Groups vs. Individuals

[Darth Rotor]

Hate ta tell ya, there, Skep, but where the problem is is over in Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan. Iran and Iraq are great ways to avoid dealin with the real problem. These guys are gonna blow off a nuclear weapon somewhere while we're still playin footsie with Iran, not to mention using our army in Iraq. Then what?

Depends on who in Pakistan shoots a nuke where. In one case, a whole bunch of Hindi die. You want a partial solution to global warming? Centuries old hatred and nuclear weapons, mixed.

Pakistan and India.

If you kill enough people, global warming starts to get manageable on a BTU per capita basis. Not my preferred solution, but one branch in the road.

DR

 

[steverino]

Islam does not have leaders, except maybe the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and Allah.

However, in Islam, while there certainly are some leaders who promote violence and terrorism, there are many others who do not!

There seems to be some confusion on this leadership thinggy. I have heard from "experts" in the media that Islam has no leaders. I understand this to mean they have no Pope equivalent. That part I get. But Muslims seem to take their cues from their imams in their local mosques. The imams must get their marching orders from elders who they look up to. So this indicates some kind of chain of command, and therefore leadership, which contradicts the no-leadership doctrine.

I am trying to avoid the obvious leadership examples like Arafat, Osama, the Ayatollah's, Ahmadinejad, etc., and am more interested in addressing the Islamic food chain beginning with the little guy in the mosque, leading up to, for example, the high-ups deciding how to revise twentieth-century history to insert into the textbooks taught to the children of the little guys back in the local mosques. To ignore what I see is the fact of Muslim leadership seems bizarre.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There seems to be some confusion on this leadership thinggy. I have heard from "experts" in the media that Islam has no leaders. I understand this to mean they have no Pope equivalent. That part I get. But Muslims seem to take their cues from their imams in their local mosques. The imams must get their marching orders from elders who they look up to. So this indicates some kind of chain of command, and therefore leadership, which contradicts the no-leadership doctrine.

I am trying to avoid the obvious leadership examples like Arafat, Osama, the Ayatollah's, Ahmadinejad, etc., and am more interested in addressing the Islamic food chain beginning with the little guy in the mosque, leading up to, for example, the high-ups deciding how to revise twentieth-century history to insert into the textbooks taught to the children of the little guys back in the local mosques. To ignore what I see is the fact of Muslim leadership seems bizarre.

The Shia Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani is no local Imam. He's a big deal among Shia in Iraq. If not a "Pope" then at least a Cardinal.

DR

 

[IXP]

Depends on who in Pakistan shoots a nuke where. In one case, a whole bunch of Hindi die. You want a partial solution to global warming? Centuries old hatred and nuclear weapons, mixed.

Pakistan and India.

If you kill enough people, global warming starts to get manageable on a BTU per capita basis. Not my preferred solution, but one branch in the road.

DR

Now that we have stirred up the Sunni Shia animosity, perhaps we should arm both of them with nukes and take another little chunk out of the global warming problem.

IXP

 

[sphenisc]

Inmans are not leaders?

There's a joke in there about "Are you being severed?"... but I'm not going to make it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Now that we have stirred up the Sunni Shia animosity, perhaps we should arm both of them with nukes and take another little chunk out of the global warming problem.

IXP

All that needs to happen is for the Saudis to get a few nukes to counter Iran's looming nuke, and conditions will be ripe for just that.

The Sunni Shia fight in Baghdad is small change. When addressing global warming prevention via depopulation, one needs to Go Big, or Go Home!

DR

 

[IXP]

All that needs to happen is for the Saudis to get a few nukes to counter Iran's looming nuke, and conditions will be ripe for just that.

The Sunni Shia fight in Baghdad is small change. When addressing global warming prevention via depopulation, one needs to Go Big, or Go Home!

DR

And hope like hell they don't go after the Greater Satan instead.

IXP

 

[Darth Rotor]

And hope like hell they don't go after the Greater Satan instead.

IXP

Hope hell, that is part of what the reasoning is behind SDI and Ballistic Missile Defense programs over the past 20 years. It even gets sweeter, when you can make some of it moblie on an Aegis missile platfor.

And expensive.

DR

 

[Art Vandelay]

There is nothing in Islam that is implicitly "terrorist".

You're just plain wrong.

In fact, if you bothered to study history, you will find that there were times in the past when the situations were effectively reversed from what they are today -- when Islam was a religion of tolerance (promoting scientific study, women's rights, religious tolerance) while Christianity was a "terrorist" religion, forcing people to convert on threat of death, and killing anyone of opposing religious beliefs.

When other religions regularly kill people for following other religions, and you only occasionally kill, usually only beating, robbing, and humiliating, you may seem progressive in comparison, but you are still essentially terrorist.

But when he makes posts that generalize, people such as yourself will be unable to appreciate the difference, and use such information to support their own ignorant beliefs, and thereby promote hatred and intolerance.

You are simply posting personal attacks because you have no argument. I can see the difference, and the fact that I don't share your view of its importance does not make me a bigot.

I have many very good Muslim friends (just as I have Christian friends, Buddhist friends, Hindu friends, atheist friends, etc.), and they are about as far from being "terrorists" as possible.

If they weren't Muslim, they'd be even further from being terrorists.

They are very devout Muslims, and see what Islamic terrorists do as a perversion and abuse of their religion -- it is the terrorists, in other words, who are not the "real Muslims".

You justcontradicted yourself. Either they are devout Muslims, or they oppose terrorism. One or the other, not both. Those that oppose terrorism are the ones who have perverted Islam.

But when ignorant bigots turn around and condemn their religious beliefs -- calling their religion a "terrorist religion" or lumping them in with murderers and criminals -- it is understandable that they get angry.

And is it understandable that when I get called a "bigot" for pointing out obvious facts, I get pissed off?

And I notice that you have failed to answer my question: "Don't Muslims have a basic responsibility to make it clear that even though they follow a terrorist religion, they aren't in fact terrorists?"

I stopped paying any attention to Art a while back after he decided it would be fun to bait me. I don't recommend reading or responding to his posts; don't feed the troll.

You're the troll. You refuse to discuss issues in good faith, and I've caught you outright lying.

 

[The Painter]

No, it's prejudiced,

That’s entirely different. The topic was racism. Pay attention.

Guess you still believe in St. Rupert

I don’t know who he or she is and I don’t care. I’m an atheist.

many leaders of Islam, in both the Sunni and Shi'a traditions, are biased TOWARD us. They live here, after all.

Prove it.

 

[UserGoogol]

During the Cold War, you could say that Russia was a threat to America, but you could have said that "Atheism is a threat to America." I think it is probably safe to say that in 1955 or so, a very large number of atheists were enemies of the United States. Furthermore, these enemy atheists were far more organized than the friendly atheists. But it's still ultimately an unreasonable thing to say, I think, because atheism is not really a cohesive group, but simply a bunch of people who happen to share some property. Similarly with Islam.

Of course, the case of Islam now is not the same as atheism circa 1955. The atheism of communism wasn't really the heart of the movement, whereas fundamentalist Islam is a very key part of much (although not all) opposition to the United States from the Muslim world. But still, in many ways, Islam is more analogous to atheism than it is to Russia.

 

[Art Vandelay]

A crucial difference is that atheism is a lack of something, while Islam is a presence of something. Furthermore, there's no connection between the atheism and the emnity.

 

[UserGoogol]

Well, I was going to use "Eurasia" instead of atheism, perhaps that argument would work better?

 

[baron]

Does the problem lie with the people who physically plant bombs? Are all other Muslims the "real Muslims" who condemn the actions of the tiny minority?...

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1145782006

ALMOST a quarter of British Muslims say the 7/7 bombings can be justified

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece

one in ten thinks that the men who carried out the London bombings of 7/7 should be regarded as “martyrs”

Is it really true that the vast majority of Muslims have thinking aligned to Western society?

http://www.channel4.com/news/dispatches/article.jsp?id=412

Nearly half of Muslims appear to think that 9/11 was some kind of US Zionist conspiracy; only one in five reject entirely any kind of conspiracy theory about the bombing of the World Trade Centre.

Almost 20 per cent believe either that stories about the Holocaust are exaggerated or that it never happened.

Almost one in five respect Osama Bin Laden to some extent.

 

[Skeptic]

There seems to be some confusion on this leadership thinggy. I have heard from "experts" in the media that Islam has no leaders.

Islam has no official hierarchy of leaders, but that doesn't mean there are no leaders.

 

[Skeptic]

I have to say I'm rather suspicious of the poll baron quoted because it has the weasel-words "reject a 9/11 conspiracy entirely" and "respect bin Laden to some extent".

The way it is written, somebody who says "of course it's logically possible 9/11 was a conspiracy, but it surely wasn't" and "Osama bin Laden is a bastard, but at least he's brave" is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and potetial Al Quaeda terrorist. Due to this I suspect that the "holocaust denial" and other claims here might be exagerrated, too.

I am reminded of a poll from a few years back which "found" 30% or so of Americans "have doubts about the holocaust". In reality, the question asked was so convoluted that it was understood as asking if it is logically or theoretically possible that the holocaust didn't happen; when a different poll asked simply, "do you think the holocaust happened?" only 1% or so said it didn't.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Or when Americans were asked whether Saddam was involved in 9/11, and those that answered "It's somewhat likely" were reported as "believing" that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

 

[baron]

I have to say I'm rather suspicious of the poll baron quoted because it has the weasel-words "reject a 9/11 conspiracy entirely" and "respect bin Laden to some extent".

Certainly I've never seen a poll that was clearly worded, or allowed for full expression of response, and this one might make for somewhat skewed results just like any other.

The way it is written, somebody who says "of course it's logically possible 9/11 was a conspiracy, but it surely wasn't"

I believe you're wrong. Rejection of an explanation for an event does not equate to rejection of the logical possibility of that explanation. The question is directly equivalent to "Is it in any way possible a conspiracy actually occurred?" not "Is it in any way possible a conspiracy could theoretically have occurred?" The correct interpretation of this question, grammatically and logically, does not allow for the meaning you suggest. The only issue, for me, is the word "entirely". "Likely" or "unlikely" should have been used.

If you don't believe me regarding the interpretation issue, go to the CT forum and start a post saying "I do not reject entirely the notion of a 9/11 conspiracy" and see if you can get anyone to listen to your explanation of grammatical subtleties.

and "Osama bin Laden is a bastard, but at least he's brave"

If you asked someone if they respected a person, and they replied "Certainly not, all I can say about him is that he's brave," would you summarise their reaction as expressing some level of respect? I certainly wouldn't. Besides, all Bin Laden did was hide in a cave and make videos so I can't imagine the issue of braveness ever arose.

is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and potetial Al Quaeda terrorist. Due to this I suspect that the "holocaust denial" and other claims here might be exagerrated, too.

I can't dispute what you suspect, but your suspicions are hardly evidence of misrepresentation.

I am reminded of a poll from a few years back which "found" 30% or so of Americans "have doubts about the holocaust". In reality, the question asked was so convoluted that it was understood as asking if it is logically or theoretically possible that the holocaust didn't happen; when a different poll asked simply, "do you think the holocaust happened?" only 1% or so said it didn't.

In the case you state, there's evidence that the question was mispresented. In this case you don't have much evidence at all, so whilst I'm willing to admit the figures might be skewed to some extent, the basic message remains unchanged.

 

[Schneibster]

How do they lead a change "over there" from "over here?"

Chalabi for fifry, Alex. (Yes, that's a bit of a cheap shot.)

DR

Cheap shot or not, it wasn't what I had in mind. The "they" I had in mind was Muslims, not their leaders.

 

[Schneibster]

Depends on who in Pakistan shoots a nuke where. In one case, a whole bunch of Hindi die. You want a partial solution to global warming? Centuries old hatred and nuclear weapons, mixed.

Pakistan and India.

If you kill enough people, global warming starts to get manageable on a BTU per capita basis. Not my preferred solution, but one branch in the road.

DR

Errrmmm, you missed a thread. I started one on about Tuesday about Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Olbermann had the CIA's Al Qaeda alpha geek on. I did a quick transcript of the meat of the conversation; it about blew me off my chair. You'd probably better read it over; the video is on-line, too, so you can verify I ain't talkin out my hat (although what you may think of the alpha geek depends on how acquainted you are with such individuals. I work with a bunch of them, and in their fields, I'd put them up against anyone on the planet. You get so you can smell them). Anyway, we're not talking about Pakistan blowing off nukes, we're talking about Al Qaeda blowing off nukes, and you only get one guess where.