If you have been wondering this for a while...then you need to get a job. I do not INSULT muslims (although i have been insulted by muslims on here because they dont agree with me)...i condemn the actions of the muslims who pull the crap they did today and then am shocked that other muslims shed tears for their brothers and sisters in the muslim world a few hours later. I advocate the torture of the ones who were POW's if it meant helping the US cause. I advocate blowing these extremists off the face of the earth if it means a safer world. You call that bigotry because you disagree with it and it has to do with your religion (i assume your religion). Fact is, I'd be saying the same thing if it was a Rabbinical extremist group. You obviously have no idea what bigotry means.
It seems like it is, it has all the indicators of an anti-Britain terrorist attack. Either that, or the anti-Globalization people have adopted suicide bombing to get their point across!
So by your logic, any victims of 9/11 who were muslim shouldn't have had a tear shed for them because the terrorists were muslims?
Actually, the problem is that it is no longer the actions of "a few", but the actions of MANY muslims that people are angry about. Literally millions of muslims celebrated the attacks of 9-11 and I suspect millions of muslims are celebrating these attacks. Granted, millions are not celebrating at the same time, but when you have a *sizable* percentage of a religion who support terror in some form or fashion (be it a homocide bombing, terrorist attack, threat, etc), then something *institutional* is wrong with the religion.
I responded to HIS comments...remember? He felt sorry for his muslim brothers and sisters AND the victims of this catastrophe. Nice try though.
I challenge you to show me a "sizeable" % of Muslims celebrated 9/11. I challenge you. Your mere "suspicion" is not proof. You know what 1% of Muslims worldwide would be? That would be about 15 million Muslims celebrating 9/11 or any other terrorist attack. There is nothing wrong with Islam "institutionally", you know why? Because there is NO "institutional" structure in Islam; it's not like Catholicism. The Islamic world is basically a combination of over 50 soveriegn countries that span the "Old World" (Asia, Africa, Europe), multiple ethnic backgrounds, multiple cultures, and mutliple local interpretations of Islam. Since there isn't an actual Islamic Claiphate or "Umma" that is united under one flag, then there isn't an Islamic heirarchy that could be pointed to. When it comes to the Muslim world, however (not Islam as a religion, but the supposed followers of Islam, i.e, human beings who have adopted the religion in name if not in practice), then yes, you are right, there are a LOT of problems and challenges facing Muslims living across the world. Most of these problems can be easily traced back to political and economic issues that they are facing, even this phenomena of rising extremism taking root ( for example: Bin Ladenism, the Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Egypt, etc.) IS/WAS largely a response to the political/economical atmosphere in the region over the past century or so. What does this mean? It means that extremism does not exist in a vacuum, it is a radical response to the conditions under which many Muslims in the world live in today.
While I do not even believe your one million quote, lets do the math. 1,000,000/1,200,000,000 = about .083% of the Muslims in the world. That is not sizable. There may be over a million Klansmen, but should I start letting their views affect my views of the rest of the religion? I do not and wish you would do the same with my faith.
Once again, he never said he felt bad for the terrorists responsible, but that doesn't really matter to you. I'm glad you sort of censor yourself on this board, I'm have a gut feeling if I was a confidant of yours, what you really have to say would be more along the lines or 'let's nuke all of dem sand n*ggers!" Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure takes quite a few people calling you out to even get you to shrug your shoulders and go "ok, maybe not alllllllll muslims are bad." Now if my post offends you for making false accusations about you, I hope you get the irony.
A strong case could be made that the Saudis exporting Wahabism is tantamount to exporting terrorism. Then there's the Pakistani intelligence service, which created the Taliban and show signs that is still supporting and harboring the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. Their leaders are ineffectual and undemocratic, and we prop them up. Maybe denying support to catalyze their collapse won't stop the growth of the fundamentalist cancer in the Muslim world. At least their people would have a choice. We'd also have an official war our military can fight if the **** hits the ceiling. If the terrorism in Ireland tought us anything, sending in the troops and profiling the terrorists' ethnicity will only inflame popular sentiment and give the terrorists more places to harbor. Once the Catholic majority and N. Ireland as a whole started prospering, they actually gave a damn what happened on the battlefield, their backyard. The militant wing of the IRA eventually died down. The Neocons got half of their ideal right. Ironically, Neocons aren't dictating the course of Iraq, right now. Neither is the Iraqi government....
I hope this is what he meant, but I think he was refering to the muslim brothers and sisters who would feel the seemingly unavoidable backlash by the chavs and the like.
I could honestly care less what you think of me or my opinions so nothing you say could ever offend me. Also, dont put words in my mouth like "sand-n's" etc....because I have never used that type of hate on here or anywhere else. I also never said all muslims are bad....others interpret it that way because they are sensitive to me calling out the extremists in their religion who seem to blow people up once a day or so.
Hey, has Bush-Blair claimed yet that this latest attack in London means we have to invade Iran? Or have they changed their tactics?
I apologize for portraying myself as more knowledgeable than anyone else….however i have lived in four middle eastern countries in my life…. and it is from my personal knowledge that I feel like both sides view each other incorrectly….i have seen both sides of the street….some people however are way of base on their knowledge…that was my point….sorry for demeaning your own personal knowledge for you are right I don’t know you… NJROCKET…..why should I be ashamed of my religion….that is the dumbest sh*t to say…cause my religion does not teach what these people are trying to accomplish or how they are going about it......they want this hate….you are letting them win this battle once you start hating on the religion and muslims......
An analogy - Reading the Christian Bible in its current form, and free from any contextual cultural background, one is presented with a book in two parts. First, one is presented with the Old Testament, the books of the Bible which Christianity appropriated from Judaism, which outline a strict legalism. This is followed by the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus which are expressly stated as invalidating the Old Testament's legalism, replacing external laws and punishments with an almost pacifistic internal monologue. From the documents whose theme preaches such tenants as "Let he among you who has no sin cast the first stone." and all the stories about Jesus hanging out with the scum of society, somehow you fast forward to the early 20th century and the KKK and their use of Christian symbolism and a peverted form of Christian "faith" as an excuse to do what they do. Those KKK members were few, but their cause was bolstered because people tolerated them. In the purely abstract metaphysical philosophical sense, I don't think most thoughtful scholars of Christianity would consider them Christians, but in the way that the real world manages to mix religion, race, and culture into a big melting pot, they were the real Christians; in practice religion is the combination of core teachings, but also the way the teachings are interpreted and taught. As an example look at the Koran's admonitions against wine from Grapes & Dates; while the Koran only specifically mentions those two sources of alcohol, should one assume that it is implied that those admonitions cover fermented hops or grains? How about different substances like hashish or opium? Are they ok? There is inherently a layer of interpretation between the source documents and the real world practice of religion. Because it is interpreted universally that grain alcohols are not acceptable, it is safe to say that Islam prohibits any form of alcohol, but how much of the interpretation is colored by culture or environment specific unrelated bias? In this sense, both sides of the argument around the nature of violence in Islam are correct. The documents are generally of a peaceful nature. Therefore Islam isn't violent, but the people who claim to be Muslim either embrace violence or allow violence to fester, so how can Islam not be violent? Ultimately a religion is in some way defined by how it is interpreted, but in another sense one should also attempt to separate the intertwined cultural and racial threads which are related but not in the purest sense germane. It might be useful for the sake of discussions to perhaps ignore all Arab countries when contemplating Islam, and only to think of Romanian Islam or Indonesian Islam. Many of the stereotypical behaviors that people assume are very clearly not present in these non-Arab Islamic states, which have less tumultuous recent histories. IMHO, these types of atypical groups are generally ignored by both sides in the arguements around here.
