Muslims Self-Criticism

[evildave]

You want me to provide reasons for Islamic terror other than Islam?

Well, okay, but it seems to me that's like talking about baking bread while avoiding any mention of flour. Sure, bread has other ingredients, water, yeast, salt, and sugar, but you still can't make it without flour.

Here, I'll even start another thread for it.

I suppose we can simply claim that being Christian was the TRUE core cause of the crusades, then.

Never mind the fact that they live in fairly miserable conditions under dictators and tyrants that we have propped up and supported for decades? Heck, Saddam was still our good friend when he gassed the Kurds. Iraq had routinely used chemical weapons against Iran, which didn't matter, because Iran was the bad guy. Saddam would still be our good friend if he hadn't grabbed for Kuwait.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Then we 'free' Iraq from Saddam Hussein because of 'WMD' suspicion a decade later, and this prisoner photo stuff comes out: (Warning: Graphic)
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

How about all those clerics who want to establish theocracy with themselves speaking for God? Seems like political ambition more than religious ambition to me.

I concede that elements within Islam play a role in recruiting, training and managing terrorists, but no more so than elements of Chrisitianity are to blame for abortion bombers. If you want to blame ALL Islam, then blame ALL Christianity.

 

[Tony]

Never mind the fact that they live in fairly miserable conditions under dictators and tyrants that we have propped up and supported for decades? Heck, Saddam was still our good friend when he gassed the Kurds. Iraq had routinely used chemical weapons against Iran, which didn't matter, because Iran was the bad guy.

Islamic terror pre-dates these events.

Saddam would still be our good friend if he hadn't grabbed for Kuwait.

Evidence?

Then we 'free' Iraq from Saddam Hussein because of 'WMD' suspicion a decade later, and this prisoner photo stuff comes out

Islamic terror predates these events.

I concede that elements within Islam play a role in recruiting, training and managing terrorists, but no more so than elements of Chrisitianity are to blame for abortion bombers. If you want to blame ALL Islam, then blame ALL Christianity.

Simplistic.

 

[epepke]

I could go on, but the point is we can talk about all these other religions. We can be critical, we can point out their faults with relative freedom. Yet somehow, when it comes to Islam, we can't. It's taboo. We get the PC police on us calling us bigoted and racist for doing it. I don't agree with that.

Right on!

BTW, I just heard on the car radio that some Islamic group has asked for a fatwa on whether the taking of hostages is contrary to Islam.

Totally beside the point, but anyone who says that the Treo is a useless yuppie scum gadget is out to lunch. Frances has taken out the power, cable, and phone, but I can still get Nx

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by evildave
I suppose we can simply claim that being Christian was the TRUE core cause of the crusades, then.

Yeah? So? I don't have a problem with that statement, do you?

We could find other reasons too, but if we're to be honest we would say that if the Catholic Church hadn't given the okay, they wouldn't have happened.

How about modern Christianity? Do you think there is anything there to be criticized? Do you think Reverend Phelps promotes hate against homosexuals? Do the "Promise Keepers" promote sexism? Does the Ayrian Nations promote racial hate? Are there people who think the Republican-Christian connection might lead to our government promoting religious based values?

How come it's okay to talk about all of the above, but it's not okay to talk about issues within Islam?

Originally posted by evildave
I concede that elements within Islam play a role in recruiting, training and managing terrorists, but no more so than elements of Chrisitianity are to blame for abortion bombers. If you want to blame ALL Islam, then blame ALL Christianity.

Who's blaming all of Islam? I'm not. I think we're all aware that there are Muslims who recognize the very problem we are talking about, and want to see it fixed. This thread begins with one.

 

[evildave]

Islamic terror pre-dates these events.

True. But European empire building, and propping up of puppets predated that.

Evidence?

We're still propping up and supporting the Saudi royal family, the Kuwaiti royal family. We would even be propping up the Iranian Shah if the bastard had stayed in power and alive. If Saddam had only played ball and done business, he could still be enjoying the high life with oil money and arms pouring in. The minor little things, like death squads and gassings don't bother the state department.

Islamic terror pre-dates these events.

True. But European empire building, and propping up of puppets predated that. Is there an echo in here?

Simplistic.

Yes, but so is blaming 'Islam' as the 'flour' of the bread of terrorism.

 

[The Fool]

You want me to provide reasons for Islamic terror other than Islam?

Well, okay, but it seems to me that's like talking about baking bread while avoiding any mention of flour. Sure, bread has other ingredients, water, yeast, salt, and sugar, but you still can't make it without flour.

Here, I'll even start another thread for it.

Exactly as I expected....you have no capacity for any other explanation than the ones that reinforce your bigotry. Your answer was to simply quote the ravings of an extremist cleric....

Maybe I expected too much.

 

[The Fool]

Sorry Auzzies, me and my Abo friend have a shrimp on the barbie and can't reply to bloody Galahs right now.

Ok son. the pointlessness of participating in discussions with people of zero integrity is obvious. You can now make up whatever facts suit your arguments without me asking for you to support them...I've got better things to do with my time.
You can join "skeptic" on ignore.

 

[demon]

Mycroft:
"Abdulrahman al-Rashed.
There is a man who deserves to be remembered for his courage."

Abdulrahman al-Rashed is an idiot.
Its because of people like Abdulrahman al-Rashed that the Arab region is so f***ed up. Some Arabs want to destroy the west and others just want to kiss western ass at any opportunity.
The atrocities he lists at the start of his hysterical article are largely engineered by not only Muslims but also ARABS. I don’t see any Malaysian, Singapore, Turkish, Indian or Bengalese Muslims participating in these atrocities.
His article appeared in that Saudi funded pan Arab paper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. Throughout his childish article he never mentions the fact that the cruelest enemies of Arabs are their own governments. When your own government treats you like dog poo and monopolizes the entire economy providing very little in the way of opportunities, what do you expect the youth to turn to? Knitting?
Of course not.
Not once in his article does he criticize Arab governments, who are solely responsible for the radicalization of this generation. Why is this? The answer is simple :because he’s on their payroll. Go ahead and continue to line your pockets Mr. Abdel Rahman al-Rashed general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, but remember, as a person of authority in the media it should be his job to bring the real culprits to account i.e. the pathetic Arab governments that we prop up at our convenience and who claim to be representing there people rather than foolishly criticising a faith of 1.5 billion people.

All the worlds terrorists are Mulims eh? Poppycock.
I bet Muslims all over the world are grateful to him for that.
He obviously hasn't heard of Nepal, Sri Lanka or Colombia. What a jerk.

Incidently, I know of at least 3 terrorists who are not Muslims. One lives in the White House, another lives in Downing Street, and the third in Moscow. And there is also a non-Muslim terrorist who lives in Tel Aviv.
And all together these four have managed to engineer atrocities which are greater than any of those described in the article, by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Baker]

Exactly as I expected....you have no capacity for any other explanation than the ones that reinforce your bigotry. Your answer was to simply quote the ravings of an extremist cleric....

Maybe I expected too much.

You seem to see any criticism of Islam as a racist or bigoted despite the those showing moderate Muslims demanding reform in Islamic state exactly when did they become exempt from all skepticism?
How effective do you think Randi would become if he shared your beliefs that suddenly any skepticism of a group or belief is considered racist or bigoted?

 

[The Fool]

You seem to see any criticism of Islam as a racist or bigoted despite the those showing moderate Muslims demanding reform in Islamic state exactly when did they become exempt from all skepticism?
How effective do you think Randi would become if he shared your beliefs that suddenly any skepticism of a group or belief is considered racist or bigoted?

sigh...ok how about I explain this just one more time...

I have no problem with anyone critisizing anything....got it?

Time and again I have to explain that simple fact.....

There are people on this board that call themselves skeptics who can look at the current situation of palestinians and see only one explanation.... Its just the way they are because of who they are.

I have recently asked Mycroft to come up with any suggestions of why the Palestinians are in thier current situation that does exclusively involve them being all bloodthirsty backward savages and/or they are muslim and musims are like that and/or they are all indoctrinated by loonie clerics....

He couldn't manage it....Do you want to take up the challange?

Many people here seem to simply see Palestinians as an annoying obstacle to the Rightfull expansion of Israel into its god promised lands. I'm simply trying to see if this is the case.

so Critisize Islam, Clerics, Imams, donald duck, anything you like but don't try andtreat then as some sort of exclusive cause of a very complicated and tragic situation and expect not to be challanged.

 

[epepke]

sigh...ok how about I explain this just one more time...

I have no problem with anyone critisizing anything....got it?

Time and again I have to explain that simple fact.....

There are people on this board that call themselves skeptics who can look at the current situation of palestinians and see only one explanation.... Its just the way they are because of who they are.

You do seem to have a fixation on Palestinians, however, because you seek to push everything back to Palestinians.

This thread is about Muslims criticizing other Muslims sparked by an event that took place in Russian near the Chechnyan border.

I wonder: are you aware that there are Muslims who are not Palestinians, or you you simply gloss over this point for rhetoric?

 

[a_unique_person]

Full text: Siege Prompts Self-Criticism in Arab Media - Sat, Sep 04, 2004 Finally, some muslims have THE BALLS to admit the truth and say it in print in Arab newspapers. Terrorist sons are an end-product of a corrupted culture and Muslims worldwide are the main perpetrators of terrorism and Islam is being harmed by it. I hope a turning point will be reached in my lifetime where the word muslim does not bring up thoughts of 9-11, bus bombs and beheadings.

No, you are just showing us what an ignoramus you are. If you haven't read of something, then it never happened. You read this, now it is real. What has finally happened is that you have realised there are Muslims who are critical of their religion.

If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? Not if ZN didn't hear it.

 

[evildave]

Mycroft:
"Abdulrahman al-Rashed.
There is a man who deserves to be remembered for his courage."

Abdulrahman al-Rashed is an idiot.
Its because of people like Abdulrahman al-Rashed that the Arab region is so f***ed up. Some Arabs want to destroy the west and others just want to kiss western ass at any opportunity.
The atrocities he lists at the start of his hysterical article are largely engineered by not only Muslims but also ARABS. I don’t see any Malaysian, Singapore, Turkish, Indian or Bengalese Muslims participating in these atrocities.
His article appeared in that Saudi funded pan Arab paper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. Throughout his childish article he never mentions the fact that the cruelest enemies of Arabs are their own governments. When your own government treats you like dog poo and monopolizes the entire economy providing very little in the way of opportunities, what do you expect the youth to turn to? Knitting?
Of course not.
Not once in his article does he criticize Arab governments, who are solely responsible for the radicalization of this generation. Why is this? The answer is simple :because he’s on their payroll. Go ahead and continue to line your pockets Mr. Abdel Rahman al-Rashed general manager of Al- Arabiya news channel, but remember, as a person of authority in the media it should be his job to bring the real culprits to account i.e. the pathetic Arab governments that we prop up at our convenience and who claim to be representing there people rather than foolishly criticising a faith of 1.5 billion people.

All the worlds terrorists are Mulims eh? Poppycock.
I bet Muslims all over the world are grateful to him for that.
He obviously hasn't heard of Nepal, Sri Lanka or Colombia. What a jerk.

Incidently, I know of at least 3 terrorists who are not Muslims. One lives in the White House, another lives in Downing Street, and the third in Moscow. And there is also a non-Muslim terrorist who lives in Tel Aviv.
And all together these four have managed to engineer atrocities which are greater than any of those described in the article, by several orders of magnitude.

That's one fine rant.

 

[epepke]

I suppose we can simply claim that being Christian was the TRUE core cause of the crusades, then.

Yeah, well, it was. The whole idea was to win back the Holy Lands from the infidels.

Never mind the fact that they live in fairly miserable conditions under dictators and tyrants that we have propped up and supported for decades? Heck, Saddam was still our good friend when he gassed the Kurds. Iraq had routinely used chemical weapons against Iran, which didn't matter, because Iran was the bad guy. Saddam would still be our good friend if he hadn't grabbed for Kuwait.

I'm not sure who's the "we" here, but the US only re-established diplomacy with Iraq in 1982, were shipping fairly large amounts of arms to Iran until 1985, and only established a satellite link with Iraq when it seemed like Iran had a shot at Baghdad.

This is not to say that the US did not support Iraq, but the time from 1982 to 1991, nine years, was hardly "decades."

 

[evildave]

We seem to choose our friends so well. Saddam Hussein. Manuel Noriega. The Shah of Iran. Idi Amin. Ferdinand Marcos. Among many, many others. All people we've given money to, trained the soldiers of, and otherwise supported regardless of their human rights abuses. Heck, we even supported Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in 1982 just to weaken Vietnam.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

 

[epepke]

We seem to choose our friends so well. Saddam Hussein. Manuel Noriega. The Shah of Iran. Idi Amin. Ferdinand Marcos. Among many, many others. All people we've given money to, trained the soldiers of, and otherwise supported regardless of their human rights abuses. Heck, we even supported Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in 1982 just to weaken Vietnam.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

Yeah. And England. And the rest of Europe. And Japan. And Canada. And Mexico. And Australia. (OK, maybe not Australia.)

But, oh, wait! You've got a special list of bad decisions? Well, darn tootin', yer' right. All the ones on the list of bad decisions were bad decisions! Amazing, that. You must be psychic.

 

[Ed]

We seem to choose our friends so well. Saddam Hussein. Manuel Noriega. The Shah of Iran. Idi Amin. Ferdinand Marcos. Among many, many others. All people we've given money to, trained the soldiers of, and otherwise supported regardless of their human rights abuses. Heck, we even supported Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in 1982 just to weaken Vietnam.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

I notice that you are quite critical of the US in regard to virtually anything that we do. Fine and good.

To show that you are not full of hot air, I wonder if you could take some time and outline what a foreign policy of yours for the US might be. You might, just so we know where you are coming from, tell us what the objectives are and then go from there.

I will guess that the result will not be terribly impressive, but I will withold judgement. I'd like to see what a systematic "right answer" is in your view. You mske it sound so easy. Educate us.

One other thing: Take your time, make it considered.

 

[Skeptic]

I notice that you are quite critical of the US in regard to virtually anything that we do. Fine and good.

To show that you are not full of hot air, I wonder if you could take some time and outline what a foreign policy of yours for the US might be.

Well, he did suggest "solving" world terrorism by the free world getting together... and buying Al-Quaeda & co. their very own powerful radio station, so the terroirsts will no longer "have" to attract attention by, you know, blowing people up.

I'm not making this up, I swear. .here is the thead.

Since that is "Evildave"'s idea of a good decision, you can get an idea how much weight his criticism deserves...

 

[epepke]

Well, he did suggest "solving" world terrorism by the free world getting together... and buying Al-Quaeda & co. their very own powerful radio station, so the terroirsts will no longer "have" to attract attention by, you know, blowing people up.

We should take a tip from Babbit's wife and buy them all wicker furniture.

 

[Ed]

Well, he did suggest "solving" world terrorism by the free world getting together... and buying Al-Quaeda & co. their very own powerful radio station, so the terroirsts will no longer "have" to attract attention by, you know, blowing people up.

I'm not making this up, I swear. .here is the thead.

Since that is "Evildave"'s idea of a good decision, you can get an idea how much weight his criticism deserves...

A sound and bold plan. Now I am really interested.

You know, any idiot can monday morning quarterback about anything. My interest lies in seeing how a progressive edifice looks with all of the troublesome moving pieces in place. I am particularly interested in how our tricycle industry meets demand once we sever relations with those nasty dictators that supply our oil and manipulate our markets when their camel farts.

I am glad that he has not knee jerked a response. This means thought is going into his answer. I am aquivver with anticipation.