On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: > Net Llama! wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: >>>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: >>> I could go on, of course. That's certainly not to say that every >>> adherent to or tenet of Islam is "ridiculous", but those particular >>> signals seem buried in the noise. >> >> Or you're pulling out the signals that fit your argument. Making the >> radical minority of any group into representitives for the entire group >> doesn't lend itself to a strong argument or example. > > Your assertion that such are a "radical minority" is an oft-repeated > mantra and entirely unproven. This radical minority rules several > countries and has strong influence on several others. One of those > "radical minority" countries will likely have deliverable nuclear > weapons in the next few years.
As I'm sure you are well aware, there are many different factions of Islam radicalism, all with differeing beliefs & goals. Lumping them all together might be convenient, but its not accurate. As for countries with nuclear weapons, there are quite a few non-radical-Islamic nations with them as well (DPRK comes to mind, not to mention the US, India & Israel). > For there to be a "radical minority" implies there also exists a > "non-radical majority". I submit there is little evidence of their > existence, or, if they do exist that they have somehow been rendered > impotent or irrelevant in the face of that radical minority. Whatever > the case, it appears they have few reservations about allowing the > radical minority to act as "representatives for the entire group". He who screams the loudest tends to get noticed. The non-radicals are the ordinary folk that no one notices. And in the case of Islamists, they live all over the world, including the US. I don't like the way my govt is representing me, yet to those outside this country (and especially outside of N. America), all they see & hear is what the Bush administration says & does. I can scream from the top of a tall building how much I detest what the US govt is currently doing, but unless I do something truly shocking (blowing myself up, blowing up others, buildings, etc), no one outside this country is going to hear about it. Same applies to those who are not radical extremists in any other country/religion/group. > >> There are extremist >> nutjob factions in nearly every religion, yet we're not claiming that all >> the rest are 'pseudo-religions'. > > The existence of extremist nutjob factions in other groups proves > nothing. Linux has them, so what? > > More questions: > - Do these nutjob groups in other world religions commit acts of > large-scale violence around the globe? No, but that certainly doesn't make the religion as a whole ridiculous. Just because the nutjobs in one religion happen to be far more extreme in their actions than the nutjobs in other religions doesn't make the religion at fault. > - Do they govern a number of countries? N. Korea. Nuff said. > - Do they have nuclear weapons? Again, North korea. > - Are they the cause of or directly involved in almost every war going > on around the globe at this moment? Broad, sweeping generalizations come to mind here. Ignoring the fact that we haven't even defined 'war', there are hundreds, if not thousands of military conflicts occuring across this planet right now. I'd submit that a very small number involve Islam or Islamic states. See much of sub-Saharan Africa for alot of fine examples. > - Do they have (indirect) censorship capability over the media in > progressive western countries? The US govt does that already. See FOX News and their concept of 'fair & balanced' which skews heavily in favor of the Republican party. > - Do they have state support for their extremist nutjob plans? Sudan & North Korea are fine examples of non-Islamic regimes where there is state supported terrorism. There are others. > - Have they called for the death of my children and yours (and would the > threat be credible if they did)? North Korea. Technically Saddam Hussein voiced similar threats, and his regime was rather secular (he certainly didn't like Al Queda). > I call them a 'pseudo-religion' because their aims are almost entirely > political and military in nature. The extremists are, sure. But again, that doesn't mean that they speak for all followers of Islam across the globe (or even their own citizens, in the rather small number of cases where they are running a nation). >>> BTW, I refer to it as a pseudo-religion because it is actually more a >>> system of government that (mis) uses religion as a source of legitimacy >>> and power. As such it deserves to be condemned along with all the other >>> oppressive types of government that have been tried (monarchy, >>> communism, nazism, socialism, theocracy, democracy, etc.). >> >> Sure, but that really has little to do with your original statement. > > On the contrary. Has everything to do with it. I consider it ridiculous > that any thinking person would want to live under communism. Similarly > for all the others (if perhaps in varying degrees). When I did I say that I thought someone wanted to live under communism? And for what its worth, there are alot of (aging) "thinking" people in many of the former Soviet republics who wish that communism would come back. These aging people are now living in poverity without their substantial state funded pensions. >> Yea, but that would ruin all the fun. Its far more amusing to watch >> people get all bent out of shape over satire, especially when they can't >> identify it as such. > > Yes. But the reason we didn't identify it as such is perhaps because it > actually looks so similar to serious stuff written by people all over > the political landscape. Whether we could identify it as satire is one > thing, that we seemingly had no reason to doubt its authenticity is > cause for deeper pondering. I dunno, the domain name was reason enough for me to doubt its authenticity. Perhaps I'm just used to seeing real right wing whacknuts in this country make asses of themselves (with loyal followers in tow), that I can easily separate them from the piece of satire that started thread. *shrug* -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
