French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Michael Hardner]

I criticize Islamic Society for failing to get under control not just its extremists but its corupt regimes, its tyranical regimes.

Why is that the religion's fault ? I don't feel like somebody could blame me for Francisco Franco, so...

I have not stated any one Muslim is to blame nor have I suggested any Muslim is a Nazi, Stalinist or terrorist.

Ok, but you're criticizing a mass of people due to the actions of a few. It's not really reasonable to do that. Nobody blamed Christianity for the KKK.

I can and will criticize Islamic society and Islam or Islamic governments for the reasons I stated and it does not mean I hate Muslims. Enough with the attempts to personally denigrate me as hating Muslims.

I don't think you necessarily hate Muslims. You can vilify them, en masse, though and apparently you will.

[WIP]

No I am not condemning people. I am condemning social values read=stop misquoting, stop misrepresenting.

Before Islamic society can evolve past its present situation where it is dominated by Muslim extremists and corupt leaders it most certainly has the ability to cause war including chemical and nuclear attacks.

Etc. etc. etc.!

Whether Islamic societies "evolve" or not evolve, should be up to them without western i.e. American interference! And this would have been the case if it wasn't for the discovery of oil in the Middle East. And oil became too valuable a commodity early on to allow any major oil-producing nation or region of the world to remain truly independent.

It's not likely peole over there are dumb and easily have the wool pulled over their eyes. They know how and why most reform movements in the Muslim world were short-circuited and abrupted, and the few that were somewhat successful - like the post-caliphate reforms instituted by Kemal Attaturk in Turkey, were similarly fought against by the WWI Allies, in a failed attempt to break up and maintain Turkish colonies. Attaturk was too strong a force in Turkey, and was later considered conventional enough for western leaders to leave him alone after the failure at Gallipoli.

But, in the rest of the Muslim World..whether we're talking Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, even Indonesia....every reform movement was tagged as communist by the U.S. Government, whether they actually had ties with the Soviet Union or not! What's worse - it was the U.S. itself that was the primary outside instigator in getting all of these Islamist reactionary movements back in power again! And the lack of historical or any other context applied in these discussions is what really burns me! At a time when the world is dangerous enough, and sure as hell doesn't need any more wars, we have a bunch of fearful sheep being stampeded again into fearing a foreign threat!

If you honestly want peace with Muslims here and abroad, and actually want to see the reform movements regain what they had lost in earlier decades, you have to grow a pair and step back and let them work things out on their own terms. The standard patronizing line of thinking here, is that Muslims are stupid and brainwashed drones, and don't know what's good for themselves...so we have to "fix" them. That should be so obviously wrong that it should not even be up for consideration in the first place!

[marcus]

No I am not condemning people. I am condemning social values read=stop misquoting, stop misrepresenting.

"[before] Jewish society can evolve pass its present tense and the destruction it has the potential to cause including chemical and nuclear attacks."

[Rue]

Why is that the religion's fault ? I don't feel like somebody could blame me for Francisco Franco, so...

Ok, but you're criticizing a mass of people due to the actions of a few. It's not really reasonable to do that. Nobody blamed Christianity for the KKK.

I don't think you necessarily hate Muslims. You can vilify them, en masse, though and apparently you will.

You again try to suggest I am smeering or demonizing Muslims en masse simply because they are Muslims.

You have also in your smeer sugested I blame Muslim religion.

I have done neither. I have never come on this board and engaged in a theological discussion as to the corelation between Islam the religion and terrorism or violence. I can if you want on another thread and point out the passages in the Koran, the 123 of them that refer to acts of violence and then explain how extremist Muslims use those passages if you want. Or I can simply refer you to the Hamas constitution. However that is not the issues I was addressing.

Despite your attempt to keep stereotyping and labelling me with motives my words were very clear. I stated Islamic society not Islamic religion.

Islamic religion by itself is not the cause of Muslim extremism. For it to become extremist, it must be tansmitted by Muslims who mix it with political expressions of violence and intolerance towards others.

The fusion of government and Muslim religion creates Islamic society. The religion is but one component. The relgiion if expressed non violently is one issue. When its expressed through governments and terrorists in a violent, discriminatory or terrorist manner then it becomes problematic.

Go back to what Ghost said. One can criticize Israeli state policies and not be anti Jewish or anti Zionist. I do it. Others do it. We criticize Israeli state policies the way we would any governments policies. My criticism of Islamic society is that it will not seperate its religion from its state organs and so it allows its Mullags and Imams direct control over its governments of the day and judiciary branches preventing democracy. These mullahs interpret a rigid, fundamentalist vision of socio-political values not just religious ones. Their religious opinions may or may not be problematic.

Stop putting words in my mouth M. Harder. Stop misrepresenting what I stated. I did not attack Muslims individually or en masse. What I challenge NOT ATTACK, what I challenge are their lack of democratic institutions and principles that seperate judiciary and elected leaders from their relgiion.

I criticize their inability to evolve past a time in history where one vision of a state and only one should be expressed.

In Zionist society in Israel, the state can not impose any one type of Jewish religious practice on anyone starting with Jews, let alone Muslims or Christians.

Israel defines Jew as a nationality and stops there. The debate as to who a Jew is does not happen with the state, but with individuals on a theological level perhaps but not on the state level. An Israeli is not defined by how they practice Judaism or what theological beliefs they hold.

Christianity to day has evolved in the same manner. There are Christian values embraced by governments of the day, but those values are the same values Jews, Muslims and everyone else shares. No Christian through the government or judiciary imposes their religious views on me as would happen in an Islamic state. The Canadian state does not define non Christians as unable to own land, testify in court, etc., like in Islamic states.

No Christian quotes the Bible to tell me I must become Christian or I am a legitimate target for destruction as Islamic society does in Iran for example.

You are also M Harder absolutely wrong with your KKK analogy. Mainstream Christians were in fact severely criticized if they remained silent as to the KKK. They were expected and called upon and did openly repudiate the KKK. It is fair to say Islamic societies in many nations do not condone Muslim extremists but support what they do.

When Muslim moderates do speak out, they are condemned by these nations and Mullahs with death. Why don't you take a good hard luck at who turns on moderate Muslims in Canada when they speak out. Its fellow Muslims and they fear for their lives and until Islamic Society evolves further persons such as Salman Rushdie have a fatwa put on their head.

Canadians criticize Christians just as much as they do Muslim extremists when they are extremist. Don't pull that crap. The abortion issue saw Christian extremists condoning violence against doctors who performed abortions openly challanged.

Christians openly have challenged their extremist vicars, fathers, clergymen. I have sat in inter-faith meetings with Christians of many sects, Jews of many sects, Muslims, Hindus, etc. We do challenge and discuss beliefs and challenge intolerance in Canada. So don't give me this crap people treat Muslim extremists unfairly. We do not and I do not.

You keep playing the Muslim card mixing challenges against Muslim extremists as " attacks " on Muslims. It is not.

[Rue]

"[before] Jewish society can evolve pass its present tense and the destruction it has the potential to cause including chemical and nuclear attacks."

Israel is in crisis. It faces a severe existential test in the immediate years to come as to whether it can move past chemical and nuclear war.

Jewish society outside Israel faces other issues that threaten its existence and Jewish society like Muslim and Christian society has disputes between its sects that must continue to reject extremism and intolerance.

So what is your point because I happen to agree with your comment.

Ooops. Marcus because you attack all Jews when you criticize Israel, does not mean I attack any Muslims as people when I criticize their society.

I criticize the society I live in with the exact same standards of criticism.

[Michael Hardner]

You again try to suggest I am smeering or demonizing Muslims en masse simply because they are Muslims.

Vilifying is the word I used.

I have done neither. I have never come on this board and engaged in a theological discussion as to the corelation between Islam the religion and terrorism or violence.

"Correlation" is a mathematical concept- and has no place in a theological discussion.

I can if you want on another thread and point out the passages in the Koran,

Completely irrelevant.

Despite your attempt to keep stereotyping and labelling me with motives my words were very clear. I stated Islamic society not Islamic religion.

Yes, that's what you said and my point stands.

Go back to what Ghost said. One can criticize Israeli state policies and not be anti Jewish or anti Zionist.

But one can't make general negative statements about Jews without being anti Jewish.

I did not attack Muslims individually or en masse.

Yes, you very much did attack them en masse. Call it a challenge if you want but you're just splitting hairs on words. If somebody 'challenged' other peoples in that way I would say the same thing.

You are also M Harder absolutely wrong with your KKK analogy. Mainstream Christians were in fact severely criticized if they remained silent as to the KKK.

You added an "if" here that doesn't seem to be present in the criticism above of "Islamic society". One is a criticism of individuals IF they behaved a certain way, the other is a vilification of a group.

You keep playing the Muslim card mixing challenges against Muslim extremists ...

No, you vilify the entire "society" with your own words. Your posts are quite long so I sift through them and pick out the parts that stand out as most worthy of discussion to me. I hope that's ok.

[Rue]

A couple of things Mr. Harder. The word vilify is used to suggest someone slanders or defames someone else. Or it can mean to speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.

You want to play games with me as to what you accuse me of go ahead. Whether you use the word vilify, attack, you smeer. You suggest I put down Muslims as a people. That is not what I stated, and its not what I said. You can waffle and do the shuffle and do the watoosi for all I care, your intent is clear.

You try pull the Muslim card to suggest if I criticize Muslim society it assigns me negative values and feelings towards Muslims so let me make it as clear as can be, I do not, and you can stuff the politically proper attempt to avoid what I state and debate what I stated and instead avoid debating it by attributing things to me personally.

My posts are quite long? What does that mean? is that the game you now want to take on, that you are too lazy to read what I write? Is that it now? You cant have it both ways. You cant label me without properly reading what I take the time to state. My posts are lengthy? Of course they are, you throw false attributes upon me and I try explain what I mean over and over so you dont. Rather than debate you avoid debating what I criticized.

Your interpretation of the word if is an arbitrary semantic stunt you pull rather than debate what I said. Then after trying that game you have the chutzbah to say I am splitting hairs? Lol. Right.

Here though is without a doubt an example of how you try to tell me how I must speak, change what I said, and try impose definitions on me I never discuss.

You stated:

But one can't make general negative statements about Jews without being anti Jewish.

The above is very dishonest Mr. Harder and I am calling you out on it. The above is a restatement of what you claim I responded to you when I said:

"Go back to what Ghost said. One can criticize Israeli state policies and not be anti Jewish or anti Zionist.

I have never stated that general negative statements about Muslims could not be construed as anti Muslim. Never.

For that matter, I have never made general negative statements about Muslims as people, as individuals. I have criticized aspects of their society.

You want to play this out Mr. Harder. Don't bother. Don't reinvent what I actually criticized.

Criticizing aspects of Islamic society does not make one anti Muslim. What a crock.

You play. You in fact try suggest any criticism of Islamic Society automatically means all Muslims. What a crock of b.s.

Your quote is false. Absolutely false. One can most certainly make negative general statements about certain aspects of Jewish society and not be anti Jewish. I do it all the time. What you now call me a self hater because I criticize parts of my society?

What a crock.

I did not criticize Muslims. You claim I did by using an analogy that claims criticizing Islamic society is the same as being anti Jewish. False. What I did is no different with Islamic society than what I do with Jewish, Christian or any other society. I criticize them all. It doesn't mean I am against Christians, Jews or Muslims.

It means I challenge certain aspects of the social visions advanced by these societies.

I spend a great deal of time criticizing certain aspects of the society I live in. It does not mean I am anti Canadian or hate Canadians. It means I seek reform and change and progressive concepts.

You Mr. Harder have failed. You have tried to twist my words, change their context, hide behind semantics but you won't debate those compoments of Islamic society I have. Not you. You would prefer to pull this holier then thou, dance, where you claim I am politically inappropriate and unfair to all Muslims because I choose to criticize certain aspects of their society. What a crock.

Go on Mr. Harder run along and play this game of political correctness with someone else.

"

[Rue]

Etc. etc. etc.!

1-It's not likely people over there are dumb and easily have the wool pulled over their eyes. They know how and why....

2-But, in the rest of the Muslim World..whether we're talking Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, even Indonesia....every reform movement was tagged as communist by the U.S. Government,

If you honestly want peace with Muslims here and abroad, and actually want to see the reform movements regain what they had lost in earlier decades, you have to grow a pair and step back and let them work things out on their own terms.

First off I might agree with you in that I would argue the initial involvement of Britain and France, then Germany and the US, Soviets, and China needing to divide up and control the Middle East to control oil supplies was a major element in understanding the origins of some of todays conflicts in the Middle East.

Where we disagree is I do not think they are the only reasons and I think you are in fact being quite patronizing of the Arab world while intending to try sound politically tolerant of Arabs and oh so liberal in intent.

Where you and I disagree is that I do not see the Arab world as having been unified before the colonial intervention exasperated matters and the state of affsirs in the Islamic world was not all peaches and cream until the colonials messed things up. I beg to differ. My knowledge of history of the Middle East would say there were problems in Islamic Society, Jewish Society, Christian society, in the ancient Middle East long before the colonialists and that many of todays current conflicts date back to time periods long before the colonial interventionist period.

The turmoil within Islamic society between sects has gone on since Islam as a religion created states and fusion of theology with state to create ah ybrid Islamic society that does not seperate politics and government from religious beliefs.

I believe Sharia law states and the Sharia law system has prevented democracracy from evolving and is as much a root cause of the turmoil in the Middle East today as any colonial power.

I think this approach you have that Islamic society was just fine until we bad white people came along is a crock.

I think it ignores the actual history and full context of Islamic society since its inception and how its people have killed each other and have been more violent to one another and killed more of each other than any white man from the colonial meddlers you seem to blame their turmoil on.

There is a limit to how much of the words malaise you can dump on the USA. Your dumping on the USA exercise is necessarily inaccurate because for you to single them out and no other nation speaks to your absurd bias against the US.

I believe the US has been just as exploited by the oil producers of the Middle East as you think they have exploited the Middle East.

I also do not turn a blind eye as you have to inter sect violence between Muslim sects. Tell me do you blame the Americans for the war that has gone on since Islam started between Shiites and Sunnis? What its the fault of the US Sunni Muslims attacked and killed and discriminated against Amidya and Ismaili Muslims or feminist, gay or non traditional Muslims?

Where have you been as Muslims kill one another? What you think Uncle Sam is to blame for that?

You think Arab chieftains lived in peace and never fought? What they were all one big happy family?

Get real.

Look you want to argue colonialism created artificial borders and caused different villages and sects to fight one another, sure. One only need look at Iraq a false nation that forced Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis into one state. I got it. We know colonial states like Iraq, Iran, Jordan were carved about by the British and French. I agree.

But I sure as hell do not agree in demonizing the US and blaming it on them.

I am not sure where you got this assumption the US called all Muslim freedom movements communist. I think there is truth of course in saying the US propped dictators. Sure they did in Indonesia, the Philippines. I mean Ghaddafi and Hussein were CIA designated friendly. But please, the Soviets, British, French, Nazis, had as many puppets.

The Soviets and Chinese today prop as many anti democratic puppets in the world as the US and teh EU.

As for the Middle East it can no longer rely on blaming the US or Israel for its ills. It makes plenty of money from its oil. The US? The US cant even control a terror cell like ISIL and you want to paint it as this big evil demon that controls the Middle East?

Its a new world. The US President has subordinated himself to Iran and Turkey. He has gotten into bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. He armed ISIL and openly supports Hamas against the Palestinian Authority?

I think you need to move on from the 1960s and that old trendy leftist take on the world where we blamed everything on Uncle Sam and imperialism and get with the times.

Today there is no righteous nation there are just nations and everyone does what it thinks is necessary for it to survive.

We also have terrorists, people who do not believe in states, state laws or human rights, throw backs to baboon packs with alpha males when states fail. Failed states now are producing baboon packs or terrorists who act in the moment for the moment. Its about power by any means necessary.

We have a choice. Allow baboon packs to roam wild and spread or we contain them. What you think if you ignore cock roaches they just go away?

Lol. Right.

[Big Guy]

Nice way to kill a thread.

[marcus]

Nice way to kill a thread.

By taking a big poop of drivel. Yes.

[jacee]

A couple of things Mr. Harder (sic).

...

You suggest I put down Muslims as a people. That is not what I stated, and its not what I said.

You ... suggest if I criticize Muslim society it assigns me negative values and feelings towards Muslims ... I do not[.]

... [D]ebate what I stated

...

You stated:

But one can't make general negative statements about Jews without being anti Jewish.

The above is very dishonest Mr. Harder(sic).

...

I have never stated that general negative statements about Muslims could not be construed as anti Muslim. Never.

For that matter, I have never made general negative statements about Muslims as people, as individuals. I have criticized aspects of their society.

...

Criticizing aspects of Islamic society does not make one anti Muslim.

One can most certainly make negative general statements about certain aspects of Jewish society and not be anti Jewish. I do it all the time. What you now call me a self hater because I criticize parts of my society?

What a crock.

...

It means I challenge certain aspects of the social visions advanced by these societies.

I spend a great deal of time criticizing certain aspects of the society I live in. It does not mean I am anti Canadian or hate Canadians. It means I seek reform[.]

There, I've edited it to something more readable that a person could actually respond to.

So ... I'm to conclude that I could criticize Jewish society without you considering me anti-Jewish?

Of course I wouldn't because I don't consider 'Jewish society' to be a unitary 'society'. Nor Muslim 'society'. Nor Canadian 'society'.

And I am quite certain no one would get away with a generalized criticism of 'Jewish society' without you blowing a gasket and ranting on and on about how "we" hate the "Jooz".

So what I see here is you claiming the right to malign all Muslims as a unitary society.

I disagree. Muslim society is not unitary.

Jewish society cannot, and should not, be maligned as a whole, because it isn't unitary.

I agree.

.

[Rue]

i have never stated Muslims are a unitary society in fact the exact opposite. I have stated in fact their lack of unity, the tensions between sects is a major cause for the extremism and lack of progress in evolving to democratic societies.

Now you see Jacee you can play the game too of stating something I did not state, that's fine. I now clarify it. You won't of course acknowledge what I said. Your intent like Marcus' or MichaelH's is to try engage in an allegation about me, not the issues I challenge and state. Its me, I must hate Muslims as people because I criticize Islamic society. Well its spent.

This game you have where you won't debate what I say and leave in a huff putting me on block, only to come back when you want, throw out another accusation and then what leave again, means what? You think you can debate by making one way accusations and not addressing he issues I stated.

Go on now, show me where I said Muslims are a unitary society. What a silly thing to say. Yes one can criticize Jewish society without claiming its unitary.

Now you made an allegation back it up because Michael H has not. Show other than your inference, that criticizing Islamic society insults Muslims as people. Go on show it.

Also don't pull the Jew card on me, its as obnoxious as MichaelH pulling the Muslim card. Don't come on here and claim you speak for all Jews and they would be upset our outraged if someone criticizes Jewish society.

Its not the criticism, its the content of the criticism that determines whether its directed at all Muslims or just certain aspects of Muslim society, likewise with criticism of Jewish society. Marcus already tried to bait me to see if I would use a different standard of criticism o n Jewish society as he thinks I do with Muslim society, well it failed.

How about you, you think this is a safe time for you to suddenly respond because MichaelH is advancing an allegation I treat Muslims as people unfairly?

Lol, do you think his watusi routine saying I don't hate Muslims I just vilify them was sincere and genuine?Lol, good then.

You and Michael and Marcus avoid the debate, avoid the issues I brought up, and focus on trying to smeer me as someone who does not like Muslims simply because they are Muslim. Go on repeat it again and again. My words speak for themselves. They do not. In fact I go out of my way to distinguish and specifically state and clarify what it is I criticize and it has never been Muslims simply because they choose to be Muslim.

What I do think however is you,Marcus and MichaelH at this point feel, that because I have been on this forum criticizing people for making generalizations about Jews when making comments about Jews surviving the holocaust and choosing to move to Israel, or in likening them to Nazis once they become Israeli, that you feel you need to reverse the challenge.

The problem is the whole lot of you have failed to show one word I have stated that " attacks " Muslims for being Muslims as Marcus, Hudson Jones, have done in previous posts.

This is a debate forum. You and MichaelH do not set the standard of what is or is not politically acceptable as target of criticism. Get off your pedestals of righteousness. You want to criticize Jewish society with specific references to aspects of Jewish society you think defective, go ahead, engage in words that state all Jews hold the same beliefs, then I will challenge you as being nonsensical.

Go on Jacee finish it. You even know what a Jew is? You even know the components as to what make up a Jew? You ever met one? I doubt it. I doubt you know the difference between a Jew and an Israeli, a Jew an Israeli and a Zionist. a non Jew Zionist or the many sects of Judaism let alone the fact that range of Jewish identities their might be.

I doubt as well you have any notion as to the difference in structure beween Jewish theological organizations and their role in enunciating Jewish religious faith and Muslim organizations enunciating their religion's faith.

I certainly think the lot of you think you know and assume you know what I think, but from the tone and content of the criticism I have not seen one shred of comment from you, Marcus or MichaelH that will acknowledge Islamic Society has problems. All you have to offeris this knee jerk reaction that criticizing Islamic society means one hates or is against Muslims for being Muslims.

Do not project your stale, rigid, simplistic frames of stereotyping on me.Unlike the three of you I know the difference between a Muslim as a person, an individual, their governments, their clergy.

You are the one who came on here and made a false allegation I blame Palestinians for their situation. You then did not back it up because you could not and then you did not have the decency to apologize. Oh I get it. Throw out the allegations to avoid debating.

Guess what, its spent. People can and should criticize any society.Discussion and criticism in an open manner that does not stereotype people is legitimate. Its when it stereotypes there can be problems.

Go on, show where I attributed a common characteristic or thought to a Muslim. I asked Michael H to. He could not. He produced some words that said nothing of the sort and said its an "obvious interpretation" or its because I didn't say clearly enough. Then when I stated it even more clearly he complained I was writing too long.

Move on Jacee. Don't selectively pop up to challenge me when you think its a gang up. Take the actual words I stated, challenge them and stop getting personal and attributing motives to me.

[Michael Hardner]

A couple of things Mr. Harder. The word vilify is used to suggest someone slanders or defames someone else.

No, it means that you bring blame to a group.

That is not what I stated, and its not what I said.

You insult "Islamic society" ... how is that not saying something about the people ?

You try pull the Muslim card to suggest if I criticize Muslim society it assigns me negative values and feelings towards Muslims so let me make it as clear as can be, I do not

How do you do not ? It's a negative comment on "Islamic society" isn't it ?

"Go back to what Ghost said. One can criticize Israeli state policies and not be anti Jewish or anti Zionist.

Criticizing Israeli society is NOT making general comments about "Jewish society" those are two completely different things.

I have never stated that general negative statements about Muslims could not be construed as anti Muslim. Never.

So are you saying that your "general negative statements" about "Islamic society" can be construed as anti Muslim ?

have never made general negative statements about Muslims as people, as individuals. I have criticized aspects of their society.

I agree.

You want to play this out Mr. Harder. Don't bother. Don't reinvent what I actually criticized.

You're shrieking at the top of your lungs about being misinterpreted, but yet the language you're using is pretty ambiguous. Please put yourself in the shoes of the casual reader and you'll see that your message is not so clear as to provoke such outrage.

One can most certainly make negative general statements about certain aspects of Jewish society and not be anti Jewish. I do it all the time.

Then give me an example. And NOT criticizing the state of Israel, that's not the same thing.

You Mr. Harder have failed. You have tried to twist my words, change their context, hide behind semantics but you won't debate those compoments of Islamic society I have.

What is there to debate ?

[Rue]

Michael Harder when you made the statement, in your latest response to me, "what is there to debate", I understand from that you will not debate the points I made about certain components in Islamic society I challenged. I get it.

I do notice you have used the following reponse tactics to avoid debating what I said about certain aspects of Islamic society;

1-the anti Muslim card (any discussion that criticizes Islamic society is anti Muslim and therefore is to be dismissed by you;

2 -(second version of 1), my writing is not clear which justifies you coming up with subjective assumptions as to what I really meant to then dismiss my issues as being anti Muslim;

3-I write to much so you do not have to read what I write;.

4-there is nothing to debate;

5-(third version of 1), my comments about Islamic society are general not specific so you have the write to arbitrarily dismiss them as anti Muslim and so do not have to address them;

6-(fourth version of 1), any criticism I or ANYONE makes as to Islamic society that is negative is both general and anti Muslim;

7-(fifth version of 1), it is impossible to criticize Islamic society without being anti Muslim (inverted to demand I show how I am able to criticize Jewish society without being anti Jewish).

You also engaged in two tactics I consider intellectually dishonest;

a-tried to change the meaning of the word "vilify"; to deny accusing me of devaluing Muslims;

b-referred to my criticisms of Islamic society as "attacks".

c-reframed my specific criticisms of Islamic society as general criticisms of Islamic society to raise something not at issue (that general statements can lead to unfair stereotyping)

In regards to tactic a; in light of your earlier accusation against me in tactic 2, I find it interesting you claim I didn't write clearly which justified your previous inference from my words that I was anti Muslim and classified your inference as being "obvious" and yet now you demonstrate that its not me being unclear, its in fact you choosing to try play semantics with my choice of words to try say they are unclear and I might say in a piss poor manner.

It takes a lot of chutzbah not to mention lack of intellectual honesty to try suggest the word "vilify" means to bring blame to a group and in this case Muslims so as to justify using that word against me but try back pedal from it. Yah I get the two step. Uh yah I don't hate Muslims, I just blame them. Lol. Got it.

Enough. You are well aware "vilify" does not mean to bring blame to a group, and to bring blame to a group I in fact the exercise of "scapegoating".

You are well aware I have never have I blamed Muslims for anything. Never once. Go on show one word from me where I blamed Muslims as people or as Muslims for anything. Come on. You repeat Jacee's failed tactic accusing me of blaming Palestinians for their conflict. Enough with the false allegations.

You are well aware the word "wilify" means to speak or write in a disparaging manner or are you now denying this? Is the Oxford dictionary wrong Mr. Harder?

You really want to play as to what this word means and deny what the word "vile" means? The term vilify has nothing to do with blaming anyone. It in fact means to say or write unpleasant things about someone or something in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them. It means to disparage or lower the value of someone.

Don't Mr. Harder start a war of semantics with me then try this tactic of trying to deny the meaning of the word you used, and then call me unclear. Enough. Its embarrassing for both of us.

In regards to tactic 1 recycled in tactics 2,5,6,7, keep playing that tune Mr. Harder but my words are there for anyone to read.

I did not as you continue to claim make "negative general comments" about Islamic society. I made specific ones. You chose to ignore my specificity using tactics 2, 3, and 4 to justify your refusing to read what I stated, let alone respond to it.

You can't have it both ways, i.e., claim I did not make specific criticisms, but openly state you will not acknowledge and read those specific critcisms.

Oh I get it. You don't even read what you make conclusions about and of course you think calling criticism "attacks" is a legitimate tactic. Criticism to you is an "attack". Or is it?

As you are aware in any discussion there are generalizations. What can make generalizations problematic, is when the writer assigns negative thoughts characteristics, beliefs, qualities, to an entire people.

Excuse me but I find it revealing you have never once challenged their negative stereotyping of Jews, Israelis, Nazis, holocaust survivors, and instead selectively only take the time to call people out when you thin they are anti Muslim. Oh I get it Mr. Harder. I get the selectivity.

Be fair. I have carefully taken the time to explain specifically in detail what it is I criticize so as to show its not a general attack about all Muslims-its you who have chosen to ignore it.

Now you ask how can one criticize Jewish society without being anti Jewish? You really need an example?

I do not believe anyone with your intelligence has to ask me that question.

I think you are not being sincere with that question but I will answer it.

I criticize Judaism the religion as having sects that cling to outmoded concepts as to women, God, homosexuality and how to pray.

As a Reform Jew I continually challenge fundamental practices of Judaism seeking to modernize them. How does that make me anti Jewish? How does it make me anti Jewish to say, I do not believe reading the Bible literally is helpful and that in my opinion as Jews we need to understand the Bible was written as a code of examples to teach certain principles of behaviour and was written during a time where certain moral values as to what we considered normal or acceptable have now changed and therefore are outmoded.

No I do not think it continues to make sense to grow a beard, be kosher. I think it made perfect sense to be kosher in the ancient days as a health precaution. Today no. Today I do not think a kosher diet can guarantee the same health safety precautions it once did. I also do not like the notion of slaughtering an animal by bleeding it slowly.

I believe in circumcision as a health precaution to lower the rate of cervical cancer in women as has been proven and to assist in hygiene not for religious reasons.

No I do not think if someone eats bacon they are disobeying God.

No I do not think deaf people are not capable of getting married because they can't understand the marriage vows or that gay people should be stoned.

No I do not thin women should be segregated from men or in any way are lesser to men or should keep their hair covered at all times.

You really need me to go on Michael Harder to criticize Jewish society but demonstrate it doesn't make me anti Jewish?

I agree with those who say Israel should not use white phosphorous weapons It doesn't make any of us anti Israeli for saying that.

I agree with those who say the continued settlement of Israelis on the West Bank is an impediment to peace. It doesn't make us anti-Israeli.

I agree with those who say the allotment of water on the West Bank has not been done in a fair manner to Palestinians, that does not make me anti Israeli.

I do not agree with extreme forms of religious Zionism. It sure as hell does not make me anti Zionist.

I agree with any Canadian who says to me, I must put Canada first, Israel second in the event of a conflict or I should not be a citizen of Canada. It doesn't make them or me anti Israeli.

I and others do not want religion mixed with government or schools, it does not make us anti Christian or anti Jewish.

I respect the right of certain Christians and Jews not to accept homosexual marriages, it does not make me anti homosexual. It just means I believe gay people should go to Christian churches or Jewish synagogues where they are welcome.

I believe marriage is a civil right for gays and straight people and the government remains neutral as to that.

You really think this game needs to be played out? Oh come on then, let's continue. I totally disagree with those Jews who claim Felashie Jews had to say a prayer to make themselves acceptable Jews or that one can not be Jewish if they are an atheist or humanist. I do not believe Rabbias have a monopoly on how to interpret the Bible, the Kabala, the Talmud.

I reject much of traditional Judaism. It doesn't make me anti Jewish it makes me critical of certain aspects of Judaism as a religion.

I believe the definition of a Jew has many components of which just one is the religious component.

We done?

You are trying to suggest ANY criticism of Muslim society necessarily makes one anti Muslim. How convenient. What a politically appropriate way to censor people just dismiss them as bigots right? No. This is a discussion board and we need to openly criticize Muslim society as we do Christian, Jewish and all other societies.

No do not pull the Muslim card on me. I don't give damn who it is, I will criticize them all the same way.

Now one last thing Mr.Harder. Your comment I am shrieking at the top of my lungs is patronizing. Take that attitude and file it under F.

I don't shriek. I debate. Don't hide behind name calling to avoid debating me.

Shriek? No. Stand my ground you bet. Why? Because I can not stand holier then thou liberals like you who patronize Muslims in the name of posing as being tolerant of them.

Oh how tolerant you are unless one wants to criticize a certain society,,then you become intolerant.

Do as I say not as I do. Oh I got it Mr.Harder and you will decide what can be said,

Lol Mr.Harder you keep running on to the field issuing cards.

Get off the field. Its called Australian football.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Rue

[WIP]

Where you and I disagree is that I do not see the Arab world as having been unified before the colonial intervention exasperated matters and the state of affsirs in the Islamic world was not all peaches and cream until the colonials messed things up. I beg to differ. My knowledge of history of the Middle East would say there were problems in Islamic Society, Jewish Society, Christian society, in the ancient Middle East long before the colonialists and that many of todays current conflicts date back to time periods long before the colonial interventionist period.

The turmoil within Islamic society between sects has gone on since Islam as a religion created states and fusion of theology with state to create ah ybrid Islamic society that does not seperate politics and government from religious beliefs.

I don't recall saying they were all united. In fact, most of the caliphate governments....at least the successful ones, were very secular and pragmatic in application. The Caliph delegated authority to local officials, who were often non-Muslims to begin with. Once the Caliphate had no reasonable expectations of advancing their armies any further, they left empire-building for maintaining the empire, and what they wanted most were governors who could collect the taxes without incurring unrest or uprisings that would require raising armies to quell and re-establish order.

By the time we get to the last caliphate of the Ottoman Turks, the Middle East had all sorts of pockets with small enclaves of ethnic and religious minorities. Except during times of trouble, Christians, Jews, Druze, Muslim sects - Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, and even heretical Muslim sects like the Alawites, Ahmadiyis, Yezidis, Ismailis, and Bahai's......all of these groups are able to carry on, living in the same place generation after generation, and what is supremely ironic is that what's called Islamism or Islamofascism here, is a modern phenomena that grew up after the last caliphate was abolished. Now, there's a strong likelihood of a major regional war of Sunni vs. Shia by way of a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia & Gulf states, while all of the minorities that lived undisturbed for centuries are on the run. And that is my main objection to this presentation here that the source of the problem is their religious beliefs. If that were true, WHY is the ethnic cleansings and extreme violence happening now, after allowing groups to live together in the same places for centuries?

There is a limit to how much of the words malaise you can dump on the USA. Your dumping on the USA exercise is necessarily inaccurate because for you to single them out and no other nation speaks to your absurd bias against the US.

The U.S. spent a century making itself the global economic empire, and after WWII, set a course to rapidly expand its military forces to ridiculous proportions....mostly to be the enforcer of a New World Order that it is not even clear now how much is actually American or acting in U.S. interests! When America spends billions on a carrier fleet that secures the flow of oil from the Gulf, it does so for all of the oil states and the major oil companies, whether they are based in the U.S. and have majority U.S. shareholders! For all we know, the American Empire may be like the ant, that leaves the work on behalf of its colony to run up to the top of blades of grass endlessly, because it serves the interests of a fungus that has infected its brain, and is deliberately commandeering the ant to self-destruct. Maybe the U.S. Empire that has all of these chest-thumping patriots behind it, has been similarly hijacked!

[Rue]

WIP I stand clarified on my assumption you stated Islamic society was united. Point taken as were your other comments. I again appreciate the effort made in your response. I enjoy reading your posts.

As to your classification of Islamo fascism as being a modern phenomena if you mean the military style dictatorships of Egypt and the Bath parties in Syria, Iraq, the dictatorships in Libya, Sudan, yes I would have to agree they are based on Italian and German fascist models. Lebanon had the Phalangists based on French and Italian fascism.

However what I am saying is problems within Islamic society pre-existed the colonial period. To blame it all on colonial powers and the adaption of fascist military dictatorship style governments I believe is inaccurate.

Those government styles are a symptom of an inability of the society to evolve to a level where it has separated religion from state sufficiently to allow for democratic institutions. Those military dictatorships could not have existed and could not exist today without their support and link to Sharia law systems tied to Muslim religion. Even Nasser stated for modern Arab society to evolve it must find a way to shed itself of its religious ties and separate them from the state.

Ghaddafi's version or interpretation of Islam went into his vision of the Libyan state. The dictators in Sudan engaged in a religious war against their Christians. Egypt has had internal civil war against its Christians. The tension between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, predate these dictatorships. So did the tensions between Sunni and Shiites before these dictatorships. The treatment of Christians,Kurds, Berbers, Assyrians, Bahaiis, Jews, Zoroastrians, and specific sects of Sunni and Shiite, the Druze, the Alawites, all predate Islamo fascism.

The concept of anyone not being a specific kind of Muslim being dhimmi or khafir, has been the fuel of conflict in Islamic society since it began and it hasn't subsided or evolved.

[Wilber]

An interesting editorial that speaks to this subject.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414021/our-dangerous-historical-moment-victor-davis-hanson

[eyeball]

Does all this sound depressingly familiar?

More typically than depressingly.

It reads a lot more like the lament of a warmonger than a peacemonger.

[Wilber]

More typically than depressingly.

It reads a lot more like the lament of a warmonger than a peacemonger.

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

And some people actually study history and try to learn from it. How comfortable would you be if you were a European Jew right now?

[eyeball]

I think I'd probably feel a lot more comfortable than a Muslim. They're going to be the ones getting stuffed into ovens this time around.

"By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals."

I think if the Hoover Institution was true to their word they'd be calling for GW Bush to be sent to the Hague. His mug shot should have been in the same lineup of suspects presented in the first article you posted.

Edited February 22, 2015 by eyeball

[Wilber]

I think I'd probably feel a lot more comfortable than a Muslim. They're going to be the ones getting stuffed into ovens this time around.

In case you haven't noticed, they are the ones doing the shooting. How many European Muslims have been shot by European Jews lately. Cites please.

[eyeball]

A miniscule handful might be shooting but the vast vast majority are being treated more and more like Jews were in the old days.

How many Jews are all to happy to not be the target of European angst and moral panic...for the moment? If anyone should be recalling and reminding Europe of Niemöller's poem right now it's the Jews.

[Wilber]

A miniscule handful might be shooting but the vast vast majority are being treated more and more like Jews were in the old days.

How many Jews are all to happy to not be the target of European angst and moral panic...for the moment? If anyone should be recalling and reminding Europe of Niemöller's poem right now it's the Jews.

No big deal, they only shooting a few Jews.

Can't find any, can ya. In case you haven't been paying attention, anti semetism is very much on the rise in Europe. Seems to me you the one in need of memory refreshment.

[eyeball]

No big deal, they only shooting a few Jews.

Can't find any, can ya. In case you haven't been paying attention, anti semetism is very much on the rise in Europe. Seems to me you the one in need of memory refreshment.

It's a big enough deal but I'm not wasting my time with your strawman about Jews shooting Muslims.

And if you would take a course of remedial reading comprehension you would have noted why I said for the moment. I'm well aware that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe right along with anti-Islamism. I wouldn't be surprised if many Europeans are calling a pox on both Jews and Muslims simply due to the decades of dysfunction spilling over from an all to apparently unresolvable Israeli/Palestinian conflict - just one more thing bedevilling attempts to create a more peaceful world.

The Charnel House is definitely coming back and this time Europeans are pissed at everyone they think doesn't belong there. Now we're following suit.

[Wilber]

Jews don't belong in Europe. Got it. Welcome to the 12th century. Or so.