On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: > Net Llama! wrote: >> 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. > > But it is accurate in that they all have the same aim and methods. They > understand and apply Sun-Tzu's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" very well, > if sometimes by accident.
But that's not even true. The assorted factions fight amongst themselves as much as they fight outsiders. Sunnis are killing Shi`a, at the same time as they are killing foreignors and 'non-believers'. Again, you're marking an argument of convenience. >> 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). > > You're changing the subject. We're talking about religions, not > countries. As you said, every religion has its radical minority. But how > many of those rule entire countries or have countries that give them > extensive support? How many of the radicals in *any* other world > religion have access to nukes? I believe Bush said something along the lines of "doing god's work". I fear Bush far more than what the al Qaeda nut jobs half a world away are doing. And my point is that the non-religious affiliated nations with nukes (North Korea, China) are far more likely to start a nuclear war than Iran. Since Bush's entire foreign policy seems to be based on the premise that we can beat up smaller countries until they bend to our will, we're all screwed now that the bigger countries are flexing their nuclear might. >>> 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. > > Bad analogy. (As much as I tend to agree.) President Bush, for better or > worse, *does* speak for the US and thereby you and me. (Mostly worse.) I didn't imply that he doesn't speak for the US. In fact that was my entire point, and why those outside of this country (or outside of any other country) base their views on whomever is making the most noise inside the country. > And your continued assertion that there is this great majority of peaceful > Muslims out there who are trying just as hard to promote peace as that > minority are promoting violence is just not factual. (That is, what you're > asserting? If not, please correct me). I never said that they were trying to promote peace. I said that they weren't promoting violence. > If you'd like to get the cold hard facts, here's some long but *very > worthwhile* reading material from someone probably a lot more aligned with > your own world view than mine (he doesn't think much of my beloved > Christianity, for instance). Science fiction author Dan Simmons. > > The first is a fictional short story. Start here: > http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm > > Here's the follow up: > http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_05.htm > > If you don't find those a thought-provoking read, I'll definitely owe you an > apology for wasting your time. I believe you will. I dunno, it was a good premise, but hardly that thought provoking. Similar writings have appeared elsewhere as well, so this wasn't unique. > Here's a spoiler of one point (out of a great many equally important > others)... A Pew poll was done of Muslims (all Muslims, not just radical > ones) in a dozen countries. In half of the countries more than 50% of > the Muslim population said suicide bombing and other forms of violence > against innocent civilians was justified. In only 1 country did support > fall below 38% (Turkey, not surprisingly). > > In short, the Muslims who support those who blow things up, target women > and children and generally use violence whenever it suits them is far > from being any kind of minority. They're mainstream. They're maintstream in some places. They're not maintstream throughout the world. >>>> 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. > > Yes it does. As their actions are specifically allowed, condoned, and > commanded by their own Prophet and his writings in the Quran as well as > the commentary hadith as well as essentially all of the current > worldwide leadership. I don't understand what you're talking about here. >>> - 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. > > It's not a broad sweeping generalization. The vast majority of those > wars/conflicts are either directly caused by or participated in by > Muslims. And sub-Saharan Africa supports my assertion, not yours. See > Ivory Coast for example. Sorry, I'm not seeing a connection between Islam extremists and the Ivory Coast. >>> - 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. > > The US govt is not a world religion. Neither is Iran, Iraq, or any other country. There is no Islam the country. > OT: And if you don't like FOX's slant, then just consume NBC, CBS, ABC, > NYT, CNN, or most of the major metro dailies to get plenty of *very* > liberal (aka Democratic party) slant. FOX can at least be said to have > provided variety where very little existed before. s/variety/right-wing bias/ Irregardless, it doesn't make it a good thing. >>> - 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. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Politics "Sudan has had a troubled > relationship with many of its neighbors and much of the international > community due to what is viewed as its aggressively Islamic stance." > > Sudan is not purely an Islamic regime to be sure, but using it as a > counterexample of non-Islamic regimes is a stretch. Christians are > routinely killed by Muslims in Sudan. There's fighting on both sides. Sudan is an unstable mess, but certainly can't be lumped in with Iran or Pakistan on the Islamic zealotry bandwagon. > But again, there is no terrorist group other than Islam that can claim > the number of state sponsors, the depth of military and financial > resources offered, and the global reach. All the others combined quickly > disappear into the noise. Their major handicap has been the lack of > technological sophistication available to them in the form of weaponry, > but this is rapidly changing. And we continue to fund it year by year > through our gas tanks. I was nearly ready to agree until your last sentence. Most of the extremist Islamic nations don't have very much oil. Iran certainly hasn't that much. >>> - 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). > > N. Korea and Saddam's Iraq are not world religions. And the threat is > not credible (that could change in NK's case.) Have the Hindu's called > for your death? How about the Buddhists? How about the Christians? Again, there is no "Islam the country". You can't this both ways. Either the religion = country, or it doesn't. As for the Christians, they've got a rather long history of using violence in the name of god. And when not using violence, alot of the right wingers have sickening bigotry towards those unlike them. Bigotry begets violence. Hindus & Muslims have been fighting on the Indian subcontinent for centuries, and its certainly not been a one-sided battle. >>> 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). > > They are a billion strong and their aim of a world ruled by Islam is not > a secret. Nor are their methods. And those aims (and the aims that > support it, like the death of Israel, the death of the US and so forth) > and methods are supported by a vast majority of the leadership of that > religion. And their goal appears to be advancing year by year. Witness > the recent elections in the Netherlands, for example. And the number of > 3rd world countries now largely ruled (if not always directly) by Islam. Islam does not have a global leadership. This isn't Catholocism that we're talking about. There are Sunnis and Shi`ites, and within those groups there are further sects & tribes. You can't just lump everything into a neat little package just to suite your argument. >>>>> 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. > > And you can probably find no shortage of seemingly sane people who > evidently want to live under Sharia. And, again, the word "ridiculous" > is not the word I would have chosen, it came from the context. The word > "Evil" would better fit Islam. Or perhaps just murderous and oppressive. Whatever. This entire debate seems rather pointless when you are cherry picking the facts that suite your argument, and ignoring others. > If Islam became an actual religion I'd gladly admit my error. But it > isn't and it won't. We in the west will eventually have to throw off our > PC taboos and admit that we're in a battle for survival against an > ambitious, powerful and utterly ruthless enemy (Islam). I'd argue that Bush has already started that war. Its working out so well. Three cheers for mindless destruction based on bigotry. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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
