn more about Islam to differentiate moderates and extremists.... and that is a completely different issue, and the idea that suddenly moderate Muslims will join in the fight is foolish. That isn't how history has worked. Colonial powers? I will not deny that the Middle East has been a football for England in the 19th century and early 20th century and has been essentially passed to the USA where it is not a playground for the USA to practice their military drills on. STILL, lets not forget the other elephant in the room... the Middle East for the most part is a group of countries and ethnicities that cannot even get along with each other. I also find it odd that you want to lump together all the countries in the Middle East when it serves your purpose but not in other situations.
