[luke warm]

Badmonster, on Apr 19 2006, 10:51 AM, said:

Terrorism is effective. And maybe the best way to defeat it is with consideration and humanity, because apparently guns, humor and free speech will not defeat or deter it. Maybe sensitivity and decency will work better. And if it doesn't wouldn't we rather go to work and get on planes having been decent and humane?

the problem is, you seem to forget who it is we're dealing with... they aren't the least bit interested in being treated with consideration and humanity, they want an end to our lifestyle, to the very things that make us who and what we are... now one can debate that lifestyle, but as far as i'm concerned one can't debate the correctness of using terrorist tactics to undermine it

Quote

There are many wonderful tolerant and religious Christians Muslims and Jews. Religion doesn't inspire exclusion and vitriol. It does however make a great cover for those who are hate filled and malicious to hide behind.

this is true as far as it goes, but when the religion itself teaches that it can't coexist with those whose faith differs, it makes things a tad touchy

Al said:

So, accord all palestinians living in the concerned areas total Israeli citizenship with full rights, a homestead (parcel of land) and a credit for the building of infrastructure or commerce.

but al, you seem to forget (like maybe deb did) who you're talking about... these are the same people who vow not to rest until israel (all jews, really) are wiped off the face of the earth... do you think they want citizenship in a country who has, in their opinion, no right to exist?

asdfg2k said:

Being decent and humane means that those who are targets of terrorism attempt to specifically target those who are the perpetrators and their support systems. I assure you that there are a number of people who would much prefer to eradicate the problem by obliterating entire populations - until the message gets across.

yes

Helene said:

Like "we publish whatever we want and we don't care if the terrorists get mad".

Of course, if their only goal is to kill a bunch of innocent people, my strategy won't work.

their goal is to kill all who disagree with their religious faith, they do not have as a goal to live in peace and harmony with the rest of mankind... but i do agree that we should not let terrorists dictate how we live

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 03:03 PM, said:

Al said:

So, accord all palestinians living in the concerned areas total Israeli citizenship with full rights, a homestead (parcel of land) and a credit for the building of infrastructure or commerce.

but al, you seem to forget (like maybe deb did) who you're talking about... these are the same people who vow not to rest until israel (all jews, really) are wiped off the face of the earth... do you think they want citizenship in a country who has, in their opinion, no right to exist?

I did not forget, I ignored. The purpose of the exercise, even were it to be the abolishment of "Israel" and the formation "Islish" or "Jewam" states, was to propose a situation where everyone is equal and equally invested in the success and perpetuation of their mutually peaceful coexistance.

I did say it was utopian.......but the principle is eminently humane.

[Badmonster]

Hannie, on Apr 19 2006, 01:48 PM, said:

Yes Deb, terrorism is effective (in the sense that it effects us), but are you really suggesting that we should sacrifice our free speech? I think your "consideration" for these terrorists goes too far.

Absolutely not. I think, and forgive me if I don't phrase this effectively, that while free speech is worth fighting and dying for, there are times when we might be most prudent to chose when and how we exercise that right.

The response to the cartoon was disproportionate and sickening.

The other side of this is that it must be a very difficult time to be an Arab living in the western world right now. What might have been funny five years ago may be less funny today and funnier again five years from now. There's nothing wrong with chosing to be more sensitive.

[Badmonster]

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 03:03 PM, said:

the problem is, you seem to forget who it is we're dealing with... they aren't the least bit interested in being treated with consideration and humanity, they want an end to our lifestyle, to the very things that make us who and what we are... now one can debate that lifestyle, but as far as i'm concerned one can't debate the correctness of using terrorist tactics to undermine it

this is true as far as it goes, but when the religion itself teaches that it can't coexist with those whose faith differs, it makes things a tad touchy


but al, you seem to forget (like maybe deb did) who you're talking about... these are the same people who vow not to rest until israel (all jews, really) are wiped off the face of the earth... do you think they want citizenship in a country who has, in their opinion, no right to exist?

their goal is to kill all who disagree with their religious faith, they do not have as a goal to live in peace and harmony with the rest of mankind

I am going to say something you don't hear very often around here. I don't know. It's complicated and sad and scary and I don't know.

I especially don't know about the Isreali Palestinians. I'm not an Israeli or a Palestinian. From the outside looking in I think both sides there have a lot to be angry about and a lot to be ashamed of.

Is there some answer that's going to work?

[luke warm]

Badmonster, on Apr 19 2006, 03:31 PM, said:

I am going to say something you don't hear very often around here. I don't know. It's complicated and sad and scary and I don't know.

I especially don't know about the Isreali Palestinians. I'm not an Israeli or a Palestinian. From the outside looking in I think both sides there have a lot to be angry about and a lot to be ashamed of.

Is there some answer that's going to work?

none of us know a whole helluva lot... as for answers, there are plenty... i just don't think any can work, given the nature of man

[han]

Badmonster, on Apr 19 2006, 03:23 PM, said:

Hannie, on Apr 19 2006, 01:48 PM, said:

Yes Deb, terrorism is effective (in the sense that it effects us), but are you really suggesting that we should sacrifice our free speech? I think your "consideration" for these terrorists goes too far.

Absolutely not. I think, and forgive me if I don't phrase this effectively, that while free speech is worth fighting and dying for, there are times when we might be most prudent to chose when and how we exercise that right.

The response to the cartoon was disproportionate and sickening.

The other side of this is that it must be a very difficult time to be an Arab living in the western world right now. What might have been funny five years ago may be less funny today and funnier again five years from now. There's nothing wrong with chosing to be more sensitive.

lol, I forgive you Deb .

I also agree that a little prudence is called for when expressing one's opinion. Last week there was a disgusting anti-homosexuality demonstration here in Madison, where people shouted things that should (imo) be illegal (I'm not sure what the words of the laws are, but I understand that you are not allowed to say things that incite violence, some of the things they shouted came quite close to that imo).

I haven't seen the cartoons, but what I understood was that the whole point was that there is currently a lot of violence in the name of Islam. I heard that one of the cartoons showed a dead suicide bomber who was informed that they were out of virgins (a reaction to a promise that you get 50 virgins in the afterlife if you die in the jihad). This is not a silly joke, these cartoonist weren't just trying to be funny, they were trying to make a point.

I think that people should be able to make a statement like this. I don't think that everybody should always be sensitive. I have seen a lot of political cartoons that I thought were really bad, but people should be allowed to write them, and they should not hold back.

Anyway, that's what I think.

[han]

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 03:03 PM, said:

the problem is, you seem to forget who it is we're dealing with... they aren't the least bit interested in being treated with consideration and humanity, they want an end to our lifestyle, to the very things that make us who and what we are... now one can debate that lifestyle, but as far as i'm concerned one can't debate the correctness of using terrorist tactics to undermine it

this is true as far as it goes, but when the religion itself teaches that it can't coexist with those whose faith differs, it makes things a tad touchy


but al, you seem to forget (like maybe deb did) who you're talking about... these are the same people who vow not to rest until israel (all jews, really) are wiped off the face of the earth... do you think they want citizenship in a country who has, in their opinion, no right to exist?

their goal is to kill all who disagree with their religious faith, they do not have as a goal to live in peace and harmony with the rest of mankind

Jimmy, I know you were replying to a post and pieces have been cut out in between, but I think that you shouldn't write "they" without clarifying who you mean. Surely you are talking about terrorists here, not about the whole Islamic world. I hope..

[luke warm]

absolutely, han, i was speaking of terrorists and any who support them... during the whole cartoon fiasco, millions in the islam religion not only acted in a civilized manner but decried the violence perpetrated by those who didn't

[han]

Glad to hear that, and I was pretty sure that that's what you meant.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 11:03 PM, said:

Quote

There are many wonderful tolerant and religious Christians Muslims and Jews. Religion doesn't inspire exclusion and vitriol. It does however make a great cover for those who are hate filled and malicious to hide behind.

this is true as far as it goes, but when the religion itself teaches that it can't coexist with those whose faith differs, it makes things a tad touchy

What gets me a bit "touchy" is when people start making sweeping (and ignorant) generalizations like this one.

If you look back across history, Islam fairly respectable track record in protecting the rights of other faiths. I'd be happy to contrast the rights according to dhimmi under the millet system with the treatment of religious minorities in good Christian Europe.

I will readily admit that there are some extreme and intolerant variants of Islam that are currently coming to the forefront. Personally, I think that this has much more to do with political and economic tensions within the Middle East than anything specific to Islam. (All of the Abrahamic religions are pretty much the same)

I'm sure that you'd be offended if I started posting some of the teachings from so-called Christain Reconstructists and used this to claim that Christianity is a religion of oppression, hate, and Dominionism. In much the same ways, it seems very inappropriate to generalize some of the more extreme versions of Salafism/Wahhabism to all of Islam.

[asdfg2k]

Badmonster, on Apr 19 2006, 12:23 PM, said:

Absolutely not. I think, and forgive me if I don't phrase this effectively, that while free speech is worth fighting and dying for, there are times when we might be most prudent to chose when and how we exercise that right.

Absolutely. But the questions become, where to draw the line and what is the appropriate response to an individual or organization that steps over the line? I think everybody draws their own line. And they respond by voicing their disapproval in any legal manner they choose. Complaints, letters to the editor, picketing and even boycotting are historically acceptable and have proven effective, although none carry the immediate gratification demanded by some.

Threats of violence, mayhem and other similar tactics are left to those who wish to be characterized as goons.

I see nothing wrong with an individual, such as a comic, choosing not to make fun of a particular topic because the comic feels they might alienate their intended audience. I see everything wrong with an individual, such as a comic, choosing not to make fun of a particular topic because of abject fear.

In that vein, I'm surprised at the Danish organization that allowed the cartoons. I personally found them beyond offensive. I think they could have found a way to express the same thing without resorting to what they did. I, personally, would have no trouble with a subscriber or group of subscribers that decided to vote with their feet. If the organization went out of business, so be it.

But none of that justifies violence in support of protest.

[mike777]

Again why not just not print cartoons, pull out of mideast, and just do what they want? We Amercans forget all about the many religious wars from the Reformation in Europe. Why not just ask these guys what they want and send them a check and pass the laws they want passed?

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Apr 19 2006, 04:34 PM, said:

What gets me a bit "touchy" is when people start making sweeping (and ignorant) generalizations like this one.

well yes, i'll admit that my ignorance of islam is apparently more obvious than yours (if yours exists)... however, i believe it's at least as ignorant to think that either you or i know more about a holy book than those scholars who actually study and teach from it... so surely i can be forgiven for misunderstanding a sermon preached by dr. ziad al-ayubi on june 19, 2005, when he told his listeners, "o god, help our people in palestine and the golan. o god, annihilate the zionists and make them destroy themselves."

and in yemen at the sanaa's grand mosque this sermon was preached, "o god, deal with the enemies of religion. o god, deal with jews and their supporters and christians and their supporters. shake the land under their feet. instill fear in their hearts, and freeze the blood in their veins. o god, scatter their ranks, make fate turn against them, and continue pressure on them."

so yes, maybe my statement was a bit of a generalization, but it sure seems from these examples (want more?) that islam doesn't desire coexistence with other religions (at least not jews or christians, tho i've yet to hear a sermon preached nor read in the quran anything about the, for example, buddhists)... also note that those and other sermons i could quote are broadcast, with frightening regularity, on official government radio and tv stations in saudia arabia, syria, iran, yemen, etc

Quote

I'd be happy to contrast the rights according to dhimmi under the millet system with the treatment of religious minorities in good Christian Europe.

that's true, there are horrible examples from the world of christiandom concerning the treatment of other people... but that's hardly a defense

Quote

I will readily admit that there are some extreme and intolerant variants of Islam that are currently coming to the forefront.  Personally, I think that this has much more to do with political and economic tensions within the Middle East than anything specific to Islam.  (All of the Abrahamic religions are pretty much the same)

so do i and yes they are

Quote

I'm sure that you'd be offended if I started posting some of the teachings from so-called Christain Reconstructists and used this to claim that Christianity is a religion of oppression, hate, and Dominionism.

well yes, no religion is safe from the crackpot...

Quote

In much the same ways, it seems very inappropriate to generalize some of the more extreme versions of Salafism/Wahhabism to all of Islam.

perhaps it is inappropriate... i'd be more convinced of this if the examples i posted above didn't seem to be the version most often heard, and if words like those weren't condoned by the countries in which they are spoken

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Apr 20 2006, 02:57 AM, said:

I'd be more convinced of this if the examples i posted above didn't seem to be the version most often heard, and if words like those weren't condoned by the countries in which they are spoken

Did you ever consider that the "version" that you hear the most is the one that makes the most money for the US media?

For the record, here is a listing of the 8 countries with the highest population of muslims:

1. Indonesia: 196 million
2. India: 133 million
3. China: 133 million
4. Pakistan: 125 million
5. Nigeria: 77 million
6 Iran: 65 million
7. Turkey: 62 million
8: Egypt: 59 million

After Egypt, has more than twice the population of the next highest state (Morocco)

I think that you'll find that very different verisons of Islam are preached throughout the Muslim world. Its certainly possible to find "Fire and Brimstone" type preachers, and yes, a lot of them are concentrated on Arabian penisula. Then again, here in the US we have plenty of idiots like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, not to mention the whole "Left Behind" crowd.

>well yes, no religion is safe from the crackpot...

That's my point: The only exposure that you get to Islam here in the US is to the crackpots.

(For what its worth, when I was in Undergrad I spent a lot of time studying Turkish and Middle Eastern History. My Professor spent the better part of a session translating Yemen jokes from Arabic to English. My favorite is a fairly old saying" "Yemen is rushing blindly into 14th century"

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Apr 19 2006, 11:34 PM, said:

If you look back across history, Islam fairly respectable track record in protecting the rights of other faiths.  I'd be happy to contrast the rights according to dhimmi under the millet system with the treatment of religious minorities in good Christian Europe.

This is true, but is it relevant to this discussion?

To me, Islam is the way it's used today. If the nett impact of Islam today is negative, then it is a bad religion, no matter how wonderful it was originally meant and how wonderfully it once worked and how wonderful it is in the interpretation of those who did not let their intepretatition influence by hatred, originating from economic problems in the Middle East.

I'm not claiming that the nett impact of Islam is negative. It's quite possible that the Middle East as well as Middle-Eastern migrant populations in Europe would be even worse off without Islam. But many (not all) imams in Europe say very intollerant and reactionary things in the name of Islam. And to the audience as well as to me, what they say is Islam (per definition), even if it is historically and theologically incorrect.

[Badmonster]

helene_t, on Apr 20 2006, 04:28 AM, said:

To me, Islam is the way it's used today. If the nett impact of Islam today is negative, then it is a bad religion, no matter how wonderful it was originally meant and how wonderfully it once worked and how wonderful it is in the interpretation of those who did not let their intepretatition influence by hatred, originating from economic problems in the Middle East.

I'm not claiming that the nett impact of Islam is negative. It's quite possible that the Middle East as well as Middle-Eastern migrant populations in Europe would be even worse off without Islam. But many (not all) imams in Europe say very intollerant and reactionary things in the name of Islam. And to the audience as well as to me, what they say is Islam (per definition), even if it is historically and theologically incorrect.

I don't mean to pick on Helene, who I suspect is probably a lovely person, but this is what I mean about sensitivity. We have a lot of Muslim players on bbo. I imagine some of them probably read the forums. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of them are not hate-filled xenophobic, terrorists. And so, I worry that perhaps your post might hurt their feelings, the way my feelings would be hurt if someone posted that Jews are money-sucking misers who eat Christian babies at passover.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Apr 19 2006, 08:16 PM, said:

Did you ever consider that the "version" that you hear the most is the one that makes the most money for the US media?

probably true, richard... i just wish the ones who heard those versions of islam from among the believers weren't so adamant about implementing jihad... in any case, you point is taken - as in any religion, the more fundamentalist the preacher, the more his words are reported

[han]

Badmonster, on Apr 20 2006, 08:32 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 20 2006, 04:28 AM, said:

To me, Islam is the way it's used today. If the nett impact of Islam today is negative, then it is a bad religion, no matter how wonderful it was originally meant and how wonderfully it once worked and how wonderful it is in the interpretation of those who did not let their intepretatition influence by hatred, originating from economic problems in the Middle East.

I'm not claiming that the nett impact of Islam is negative. It's quite possible that the Middle East as well as Middle-Eastern migrant populations in Europe would be even worse off without Islam. But many (not all) imams in Europe say very intollerant and reactionary things in the name of Islam. And to the audience as well as to me, what they say is Islam (per definition), even if it is historically and theologically incorrect.

I don't mean to pick on Helene, who I suspect is probably a lovely person, but this is what I mean about sensitivity. We have a lot of Muslim players on bbo. I imagine some of them probably read the forums. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of them are not hate-filled xenophobic, terrorists. And so, I worry that perhaps your post might hurt their feelings, the way my feelings would be hurt if someone posted that Jews are money-sucking misers who eat Christian babies at passover.

Oh come on, Helene said nothing offensive or insensitive in this post! How can you compare this post with saying that jews eat babies? I think that's absurd.

Helene makes two comments: (I hope I'm not misquoting you Helene)

1) That the Islam (as we talk about it) is what it is now, not what it was 1500 years ago.

2) That many imams in Europe say things that we [here: a majority of Western Europeans] see as absolutely intolerant (and worse).

She also correctly stated that this it is not true that all imams say these things.

How can you find something offensive in these words?

Should we not say that we think that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men?

Should we not mention that we think homosexuals should have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals?

There surely are Muslim players on BBO who think very differently on these issues, and might take offense when reading this. Hopefully there are others who are interested in reading how we think about these things, even if they might not agree. (and maybe there are also Muslims players on BBO who agree, I don't know, but I'd be interested in hearing from them)

I'm not planning to defend Helene, who I suspect is a horrible person [EDIT: adding smillie: ] , more often, but if you want to pick on her I suggest you find a better reason to do so, not just because she is saying what she thinks.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

Yes that's the best way. I was in London last July and the next day the Underground was running again. Let them know: That does not discourage us, the show must and will go on. All people who FAILED to take the Underground the next day (and there were many - it wasn't as full as before) should think about this and do the opposite.

[Badmonster]

Hannie, on Apr 20 2006, 04:22 PM, said:

Badmonster, on Apr 20 2006, 08:32 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 20 2006, 04:28 AM, said:

To me, Islam is the way it's used today. If the nett impact of Islam today is negative, then it is a bad religion, no matter how wonderful it was originally meant and how wonderfully it once worked and how wonderful it is in the interpretation of those who did not let their intepretatition influence by hatred, originating from economic problems in the Middle East.

I'm not claiming that the nett impact of Islam is negative. It's quite possible that the Middle East as well as Middle-Eastern migrant populations in Europe would be even worse off without Islam. But many (not all) imams in Europe say very intollerant and reactionary things in the name of Islam. And to the audience as well as to me, what they say is Islam (per definition), even if it is historically and theologically incorrect.

I don't mean to pick on Helene, who I suspect is probably a lovely person, but this is what I mean about sensitivity. We have a lot of Muslim players on bbo. I imagine some of them probably read the forums. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of them are not hate-filled xenophobic, terrorists. And so, I worry that perhaps your post might hurt their feelings, the way my feelings would be hurt if someone posted that Jews are money-sucking misers who eat Christian babies at passover.

Oh come on, Helene said nothing offensive or insensitive in this post! How can you compare this post with saying that jews eat babies? I think that's absurd.

Helene makes two comments: (I hope I'm not misquoting you Helene)

1) That the Islam (as we talk about it) is what it is now, not what it was 1500 years ago.

2) That many imams in Europe say things that we [here: a majority of Western Europeans] see as absolutely intolerant (and worse).

She also correctly stated that this it is not true that all imams say these things.

How can you find something offensive in these words?

Should we not say that we think that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men?

Should we not mention that we think homosexuals should have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals?

There surely are Muslim players on BBO who think very differently on these issues, and might take offense when reading this. Hopefully there are others who are interested in reading how we think about these things, even if they might not agree. (and maybe there are also Muslims players on BBO who agree, I don't know, but I'd be interested in hearing from them)

I'm not planning to defend Helene, who I suspect is a horrible person, more often, but if you want to pick on her I suggest you find a better reason to do so, not just because she is saying what she thinks.

It really wasn't my intention to pick on Helene. I think that saying that Muslims are intolerant and reactionary might be offensive. But it's very possible this is not what she said. In which case I have misunderstood.

Perhaps the baby eating was a poor choice of words, I didn't mean to imply that Helene was hurling insults, but rather than stereotypes can be insulting.


Are we fighting now?