Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures

[kasgarinn]

Killfile:

but what you're doing is blowing one of the world's problems way out of proportion - and in doing so pretending that there's nothing else going on that is worthy of concern.

No I'm not blowing one of worlds problem out of proportion, how on earth do you get that idea? we are discussing two issues, and ONLY two issues:

1) the rights of jyllands posten to publish the cartoons.

2) Whether violence is typical of muslims.

The fact that I have focused on and given examples of violence in muslim countries and of radical muslimist is because THE BLOODY DEBATE WE'RE HAVING IS ABOUT IT, and the only thing you're trying to do is to blur the issue by comparing the relative violence of muslims with other groups of people, and not only of people today, you grab data from ages ago to continue to in some way minimise or trivialise the violence of muslims TODAY.

The end consequence is that anyone who reads your posts uncritically will walk away with the general impression that Muslims are violent, barbaric people who are the cause of most of the world's problems.

That - in my book - makes you a bigot, a racist, and a hate monger.

Again, we are having a debate ABOUT muslims and the violent reactions they have shown, and in this debate I point towards real facts regarding real depictions of violence, which NONE of you want to admit are happening, and ALL of you want to trivialise.

And I am deeply offended that you actually go so far to call me names when I have been neutral in this matter and responded with factual data and clear examples when someone gives an opposing viewpoint.

And nothing any of you have said has changed my main thoughts on the two issues, that:

1) yes, jyllands posten was right to post the cartoons.

2) Yes there are facts which show extremist muslims have reacted violently, and muslim governments and in the end peaceful muslim people allow this to happen in muslim countries with their silence.


(edit) Wandering mystic:

In good faith we try to show you concrete examples, give you images of other perspectives, show you the complexity of layers beyond black and white that exist in the different societies and cultures in the world. You ignore them

I do not see this as a debate on whether something is black or white, I see this as a debate on whether there is blackness to be found within the muslim group, and that question does not ask whether there is whiteness in it, or whether some other group is blacker, it just asks "is there violence in the muslim group and is it typical?" which to me boils down to "is there blackness in the group of muslims within the white and grey and is it the same as it ever was?" (if I'm allowed to use the metaphore of black = bad in a group and white = good and grey = inbetween)

Let me quote the article itself you so dearly prize:

This is not in any way to absolve or defend the criminals who participated in these acts of destruction and chose to interpret their faith in a manner so inconsistent with the vast majority of their community.

And why should it change anything that the governments themselves wielded the violence intelligently and for their own purpose? It rather solidifies my stance on point 2).

I'm just amazed that you do not see this.

K.

[psi29a]

Here is a bit of history in case anyone is interested, he tried to cover his tracks but due to abuse of the edit function I had to remove the edit function from the Interstice and repost his own words so that he/she could take responsibility for their 'free speech'.

http://www.evil-genius.us/forums/viewto ... ght=#37505

*note: this link will lead you to the Interstice, known land of very bad things, tread softly.

[panasonic]

wow, sure is a nice broad view of muslims in that link /sarcasm

[vtwahoo]

And nothing any of you have said has changed my main thoughts on the two issues, that:

1) yes, jyllands posten was right to post the cartoons.

2) Yes there are facts which show extremist muslims have reacted violently, and muslim governments and in the end peaceful muslim people allow this to happen in muslim countries with their silence.

With respect to #1: there is a difference between "did they have the right to post the cartoons" and "was it right to post the cartoons."

I would ask that you clarify which is your position.

Because only a court of law has the right to determine if it was legal to post the cartoons (although the court of public opinion seems to have taken the position that it was---at the very least---in bad taste).

But as to "was it right to post the cartoons"---that's a whole different matter.

If you are arguing that it was right, and not just legal, are you also arguing that it was an accurate portrayal of Islam?

I think you are and I think that's why we're up in arms. I think it's why we're desperately trying to surround you with historical perspective and context because those facts and ideas are not irrelevant to the greater question: is Islam a religion that indoctrinates the use of terror?

To the first half of #2 I say "duh." Anyone watching the news knows that some extremist Muslims reacted violently to these cartoons.

To the second half I refer you back to Killfile's post on nature of Islamic protest and the context behind a lack thereof.

[Killfile]

The fact that I have focused on and given examples of violence in [M]uslim countries and of radical [Islamists] is because THE BLOODY DEBATE WE'RE HAVING IS ABOUT IT, and the only thing you're trying to do is to blur the issue by comparing the relative violence of [M]uslims with other groups of people, and not only of people today, you grab data from ages ago to continue to in some way [minimize] or [trivialize] the violence of [M]uslims TODAY.

Ok - I have a damn degree in history from one of the top ranked Universities in the United States. I bring to this discussion an expertise both in historic analysis and in 20th Century US and Soviet foreign policies, which are inextricably intertwined with the history of terrorism and mid-east conflict. I don't like to do the credentialed throw-down, but since you seem incapable of grasping the significance of my historic inferences perhaps this knowledge will allow you to just take my word for it.

The word you're looking for is "contextualize." Despite what you may believe, nothing happens in a historical vacuum. When we look at examples of violence or terrorism in Radical Islam, it is important that we see those examples in comparison to other acts of violence and war and in the historic context in which they occurred.

To separate these acts of violence from their historic context removes from the reader the ability to see these actions as part of the sweep of human history - and thus the ability to judge for himself the relative importance and character of those actions.

Thus, I bring up the actions of other governments and organizations in times of their own crisis to lend context and comparison to the incidents you point to.

Taken on its own, the idea that Muslim governments have supported attacks on civilian populations, or executed individuals for specific internal crimes sounds uncommonly barbaric; but when viewed in the historical context of wars between great and minor powers and seen against the backdrop of executions around the world, these actions shrink in comparison. They are the actions of a self interested and self motivated governmental unit; and while they stand in opposition to the West and the United States in many regards, there is no significant difference in behavior that will be historically distinguishable in 200 years.

It is uncommonly important that we see and recognize this reality. The formation of the ideas of "us" and "them" is the means by which governments have historically motivated their populations to commit unspeakable crimes. The genocide in Rwanda, the violence of the Crusades, and yes - the 9/11 attacks, are all examples of human suffering and death brought about by the artificial creation of an "us" v "them" mentality. If we are lead to see Islam as violent (and uniformly so) and Judeo-Christians as non-violent or at least non-terrorist, we are aiding in the formation of another "us" v "them" dichotomy.

That dichotomy has motivated men to do supremely evil things at the behest of the cynical manipulators who brought it upon them; and that is why I'm being such a pain in the ass about all this.

[Quest]

i found this rather funny.
a little sidetrack:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 28/1/.html

Indonesia deplores departure of Danish diplomats
"We see the decision as being a bit too hasty," Wirayuda told journalists here, adding that local authorities had already guaranteed the security of Danish staff, the embassy and Danish assets in the country.

it is like the indonesians are saying:
"Leaving the party so soon? We'd rather have you shipped out in coffins instead."

[kasgarinn]

vtwahoo:

With respect to #1: there is a difference between "did they have the right to post the cartoons" and "was it right to post the cartoons."

I would ask that you clarify which is your position.

I'd be glad to. My position is that they had full rights to come out with the article and the containing cartoons, as is the law in denmark about freedom of speech, and on a personal note I believe the debate and criticism of violent reactions of islamists did have a right to be publicised to open up an awareness regarding it, especially in the dormant muslims who truly are the only ones who can do anything about it, but that's just my personal opinion.

If you are arguing that it was right, and not just legal, are you also arguing that it was an accurate portrayal of Islam?

I'm mostly trying to hammer in the importance of the legality of it, and how the legal issue should harmonise in the importance of free speech, I am right in deducting that you fully support that issue?

Whether it is an accurate portrayal of islam, or to phrase it in another way, is it accurate that these events depict Islam in a bad light? I would have to say yes, in my opinion islamists suffer for what is seen as a violent and overblown reaction of islamists to a simple matter of freedom of speech and the freedom of non-islamists to depict muhammed without limitations of muslim religion.

I think you are and I think that's why we're up in arms. I think it's why we're desperately trying to surround you with historical perspective and context because those facts and ideas are not irrelevant to the greater question: is Islam a religion that indoctrinates the use of terror?

Ahh, there you have hit the nail on the head. I have never replied in this thread with the intention to say that Islam is a religion that indoctrinates the use of terror. I know that Islam fundamentally is a peaceful religion and alot of the koran speaks of living honourably and in peace.

What I have intended to write is that Muslim society seems to allow the abuse of violence again and again as a reaction to non-islamists who break either islam religious law, or islam tradition (even though they inherently did not set out to offend islamists per se... that would be just asking for it), and the lack of any real action against the violence (do note that all of the peaceful protests were still protesting against publishing the cartoons, and not a protest of the violence) means that muslims themselves seem to, if not encourage it, at least acquiesce to it.

killfile:

To separate these acts of violence from their historic context removes from the reader the ability to see these actions as part of the sweep of human history

No, I have to disagree on that philosophy, to separate these acts of violence from a relative viewpoint of other groups from any other time than current time, and throwing out any relative comparison with other groups means we do not trivialise what is happening today, and we keep the debate on the issue instead of everyone in the end agreeing that stalin was worse and so muslims are all right by comparison and thus muslims shouldn't do anything about this issue.

let me pose this as a somewhat simplified rhetoric: Does a bigger evil against a lesser evil make an angel out of a devil?

and thus the ability to judge for himself the relative importance and character of those actions.

But you must then see the dangers of going too far in the other direction, that to dig up everything else everyone else has done is to drown out the concern and debate on the muslim issue, and would then leave the reader with the sense that this is a non-issue in relative context, which to my mind it isn't.

Thus, I bring up the actions of other governments and organizations in times of their own crisis to lend context and comparison to the incidents you point to.

which again, I see as somehow trying to make it all right that the violence is happening.

That dichotomy has motivated men to do supremely evil things at the behest of the cynical manipulators who brought it upon them; and that is why I'm being such a pain in the ass about all this.

On the note about perception of evil, I recommend you check out "power of nightmares" on google video, a great 3 part series, wonderful stuff.. not really about this debate, but you'd like it for its context and relativity to events in general.

Part 1:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nightmares

Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nightmares

Part 3: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nightmares

And if you check out the links, you will understand that I am not trying to paint a picture of muslims = evil, I'm trying to explain how muslims should accept that this violence has happened, that it has happened in their name, and that only they can change the worldview that violence is allowed against innocent people for the sake of religion.

So I'm not contending that it's us V them, or that western society has to do something about muslims, I'm contending that there is a real truth to the criticisms regarding muslims and that it is the responsibility of decent muslims to accept and deal with the criticism regarding their violent reactions to criticism against their faith from the inside their own ranks of decent people, or their public image as a group will continue to be smeared by the radicalists.

I guess it's a vain attempt of mine to make the world a better place... even if it's just on a silly forum.

K.

P.S. man.. another great quote I've come up with.. I'm poppin' em out like crazy

[Quest]

i saw BBC's "The Power of Nightmares" some time ago too.
it was a great documentary.
=)

if there is to be a good guy... a sheriff in the global town, then there has to be a mirror counterpart... the anti-hero that has to be fabricated if one does not exist.

[Femto]

Kasgarinn is a retard and arguing with him is a waste of time.

Just a heads up.

[Killfile]

Does a bigger evil against a lesser evil make an angel out of a devil?

No - it makes a human being and a human governance out of an artificial moral absolute.

To judge a culture or a group of people as "good" or "evil" removes from them the fundamental qualities of humanity. That stripping of human characteristics is one of the first steps toward the creation of that us v them mentality I talked about.

I note, by the way, that you don't disagree with my statements that the creation of that us v them mentality is the precursor to most of the great inhumanities of history. I also note that you take no issue with the idea that this us v them mentality is entirely artificial.

Given these two uncontested points - why then would you seek to eliminate the shades of gray that demonstrate that, while human beings sometimes do evil things, mankind does not fall into morally absolute categories?

I think that you are choosing an interpretation that glosses over historical context and cultural subtlety because it is simply easier. You're not alone in this fallacy - the modern television news system encourages that lack of subtlety by reducing news to 30 second snippets. This interpretation of events, which you have quite clearly embraced, makes the summary judgment of "good" v "evil" very easy - and as a consequence, makes the dehumanization and even the extermination of these perceived "evil" elements all too tempting.

[kasgarinn]

Killfile:

No - it makes a human being and a human governance out of an artificial moral absolute.

Hmm.. not as catchy as what I said.. could even be construed as meaningless drivel.. you need to work on that

I don't contend your 2 points mainly because it's not what I've been debating about, and also because I agree with them.

why then would you seek to eliminate the shades of gray that demonstrate that, while human beings sometimes do evil things, mankind does not fall into morally absolute categories?

That's somewhat a misunderstanding on your half. From my point of view I merely seek the admition of what is happening, and that the black shades of radicals aren't trivialised as grey when they are really black (which is what you're mainly doing by relative comparison), and I also recognise that the blacks are smudging the other shades a darker grey with their association and the lighter shades of grey lack of reaction to the blacks smudging.

So to my mind I'm trying to point out the real shades compared only within the defined group of muslims, nothing more, nothing less, and encourage muslims to take responsibility and wash it off.

Of course this is a pretty crude metaphor, but that's the tool you've given me.

I think that you are choosing an interpretation that glosses over historical context and cultural subtlety because it is simply easier.

Well, you think wrong if you really think that's the case. I don't try to interpret what has happened, because the violence plainly happened, and irregardless of any significance any person puts on the matter, any personal opinion on significance should not affect the debate.

In any debate such as this, there are 4 fundamental questions:
1)Do We know what happened, (yes we do)
2)Do we know why it happened, (yes we do)
3)Do we know who it affected, (both the danish and the muslims)
4)Do we know who are responsible (if you think it's the danish, then you haven't been following the debate)

Only then can we move on to 5) what solutions are available to those responsible to avoid this happening again, and here we can look at possible historical similarities and what solved their disputes. The significance of events and trying to impose ones own appreciation of significance on others only blurs the issue and leads to flame wars.

Just to clarify my point in the parenthesis, if the violence truly was the responsibility of the danes, then there should be a solution available to them which means the basic rights of freedom of speech remain intact. there are no such solutions for the danes except limiting their societies basic human rights, and thus muslims must hold the responsibility for the violence, as they have solutions available which would both allow the basic human right of freedom of speech as well as eradicating any risk of violence. But it would mean that muslims would first need to accept their responsibility for the violence instead of just allowing it to happen.

You're not alone in this fallacy - the modern television news system encourages that lack of subtlety by reducing news to 30 second snippets.

Perhaps you're used to that in America, I get my news from the net, and from BBC World, a much more credible news network than any other in america.

K.

[Killfile]

In that case, I'm afraid you've lost me.

I don't think that -=anyone=- has contested the assertions that

1 - Muslim extremists have done some pretty horrible things
2 - The actions of those extremists incorrectly and unfairly tinge the reputations of otherwise perfectly fine and upstanding individuals who happen to also be Muslims
3 - The Danes have the legal right to publish whatever tasteless cartoons they want
4 - The aforementioned extremists don't have the right to burn things down in response to cartoons

That said - the much softer attitude you're taking now, which amounts to "it sure would be nice if moderate Muslims spoke out about all this," is very different from the following - which you have said elsewhere in this thread.

[M]uslims all over the world have done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain

Was it or was it not your intent with this, and other statements made throughout this and other threads to characterize all Muslims as either violent or sympathetic to violence?

[Astro]

"Science" is a desperate attempt to impose a consensual reality upon a subjective world using artificially constructed standards. That's why we talk about "science" in terms of theories rather than realities.

First, a shoutout to any desperate sciences in the house: Thanks fo the ipod video yo! Dat shit iz tizight.

Some of us enjoyed Philosophy 1001 so much that we decided to dedicate our lives to ideas. It's unkind to disparage our life work just because you disagree with it.

Dedicate your life to Philosophy by all means, but please not Philosophy 1001! My brain can only take so much awe at how deep your thoughts are. All it would take is one more "Like, what if the world was actually a dream, or like an orange" and my neurons will collapse into a violent singularity that will crush this little place we call earth.

"If our goal is to have the best chance to avoid Iraqi civil war, then the troops should remain until the country is stable."

If our goal was to have the best chance to avoid Iraqi civil war, then we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

OH SNAP. Either our plans have changed in response to changing circumstances, or we're completely crazy and eat rocks because we know no better! (Note: Some critical thinking may be required to figure out which explanation makes the most sense. But luckily, since truth is just so darned subjective, you can pick your very own! I'm naming my truth Dr. Mittens!)

Moving goalpost of the Day:
I specifically implied that my "middle ground" was something general like ending tyranny, i.e. a common goal. You stated that such a "middle ground" (or goal) was pointless. Then when I point out what happens without a common goal (that discourse is meaningless and breaks down), you switch from saying no "middle ground" to saying no need for common starting points. So now your stance is that an argument must consist of two people of...different sides? Wow, I hope you teach my kids someday.

Scalia and Ginsberg share a middle ground in desiring the best for their nation and their nation's children. Thus from this shared view they can have a discussion that is meaningful and productive, despite their differences. I don't think we share that, at least not in any recognizable way, so I agree that getting to carnally know one another is not a desirable proposition in the least. I hold the US to a very high standard, but I do not believe its evil outweighs the good. I do not believe it must lose at every endeavor until it is replaced with some kinder gentler superpower that we always assume is just around the corner.

I also believe that the word "evil" has a meaning and a purpose, despite its abuses. The word evil is irrational and emotional, but irrational and emotional action is necessary for survival. We hate the evil wolves that kill our children, despite the fact that wolves know no better. But if we dick up a word like evil, then we let things like Darfur happen. Without a word like evil, we can rationalize ourselves into doing nothing.

"This is not good, but we need to wait for the neighboring region to stabilize before we act..."

Or

"This is truly evil, we must act now."

And the rest of your post was just silly.

And your equivalence of all truth is exactly what it was a parody of. Your definition of truth reduced all discussions to the level of children trying to impress their parents at a pool. Thus, I hold myself blameless for the sillity that ensued.

[kasgarinn]

Killfile:

Good to see we agree on the main points.

Was it or was it not your intent with this, and other statements made throughout this and other threads to characterize all Muslims as either violent or sympathetic to violence?

well yes and no, it was to point out that muslims have indeed done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain, and it sure would be nice if moderate muslims spoke out about all this instead of acquiesced to the situation (showing their silent support so to speak), because they haven't yet.

Well, muslims in denmark have taken the first step in their country.. now to see whether other muslims in other countries will follow.

So good to see that we're on the same page.. you just sugarcoat the muslims situation alot more than I do (I'm calling a spade, a spade, you call it your li'le fluffy wuffy).

K.

[Killfile]

Everything you posted above this first quote was, to put it mildly, irrelevant and unproductive. I'd delete it for you and save everyone the headache of having to read it, but I'll leave that to you.

OH SNAP. Either our plans have changed in response to changing circumstances, or...

So... our original goal was to maximize the possibility of Iraqi civil war? As I recall, even when we had yet to send in troops there was discussion of the dangers of touching off a civil war.

We'll skip your rant about naming your truth. You really should stop trying to mock philosophy. Seen against the likes of Kant, Plato, Descartes, and Hegel you're only succeeding in embarrassing yourself.

I specifically implied that my "middle ground" was something general like ending tyranny, i.e. a common goal. You stated that such a "middle ground" (or goal) was pointless. Then when I point out what happens without a common goal (that discourse is meaningless and breaks down), you switch from saying no "middle ground" to saying no need for common starting points. So now your stance is that an argument must consist of two people of...different sides?

Or perhaps you're simply changing the definition of Middle Ground to suit your own argument. Of course arguments must have people on opposite sides. Of course they must have some form of common starting points, common ground, or some other means of judging each others arguments - otherwise your discourse devolves into a shouting match.

But instead of recognizing the points, both valid and well made, that Vtwahoo has advanced, you're taking phrases out of context and turning words on their heads to mock rather than engage your opponent.

But if we dick up a word like evil, then we let things like Darfur happen. Without a word like evil, we can rationalize ourselves into doing nothing.

Incidentally, we have this word -- it's pronounced "Ee-vill" and we let this Genocide thing happen in Darfur. Maybe you heard about it.

I think pining Darfur on moral relativism is a bit of a snap judgment. Darfur happened because we don't give a crap about Africa. With no natural resources and no strategic importance, it is very hard to send troops off to die in a corner of the world that most of your population can't find on a map.

No - our failure in Darfur wasn't that we couldn't recognize "evil," but rather that we didn't care.

Your definition of truth reduced all discussions to the level of children trying to impress their parents at a pool.

While I'm generally one to view discussions of the nature of truth as irrelevant and unnecessary - a form of intellectual masturbation if you will - your reaction to Vtwahoo's post has evoked images of an ADD 8 year old far more powerfully than anything she wrote.

You've successfully taken your point (such as it was) -=so=- far past the bounds of what was appropriate and necessary as to render everything you've written both childish and inconsequential in this discussion. In the end, the only impression you've left me with is that of a coddled child sitting at the Grown-Ups table trying too hard to fit in and be an adult.

I'd say that it's kind of cute that you don't know any better and don't understand how adults discuss issues, but the fact is I know you do. As such, your behavior is just sad; and I'm sad for you.

[Killfile]

Ok - Psi told me that this doesn't count as double posting. I'm still 90% convinced that he's wrong, but I'd be a fool not to take advantage of it.

Good to see we agree on the main points.... well yes and no, it was to point out that Muslims have indeed done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain, and it sure would be nice if moderate Muslims spoke out about all this instead of acquiesced to the situation (showing their silent support so to speak), because they haven't yet.

See - this is what I'm taking about. I don't think it's that you're really a bigoted person; at least your recent posts don't read that way. I think you really just aren't a good enough writer to deal with the subtleties involved here (no offense).

See - there's a really big difference between these two sentences.

1.) "Muslims have indeed done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain."
2.) "Extremists Muslims have indeed done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain."

The first paints all Muslims as violent people that do bad things - the other acknowledges that some Muslims do bad things and some don't.

I'm not sugar coating things - I'm against violence in general, violence against civilians doubly so. I regard the actions of Radical Islamists to be abhorrent and unconscionable. Even so, please please please be careful when describing the actions of that small minority who embrace violence - and be careful not to paint the overwhelmingly peaceful (if silent) majority of Islam with the same brush.

Also - please read my post earlier in this thread on the reasons for that silence, or just read my blog entry on the same. (Be patient, my hosting solution is crap)

[vtwahoo]

I hold the US to a very high standard, but I do not believe its evil outweighs the good. I do not believe it must lose at every endeavor until it is replaced with some kinder gentler superpower that we always assume is just around the corner.

Am I supposed to disagree with you here?

I also believe that the word "evil" has a meaning and a purpose, despite its abuses. The word evil is irrational and emotional, but irrational and emotional action is necessary for survival.

Really? I've always been led to believe that rational objectivity is necessary for survival.

Would you please elaborate on this revolutionary new concept? Better yet, write an artice on the survival necessities of irrational and emotional actions and submit it for publication.

We hate the evil wolves that kill our children, despite the fact that wolves know no better. But if we dick up a word like evil, then we let things like Darfur happen. Without a word like evil, we can rationalize ourselves into doing nothing.

We let Darfur happen because we didn't care enough to stop it. We let Rwanda happen becuase we didn't care enough to stop it. We let the Holocaust happen becuase we didn't care enough to stop it. But "evil" is what allows us to rationalize non-intervention. We rationalize crimes against humanity by saying that "evil people do evil things and there's nothing we can do to stop it." And so we don't even try. The concept of "evil" adds nothing to the analytical discourse.

[Astro]

With even Killfile intentionally warping my words, I guess I can call it a successful day.

So... our original goal was to maximize the possibility of Iraqi civil war?

Either that, or the more obvious: First oust Saddam, then rebuild Iraq, then try to avoid civil war. Why would a changing plan mean that previously we asked for the opposite?

You really should stop trying to mock philosophy.

Was I mocking philosophy when I said "Dedicate your life to philosophy by all means, just not philosophy 1001"? Or, more obviously, was I mocking the use of lightweight philosophy that makes you sound like a college freshman? Let's choose the one that makes less sense, but makes me sound worse. Thanks. Next ask me if I have a "final solution" up my sleeve.

And are we not allowed a little fun Killfile? I was very gracious towards vtwahoo's points in the beginning, but when the same attitude was not returned I made a decision. If I'm talking to someone who takes themselves too seriously, why not point out the silly things they believe in? When they call science a desperate attempt at figuring out the natural world, why not point out that science made me an ipod? I don't find that irrelevant, and anyways the discussion between me and this forum stopped being productive when I raised my complaint that vtwahoo was not arguing in good faith.

If I had implied through a question that someone else supported genocide and they took offense, I would apologize AND explain what I really meant. That proves you value the debate and intend to do more than just preaching. But I'm done with returning the disrespect, so I'm going to move on. Take it away guys

[Killfile]

With even Killfile intentionally warping my words, I guess I can call it a successful day.

To paraphrase the only thinker you seem to put any stock in:

And are we not allowed a little fun Astro? I was very gracious towards your points in the beginning, but when the same attitude was not returned I made a decision. If I'm talking to someone who takes themselves too seriously, why not point out the silly things they believe in? When they justify our Iraqi ocupation with an attempt to avoid civil war, why not point out that occupation itself brought about the possibility of civl war? I don't find that irrelevant, and anyways the discussion between you and this forum stopped being productive when you stoped contributing and started mocking people.

[kasgarinn]

See - this is what I'm taking about. I don't think it's that you're really a bigoted person; at least your recent posts don't read that way. I think you really just aren't a good enough writer to deal with the subtleties involved here (no offense).

Oh, offense taken.

See - there's a really big difference between these two sentences.

1.) "Muslims have indeed done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain."
2.) "Extremists Muslims have indeed done horrendous crimes with little or no retribution for the crimes and violence they contain."

The first paints all Muslims as violent people that do bad things - the other acknowledges that some Muslims do bad things and some don't.

And I feel that there is a somewhat sharing of the burden of violence upon normal muslims in muslim countries who allow the radicals to cause and incite violence, thus the phrase should reflect that as well, and your latter one doesn't quite fulfill it, and the former one, although in more of a danger to be construed as too harsh by hippies and left-wing liberalists, conveys that burden effectively.

Even so, please please please be careful when describing the actions of that small minority who embrace violence - and be careful not to paint the overwhelmingly peaceful (if silent) majority of Islam with the same brush.

When they will protest against the violence which has been done in their name, or seek to actively oppose radical islam instead of allowing it to happen, then I'll happily show concern and care for them, as they then will do for non-muslims. But while non-muslims are killed for religious laws they are not a part of, in societies which should uphold freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion and every mans right to live in peace, I must hold the view that sugar-coating the matter or putting verbally soft barriers between muslim radicals and average muslims when there are none in reality will not be effective in putting the correct light on the matter.

Also - please read my post earlier in this thread on the reasons for that silence, or just read my blog entry on the same. (Be patient, my hosting solution is crap)

(marked for comment tomorrow, going to bed)

K.

[panasonic]

Either that, or the more obvious: First oust Saddam, then rebuild Iraq, then try to avoid civil war. Why would a changing plan mean that previously we asked for the opposite?

how was that obvious?

[vtwahoo]

Either that, or the more obvious: First oust Saddam, then rebuild Iraq, then try to avoid civil war. Why would a changing plan mean that previously we asked for the opposite?

how was that obvious?

I thought this whole thing was about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's involvement in the September 11th terrorist attacks.

[Killfile]

And I feel that there is a somewhat sharing of the burden of violence upon normal [M]uslims in [M]uslim countries who allow the radicals to cause and incite violence, thus the phrase should reflect that as well

So - any act of violence we fail to protest in a sufficiently public manner we are complicit in?

Did you protest the Oklahoma city bombing?
Did you protest the Columbine shootings?
Did you protest torture at Abu Ghraib?

These were all actions taken by Americans - actions which, I should hope, you disagreed with. Now, I have no idea what you look like - so it's not as if I would have recognized you on the news if you had been out there protesting the actions taken by crazy wacko people who ascribe to the same religion as you and are of the same skin color* -- but I'd wager that you probably weren't out there protesting... not a lot of people were.

Even if you were -- were your parents? Your friends? Relatives? How do you feel being the son or brother, cousin or friend of a mass murder, a group of terrorists, and a gang of torturers?

This is the standard you're asking me to hold the world to. It's not something I'm terribly comfortable with - but it is what I understand your point to mean.

If you do not protest something you are complicit in it -- you share part of the guilt.

Theodore Adorno would agree with you (wiping out some of that 6000 level philosophy I've taken... way beyond Astro's level I'm sure), but I'm not sure that his willingness to blame all Germans for the Holocaust was fairly placed.

* This is a guess - statistically speaking you're likely to be Caucasian... but I could be wrong.

[Laik]

Seriously man, come on. What good do you expect some talk from fellow Muslims to do when military intervention hasn't done much to already deter the radicals?

With that way of thinking, I would be in a wrong just because a fellow American I don't even know got up and killed someone. I would be wrong if I didn't get up and protest something an overwhelming amount of people already know is wrong? It is easy to tell something is wrong with thinking like that.

In my opinion, you should care about people unless you have a valid reason not to. It's sad to believe that you're indifferent to a group of people that large just because you want to see more footage of them protesting or talking.

What exactly do you want the rest of Islam to do? Take up arms against people of their own faith? The radicals are terrorists, they have killed people. They aren't going to stop just because some people ridicule them via the media, I mean getting shot back at isn't even making them try to rethink the way they attempt to get their point across.

So if not that, then you want to see some upright Muslims bad mouth them? It's already obvious that what is going on is wrong so it's not hard to believe the majority doesn't need to voice that they don't remotely like what is happening.

Exactly what do you want to see happen?

[kasgarinn]

killfile:

So - any act of violence we fail to protest in a sufficiently public manner we are complicit in?

Complicit is perhaps too harsh of a word, I think there is a need for a group to accept what has happened and to condemn it in public both to show the members of that group and the world that this isn't a behaviour which is accepted. For instance in the columbine incident, it should really have been the students who took it upon themselves to change things, not the teachers or parents to willfully force limitations upon them.

The muslims have not accepted public responsibility of their peers actions, just continue to attack the danish people, trying to inhibit them to their own ideals and religious laws through either violent or peaceful objections.

If you do not protest something <snip>-- you share part of the guilt.

Exactly, why do you think that I wouldn't feel a part of the burden when dealing with negativities within my own group? I'm not voicing my opinion to the world to do anything that I don't do myself.

K.