| But while Clinton's saber-rattling may have unnerved lesser Iranian officials such as Amb. Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi, who lodged a formal complaint to the United Nations, Ahmadinejad appeared unmoved by Clinton's morning-chat bravado. "Presidency of a woman in a country that boasts its gunmanship is unlikely," he quipped. Meanwhile, Iran is terrified of Barbie, the tiny polyvinyl sex bomb who loves shopping, pizza, and brushing her hair, but has few satellite-guided missiles at her disposal. According to Iran's Prosecutor General, Ghorban Ali Dori Najfabadi, a loosely organized coalition, led by the world's most impeccably accessorized mercenary but also including additional combatants like Harry Potter and Spider-man, is doing "irreparable damage" to Iranian children. "The irregular importation of such toys, which unfortunately arrive through unofficial sources and smuggling, is destructive culturally and a social danger," Najafabadi cautioned (doubtless worried about the effect on sales of Iran's "official doll," Sara). |
I think we do have many opportunities to use culture to defeat such regimes, but is Barbie the best we've to offer?
And can we allow enrichment of uranium by a regime that does likely need to bomb someone, so as to bolster their own support at home?
I welcome your declaration of cultural war with Ahmindamoodforjihad, but do not believe that we can decalre the options of tactical bombings off limits.
Interesting that the Pink Hankies at Reason think subverting the political order of foreign countries through overwhelming their cultures is a viable tactic, but when it comes to their own country, they seem to believe our culture, and resultant political order, can take all comers without consequence. Curious, eh?
Interesting that the Pink Hankies at Reason think subverting the political order of foreign countries through overwhelming their cultures is a viable tactic, but when it comes to their own country, they seem to believe our culture, and resultant political order, can take all comers without consequence. Curious, eh?
Interesting that the Pink Hankies at Reason think subverting the political order of foreign countries through overwhelming their cultures is a viable tactic, but when it comes to their own country, they seem to believe our culture, and resultant political order, can take all comers without consequence. Curious, eh?
Not curious at all. A free (mostly) and flexible society (like ours) that gains from the input of others is going to have much different reaction to cultural influences than a prohibitive (mostly) and rigid society (like Iran's) that is brittle and fears external influences.
That the folks at Reason know the difference and you do not, no, I guess that isn't really curious either.
Pink Hankies? Heh. That's almost clever.[/color]
Ah! I see... Like France!
I think what you mean is the yanked-out-of-the-ass difference that shows no sign of actually manifesting itself in actual fact...
Funny thing - I post news items, you post opinion pieces from an allegedly libertarian rag. And for some reason, the opinion pieces don't seem to be lining up too well with what actually occurs when those great ideas they promote are actually put into effect....
Ah! I see... Like France!
Like France? France has a host of issues that step from attempts to maintain a society that is in many respects rigid.
Also, while I know a lot of people have wanted to blame the Muslims for the riots, as I have looked into the matter, there are also a lot of non-Muslim youth apparently involved. So no, my too clever friend, not like France.[/color]
So the riots are Society's fault? So much for individual responsibility! That's a rather quaint perspective from a libertarian!
You wouldn't care to post some support for that assertion, would you?
| The violence has drawn comparisons with riots that raged through suburbs nationwide in 2005, and has shown that anger still smolders in poor housing projects where many Arabs, blacks and other minorities live largely isolated from the rest of society. [...] There have long been tensions between France's largely white police force and ethnic minorities in poor neighborhoods. Despite decades of problems and heavy state investments to improve housing and create jobs, the depressed projects that ring Paris are a world apart from the tourist attractions of the French capital. Police speak of no-go zones where they and firefighters fear to patrol. |
| In this week's events, young men, often hooded, roamed the suburbs at night and firebombed cars, dumpsters and a library. They did not shout Muslim demands, spray Muslim graffiti or wear the trademark beards and baggy pants of a salafi. They did not gather at mosques or shout "Allah-o-akbar!" They avoided journalists, presumably seeing them as part of "the system" that they oppose, and made no demands related to Islam. When those detained were questioned by police, they were not asked about their religion or ethnic identity -- that's not allowed in France. So my first question is -- how are we supposed to write as fact that they are Muslims? Where are the facts to justify phrases like "Muslim riots" or "French intifada?" Some might say that we know these riots happen in "Muslim neighbourhoods." But when journalists go visit them, they find neighbourhoods that are multiracial, multicultural, multilingual and multifaith. Judging by the faces seen on the streets, there are Arabs (mostly from North Africa), blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, people from the Indian Subcontinent (often Sri Lankans) and whites -- yes, poor French whites. There are Muslims who pray in mosques and Christians who attend various churches, including a growing number of African evangelicals. Here and there in Paris or its suburbs, you even find poor Jews who moved to France from North Africa -- some even still speak Arabic and live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours. And don't forget there are a lot of agnostics and atheists out there -- this is France, after all, where the average rate of regular attendance in churches, synagogues and mosques is about 10 percent. |
So the riots are Society's fault? So much for individual responsibility! That's a rather quaint perspective from a libertarian!
That is not what I said. You have a lot of skill in attacking strawmen. I'm guessing you must practice a lot.
You wouldn't care to post some support for that assertion, would you?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I would.-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313024,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313024,00.html)
The violence has drawn comparisons with riots that raged through suburbs nationwide in 2005, and has shown that anger still smolders in poor housing projects where many Arabs, blacks and other minorities live largely isolated from the rest of society.
[...]
There have long been tensions between France's largely white police force and ethnic minorities in poor neighborhoods. Despite decades of problems and heavy state investments to improve housing and create jobs, the depressed projects that ring Paris are a world apart from the tourist attractions of the French capital. Police speak of no-go zones where they and firefighters fear to patrol.-http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/29/why-we-dont-call-them-muslim-riots-in-paris-suburbs/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/29/why-we-dont-call-them-muslim-riots-in-paris-suburbs/)
In this week's events, young men, often hooded, roamed the suburbs at night and firebombed cars, dumpsters and a library. They did not shout Muslim demands, spray Muslim graffiti or wear the trademark beards and baggy pants of a salafi. They did not gather at mosques or shout "Allah-o-akbar!" They avoided journalists, presumably seeing them as part of "the system" that they oppose, and made no demands related to Islam. When those detained were questioned by police, they were not asked about their religion or ethnic identity -- that's not allowed in France.
So my first question is -- how are we supposed to write as fact that they are Muslims? Where are the facts to justify phrases like "Muslim riots" or "French intifada?"
Some might say that we know these riots happen in "Muslim neighbourhoods." But when journalists go visit them, they find neighbourhoods that are multiracial, multicultural, multilingual and multifaith. Judging by the faces seen on the streets, there are Arabs (mostly from North Africa), blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, people from the Indian Subcontinent (often Sri Lankans) and whites -- yes, poor French whites. There are Muslims who pray in mosques and Christians who attend various churches, including a growing number of African evangelicals. Here and there in Paris or its suburbs, you even find poor Jews who moved to France from North Africa -- some even still speak Arabic and live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours. And don't forget there are a lot of agnostics and atheists out there -- this is France, after all, where the average rate of regular attendance in churches, synagogues and mosques is about 10 percent.
Allegedly libertarian? And I suppose you know what a "true" libertarian is? What a silly question, of course you do. Fundamentalism is so freeing. Anyway, please feel free to go beyond your vague accusation that ideas promoted by Reason don't work out when put into practice. You can provide an example, I'm sure, so please, don't worry about hurting my feelings. Provide the example. I'm sure it will be nothing short of 100% accurate and true with no coloring of bias from you at all.
Last week the London Times ran a less-than-groundbreaking "Europe needs more babies" opinion piece, this one by avowed "eco-puritan" Melanie McDonagh. Understandably, McDonagh is worried about her pension and health care in the absence of gurgling future taxpayers. But the folks at The Economist blog will not be guilted into breeding:http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121644.html
Longman and McDonagh seem to envision breeding and childrearing as a sort of public good likely to be underprovided if individuals are left to their own selish devices. Those of us who decline to yield future workers are free riding off all that "human capital" produced by altuistic pram-pushers. But, as always, there is too little altruism to go around. So we should go for the next best thing: tax incentives.
There is something inherently repellant about a social vision in which wombs and their fruits are conceived primarily in terms of future labor productivity and tax receipts. But you don't have to be repelled to see that the "kids as public goods" picture doesn't add up.
First, it should be obvious that nations don't have to have pension systems highly sensitive to worker-to-retiree ratios. A shift to a system of mandatory personal retirement accounts immediately solves that problem. And then there are substitutes to native-born children. People born in other countries can also work and pay taxes. Indeed, if yours is a rich country, billions of less-rich people would like to come there. So let more of them come. And then there is technological progress, which allows machines to do some formerly human jobs, and increases the productivity of remaining human labour.
There is no reason a nation with a shrinking population cannot maintain steady rates of GDP per capita growth if mechanization and labour productivity gains keep up a good pace. Indeed, George Mason economist Robin Hanson argues that soon enough robots will be doing almost all the jobs [pdf] anyway. So it is easy enough to imagine a country that maintains a high standard of living as the population eventually shrinks to ... nothing. People differ rather vehemently on this issue, but I see nothing wrong with a population dwindling away entirely, as long as living conditions remain high.
There is much more, all of it worth reading. But ultimately you have to wonder whether lengthy refutations of pro-fertility economic (as opposed to cultural) claims are just a waste of pixels. Worries about population decline, like worries over overpopulation that preceded them and worries about immigration that coincide with them, are tied to a particular vision of a particular society--and it's not a vision that is likely to be argued away by positing the sustainability of social security accounts.
Singapore's natalist agenda is in place largely to help maintain the Chinese majority; John Gibson warns American non-hispanics that it's time to "do your duty" and "make more babies." McDonagh is worried about population decline, yet she somehow sees fit to promote immigration restrictions as a coping mechanism. All of which is why Mark Steyn's Oh-shit-the-Muslims-are-breeding polemic America Alone is a less intellectual book than Philip Longman's economically inclined The Empty Cradle, and probably a more important one.
So it is easy enough to imagine a country that maintains a high standard of living as the population eventually shrinks to ... nothing. People differ rather vehemently on this issue, but I see nothing wrong with a population dwindling away entirely, as long as living conditions remain high. All individual lives come to an end, but they are not therefore worthless. Societies don't last forever either, and neither do nation-states. A society that fades away in high style might count as a spectacular human triumph, not a failure. Where's the underprovided public good in steady-growth population decline?
Do We Owe Future Generations Anything?
Ronald Bailey | March 25, 2008, 10:50am
Over at the environmenatist webzine Grist ("gloom and doom with a sense of humor"*) Bill Becker argues:
Intergenerational ethics argue against us leaving massive, intractable problems for future generations, forcing them to deal in perpetuity with nuclear wastes, carbon sequestration sites and geo-engineering systems ? all subject to human error and to failures that would be deadly.
Really? Perhaps intergenerational ethics tells us that poor people (us) should not sacrfice their livelihoods, health and welfare for rich people (future generations). Reducing current incomes will certainly be deadly for some people now alive.
Should people making an average of $7000 per year be forced to lower their incomes in order to boost the incomes of future generations that some scenarios project will have incomes in 2100 over $107,000 per capita in developed countries and over $66,000 in developing countries? Also keep in mind that not only will future generations be much richer, they will have access to better technologies with which to address any problems caused by man-made climate change, nuclear waste and geo-engineering projects.
As bioethicists are always fond of saying, I'm just asking questions here.
*Humor? Not so much.
In other words, they aren't denying it, they just point out that, well, it's not just Muslims that live in those neighborhoods, and then entirely avoid the question of who was doing the rioting, leaving the reader to draw a conclusion they can plausibly deny having outright stated if challenged on it. Cute.
Here's an example of the kind of brilliant thinking that permeates Reason's brand of "libertarianism" I give you the Divine Miss Howley:
In a nutshell, that's the kind of world-view that permeates the brilliant thinking at Reason - they give not a flying fuck about the literally thousands of generations that lived and died to give them the world they have, nor the subsequent generations who will have to either clean up their mess or just live with the consequences - if there even are any subsequent generations, something else they apparently give not a flying fuck about, either. Hell, open the borders, and give them their cheap nannies and housekeepers and gardeners and farm-workers, so they won't have to be bothered with taking care of their own children, or houses, or gardens. Who cares what kind of problems this causes for subsequent generations? It's not like this country actually has any history of ethnic strife that still hasn't been resolved to this day, is it? As long as it enables getting their rocks off today, who cares what problems it leaves someone else? Even extinction is a small price to pay.
I give you Ron Bailey:QuoteDo We Owe Future Generations Anything?
[...]
Really? Perhaps intergenerational ethics tells us that poor people (us) should not sacrfice their livelihoods, health and welfare for rich people (future generations). Reducing current incomes will certainly be deadly for some people now alive.
[...]
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125680.html
You notice a reoccurring theme here - let's have a good time today, and let somebody else clean up the mess ("Don't worry Mr. Reardon - you'll think of something!") - if there even is a somebody else...
At least it's pretty clear why this bunch of libertarians doesn't seem so keen on Ayn Rand - there's a hell of a lot more Wesley Mouch than John Galt about them!
This isn't even libertarianism, it's just nihilism, and I gave up on nihilism about the time Sid Vicious died. If that's the modern state of libertarianism, you can have it. It certainly has nothing to say to me.
In other words, they aren't denying it, they just point out that, well, it's not just Muslims that live in those neighborhoods, and then entirely avoid the question of who was doing the rioting, leaving the reader to draw a conclusion they can plausibly deny having outright stated if challenged on it. Cute.
No, cute is not the word I would choose to describe your silly distortion. The point you missed is that whoever is involved in the riots, if Muslims are among them, Muslims are not the only ones, so referring to the riots as Muslim riots is in fact incorrect. The riots are more accurately called youth riots as the majority of the rioters seem to be young people and there does not seem to be a particularly religious aspect to the riots. In other words, no, my too clever friend, not like France.
I'll get to the rest of your post later, but one thing I'd like to address right now - there are any number of photographs of these riots, not to mention a plethora of videos on youtube. Funnily enough, not a single one backs up your assertion!
If you can produce a visual record that backs up your assertion, I'd sure as hell like to see it. Because of all the photographs, and all the footage available on the net, I've yet to find a single one that does!
I'll get to the rest of your post later, but one thing I'd like to address right now - there are any number of photographs of these riots, not to mention a plethora of videos on youtube. Funnily enough, not a single one backs up your assertion!
If you can produce a visual record that backs up your assertion, I'd sure as hell like to see it. Because of all the photographs, and all the footage available on the net, I've yet to find a single one that does!
Then I suggest you, as usual, are not paying attention.
Given that it's pretty obvious that those people are standing around in the aftermath of a riot, and not actually rioting themselves, what are those supposed to prove?
Oh for the love of pizza... You, I suppose, have photos of people in turbans and beards rioting?
(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/images/islam_europe.jpg)
| In researching this post, I ask my Reuters Paris bureau colleague James Mackenzie what he found during his night out reporting in the riot-hit suburb of Villiers-le Bel. "It's a mixed immigrant community," he told me. "People saw the TV crews and came up to us to say it wasn't just about youths rioting. They accused the police of beating the youths. They also said there were constant I.D checks there ... I haven't heard or seen any credible suggestion of any Muslim mobilisation behind this. There may be Muslims among the rioters, but nothing even vaguely religious was mentioned when we talked to residents there." Beur FM news editor Ahmed El KeiyFor another view, I called Ahmed El Keiy, the news editor of Beur FM, a radio station popular among young French of North African origin ("beur" is the slang name for these French-born youths). El Keiy runs an evening call-in show to discuss the news (I wrote about his Ramadan call-in about Islam just last month). "The main problem is the relationship between police and young people," he said. "The police are seen as enemies. They don't know how to talk to these youths. They also have to produce results -- they've been told they have to expel 25,000 illegal immigrants a year, so any Arab or African face they see, they think they're illegals and they do I.D. checks. It's very tense." Having spent a long evening sitting in his studio last month listening to El Keiy and three imams discuss Ramadan and Islam with French Muslims who called in, I thought he if anyone would be sensitive to any Muslim angle to the rioting. "In 2005, we heard the politicians blaming the unrest on polygamy or saying there had been cries of 'Allah-o-akbar' but that was just the politicians talking," he said. "This time around, there was no mention of that. The religious element is not present in this at all." |
Ah! I see... Like France!
Like France? France has a host of issues that step from attempts to maintain a society that is in many respects rigid. Also, while I know a lot of people have wanted to blame the Muslims for the riots, as I have looked into the matter, there are also a lot of non-Muslim youth apparently involved. So no, my too clever friend, not like France.
And your point is...?
No one said there were no Muslims in France or that none are involved in the rioting. That does not mean, however, that the riots are specifically religiously motivated and wholly Muslim riots. There are likely also Christian youth involved. Possibly even some agnostics and atheists. So "Muslim riots" is not an accurate term.
And your point is...?
No one said there were no Muslims in France or that none are involved in the rioting. That does not mean, however, that the riots are specifically religiously motivated and wholly Muslim riots. There are likely also Christian youth involved. Possibly even some agnostics and atheists. So "Muslim riots" is not an accurate term.
As this thread was began by suggesting that Iranian love for Barbie could culturally subvert the ruling party of Iran, does the involvment of non-Muslim rioters actually prove that islam played no role in the riots?
As this thread was began by suggesting that Iranian love for Barbie could culturally subvert the ruling party of Iran, does the involvement of non-Muslim rioters actually prove that Islam played no role in the riots?
Does the fact that some of the people involved are Muslim prove that the riots are religiously motivated?
I assert that they are heavily and not lightly influenced by Islam.
I know that you have found reporters reluctant to say so , but I have found several reports that attribute restraint to fear.
Two persons [Mouhsin (15) and Lakamy (16)] on a motorcycle were killed after colliding with a police car on Sunday late in the afternoon in Villiers-le-Bel (Val d'Oise), triggering an eruption of incidents, notably trash can fires and meetings of youths, a police source reported. (...) [/i]
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/eruptions-of-violence.html
Some young men stood by the charred timbers of the town's police station, Tuesday laughing and surveying the damage.
Cem, 18, of Turkish origin, declined to give his name because he feared police reprisals. But he and his friend Karim, of Algerian descent, said they both had participated in rioting over the past two days.
"That's just the beginning," Cem said. "This is a war. There is no mercy. We want two cops dead."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/27/europe/france.php
Stefano Allievi, Professor of Sociology, scholar and expert in Islamic matters...
You're the first person I've seen even try and deny most of the rioters were Muslim.
"Religiously Motivated" ha! It is almost a change of subject.
I notice there is nothing in that post, even following the links, indicating a religious motivation.
Muslim's are taking over Europe UP. That's born out by the numbers and recent history.
Muslim's are generally very religious,
and their motives are almost always religious. Are you denying that? If you are, it's you that's reached a point in which you've closed your eyes to what seems to be obvious to most everyone else.
Use of "Muslim" in this context would indicate that the group were of Arab or North African extraction, and products of a Muslim culture. Which is apparently borne out by the photographic, video and reported records. Whether or not they were yelling "Allah Akbar!" while they were torching cars is superfluous.
So now we've gone from judging people based on religion to judging people based on what they look like. They look Arab or North African, therefore they are part of the Muslim "jihad" taking over Europe and are motivated by Muslim cultural something or other, hatred of the West, whatever. This is not getting better for your side of the argument.
Given that in the interviews of the rioters, a hatred of the West was loudly and clearly expressed,
The rioters have no desire to become French
and fit in to the French society and system because they are Muslim .
Given that in the interviews of the rioters, a hatred of the West was loudly and clearly expressed,
| The riots are seen by some as a cry of distress from France's minority youths. Despite the government's attempt to avert racism with its policy of "one France," immigrants and their descendants say they deal with racism on a daily basis. Hasam Chefeg, in his late 20s, says young North Africans have trouble finding work in France. "Because my face is Moroccan and my name is different -- it's Moroccan, too -- they don't consider even my CV," he said. "If you send another letter to the same employer with the typical French name like Pierre or Jacques, then the employer calls you back immediately." Samir Mihi, a member of a Muslim community in a Parisian suburb, has been working to calm the neighborhoods. He says it's not easy: "The one thing that keeps coming back is the kids' bad rapport with the police. They're constantly put through abusive ID checks and treated aggressively. And they're supposed to respect the police, but the police don't respect them." Awaz Dehkani, a high school teacher in the Paris suburb of Trappes, has talked with her students about the riots, and the source of the anger fueling them. Her students told her, "They feel that you play the game, you go to school, you do everything that, you know, that society and everybody wants you to do, and in the end, even with many degrees, they don't want you. We have no real laws to protect people from discrimination like you do have in the States." |
| "The second generation can't go back as easily and have been told in school they should be treated equally. When it doesn't happen, there's disappointment," Reitz said. Canada's ambassador to France, Claude Laverdure, agreed. "There's a deep frustration of being seen as immigrants for young people who were born in France," Laverdure told CBC Newsworld two years ago. |
Stefano Allievi, Professor of Sociology, scholar and expert in Islamic matters...
So what is your point with that post?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5004897Describe these people demographicly.
The riots are seen by some as a cry of distress from France's minority youths.
Two persons [Mouhsin (15) and Lakamy (16)] on a motorcycle were killed after colliding with a police car on Sunday late in the afternoon in Villiers-le-Bel (Val d'Oise), triggering an eruption of incidents, notably trash can fires and meetings of youths, a police source reported. (...) [/i]
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/eruptions-of-violence.html
Some young men stood by the charred timbers of the town's police station, Tuesday laughing and surveying the damage.
Cem, 18, of Turkish origin, declined to give his name because he feared police reprisals. But he and his friend Karim, of Algerian descent, said they both had participated in rioting over the past two days.
"That's just the beginning," Cem said. "This is a war. There is no mercy. We want two cops dead."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/27/europe/france.php
I notice there is nothing in that post, even following the links, indicating a religious motivation.
He is locked up for criticism of Islam
Describe these people demographicly.
| Many of these people have family roots in majority Muslim countries like Algeria, but they are French citizens who identify themselves as French. Many do not regularly pray in mosques (local Muslim leaders admit this). You see women and girls wearing headscarves, but they are not in the majority in these neighbourhoods. Many of them are actually older immigrant women who've always covered their heads, not "neo-orthodox" or "born-again" young French-born women who wear headscarves to assert their Muslim identity. [...] How about going by the names of the detained rioters? After the 2005 riots, police reported that half of the 3,000 or so they took in were males under 18. Some 640 of them were eventually arrested and most of them already had police records. Most had Arabic or African names, true, but the lists of detainees in some areas had many French, Italian and Portuguese names. Does this show a religious element? How can we tell? Would youths of French, Italian or Portuguese descent join an intifada? Suprised by the Portuguese? In Seine-Saint-Denis, the departement north of Paris best known for its unruly housing projects, they are the second largest ethnic group after North Africans, according to the urban development association Profession Banlieue. That study also mentions growing communities of Southeast Asians, which would be Vietnamese and Cambodians. |
I'm sure that both the two youths who failed to yield right of way to a police vehicle, the Turk, and the Algerian listed in the articles were apostate, or minority dhimmis, that even after fully adopting Western ethics of common law, simply chose to riot in leiu of bringing suit against the police.
As best I can tell from what you posted, he is being punished for libel. I don't know if his punishment is right or wrong because I don't know the circumstances. As I don't read Italian, I'm not likely to get much more info.
It is true that the motorcyclists were in no condition to riot, after the collision. But before the collision, they did choose to flaunt the laws of both France and Physics. From where did such disregard for the order of their adoptive -as they are not Gallic- homeland come? Was it fear of police that caused them to fail to yield, or rather disdain cultivated by an unchecked feeling of innate superiority, exacerbated by material inferiority to the kufr, and underwritten by a myriad of excuses written by those that will fight the gv't of France down to the last muslim? Such persons such as would file a report broadacast on ABC that seemed disappointed that muslims didn't riot after Wilders' Fitna?
His conviction was for "group libel" - for his criticism of Adel Smith's group.
Interestingly enough, Adel Smith was convicted of "defaming religion" for his criticisms of Christianity and the Pope.
Must be that they were ill-adjusted Muslims, because, as we all know, young people in the Western world never ever drive recklessly or too fast. (Now it's my turn to be sarcastic.)
In fact young Westerners do drive recklessly. When they die, their friends have a funeral, slow down for two minutes, and rarely ever think of having a riot.
(Congratulations on the sarcasm. With practice you may some day be as achieved in the art as I.)
Yes we have had riots, and I think it irresponsible to make excuses forriotous youth of either persuasion.
To suggest that a climate of disregard for French laws, that is propogated by mosques and underwritten by fundmental texts of islam played no part in the inspiration to riot is reckless. Rioting is done by all types of people who suppose themselves, or are provided with, a greivance and have no fear of prosecution. In France muslims do fit that description best.
Funny that French muslims, nominally anyway, themselves thought that islam could be enlisted to calm the overwhelmingly.... Western?... rioters.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article587834.ece
that many of the habits Muslims display and that Europeans revile are not Islamic per se, but rather cultural traits specific to the Middle East, Africa, or Asia. "Muslims living in Europe have an opportunity to reread our [religious] sources," he says.
"There is a struggle for the soul of Islam," says Dr. Winter, also known as Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad. Even as young European Muslims seek new ways of living their religion, "Gulf embassies ... spend tens of millions of pounds to ensure that the most fundamentalist form of Islam prevails in schools and bookshops," he laments. "Liberal Islam - economically, culturally, and socially - is crying in the wilderness."
The stronger fundamentalist Islam grows, the harder it will be for most Muslims to integrate, Ramadan says. "It is important for us as Muslims to be unambiguous that we respect the law and the secular framework," he insists.
On the other hand, he adds, Europeans "must start considering Islam as a European religion, and stop building a European identity against Islam as something external."
As the three young North African women talked about their Muslim faith at a cafe here one recent evening, they could not help noticing how patrons at the next table were reacting.
One French man leaned so far back in his chair to hear the animated discussion that he almost joined the group. Suspicion and disapproval darkened his look.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/p10s01-woeu.html
Nadia Mirad, a psychology student who works at a children's activity center, knows that look. Last year, she recalled, when she asked for a day off to celebrate the end of the annual Ramadan fast, her boss exploded.
"She said I was being unprofessional," Ms. Mirad explained, sipping a Coke. "She said the world didn't stop turning just for a Muslim holiday. I'm French, but I felt I was not a full French citizen at that moment. I really did not feel at home."
Her two student friends, both of them also born and raised in France, nodded in sympathy. "We feel as French as France will let us feel," said Boutha?na Gargouri. "But it's true, I can't live my religion fully here."
None of them, for example, wears a head scarf, though they all say they would like to do so one day. Making such a visible show of their religion, however, would make it almost impossible for them to get a job, they agreed.
"I can't afford to put up barriers to what I want to be," said Le?la Bouste?la, who hopes to become an interpreter for deaf mutes.
Religion's place in public life has shot to the top of the agenda in France, and in the rest of Europe, for one reason: Islam, and the growing millions of people on the Continent who practice it.
Shocked by the discovery of Islamic terrorist networks on their soil, Europeans have suddenly woken up to the existence of an often marginalized Muslim minority that takes religion more seriously than they do.
Today, the relationship between native Europeans and their Muslim neighbors is fraught with tension. Mistrust on both sides threatens to explode into violence. Late last year, arsonists destroyed two mosques and a Muslim school in the Netherlands after an Islamic radical there was arrested for murdering filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who had criticized Muslim treatment of women.
Particularly unnerving are the violent messages spread by a number of radical Muslim preachers. "I believe the whole of Britain has become Dar ul Harb [land of war]," Syrian-born cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed told followers in a webcast on "PalTalk" last month. "The jihad is halal [acceptable] for the Muslims wherever they are." [ Editor's note: The original version of this article mistranslated Dar ul Harb.]
"Active Christians in mainstream churches across the Continent are worried by the rise in fundamentalist nationalism," says Jorgen Nielsen, a professor of Islamic studies at Birmingham University in England.
"Secularists tend to be more worried not just about Islam but the return of religion to the public space," he adds.
Europe's Muslim population has tripled in the past 30 years, fueled by immigration from North Africa, Turkey, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. This rapid growth "questions our ... ability to integrate" them, warns Patrick Weil, a French sociologist.
"This is the first time for a long time ... that we have had to show that we can adapt and accept religious diversity," he adds. "That is a challenge."
"Many European politicians ... are prone to thinking that the only safe Muslims are those who neither practice their religion nor manifest their Muslim identity."
- Tariq Ramadan, Islamic author
KROC INSTITUTE/AP
At the same time, acknowledges Tariq Ramadan, one of the foremost Islamic thinkers in Europe, Muslims must change their thinking on many customs that alienate Europeans, such as their attitudes about women. "From Arab Islam, or African Islam, we have to come to European Islam," he argues.
Arguments over how to integrate Muslims into modern European life, and how much Islam Europe can accept without betraying its values, have been tainted by the link to terror. Governments have reacted by tightening controls on Muslim preachers, many of whom do not speak the language of their adopted country. Britain has introduced civics tests for imams. French authorities are planning to set up a school that would also send preachers in training to secular universities. And in Denmark, the right-wing People's Party, a government coalition member, urges a ban on all foreign imams.
Such moves have won support even in some Muslim quarters. "It is not xenophobic for Europeans to be genuinely worried about the radicalization of Islam," says Tim Winter, a British Muslim convert who teaches at Cambridge University and preaches at a mosque. "But it is not acceptable to say that Islam cannot adapt to European life."
Being religious at all, however, is unusual in European life. Though Muslims make up only 3 percent of the British population, more people attend Friday prayers than go to Sunday church, a recent survey found.
That scares many Europeans who fear that Europe could soon lose its Christian identity. The prospect of Turkey joining the European Union (EU) in 10 years' time, which would add an expected 83 million Muslims, deepens their fear.
"Europe is becoming Islamicized," warned Fritz Bolkestein a few weeks before he left his job as the EU's competition commissioner last December, noting that the two biggest cities in his native Netherlands, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, will be minority European within a few years.
That sounds like scaremongering to some Islamic leaders, who note that less than 5 percent of Europe's population is Muslim. To others, it sounds like a call to abandon their faith.
"Many European politicians, as well as average people, are prone to thinking that the only safe Muslims are those who neither practice their religion nor manifest their Muslim identity," wrote Mr. Ramadan in his book, "To Be a European Muslim."
Ramadan is the leading proponent of "European Islam," a school of thought intended to meet the needs of descendants of immigrants who have few ties to their ancestral cultures.
Last spring, Time magazine named him one of the 21st century's most influential people. But last summer, the US Department of Homeland Security controversially revoked his visa days before he was to begin teaching at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana. A department official said Ramadan had been barred in accordance with a provision of the Patriot Act.
Ramadan insists that many of the habits Muslims display and that Europeans revile are not Islamic per se, but rather cultural traits specific to the Middle East, Africa, or Asia. "Muslims living in Europe have an opportunity to reread our [religious] sources," he says.
"We are going through a reassessment," he adds, "and the most important subject is women. Our experience in Europe has made it clear we must speak about equality."
"Europeanizing" Islam, says Professor Nielsen, whose home town, Birmingham, is knows as the "Muslim capital of Britain," "requires changes in relations between the sexes, in relations between parents and children, significant changes in attitudes to people of other religions, and in attitudes toward the state."
That is happening, Nielsen says. A few Muslims are assimilating completely with secular European culture, "but the majority are sticking to their religion but divorcing it from the cultural tradition and redressing it in a new culture."
At the same time, a small minority has turned toward a hard-line version of their religion, and a handful have taken up jihad, or holy war against the West. Police in several European countries have arrested hundreds of young Muslim men in connection with alleged terrorist plots since 9/11.
In Britain, Scotland Yard is investigating Mr. Bakri Mohammed after reporters heard him proclaiming that "death will be inevitable ... if people reject the call of mighty Allah" at a secret rally in London in January.
"There is a struggle for the soul of Islam," says Dr. Winter, also known as Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad. Even as young European Muslims seek new ways of living their religion, "Gulf embassies ... spend tens of millions of pounds to ensure that the most fundamentalist form of Islam prevails in schools and bookshops," he laments. "Liberal Islam - economically, culturally, and socially - is crying in the wilderness."
The stronger fundamentalist Islam grows, the harder it will be for most Muslims to integrate, Ramadan says. "It is important for us as Muslims to be unambiguous that we respect the law and the secular framework," he insists.
On the other hand, he adds, Europeans "must start considering Islam as a European religion, and stop building a European identity against Islam as something external."
That will not be easy, given the secular European tradition of keeping religion out of the public space for fear that it might undermine democracy, a tradition developed in the face of an often reactionary Roman Catholic Church. It will be harder in the case of an unfamiliar religion often preached in a foreign tongue.
But Islamic thinkers hope that they can persuade Europeans that Islam has something to offer. "We are accused of encouraging the return of religious people to the public sphere," says Ramadan. "The question is whether we are ... contributing to society with concerns about values and ethics."
"If Islam cannot sit comfortably within the liberal European mainstream," says Winter, "it will raise the question whether Europe ... can accept substantial differences" among its citizens.
Back in the Paris cafe, Ms. Gargouri and her friends say it would not take much to make them feel more comfortable as European Muslims. For a start, suggests Gargouri, "people must stop confusing Islam with Islamism and even with terrorism. Islam was here long before 9/11."
Ms. Bouste?la agrees. "It would help," she says, "if I did not have a label stuck on me wherever I show up."
Funny that French muslims, nominally anyway, themselves thought that islam could be enlisted to calm the overwhelmingly.... Western?... rioters.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article587834.ece
Funny that French muslims, nominally anyway, themselves thought that islam could be enlisted to calm the overwhelmingly.... Western?... rioters.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article587834.ece
This part is interesting: "Magid Tabouri, 29, who leads a team of municipal, secular, big brothers at Bondy, in the troubled Seine-Saint-Denis d?partement, said: 'It is a scandal that they have asked imams to calm down the kids. You can't apply a religious response to a social revolt.'" Again, I never said there were no Muslims among the rioters.
| Nadia Mirad, a psychology student who works at a children's activity center, knows that look. Last year, she recalled, when she asked for a day off to celebrate the end of the annual Ramadan fast, her boss exploded. "She said I was being unprofessional," Ms. Mirad explained, sipping a Coke. "She said the world didn't stop turning just for a Muslim holiday. I'm French, but I felt I was not a full French citizen at that moment. I really did not feel at home." Her two student friends, both of them also born and raised in France, nodded in sympathy. "We feel as French as France will let us feel," said Bouthaina Gargouri. "But it's true, I can't live my religion fully here." None of them, for example, wears a head scarf, though they all say they would like to do so one day. Making such a visible show of their religion, however, would make it almost impossible for them to get a job, they agreed. |
Several articles I read seemed to be stepping lightly round the involvement of Islam in the problems of riot in France.
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/france-over-a-1000-french-riot-police-raid-housing-projects/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413964.stm
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/paris-french-police-swoop-on-paris-riot.html
Not this one , this author goes into great detail on how Islam and failure to assimilate is causeing two societies to rise alien to each other in France and Germany.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/470.html
"They used to burn dustbins and cars ? now they burn girls." These were the words of Kahina Benziane after her sister Sohane was raped, tortured and burned alive by schoolmates on October 4, 2002 in the Parisian suburb of Vitry.
UP, where's your source for this? Interesting.
This is fascinating. What is even more fascinating is that I'm being presented with quotes about discrimination and prejudice, and somehow this is supposed to be proof that the Muslims are rioting because they're Muslim. ......... Yes, I know, there are no Christian fundamentalist terrorists, but then most of the cases of discrimination being presented to me here are not of terrorists either.
I'm not supposed to mention because it supposedly denies the supposedly real threat of Muslim hordes jihading their way across Europe.
just one or two assumptions was being in denial. In fact, I'm pretty sure it isn't.
Several articles I read seemed to be stepping lightly round the involvement of Islam in the problems of riot in France.
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/france-over-a-1000-french-riot-police-raid-housing-projects/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413964.stm
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/paris-french-police-swoop-on-paris-riot.html
Not this one , this author goes into great detail on how Islam and failure to assimilate is causeing two societies to rise alien to each other in France and Germany.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/470.html
"They used to burn dustbins and cars ? now they burn girls." These were the words of Kahina Benziane after her sister Sohane was raped, tortured and burned alive by schoolmates on October 4, 2002 in the Parisian suburb of Vitry.
wow, Plane.....
Where do you get this hordes business?
and who has said that all Muslims area a threat?
I am looseing track of all the thigs you are looseing track of.
France has a serious problem caused by the incompatability of French and Islamic culture , I suppose you can quite well blame these problems on French culture , but that is a change of perspective and not a change of the facts.
Islam encourages seaprateness ,
the French feel beset by ungratefull foreighners who would mostly have died or lived in squalor if left behind in the old colonies , the Muslims feel shut out even if they are not orthodox serious worshippers.
"....if only Muslims would learn to act like proper Westerners do.."
Are you saying there are not hordes of Muslims waging cultural war on us all?
Polo?
I don't get it.
Moderate islam doesn't exist. Apostates and Munafiq do exist. At least they exist right up to the point that their religionists start yelling Takfir. Some time after that, their continued existence becomes less predictable.
==============================
The Koran is hardly moderate, but just as most Christians do not stone their disobedient children, as the Bible tells them to, most Muslims are not pedophiles, and are not in anything resembling a state of war with infidels and heathens.
Is Billy Graham an apostate because he would not stone a queer or naughty child?
I had some expectation that this audience would answer "Polo." The nominal muslims that took to the streets saying, "in the name of allah"
please act as though you've some home training, had some expectation of their audience.
Moderate islam doesn't exist. Apostates and Munafiq do exist. At least they exist right up to the point that their co-religionists start yelling Takfir. Some time after that, their continued existence becomes less predictable.
To prove -as if often enough assumed but never proven- that islam is just like Christianity,
To prove -as if often enough assumed but never proven- that islam is just like Christianity,
That was not the point. The point was that moderate Muslims exist.
I did in fact, say that moderate muslims do exist. I call them munafiq, because they haven't fully submitted to islam. They have attempted to various degrees of success to moderate a decidedly immoderate faith.
One could possibly argue that "moderates" that took to the streets of France had ulterior motives of initiating hudna. But, one shouldn't argue that those moderates were addressing Western youth with, "in the name of allah." -Not at least if one should like to be taken seriously-
I beleive that a lot of moderate Muslims exist , but this is not what we were talking about was it?
I beleive that a lot of moderate Muslims exist , but this is not what we were talking about was it?
Well, someone was (at least in part), but no one was paying attention to it.
UP, where's your source for this? Interesting.
Sorry about that. Plane posted it in reply #64. The original source is http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/p10s01-woeu.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/p10s01-woeu.html).
I liked this article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Islam
There is a fight going on within Islam , it is just as epic as the reformation , unfortunately the reactionary side of the argument has most of the money and all of the guns.
That is a good description of the situation in France, the American population of Muslims has assimilated a lot better, and is neither attacked as much nor complains as much as the French Muslims.
I liked this article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Islam
There is a fight going on within Islam , it is just as epic as the reformation , unfortunately the reactionary side of the argument has most of the money and all of the guns.
I liked this article: http://www.reason.com/news/show/126352.html (http://www.reason.com/news/show/126352.html). I doubt that threatening people with bombs and warfare is the way to help the moderate Muslims make their case. When people, whatever their religion or culture might be, believe they are threatened, they seek to defend themselves, right? I mean that is what this discussion is about, is it not? The Muslims are threat, and therefore we must defend ourselves. So what do you think is the Muslim reaction to talking about bombing their lands? If we say no head scarves, do we really expect them to to conform without feeling like there is a level of religious and/or cultural persecution going on? Even if we accept this "Muslim Peril" as everything that ChristiansUnited4LessGvt claims it to be, do you really think we're going to help the moderate Muslims win a culture war by treating all Muslims as potential fifth columnists? Do you think we're going to help the moderate Muslims win a culture war by trying to shut off the Muslims from the rest of the world with immigration bans and trade embargoes? Push people into a corner and say "conform or else", is that really the way to convince people our way is better?
In any case I see you have accepted the idea that Islam is an important factor in French Rioting , even though youre excuseing them because they are being irritated by the French.
There is very little "conform or else", in the US that is one of the problems with our relationship , they hate us for our freedoms , they consider us debauched.
In any case I see you have accepted the idea that Islam is an important factor in French Rioting , even though you're excusing them because they are being irritated by the French.
Wrong on both counts.
There is very little "conform or else", in the US that is one of the problems with our relationship , they hate us for our freedoms , they consider us debauched.
Wow. I'm seeing this anew. They're a threat to us because they're not like us, and they're a threat to us because we're not like them. Perfect Us vs. Them rationality. And of course, unassailable because there is no denying that they are not like us and that we are not like them. Any ways in which they might be like us or we like them are anomalies that prove how Them and Us are not really alike. No wonder I cannot make any progress.
I liked this article: http://www.reason.com/news/show/126352.html (http://www.reason.com/news/show/126352.html).
In any case I see you have accepted the idea that Islam is an important factor in French Rioting , even though youre excuseing them because they are being irritated by the French.
Wrong on both counts.
They are not bveing irritated by the French?
You have not yet learned that most of the rioters are from Muslim familys?
Does it merely prove that the Rioters respected Imams?
QuoteIn 2002, an AFA spokesman decried a pregnant version of Barbie's married sidekick Midge that featured a trap-door stomach with an adorable unborn baby inside it, exclaiming that "Mattel should stay out of the 'birds and bees' business and leave adult themes alone." (Yes, you read that right; the American Family Association is officially against childbirth.)
I fail to see how is the AFA is officially against childbirth on this one.
You have not yet learned that most of the rioters are from Muslim familys?
That was never a point of contention, at least with me. The point of contention was that not all of the rioters were Muslim, and that since there were Christians and likely folks of other faiths and possibly even some agnostics and atheists involved, and since apparently no one was shouting religious chants, the riots were not then "Muslim riots". I've said this now at least three times. If people still want to deny these facts, then I won't stop them or even try. But it would be nice if those people would stop talking to me like I'm the one in denial.
All right, how are these facts proven?
You are not the only one I think is in denial , I think you are finding lots of sorces to quote who are in denial.
QuoteIn 2002, an AFA spokesman decried a pregnant version of Barbie's married sidekick Midge that featured a trap-door stomach with an adorable unborn baby inside it, exclaiming that "Mattel should stay out of the 'birds and bees' business and leave adult themes alone." (Yes, you read that right; the American Family Association is officially against childbirth.)
I fail to see how is the AFA is officially against childbirth on this one.
The author of the article was being sarcastic.
All right, how are these facts proven?
I've pointed to a few articles. I'm not sure what you expect me to do. Go to France and interview each every rioter?
You are not the only one I think is in denial , I think you are finding lots of sorces to quote who are in denial.
Ah. I see. Anyone not agreeing with you is in denial. Okay. Glad we cleared that up.
QuoteAh. I see. Anyone not agreeing with you is in denial. Okay. Glad we cleared that up.
Oh no no , only those who do not agree with you are in denial .
QuoteAh. I see. Anyone not agreeing with you is in denial. Okay. Glad we cleared that up.
Oh no no , only those who do not agree with you are in denial .
"I know you are but what am I?" Pooh yi.
No, Plane, I don't say that if someone disagrees with me then that person is in denial. When presented with facts, however, if the person denies the facts, then I think that qualifies as denial. Some people here want to talk about riots in France as Muslim riots as if the only people rioting were Muslims who were religious zealots. No part of the reporting about the facts supports that stance. I am not saying there were no Muslims involved or that Muslims were not the majority of the rioters. However, that Muslims were the majority of the rioters has a lot to do with the economics and social issues involved and almost nothing to do with the religion. My investigation into the facts shows me that not only was there practically no religious component to the riots, Muslims were not the only ones involved. I've presented some this here, and still I keep getting told that I'm the one in denial and riots were wholly Muslim in nature. And on top of that, you're now claiming my sources are in denial. Apparently, anything that contradicts your version of the riots is going to be considered by you to be a denial. On the other hand, while I have disputed opinions about the riots, I have not denied any of the actual evidence you and others have brought to the discussion.
And so, we're done.
n 2002, an AFA spokesman decried a pregnant version of Barbie's married sidekick Midge that featured a trap-door stomach with an adorable unborn baby inside it, exclaiming that "Mattel should stay out of the 'birds and bees' business and leave adult themes alone." (Yes, you read that right; the American Family Association is officially against childbirth.)
I fail to see how is the AFA is officially against childbirth on this one.
The author of the article was being sarcastic.
No, I disagree.
It was a low blow and not very funny.
========================================================
I doubt that the AFA is against childbirth.
There is something rather, well, WEIRD about Mattell telling little girls about the birds and the bees with a plastic womb. I don't think one needs to be against childbirth to oppose a corporation claiming the right, duty or whatever to tell life's story in polystyrene with trapdoor wombs.
I am not sure if this was a low blow, but it was a funny remark. Not a LOL, but I did emit a small snicker.
QuoteAh. I see. Anyone not agreeing with you is in denial. Okay. Glad we cleared that up.
Oh no no , only those who do not agree with you are in denial .
"I know you are but what am I?" Pooh yi.
No, Plane, I don't say that if someone disagrees with me then that person is in denial. When presented with facts, however, if the person denies the facts, then I think that qualifies as denial. Some people here want to talk about riots in France as Muslim riots as if the only people rioting were Muslims who were religious zealots. No part of the reporting about the facts supports that stance. I am not saying there were no Muslims involved or that Muslims were not the majority of the rioters. However, that Muslims were the majority of the rioters has a lot to do with the economics and social issues involved and almost nothing to do with the religion. My investigation into the facts shows me that not only was there practically no religious component to the riots, Muslims were not the only ones involved. I've presented some this here, and still I keep getting told that I'm the one in denial and riots were wholly Muslim in nature. And on top of that, you're now claiming my sources are in denial. Apparently, anything that contradicts your version of the riots is going to be considered by you to be a denial. On the other hand, while I have disputed opinions about the riots, I have not denied any of the actual evidence you and others have brought to the discussion.
And so, we're done.
What are the non - Islam related issues of the riots?
=========================================
The lack of jobs for Muslim young people is the main cause of the riots. They have no jobs and cannot get jobs. French businessmen would prefer to hire French young people for the few jobs that are available: they come from smaller families, marry when older and therefore have fewer issues that cause them to be absent from work, and the customers prefer to deal with fellow French people. So dpo their felow workers. Jacques gets along better with Didier and Jules than with Muhammoud.
Once someone has worked in a job in France for two years or so, they are hard to fire, because to French labor laws.
If all these guys were employed, there would have been no riots.
In the Aroundissements 1 through 8, near the center of Paris, you see no graffitti or young men hanging out on the corners. In the 2oieme Aroundissement, there is graffitti galore and young Algerians hanging out all over the place. They live with their large families in cramped public housing and have nowhere else to hang out.
From where do you get your facts?
Everyone knows that the internet is not 100% valid when it comes to factual information.
So, do we cut and paste from Fox News?
From where do you get your facts?
Everyone knows that the internet is not 100% valid when it comes to factual information.
So, do we cut and paste from Fox News?
I don't. I do stick generally to news outlets though. Reuters seems generally reliable, the BBC, New York Times, AP, UPI, places like that. But don't be fooled, and I mean this sarcastically, because Plane assures me they're all in denial.
This essay is a response to an essay authored by John Matthies and published by PajamasMedia and Middel East Forum. It is part of a broader debate concerning what some maintain is a resurgent (and possibly dangerous) ?Far Right? movement, while others maintain that no such thing is taking place, and that the notion constitutes scaremongering based on misunderstanding and misinterpretations of the facts on the ground.[][][][[][][[][][[][]][][][[][][][[][]
The author of this response....
http://europenews.dk/en/node/9663
The title has a couple of interesting details. First, it assumes that the ?Europe's Far Right? is a connected movement, that there is a rise of a coordinated ?Far Right? movement in Europe. We in Europe might look around and say ?Where, who, what?? to that, but is sure triggers curiosity.
Second, the notion of the ?Far Right? itself is ambiguous. What exactly is the ?Far Right?? It has a negative connotation, it is 'bad' to be ?Far Right?. As to what that means, that is immaterial. The very concept of 'left' and 'right' stems from the time of the French revolution, where the left would be the radicals and the right would be the conservatives, as seated in the national assembly.
But this clear distinction would hardly apply here, as we are more than two centuries away from that. What then is the ?Far Right?? Jonah Goldberg in his profound and entertaining book Liberal Fascism? probably has the only workable definition: Left is statist (in support of the big state, high taxes), Right is libertarian, as in minimal taxes, minimal state............
most Muslims are not pedophiles
and are not in anything resembling a state of war with infidels and heathens.
This verse in is in Deuteronomy 21:18-21
That would be your opinion based on, apparently, your opinion of Islam. This is sort of like saying, Protestants exist but only as not fully submitted Catholics. I just don't buy the argument, particularly since I've listened to Muslims argue that there are interpretations of their scriptures that are not in line with the fundamentalist Muslims teachings of Islamic extremists.
So, you think all Muslims should be exterminated .....
So, you think all Muslims should be exterminated because Mohammad furgled a 9 year old girl, a few Muslims have killed the odd apostate?
Again, women were treated as chattel in that period.
When Lot had a pair of houseguests, the local Sodomites came and wanted Lot to turn them over so they could be buggered. Lot refused, but he did offer his daughter. I don;t imagine that she was all that square with the idea.Neither am I square with the idea. Often, I'm told that I'm wrong to impose my values on the time. If values can never be imposed, but where the do already by concensus exist, then they are of no worth. By the way, I think more than one daughter was offered.
Excuse me, but a lot of this anti-Muslim stuff sounds remarkable similar to the talk about the Jewish "problem" in Europe in the 1930's. I suggest that a Hitlerian solution did not work for a paltry 7 or 8 million Jews (there are still a lot of Jews left), and that trying a similar solution with well over a hundred million Muslims would require vastly superior extermination camps. I also believe that even one extermination camp is moral, but practicality always should be examined before we get into morality.You seem ill equipped to discuss either. You've yet only displayed your willingness to imply that, for objecting to an inherently violent ideology, I must be a Nazi.
If Hamas were really well financed, I imagine that they'd have a lot better rockets.I don't believe that most of the munafiq that got the shake down about helping their fellow muslims, were aware that they funded Hamas. Neither do I believe that most Americans realize that the US does now fund Hamas as the elected representation in Gaza. I have no doubt that Hamas would buy more rockets if they were able.
So do you have some other solution for the Muslim "problem"?
Push people into a corner and say "conform or else", is that really the way to convince people our way is better?
In fact any church that calls itself "Protestant" does do so to differentiate intself from Catholicism. But neither "Protestant," nor "Catholic" does mean "one who submits." Muslim does mean "one who submits." That which they point to as source materials revealing that which is to be submitted, are koran, hadith, and life of mo'. Your attempted parallel isn't, even of a sort, like what I did say.
However, when you say that you've "listened to Muslims argue that there are interpretations of their scriptures that are not in line with the fundamentalist Muslims teachings of Islamic extremists," I fail to see the distinction from when I did say, "They have attempted to various degrees of success to moderate a decidedly immoderate faith." The question remains, whether you've given those "interpretations" any scrutiny, or was it simply what you'd already knew that you must believe?
One who submits to the will related by the koran, hadith, and life of mo' does reject common law, liberal democracy, and the golden rule. Are these things not important to the Western mind? Or do muslims become Western as they cross the Volga? the Danube? the Rhine?
You've missed the point. The point is not the exact meaning of the word "Catholic" (which I think does in fact apply because it means universal or pertaining to the whole, and even Protestant denominations still generally use the line "holy catholic church" when reciting the Apostles' Creed), rather the point is that differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam just as differing theological positions exist within Christianity.[/color]
Which makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam.
I will admit they represent a minority , but as we stand in the wreckage you can't admit they represent a problem?
Which makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam.
On the contrary, it is vitally important to discussing the problem caused by some people in Islam.
And I have not ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, eversaid that the majority of Muslims were terrorists.
I will admit they represent a minority , but as we stand in the wreckage you can't admit they represent a problem?
Yes, of course I can admit that some Muslims do represent a problem. I have never, and by 'never' I mean not ever in all of these discussions, denied that some Muslims are terrorists and intolerant fundamentalists. So asking me if I "can't admit they represent a problem" is just... nonsense. That's putting it mildly. If I were to put it more honestly, I'd call your question adult male bovine excrement. And even that does not express my astonishment and frustration that you even felt the need in the first place to ask the question.
And I have not ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever
And I have not ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, eversaid that the majority of Muslims were terrorists.
While the minority of Islam is terrorists the majority of terrorists right now is Muslim , and yes in both respects each one is a person.
Can there be no case made that there is a commonality in the majority of terrorists ( a religion comprised of Human beings and a beleif system), while the majority of terrorists themselves (each one a person) claim commonality in Islam ( a beleif system held by persons both terrorist and not).
These Parens are distracting , would you be satisfied with a statement in the form of a footnote at the bottom of each post ?
Something to the effect that it is already resolved that Islam is a religious beleif system held by persons and that terrorism is a behavior system held by some people ?
Not necessacerily the same persons?
No, Really? There's even a nominal muslim that by virtue of his admissions [...] has caused you to think that everything will be fine?
Such are quotes from the Khaleel Mohamed, which you've obviously never actually read. He, as the "odd apostate," was only grist for your fantasy mill.
| In Montreal, I was accused of being racist when I said that 95% of contemporary Muslims are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings. My answer, which the Montreal Gazette refused to print, was that every Muslim had to answer a simple question. Honestly. What is the interpretation of the final two verses of the first chapter of the Quran? "Guide us to the straight path--the path of those upon whom you have bestowed your bounty, not those who have incurred your wrath, nor those who are astray." This verse has nothing about Jews or Christians...yet, almost every person learns that those who have incurred divine wrath are the Jews, and those who are astray are Christians. What is more problematic is that the average person learns this chapter and its interpretation between the ages of 5-8. And we know that things learned at this stage of life become ingrained, almost to the point of being in one's DNA, if I may put it that way. |
| And herein lies the problem of cultural identity. There is no one Islam. The Guyanese Muslim is different from the Bosnian Muslim who is different from the Pakistani Muslim who is different from the Saudi Muslim etc. To talk about Canadian culture as being inherently un-Islamic is to create an imagined geography that, at least, creates disharmony and, at worst, threatens subversion. |
| The reformation will come from Muslims based in the West, and the voices of women will be loud and pivotal in that reformation. Let us look at some names that are as yet unknown to many, but names that have done so much for changing Islamic thought...names of people who may disagree vehemently with each other, but names of people who, for all their difference have done much to purge Islam of the male chauvinism that has afflicted it for centuries: Fatima Mernissi, Azizah al Hibri, Amina Wadud Muhsin, Irshad Manji, Rifat Hasan, Asma Jahangir. Not that all reform minded people are women: there is Khalid Abou al Fadl, Abdallah al-Naim, Sa'd al din Ibrahim etc. Note that they are, with one exception, all now in the West, and that they have all had a western education. |
"The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself."
This brotherhood however does not extend to everyone.
One may not want to call Luther apostate for departing from the Catholic Church, but one shouldn't call him Catholic.
If the smug commenters here would actually read, or pay attention to the plight of, reform minded muslims that are often quoted with the suggestion that same represent large majorities, then one should notice that these reformers, however well intentioned, do not, and often enough will say so, represent majorities of nominal muslims.
One may not want to call Luther apostate for departing from the Catholic Church, but one shouldn't call him Catholic.
Why not? Does disagreement with the Pope make one not Catholic? Seems to me there are a lot of Catholic priests in the U.S. who are then no longer Catholic.
Actually, I preferred the first BSG better. A show developed in an earlier, more innocent, age. Less edgey. Let's attack them with our culture slowly with the less-edgey stuff and then wollup them later with the really edgey stuff.
Boil a frog and all that...
What? There is no one Islam? Wow. Gee, I wish I'd said something like th... oh wait, I did. I believe my exact words were, "differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam just as differing theological positions exist within Christianity."
Why not? Does disagreement with the Pope make one not Catholic? Seems to me there are a lot of Catholic priests in the U.S. who are then no longer Catholic.
Is that what I said? Seriously, is that what I said? If you're going to chastise me for not reading something, then by gum, I'd really appreciate it if you stuck to what I said rather than trying to ascribe comments to me I did not say. If you want to try to pin this down to details, then stick to the details.You have denied that islam has had anything to do with riots in France, even after shown that the documented reactions of nominal muslims to quell the unrest did attempt to invoke islam. That clearly shows that muslims were involved in the riots. Other sources did show that those riotous muslims had nothing but disdain for their adoptive country, and did express that disdain in terms of their own religion. The "moderates" that attempted to reform islam on the streets of France are to be commended, but their personal courage does not disprove and negate 1400 years of tradition.
I don't recall calling him apostate. I believe I was arguing that he was not.It wasn't even my intention to call him apostate, as the aside that I included in that sentence would seem to suggest. I was making reference to his being like the "odd apostate," whose death XO is entirely apathetic about. I will call him munafiq. He claims to submit to something that he is in the process of remaking to his own desires.
Notice that Khaleel Mohammed said what is being taught about that particular verse is not found in the verse itself. It is an extra-scriptural teaching.An extra scriptual teaching that has been an accepted part of islam for near "12 centuries."
Now what have I been arguing? I have been arguing that differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam.I don't deny that Khaleel Mohamed does call himself a muslim, and that simultaneously he believes in Western values. I do deny that he is a reformer. He is instead an innovator, whose innovations are held in relative low esteem among those "95% of modern muslims" that are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings.
So is it the verse that is inherently opposed to Western culture or is it the extra-scriptural teaching about the verse?Most clearly the verse does not speak only of Jews and Christians, but of nominal muslims that attempt, for admittedly noble reasons, to subvert islam. Would you or Khaleel M. like to show how Jews, Christians, and Munafiq have not gone astray? When elsewhere in the koran, such people are promised new skins to be burned again, and again, I do interpret that as wrath, and you?
Once upon a time, some people taught that enslavement of dark-skinned people was supported by scripture. As I recall, it had something to do with one of the sons of Noah getting cursed and going to live in Africa or something like that. None of this support of slavery was actually in scripture. It was something extra-scriptural. And oddly enough, that teaching is no longer taught. So tell me, is Christianity inherently incompatible with modern Western culture, or are there alternate views of scripture?Unfortunately the misused curse does exist. It can be misused again. That is the ever present danger that people will read into text that which they'd rather believe. You and K. Mohamed are the ones reading into islamic text and tradition that which we, all three, would rather believe.
What? There is no one Islam? Wow. Gee, I wish I'd said something like th... oh wait, I did. I believe my exact words were, "differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam just as differing theological positions exist within Christianity."There may be differing opinions, but islam did predate your new Mo'. It did not predate the old mo'. It is defined by the old mo', his koran, and the traditions faithfully collected after his death.
"The reformation will come from Muslims based in the West." Yep. Sounds about right to me. Seems pretty much in line with what I've been saying. He even mentioned Irshad Manji, someone I've mentioned several times in my arguments. As best I can tell, Khaleel Mohammed is far closer to my arguments than he is to yours. So tell me, my Scandinavian friend, is Khaleel Mohammed also fantasizing? And are you sure that you have actually read what he had to say?
And meanwhile no one pays attention to the moderate/liberal Muslims, who are virtually jumping up and down, waving their hands, and shouting loudly "Hello! Here we are! Hello! We're over here!"
I recommend we try something much easier to handle. Just stop making blanket comments about Islam as if Islam itself were the enemy. Acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are not representative of Islam as a whole by not talking about them or about Islam as if they were. In the much the same way we generally recognize that people who bomb abortion clinics are not representative of Christianity by not talking about Christianity as if all followers were people who want, will or support the bombing of abortion clinics. For example, instead of talking about "the problem caused by Islam", one might say, "the problem caused by Islamic extremists". Also, rather than talk about Islam as if it is necessarily and inherently incompatible with the Western world, or as if there was only ever one way to interpret Muslim scriptures, one might talk about fundamentalist Islam, or Muslim extremism, or perhaps even merely conservative Islam.
I reject being called a "munafiq" as well. If you must be insulting, use either my language or your own.
I feel falsely accused !
I feel falsely accused !
He is confused because, I contend that each of you has miscounted.
I don't find it surprising that you would be treated with courtesy. But, I also believe that most of those well meaning nominal muslims, while not well versed in islam, would reflexively defend their personal concept of islam, if challenged. I do believe we should make such challenge, extolling personal virtues, in spite of what the koran does say. Because the true believers are making such challenge, while extolling submission. And why wouldn't submiters choose submission? Especially when the nominally free dare not actually be free.
I would think your visits were before events recounted in Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Magan. She did witness the transformation of Somalia and Somalian refugees in Kenya into true believers. She did herself attend muslim brotherhood speakers while wearing a full covering and trying to be a faithful muslim. I recommend the book, as I think it demonstrates this dynamic well.
Leadership really doesn't matter as much when discussing literal revival. Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and others are dead, but their work lives on, as it was built more firmly upon islamic tradition than that of innovators that we would like to root for.
You have denied that islam has had anything to do with riots in France, even after shown that the documented reactions of nominal muslims to quell the unrest did attempt to invoke islam. That clearly shows that muslims were involved in the riots.
Other sources did show that those riotous muslims had nothing but disdain for their adoptive country, and did express that disdain in terms of their own religion.
You have Continually said that there is no fundamental conflict between islam and Western values, even though the moderate you quoted does reveal his kind to be in conflict with what "95% of contemporary Muslims are exposed to" and "almost 12 centuries" of tradition.
I did in fact interpret that to mean that you thought everything would be fine. Is my interpretation to be discounted? By what criteria?
Consensus?
"Moderate" (read munafiq) muslims are no broad consensus, but you consider their interpretation to be representative of islam.
Literalism?
The Munafiq must disregard all of the hadith and large portions of the koran to make their innovation.
You see, you did in fact say just that.
He claims to submit to something that he is in the process of remaking to his own desires.
An extra scriptual teaching that has been an accepted part of islam for near "12 centuries."
I don't deny that Khaleel Mohamed does call himself a muslim, and that simultaneously he believes in Western values. I do deny that he is a reformer. He is instead an innovator, whose innovations are held in relative low esteem among those "95% of modern muslims" that are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings.
Most clearly the verse does not speak only of Jews and Christians, but of nominal muslims that attempt, for admittedly noble reasons, to subvert islam. Would you or Khaleel M. like to show how Jews, Christians, and Munafiq have not gone astray? When elsewhere in the koran, such people are promised new skins to be burned again, and again, I do interpret that as wrath, and you?
Unfortunately the misused curse does exist. It can be misused again. That is the ever present danger that people will read into text that which they'd rather believe. You and K. Mohamed are the ones reading into islamic text and tradition that which we, all three, would rather believe.
There may be differing opinions, but islam did predate your new Mo'. It did not predate the old mo'. It is defined by the old mo', his koran, and the traditions faithfully collected after his death.
He is attempting innovation. He is not so thoroughly deluded by fantasy as you. He makes no suggestion that there is no fundamental conflict, rather he does, I think nobly -but ineffectively- attempt to address those fundamental differences.
What would make you think me Scandinavian,
or your friend?
At the very least, we should be able to recognise the problem, and not fall for fantasies of reform. How are muslims to be persuaded by arguments that we will not even make?
You have a list of things here that I disagree with and you accuse me of espouseing them.
How could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!
You have a list of things here that I disagree with and you accuse me of espouseing them.
How could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!
Did you or did you not say that the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam." in Reply #130 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6151.msg61167#msg61167)?
QuoteHow could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!QuoteDid you or did you not say that the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam." in Reply #130 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6151.msg61167#msg61167)?
Sure, and let me repeat it , there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones.
Do I misunderstand your attitude twards Fascists being elected in Italy ? As if Fascism ever caused a problem , is it improper to refer to fascism negatively without any reference to the peacefull ones?
QuoteHow could I be so poorly understood , How could my communication skill fail so utterly!QuoteDid you or did you not say that the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam." in Reply #130 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6151.msg61167#msg61167)?
Sure, and let me repeat it , there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones.
Heh. How could your communication fail so utterly when you said the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam" but meant "there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones"? Hm. Gee, I just don't know. I guess that depends on how much you actually expected me to assume that "discussing the problem caused by Islam" meant "discussing the violent ones." While I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, to me, "Islam" does not equate to "the violent ones". "Islam" means, to me, "Islam". So when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", oddly enough I conclude that you mean to speak of Islam because you used the word "Islam". And when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", as strange as it may seem to you, I conclude that you are saying there is a problem caused by Islam. So at this point I am left with the question, if you did not mean "the problem caused by Islam", then why did you say it?
Do I misunderstand your attitude twards Fascists being elected in Italy ? As if Fascism ever caused a problem , is it improper to refer to fascism negatively without any reference to the peacefull ones?
Those are good questions, almost. Let me help. If fascists ever caused a problem, would making derogatory comments about fascism without referencing peaceful fascists be improper? No, probably not. Making derogatory comments about Islam without referencing moderate Muslims is not necessarily improper. The question to be asked here would be, is the derogation intended to lay blame on the religion/ideology for the actions of people. There is a lot to criticize about Islam. There is a lot to criticize about fascism. I don't blame fascism for what fascists do. I blame the fascists. I don't blame Islam for what Islamic extremists do. I blame the extremists. Fascism did not make the fascists choose to be fascists or to act on fascist ideology. The individuals made their own choices and are responsible for them. That doesn't mean there are no grounds to criticize fascism. [/size] But there is an obvious difference between an ideology and a person, a religion and a person, and I have no trouble making that distinction.
QuoteBut there is an obvious difference between an ideology and a person, a religion and a person, and I have no trouble making that distinction.
This diffrence is not so odvious to you that I could depend on it when I am discussing this with you. How many times now have you remade the point that Muslims are people and that Islam is not monolithic?
| How could your communication fail so utterly when you said the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam" but meant "there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones"? Hm. Gee, I just don't know. I guess that depends on how much you actually expected me to assume that "discussing the problem caused by Islam" meant "discussing the violent ones." While I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, to me, "Islam" does not equate to "the violent ones". "Islam" means, to me, "Islam". So when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", oddly enough I conclude that you mean to speak of Islam because you used the word "Islam". And when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", as strange as it may seem to you, I conclude that you are saying there is a problem caused by Islam. So at this point I am left with the question, if you did not mean "the problem caused by Islam", then why did you say it? |
Lets go on ahead and consider it RESOLVED that Muslims are 100% people and are not monolithic.
As I pointed out myself several pages ago.
[/td][td]How could your communication fail so utterly when you said the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam" but meant "there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones"?
This may be a good time for you to actually cite how a discussion ofthe various parts of Islam is appropriate in the context of Terrorism?
Several articles I read seemed to be stepping lightly round the involvement of Islam in the problems of riot in France.
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/france-over-a-1000-french-riot-police-raid-housing-projects/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413964.stm
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/paris-french-police-swoop-on-paris-riot.html
Not this one , this author goes into great detail on how Islam and failure to assimilate is causeing two societies to rise alien to each other in France and Germany.
http://www.signandsight.com/features/470.html
"They used to burn dustbins and cars ? now they burn girls." These were the words of Kahina Benziane after her sister Sohane was raped, tortured and burned alive by schoolmates on October 4, 2002 in the Parisian suburb of Vitry.
wow, Plane.....
QuoteBut there is an obvious difference between an ideology and a person, a religion and a person, and I have no trouble making that distinction.
This difference is not so obvious to you that I could depend on it when I am discussing this with you. How many times now have you remade the point that Muslims are people and that Islam is not monolithic?
Ahem. I will, for the sake of understanding, repeat what I said earlier:
How could your communication fail so utterly when you said the existence of differing theological opinions in Islam "makes no difference at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam" but meant "there is no point in pointing at the peacefull Muslims when we are discussing the violent ones"? Hm. Gee, I just don't know. I guess that depends on how much you actually expected me to assume that "discussing the problem caused by Islam" meant "discussing the violent ones." While I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, to me, "Islam" does not equate to "the violent ones". "Islam" means, to me, "Islam". So when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", oddly enough I conclude that you mean to speak of Islam because you used the word "Islam". And when you say, "the problem caused by Islam", as strange as it may seem to you, I conclude that you are saying there is a problem caused by Islam. So at this point I am left with the question, if you did not mean "the problem caused by Islam", then why did you say it?
Lets go on ahead and consider it RESOLVED that Muslims are 100% people and are not monolithic.
As I pointed out myself several pages ago.
Heh. Well, thank you for pointing it out. No one else was going to do it. I'm glad you did.
There is a lot of variety in Islam but there is a problem of Al Quieda recruitment occuring in all parts of it includeing parts that should know better from long exposure to Europe or America at close range.
There is a lot of variety in Islam but there is a problem of Al Quieda recruitment occuring in all parts of it includeing parts that should know better from long exposure to Europe or America at close range.
And will that recruitment be slowed or halted by military action or by a change in the culture, by Western troops or by moderates leading a reform movement, by entrenching an Us vs. Them mentality or by encouraging cultural exchange through things like trade (maybe like selling Barbie dolls, hm)?
That Al Queda recruitment can occur in all the branches of Islam makes the pointing out that Islam is not monolitihic moot.
Barbie is one of the cultural incursionsthat leads to thundering against us from their pulpits. It would be better for our relationship with them for us to forbid Barbie manufacture , prosicute homosexuals , mandate chadors for sunbathers , stone cheeky newspaper cartoonists , etc , just as they say we should .
Our Cultural products like Dolls and tv shows and music seem like an invaders influence to the reactionary , and what purportion of the total is Reactionary?
People , they are people , the Umma is not monolithic but is made of factions which is the essense of what we are discussing.
That Al Queda recruitment can occur in all the branches of Islam makes the pointing out that Islam is not monolitihic moot.
Oh. I guess then we should tell all the moderate Muslims to shut up and give up. Yeah, yeah, you didn't say that. But what the frak is your point?
Barbie is one of the cultural incursionsthat leads to thundering against us from their pulpits. It would be better for our relationship with them for us to forbid Barbie manufacture , prosicute homosexuals , mandate chadors for sunbathers , stone cheeky newspaper cartoonists , etc , just as they say we should .
Right. So your solution then is...?
Our Cultural products like Dolls and tv shows and music seem like an invaders influence to the reactionary , and what purportion of the total is Reactionary?
A better question would be, what percentage has Barbie dolls?
People , they are people , the Umma is not monolithic but is made of factions which is the essense of what we are discussing.
Oh. Okay. So, um, I'll try again. Will recruitment by al Qaeda be slowed or halted by military action or by a change in the culture, by Western troops or by moderates leading a reform movement, by entrenching an Us vs. Them mentality or by encouraging cultural exchange through things like trade (maybe like selling Barbie dolls, hm)?
No ,those barbie dolls are gonna get some people killed.
Not more than direct attacks , but in addition.
Please remember we are talking about a large veriety of people , but there is a heavy weighting on one end of the spectrum , only a small number want the change that Barbie represents , a much larger reactionary element feels threatened by cultureal imperialism.
It does not help to irritate them better , so no, selling more Barbies to them would help in no way at all. It just makes them increaseingly defensive , defending their dignity and their culture from the incursion of our culture is one of the compelling recruitmant arguments of the Al Queda. They already talk about Barbie , and Hefner , and gay pride parades et cetra , they hate us for our Freedoms.
It would be nicer to irritate them less , if that is impossible (it might be impossible) then Al queida recruiting needs to be curtailed by makeing the Al Queda method seem innefective , perhaps by shooting their leadership frequently, foiling their plans more often than not and keeping them on the run. Who would enlist as crew on the Titanic if it is already listing?
No ,those barbie dolls are gonna get some people killed.
Not more than direct attacks , but in addition.
And yet, the people who live there keep smuggling them in anyway. Should we ally ourselves with the Muslim leadership and stop the people from smuggling them in?
Please remember we are talking about a large veriety of people , but there is a heavy weighting on one end of the spectrum , only a small number want the change that Barbie represents , a much larger reactionary element feels threatened by cultureal imperialism.
It does not help to irritate them better , so no, selling more Barbies to them would help in no way at all. It just makes them increaseingly defensive , defending their dignity and their culture from the incursion of our culture is one of the compelling recruitmant arguments of the Al Queda. They already talk about Barbie , and Hefner , and gay pride parades et cetra , they hate us for our Freedoms.
It would be nicer to irritate them less , if that is impossible (it might be impossible) then Al queida recruiting needs to be curtailed by makeing the Al Queda method seem innefective , perhaps by shooting their leadership frequently, foiling their plans more often than not and keeping them on the run. Who would enlist as crew on the Titanic if it is already listing?
So... let me see if I got this straight, cultural "imperialism" is going to increase recruitment to terrorist groups, but killing some of their leaders is going to convince them to stay home? I gotta say, imo, that makes absolutely no sense at all. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is funny but impractical.
I was not even going here , you pulled the conversation twards the idea that Islam has a lot of factions as if with a tow truck , why do I need a point on a Subject I consider moot?
That Al Queda recruitment can occur in all the branches of Islam makes the pointing out that Islam is not monolitihic moot.
Oh. I guess then we should tell all the moderate Muslims to shut up and give up. Yeah, yeah, you didn't say that. But what the frak is your point?
Cultural assimilation is what the opposition considers to be the root problem , we are exporting our culture and refuseing to learn proper behavior . We should win this contest . When they see a loss comeing they might allow us to quit , we don't really care if they buy Barbies or not .
Barbie is one of the cultural incursionsthat leads to thundering against us from their pulpits. It would be better for our relationship with them for us to forbid Barbie manufacture , prosicute homosexuals , mandate chadors for sunbathers , stone cheeky newspaper cartoonists , etc , just as they say we should .
Right. So your solution then is...?
Better why? Don't you mean you ned to know the ratio of reactionarys to progressives? Unfortunately it is a high ratio.
Our Cultural products like Dolls and tv shows and music seem like an invaders influence to the reactionary , and what purportion of the total is Reactionary?
A better question would be, what percentage has Barbie dolls?
People , they are people , the Umma is not monolithic but is made of factions which is the essense of what we are discussing.
Oh. Okay. So, um, I'll try again. Will recruitment by al Qaeda be slowed or halted by military action or by a change in the culture, by Western troops or by moderates leading a reform movement, by entrenching an Us vs. Them mentality or by encouraging cultural exchange through things like trade (maybe like selling Barbie dolls, hm)?
I didn't invent the term Cultural Imperialism
This is the flip side of Americans who want all immagrants to speak English .
Cultural assimilation is what the opposition considers to be the root problem , we are exporting our culture and refuseing to learn proper behavior . We should win this contest
Therse are PEOPLE we are discussing !Barbie dolls are not people
are you rejecting the idea that cultural exchange is motivateing murder?
I'm rejecting the idea that ending cultural exchange is the best way to effect cultural change.
Just as long as you realise that it is not a peacefull solution , they are fighting to preserve their way of life , your solution will have us shooting each other ,just as often as any other.
It is already an important reason that we are fighting.
Just as long as you realize that it is not a peacefull solution , they are fighting to preserve their way of life , your solution will have us shooting each other ,just as often as any other.
Yes, I am sure that relatively peaceful trade will no doubt result in lots and lots of deaths (no, not really).
I'm sure that trying to bomb them would be a much better solution (actually, no, I don't believe that). Bombing people always makes them want to be like us (no, can't think of a single case where that happened).
So now we're in perfect agreement (except for where we disagree).[/color]