Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Well, I'm back. I've been up for over 24 hours waiting for my replacements and inprocessing them. Now it's time for some much needed sleep.

Actually, things have been pretty civil on this thread. Thank you guys. I think there has been some good debating without hate or venom.

*snip*

But I'd like to point out again, that we're all being pretty civil in this thread. Go us!

mattyrm wrote:Just because we don't share the view of others, doesn't mean we can't respect them eh Luna?

I've been to several Muslim nations, they treat women like rats. They think gays should be stoned to death, they treat kaffirs and infidels worse than everybody else simply because they don't agree with them. And you talk about respect?

You wouldn't be able to argue with me in a Muslim country, for god made the man superior to the woman.

Islam disgusts me, almost as much as apologists like you who aren't even Muslim but take great offence on behalf of them.

Respect is earned, nor given freely. I don't respect rapists or murderers either, so how can anybody demand I respect something that makes equally little sense to me, and causes misery to millions of women around the world.

I don't respect Islam for perfectly logical reasons, I never will, and if you actually knew what several million afghan women had been through, I very much doubt you would as well.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

I don't get it.

This pic(meme) was meant to represent my initial attitude towards this thread. Something along the lines of "Hey, wow. Look at this, Dakka is managing to hold a relatively civil discussion on the topic of Islam. No sweeping generalisation or provocative posts at all!"

The next one was my happy demeanor being crushed by mattrym's post.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is worth noting that there are also Islamic countries (e.g. Turkey, Iraq before we invaded) which operate a secular society, also that there are westernised countries (e.g. Ireland, Switzerland and Israel) in which religious based laws operate.

Even in the USA there are frequent and sometimes successful attempts to conflate Christianity with the state.

Too true.



While not arguing for direct Church control over the States, it's not too different from many 'Islamic' Nations.

dogma wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.

Well, the point I've been alluding to is that 'things', as they are defined by non-physical characteristics, tend to be highly contentious.

For example, is gay marriage a different 'thing' than hetero marriage?

Eh? Are you actually asking him to define 'thing'?

Kilkrazy wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Would I be correct in thinking that you consider the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to have been great successes?

the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are probably the two best examples of failures in modern warfare and international diplomacy, and since neither have even come close to a good outcome yet, they are definetly not successes, i was trying to say that extremists will continue to be extremists (and be violent) because they follow an unshakable belief structure. i agree with you that the majority of muslims should not be insulted of mistreated because of the actions of the minority of these extremists, and i believe that a large amout of effort should be made to make the lives of people in Afganistan and Iraq better/safer/healthier, but extremists have to be fought

I understand.

I certainly agree that extremists have to be opposed, though I am not sure that fighting them is always the best way to do it.

For example, after Islamic extremists perpetrated a massacre at Luxor in 1997, their cause was seriously damaged not by military action by the west, but by the reaction of ordinary Egyptians stung in part by a massive collapse of the tourist trade.

The main problem is that Afganistan only really has one international product (Iraq has alot more options), opium, which for the most part fuels criminal enterprises who are still making money even with the war going on. although one stratagy would be to make the country a world supplier of morphine, killing two birds with one stone.

I really hope that both countries can begin to prosper because if the general populace is happy less of they will be turned to extremism, but as the situation stands now, if we stop fighting, people will die and not just our troops, but the locals you would then be victimised for 'betraying' the extremists and just think what they would do to the women who have been learning to read and using the new freedoms they have gained, unfortunetly there isn't a win win scenario, just a collection of least lose ones

Emperors Faithfu wrote:
Eh? Are you actually asking him to define 'thing'?

No. I'm pointing out that group delineation is not an obvious process.

Wrexasaur wrote:Hence, my point is made.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/islam/

More importantly, Osama Bin Ladens real intentions are made clear. This is a culture war, one in which people from both sides are drawn in by ignorance and hate.

I don't see how your point is made, at all.

The fact that terrorists are extremists was never in question. That doesn't make them any less dangerous.

I believe that Wrex was illustrating the fact that it is wise to bite off roughly as much as one can chew; ie. fight as few people as possible.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:What if you think both groups are crazy extremists?

I'd say, you're probably right.

This is what I was responding to, and agreeing with. It has been my point since I started posting in this thread.

You may have not suggested what I think you did, I apologize if that was in fact that case. There have been accusations in this thread that associate all muslims with terrorism, or more simply, hate for the U.S. Reasoning for this appears to be based in the idea that reacting in kind, with more hate, is in fact that answer to all of this. I completely disagree with this point.

I am going to step out of this thread for quite a while, my intention is not to breed confusion.

dogma wrote:I believe that Wrex was illustrating the fact that it is wise to bite off roughly as much as one can chew; ie. fight as few people as possible.

Definitely.

Wrexasaur wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:What if you think both groups are crazy extremists?

I'd say, you're probably right.

This is what I was responding to, and agreeing with. It has been my point since I started posting in this thread.

Oh, I see.

Never mind!

Ahtman wrote:

If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.

That doesn't make any sense rationally or logically. Basically you are arguing that A = B. I don't even need to write out a truth chart to show that is not going to pass the muster. It is perfectly reasonable to support people protesting against a bill that limits speech and also be against protesters that want all red heads killed. Things aren't equivocated just by virtue of having someone protest. The thing that is being protested is what is important, not the mere fact that there is a protest.

It does make sense rationally and logically. I'm arguing that if you believe in and support freedom of speech you will allow it to happen. It feels like certain posters on this thread are okay with the thought that people protest the US and freedom but they are not okay in their mind with people protesting Islam. It doesn't matter if one is a religion and one is not. The point is, if you're only giving the seal of approval in your mind to one and not the other you aren't really supporting freedom of speech.

EDIT: Furthermore, how did this thread stray so far away from the OP? On that note, I still think it's ridiculous to have a fatwa issued against you if you break an Islamic religious standard and you aren't a Muslim.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.

That doesn't make any sense rationally or logically. Basically you are arguing that A = B. I don't even need to write out a truth chart to show that is not going to pass the muster. It is perfectly reasonable to support people protesting against a bill that limits speech and also be against protesters that want all red heads killed. Things aren't equivocated just by virtue of having someone protest. The thing that is being protested is what is important, not the mere fact that there is a protest.

It does make sense rationally and logically. I'm arguing that if you believe in and support freedom of speech you will allow it to happen. It feels like certain posters on this thread are okay with the thought that people protest the US and freedom but they are not okay in their mind with people protesting Islam. It doesn't matter if one is a religion and one is not. The point is, if you're only giving the seal of approval in your mind to one and not the other you aren't really supporting freedom of speech.
.

You are still making your argument poorly as it still sounds like you are trying to equivocate two different things. I'm not really sure what you mean now.

[quote=DarkAngelHopeful
EDIT: Furthermore, how did this thread stray so far away from the OP? On that note, I still think it's ridiculous to have a fatwa issued against you if you break an Islamic religious standard and you aren't a Muslim.

Kilkrazy wrote:[quote=DarkAngelHopeful
EDIT: Furthermore, how did this thread stray so far away from the OP? On that note, I still think it's ridiculous to have a fatwa issued against you if you break an Islamic religious standard and you aren't a Muslim.

"Muslims believe that the laws of God applies to everyone. So do Christians.

Having said that, not all Muslims have issued a fatwa against this cartoonist. One highly extremist person has done so. It is what those kind of guys do and it is not representative of most Muslims."

The equivalent is probably the various campaigns against heretics and infidels during the period of the Reformation.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:When was the last time a Christian issued a fatwa against a Muslim for breaking a Christian standard?

I suppose when they shot that abortion doctor. Or did you think Christianity has never killed anyone in the name of their religion. It has nothing to do with religion vs religion (though the extremists would love you for making it into that) and everything to do with crazy and crazy. Of course thinking every Christian is a ultra-lunatic hell bent on destroying everything around them to get their way is just as ridiculous as believing every Muslim is that way.

Kilkrazy wrote:The equivalent is probably the various campaigns against heretics and infidels during the period of the Reformation.

So, are we talking back when Luther nailed the The Ninety-Five Theses up (1517) up to an ending in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia?

I'm not saying that Christians haven't done similar stuff. But either way, it's not right for any religion, including Islam, to try and punish you for not following it if you're not a practitioner, am I right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:When was the last time a Christian issued a fatwa against a Muslim for breaking a Christian standard?

I suppose when they shot that abortion doctor. Or did you think Christianity has never killed anyone in the name of their religion. It has nothing to do with religion vs religion (though the extremists would love you for making it into that) and everything to do with crazy and crazy. Of course thinking every Christian is a ultra-lunatic hell bent on destroying everything around them to get their way is just as ridiculous as believing every Muslim is that way.

Well, we can agree on that. I don't think extremists from any religion are doing much good doing crazy acts of crazy. And I have never said that all Muslims or Christians were crazy lol. I think the majority of the people on this thread understand that making sweeping statements isn't accurate. So, from my original posts, it still makes sense to say, that it's ridiculous for that cleric to issue a fatwa against the cartoonist because she's not Muslim. Maybe because I didn't follow that with, "also, Christians have done some crazy things too in the name of religion" you thought that I didn't think that or that I think all Muslims are nuts, but I don't know why you would infer that if you did.

Here is what is getting you into trouble I think. Islam isn't punishing anyone. Some idiots that practice Islam are. They aren't the same thing, just like just because one Preacher wanted to set Korans on fire doesn't mean all of Christiandom did. You keep typing that 'Islam is doing this' and 'Islam is doing that' but it isn't Islam that is doing it.

No one has said, or even intimated, that it was right for this to happen.

Ahtman wrote:Here is what is getting you into trouble I think. Islam isn't punishing anyone. Some idiots that practice Islam are. They aren't the same thing, just like just because one Preacher wanted to set Korans on fire doesn't mean all of Christiandom did. You keep typing that 'Islam is doing this' and 'Islam is doing that' but it isn't Islam that is doing it.

No one has said, or even intimated, that it was right for this to happen.

I'm glad you explained this because I understand more why you and others were commenting. I checked through my comments and I didn't see where I said Islam specifically, that being said, if something I wrote was interpreted that way, it wasn't my intention. In my posts, through the shifting of the many topics on this thread, I did mention specifically the particular cleric, Islamic clerics in general, protesters and Islamic nations all in relation to the various shifting ideas on this thread.

I have mentioned several times that I don't believe in sweeping statements against the Muslim religion or any religion for that matter.

But I think a lot of times people agree on things without knowing it, but I think that's the nature of forums. Stuff gets lost in translation or things aren't written out in length.

Not exactly 'hiding' when everyone knows you're still there.

Yes, Ahtman explained what I was talking about.

It seemed that you were blaming all of Islam for a crime by one person.

Ultimately a book or a cartoon is not worth a human life.

At to the topic of whether a religion has the right to impose a punishment on a non-believer for a religious crime, it is a complex issue.

Most large organised groups have codes of behaviour and sometimes seek to impose them on others.

The Atlantic Charter at the end of WW2, was the USA's successful attempt to impose its ideas of anti-imperialism on the European empires such as Britain and Holland.

India has created religiously based laws about beef.

Ireland still hasn't got rid of all its Roman Catholic laws around contraception and abortion.

Britain and the USA both have Christian factions who wish to impose their ideas about sexuality on everyone.

France and Switzerland have recently brought in religiously based laws.

The war in Iraq, and ongoing war in Afghanistan are western attempts to impose our ideas of secular democracy on tribal, Islamic regions.

Every group believes its ideas are the best, so naturally we (western secular democracy) do too, though spreading them by force is not necessarily the best method to use.