Bloodbaths Provoked by Zionist and Colonialist Outrages

[JB Globe]

Because we are faced with examples of Islamic fundamentalists committing terrorist acts on an almost daily basis.

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?

Despite this constant violence, people continue to make ridiculous claims, for example that "Islam is the religion of peace" and such statements routinely go unchallenged.

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"

The fact is, if any religion NEEDS a "religiously-based peace movement" as you put it, it is Islam,

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.

Would so many young Muslims be willing to become "martyrs" if their religious leaders consistently told them that such actions would lead them straight to hell, rather than straight to paradise?

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.

You may try to pull out strawmen like wars conducted by Western powers or by Israel but the reality is that those have absolutely nothing to do with religion but are entirely about secular issues like security or if you are more cynical, control of resources.

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.

Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, however, while in part motivated by historical and political context as you say, is also strongly influenced by religion. You don't have to take me on my word on that, listen to the terrorists themselves, what they say, these are not secular people with secular grievances.

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?

Edited January 19, 2011 by JB Globe

[Rue]

Bob, I thoroughly enjoy your posts and valuable insights. I am glad you are on the board. I concur with your statements.

I have distanced myself from JBG's statements because I believe he his remarks evidence an agenda to incite negative feelings about ALL Muslims and unlike you, me and many others, he does not take the time to differentiate criticism of Muslim fundamentalism/terrorism from Muslims as a people.

I think it is absolute b.s. to criticize Muslim extremism as if it is synonomous with all Muslims. No one is more frustrated then I in my failure to have found sufficient Muslims to forge peace alliances with but no I do not and will never negatively stereotype all Muslims as extremists as I believe many of JBG's comments do. As a Zionist and Jew I was never taught to put down Muslims or insult them or get into a pissing contest as to who is better or say anything that could be interpreted as a Jew ridiculing another because of their religion or culture.

When I criticize people its because of their views or how they interpret their religion not because they are of a particular ethnicity or nationality or religion.

The Muslim community of the Aga Kahn(Ismailis) (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) and Amidyah Muslims are peaceful, law abiding, people and great citizens. I know Sunni and Shiite Muslims who are not extremist. I am not going to get in a pissing contest with Muslims or Christians or anyone else as to whose culture is better or worse.

I hate everyone equally. Never met a human I liked. Prefer dogs, cats, horses, birds.

I also do not presume to speak for Israelis or Palestinians because many of the views of these people is based on their day to day lives and the practical realities of beinge exposed to lack of land size, water, and the stress inherent with security issues in the area. I do not presume to know what it is like to live as an Israeli or Palestinian.

I live in Canada. All I know is my standard of life is what most people in the world wish they had. I am lucky to live where I do and enjoy what I have. I can take things for granted an Israeli can not. So its easy for me to say certain things that it may be impossible for an Israeli or Palestinian to feel.

So my perspective is to defend Israel's right to exist free and clear of terror but to use the advantages I have to try help Israelis achieve this by trying to reach out to Palestinians in Canada and around the world and forge alliances so one day the children of both need not fear each other.

I criticize all orthodox religions equally and never met a man with a beard I trusted.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Rue

[jbg]

I have distanced myself from JBG's statements because I believe he his remarks evidence an agenda to incite negative feelings about ALL Muslims and unlike you, me and many others, he does not take the time to differentiate criticism of Muslim fundamentalism/terrorism from Muslims as a people.

I think it is absolute b.s. to criticize Muslim extremism as if it is synonomous with all Muslims. No one is more frustrated then I in my failure to have found sufficient Muslims to forge peace alliances with but no I do not and will never negatively stereotype all Muslims as extremists as I believe many of JBG's comments do.

I really wish you would re-read my comments. I do not intend to go beyond Bob's views on this subject and if misunderstood I sincerely apologize.

I am certainly not a bigot.

[JB Globe]

I am certainly not a bigot.

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.

[JB Globe]

Yeah, right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Malta_(1565)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

...etc.

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.

[jbg]

Than why do you never make the distinction between Islamists and Muslims?

I consider the word "Islamist" to be barely English. Does it mean "someone who supports Islam"?

[dre]

LOL

RELIGION of PEACE Must be OXYMORON day here on MLW.

Buddism MAYBE...

[JB Globe]

I consider the word "Islamist" to be barely English. Does it mean "someone who supports Islam"?

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?

[Rue]

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 is precisely my annoyance or anger at your comments too JB. Let's get this straight. I debate many on this forum. I don't claim to be moral or better than anyone. I am a bias Zionist its obvious and I don't hold back. I blast people and they blast back and in fact some I blast do not blast me back and easily could but don't because they are restrained.

I am the first to admit I am a fool and opinionated and wrong about many things and I say it here and now and I openly admit my biases and say I sound worse in writing than in person and when I bark in words there is a tongue in cheek smile on my face that is missed with those I bark at which I regret they can not see.

All that said I must add to what Globe said. You make many generalized comments about all Muslims and don't take the time to specify what it is you criticize and you've done it more than once. Look we all are politically incorrect at times and take word short cuts. But you have done it a lot with references to Muslims and you and I and others we all have to take time to watch our sweeping generalization references to an entire group of people and its not because I think its politically incorrect but its because its not fair. Heck I am the rudest person on this planet. I pee everyone off. But what I am saying is we all have to try hard not to negatively stereotype others intentionally.

I see no good in hating all Muslims or blasting all Muslims for the views of Hamas or Hezbollah or Arab terrorists or extremists. Why? I hate it when anyone does that to anyone, i.e., Christians, Jews, first Canadians, Quebecois, Americans. It's just lazy.

We see statements all the time making sweeping assumptions and generalizations about Israelis, Jews, gays, women, on and on. Its not fair or logical. Never mind the diplomacy.

I have no problems someone saying something incorrect to me if its not done with malice or intentionally. Its when its done deliberately to incite negative thoughts about an entire group of people I challenge it.

Stop saying sorry and discipline yourself to be more specific as to what and who you criticize, i.e., Muslim extremists, Muslim terrorists, Muslim fundamentalists.

The religion has many archaic passages yes. So does Judaism and Christianity. We all have our share of bearded smelly men and fanatics.

The only way we can achieve peace is to challenge our demonization of each other.

I am not lecturing. I am just adding to what Globe said. No more apologies. Let's just debate the specific beliefs or values or ideas and stop phrasing it as if its an entire people to blame.

Or as my father always said, shut up and be tolerant.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Rue

[JB Globe]

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.

[Rue]

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.

Yes. I have said the same thing to him as you did above on the past to no avail.

But then I also make no claim to be a moral crusader on the board and tell anyone what they can say. I can only express my opinion like yours.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Rue