20,000 muslims demonstrate against Islamic extremism in Cologne, Germany

double post

 

well there were demonstrations in Iran against 9/11, so I don't know why you think its 'stupid' to think it can't happen in other places because they have 'tremendous problems.'

you are totally offbase in claiming that the 'arab world' is RIGHTFULLY more upset about the israeli situation. the 'arab world' didn't give a crap about palestinians until it became an outlet for arab governments to direct internal dissention. that just a poor cop out. but way to regurgitate the same lame excuses Al Queda makes to justify their terrorism.

 

maybe they saw the light recently? the fact is that the arab street is more pissed off about israel than anything else. rightfully is obviously my opinion but thast the number one issue in the arab world. and hence the demonstrations are almost only about that.

and yes everyone condemned september 11th. and thanks for showing that EVEN iran did have demonstrations against terrorism. see.

 

So you believe that the invasion by Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, and Iraq in 1948 was just a land grab?

 

You believe it was in defense of Palestinians? Remember the West Bank wasn't Palestinian before, it was Jordanian. Gaza wasn't Palestinian, it was Egyptian.

 

what? i didn't say everyone condemned 9/11 because they didn't. I said your argument that its 'stupid' to want them to demonstrate is wrong, because they've done it is SOMEplaces in the ME.

 

the larger arab nation context. not necessarily palestinian but definitely it was the defense of palestine.

as for muslims celebrating i'd reckon it was a very small percentage. every major muslim organization of the united states and most europe denounced it. every muslim country denounced it.

im sorry but again i just dont feel the need to denounce every action committed by any group that i am inherently a part of. when a texan does something stupid in another side of the world i dont feel the need to say i didnt support it. or if a male does osmething stupid i dont feel the need to say i dont support it. so i fail to see why every person of a certain religion has to denounce every action committed by their members. its not about justifying terrorism...its just i dont feel all members need to denounce other actions. a sizable majority did. the majority of organizations/countries did. i fail to see why majority of people need to vocally in marches express it.

 

agreed..there's a clarification that needs to be made. failure to communicate is still a communication.

the classic example here is Bonhoffer during WWII. the Nazi state took control of the church...and Bonhoffer said, "NO! this is not what the church is about. it's not about nationalism. this is NOT Christianity!!" An entirely new creed was written specifically dealing with this...saying that nationalism and war were not the ends of the church. Bonhoffer and others were ultimately killed for that...but someone has to do that in a very vocal way. That message has to be sent, particularly when it's a faith that's being hijacked. Otherwise you invite confusion to those who don't share your faith and don't understand it for what it really is.

 

???

Uh, maybe because there is no central authority in Islam and because many practitioners of islam think terrorism is legitimate. So who better to say its not, vocally, than other Muslims? Who is in the BEST position to influence other Muslims? THAT is why there should be more vocal marches from the Islamic community. Many governments and organizations denounced it while also saying we 'got what we deserved' out of the sides of their mouths.

When the black guy got dragged to death I was living in NY, and I certainly vocally denounced it. I didn't want people thinking Texans thought it was cool. When men make sexist comments I vocally denounce it, because as a man who better to influence our peers? You position is that you don't HAVE to, and you are right. But it would be BETTER if it happened than not.

 

Yeah well I was reaching on that one...

 

sir you brought up a point that i admittedly hadn't thought about before.

im not sure im comfortable saying i should denounce everything that people who have my affiliation do in the name of those affiliations...however i can certainly understand what you're saying and im not opposed to it.

good point. but again im not sure im perfectly comfortable saying that.

it doesn't seem necessary to me that individuals have to condemn actions committed by others. but i guess as hayes pointed out that since islam doesn't have a 'church' members of it must clarify and delineate the proper islamic opinions on these things...

 

how would i not know about that!!???

i've studied it at my church, actually. i'm on the governing body, and we spent some time studying the creeds and where and why they originated. i only hope that i would have the courage that those folks did to speak for my faith despite the consequences.

 

The Palestinian people under the Ottoman rule were no different than the Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians. An attack on the Palestinians was an attack on them. Yes governments like Iraq and Egypt were key components in the wars but the base of the anger is in the Levant. Stating that Arab governments and their citizens did not care about the Palestinians prior to WWII is baseless.

 

The Ottomans were defeated in WWI which leaves a large gap in your timeline. Meanwhile, surrounding Arab states kept 'Palestinians' in permanent refugee camps rather than letting them integrate into their societies. Real nice. Even today in Lebanon, for example, Palestinians are barred from over 70 types of professions including medicine and the law. That's not what I'd call a 'baseless' claim, chief.

 

Yes the Ottomans were defeated in WWI but little was done to the area. The British and French were given these territories and artificial international lines were created. The people of the Levant historically are one and the time from WWI to WWII is only one generation.

As for placing the Palestinians in refugee camps, the idea is that if they fully accept them into their societies than that would be conceding the land to Israel. Additionally the economies in the area are far from robust so an influx of millions of people could not be supported and would lead to domestic unrest. That would neither help the Palestinians nor their own citizens. Israel is far more constrictive of the economics of Palestinians.

There has been continued Arab support for the creation of a Palestinian cause and thus your claim is baseless. From Egypt being a moderate state supporting peace to Lebanese and Syrians fighting militarily they all have supported Palestine in the way they feel is most effective.

 

Arab countries have about 300 times the area of Israel, so the claim that they couldn't support the population is just silly and wholly disingenuous. Considering they kept them in refugee camps for fifty years I find your analysis pretty hard to swallow, especially once it became apparent that they weren't taking the land back (ie after multiple ass kickings at the hands of the Israelis).

You are boring me with your repeated 'baseless' claims. As I indicated before, countries like lebanon prevent palestinians from many vocations, keep them in refugee camps, and treat them like non-entities. I don't find that to be a compelling case for 'supporting' Palestinians nor for a claim that earlier conflict was to benefit the Palestinians. The more reasonable explanation is the anti-semitism that has dominated Arab League countries, and their distain for having non-Muslims controlling 'Muslim' territory.