Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 255

Thread: Muslims the new Holocaust?

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    imo they completely neglected the palestinians when they called/re-called out the state of israel after the holocaust.
    Nope, the UN and the brits did not. Only thing is, the jews understood that they would need to live with the local arabs side by side (there is no such thing as "palestinians"), whereas the arabs understood that the creation of the state of Israel is carte blanche to masacring the jews (the same way they masacred 1.5 millions of Armenians, earlier in the century). Except that the jews, fresh from the holocaust, were not ready to comply. Did you read any of the info of the link I provided?

    yes, i agree that israel has its right to be there and being a state. but what about the palestinians? they clearly didn't want to be a part of israel, nor did/do they want to leave the region ... otherwise there would be peace.
    The palis have West Bank and Gaza. Except their charter is the wiping out of Israel. Once again, did you read the info in the link I provided?

    and genocidal intentions? please.?
    Yep, read here. They are trying to finish what the Nazis started. Actually, they were close allies to the Nazis during WWII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    imo they completely neglected the palestinians when they called/re-called out the state of israel after the holocaust.
    Nope, the UN and the brits did not. Only thing is, the jews understood that they would need to live with the local arabs side by side (there is no such thing as "palestinians"), whereas the arabs understood that the creation of the state of Israel is carte blanche to masacring the jews (the same way they masacred 1.5 millions of Armenians, earlier in the century). Except that the jews, fresh from the holocaust, were not ready to comply. Did you read any of the info of the link I provided?

    yes, i agree that israel has its right to be there and being a state. but what about the palestinians? they clearly didn't want to be a part of israel, nor did/do they want to leave the region ... otherwise there would be peace.
    The palis have West Bank and Gaza. Except their charter is the wiping out of Israel. Once again, did you read the info in the link I provided?

    and genocidal intentions? please.?
    Yep, read here. They are trying to finish what the Nazis started. Actually, they were close allies to the Nazis during WWII.
    i haven't seen any link, beside the one you just added in this(which i haven't read yet).

    but i disagree with your comment about the brits (UN?).

    well, there is more than just having west bank and gaza, i,e, water supply for one, but as i said; i haven't read your link, so i'll get back to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    imo they completely neglected the palestinians when they called/re-called out the state of israel after the holocaust.
    Nope, the UN and the brits did not. Only thing is, the jews understood that they would need to live with the local arabs side by side (there is no such thing as "palestinians"), whereas the arabs understood that the creation of the state of Israel is carte blanche to masacring the jews (the same way they masacred 1.5 millions of Armenians, earlier in the century). Except that the jews, fresh from the holocaust, were not ready to comply. Did you read any of the info of the link I provided?

    yes, i agree that israel has its right to be there and being a state. but what about the palestinians? they clearly didn't want to be a part of israel, nor did/do they want to leave the region ... otherwise there would be peace.
    The palis have West Bank and Gaza. Except their charter is the wiping out of Israel. Once again, did you read the info in the link I provided?

    and genocidal intentions? please.?
    Yep, read here. They are trying to finish what the Nazis started. Actually, they were close allies to the Nazis during WWII.
    i haven't seen any link, beside the one you just added in this(which i haven't read yet).

    but i disagree with your comment about the brits (UN?).

    well, there is more than just having west bank and gaza, i,e, water supply for one, but as i said; i haven't read your link, so i'll get back to it.
    I suggest you read it. The arabs have a long history of genocide and of being close allies to the Nazis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    that's bs, and you should know. otherwise even calling independence wouldn't have been possible.
    Last edited by curious mind; July 27th, 2014 at 09:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    imo they completely neglected the palestinians when they called/re-called out the state of israel after the holocaust.

    yes, i agree that israel has its right to be there and being a state. but what about the palestinians? they clearly didn't want to be a part of israel, nor did/do they want to leave the region ... otherwise there would be peace.

    so either there will be a palestinian state sometime in the future or an ongoing war zone til one of the two groups died out.

    right now it looks like the latter is, what politics wants.
    I think it is called "revenge".

    The Palestinians never really chose a side in World War II, but insofar as they did anything at all, they mostly acted against the interests of the UK in that war.

    Maybe the UK didn't really feel like doing them any favors?


    However, ultimately 99% of England's reasons for doing what they did was probably desire to retain access to the Suez canal. If the Palestinians could have delivered a more firm promise to work in favor of that goal than the Jewish people did, then probably England would have left the region in their hands instead.


    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Off topic much?
    No. Not much.


    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    imo they completely neglected the palestinians when they called/re-called out the state of israel after the holocaust.

    yes, i agree that israel has its right to be there and being a state. but what about the palestinians? they clearly didn't want to be a part of israel, nor did/do they want to leave the region ... otherwise there would be peace.
    The palis still have hundreds of thousands of square miles of land. But, no, they absolutely "needed" the 8000 allocated to Israel. Besides, as soon as Israel declared its independence, in 1948, hundreds of thousands of palis , jordanians, egyptians and syrians invaded with the intent on butchering them. The iraqis, lybians, algerians, tunisians and morrocans waited in the wings.


    so either there will be a palestinian state sometime in the future or an ongoing war zone til one of the two groups died out.

    right now it looks like the latter is, what politics wants.
    There is going to be a pali state when the palis renounce their genocidal intentions.
    so you're saying, throughout the centuries no palestinians lived in that region and all of them just rushed there in 1948 to cause havoc?

    what if you and your ancestors lived in cali for centuries, and out of the blue world politics decided to give it back to mexico; and your only choice is to become mexican, live there as a foreigner or leave?

    How do you think the people of Poland and Czechoslovakia felt when they found out they were now part of the USSR? Land changed hands quite a lot in that time. Palestine lost its soveriegnty in the first world war, right about the time most of the former Ottoman empire was getting divided up.

    The Ottomans threw in with Germany in that war thinking they would claim new territory, but instead they lost. Such is the gamble of conquest. They can no more cry "foul" than any gambler in Las Vegas who bets their life fortune on a roulette wheel and fails to get the number they bet on.

    The difference between Palestine and most of the rest of the nations who lost those wars, is that the others took their loss like an adult. Accepted the new rulers, and got on with their lives. Palestine, on the other hand, keeps trying to get a rematch.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    that's bs, and you should know. otherwise even calling independence wouldn't have been possible.
    What's bs? Your love for the palis? I thought that it was quite transparent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    The difference between Palestine and most of the rest of the nations who lost those wars, is that the others took their loss like an adult. Accepted the new rulers, and got on with their lives. Palestine, on the other hand, keeps trying to get a rematch.
    Being genocidal maniacs is not curable. They start the wars and they keep losing them. Not only the palis but the syrians , the lebanese as well. Serves them right. At least the egyptians and the jordanians are not as stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Off topic much?
    No. Not much.
    I was thinking in terms of the content in the opening post with regards to the the religious label of being a "muslim" in today's context and what appears in more recent posts that the general perception of them being somewhat represented by the more extremist elements within their culture. It would be akin to the flawed perception that the general populace of America being predominately creationist, or that Germans in general are nazis.

    As I've mentioned in post #10 and after, not all muslims are as some envisages them to be, and that they may more often than, be viewed with suspicion, disdain and perhaps even subjected to mockery in certain parts of the world and by certain groups of people who exhibit behaviour bordering on bigotry.
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; July 27th, 2014 at 11:10 PM. Reason: Minor edits for caption of nationality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Off topic much?
    No. Not much.
    I was thinking in terms of the content in the opening post with regards to the the religious label of being a "muslim" in today's context and what appears in more recent posts that the general perception of them being somewhat represented by the more extremist elements within their culture. It would be akin to the flawed perception that the general populace of America being predominately creationist, or that germans in general are nazis.

    As I've mentioned in post #10 and after, not all muslims are as some envisages them to be, and that they may more often than, be viewed with suspicion, disdain and perhaps even subjected to mockery in certain parts of the world and by certain groups of people who exhibit behaviour bordering on bigotry.
    The point is that, in response to the OP, while the muslims are far from being subjected to a "new Holocaust", they are very much perpetrators of an old fashioned, nazi-style, holocaust. Atr least, they would want to do that. Luckily, there are obstacles in their genocidal wishes, the civilized world refuses to go along with their ideas. So, far from the muslims being subjected to ill-treatment, the world sees clearly through their tendencies and is ready to fight. So, no more killing 1.5 millions (Armenians).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    The point is that, in response to the OP, while the muslims are far from being subjected to a "new Holocaust"...
    The first sentence in the OP is as follows "... are Muslims getting as much hate as Jews got ... leading up to the Holocaust?". Now, I may be reading it wrong and am overly optimistic, but I am given to understand that TheFosterKid isn't suggesting that muslims in general are being subjected to a "new holocaust", and with the focus of the question asking if the "hate" they are getting just "as much".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    not ADM!N grmpysmrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    The arabs have a long history of genocide and of being close allies to the Nazis.
    yeah they're so close to the master race It's hard to tell 'em apart
    "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
    President Dwight Eisenhower
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by grmpysmrf View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    The arabs have a long history of genocide and of being close allies to the Nazis.
    yeah they're so close to the master race It's hard to tell 'em apart
    Bith the muslims and their allies, the nazis, think themselves of being the master race.
    They both tried to impose their way of life on the rest of the world.
    They both failed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Bith the muslims and their allies, the nazis, think themselves of being the master race.
    They both tried to impose their way of life on the rest of the world.
    They both failed.
    Just wow.

    Muslim isn't a race.
    There haven't been organized Nazi for 70 years.
    Most Muslims are of Asian Haplogroups.

    --
    Think you've shown more than enough obvertly bigoted and ill informed comments to earn a week off.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 28th, 2014 at 09:43 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Off topic much?
    No. Not much.
    I was thinking in terms of the content in the opening post with regards to the the religious label of being a "muslim" in today's context and what appears in more recent posts that the general perception of them being somewhat represented by the more extremist elements within their culture. It would be akin to the flawed perception that the general populace of America being predominately creationist, or that Germans in general are nazis.

    As I've mentioned in post #10 and after, not all muslims are as some envisages them to be, and that they may more often than, be viewed with suspicion, disdain and perhaps even subjected to mockery in certain parts of the world and by certain groups of people who exhibit behaviour bordering on bigotry.

    I don't know how the mockery issue can be dialed back. If you mock a person who happens to be Muslim because they are Muslim, that is one thing. If you mock Islam in the presence of someone who happens to be Muslim, then that is another.

    When we look at the world scale, Islam is earning the mockery it receives. An individual Muslim may not be personally deserving of mockery, however.

    Of course, there is also the fact they have chosen to follow a belief that system that has demonstrated itself to be worthy of Mockery. It's kind of like how not all Justin Bieber fans are weirdos.... but if I see an adult male wearing a Justin Bieber T shirt I might wonder about him.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    All I see is miss placed hatred and a obvious lac of understanding.. Intolerance and judgements unprecedented. Some of you should feel shame.. but you will not. You are far too busy being carried along on a wave of bigotry and ignorance.. I will not enter a argument of religious doctrines.. They are all wrong.. and a point of view of the sciences make a better sample of maturity to follow..
    It would seem our worst enemy is us. Seeking out a extremist view or a fundamentalist cult.. Is not a indicator of religious fervor..
    ~ Some of us NEED to grow up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Off topic much?
    No. Not much.
    I was thinking in terms of the content in the opening post with regards to the the religious label of being a "muslim" in today's context and what appears in more recent posts that the general perception of them being somewhat represented by the more extremist elements within their culture. It would be akin to the flawed perception that the general populace of America being predominately creationist, or that Germans in general are nazis.

    As I've mentioned in post #10 and after, not all muslims are as some envisages them to be, and that they may more often than, be viewed with suspicion, disdain and perhaps even subjected to mockery in certain parts of the world and by certain groups of people who exhibit behaviour bordering on bigotry.
    I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    All I see is miss placed hatred and a obvious lac of understanding.. Intolerance and judgements unprecedented. Some of you should feel shame.. but you will not. You are far too busy being carried along on a wave of bigotry and ignorance.. I will not enter a argument of religious doctrines.. They are all wrong.. and a point of view of the sciences make a better sample of maturity to follow..
    It would seem our worst enemy is us. Seeking out a extremist view or a fundamentalist cult.. Is not a indicator of religious fervor..
    ~ Some of us NEED to grow up.
    Will you marry me and have my...oops! That doesn't work!! I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    All I see is miss placed hatred and a obvious lac of understanding.. Intolerance and judgements unprecedented.
    There is often this underlying assumption when people talk about "tolerance" and "understanding" that if you disapprove of something that someone else does or believes in it MUST be because you don't understand it. It MUST!!!!!

    It couldn't be because you fully understand it, or at least understand it reasonably well and yet you STILL disapprove. It is, in fact, possible to disapprove of something and not be ignorant for doing so.




    Some of you should feel shame.. but you will not. You are far too busy being carried along on a wave of bigotry and ignorance.. I will not enter a argument of religious doctrines.. They are all wrong.. and a point of view of the sciences make a better sample of maturity to follow..
    It would seem our worst enemy is us. Seeking out a extremist view or a fundamentalist cult.. Is not a indicator of religious fervor..
    ~ Some of us NEED to grow up.

    My worst enemy is foolish utopian ideals. Communism was one such ideal. A beautiful concept, but totally impossible to create without destroying everything else to do it (and you would fail even then, because all the needed resources would now be lacking.)

    Islam is just another kind of communist and/or utopian ideal. It leads people down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others. It only ever worked in history because it continually expanded itself through conquest. Once there was no longer anyone left to conquer, or those who remained were too strong to conquer, it almost immediately fell into decline.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Islam is just another kind of communist and/or utopian ideal. It leads people down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others. It only ever worked in history because it continually expanded itself through conquest. Once there was no longer anyone left to conquer, or those who remained were too strong to conquer, it almost immediately fell into decline.
    Is this the thread topic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Islam is just another kind of communist and/or utopian ideal. It leads people down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others. It only ever worked in history because it continually expanded itself through conquest. Once there was no longer anyone left to conquer, or those who remained were too strong to conquer, it almost immediately fell into decline.
    I disagree. I know devout Muslims who are not being "led down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others." Just as I know Christians, atheists and even a Wiccan or two who aren't heading into self-destruction. There is nothing inherent in Islam (or Christianity) that requires one to walk that path, despite how people like Bin Laden and Breivik misinterpret their religions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    ~ Pleasing to see that some of us have the maturity of mind to see and understand the peoples of religious faiths are not always at fault..
    Regardless of the Faith one chooses to follow it is not at issue is it..
    It's the fundamentalism we must be aware of as directly threatening to all of us and world piece.
    It's not too much to ask is it ? I can postulate all I like that a good balanced education will fix all of the above issues.. But it won't.
    Why have 'they' not fixed the 'like' button.. Does it still not work for all of us ? It's a Muslim conspiracy.... Ummm.. 'fool'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ Pleasing to see that some of us have the maturity of mind to see and understand the peoples of religious faiths are not always at fault..
    Regardless of the Faith one chooses to follow it is not at issue is it..
    It's the fundamentalism we must be aware of as directly threatening to all of us and world piece.
    It's not too much to ask is it ? I can postulate all I like that a good balanced education will fix all of the above issues.. But it won't.
    Why have 'they' not fixed the 'like' button.. Does it still not work for all of us ? It's a Muslim conspiracy.... Ummm.. 'fool'
    ahahahahahahah

    Yes it is a Muslim plot! The like button not working to limit our freedom of posting!! *chuckle*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Islam is just another kind of communist and/or utopian ideal. It leads people down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others. It only ever worked in history because it continually expanded itself through conquest. Once there was no longer anyone left to conquer, or those who remained were too strong to conquer, it almost immediately fell into decline.
    I disagree. I know devout Muslims who are not being "led down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others." Just as I know Christians, atheists and even a Wiccan or two who aren't heading into self-destruction. There is nothing inherent in Islam (or Christianity) that requires one to walk that path, despite how people like Bin Laden and Breivik misinterpret their religions.
    That's the odd thing about religion isn't it? We'll never know who is and isn't "interpreting it right".

    Maybe the only reason it works for your friends is because they are misinterpreting it? Perhaps they are adding common sense to their outlook in places where there isn't supposed to be any?

    For all we know, Bin Laden is the one who is actually "interpreting it right".

    Or wait...... unless "interpret it right", means "apply it in a way where it benefits your life instead of harming it". In which case that would mean there has never, in the whole history of the world ever been an idea so misguided that it wouldn't work if you "interpreted it right".
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Ask a person of any religion the same question........you shall get 20 different answers...we perceive what we perceive...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Or wait...... unless "interpret it right", means "apply it in a way where it benefits your life instead of harming it". In which case that would mean there has never, in the whole history of the world ever been an idea so misguided that it wouldn't work if you "interpreted it right".
    Everyone interprets religion differently, from devout worshipers to atheists. The beliefs alone do not "lead people down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others." Many people use such beliefs to justify their violence, just as some people credit religion for their good deeds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Or wait...... unless "interpret it right", means "apply it in a way where it benefits your life instead of harming it". In which case that would mean there has never, in the whole history of the world ever been an idea so misguided that it wouldn't work if you "interpreted it right".
    Everyone interprets religion differently, from devout worshipers to atheists. The beliefs alone do not "lead people down a starry-eyed dream path to self destruction and destruction of others.
    I'm pretty sure a person's beliefs are exactly what leads them to follow whatever path they follow. The issue is that any given pair of Muslims may believe different things, despite reading the same holy book. Some religious people add things to the books that aren't there. Others ignore parts of the book that are there.

    Really Christians have it the toughest because the second half of the bible totally contradicts the first half on probably the vast majority of important issues. They simply have to choose which part "is figurative", and which part "is literal", or otherwise find ways to discount some of the text so they can reduce it to action without contradiction. And, fortunately, the majority of Christians prefer the New Testament over the Old Testament.

    I would have to say that the main problem with Islam is precisely its own inability to be as flexible as Xianity has become over the years. The two religions were equally intolerant and backwards until the Protestant movement swept through Europe, allowing people to subdivide their belief systems into an infinite number of different sub systems as they wished, and still be counted as "Christian" to the members of other sects. Islam has its "people of the book" thing, but you can't just start new churches of Islam with new ideas at your leisure and have them be immediately accepted by other Muslims are possibly accurate accounts of the will of Allah.

    Prior to that, Xianity still had a couple of flavors, but free thought within those flavors was a joke. In the present protestant system, preachers have to allow for a wide range of belief options, or run the risk that their flock will convert to the church across the street. Competition for followers improves the churches continually.


    Ask yourself: why do Christians dominate so much of the world today? Answer: They don't. Protestant Christians dominate the world. Catholic and other Christians are still mostly located in failed nations.

    The issue is not one of Christianity being better. The issue is that Protestantism is better. If a protestant form of Islam existed, it would be better than Catholicism. Protestantism might be thought of as a form of technology. Just as the scientific approach to the study of the natural world is better than what came before it, so also the Protestant approach to religion yields better results than its predecessors.



    " Many people use such beliefs to justify their violence, just as some people credit religion for their good deeds.

    And how do you know the ones who justify violence by their religion are "interpreting it wrong"? Maybe the religion intends to teach them to be violent?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm pretty sure a person's beliefs are exactly what leads them to follow whatever path they follow.
    A person's beliefs are, in general, quite different than (and often only loosely related to) the canon of a religion.

    The issue is that any given pair of Muslims may believe different things, despite reading the same holy book. Some religious people add things to the books that aren't there. Others ignore parts of the book that are there.
    Exactly.
    would have to say that the main problem with Islam is precisely its own inability to be as flexible as Xianity has become over the years. The two religions were equally intolerant and backwards until the Protestant movement swept through Europe, allowing people to subdivide their belief systems into an infinite number of different sub systems as they wished, and still be counted as "Christian" to the members of other sects. Islam has its "people of the book" thing, but you can't just start new churches of Islam with new ideas at your leisure and have them be immediately accepted by other Muslims are possibly accurate accounts of the will of Allah.
    1) If that were true Catholicism would still be pretty bad; the tenets of Catholicism haven't changed much since 1517.
    2) There are several different sects of Islam; Sufism, Sunni and Shi'a are three of the big ones.
    Ask yourself: why do Christians dominate so much of the world today? Answer: They don't. Protestant Christians dominate the world. Catholic and other Christians are still mostly located in failed nations.
    Well, by that measure, most religious fanatics aren't Muslim. They are Sunni.

    The issue is not one of Christianity being better. The issue is that Protestantism is better. If a protestant form of Islam existed, it would be better than Catholicism. Protestantism might be thought of as a form of technology. Just as the scientific approach to the study of the natural world is better than what came before it, so also the Protestant approach to religion yields better results than its predecessors.
    Based on that, the Islam equivalent is probably Sufism.
    And how do you know the ones who justify violence by their religion are "interpreting it wrong"? Maybe the religion intends to teach them to be violent?
    Again, while all religions have, at times, claimed that their tenets justify violence, they are greatly in the minority. Going by the vast majority of religious leaders for the major religions, they do not "teach them to be violent."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    The reason why there is discrimination against muslims, even within their own religion, is because Islamic doctrines promote discrimination and violence. I can not believe that any one, especially a western woman would think otherwise. Currently , there is no other group piking heads, kidnaping children, threatening the world and promoting hatred to all that are not the same as them.

    Recently in west Africa the extremist group Boko Harem has been terrorizing the citizens of three nations. It has been speculated that this group may be responsible for the ebola outbreak in large populations. Their goal is the destruction of all that is not their type of Islam. The same can be said about ISIS and Hamas. Even peaceful muslims interpret the Koran so that anyone not of their faith are infidels to be dealt with.

    Before I get blasted from muslim sympathizers, I do have muslim acquaintances that seem very much American and these people are getting a bum rap because of their faith but rightly so because of threats made by the extremists, imo.

    Calling muslims victims of a holocaust is inaccurate. Currently it seems like a genocide of shia by sunni.
    Last edited by pineapple007; July 30th, 2014 at 06:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Before I get blasted from muslim sympathizers, I do have muslim acquaintances that seem very much American and these people are getting a bum rap because of their faith but rightly so because of threats made by the extremists, imo.
    To me that is similar to saying "Jews are greedy and have no morals. Before I get blasted by Jewish sympathizers, I do have Jewish friends that aren't that greedy and they are getting a bum rap because of their religion, but rightly so because of all the greedy evil Jews."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I want to thank you for making such a reasonable response to what I was writing. Sometimes I go a little bit far afield.

    I mean: clearly I do favor protestantism as a form of religion. I think that regardless of what invisible man in the sky a person worships, they will do more good and less harm if they take the protestant attitude about it. But I was kind of digressing from the main issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm pretty sure a person's beliefs are exactly what leads them to follow whatever path they follow.
    A person's beliefs are, in general, quite different than (and often only loosely related to) the canon of a religion.

    That is definitely true of most of the religious people I have met, however those beliefs which a person holds not because of their religion also cannot be credited to their religion. Those are beliefs they would probably hold even if they were atheists.

    Different members of a faith will believe in that faith to different degrees. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that there is any inaccuracy in lumping them all together. If they all believed their faiths absolutely, then to the degree that their holy books clearly describe a belief, they would all agree absolutely on those matters.

    However, when we are describing the faith itself, it's fair to judge it by the measure of what a person would do who absolutely believed it. The faith intends itself to be absolutely believed.

    Saying that a religion isn't insane on the basis that its adherents don't follow it sincerely enough to do what it tells them would be like saying Charles Manson isn't insane on the basis of pointing out that only a handful of Charles Manson followers are actually dedicated enough to his message to go out and kill people.



    would have to say that the main problem with Islam is precisely its own inability to be as flexible as Xianity has become over the years. The two religions were equally intolerant and backwards until the Protestant movement swept through Europe, allowing people to subdivide their belief systems into an infinite number of different sub systems as they wished, and still be counted as "Christian" to the members of other sects. Islam has its "people of the book" thing, but you can't just start new churches of Islam with new ideas at your leisure and have them be immediately accepted by other Muslims are possibly accurate accounts of the will of Allah.
    1) If that were true Catholicism would still be pretty bad; the tenets of Catholicism haven't changed much since 1517.
    Yes. Catholocism is pretty bad. Most of the nations dominated by Catholic populations are corrupt cesspools of failure.

    However, I have a hard time thinking of even one protestant dominated nation that could be thought of as "third world".

    2) There are several different sects of Islam; Sufism, Sunni and Shi'a are three of the big ones.
    Ask yourself: why do Christians dominate so much of the world today? Answer: They don't. Protestant Christians dominate the world. Catholic and other Christians are still mostly located in failed nations.
    Well, by that measure, most religious fanatics aren't Muslim. They are Sunni.
    Ok. So shift over to mocking Sunni-ism specifically instead of mocking Islam generally? Maybe look for Sunni symbols on people traveling through airports, but ignoring symbols related to other kinds of Islam?

    Are there any specifically Sunni symbols to mock? Any specifically Sunni holy sites?


    The issue is not one of Christianity being better. The issue is that Protestantism is better. If a protestant form of Islam existed, it would be better than Catholicism. Protestantism might be thought of as a form of technology. Just as the scientific approach to the study of the natural world is better than what came before it, so also the Protestant approach to religion yields better results than its predecessors.
    Based on that, the Islam equivalent is probably Sufism.
    So how well do the Sufis do at getting along with people? Could we perhaps conduct some social engineering by promoting Sufism and disparaging other forms of Islam.

    I can see the foolishness of mocking all Muslims if we're only troubled by one sub group of Muslims. No need to provoke the others so they suddenly find themselves under attack and feel a need to fight back.

    And how do you know the ones who justify violence by their religion are "interpreting it wrong"? Maybe the religion intends to teach them to be violent?
    Again, while all religions have, at times, claimed that their tenets justify violence, they are greatly in the minority. Going by the vast majority of religious leaders for the major religions, they do not "teach them to be violent."
    That doesn't square well with history. The early history of Islam was one of huge armies gathering together and marching off to conquest. Christianity also, became the vanguard of Europe's military machine and remained so for centuries.

    The whole peace loving Jesus/Allah thing is a recent development.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    All I see is miss placed hatred and a obvious lac of understanding.. Intolerance and judgements unprecedented. Some of you should feel shame.. but you will not. You are far too busy being carried along on a wave of bigotry and ignorance.. I will not enter a argument of religious doctrines.. They are all wrong.. and a point of view of the sciences make a better sample of maturity to follow..
    It would seem our worst enemy is us. Seeking out a extremist view or a fundamentalist cult.. Is not a indicator of religious fervor..
    ~ Some of us NEED to grow up.
    I would say some need to start recognising that the other side are also made up of human beings.

    There was a big brouhaha in the last few days, after an Israeli Jewish blogger who writes for the Times of Israel, posted a piece discussing the validity of genocide of the Palestinians and he basically said that genocide is justifiable and acceptable. There was a massive blowout when it was published and shortly after, the Times of Israel deleted it, deleted and changed the URL to the page, and advised readers that it had been deleted because the desire and call for genocide is abhorrent and appalling. No one will dispute that finding. However, on reading the piece, I find it interesting because people were repulsed by it because he was so open about what he thought. Yet, the piece itself goes further than just calling for genocide. The manner in which he classified Palestinians as a whole, was, well, it was reminiscent of the way Jews were classified by the rising Hitler. At one point, he states that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, because a civilian cannot be innocent if Hamas is operating a rocket launcher near their home or has a tunnel opening near their home. As such, he classifies all Palestinian civilians as being the enemy, an enemy he declares, for such as Hamas and leaders in Gaza, as having a natural propensity to lie and that lying is part of their natural fabric. And so, in his opinion, Israel would be fully justified in committing genocide and removing all Palestinians by way of death, to ensure Israel and Israeli's can live peacefully.

    I find it interesting that the protests were not really for how he viewed Palestinians. The protests in Israel and against the paper was because it was a Jew who was calling for genocide.

    No one thought to protest on the fact that he had stopped seeing Palestinians as human beings. The very thing the Nazi's did. And we see that lack of recognition of humanity in all genocides. In Jewish and Romani genocide, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan and the Armenian genocide. They did not view the other as being human, but as being a thing that needed to be removed, a blight that had to vanish.

    Sadly, the author, Yochanon Gordon, is not alone. There have been too many far right Israeli politicians and even members of the current Government calling for absolute genocide of Palestinians. One comment was so offensive that it led to one Israeli writer declaring that it made her want to burn her Israeli passport in shame.

    The running theme in all of this, and also from Hamas in how they view Israelis, is that the enemy is no longer human. The moment you stop seeing your enemy as human beings, then the desire or talk of genocide becomes easy. And at the moment, talk of genocide of Palestinians appears to be an ongoing conversation and worse still, they are saying out loudly and openly and proudly because they now feel they can. When members of the ruling party are also calling for genocide and doing so openly, without fear of political retribution, then it is a clear indication that a) they do not see Palestinians are human beings worthy of even the most basic amenities and rights, and b) the political atmosphere is now such that one can openly make such declarations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    At one point, he states that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, because a civilian cannot be innocent if Hamas is operating a rocket launcher near their home or has a tunnel opening near their home.
    I have to admit I do have a bit of a problem with supposed "civilians" seeing rocket launchers and tunnels getting built by their homes - obviously illegal - and not reporting it to the police. Yet somehow they still get to claim to be "civilians"? Even though they are complicit?

    That's just ridiculous. If gender equality is to considered a valid direction for society to move in, then we can't distinguish between adult males and adult females. So all adults in the area are complicit in the crime. They are choosing to participate in an act of war, and are no less soldiers than a soldier cook working in the mess hall of an American army base, even if the cook doesn't actually have a gun in his/her hand.

    The children are civilians, but I think the militants have responsibility to remove the children before they use the neighborhood as a base, and 100% of the blame if any child dies should fall on the militants. 0% for the army that counter attacks the region.

    It's just silly that we don't hold people accountable to keep their own children out of harm's way.




    No one thought to protest on the fact that he had stopped seeing Palestinians as human beings. The very thing the Nazi's did. And we see that lack of recognition of humanity in all genocides. In Jewish and Romani genocide, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan and the Armenian genocide. They did not view the other as being human, but as being a thing that needed to be removed, a blight that had to vanish.

    Sadly, the author, Yochanon Gordon, is not alone. There have been too many far right Israeli politicians and even members of the current Government calling for absolute genocide of Palestinians. One comment was so offensive that it led to one Israeli writer declaring that it made her want to burn her Israeli passport in shame.

    The running theme in all of this, and also from Hamas in how they view Israelis, is that the enemy is no longer human. The moment you stop seeing your enemy as human beings, then the desire or talk of genocide becomes easy. And at the moment, talk of genocide of Palestinians appears to be an ongoing conversation and worse still, they are saying out loudly and openly and proudly because they now feel they can. When members of the ruling party are also calling for genocide and doing so openly, without fear of political retribution, then it is a clear indication that a) they do not see Palestinians are human beings worthy of even the most basic amenities and rights, and b) the political atmosphere is now such that one can openly make such declarations.
    "Human" or "not Human" probably isn't the issue.

    On a battlefield, you can bomb an enemy base, knowing all the adult male soldiers in that base will die, and still consider that those adult male soldiers are humans.

    The distinction that is withering is the distinction between "adult male soldier" and "civilian". And how can it not wither if civilians are increasingly participating in warfare while still expecting to be treated as "civilians"?

    What is going to happen next? Are full armies going to start bringing their children with them onto the battlefield? Men driving a tank with their son or daughter sitting next to them in the tank?

    "Don't shoot!!!" "There's a child in this tank!!!" But why is there a child in the tank? Just so we won't shoot the tank? When can we finally start blaming the militants for their own childrens' deaths?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post


    I have to admit I do have a bit of a problem with supposed "civilians" seeing rocket launchers and tunnels getting built by their homes - obviously illegal - and not reporting it to the police. Yet somehow they still get to claim to be "civilians"? Even though they are complicit?
    Which police would they report it to? The police force in Gaza is run by Hamas.

    Indeed, Gaza's police force may be one of the more unusual ones patrolling the world's streets. The force is administered by the tiny territory's Interior Ministry, which in turn is run by the Hamas government — considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Israel.

    * * * * * *

    But many Gazans also say the changes since 2007 on the streets have come at a price. "The police now are stronger and more violent," says Ramy Mansour, a tailor. "They can take control of a situation by force. The previous police were not strong and didn't have a military force."


    Mansour's ire is not focused on the beat cops, but a largely plainclothes division known as Internal Security. "The fear is based on the long period that you could potentially be detained — and the torture," explains Abu Anas, a minibus driver. Like the police force, Internal Security is administered by the Interior Ministry. But whereas the street police may be the public face of Gaza's security gains and the day-to-day monitors of law and order, Internal Security handles the potentially serious offenders: those who stand accused of collaboration with Israel or the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority as well as the extremist factions who dare to defy Hamas.


    And there is a third security force that Gazans fear: Hamas' highly secretive Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the movement's armed resistance wing, which carries out violent attacks on Israel and whose members have a reputation for being some of Hamas' most steadfast adherents. Referring to both the uniformed police and the plainclothes Internal Security, one civilian says, "They're all Qassam." The government does little to deny it. "Many of the Qassam operate within both the Qassam brigades and the Internal Security," Interior Ministry spokesman Ehab al-Ghossain tells TIME. "In our laws, we do not prevent any resistance fighter from joining the police or a security service, provided that he is committed to the rules and regulations of the department he belongs to ... We make sure that their activities, outside of their official jobs, remain separate."


    I think the expectation that Palestinians call the Hamas run police to report Hamas firing rockets into Israel is ridiculous. Because if a Palestinian civilian calls the Hamas run police to report rockets or tunnels (which are fired and dug by Hamas), because of the illegality of such actions and because it endangers Israel (and themselves in the long run), then that Palestinian civilian and their relatives could find themselves arrested, tortured and murdered for collaborating with Israel.

    Frankly, declaring they are complicit because the do not report Hamas to Hamas run police officers, when doing so results in detention, torture and even death, is yet another way to stop seeing them as human beings and frankly, as innocent civilians. It's just an excuse to excuse killing them.

    That's just ridiculous. If gender equality is to considered a valid direction for society to move in, then we can't distinguish between adult males and adult females. So all adults in the area are complicit in the crime. They are choosing to participate in an act of war, and are no less soldiers than a soldier cook working in the mess hall of an American army base, even if the cook doesn't actually have a gun in his/her hand.
    I beg your pardon. How are they choosing to participate in an act of war? They are virtually locked up in Gaza, with no way to leave (the borders are closed and they are not allowed to leave), the police force you think they should be reporting Hamas to is run by Hamas - the organisation that provides them with food, water and electricity. Your argument is merely you looking for excuses, because it seems as though in your opinion, they are complicit simply by being Palestinian.

    The children are civilians, but I think the militants have responsibility to remove the children before they use the neighborhood as a base, and 100% of the blame if any child dies should fall on the militants. 0% for the army that counter attacks the region.
    Remove them how? And to where?

    Do you actually think that the Palestinians in Gaza are able to simply leave Gaza and live elsewhere? They are locked in there. They have no way to leave.


    Imagine that you are a parent (as I am) and that your children are caught in a war zone, facing the prospect of death or maiming at any moment. What do you do? The answer is obvious: you remove your children from the war zone as quickly as is humanly possible.

    This is why wars generate masses of refugees; the horrific civil war in Syria, to take but one example, created in 2012 alone over 700,000 refugees, scattered among Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and other countries.


    But if you are a parent in Gaza, where hundreds of children have died in the current conflict and over 2,000 have been injured, you have absolutely nowhere to go, with the borders sealed by Israel and Egypt and escape by sea or air impossible. You are trapped and unable to carry out the most elemental responsibility of parenthood: to protect your child. This is the true meaning of terror.


    You have tried, of course, to do what parents do: to keep your child as safe as circumstances permit. But the task has proved impossible. You have rushed your family to sites such as the United Nations schools officially designated as safe havens, but they have been repeatedly attacked. The United Nations has reported at least six such attacks over the past two weeks, and many children have died as a result. There is nothing on earth you want more than to protect your children from harm, but you have nowhere to hide.


    Israelis, too, feel a sense of terror. They are frightened of the Hamas rockets now capable of reaching two-thirds of Israel's population and they are terrified of the tunnels that now reach into Israel proper. The situation, however, is not the same as in Gaza; Israelis have an expensive "Iron Dome" that intercepts many of the rockets launched by Hamas, an elaborate warning system, and an extensive system of shelters. But the most fundamental difference is that Israelis who find the situation too dangerous can leave with their children and take them out of the country. This is what makes the situation truly asymmetrical, and it compounds what is a great human tragedy for both sides.
    To put it simply, there is no out for them. And I think to say they are complicit is just an excuse to explain or shove away the obscene number of civilian deaths in the latest Gaza incursion. Israel bombed hospitals and UN schools they knew people had gone to to shelter from the bombs and the war. By going to the UN schools, they became refugees, attempting to escape from war. Do you think it is acceptable to drop bombs on refugee camps? This is effectively what Israel did. By saying they are complicit because they did not report Hamas to the Hamas run police force and because they live there and do not leave when they are prevented from leaving in the first place, then you excuse killing them.

    It's just silly that we don't hold people accountable to keep their own children out of harm's way.
    And I think it is highly uneducated to say that they are responsible when they are unable to leave and attempts to keep their children out of harms way by going to UN Schools results in their being bombed there as well.


    "Human" or "not Human" probably isn't the issue.

    On a battlefield, you can bomb an enemy base, knowing all the adult male soldiers in that base will die, and still consider that those adult male soldiers are humans.

    The distinction that is withering is the distinction between "adult male soldier" and "civilian". And how can it not wither if civilians are increasingly participating in warfare while still expecting to be treated as "civilians"?

    What is going to happen next? Are full armies going to start bringing their children with them onto the battlefield? Men driving a tank with their son or daughter sitting next to them in the tank?

    "Don't shoot!!!" "There's a child in this tank!!!" But why is there a child in the tank? Just so we won't shoot the tank? When can we finally start blaming the militants for their own childrens' deaths?
    And when you take pot shots at people kept in a veritable fish bowl, unable to leave, and then declare they are complicit because they live there and do not leave, is just an excuse to kill them. I also think blaming them for having their children there and frankly, those comments? They are offensive, because you are trying to find ways in which it is acceptable to kill them and you are using their children to find this excuse. To reiterate, they are unable and not allowed to leave, they are unable to report Hamas activities to the police because the police is run by Hamas and when they become refugees by sheltering in UN schools, they are bombed there as well. Perhaps you should stop finding ways to make killing civilians palatable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    The children are civilians, but I think the militants have responsibility to remove the children before they use the neighborhood as a base, and 100% of the blame if any child dies should fall on the militants. 0% for the army that counter attacks the region.
    Remove them how? And to where?

    Do you actually think that the Palestinians in Gaza are able to simply leave Gaza and live elsewhere? They are locked in there. They have no way to leave.

    So why don't we try all Hamas agents who get captured in a civilian occupied war zone (or staging from a civilian area) - for the war crimes, then??

    It's their fault the civilians are in danger, no Israel's. If bullets/rockets are coming from that neighborhood, then that's where "the fight" is at. Hamas has a choice about where it fights from, even if the civilians do not.




    [quote]

    Imagine that you are a parent (as I am) and that your children are caught in a war zone, facing the prospect of death or maiming at any moment. What do you do? The answer is obvious: you remove your children from the war zone as quickly as is humanly possible.

    This is why wars generate masses of refugees; the horrific civil war in Syria, to take but one example, created in 2012 alone over 700,000 refugees, scattered among Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and other countries.


    But if you are a parent in Gaza, where hundreds of children have died in the current conflict and over 2,000 have been injured, you have absolutely nowhere to go, with the borders sealed by Israel and Egypt and escape by sea or air impossible. You are trapped and unable to carry out the most elemental responsibility of parenthood: to protect your child. This is the true meaning of terror.

    Then one has to wonder why a resistance movement hasn't started against Hamas. The Israeli army will not attack a civilian occupied neighborhood unprovoked (unless by mistake, like from bad intel.)

    Hamas, however, sets up in neighborhoods it knows to be civilian occupied, purposefully putting those civilians in danger.

    Those parents should organize, take up guns, and shoot Hamas agents on site.




    You have tried, of course, to do what parents do: to keep your child as safe as circumstances permit. But the task has proved impossible. You have rushed your family to sites such as the United Nations schools officially designated as safe havens, but they have been repeatedly attacked. The United Nations has reported at least six such attacks over the past two weeks, and many children have died as a result. There is nothing on earth you want more than to protect your children from harm, but you have nowhere to hide.


    Israelis, too, feel a sense of terror. They are frightened of the Hamas rockets now capable of reaching two-thirds of Israel's population and they are terrified of the tunnels that now reach into Israel proper. The situation, however, is not the same as in Gaza; Israelis have an expensive "Iron Dome" that intercepts many of the rockets launched by Hamas, an elaborate warning system, and an extensive system of shelters. But the most fundamental difference is that Israelis who find the situation too dangerous can leave with their children and take them out of the country. This is what makes the situation truly asymmetrical, and it compounds what is a great human tragedy for both sides.

    So .... why is Hamas getting stronger instead of weaker under these circumstances?

    Maybe they serve Hamas because Hamas will shoot them on purpose if they don't comply, but Israel will only shoot them if they actively fight against Israel?

    This could be the crucial element of fighting insurgencies. Understanding that, when people are acting entirely out of fear, their "hearts and minds" don't matter? It's not a question of which side they like or love. It's a question of which side they are more terrified of.

    Hamas is the more immediate threat, and their only strategy for survival is appeasement. They can only appease one faction, so they appease the more dangerous one.




    To put it simply, there is no out for them. And I think to say they are complicit is just an excuse to explain or shove away the obscene number of civilian deaths in the latest Gaza incursion. Israel bombed hospitals and UN schools they knew people had gone to to shelter from the bombs and the war. By going to the UN schools, they became refugees, attempting to escape from war. Do you think it is acceptable to drop bombs on refugee camps? This is effectively what Israel did. By saying they are complicit because they did not report Hamas to the Hamas run police force and because they live there and do not leave when they are prevented from leaving in the first place, then you excuse killing them.

    It's just silly that we don't hold people accountable to keep their own children out of harm's way.
    And I think it is highly uneducated to say that they are responsible when they are unable to leave and attempts to keep their children out of harms way by going to UN Schools results in their being bombed there as well.
    I think that the problem is that, as an American, I am totally unable to understand people not fighting back when they are threatened.

    I think a lot of Americans share in this problem. It's too hard to think like a coward, and that hurts America's ability to deal with insurgencies, because something like 95% of what is going on is just people behaving like cowards.

    If more Americans would try to understand the pathetic, cowardly, mindsets that are prevalent in these regions, the US military might have more success in dealing with insurgencies.



    "Human" or "not Human" probably isn't the issue.

    On a battlefield, you can bomb an enemy base, knowing all the adult male soldiers in that base will die, and still consider that those adult male soldiers are humans.

    The distinction that is withering is the distinction between "adult male soldier" and "civilian". And how can it not wither if civilians are increasingly participating in warfare while still expecting to be treated as "civilians"?

    What is going to happen next? Are full armies going to start bringing their children with them onto the battlefield? Men driving a tank with their son or daughter sitting next to them in the tank?

    "Don't shoot!!!" "There's a child in this tank!!!" But why is there a child in the tank? Just so we won't shoot the tank? When can we finally start blaming the militants for their own childrens' deaths?
    And when you take pot shots at people kept in a veritable fish bowl, unable to leave, and then declare they are complicit because they live there and do not leave, is just an excuse to kill them. I also think blaming them for having their children there and frankly, those comments? They are offensive, because you are trying to find ways in which it is acceptable to kill them and you are using their children to find this excuse. To reiterate, they are unable and not allowed to leave, they are unable to report Hamas activities to the police because the police is run by Hamas and when they become refugees by sheltering in UN schools, they are bombed there as well. Perhaps you should stop finding ways to make killing civilians palatable.

    Maybe you think through both sides of what you are saying.

    What do you say about an innocent civilian who is forced to join the military by a draft? Or worse, militants show up in their village, and threaten to shoot their families if they don't join? (This has happened in Afghanistan)

    Should we be required to treat forced draftees as civilians?


    I would argue that any civilian who is found near a Hamas base has been "drafted" in every way identical to how an actual militant firing a rifle may have been drafted. I don't think it is our job to care who does and doesn't have a choice, only who does and does not participate. Let the crime of coercing them be placed entirely on the head of whoever did the coercing.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I would argue that any civilian who is found near a Hamas base has been "drafted" in every way identical to how an actual militant firing a rifle may have been drafted. I don't think it is our job to care who does and doesn't have a choice, only who does and does not participate. Let the crime of coercing them be placed entirely on the head of whoever did the coercing.
    Sure - as long as you are willing to concede that any civilian found near an Israeli military base has also been "drafted" and is therefore not a civilian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I would argue that any civilian who is found near a Hamas base has been "drafted" in every way identical to how an actual militant firing a rifle may have been drafted. I don't think it is our job to care who does and doesn't have a choice, only who does and does not participate. Let the crime of coercing them be placed entirely on the head of whoever did the coercing.
    Sure - as long as you are willing to concede that any civilian found near an Israeli military base has also been "drafted" and is therefore not a civilian.

    Yes. It is the Israeli military's responsibility to place its bases outside of "collateral damage" distance from any civilians. I'm pretty sure the men and women of Israel's armed forces see it that way.

    Hamas is a weird kind of "defense" for the Palestinians. Most armed forces see the protection of the civilian population which they serve as their first (and perhaps only) priority.

    Hamas apparently views Palestinian civilians as part of its forces, for some reason. And the people appear to be willing to be used as military assets. Except when it comes time to face danger, of course.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Just wow. It has been some time since I've seen a Guilty by Proximity push and expecting a militant'ish group to adhere to the standards of civilized warfare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    War isn't about guilt and innocence. You have to quit trying to cast everything against the backdrop of a worldview of black and white, good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. It's counter to reality, and unproductive.

    That's what I find so confusing. You don't seem to get it. Nobody in war dies because they are guilty. Nearly everyone who fights is innocent. Either they're a soldier just following orders, or a draftee, or usually they think they're trying to make the world a better place.

    A few are just mercenaries in it for the money. The leadership may be to blame, but they usually don't die. (Because the innocent die more often than the guilty.)

    I'm not saying civilians are "guilty" by proximity. I'm saying they're valid targets by proximity. There is a big difference. If there is no practical way to sort them from the combatants, then you can't just let the combatants keep fighting unopposed. Unopposed their strength will only grow, and they will only bring more and more civilians into the conflict.


    You could think of war like a disease. Those who have caught the disease have to be quarantined. It's not because they did anything wrong. They're just unlucky, but they still must be quarantined (or quite often, killed) so the disease does not spread to those yet unaffected.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I often hear people say things like "Well then we'd be just as bad as they are."

    To which I must respond "Duh!!!".

    Of course we're just as bad as they are. And they're just as bad as we are. Everyone is equally bad.

    If you ever make the mistake of thinking you are actually better than your enemy, then you've committed the greatest of errors. That's error from which peace always gives way to war. It's always started by someone who thinks they are better than someone else.

    But you're not worse than your enemy either, so you might as well try to prevail.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Shall we split the thread into a separate one to discuss about the Gaza conflict? Or are we still on whether Muslims (not just the ones within the proximity of war and violence) possibly receiving as much hate as Jews once received or are still receiving during and after the holocaust?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But you're not worse than your enemy either, so you might as well try to prevail.
    Prevail how? That is the question. When you have superior forces it's easy to win a battle, perhaps every one of them. The problem of course is you don't win wars by winning battles, you need to do far far more, and either completely destroy the enemy, or otherwise break their will to fight or convince them to change their minds and do so in a manner that doesn't turn your own population against you or that of your allies. Israel is winning the battle of Gaza, that is clear, unfortunately they are also seeding hatred in the hearts of every moderate fence sitter who's lost a loved one to one of their imprecise weapons--that is is something that going to make it worse for Israel for the next generation or two.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But you're not worse than your enemy either, so you might as well try to prevail.
    Prevail how? That is the question. When you have superior forces it's easy to win a battle, perhaps every one of them. The problem of course is you don't win wars by winning battles, you need to do far far more, and either completely destroy the enemy, or otherwise break their will to fight or convince them to change their minds and do so in a manner that doesn't turn your own population against you or that of your allies. Israel is winning the battle of Gaza, that is clear, unfortunately they are also seeding hatred in the hearts of every moderate fence sitter who's lost a loved one to one of their imprecise weapons--that is is something that going to make it worse for Israel for the next generation or two.
    Wonder why the moderate fence sitters aren't turning against the guys lobbing rockets and digging tunnels? Hmmm?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Wonder why the moderate fence sitters aren't turning against the guys lobbing rockets and digging tunnels? Hmmm?
    It comes down to proximate cause for loosing your loved one. The extremist operating next door that you tried to ignore might have set the conditions for Israel to attack, but most of the hatred is going to go towards the Israeli who's bullet killed your daughter.

    Most Westerners should also realize that Hamas is in large part very popular because it has a huge humanitarian assistance side and a reputation for being about the least corrupt group in Gaza (it often organized other groups as well--Israeli humanitarian groups work with them).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Wonder why the moderate fence sitters aren't turning against the guys lobbing rockets and digging tunnels? Hmmm?
    It comes down to proximate cause for loosing your loved one. The extremist operating next door that you tried to ignore might have set the conditions for Israel to attack, but most of the hatred is going to go towards the Israeli who's bullet killed your daughter.
    This is really more a failure of propaganda. The Israelis are willing to accept responsibility for civilian casualties, and so the people place it on them. Hamas is unwilling to accept responsibility, and so people accept Hamas' position that using your son or daughter as a human bullet absorber was somehow justified.

    It would be like if your parents were utter deadbeats who refused to work when there were plenty of well paying jobs available, and then the state "denied them access to welfare!!!". And so you decide to blame the state for the fact you grew up hungry instead of your parents.

    If your parents were the group with which you had a good line of communication, and the state was a distant entity you never dealt with directly - it is entirely plausible that a child could grow up with that attitude.


    If Hamas tied your child to the top of a tank, then drove that tank into the middle of an Israeli city and opened fire on their houses - but the Israeli military didn't refuse to shoot back at the tank - I suppose the "proximate cause" of the child's death might be the Israeli military. But really that is just the cause they feel like they can do something about. Obviously any sane parent would object to having their child tied to the top of a tank, also.

    But Hamas is the threat they can't do anything about. The one they fear even more than Israel because Hamas knows their name and where they live.



    Most Westerners should also realize that Hamas is in large part very popular because it has a huge humanitarian assistance side and a reputation for being about the least corrupt group in Gaza (it often organized other groups as well--Israeli humanitarian groups work with them).
    Sure. They're real humanitarians unless you oppose them, or respectfully ask them to please set up their military operation a few hundred meters away from your children.

    But you provide them with human shields, they'll dig into the food warehouses they've set up for their own families, and give you a few scraps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But you're not worse than your enemy either, so you might as well try to prevail.
    Prevail how? That is the question. When you have superior forces it's easy to win a battle, perhaps every one of them. The problem of course is you don't win wars by winning battles, you need to do far far more, and either completely destroy the enemy, or otherwise break their will to fight or convince them to change their minds and do so in a manner that doesn't turn your own population against you or that of your allies. Israel is winning the battle of Gaza, that is clear, unfortunately they are also seeding hatred in the hearts of every moderate fence sitter who's lost a loved one to one of their imprecise weapons--that is is something that going to make it worse for Israel for the next generation or two.
    Even if they didn't blow up civilians, the moderates would hate them. Hamas would just terrorize them some other way and blame it all on Israel.

    If nothing else, Hamas would press their sons into military service, so they get killed as proper combatants instead of collateral damage - breeding mostly the exact same hatred.

    The thing to understand is that Hamas has a will independent of that of the people of Palestine. They are a product of the chaos and disorder. They are exactly what all other mafias around the world are. They're a way for young men to make a living (and more importantly get respect), in an environment that offers few other economic choices.

    We can't break Hamas' will by breaking the peoples' will and it won't matter if we make the people love us, because they are acting out of fear instead of love. If fear is their primary motivation, then earning their love will not change their behavior.


    Hamas' power is the same power as all other mafias - they offer their supporters money/food/subsistence. People serve whatever master wields both a carrot and a stick. We can't take away the stick, so we have to go after the carrot. Taking either one away is sufficient.

    The current "hearts and minds" approach has the problem that we're trying to be the holders of a carrot, but no stick, while our enemy wields both. If they have to choose, they'll prefer the carrot over the stick, but only if the carrot is clearly held by only one side.
    Last edited by kojax; August 5th, 2014 at 11:57 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Most Westerners should also realize that Hamas is in large part very popular because it has a huge humanitarian assistance side and a reputation for being about the least corrupt group in Gaza (it often organized other groups as well--Israeli humanitarian groups work with them).
    They also have this in their charter:
    Article Twenty-Two:

    For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
    You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This is really more a failure of propaganda. The Israelis are willing to accept responsibility for civilian casualties, and so the people place it on them. Hamas is unwilling to accept responsibility, and so people accept Hamas' position that using your son or daughter as a human bullet absorber was somehow justified.
    No, an Israeli who loses her daughter to a Hamas rocket hate the Palestinians as much as a Palestinian who loses her daughter to an IDF rocket hates the Israelis. That sort of hatred is pretty straightforward.

    Sure. They're real humanitarians unless you oppose them, or respectfully ask them to please set up their military operation a few hundred meters away from your children.
    Ask ANY military (including ours) to move their operations and you're likely to get the same response.
    Even if they didn't blow up civilians, the moderates would hate them. Hamas would just terrorize them some other way and blame it all on Israel.
    Of course they will. Israel, in turn, will blame everything on Hamas and will claim that there would be a perfect and enduring peace without them. Both sides see themselves as the reasonable and patient party.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Most Westerners should also realize that Hamas is in large part very popular because it has a huge humanitarian assistance side
    Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter agree with this.

    and a reputation for being about the least corrupt group in Gaza (it often organized other groups as well--Israeli humanitarian groups work with them).
    Yes, they also have the reputation of firing their rockets to civilians from densely populated areas. Just like Hezzbollah.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; August 5th, 2014 at 02:25 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post

    Wonder why the moderate fence sitters aren't turning against the guys lobbing rockets and digging tunnels? Hmmm?
    It is not "haram" to speak against , the "infidels" must die. All of them. It is written in the khoran : convert or die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This is really more a failure of propaganda. The Israelis are willing to accept responsibility for civilian casualties, and so the people place it on them. Hamas is unwilling to accept responsibility, and so people accept Hamas' position that using your son or daughter as a human bullet absorber was somehow justified.
    No, an Israeli who loses her daughter to a Hamas rocket hate the Palestinians as much as a Palestinian who loses her daughter to an IDF rocket hates the Israelis. That sort of hatred is pretty straightforward.
    (nods) and nearly universal as a standard even codified into our Western laws... who stands trial for murder? The crackhead who didn't raise their kid right...or the teenager who beat and raped your daughter to death. Proximity counts and it has nothing do with religious beliefs.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post



    So why don't we try all Hamas agents who get captured in a civilian occupied war zone (or staging from a civilian area) - for the war crimes, then??

    It's their fault the civilians are in danger, no Israel's. If bullets/rockets are coming from that neighborhood, then that's where "the fight" is at. Hamas has a choice about where it fights from, even if the civilians do not.
    No one is absolving Hamas of its faults and responsibilities.

    However the response from Israel has been largely disproportionate, and the targets have, for the most part, been civilian targets, even hospitals and UN schools housing refugees. These aren't mistakes.

    The fault of targeting civilians is Israel.





    Then one has to wonder why a resistance movement hasn't started against Hamas. The Israeli army will not attack a civilian occupied neighborhood unprovoked (unless by mistake, like from bad intel.)

    Hamas, however, sets up in neighborhoods it knows to be civilian occupied, purposefully putting those civilians in danger.

    Those parents should organize, take up guns, and shoot Hamas agents on site.
    Firstly, we are talking about Gaza, not America.

    Second, where will civilians get these guns from? Remember, they cannot walk down to their local Walmart and stock up on semi-automatics and bullets and rocket launchers. Remember the first point.

    Thirdly, you expect civilians to rise up against the only people feeding them while they (the civilians) are under attack from an outside invading force who take their land willy nilly based solely on a religious belief that it is their heavenly right to said land?

    And finally, you expect civilians to take up arms against trained and armed individuals and risk their own lives and leave their children as orphans?

    For what? To suit your standards of what Muslims should do?

    Does this mean that if one does not like one's Government, one should simply arm themselves and attack them? I mean heaven forbid we vote them out in elections.. You propose something downright stupid.

    So .... why is Hamas getting stronger instead of weaker under these circumstances?

    Maybe they serve Hamas because Hamas will shoot them on purpose if they don't comply, but Israel will only shoot them if they actively fight against Israel?

    This could be the crucial element of fighting insurgencies. Understanding that, when people are acting entirely out of fear, their "hearts and minds" don't matter? It's not a question of which side they like or love. It's a question of which side they are more terrified of.

    Hamas is the more immediate threat, and their only strategy for survival is appeasement. They can only appease one faction, so they appease the more dangerous one.
    Yes, I am sure the 4 little 8 and 9 year olds playing soccer on the beach before being gunned down, in front of a hotel packed with horrified journalists, by Israeli gun ships off the Gaza coast were "fighting against Israel".

    No one can be surprised that Hamas is getting stronger.




    I would not align myself with the people who did that to my house and my neighbourhood and slaughtered men, women and children, bombed UN schools full of women and children refugees and bombed hospitals caring for the injured.

    And you are surprised Hamas is getting stronger? The more Israel treat the Palestinians like animals, bomb their homes, demand genocide and openly declare that Israeli soldiers should just kill the women and children (you know, genocide so they cannot breed), Hamas will get stronger.





    I think that the problem is that, as an American, I am totally unable to understand people not fighting back when they are threatened.
    Firstly, this isn't America. Not everyone lives or believes like Americans. There are other and different cultures out there.

    I think a lot of Americans share in this problem. It's too hard to think like a coward, and that hurts America's ability to deal with insurgencies, because something like 95% of what is going on is just people behaving like cowards.
    I would say that sitting in a tank and gun ships and attack planes and bombing people's houses, schools, refugee centers and hospitals is what cowards do. Then again, this is an army that is led by a Government that barely blinks an eye when its members encourage genocide.

    If more Americans would try to understand the pathetic, cowardly, mindsets that are prevalent in these regions, the US military might have more success in dealing with insurgencies.
    Then perhaps Americans should stop arming the cowards and giving them billions of dollars every year.



    Maybe you think through both sides of what you are saying.

    What do you say about an innocent civilian who is forced to join the military by a draft? Or worse, militants show up in their village, and threaten to shoot their families if they don't join? (This has happened in Afghanistan)

    Should we be required to treat forced draftees as civilians?
    Guilt by proximity.

    Which would mean that all of Israel is a fair target since it has conscription and just about everyone, except for the ultra right religious individuals, have to spend time in the armed forces. In short, the whole country is militarized.

    By any stretch of the imagination, even a twisted one, what you are arguing for is stupid.

    I would argue that any civilian who is found near a Hamas base has been "drafted" in every way identical to how an actual militant firing a rifle may have been drafted. I don't think it is our job to care who does and doesn't have a choice, only who does and does not participate. Let the crime of coercing them be placed entirely on the head of whoever did the coercing.
    You can argue whatever you want. It still does not absolve or excuse your attempts to excuse killing innocent civilians and trying to find an excuse for genocide. Many Germans did that as the Jews where herded into the Ghettos and then attacked indiscriminately and ultimately, packed into trains and led to their slaughter. It's amazing how history just keeps on repeating itself, doesn't it? For example, in the words of Moshe Feighlin, head of the Manhigut Yehudit [Jewish Leadership] faction in the Likud party and a new member of Knesset:

    Ultimatum – One warning from the Prime Minister of Israel to the enemy population, in which he announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel’s humanitarian efforts. Hamas may unconditionally surrender and prevent the attack.

    Attack – Attack the entire ‘target bank’ throughout Gaza with the IDF’s maximum force (and not a tiny fraction of it) with all the conventional means at its disposal. All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’. It is enough that we are hitting exact targets and that we gave them advance warning.

    Siege – Parallel to the above, a total siege on Gaza. Nothing will enter the area. Israel, however, will allow exit from Gaza. (Civilians may go to Sinai, fighters may surrender to IDF forces).

    Defense – Any place from which Israel or Israel’s forces were attacked will be immediately attacked with full force and no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’.

    Conquer – After the IDF completes the "softening" of the targets with its fire-power, the IDF will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations.

    Elimination- The GSS and IDF will thoroughly eliminate all armed enemies from Gaza. The enemy population that is innocent of wrong-doing and separated itself from the armed terrorists will be treated in accordance with international law and will be allowed to leave. Israel will generously aid those who wish to leave.

    Sovereignty – Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever. Liberation of parts of our land forever is the only thing that justifies endangering our soldiers in battle to capture land. Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel. The coastal train line will be extended, as soon as possible, to reach the entire length of Gaza.

    According to polls, most of the Arabs in Gaza wish to leave. Those who were not involved in anti-Israel activity will be offered a generous international emigration package. Those who choose to remain will receive permanent resident status. After a number of years of living in Israel and becoming accustomed to it, contingent on appropriate legislation in the Knesset and the authorization of the Minister of Interior, those who personally accept upon themselves Israel’s rule, substance and way of life of the Jewish State in its Land, will be offered Israeli citizenship.
    Sounds terrifyingly familiar.

    While you may apply guilt by mere proximity, such arguments were also made in the past. And each time it did, thousands of people died. But I guess, such excuses and such actions is the whole point of genocide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    No one is absolving Hamas of its faults and responsibilities.

    However the response from Israel has been largely disproportionate, and the targets have, for the most part, been civilian targets, even hospitals and UN schools housing refugees. These aren't mistakes.

    The fault of targeting civilians is Israel.
    It kind of sounds like you are absolving them. You're putting the fault on someone else other than them.

    Why did they deliberately choose a place full of civilians as their staging ground? As the launcher of the attack, Hamas could have chosen any place they wanted for the battle to take place, but they chose that one.

    As the defenders, Israel did not have a choice where the battle would take place. Their only option was to fire back or not fire back.

    Thirdly, you expect civilians to rise up against the only people feeding them while they (the civilians) are under attack from an outside invading force who take their land willy nilly based solely on a religious belief that it is their heavenly right to said land?
    Where do you think Hamas gets its food from? They're fighters, not farmers.

    They're using a time honored trick to coerce the population into working with them. Take their food by force, and then "generously" offer a small fraction of that food back to them out of "the goodness of your heart".

    Classic Stockholm's syndrome here.


    And finally, you expect civilians to take up arms against trained and armed individuals and risk their own lives and leave their children as orphans?

    For what? To suit your standards of what Muslims should do?
    In order to stop their children from being used as human shields. Only the worst kind of coward would let their child be used as a human shield, and not at least attempt to kill the person who did it.

    If you die trying to kill them, that is better than to just stand by and watch it happen.



    Does this mean that if one does not like one's Government, one should simply arm themselves and attack them? I mean heaven forbid we vote them out in elections.. You propose something downright stupid.
    That is exactly how the USA came into being.



    I would not align myself with the people who did that to my house and my neighbourhood and slaughtered men, women and children, bombed UN schools full of women and children refugees and bombed hospitals caring for the injured.

    And you are surprised Hamas is getting stronger? The more Israel treat the Palestinians like animals, bomb their homes, demand genocide and openly declare that Israeli soldiers should just kill the women and children (you know, genocide so they cannot breed), Hamas will get stronger.

    But you would align yourself with the group of militants who deliberately chose that particular location as their staging ground for a military base? And not only that, but chose it specifically BECAUSE it was full of women and children?

    It doesn't bother you that the side you are joining doesn't even care about the lives of its own people?

    At least Israeli forces care about the lives of Israelis. Hamas doesn't care about the lives of anyone at all. Its own people are just cannon fodder in its eyes.




    I think that the problem is that, as an American, I am totally unable to understand people not fighting back when they are threatened.
    Firstly, this isn't America. Not everyone lives or believes like Americans. There are other and different cultures out there.
    Yeah. I know. Someday maybe America will figure that out.

    I'm just admitting to you the limitations to my ability to empathize. I can't empathize with cowardice. I don't want to understand it. It's too ugly to me.


    I think a lot of Americans share in this problem. It's too hard to think like a coward, and that hurts America's ability to deal with insurgencies, because something like 95% of what is going on is just people behaving like cowards.
    I would say that sitting in a tank and gun ships and attack planes and bombing people's houses, schools, refugee centers and hospitals is what cowards do. Then again, this is an army that is led by a Government that barely blinks an eye when its members encourage genocide.
    Plenty of America's soldiers fight on the ground.

    If fighting from a plane or a tank is "cowardly", then I suppose using a gun is cowardly too. Soldiers should charge onto the battlefield with swords and spears.

    Oh wait. But using a sword or a spear is more cowardly than fighting with your bare hands, so maybe they should charge onto the battlefield with just their bare hands?

    And armor is cowardly. They should not wear armor. Just fight naked.


    Hamas' strategy, on the other hand, is more noble, right? Instead of strapping armor to your chest, just strap a child to your chest.


    Then perhaps Americans should stop arming the cowards and giving them billions of dollars every year.
    Well........um....wait. Yeah that's true.

    I would also like to pay less taxes, so that would be a win/win. All around.



    Guilt by proximity.

    Which would mean that all of Israel is a fair target since it has conscription and just about everyone, except for the ultra right religious individuals, have to spend time in the armed forces. In short, the whole country is militarized.

    By any stretch of the imagination, even a twisted one, what you are arguing for is stupid.
    It's not "Guilt". Nobody dies in war because they are guilty. (More often than not, the guilty ones are far away from the battlefield.) There is only valid targets and invalid targets.

    When Israel's army drafts an Israeli civilian into the military, that civilian becomes a valid target. It's not because the civilian made bad choices. It's because they are now in a war zone.

    When Hamas drafts a civilian into its ranks, that civilian becomes a valid target. When Hamas uses a village as a military base, the nearby civilians have been drafted.

    You're trying to invent a whole new chain of logic. Israel doesn't draft the whole population all the time. Only the ones who are presently drafted are valid targets.

    Same goes for Hamas. If Hamas agents launch a rocket from a village, and then they leave the village (Thereby releasing the civilian population from forced draftee status), then of course it would be wrong to bomb the village. If Israeli intelligence knew the combatants were no longer there, they probably wouldn't bomb it.


    I would argue that any civilian who is found near a Hamas base has been "drafted" in every way identical to how an actual militant firing a rifle may have been drafted. I don't think it is our job to care who does and doesn't have a choice, only who does and does not participate. Let the crime of coercing them be placed entirely on the head of whoever did the coercing.
    You can argue whatever you want. It still does not absolve or excuse your attempts to excuse killing innocent civilians and trying to find an excuse for genocide. Many Germans did that as the Jews where herded into the Ghettos and then attacked indiscriminately and ultimately, packed into trains and led to their slaughter. It's amazing how history just keeps on repeating itself, doesn't it? For example, in the words of Moshe Feighlin, head of the Manhigut Yehudit [Jewish Leadership] faction in the Likud party and a new member of Knesset:

    There's that annoying word "innocent"

    Guilt and Innocence has ABSOLUTE PERFECT ZERO to do with war.

    NOBODY on a battlefield is "guilty". The soldiers are not guilty. Neither are the civilians. Everyone is innocent unless they commit an act that is specifically illegal under the articles of war, and then they are only guilty of that specific crime.

    And I'm arguing that shooting draftees should not be considered a war crime. Civilians who are forced into a warzone by combatants on their own side, become draftees.

    That's what a draftee is. It is a civilian who has been forced to participate in a military struggle.



    Sounds terrifyingly familiar.

    While you may apply guilt by mere proximity, such arguments were also made in the past. And each time it did, thousands of people died. But I guess, such excuses and such actions is the whole point of genocide.
    It sounds terrifyingly familiar to me too. Reminds me of my history classes on the Vietnam conflict, wherein quite a large number of America's youth were forcibly drafted to fight in Vietnam.

    If you conducted a similar poll among American soldiers participating in the Vietnam conflict, you would probably have gotten the same result.

    Draftees usually don't like being drafted.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post

    Same goes for Hamas. If Hamas agents launch a rocket from a village, and then they leave the village (Thereby releasing the civilian population from forced draftee status), then of course it would be wrong to bomb the village. If Israeli intelligence knew the combatants were no longer there, they probably wouldn't bomb it.
    Same tactic as hezbollah. Both organizations should be tried for crimes against humanity (their OWN people).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Where do you think Hamas gets its food from? They're fighters, not farmers.
    If only it was that simple. Like all popular insurgencies fighting for independence, it's membership and supports come from all walks of life...soldiers, politicians, the poor and middle class, farmers and old ladies working donation kitchens.

    --
    The US position is rather tenuous as well. Last year the US spent about $100 million on humanitarian aid to Gaza, but about $3 billion to Israel, to in large part buy them weapons that have now been used against hospitals and UN centers--not good. This is also why US sec of state always gets an open door and a strong voice.

    It doesn't much messier than this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    The US position is rather tenuous as well. Last year the US spent about $100 million on humanitarian aid to Gaza, but about $3 billion to Israel, to in large part buy them weapons that have now been used against hospitals and UN centers--not good. This is also why US sec of state always gets an open door and a strong voice.

    It doesn't much messier than this.

    If hezbollah, hamas and the iranians stopped trying to "wipe out" Israel, US would not have to spend billions of dollars for defending Israel. Have you thought about that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    If hezbollah, hamas and the iranians stopped trying to "wipe out" Israel, US would not have to spend billions of dollars for defending Israel.
    We don't have to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. We choose to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. When you do something for people, they place less value on doing that thing for themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    If hezbollah, hamas and the iranians stopped trying to "wipe out" Israel, US would not have to spend billions of dollars for defending Israel.
    We don't have to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. We choose to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. When you do something for people, they place less value on doing that thing for themselves.
    They do, to the tune of 14.6 billion. They wouldn't need to if they weren't surrounded by genocidal maniacs, bent on their destruction (see the charters of PLO, hamas, hezbollah, etc.).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    If hezbollah, hamas and the iranians stopped trying to "wipe out" Israel, US would not have to spend billions of dollars for defending Israel.
    We don't have to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. We choose to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. When you do something for people, they place less value on doing that thing for themselves.
    They do, to the tune of 14.6 billion. They wouldn't need to if they weren't surrounded by genocidal maniacs, bent on their destruction (see the charters of PLO, hamas, hezbollah, etc.).
    At least the Israelis are surrounded by company like themselves.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    If hezbollah, hamas and the iranians stopped trying to "wipe out" Israel, US would not have to spend billions of dollars for defending Israel.
    We don't have to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. We choose to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. When you do something for people, they place less value on doing that thing for themselves.
    They do, to the tune of 14.6 billion. They wouldn't need to if they weren't surrounded by genocidal maniacs, bent on their destruction (see the charters of PLO, hamas, hezbollah, etc.).
    At least the Israelis are surrounded by company like themselves.
    So, you think that the Isaelis are like the genocidal hamas, hezbollah, etc.? fascinating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    They do, to the tune of 14.6 billion. They wouldn't need to if they weren't surrounded by genocidal maniacs, bent on their destruction (see the charters of PLO, hamas, hezbollah, etc.).
    Cool! So they don't need our money to do what they're doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    They do, to the tune of 14.6 billion. They wouldn't need to if they weren't surrounded by genocidal maniacs, bent on their destruction (see the charters of PLO, hamas, hezbollah, etc.).
    Cool! So they don't need our money to do what they're doing.
    No, they don't. They have to spend 11.6 billion of their own to defend themselves from the genocidal maniacs surrounding them who are sworn of "wiping them out". If they didn't have to spend 5.6% of their GDP on weapons, the world would have better networking systems, better CPUs, more advanced medicine, deeper knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc. As it is, they need to spend the money to defend themselves. So, the whole world loses out. (1.6 billion muslims produced 1 Nobel Prize winner, Abdus Salam, whom I've had the honor to meet. Israel produced 7).
    Last edited by Howard Roark; August 7th, 2014 at 07:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    No, they don't. They have to spend 11.6 billion of their own to defend themselves from the genocidal maniacs surrounding them who are sworn of "wiping them out". If they didn't have to spend 5.6% of their GDP on weapons, the world would have better networking systems, better CPUs, more advanced medicine, deeper knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc. As it is, they need to spend the money to defend themselves.
    Their money, their choice. They can spend their money on whatever they want - and if what they want is guns instead of computers, they have the right to make that decision all on their own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    No, they don't. They have to spend 11.6 billion of their own to defend themselves from the genocidal maniacs surrounding them who are sworn of "wiping them out". If they didn't have to spend 5.6% of their GDP on weapons, the world would have better networking systems, better CPUs, more advanced medicine, deeper knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc. As it is, they need to spend the money to defend themselves.
    Their money, their choice. They can spend their money on whatever they want - and if what they want is guns instead of computers, they have the right to make that decision all on their own.
    Except that the genocidal maniacs surrounding them do not let them have an option. Imagine that the Mexicans and the Canadians were hell bent of exterminating the Americans.....wouldn't you agree that armament is key to your survival? Would you want money from your good friends and allies, the UK, the Australians, Israel? Eh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    They do, to the tune of 14.6 billion. They wouldn't need to if they weren't surrounded by genocidal maniacs, bent on their destruction (see the charters of PLO, hamas, hezbollah, etc.).
    Cool! So they don't need our money to do what they're doing.
    No, they don't. They have to spend 11.6 billion of their own to defend themselves from the genocidal maniacs surrounding them who are sworn of "wiping them out". If they didn't have to spend 5.6% of their GDP on weapons, the world would have better networking systems, better CPUs, more advanced medicine, deeper knowledge of physics, chemistry, etc. As it is, they need to spend the money to defend themselves. So, the whole world loses out. (1.6 billion muslims produced 1 Nobel Prize winner, Abdus Salam, whom I've had the honor to meet. Israel produced 7).

    I really doubt the money would end up in those places. Besides that quite a lot of the original research behind the computing technology available today started out as military projects.

    For example: Arpanet, the precursor to the Internet - the very medium you and I are presently using to communicate. That was originally a defense project.

    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    If hezbollah, hamas and the iranians stopped trying to "wipe out" Israel, US would not have to spend billions of dollars for defending Israel.
    We don't have to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. We choose to spend billions of dollars defending Israel. When you do something for people, they place less value on doing that thing for themselves.
    They do, to the tune of 14.6 billion. They wouldn't need to if they weren't surrounded by genocidal maniacs, bent on their destruction (see the charters of PLO, hamas, hezbollah, etc.).
    The terrorists are not really genocidal. Just garden variety thugs looking for a way to make a living without having to do any real work.

    PLO, Hizbollah, Hamas - don't care any more about the life of a Palestinian than they do about the life of an Israeli. To them, all lives are equally expendable. Were it not so, they would never launch their attacks from areas that they know are full of Palestinian civilians.

    You're not going to find these guys washing dishes in a restaurant kitchen. They're trying to be the "big hero", so hopefully all the other people will work to support them. That means if they have to weave a "bad guy" from whole cloth via propaganda and dirty fighting tactics, they'll do it. If they can't come up with a bad guy then they would have to get (gasp) a real job!!!

    If they couldn't get Israeli armed forces to attack them in a hospital, and had the means to pull it off - they would gladly massacre the people in that hospital themselves, and then blame it on the Israelis. Whatever they have to do to keep the money/donations/sympathy flowing in.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,222
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Except that the genocidal maniacs surrounding them do not let them have an option. Imagine that the Mexicans and the Canadians were hell bent of exterminating the Americans.....wouldn't you agree that armament is key to your survival? Would you want money from your good friends and allies, the UK, the Australians, Israel? Eh?
    Sure, I always want money. I want money right now; the world is a dangerous place and I could use better doors, maybe get an alarm system.
    Can you send me a few thousand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Freshman Laurieag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    93
    I'm currently watching 'The Alamo', produced and directed by John Wayne in 1960, and couldn't help but notice the statement at the beginning.

    ...They faced the eternal choice of men, to endure oppression or resist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    around 1/2 of westbank is occupied by israel, and they keep building more and more. that doesn't leave much room to fire a rocket outside palestinians civilians sites.

    it's like 1/2 of luxembourg was occupied by german settlers, and they claim those areas being german territory, and no help to expect from anyone. i bet luxembourg wouldn't be amused.

    but hey, if they behave well, they can stay and become german after a few years, or immigrate to france or belgium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurieag View Post
    I'm currently watching 'The Alamo', produced and directed by John Wayne in 1960, and couldn't help but notice the statement at the beginning.

    ...They faced the eternal choice of men, to endure oppression or resist.

    That is a choice the Palestinians have yet to make. They keep trying to hedge.

    They simultaneously claim that Hizbolla does and does not represent them in its war efforts, that they do and do not support what Hizbolla is doing. They both wish to be recognized as non-participants, and to stand ready to participate when asked.

    Hizbolla on the other hand, should wait until the people have made up their mind before it takes it upon itself to act. Going to war needs to be a unified decision, which the warring faction as a whole takes responsibility for on the group level. That's the only way for it to be taken seriously as a legitimate war.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Shall we split the thread into a separate one to discuss about the Gaza conflict? Or are we still on whether Muslims (not just the ones within the proximity of war and violence) possibly receiving as much hate as Jews once received or are still receiving during and after the holocaust?
    I was serious about the above recommendation; that this thread has progressed way off the scope of the thread topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Shall we split the thread into a separate one to discuss about the Gaza conflict? Or are we still on whether Muslims (not just the ones within the proximity of war and violence) possibly receiving as much hate as Jews once received or are still receiving during and after the holocaust?
    I was serious about the above recommendation; that this thread has progressed way off the scope of the thread topic.

    Except that Gaza is pretty much the center of nearly ALL conflict between the West and Islam. Tracing something back to its roots is not "going off topic".

    The Six day war was the final straw in a long series of humiliations suffered by the (then former) Ottoman Empire, which was in turn the empire that survived the demise of Islam's classical era. It was the last attempt for Islam to re-establish themselves as a meaningful military power. Now all that remains is partisans.

    If we go back in history, probably the beginning of the end was the fall of Tripoli

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

    After that, the Ottomans lost a major trade center, and of course access to the continual influx of captured slaves that had kept their economy alive through several centuries. As the West prospered and Islam slipped behind the technology curve, things kept getting worse for them until they finally sided with Germany in World War I, lost, and got split up into sections owned by different colonial powers, most of which coincide with the countries we see today.

    Though the sections were held by different European powers, they mostly weren't colonized by anyone until Israel appeared in Palestine, and a whole lot of (mostly European) Jewish colonists started moving in.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Except that Gaza is pretty much the center of nearly ALL conflict between the West and Islam. Tracing something back to its roots is not "going off topic".
    First, I'm neither a part of the "West" nor Islam. Second, I'd like you and just about anyone else to identify what the OP asking, and I'll even quote it again below to facilitate that effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFosterKid View Post
    Is it just me or are Muslims getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?

    1. They're mocked on a daily basis.
    2. International security is very discriminatory towards them. Deny it all you like but Muslims are 99% more likely to be stopped for a security check at airports than non-Muslims. Governments actually allow this.
    3. The common image that pops to the average person's head when they think of Muslims is Al-qaeda, much like how the common portrayal of Jews was of money-grabbing misers. Both stereotypes are inaccurate.

    Obviously, given the state of the world's finance, no country would want to start a global war against Muslims but you can't deny that they are being unfairly discriminated against. Why do we let this happen in this PC 21st century?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Except that Gaza is pretty much the center of nearly ALL conflict between the West and Islam. Tracing something back to its roots is not "going off topic".
    First, I'm neither a part of the "West" nor Islam. Second, I'd like you and just about anyone else to identify what the OP asking, and I'll even quote it again below to facilitate that effort.
    If you are from England or the USA, then your military leaders disagree with you. You may not be holding a gun and shooting, but you either are now, or have in the past, paid others to fight on your behalf via taxation.

    If you're from somewhere else like Germany, then yeah you'd be quite right in stating your nation is not very much involved. It is true that the West isn't 100% unified in the effort. But when has it ever been????



    Quote Originally Posted by TheFosterKid View Post
    Is it just me or are Muslims getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?

    1. They're mocked on a daily basis.
    2. International security is very discriminatory towards them. Deny it all you like but Muslims are 99% more likely to be stopped for a security check at airports than non-Muslims. Governments actually allow this.
    3. The common image that pops to the average person's head when they think of Muslims is Al-qaeda, much like how the common portrayal of Jews was of money-grabbing misers. Both stereotypes are inaccurate.

    Obviously, given the state of the world's finance, no country would want to start a global war against Muslims but you can't deny that they are being unfairly discriminated against. Why do we let this happen in this PC 21st century?
    The overwhelming majority of terrorists claim that Palestine is either at the very top, or near the top of their list of reasons for committing acts of terror.

    The fact terrorists have attacked is nearly 100% of the reason Muslims are being scrutinized by airport security and police. It's not because they wear funny hats, or have dark skin. If it were either of those things, then we would see other groups with funny hats or dark skin getting targeted to a similar degree.


    If your concern is the issue that Muslims are being typified as sympathizers of Al Qaeda, I would say quite a lot of the reason for that is because so very many Muslim groups have come out and openly claimed to sympathize with them. Yes, some have also denounced them, but it is unlclear what the statistical level of support is.

    Oh wait. I'm on the internet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_...ards_terrorism

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "never" justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.[1]The Pew Research Study did not include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria in the survey, although densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh were included.


    If you want back on topic, then fine. And how about we get back to using science while we're at it?

    Opposition to Hamas/Hezbollah was the majority opinion in only 4 out of 16 countries??? Kind of hard to sustain a claim that Muslims who approve of them are a small minority, then isn't it?

    Beyond that 6% of Muslims in England claimed to fully support the bombings of the London underground. I would have to say one in twenty is a very high concentration, from a demographic standpoint.

    So domestic Muslims in England are an extremely high risk group, and Muslims from other countries are an even higher risk group for terror. How daft would security personnel have to be to ignore those kinds of odds? Do you want them to ignore the odds and just gamble your life away? Why? Because your principles would feel better? Will your principles help you survive an explosion?
    Last edited by kojax; August 11th, 2014 at 01:11 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    First, I'm neither a part of the "West" nor Islam. Second, I'd like you and just about anyone else to identify what the OP asking, and I'll even quote it again below to facilitate that effort.
    If you are from England or the USA, then your military leaders disagree with you. You may not be holding a gun and shooting, but you either are now, or have in the past, paid others to fight on your behalf via taxation.
    What exactly do you think my "military leaders" would disagree with? That I'm not a part of the "West", or that I'm not affiliated with islam?

    In Singapore, every male young adult who are physically eligible and of age are conscripted for military training and at least two years of mandatory national service. I do know how to handle firearms and have experienced live fire situations during my service. While I do not currently serve in the military, I am able to adequately handle myself and function in a unit when the need arises.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Second, I'd like you and just about anyone else to identify what the OP asking, and I'll even quote it again below to facilitate that effort
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFosterKid View Post
    Is it just me or are Muslims getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?

    1. They're mocked on a daily basis.
    2. International security is very discriminatory towards them. Deny it all you like but Muslims are 99% more likely to be stopped for a security check at airports than non-Muslims. Governments actually allow this.
    3. The common image that pops to the average person's head when they think of Muslims is Al-qaeda, much like how the common portrayal of Jews was of money-grabbing misers. Both stereotypes are inaccurate.

    Obviously, given the state of the world's finance, no country would want to start a global war against Muslims but you can't deny that they are being unfairly discriminated against. Why do we let this happen in this PC 21st century?
    ...

    If your concern is the issue that Muslims are being typified as sympathizers of Al Qaeda, I would say quite a lot of the reason for that is because so very many Muslim groups have come out and openly claimed to sympathize with them. Yes, some have also denounced them, but it is unlclear what the statistical level of support is.

    Oh wait. I'm on the internet.

    Muslim attitudes towards terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I invite interested readers to read the other entries in the wiki link that kojax has provided, and also do so for the link I am providing below. I should point out that our selected quote from the respective wiki entries does not necessarily provide a comprehensive picture of what are within those articles.

    Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    • Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2007. It found that more than 90% of respondents condemned the killing of non-combatants on religious and humanitarian grounds.


    • A 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, Pew Research Center survey found that suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq were seen as "justifiable" by many Jordanians (70%), Pakistanis (46%), and Turks (31%). At the same time, the survey found that support for the U.S.-led War on Terror had increased.


    • A 2005 Pew Research study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries. A Daily Telegraph survey showed that 88% of Muslims said the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground were unjustified, while 6% disagreed. However it also found that 24% of British Muslims showed some sympathy with the people who carried out the attacks.


    • Polls taken by Saudi owned Al Arabiya and Gallup suggest moderate support for the September 11 terrorist attacks within the Islamic world, with 36% of Arabs polled by Al Arabiya saying the 9/11 attacks were morally justified, 38% disagreeing and 26% of those polled being unsure. A 2008 study, produced by Gallup, found similar results with 38.6% of Muslims questioned believing the 9/11 attacks were justified. Another poll conducted, in 2005 by the Fafo Foundation in the Palestinian Authority, found that 65% of respondents supported the September 11 attacks.


    • In Pakistan, despite the recent rise in the Taliban's influence, a poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow in Pakistan in January 2008 tested support for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, other militant Islamist groups and Osama bin Laden himself, and found a recent drop by half. In August 2007, 33% of Pakistanis expressed support for al-Qaeda; 38% supported the Taliban. By January 2008, al-Qaeda's support had dropped to 18%, the Taliban's to 19%. When asked if they would vote for al-Qaeda, just 1% of Pakistanis polled answered in the affirmative. The Taliban had the support of 3% of those polled.


    • Pew Research surveys in 2008 show that in a range of countries – Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh – there have been substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide-bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable. The shift of attitudes against terror has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where 29% of Jordanians were recorded as viewing suicide-attacks as often or sometimes justified (down from 57% in May 2005). In the largest majority-Muslim nation, Indonesia, 74% of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "never justified" (a substantial increase from the 41% level to which support had risen in March 2004); in Pakistan, that figure is 86%; in Bangladesh, 81%; and in Iran, 80%.


    • A poll conducted in Osama bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia in December 2008 shows that his compatriots have dramatically turned against him, his organisation, Saudi volunteers in Iraq, and terrorism in general. Indeed, confidence in bin Laden has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Opposition to Hamas/Hezbollah was the majority opinion in only 4 out of 16 countries??? Kind of hard to sustain a claim that Muslims who approve of them are a small minority, then isn't it?

    Based on that alone, it does not appear to be a small minority. How does the other sources like the one I've given above alter the picture?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Beyond that 6% of Muslims in England claimed to fully support the bombings of the London underground. I would have to say one in twenty is a very high concentration, from a demographic standpoint.
    Does 94% vs 6% or nineteen vs one qualify as "a
    very high concentration"?

    What kind of figures would qualify for very high concentration, moderate concentration, low concentration, or very low concentration?

    Last edited by scoobydoo1; August 11th, 2014 at 01:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Opposition to Hamas/Hezbollah was the majority opinion in only 4 out of 16 countries??? Kind of hard to sustain a claim that Muslims who approve of them are a small minority, then isn't it?

    Based on that alone, it does not appear to be a small minority. How does the other sources like the one I've given above alter the picture?


    They don't alter it much, if at all. All of the above numbers are unacceptably high for any modern civilization.

    You're just not putting them in perspective. Imagine if 6% of Americans thought Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma was justified.

    You would certainly not want to work in any federal buildings.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Beyond that 6% of Muslims in England claimed to fully support the bombings of the London underground. I would have to say one in twenty is a very high concentration, from a demographic standpoint.
    Does 94% vs 6% or nineteen vs one qualify as "a
    very high concentration"?

    What kind of figures would qualify for very high concentration, moderate concentration, low concentration, or very low concentration?



    Low concentration for a thing like that? Quite a bit less than 1%. If 6% of the overall population that walked through a metal detector was openly sympathetic to the London bombings, I think we'd just plain have to close the airports. There would be no point in even trying to keep bombs off the planes.

    Fortunately Muslims represent a small fraction of the air traffic, so overall the number of terrorist-sympathetic people who walk through the metal detectors is much lower than 6%.


    If 6% chance of sympathizing per person doesn't seem high to you, then you obviously do not understand the concept of cumulative probability. The odds of the event (a person sympathizing with the London bombings) not happening are .94 to the power of however many separate tests you make. By the 12th Muslim person who walks through your metal detector on a given day, the odds such that none of them sympathize with the London Bombings is 47.59%
    Last edited by kojax; August 12th, 2014 at 12:47 AM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    They don't alter it much, if at all. All of the above numbers are unacceptably high for any modern civilization.

    You're just not putting them in perspective.


    ...

    Low concentration for a thing like that? Quite a bit less than 1%.

    Really? No offense, but here I thought you were the one not putting them in perspective.

    The primary question from TheFosterKid here is whether muslims are "getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?" for something that 6% opposed to 94% in the UK alone claimed to fully support. I'm sure that warrants all the mockery and stereotyped imagery the other 94% are receiving (a little harmless sarcasm and rhetoric). I wonder if the jews had received such high scores or percentages leading up to the holocaust by the general public at large.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    They don't alter it much, if at all. All of the above numbers are unacceptably high for any modern civilization.

    You're just not putting them in perspective.


    ...

    Low concentration for a thing like that? Quite a bit less than 1%.

    Really? No offense, but here I thought you were the one not putting them in perspective.

    The primary question from TheFosterKid here is whether muslims are "getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?" for something that 6% opposed to 94% in the UK alone claimed to fully support. I'm sure that warrants all the mockery and stereotyped imagery the other 94% are receiving (a little harmless sarcasm and rhetoric). I wonder if the jews had received such high scores or percentages leading up to the holocaust by the general public at large.
    By your logic, even 99.99% wouldn't be enough because there is still a chance that one innocent person might be detained and searched.

    If leading up to the holocaust in Germany, there had been a poll wherein Jews were asked "Do you believe that people who intentionally kill Aryan German civilians are justified?" - and 6% of those Jews who were asked responded "Yes. Killing Aryan German civilians is justified." - The holocaust probably would have happened a lot faster than it did.

    The reality is that the number of Jews likely to give those answers was far less than 6%. Probably the number was statistically identical to the number of Aryan Germans who would answer yes.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    By your logic, even 99.99% wouldn't be enough because there is still a chance that one innocent person might be detained and searched.
    I suspect that we may be somewhat talking past each other here. I've specifically wrote "mockery and stereotyped imagery" in relation to the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFosterKid View Post
    Is it just me or are Muslims getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?
    Of which I've shared with TheFosterKid the differences in general population behaviour and mannerisms from my part of the world and country with the local muslim demographical population in post #10. And that the request that muslims around the world denounce or condemn their violent militant extremist brethren who targets civilians is present, and the figures I've shared regarding those percentages from surveys reflect that a sizable to a clear majority of them do.

    I've also added in that particular post that if he has issues with what he considers to be unfair bias in profiling; such as targeting muslims would-be terrorists and not christians would-be terrorists, he can also speak up about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post


    The primary question from TheFosterKid here is whether muslims are "getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?"
    The answer is clearly "yes". From their fellow muslims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Before I get blasted from muslim sympathizers, I do have muslim acquaintances that seem very much American and these people are getting a bum rap because of their faith but rightly so because of threats made by the extremists, imo.
    To me that is similar to saying "Jews are greedy and have no morals. Before I get blasted by Jewish sympathizers, I do have Jewish friends that aren't that greedy and they are getting a bum rap because of their religion, but rightly so because of all the greedy evil Jews."
    The difference is that the Judaism and most other religions do not promote killing infidels as all sects of the Islam faith teaches in the Koran. Your stereotype of Jews is somewhat disturbing and unjustified. My comment about Muslims has more to do with their religious beliefs and the extremists who use these beliefs to murder, rape and enslave those with differing beliefs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Sir Pineapple...well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    By your logic, even 99.99% wouldn't be enough because there is still a chance that one innocent person might be detained and searched.
    I suspect that we may be somewhat talking past each other here. I've specifically wrote "mockery and stereotyped imagery" in relation to the following.


    It was one of several issues on the original list, however, and seemed to be one of the most minor.

    Mockery and stereotyping happens to everyone. I'd be very surprised if you could name for me an ethnicity in the USA or elsewhere that is not subject to at least a little bit of mockery and stereotyping.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheFosterKid View Post
    Is it just me or are Muslims getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?
    Of which I've shared with TheFosterKid the differences in general population behaviour and mannerisms from my part of the world and country with the local muslim demographical population in post #10. And that the request that muslims around the world denounce or condemn their violent militant extremist brethren who targets civilians is present, and the figures I've shared regarding those percentages from surveys reflect that a sizable to a clear majority of them do.
    Do you think the Jews of Germany disagreed over whether the Reichstag fire was justified? With 6% of Jews fully agreeing with it, and 24% sympathizing?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

    Why are the 6% of Muslims living in the UK who agree with the London bombings not denounced by their brethren as false Muslims for agreeing with terror? If agreeing with terrorism is really a heresy that the majority consider to be an utterly incorrect interpretation of their scriptures, then they should be shunning the ones who agree for heresy.

    If those same people disagreed about the divinity of the holy prophet Muhammad, they would surely be shunned. If they questioned whether the prohibition against eating pork was necessarily binding, or just "figurative", I think the others would start insisting that they either change their mind or go. But disagreement over the violence is tolerated. I wonder why?





    I've also added in that particular post that if he has issues with what he considers to be unfair bias in profiling; such as targeting muslims would-be terrorists and not christians would-be terrorists, he can also speak up about it.
    I already addressed that.

    The focus of airport security is different from the focus of law enforcement in general. For normal law enforcement nobody really expects them to be able to prevent crime. Of course they are expected to make whatever effort they can to prevent it, but it is reasonably understood they will not succeed in stopping most of the crimes in their city before they are done happening.

    So the police focus is more on punishing the offenders.

    Airport security's focus is on prevention. Searching a person is not "punishing" them. It is a precautionary measure and almost impossible to do effectively if you don't use some statistical information to guide your search. Statistically, any group where 6% of the overall population fully agrees with the London bombings is far and away a much higher risk group.

    For example, if you see a bulge in someone's pocket, it could be a thick wallet, or it could be a weapon. Either way you don't know for sure so you'll want to pull them aside and search them. It's a correlation that is not certain to bear out. Ethnicity is more of a hot topic because it is out of a person's control, but the principle is the same. If there is a high statistical correlation between X and Y, then you search for X to find Y. If it were known that a high percent of terrorists wore blue tennis shoes, you'd pull people aside who were found wearing blue tennis shoes also.

    You might as well argue that it is wrong for automobile insurance companies to charge higher rates for teenagers than for adults, because not every teenager who gets behind the wheel will necessarily get in a wreck.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It was one of several issues on the original list, however, and seemed to be one of the most minor.
    Not in my perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Mockery and stereotyping happens to everyone.
    Yes, it appears that it does.

    Do you enjoy it? Does it give you pleasure or are you indifferent when other people do it? Have you ever spoken up for groups of people who may not deserve it even when some within them do because the lot of them belonged to that racial group, religious group, sexual orientation, etc?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Do you think the Jews of Germany disagreed over whether the Reichstag fire was justified? With 6% of Jews fully agreeing with it, and 24% sympathizing?
    I do not know.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why are the 6% of Muslims living in the UK who agree with the London bombings not denounced by their brethren as false Muslims for agreeing with terror?
    I do not know, and I do not have information that suggest that they haven't. Have you tried finding out or asking one of the other 94%.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    ... I wonder why?
    If you ever find out, do let the rest of us know. In the meantime, does your opinion forming habit stop at not having sufficient information to form an conclusion, or do you operate with the enjoyment of the exercise of jumping?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I already addressed that.
    Yes, I have read your posts on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It was one of several issues on the original list, however, and seemed to be one of the most minor.
    Not in my perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Mockery and stereotyping happens to everyone.
    Yes, it appears that it does.

    Do you enjoy it? Does it give you pleasure or are you indifferent when other people do it? Have you ever spoken up for groups of people who may not deserve it even when some within them do because the lot of them belonged to that racial group, religious group, sexual orientation, etc?



    Definitely going to go with "indifferent". In the USA we have a notion called the "freedom of speech". And the idea is that even if what you have to say offends someone else, you are still entitled to say it.

    Of course, even though you are entitled to say them, the things you say can still be used as evidence of your character by others. So if I were to say that I thought the London bombing was justified, I think other people would begin to form opinions about my character.

    Knowing that 6% of a certain population group has a certain character doesn't give me reliable information about the other 95%, but knowing that another population group says the same things at a rate much lower than 1% does tell me quite a lot about the other population group.

    If there are two population groups and one is composed of individuals who have a 6% likelihood of wanting me dead, but the other is composed of individuals who have less than 1% likelihood of wanting me dead, then I know I am much safer when I am surrounded by people from the second population group.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Do you think the Jews of Germany disagreed over whether the Reichstag fire was justified? With 6% of Jews fully agreeing with it, and 24% sympathizing?
    I do not know.
    But you do know that Muslims are being treated unfairly?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Why are the 6% of Muslims living in the UK who agree with the London bombings not denounced by their brethren as false Muslims for agreeing with terror?
    I do not know, and I do not have information that suggest that they haven't. Have you tried finding out or asking one of the other 94%.
    They never give me a straight answer.

    It seems the problem is that one Muslim can't really tell another Muslim what to think about terrorist violence because the doctrine is not sufficiently clear.

    It is clear about a lot of things, but not that. Yet whenever I actually read the Koran, it seems pretty clear what it is saying, and that it is saying that it is fine to go out and conquer and enslave non-Muslims.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    ... I wonder why?
    If you ever find out, do let the rest of us know. In the meantime, does your opinion forming habit stop at not having sufficient information to form an conclusion, or do you operate with the enjoyment of the exercise of jumping?
    Does yours?

    You seem to have arrived at an emotional certainty that Muslim people are being unfairly discriminated against, yet between the two of us I am the only one that has yet presented any researched statistics to support my perspective.

    Are we done handwaving, or do you have something for me to read over?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Definitely going to go with "indifferent".
    Noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In the USA we have a notion called the "freedom of speech". And the is that even if what you have to say offends someone else, you are still entitled to say it.
    Yes, I am aware of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Of course, the things you say can be used as evidence of your character by others. So if I were to say that I thought the London bombing was justified, I think other people would begin to form opinions about my character.

    Yes, that happens naturally. However, I should point that that the opinion formed is based on and for a single person that is you, and not your entire ethnicity, theistic or atheistic inclinations, sexual orientation, interest group, etc.

    Opinions formed of an individual, or even a select group of people within a larger group isn't representative of the entire categorical group
    that they belong to. A more to the point of the thread topic is that so far all the terrorists are men, therefore men are violent. But wait, not all men are terrorists. Perhaps its men of a certain age group, but no; not all men of that age group are terrorists. Perhaps its their sexual orientation of being straight, but not all straight men are terrorists. Perhaps its their ethnicity, but hey, not everyone who is straight and of that ethnic group are terrorists. Perhaps its those straight men of that ethnic group who are also has a certain religious affiliation, but wait, there are some straight men of that ethnic group who are also of has that same religious affiliation who aren't terrorists, and have even spoken against terrorism and condemned the actions of their fellows. But lets just lump them all under one label. I'm pretty sure no one minds, and no one even cares if so long as I am able to exercise my freedom of speech even if I'm aware that only a minority of that group fits the description of being a terrorist.

    There is a name for this form of cognitive bias if you weren't previously aware.

    I'm sure some of you have heard of the tale that some Chinese or even Asians enjoy eating dog meat, and it is true that some of them do. Would you say that the Chinese or Asians in general are scum and have no respect for animal rights, would you mock all of us or just some of us? Would it matter if I have spoken up against that the act as well, participated in activities advocating that the act of eating dog meat be discontinued by appealing to my fellows, or am I and others like myself deserved to be included in mockery simply because I and those like me belong to that ethnic group? It is after all so much simpler to say "Chinese" than it is to say "Those Chinese or Asians who enjoy eating dog meat".

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But you do know that Muslims are being treated unfairly?
    No, I am unfamiliar with that incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It seems the problem is that one Muslim can't really tell another Muslim what to think about terrorist violence because the doctrine is not sufficiently clear.
    Really? That happens rather frequently (when the subject is brought up) where I'm from, and I have muslim friends who have spoken up and against islamic terrorism, but that probably does not and should not factor into how your opinions are made.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It is clear about a lot of things, but not that. Yet whenever I actually read the Koran, it seems pretty clear what it is saying, and that it is saying that it is fine to go out and conquer and enslave non-Muslims.
    Is it? I make it a point to form opinions on the actions and words of select individual(s) or groups, and from experience being fully aware that the few close muslim friends that I have known for decades harbour no such intent and are part of an activist group within their community that speaks out against violence enacted in the name of their religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Does yours?
    I make it a point to avoid stereotyping by way of my Freethought philosophy imparted by my mentor. She would have been very disappointed if I knowingly engage in logical fallacies and fall victim to such an obvious cognitive bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You seem to have arrived at an emotional certainty that Muslim people are being unfairly discriminated against, yet between the two of us I am the only one that yet offered any actual, measurable, evidence for my perspective.
    I do have at least one or two actual, measurable, and verifiable evidence to submit; one of them being your words in this thread so far. This I say without an intent to offend, but there appears to be no kinder way of saying it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Of course, the things you say can be used as evidence of your character by others. So if I were to say that I thought the London bombing was justified, I think other people would begin to form opinions about my character.

    Yes, that happens naturally. However, I should point that that the opinion formed is based on and for a single person that is you, and not your entire ethnicity, theistic or atheistic inclinations, sexual orientation, interest group, etc.

    Opinions formed of an individual, or even a select group of people within a larger group isn't representative of the entire categorical group
    that they belong to. A more to the point of the thread topic is that so far all the terrorists are men, therefore men are violent. But wait, not all men are terrorists. Perhaps its men of a certain age group, but no; not all men of that age group are terrorists. Perhaps its their sexual orientation of being straight, but not all straight men are terrorists. Perhaps its their ethnicity, but hey, not everyone who is straight and of that ethnic group are terrorists. Perhaps its those straight men of that ethnic group who are also has a certain religious affiliation, but wait, there are some straight men of that ethnic group who are also of has that same religious affiliation who aren't terrorists, and have even spoken against terrorism and condemned the actions of their fellows. But lets just lump them all under one label. I'm pretty sure no one minds, and no one even cares if so long as I am able to exercise my freedom of speech even if I'm aware that only a minority of that group fits the description of being a terrorist.



    Classic strawman.

    Nobody anywhere on this thread has suggested that all Muslims are terrorists. Nor that all Muslims should be punished for the acts of a few Muslims.

    You're committing the "everyone should receive the same insurance rate" fallacy. Not all teenagers are accident prone. So why do auto-insurance companies treat all teenagers as if they were accident prone and charge them a higher rate? Maybe your teenaged son is an exceptionally conscientious driver who perfectly follows all the rules at all times and prides himself on carefully watching the road ahead for 10 seconds of sight distance.

    Why should your son have to pay the same high rate of insurance as some other boneheaded teenagers who break the rules and drive like idiots?


    The answer: Because there is no perfect tool by which the insurance company could hope to sort your son out from all of the others.


    Similarly, airport security has no magic wand or perfect way of distinguishing the 6% of Muslims who fully agree with terrorism from the rest. They could stupidly assume that all Muslims are against terror, but that is obviously false. They can't even assume that a statistically insignificant number of them are against terror, because 6% is statistically significant.

    You're getting caught up in the notion of "presumed innocent". But that doesn't apply to preventative measures which are not intended as punishments. It only applies to punitive measures. Searching someone in an airport is not intended as a punitive measure against that person.



    There is a name for this form of cognitive bias if you weren't previously aware.
    Only in the broadest interpretation.

    I'm sure some of you have heard of the tale that some Chinese or even Asians enjoy eating dog meat, and it is true that some of them do. Would you say that the Chinese or Asians in general are scum and have no respect for animal rights, would you mock all of us or just some of us? Would it matter if I have spoken up against that the act as well, participated in activities advocating that the act of eating dog meat be discontinued by appealing to my fellows, or am I and others like myself deserved to be included in mockery simply because I and those like me belong to that ethnic group? It is after all so much simpler to say "Chinese" than it is to say "Those Chinese or Asians who enjoy eating dog meat".
    I could also mock them for keeping company with those who eat dog meat (or at least claiming ethnic kinship to them). But of course eating dog meat is pretty harmless.

    Let's go with something more severe. I read a travel journal once that stated that pedophilia is actually a commonly accepted practice in Turkey. Many men grow up as lovers to older men, and are only barely scarred by it because it is so widely accepted that they ultimately feel no social ostracism or embarrassment.

    Now I'm not sure if that is actually true of Turkish culture. I only have one source telling me it is, and I can't be sure of the authenticity of that source.

    However, if it were true, and I were to mock Turkish culture on that basis, and even do so in front of a Turkish person - it's not entirely clear that I'm mocking the Turkish person. I'm mocking their culture. And who could reasonably disagree that a culture that accepts pedophilia deserves to me mocked? If someone disagreed that that was a valid basis for mocking a culture, I would wonder if they were a pedophile them self.

    So if I mock Islam, I don't see what's wrong with that. If the culture accepts bombings like the London bombing to such a degree that 6% of its membership will vocally agree with it, then the culture is at best passively comfortable with that kind of behavior. What a stupid culture. If I meet a person who is Muslim does that mean that person is automatically stupid? No. Will I tell them that they themselves are stupid? No. Will I tell them that I think Islam is stupid? Yes.

    Racism is thinking a person's race is "who they are". I think race is a peripheral trait. Mocking that trait is not mocking the person. If the person thinks it is mockery of them, then it is because that person is claiming race as an essential part of their identity. IE - committing the very logical fallacy that racists commit.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    But you do know that Muslims are being treated unfairly?
    No, I am unfamiliar with that incident.
    [/quote]

    Oh. Ok. So, as far as you know, Muslims are not being treated unfairly?

    Good. Then we don't disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It is clear about a lot of things, but not that. Yet whenever I actually read the Koran, it seems pretty clear what it is saying, and that it is saying that it is fine to go out and conquer and enslave non-Muslims.
    Is it? I make it a point to form opinions on the actions and words of select individual(s) or groups, and from experience being fully aware that the few close muslim friends that I have known for decades harbour no such intent and are part of an activist group within their community that speaks out against violence enacted in the name of their religion.
    I guess that would be like meeting a Turk who is actively fighting to end pedophilia in Turkey. That's great!!

    It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Does yours?
    I make it a point to avoid stereotyping by way of my Freethought philosophy imparted by my mentor. She would have been very disappointed if I knowingly engage in logical fallacies and fall victim to such an obvious cognitive bias.
    Then I guess she'll be disappointed.

    Or is it just one kind of logical fallacy that disappoints her? You can make all the other kinds of logical fallacy you want and she'll be fine with it?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Classic strawman.

    Yes it is. It was intended to be obvious for rhetorical effect, and not as one for me to knock down.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Nobody anywhere on this thread has suggested that all Muslims are terrorists.
    And yet some of them do not make that distinction obvious when they simply use the word "muslims".

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You're getting caught up in the notion of "presumed innocent". But that doesn't apply to preventative measures which are not intended as punishments. It only applies to punitive measures. Searching someone in an airport is not intended as a punitive measure against that person.

    I thought I've made it clear that I was speaking about the "mockery and stereotyping imagery" in relation to the primary question from TheFosterKid here is whether muslims are "getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?".

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Only in the broadest interpretation.
    Shall I provide post numbers and direct quotes where this cognitive bias is present?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I could also mock them for keeping company with those who eat dog meat (or at least claiming ethnic kinship to them). But of course eating dog meat is pretty harmless.

    Ethnic relations is something that is beyond our ability to change, these people are apart of my race whether I like it or not. The point was whether the rest deserve to be mocked under the same umbrella simply by calling out the most obvious label.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So if I mock Islam, I don't see what's wrong with that.

    Neither do I.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If the culture accepts bombings like the London bombing to such a degree that 6% of its membership will vocally agree with it, then the culture is at best passively comfortable with that kind of behavior.
    Please provide reasons for not using the other 94% who forms the majority instead of the 6% of that community within a specific nation as a representative? That is even without considering the rest of the muslim world who have been polled to not agree with terrorist activities and the targeting of civilians in the name of their religion.


    Do you recall the figures from the polls I've given links to and provided in post #172.

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post

    • Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim countries between 2001 and 2007. It found that more than 90% of respondents condemned the killing of non-combatants on religious and humanitarian grounds.


    • A 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, Pew Research Center survey found that suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq were seen as "justifiable" by many Jordanians (70%), Pakistanis (46%), and Turks (31%). At the same time, the survey found that support for the U.S.-led War on Terror had increased.


    • A 2005 Pew Research study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries. A Daily Telegraph survey showed that 88% of Muslims said the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground were unjustified, while 6% disagreed. However it also found that 24% of British Muslims showed some sympathy with the people who carried out the attacks.


    • Polls taken by Saudi owned Al Arabiya and Gallup suggest moderate support for the September 11 terrorist attacks within the Islamic world, with 36% of Arabs polled by Al Arabiya saying the 9/11 attacks were morally justified, 38% disagreeing and 26% of those polled being unsure. A 2008 study, produced by Gallup, found similar results with 38.6% of Muslims questioned believing the 9/11 attacks were justified. Another poll conducted, in 2005 by the Fafo Foundation in the Palestinian Authority, found that 65% of respondents supported the September 11 attacks.


    • In Pakistan, despite the recent rise in the Taliban's influence, a poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow in Pakistan in January 2008 tested support for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, other militant Islamist groups and Osama bin Laden himself, and found a recent drop by half. In August 2007, 33% of Pakistanis expressed support for al-Qaeda; 38% supported the Taliban. By January 2008, al-Qaeda's support had dropped to 18%, the Taliban's to 19%. When asked if they would vote for al-Qaeda, just 1% of Pakistanis polled answered in the affirmative. The Taliban had the support of 3% of those polled.


    • Pew Research surveys in 2008 show that in a range of countries – Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh – there have been substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide-bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable. The shift of attitudes against terror has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where 29% of Jordanians were recorded as viewing suicide-attacks as often or sometimes justified (down from 57% in May 2005). In the largest majority-Muslim nation, Indonesia, 74% of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "never justified" (a substantial increase from the 41% level to which support had risen in March 2004); in Pakistan, that figure is 86%; in Bangladesh, 81%; and in Iran, 80%.


    • A poll conducted in Osama bin Laden's home country of Saudi Arabia in December 2008 shows that his compatriots have dramatically turned against him, his organisation, Saudi volunteers in Iraq, and terrorism in general. Indeed, confidence in bin Laden has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years.

    Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Mocking that trait is not mocking the person. If the person thinks it is mockery of them, then it is because that person is claiming race as an essential part of their identity. IE - committing the very logical fallacy that racists commit.
    Correct. Would you or anyone here like me to count the number of times the generic word "muslim(s)" is used in this thread alone?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Oh. Ok. So, as far as you know, Muslims are not being treated unfairly?

    Good. Then we don't disagree.
    I am not familiar sufficiently with that particular incident to form an opinion on that, therefore until I do, we can have no agreements or disagreements of any kind. Would you like me to make an effort to find out more it so that you can put forth a point?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I guess that would be like meeting a Turk who is actively fighting to end pedophilia in Turkey. That's great!!

    It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb.
    The turkish culture is dumb, but a individual turk isn't. When we substitute the words turkish culture with islam, and a turk with muslim, how would the sentence take shape?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Then I guess she'll be disappointed.

    Or is it just one kind of logical fallacy that disappoints her? You can make all the other kinds of logical fallacy you want and she'll be fine with it?
    If I have knowingly and/or actively committed logical fallacies, such as the strawman you have correctly identified, I do so to highlight a point and not to knock it down to both commit and complete the fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Classic strawman.

    Yes it is. It was intended to be obvious for rhetorical effect, and not as one for me to knock down.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Nobody anywhere on this thread has suggested that all Muslims are terrorists.
    And yet some of them do not make that distinction obvious when they simply use the word "muslims".


    I think that's just a semantic mistake. It's unlikely that people who say "muslims" really think every last, single, individual Muslim falls into the category they've made.


    It's sort of like saying "Americans" are fat. That's a stereotype that is becoming increasingly popular because America's obesity rate has been getting out of control in the last couple of decades. A person might discuss "Americans" being fat while in the same room as a person from America who only weighs 50 Kilograms. Clearly they don't honestly think the waif sitting by them is hiding 100 kg of extra weight tucked under their shirt.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You're getting caught up in the notion of "presumed innocent". But that doesn't apply to preventative measures which are not intended as punishments. It only applies to punitive measures. Searching someone in an airport is not intended as a punitive measure against that person.

    I thought I've made it clear that I was speaking about the "mockery and stereotyping imagery" in relation to the primary question from TheFosterKid here is whether muslims are "getting as much hate as Jews got leading up to the Holocaust?".


    I think that clearly we can agree then, that Muslims are not getting "as much hate" as the Jews got leading up to the Holocaust.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I could also mock them for keeping company with those who eat dog meat (or at least claiming ethnic kinship to them). But of course eating dog meat is pretty harmless.

    Ethnic relations is something that is beyond our ability to change, these people are apart of my race whether I like it or not. The point was whether the rest deserve to be mocked under the same umbrella simply by calling out the most obvious label.
    Race can't be changed. Ethnicity, to a very large degree, can. Religion most certainly can.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    So if I mock Islam, I don't see what's wrong with that.

    Neither do I.
    Good. We've made a breakthrough in communication. It's always nice to find that we don't disagree about a few things after all.

    I don't have a problem with individual Muslims. I have a problem with Islamic culture as a whole. I think it is a very dumb culture. I would like to see individual Muslims begin to abandon that culture, or alternatively : make changes to it.

    Making fun of them personally won't help achieve that. They'll feel they are under attack and start trying to find allies to fight me - and most of the allies at their reach are going to be from their culture. So attacking them as individuals achieves the opposite of my goal.

    Making fun of Islam does help me achieve my goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If the culture accepts bombings like the London bombing to such a degree that 6% of its membership will vocally agree with it, then the culture is at best passively comfortable with that kind of behavior.
    Please provide reasons for not using the other 94% who forms the majority instead of the 6% of that community within a specific nation as a representative? That is even without considering the rest of the muslim world who have been polled to not agree with terrorist activities and the targeting of civilians in the name of their religion.


    The reason is because I'm comparing relative rates between cultures.

    Another example of this kind of thinking would be when gun control advocates accuse the USA of having an unacceptably high gun death rate. Now America's gun death rate is 9.42 per 100,000, 2/3 of which are suicides - which would seem pretty low. But compared with the rest of the industrialized world, it is very high.

    6% vocal acceptance rate of terror is similarly very high when compared with most of the other ethnic or religious groups in the World. Certainly when compared with any large, or widespread belief systems. It is the kind of statistic you might expect to see from some lunatic cult living in a compound in Idaho.





    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Mocking that trait is not mocking the person. If the person thinks it is mockery of them, then it is because that person is claiming race as an essential part of their identity. IE - committing the very logical fallacy that racists commit.
    Correct. Would you or anyone here like me to count the number of times the generic word "muslim(s)" is used in this thread alone?


    There is no need for that.

    But, do you have any reason to think the mistake is more than just a semantic one? Do you think that people on this thread are genuinely convinced that all Muslims conform to their stereotypes?



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I guess that would be like meeting a Turk who is actively fighting to end pedophilia in Turkey. That's great!!

    It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb.
    The turkish culture is dumb, but a individual turk isn't. When we substitute the words turkish culture with islam, and a turk with muslim, how would the sentence take shape?
    It's hard to speak of Islam itself, because inevitably the topic will split between Islamic doctrine, and Islam as practiced.

    The culture that Islam has given rise to is the problem. Whether the terrorists are practicing the doctrine correctly or not, they have widespread acceptance on a cultural level. It's true that 6% of the Muslims living in the UK outright agree with them (and 24% sympathize), but that's just people living in the UK. Outside the UK, in actual Islamic countries, the number is probably higher (since the polls conducted in 12 out of 16 Islamic countries showed over 50% supported Hezbolla.)

    So this culture needs to be abandoned in very much the same way as the practice of wearing parachute pants in the 1990's. I'm thinking we must not withhold our mockery. That way, just as the parachute pants wearers of the 1990's saw the error of their ways, and began to wear proper pants, perhaps the Muslims of today will see the error of their ways, and start a new culture around Islam that isn't backwards and primitive.





    Nobody is advocating that we round up all the parachute pants wearers and put them in concentration camps.

    Just.... get them to change their pants.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think that's just a semantic mistake. It's unlikely that people who say "muslims" really think every last, single, individual Muslim falls into the category they've made.
    I can accept some sloppiness in the causal use of the word, however, with well over twenty posts each for the top few posters in this thread, some may want to exercise a little more precision in how they draft their posts than what they may be used to in a thread created in the politics subforum on a forum open to international members of many different races, ethnicity, and thestic/atheistic affiliations and/or inclinations.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's sort of like saying "Americans" are fat. That's a stereotype that is becoming increasingly popular because America's obesity rate has been getting out of control in the last couple of decades. A person might discuss "Americans" being fat while in the same room as a person from America who only weighs 50 Kilograms. Clearly they don't honestly think the waif sitting by them is hiding 100 kg of extra weight tucked under their shirt.
    When an entire community of people are stereotyped negatively with the actions and characteristics of some within their numbers and held in contempt for deeds that they had not participated in, that is called scapegoating.

    That quite possibly have dangerous and unwanted repercussions if not correctly identified and corrected, as it was also the first few steps towards ethnic cleansing of select population groups. History is littered with many such examples, and that not counting the most obvious ones that took place during WWII. China had hers during the cultural revolution, where minority ethnic groups were prosecuted with many massacred; not to mention all the forever lost cultural historical artifacts, scholars and many of their works from the past. Other instances include the American Indian Wars, Australian frontier wars, etc. Even today, it isn't hard to find instances of scapegoating that may lead to similar outcomes.

    While I can't speak for others, I will speak up to forward a word of caution in not perpetuating this effect even if it does occurs naturally among humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think that clearly we can agree then, that Muslims are not getting "as much hate" as the Jews got leading up to the Holocaust.
    If you have the chance and are willing to gather the perspective of your fellows where you live on the impression they have on "muslims" in general; Ask. Take it as an attempt at collecting some data; I do it all the time even during causal conversations both online and IRL.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Making fun of them personally won't help achieve that. They'll feel they are under attack and start trying to find allies to fight me - and most of the allies at their reach are going to be from their culture. So attacking them as individuals achieves the opposite of my goal. Making fun of Islam does help me achieve my goal.
    Perhaps a revision of choice words for precision and how the delivery is made is in order if you so see fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    6% vocal acceptance rate of terror is similarly very high when compared with most of the other ethnic or religious groups in the World. Certainly when compared with any large, or widespread belief systems. It is the kind of statistic you might expect to see from some lunatic cult living in a compound in Idaho.
    And how would you deal with the other 94% that forms the majority?



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    There is no need for that. But, do you have any reason to think the mistake is more than just a semantic one? Do you think that people on this thread are genuinely convinced that all Muslims conform to their stereotypes?
    Other than the one you have identified as a semantic mistake, they personally have not given me a reason to think otherwise when they simply use the generic word "muslims".

    Catholics shows support for pedophiles in their clergy, Americans are creationists KKK members, Germans are Nazis, the Romani steal, the Japanese hate the Chinese, Chinese eat dogs, Chinese Nationals from China will urinate and defecate on trains and at stations, etc. You may be surprised to know that some of these are more commonly perceived as mostly true amongst some local Singaporean both old and young than some of us may like to think. The undercurrent of negative racial/ethnic/national/religious stereotypes that is knowingly perpetuated is a hindrance to a level headed perspective on matters concerning the "outgroups".


    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I guess that would be like meeting a Turk who is actively fighting to end pedophilia in Turkey. That's great!! It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb.
    The turkish culture is dumb, but a individual turk isn't. When we substitute the words turkish culture with islam, and a turk with muslim, how would the sentence take shape?
    Please indulge me. How would the sentence take shape?
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; August 16th, 2014 at 07:43 AM. Reason: typo correction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    what if you and your ancestors lived in cali for centuries, and out of the blue world politics decided to give it back to mexico; and your only choice is to become mexican, live there as a foreigner or leave?
    What if the Jews amd Christians lived in the Middle East for centuries, then the Muslim forced them out?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What if the Jews amd Christians lived in the Middle East for centuries, then the Muslim forced them out?
    Just curious.

    Was this before or after the Crusades that had Jews and Muslims having to join forces to fight against the invading Catholics in Israel during the Crusades, after the massacre of Jews in Germany by the Crusading army and then the massacre of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem as the Christians invaded Jerusalem?

    This was a running theme during the Crusades. Ergo, I find it interesting that you could make such a weird comment. In fact, it was because of the massacre of Jews by Christians in Germany and then the ongoing attempts of genocide during the Crusades that eventually led Zionists to suggest the State of Israel as a Jewish State in the 19th Century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What if the Jews amd Christians lived in the Middle East for centuries, then the Muslim forced them out?
    Just curious.

    Was this before or after the Crusades that had Jews and Muslims having to join forces to fight against the invading Catholics in Israel during the Crusades, after the massacre of Jews in Germany by the Crusading army and then the massacre of Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem as the Christians invaded Jerusalem?

    This was a running theme during the Crusades. Ergo, I find it interesting that you could make such a weird comment. In fact, it was because of the massacre of Jews by Christians in Germany and then the ongoing attempts of genocide during the Crusades that eventually led Zionists to suggest the State of Israel as a Jewish State in the 19th Century.
    I'm just pointing out that the Middle East was the original homeland of the Jews, but they don't seem to be welcome there any more. Christians were also there before Islam existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    The problem is not the Islam faith. The problem is the interpretation of the Islam faith. Educated Muslims understand the difference of literal translation and figurative translations. Many uneducated Muslims, which are the vast majority of those that practice Islam, are taught the literal translation. In many ways it was the same with the Christians at one time.

    The Jews and the Arabs are all descendants of Abraham. The religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity all share the same historical origins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm just pointing out that the Middle East was the original homeland of the Jews, but they don't seem to be welcome there any more. Christians were also there before Islam existed.
    And Christians also massacred so many of the Jews and Muslims during the crusades. All in the name of religious creed.

    Relations in Israel would improve greatly if they afforded their neighbours the same courtesies they demand and expect. When you shut people off, deny them any rights, regulate even their intake of food when they have done nothing except for being a different religion, then people will get angry, resentful and not want you there anymore. Especially for those who lost their homes to settlers who were just given land and homes with little regard for the Palestinians who had lived in those homes for generations. And the continued settlements, right of return for all Jews and having to take even more homes, farmland, and towns from Palestinians to give to the settlers with no recompense for the Palestinians is why they aren't welcome. Prior to all of the rise of conservative Zionism, there was very little trouble between the Jews and Palestinians who had lived there for generations. In fact, they often worked together and co-operated to repel invaders. Christianity, and frankly, Europeans have a lot to answer for in that regard.

    If they treated Palestinians like human beings worthy of consideration and allowed them their basic human rights, we wouldn't have this mess. But over 50 years of abuse and it's at least 2 generations of very angry people. This latest incursion into Gaza will just make them be hated even more. And frankly, you can't fault the Palestinians for that. They are absolutely oppressed and they have no rights and are being denied their very basic human rights. Until they are treated like human beings, they will continue to not make the Jews welcome.

    Because I can assure you, the family who watched in horror as their 4 young children, between the ages of 7 and 9, were gunned down on a beach by Israeli helicopter gunships for daring to play soccer on the beach in front of a hotel packed with journalists who captured the whole thing on tape, are not going to be very welcoming to the Israelis who destroyed their children in such a horrific way. And I can't blame them. By committing such horrendous acts of violence against innocent civilians, they are only driving more towards Hamas and other groups who want to commit acts of violence against Israel. If you unlawfully and illegally cage over a million of innocent people and torture and abuse them for over 50 years, they will get to a point where they get fed up and want revenge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    The problem is not the Islam faith. The problem is the interpretation of the Islam faith. Educated Muslims understand the difference of literal translation and figurative translations. Many uneducated Muslims, which are the vast majority of those that practice Islam, are taught the literal translation. In many ways it was the same with the Christians at one time.

    The Jews and the Arabs are all descendants of Abraham. The religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity all share the same historical origins.
    Wow, so you are saying that the vast majority of Muslims are uneducated? Bigoted statement much?

    The same applies to all religions. Haredi Jews abuse and spit on women and girls if they dare walk on the wrong side of the street or sit down on a bus or don't cover up enough or even try to get an education. Christians also have their fair share of Conservative nutbags - just look at the many who homeschool their children because they think that the Government is going to corrupt them and so, teach them that the Earth is 4000 years old, etc..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,149
    Interpretation.

    Huge affect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm just pointing out that the Middle East was the original homeland of the Jews, but they don't seem to be welcome there any more. Christians were also there before Islam existed.
    And Christians also massacred so many of the Jews and Muslims during the crusades. All in the name of religious creed.
    Why do you bring this up? Is this supposed to justify the persecution of Christians throughout the Middle East today? What about Christians massacred in the various Muslim holy wars?
    Relations in Israel would improve greatly if they afforded their neighbours the same courtesies they demand and expect. When you shut people off, deny them any rights, regulate even their intake of food when they have done nothing except for being a different religion, then people will get angry, resentful and not want you there anymore.
    A good description of how non-Muslims are treated throughout the Middle East.
    Especially for those who lost their homes to settlers who were just given land and homes with little regard for the Palestinians who had lived in those homes for generations.
    Where they lived after their ancestors had driven all the Jews out.
    And the continued settlements, right of return for all Jews and having to take even more homes, farmland, and towns from Palestinians to give to the settlers with no recompense for the Palestinians is why they aren't welcome. Prior to all of the rise of conservative Zionism, there was very little trouble between the Jews and Palestinians who had lived there for generations. In fact, they often worked together and co-operated to repel invaders. Christianity, and frankly, Europeans have a lot to answer for in that regard.
    And where Jews lived as second class citizens without equal rights with Muslims. Why do you keep blaming Christians?
    If they treated Palestinians like human beings worthy of consideration and allowed them their basic human rights, we wouldn't have this mess. But over 50 years of abuse and it's at least 2 generations of very angry people. This latest incursion into Gaza will just make them be hated even more. And frankly, you can't fault the Palestinians for that. They are absolutely oppressed and they have no rights and are being denied their very basic human rights. Until they are treated like human beings, they will continue to not make the Jews welcome.

    Because I can assure you, the family who watched in horror as their 4 young children, between the ages of 7 and 9, were gunned down on a beach by Israeli helicopter gunships for daring to play soccer on the beach in front of a hotel packed with journalists who captured the whole thing on tape, are not going to be very welcoming to the Israelis who destroyed their children in such a horrific way. And I can't blame them. By committing such horrendous acts of violence against innocent civilians, they are only driving more towards Hamas and other groups who want to commit acts of violence against Israel. If you unlawfully and illegally cage over a million of innocent people and torture and abuse them for over 50 years, they will get to a point where they get fed up and want revenge.
    No mention of the rockets being continually launched toward Israel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    Relations in Israel would improve greatly if they afforded their neighbours the same courtesies they demand and expect. When you shut people off, deny them any rights, regulate even their intake of food when they have done nothing except for being a different religion, then people will get angry, resentful and not want you there anymore. Especially for those who lost their homes to settlers who were just given land and homes with little regard for the Palestinians who had lived in those homes for generations. And the continued settlements, right of return for all Jews and having to take even more homes, farmland, and towns from Palestinians to give to the settlers with no recompense for the Palestinians is why they aren't welcome. Prior to all of the rise of conservative Zionism, there was very little trouble between the Jews and Palestinians who had lived there for generations.
    False.


    In fact, they often worked together and co-operated to repel invaders. Christianity, and frankly, Europeans have a lot to answer for in that regard.

    If they treated Palestinians like human beings worthy of consideration and allowed them their basic human rights, we wouldn't have this mess.
    This is a long list of falsities. The pali charter is to exterminate all the jews.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    6% vocal acceptance rate of terror is similarly very high when compared with most of the other ethnic or religious groups in the World. Certainly when compared with any large, or widespread belief systems. It is the kind of statistic you might expect to see from some lunatic cult living in a compound in Idaho.
    And how would you deal with the other 94% that forms the majority?

    What do you suggest that we do with the 6%? (And to be clear, 24% are fence sitting, so the number who outright disagree is more like 70%)

    Do you have a magic-wand, super amazing technology at your disposal that can watch the 6% carefully and keep them from blowing stuff up without ever once, accidentally, inconveniencing one of the other 94%?

    I would think that if all the 94% are going to suffer is the horrible inconvenience of being searched more often at the airports, then we're doing about as good at targeting our efforts as humanly possible.

    But maybe you have an even better idea? Something that would do it even better? Perhaps something more than human?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    There is no need for that. But, do you have any reason to think the mistake is more than just a semantic one? Do you think that people on this thread are genuinely convinced that all Muslims conform to their stereotypes?
    Other than the one you have identified as a semantic mistake, they personally have not given me a reason to think otherwise when they simply use the generic word "muslims".

    Catholics shows support for pedophiles in their clergy, Americans are creationists KKK members, Germans are Nazis, the Romani steal, the Japanese hate the Chinese, Chinese eat dogs, Chinese Nationals from China will urinate and defecate on trains and at stations, etc. You may be surprised to know that some of these are more commonly perceived as mostly true amongst some local Singaporean both old and young than some of us may like to think. The undercurrent of negative racial/ethnic/national/religious stereotypes that is knowingly perpetuated is a hindrance to a level headed perspective on matters concerning the "outgroups".
    In everyday speech, most people aren't going to want to waste their time explicitly stating something that would be totally obvious to their listener.

    Most Americans have at least a minimal understanding of statistics. For example, most Americans know that if you smoke cigarettes, you're not going to get as good an insurance rate as someone who doesn't smoke. We deal with insurance companies all the time, in our personal lives, and professional lives, and whenever we read the newspaper we're bombarded with statistics about everything ranging from traffic fatalities, to product opinion polls.

    Since nearly every single American has at least a beginner's understanding of statistical science. Nearly every single American is incapable of making the mistakes you just mentioned.




    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I guess that would be like meeting a Turk who is actively fighting to end pedophilia in Turkey. That's great!! It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb.
    The turkish culture is dumb, but a individual turk isn't. When we substitute the words turkish culture with islam, and a turk with muslim, how would the sentence take shape?
    Please indulge me. How would the sentence take shape?
    As an American talking to another American? The sentence is just fine as it is.

    I say "Turks are amazingly tolerant of Pedophilia." To another American. The American hears "A number of Turkish people large enough to be measured statistically are indifferent to Pedophilia when compared with the population of America."

    The other American knows enough about statistics to know that large populations are rarely homogeneous, nor entirely united in their belief system. While my statement is imprecise by way of not telling him to what degree "Turks are tolerant of pedophilia", he knows it's only a statistical statement.

    If he wants to know whether the acceptance rate is 10% (easily high enough to justify the statement) or 30% or 50% - he'll have to look that part up himself.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What do you suggest that we do with the 6%?
    For the 6% of muslims polled in the UK who showed support for the 2005 bombing? Nothing.

    For the other 88% of muslims polled in the UK who opposed the 2005 bombing? Nothing.

    However, to mildly touch on the issue of immigration checkpoint security that you have brought up, I would suggest stricter security at immigration checkpoints that screens all passengers equally for bringing contraband on board, for reasons that religious affiliations aren't reliably obvious from physical appearance such as skin color and attire. The thing about religious affiliations is that it permeates across race, ethnicity, gender and age. How well would an everyday man be able to tell the difference between a Sikh or someone dressed like a Sikh from a muslim?

    Since we are talking about airport passenger traffic alone, are you aware that China's territories has a muslim population of over twenty three million as of 2010, and a sizable portion of that figure are of the Chinese race and are Chinese nationals. And since these weren't polled, and their religious affiliations aren't stated anywhere in travel documents to my knowledge, and should they travel abroad, just how well will any airport security be able to identify them?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In everyday speech, most people aren't going to want to waste their time explicitly stating something that would be totally obvious to their listener.

    ...

    Nearly every single American is incapable of making the mistakes you just mentioned.
    We aren't talking about every single American, plus you mentioned "people on this thread", and until they are willing to come forward to clarify their position, they have not given me a reason to think that it is a semantic mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I guess that would be like meeting a Turk who is actively fighting to end pedophilia in Turkey. That's great!! It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb.
    The turkish culture is dumb, but a individual turk isn't. When we substitute the words turkish culture with islam, and a turk with muslim, how would the sentence take shape?
    Again, just how would the sentence take shape?
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; August 17th, 2014 at 05:01 PM. Reason: typo correction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What do you suggest that we do with the 6%?
    For the 6% of muslims polled in the UK who showed support for the 2005 bombing? Nothing.

    For the other 88% of muslims polled in the UK who opposed the 2005 bombing? Nothing.

    However, to mildly touch on the issue of immigration checkpoint security that you have brought up, I would suggest stricter security at immigration checkpoints that screens all passengers equally for bringing contraband on board, for reasons that religious affiliations aren't reliably obvious from physical appearance such as skin color and attire. The thing about religious affiliations is that it permeates across race, ethnicity, gender and age. How well would an everyday man be able to tell the difference between a Sikh or someone dressed like a Sikh from a muslim?

    Since we are talking about airport passenger traffic alone, are you aware that China's territories has a muslim population of over twenty three million as of 2010, and a sizable portion of that figure are of the Chinese race and are Chinese nationals. And since these weren't polled, and their religious affiliations aren't stated anywhere in travel documents to my knowledge, and should they travel abroad, just how well will any airport security be able to identify them?
    It doesn't matter if some Muslims slip through the cracks. Nobody is trying to search all of the Muslims. And searching everyone regardless of ethnicity is already the policy. Muslims just get searched more often. It's not like other people have a 0% chance of getting searched when they pass through an airport.

    The issue is narrowing a search for someone who is hard to find. Like what you do if a child goes missing. Investigators will ask questions like "What color is their hair?" "How tall are they?" stuff that helps narrow the search. Then whenever they see children in a crowd of people they can focus in on those traits. In this case they're looking for terrorists, but the principle is the same. Any trait that helps narrow the search is useful.

    We're not looking for cause and effect. Investigators aren't telling the parent of a missing child that "Your child's red hair is why they got kidnapped." It's all about correlation, not causation.

    If you cordoned off a block full of people walking down the street of a large city, and had data that suggested 6% of the people on that block had strong terrorist leanings. (For this example let us assume the group is 100% composed of white anglo saxon protestants, so I can't be accused of racism.) - Even if they were the same race, religion, gender, height, hair color, eye color..... everything as me, I would still think it was a good idea to scrutinize them.

    Why? Because the inconvenience to them is minimal, and the possible benefit is large. Is it their fault they happen to be standing on a block that is 6% occupied by potential terrorists? No. Does it matter who's fault it is? No.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In everyday speech, most people aren't going to want to waste their time explicitly stating something that would be totally obvious to their listener.

    ...

    Nearly every single American is incapable of making the mistakes you just mentioned.
    We aren't talking about every single American, plus you mentioned "people on this thread", and until they are willing to come forward to clarify their position, they have not given me a reason to think that it is a semantic mistake.
    They don't need to give you a reason. You have enough reasons to assume it.

    It's not everyone else's job to resolve your paranoia for you.


    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I guess that would be like meeting a Turk who is actively fighting to end pedophilia in Turkey. That's great!! It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb.
    The turkish culture is dumb, but a individual turk isn't. When we substitute the words turkish culture with islam, and a turk with muslim, how would the sentence take shape?
    Again, just how would the sentence take shape?
    I usually refuse to jump through hoops. It is quite obvious how the sentence would take shape.

    How about you propose a sentence, and I will tell you if it is right or wrong?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Muslims just get searched more often.
    To my knowledge religious affiliations aren't stated in any travel documents but their name and nationality are, and the only means of remotely identifying such people are through physical appearance and attire. So, just how are muslims identified, since almost every single race, ethnicity, gender, age, and nationality may or may not be a muslim.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    They don't need to give you a reason. You have enough reasons to assume it.
    I disagree. It is their responsibility to ensure whatever it is they are trying to say comes across without being misunderstood, especially when asked to clarify, and I'm asking. You may speak for yourself to correct as you have said a "semantic mistake", but not for others.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I usually refuse to jump through hoops. It is quite obvious how the sentence would take shape.
    Yes, but with you committing it down on text by typing it out facilitates the point I'm trying to make on how one goes about "mocking" the correct subject, as you have stated in post #114 with "Islam is earning the mockery it receives. An individual Muslim may not be personally deserving of mockery, however.", and post #184 with "It doesn't mean I won't tell him Turkish culture is dumb. It does mean I won't tell him that he himself is dumb."

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    How about you propose a sentence, and I will tell you if it is right or wrong?
    If you like; pick a religious affiliation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. moronic muslims
    By pedronaut in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2012, 01:03 PM
  2. Muslims and Israel.
    By mmatt9876 in forum Politics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2012, 04:01 PM
  3. Muslims in China.
    By mmatt9876 in forum History
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 29th, 2012, 05:53 AM
  4. The Beginning of the Second Holocaust
    By clouds_of_glory in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 16th, 2010, 12:33 AM
  5. Islam view On coexistance (muslims & non-muslims)
    By Silex7 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 19th, 2007, 09:14 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •