JB Globe

It takes a brave, brave man to criticize folks living under a dictatorship. Remind me again - how dangerous it is to type on the internet from your mother's basement? I mean hell, you're not even talking shit to Egyptians, you're doing this on a message board where you know they won't call you out, and when they don't have internet. So, on behalf of folks like Khaled Said and others who have been silenced - go fuck yourself.

Well, if he's going to run away from folks who are confronting him about his incredibly crude and lazy generalizations about Muslims, than I would at least hope that he puts an end to these kinds of posts. If he's unsure if he's making a sloppy generalization, there's an extremely simple exercise he can do to test it out: just flip it around and make it about Jews - if it seems ridiculously crude and untrue about Jews, it probably will be about Muslims - so re-phrase it or don't say it at all. Otherwise, you're no smarter than an antisemite.

That fact that you're completely unfamiliar with the term demonstrates why you should not be making grandiose sweeping judgements and proclamations on this subject. It's what folks like political and security analysts and state department officials use to describe groups like Al-Qaeda or Jamaat-e-Islami and is defined, roughly, as the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life. Note, that it is distinct from other terms in that it recognizes that someone can be religious, even devout, but yet NOT be Islamist (because such a person doesn't believe religion to have a place in politics). Now that I've answered your question, why don't you answer mine? Why can you not make a distinction between Muslims and Islamists?

So the Turks are as evil as the Crusaders then, after all, they sacked Constantinople too - ever wonder what Orhtodox Christians mean when they refer to "the Great Schism" between their church and the Catholics? Learn some history some time.

Than why do you never make the distinction between Islamists and Muslims? Why do you always say (paraphrasing) "Muslims are violent" or "Islam is evil" If someone said that about Jews, you know what you would think of them - so why are you any different? And while you're at it - explain why you make inflammatory posts and then run away from them.

That still doesn't explain why the goalposts for "evil" seem to move when applying the same criteria to different groups. That's the problem I had with JBG's argument - Islam has no peace movement, so it's evil - but many other religions don't have a peace movement either, and they have shown a history of violence comparable to Islam. I'd argue that Christianity is about as inherently violent AND anti-semitic as Islam, Europe only got less violent as Christianity was slowly replaced by secular ideologies, and these ideologies muted and moderated whatever influence Christianity had left. But let's apply your standards to another group and see what happens: We're also faced with examples of Africans of all religions committing terrorist acts on an almost daily basis. Therefor, African culture is inherently violent. We're faced with Chinese repression and human rights violations on a daily basis, therefor - Chinese culture is inherently repressive. Why don't you apply the same standards across the board? Why are you willing to take historical and political context into consideration with some groups and not others? I never said such a thing. Usually the folks making the "religion of peace" statement are devout Muslims, and as such aren't so different from many devout Christians who like to gloss over the Crusades, the colonial period, and slavery. They're both wrong about their religion being inherently peaceful - but contrary to what you seem to be saying, this isn't a trait specific to Islam. quote name='Bonam' date='18 January 2011 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1295341677' post='616853']Such claims must indeed be held to a high standard when faced with so many examples that would seem to indicate the contrary. I'd say a religion of peace would be Jainism, but certainly not Islam . . . for example, Tibetans, which have been oppressed by a foreign power no less than any Muslim community? Again, you're applying different standards to different religions. Jainism is certainly more peaceful than Islam, but then it is also more peaceful than Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism (it's teachings have in fact been a moderating influence on Hinduism over the years). So you could easily make the argument that all those religions should try to be more like Jainism. And as far as Tibetans go - you're now conflating the specific struggles of one ethnic group with an entire religion. Apples and oranges. And what exactly are you saying? That non-violence is the way to go? Great - just be consistent with that argument and condemn violent resistance/independent struggles across the board - including the American or French Revolutions. Don't stop just because the actors happen to be "one of us" It couldn't hurt. But the thing is - the policies and attitudes we in the West have towards Islam can either help or hurt such a movement to a degree. While this movement needs to obviously come from within the Muslim community, there are many things we can do to help: mainly - stop vilifying the entire religion, start paying more attention to folks who have pull within the community and are doing the right things, stop vilifying people who promote peace as practicing "taqiya" understanding and make a clear distinction between Islamists and Muslims, and most importantly - stop supporting deeply unpopular regimes which suppress democratic movements and self determination. Obviously not, but you seem to be insinuating here that all or most religious leaders are saying this, which is blatantly false. More need to speak out against that, but at the same time we have a role to play as well - we need to stop giving Islamist Imams a convenient "get out of jail free" card to play: we need to stop playing the role of the antagonist in many nations by supporting repressive regimes. We need to stop Islamists from monopolizing the legitimate grievances of the people in order to gain their support for their illegitimate actions. ie - We should get behind the democratic reform movement in Tunisia, and throw the corrupt dictatorship under the bus. Folks aren't anti-Western without a reason. Only because secularism has replaced religion as the dominate ideology driving politics. While Christianity was on top, it was a different story. The problem in at least the Arab world is that the examples of secularism that the public has been given are horrible: autocratic, repressive, corrupt regimes - and all but one or two supported by the West. But, without some degree of support of the non-Islamist greater public, these groups would be absolutely nothing. Which is why it's absolutely self-destructive to the West to be creating situations where the Islamists become the voice of the people against pro-Western repressive regimes. Folks support them because they're the best option to get rid of a dictator, even if they're not themselves Islamist. Later on of course, these groups use the power they gain in any sort of revolution to further mainly their Islamist agenda. What do you think happened in Iran? And what does it say about how adaptive we are that we haven't learned from our mistakes, 30 years on?

I find it incredible that you would rather embarrass yourself than admit that perhaps you were mistaken to hold Islam to a standard you don't hold Judaism to. Again: J-Street is a non-religious, secular, American political advocacy group, you do not have to be religious to be a member (you could be an atheist), just ethnically Jewish. Religion plays no part in the organizations' activities. That's actually on purpose to separate it from AIPAC. If you're going to go down the road of: "An institution/organization that claims to be Jewish is automatically religious in nature, regardless of if religion plays any role in its function" than you're opening up a can of worms that can go both ways. ie - I could say that the Rothstein Jewish Mafia are examples of religious Jewish criminal gangs, because all of its members were Jewish, and therefor, Judaism has a religious tradition of criminality. Do you see what happens when you just don't admit when you made a mistake? You end up digging yourself into a bigger hole. Face it, there is no religiously-based Jewish peace movement, otherwise you probably would have cited an example. So if Islam is prone to violence because it does not have a peace tradition, by your logic, than what about Judaism, which does not have a peace tradition either? Could it be that violence perpetrated by followers of either faith have more to do with political and historical context than with some inherent propensity for violence? Why do you hold Islam to a more rigorous standard than you hold Judaism?

Iraq had nothing to do with it. Because while Bush was "spreading democracy" in Iraq, he was suppressing it in Tunisia, being an ally of the now-deposed despot. Tunisians don't dislike US foreign policy without reason.

double post, deleted

It depends who you ask. Pope Benedict thinks it doesn't, but Pope Sixtus IV certainly was fine with it, so were the conquistadors. Martin Luther had no problems being one of the worst German anti-semites in European history until the 20th century. Why are you completely unaware that some folks have twisted Biblical scripture to suit their own illegitimate actions? Why do you believe that only some Muslims are guilty of doing this to their scripture? I mean even the most basic reading of the history of Western society would have told you Muslims aren't exceptional in this regard.

J-Street is a secular political organization within the US, and is not representative of the world's Jews nor does it have any religious component to it. I asked for a religious peace movement within Judaism, just like you asked for a religious peace movement within Islam. You failed. I guess us Jews have no traditions of peace. OR . . . Your logic is absolutely absurd, and you hold Islam to standards that you don't hold your own religion to.

Does Judaism have one? And I mean religious peace movement across the whole religion, not a secular one within a nation state - because after all, that's the criteria you're using when evaluating Islam.

Not really - it's just my original thesis about you keeps proving true: most of your worldview about Muslims is determined by the fact that you have virtually zero first-hand experience socializing with Muslims, hence why it's news to you that there's interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Jews. That's why you immediately go to broad generalizations as a default, usually influenced by blatantly anti-Islamic sites. You're actually not much different from those Muslims who've never met a Jew before and jump to conclusions based on anti-semitic propaganda. And spare me the BS about how you're trying to turn over a new leaf. You post things almost daily about how evil and violent all of Islam is - one post like this doesn't make much of a difference.

Good news, looks like the north has come to it's senses and is going to back the referendum results: Link Looks like there's no war on the horizon.

How so? We've been beating Al-Qaeda into the ground. They've gone from pulling off 9/11 to being reduced to sending printer-bombs through UPS that get intercepted. Estimates are there are less than a 100 full-fledged Al-Qaeda operatives left in the world. Seems like we're doing a good job against Islamist terrorists. Generally I don't start cowering in fear from "threats" until they are more likely to kill me than a lightning strike. You need to man-up and get a pair.

I didn't know all the world's Muslims live in Egypt. Your statement is still idiotic. If it were true, we'd be in a global war and you'd be crying for your mother on some battlefield you got drafted into.

With China & Russia backing South Sudan now, I have a feeling the "war" may be rather limited, and done just for political showmanship in the north - I don't think the Chinese or Russians would take kindly to the North attacking their investments. And privately (I believe it was in a wikileaks cable) most Arab states are tired of having to defend the north against allegations of genocide and aggression. I hope it doesn't get nasty - the south has already been through far too much.

The Nigerian Civil War was a regional war centred on ethno-linguistic lines between Igbo folks in Biafra who resented Yoruban-dominated Lagos from fleecing most of the money from oil profits. Both groups are majority Christian in Nigeria, with more Yorubans practicing Ifa, their traditional religion. But I digress - if you're so concerned with sending money to the Saudis, I'm going to assume you've made personal lifestyle changes to avoid consuming oil, and that your words aren't completely hollow, right?

Que the daily "whoops, I actually meant Islamists/extremists and not all the world's Muslims" retraction.

You realize that essential services workers all get paid essential service salaries, and they're always higher than their non-essential counterparts. So I don't see how this is going to save any money.

Geez, this is really new for you? Synagogues and Mosques have been doing youth exchanges here for years - where teenagers will go to the other place of worship, learn a few things, break bread, and then invite the folks over to their place the next week. What kind of bubble do you live in?

Wrong. It's because they're not assholes, and they know that being an asshole doesn't exactly translate into people running and joining your club. Maybe you're just mad that they don't hate specific religions as much as you do? If they specifically targeted certain religions and ridiculing they'd just end up looking like bitter bigots - which I know you could care less about, but then again you're not trying to grow a membership.

I could do a thousand easy. After all - there's been a thousand major/minor attacks over the years, and at least an equal number of condemnations/fatwas/criticisms/etc. But there's no point, really. You'll just say they're all practising Taqiya and lying to advance the faith (even though, Taqiya has nothing to do with that) So why bother? Some folks are just a lost cause.

Thanks, I always wanted a strawman for Christmas.

As with most Islamist terror attacks, Muslim leaders are speaking out, but as usual - those who don't listen, can't hear. And when you trawl islamisevil.com for all your information, you're not going to hear for example, that the Imam of the largest mosque in Stockholm, Hassan Mussa, condemned the attacks and issued a fatwa against suicide bombing. But of course, you didn't know that, because you don't give yourself an opportunity to learn information that goes against your "Islam is evil" narrative.