Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Dear Muslim World

By circletimessquare in Op-Ed
Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

Without demolishing religious schools (madrassahs) and minarets and without abandoning the beliefs and ideas of the medieval age, restriction in thoughts and pains in conscience will not end. Without understanding that unbelief is a kind of religion, and that conservative religious belief a kind of disbelief, and without showing tolerance to opposite ideas, one cannot succeed. Those who look for the truth will accomplish the mission.

Was this said by an American imperialist warmonger? A Zionist colonist pig? A decadent immoral European? This was said by Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, one of the most widely read and highly respected scholars of the Muslim world. And he said these words in the 13th Century. I implore you, dear Muslim world, that you consider his words well. For the only ones who lose if you do not are yourselves. No foreign enemy will defeat you. You will simply fail to achieve that which is in your grasp, and thereby defeat yourselves.


Many say the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed were a direct provocation of Muslim sensibilities. And they would be correct. And equally true is that most Muslims who are rightfully deeply insulted by the cartoons wage peaceful protests. And some say that the Western media only focuses on the most violent of reactions in the Muslim world. However, the problem is that, even with all of these mitigations, there is still a large segment of the Muslim world that thinks their reaction, violence, is appropriate for cartoons.

A lot of us in the West are bewildered. We understand the repugnance in your reaction, we just don't understand the ferocity and scale of it. Which of course, is an observation that can be turned on its head: maybe you can be equally bewildered as to why we are so nonplussed by a vile insult to a great world religion. And upon that essential misunderstanding, so much bedeviling of the world right now turns.

The bridging of these two positions is what I am getting at: your tolerance is more necessary than our restraint. Not because the West will respond to your lack of restraint, but because you will reduce yourself, you will weaken yourself, no matter what the West says or does. What arrogance is this? Who am I to speak? I am a secularist from the West. I respect Islam. I revere the Muslim world for the great advances in science- algebra, alchemy, etc., that the Muslim world made while Europeans were busy with tribal warfare.

The advances the Muslim world made centuries ago were made in an environment of enlightenment. Enlightenment is not about disrespecting religious teachings. Enlightenment is about allowing the mind to go to places that religious teachings might not wholly support. It is in this environment of tolerance to new ideas, some bad, some good, some possibly blasphemy, but not necessarily so, that man's creative energies have the best chance to enrich our lives. Islam in its golden age did very much enrich mankind. What happened in Europe after the Middle Ages was the enlightenment the Muslim world already knew, but it seems that the Muslim world stagnated while Europe picked up where the golden age of Islam let off.

All I ask of you is to return to your golden age. And the extremists and their strict Sharia law and its straightjacket hold on the mind and freedom of expression are not the route to that glorious past. The contest here is not between the West and the Muslim world. The contest is between you and yourselves, between moderate Muslim and extremist Muslim. And, dear moderates, you must win this fight, if you wish the Muslim world to be peaceful and prosperous. Foreign powers be damned. It is you, and you alone, who determines your fate. What I am talking about here is not about succumbing to the West, or American cultural imperialism. Or submitting to insults to your prophet. We are talking about the Muslim world reclaiming its rightful grasp on some of the ideas that you created, centuries ago. The golden age of Islam. But you have forgotten it. We, in the West, did not forget the ideas you taught us.

Reclaim what is yours. Start a new golden age. Let tolerance once again beat the extremists amongst you. Reclaim the tolerance you knew while Europe was busy suffering under its religious extremism like the Spanish Inquisition. It's all about a society that maximizes the things that matter to human beings: justice, wealth, happiness, etc. You knew that once, you seemed to have forgotten. The West does not have a monopoly on these ideas, The West is not in any way perfect. America has many problems right now today with freedoms, France has many problems with responsible wealth formation, Denmark is not a perfect democracy. You can quickly come to perfect these ideas, that you helped create, better than the West.

For awhile, for the last few dozen or so decades, America and the West were rich and powerful, just as one time long ago, the Muslim world was rich and powerful. But as the West ages and decays, stuck in absurd positions, you should speak up and criticize us as we stumble. We may not listen to you, we may reply angrily. And you will be bewildered at our stubbornness- just as we are confused about the reaction we see to cartoons in the Muslim world.

When I criticize the Muslim world it is not because I think the West is perfect. It is because I can see things about your world that you cannot. Just as you can see things I cannot see about the West that are hypocritical or weak of me. We both have problems. I say to you, that violent demonstrations over cartoons is not strength. And you can easily point out to me things the West does that is not strength.

The West is not beaten by you by military force or by terrorist action or by angry chest thumping. The West is beaten by you by you being a more enlightened society. In other words, you do not defeat Satan by becoming satanic yourself, you defeat Satan by humbling it and shaming it and showing it its hypocrisy. Fire and death due to cartoons is not that. Fire and death due to cartoons is you becoming Satan as well. You must tolerate silly cartoons in the West that disrespect your prophet. Because that tolerance is more important to the greatness of Islam than any silly simple pride. You are not showing the West, you are not showing your children, the greatness of Islam in violence and inferno over cartoons. You are showing pettiness.

Who am I to say such patronizing, condescending words to you? I am not saying them at all. I am merely reminding you of what one of your greatest thinkers already said, so many centuries ago. I am merely asking you to be as great pious men when you see expressions against Islam. To tolerate, to allow freedom of expression, as great men know patience and not easy anger.

Why freewill is good for man

God said, "Do thou grant his earnest request, enlarge his faculty according to his freewill. Freewill is as the salt to piety, otherwise Heaven itself were matter of compulsion. In its revolutions reward and punishment were needless, for 'tis freewill that has merit at the great reckoning.

If the whole world were framed to praise God, there would be no merit in praising God. Place a sword in his hand and remove his impotence, to see if he turns out a warrior or a robber. Because freewill is that wherewith 'we honour Adam,'

Half the swarm become bees and half wasps. The faithful yield honeycombs like bees, the infidels yield [a] store of poison like wasps. For the faithful feed on choice herbs, so that, like bees, their chyle [experience] yields life-giving food, whilst infidels feed on filth and garbage, and generate poison according to their food."

Men inspired of God are the fountain of life. Men of delusions are a synonym for death. In the world the praise "Well done faithful servant!" Is given to freewill which is used with prudence. If all dissolute men were shut up in prison, they would all be temperate and devout and pious. When power of choice is absent, actions are worthless. But beware lest death snatch away your capital!

Your power of choice is a capital yielding profit, remember well the day of final account!

I repeat, words of ancient Muslim wisdom, words of tolerance and freedom of expression:

If the whole world were framed to praise God, there would be no merit in praising God.

Do not let the extremists in the Muslim world destroy the Muslim mind, and destroy the Muslim's ability to express the mind freely. Free expression and tolerance, of even that which makes the blood boil, is actually the road to great riches and peace. This I learned from one of the greatest thinkers of Islam: the way of the extremist is the way of the insecure and the doomed.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi
o 13th Century
o wage peaceful protests
o bewildered
o I am merely asking you to be as great pious men when you see expressions against Islam
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
Dear Muslim World | 629 comments (593 topical, 36 editorial, 2 hidden)
I am not bewildered (2.40 / 5) (#6)
by dimaq on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 06:21:12 AM EST

You say all in the West are bewildered - well I'm not. The way I see it, there are lotsa of people out there, call them mobs if you wish, who are just waiting for a reason to burn, rape and pillage, and if someone hell knows where is willing to give them that reason for free, they will take it.

You can find such people everywhere, in the western world too (oz anyone?). What amuses me is the distance to the trigger, or mediums that convey it. Also that the reason givers do it for free, they could at least charge money for the service!

i'm bewildered (none / 1) (#22)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:07:31 PM EST

all that madeness, over a CARTOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I'm really not (3.00 / 3) (#24)
by Sgt York on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:23:47 PM EST

Saddened, but not surprised or confused.

Look at history. The Moor invasion, the Crusades, the abuses by Catholic Church in the middle of last century, Islamic terrorists, the current Religious Right movement in the US, stone age shamans, Emporer worship in Japan c1930, even the US Revolutionary War....history is littered with examples of groups manipulating the religious beliefs of the populace to their own ends.

This is simply one more example, and it's not even the worst one. I'd like to think that people would learn, but they don't. History proves that, too. Most people are easy to manipulate, and there are people highly skilled at manipulation. It sucks, but it's not surprising or confusing at all.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

yea, it has whiffs of being orchestrated nt (none / 0) (#25)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:31:28 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
if religion is the opiate of the masses (3.00 / 2) (#106)
by MX5 on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:13:18 PM EST

addicts will do anything to stop the drug being taken away

"Next week on the programme, bats. Are they really blind or are they just taking the piss?" -tfs
[ Parent ]
true (none / 0) (#360)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:08:24 PM EST

except that there are always be drug addicts

all one can do is minimize their impact on society

you can't create a world, where free choice is respected, where everyone chooses the path of an opiate-free life

some people will alwyas seek to deaden their existence with opiates

it's statistically inevitable

all one can do is minimize their damage, and minimize their creation

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

-1 (1.16 / 6) (#13)
by alevin on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 09:28:21 AM EST

Islam is NOT a religion of peace. I've met some cool Islamists though, and people are generally reasonable, so I guess +1SP.
--
alevin
Opps (3.00 / 2) (#14)
by alevin on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 09:29:09 AM EST

Already -1ed it. Maybe Islamists should convert? I hear Buddhism is pretty non-violent.
--
alevin
[ Parent ]
Great letter (none / 1) (#15)
by nebbish on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 09:44:54 AM EST

Something tells me it's going to fall on deaf ears though.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

yup no one will hear it who needs to (none / 1) (#19)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:04:46 PM EST

but i still gotta say it

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Freedom of religion (3.00 / 6) (#17)
by anno1602 on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 10:38:54 AM EST

If the whole world were framed to praise God, there would be no merit in praising God.

Thank you. What I never got about the cartoon conflict is how people where talking about feedom of speech or freedom of press. To me, being allowed to do blasphemous things is about freedom of religion.

Consider: Freedom of religion means that you are allowed to choose what religion - if any - you believe in. Along with that belief goes a set of values and rules. So, along with a religion, I also choose rules I voluntarily submit to (in addition to the rules of the secular society I live in) because I believe that will allow me to enter heaven, bring me enlightenment or whatever the particular religion promises as a reward. Freedom of religion, then, also means freedom of choosing rulesets.

That, in turn, means that these rules are a personal choice. Nobody should be able to make me follow rules of religions I do not believe in - they might even contradict my own. If a muslim is forbidden to draw Mohammed and a catholic is forbidden to have sex with contraceptives, that does not make the Jew who uses condoms with pictures of Mohammed wrong. Sure, he might have forsaken eternal salvation in the eyes of both the muslim and the catholic, but that should not affect him personally. Those are the rules the muslim and the catholic chose to follow, not the rules of the Jew. (The same thing also works in reverse, of course - the catholic does not have to eat kosher food just because the Jew does).

If the rules of a religion are forced upon persons who do not follow that religion, the religion itself is effectively forced upon the society, and freedom fo relgion goes down the drain.


--
"Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
Incidentally (none / 0) (#108)
by marx on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:35:03 PM EST

Denmark has a law against blasphemy (read Moeller's comments). So I don't really understand what you're saying here..

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Hrm.. (none / 1) (#112)
by anno1602 on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:09:48 PM EST

Denmark has a law against blasphemy

Thank you for ppointing that out. A bit of research showed me that a lot of European countries have laws against blasphemy. A bit of research shows that they are sometimes still invoked, and that surprises me (and shocks me a little).

So I don't really understand what you're saying here..

And I don't really see the connection between the fact that Denmark has a law against blasphemy and my point. All it shows is that freedom of religion in Denmark may not be perfect.


--
"Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
[ Parent ]
It's not about freedoms (3.00 / 3) (#257)
by i chihi on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:36:20 AM EST

The problem with the cartoons is not that they were depicting Mohammed. The rage of some Muslims is not because the rule of "not to depict the Prophet" was breached by someone in Denmark.

Mohammed portraits are everywhere in Iran and I know that a French publication have published an engraved image for what they thought was Mohammed's image. None lifted a finger at this. I've seen much worse than the Danish cartoons said about Mohammed.

This is a particular instance that has been publicised in the Middle East through envoys from Denmark and it took some uncontrollable size.

Running to conclusions about Muslims because of the latest events is a bit unreasonable. There's an obvious pattern in the places where violence took place: Gaza, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Nigeria. All of these have serious political instability problems. It's hard to believe that Pakistanis are more Muslims than the Saudis.

Back to the cartoons. Those were not just blasphemeous for Muslims, they conveyed a very dangerous message: Muslims are terrorists because their faith founder is.

The Nazi press in early 30's used very similar tactics to vilify the Jews and establish an anti-Jewish climate that made Jews extermination widely accepted and taken as legitimate act.

In the current geo-political situation it's hard to dismiss the cartoons as just a bad-tasted joke. A Muslim sees Europeans as the Crusaders and the Colonisers. Looking at Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Yogoslavia, Lebanon and such adds up to draw a dark image of Europe and this seemingly isolated event was a simple trigger.

[ Parent ]

Well Allah overrides such human niceties (none / 1) (#543)
by padda on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:47:02 AM EST

that's the thing, it's Allah versus some talkative European. Who are you to pit your puny 'freedom of religion' against the commands of Allah?

[ Parent ]
I am the leading deity... (none / 0) (#585)
by anno1602 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:31:23 AM EST

...of my own special religion, and in my world, I am mightier than Allah! So freedom of religion it is!

(That was a joke)

Seriously, I get what you are trying to say, but it is so much outside of my world view that it just seems absurd. And I suspect I'm not the only one.
--
"Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
[ Parent ]

Well done, (none / 1) (#26)
by vera on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:36:40 PM EST

but muslims don't visit this website.  Submit elsewhere, if anywhere.

Stomp on my apathy with words if you want.  I might be inclined to respond.

iagree (none / 0) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 01:55:59 PM EST

but it needs to be said, i dont know where else to say it

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
how about (none / 0) (#70)
by janra on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:14:19 AM EST

the world forum?
--
Discuss the art and craft of writing
That's the problem with world domination... Nobody is willing to wait for it anymore, work slowly towards it, drink more and enjoy the ride more.
[ Parent ]
interesting (none / 0) (#74)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:27:54 AM EST

i never saw that before

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yep, still around (3.00 / 2) (#261)
by Drog on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:24:30 AM EST

I haven't been participating in it nearly as much since September when I started a full-time job at an office (I was a solo contractor working form home before). But lately people have been finding it on their own, submitting stories and participating in discussions. Still needs a lot more users though.

Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum". News feed available here on K5.
[ Parent ]
yes we do! (none / 0) (#412)
by osama on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:28:26 AM EST

Yes, we do visit this site....

[ Parent ]
Dear circletimessquare World (2.60 / 5) (#31)
by loteck on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 02:36:35 PM EST

You know what I think about how this is going to go if it gets voted up. How about you prove me wrong? that would be great.

about the article, i have no idea why people are voting this up. the only people who are reading it are going to be us, so what's the fucking point?

"it needed to be said", you say. its been said a thousand times by now in venues that actually reach the people it assumes to speak to. and it has been said in a much less condescending tone and in a much more presentable manner.

it has also been said by people who command and deserve far more respect for their journalistic histories and past behaviors than you, who does not seem to care that you behave and argue as though you are are a child. mostly you are obtuse, vulgar, mean-spirited, obnoxious and annoying by your own admission.

Yet here i have this story where you attempt to come across as someone to be taken seriously or someone with a moral authority or even as someone that isn't completely ignorant and just looking for attention. If you hold true to your style, in this very thread you will display these character traits, as you have already told me that you recognize your behavior and dont care about it.

So underneath this story where CTS tells a whole shitload of people how to get along with everyone else, he'll typically proceed to get along with as few people as possible.

-1, submitted at the wrong time in the wrong place by the wrong person. Nothing redeeming. To see examples of what i've said here you can view this diary or this comment thread that appeared in the previous attempt at this same story.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

in fairness (none / 1) (#34)
by Milo Mindbender on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 02:52:47 PM EST

I think he's probably the most qualified person to say this evah: Free expression and tolerance, of even that which makes the blood boil, is actually the road to great riches and peace.

He's had me literally shaking with rage at the keyboard before now. IHBT.

[ Parent ]

better said by william blake: (none / 0) (#37)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 02:56:50 PM EST

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
the vast secret you don't understand: (2.66 / 3) (#35)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 02:54:46 PM EST

no one cares about me

they care about the words i write

in fact, i don't even care about myself: i'm focused on my words here

whatever poverty of the soul or small frail ego it is that makes you focus on me as a person rather than my words, so be it, maybe you'll work through your problems by focusing on me, and i'll do the word a service and save some chick from being stalked by you

you need a better sense of self

following me around just reveals you to be so sad and pathetic

hint, again, in case you missed it:

i'm really not that important dude


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I don't know whoever you are (3.00 / 3) (#44)
by loteck on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:13:06 PM EST

i know CTS as he presents himself on K5 through his words. All of what I have said pertains to that, if you're reading it as some kind of personal attack on yourself, you need not being telling others to improve their sense of self.

So please, keep attempting to dodge the facts.

they care about the words i write

ha. delusional. 79% of the people voted in that diary poll said they either didnt care about what you say or want you to say less.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

are you attacking me personally, or not? nt (1.00 / 2) (#47)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:22:16 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Interesting (3.00 / 3) (#49)
by loteck on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:43:46 PM EST

i'd say the only reason you would even think that i am attacking you personally would be if your behavior in real life mirrors your behavior on K5. Surely i am indicting your continuing hypocrisy on K5, perhaps you feel as though this is an indictment on you as a whole because aforementioned behavior is actually part of how you live out your life.

if so, thats something entirely outside of what I am talking about. I'm talking about posting 30+ commments in a thread that are just part of your comment history that reflects ignorance, spite, and idiocy.. in your own words.. "i'm a loud stupid screaming online twat. i'm annoying.", "i am saying that k5 is my chosen repository for my mental trash" and then turning around and telling muslims how to live.

if i was a muslim, reading this story, i would go look at your story and comment history and then i'd realize that you're just another ignorant person who wants to behave like an idiot while telling the rest of the world how to live.

i dont know how many other ways to say this. this article shouldnt be posted on K5, but most of all, it should not respected by anyone on K5 if posted by CTS. little should.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

most people would read the story (none / 0) (#65)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 11:45:48 PM EST

and not care about my comment history

because they're separate things

we know its hard for you to keep the two ideas separate

but most people dont have that difficulty

but we wish you good luck on your difficulties on relating to your world

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

problems relating to people? (none / 0) (#67)
by loteck on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:51:20 AM EST

oh, the irony.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
please (none / 0) (#69)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:10:42 AM EST

tell me how to relate to people

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Voted 3; whoa man that is deep [nt] (none / 1) (#80)
by Patrick Chalmers on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:21:31 AM EST


Holy crap, working comment search!
[ Parent ]
agree 100 percent (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by army of phred on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 03:52:11 PM EST

I don't know why people are voting it up either, cts is unorigional and uninformed and this article has nothing of value. But then again, k5 voted up an ascii cow once so no harm done I guess, its not like the web isn't 90 percent crap.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
bonfire of the sycophants nt (none / 1) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:22:38 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
"you keep using that word (3.00 / 3) (#51)
by loteck on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 05:01:56 PM EST

i do not think it means what you think it means."

i am not servile, nor am i trying to please or flatter you, nor are you influential.

i dont know why you keep using that word to attempt to describe your detractors. it's positively inconceivable.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]

you are a sycophant (none / 1) (#73)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:25:53 AM EST

you follow me around, the content of your words concerns me

you think that being a sycophant is about flattery

(well, actually you do flatter me: your efforts are concerned with me, that's flattering)

that you pose yourself negatively towards me doesn't matter, that you involve yourself at all with me is the defining characteristic

there's an old saying: "there's no such thing as bad pr"

you feed my fame, and that's all your efforts wind up doing

because no one thinks that you speak for them about me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So what? (none / 1) (#59)
by cronian on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 10:55:41 PM EST

I think that after The Hitchhiker Guide to Islam, Jihad, Jews, Sex with minors and the 70 virgins Part I was published, it merits a story length response. I think this article does a decent job of meeting that criteria.

So far as actually writing to the muslim world goes, I suppose it needs to be translated into Arabic, and posted on Arabic websites. I don't know if this is happening, but I believe circletimesquare has taken the first step in the direction.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
besides (none / 0) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:21:09 AM EST

even if no angry extremist muslim ever reads this, it needs to be said

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
did you know they have the internet on computers (3.00 / 2) (#90)
by insomnyuk on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:39:50 AM EST

now? And these nifty little things called hyperlinks, so that websites external to Kuro5hin.org can link to content within this website! It's amazing, and the files are delivered to the user via a nifty method called HyperText Transfer Protocol, and we're using it to leverage the core competencies of disparate international co-operatives to synergize their assets!
/end parody

seriously, if that's your argument (only people on k5 will read this) you shouldn't have even bothered to write it, since you should have known some people disagree with you while others share your opinion, and nobody will change their mind, so you're just wasting space, because opinions never change and there is never any point to doing anything. I'm going to go lie face down on the floor for a few hours now, since it doesn't matter anyway.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]

Yes! several excellent FP stories lately... (none / 1) (#40)
by terryfunk on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 03:07:48 PM EST

I hope this is one of them

I like you, I'll kill you last. - Killer Clown
The ScuttledMonkey: A Story Collection

Hopes.... (none / 0) (#52)
by white light on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 05:15:27 PM EST

dashed!


..do you really want to help foster this type of laziness?
[ Parent ]
Really? I doubt it seriously... (nt) (none / 0) (#58)
by terryfunk on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 10:50:18 PM EST



I like you, I'll kill you last. - Killer Clown
The ScuttledMonkey: A Story Collection

[ Parent ]
Hmmm....looks like you were very wrong.../nt (none / 0) (#88)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:59:43 AM EST

You probably need to get more dupe accounts.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]
How many times are you going to repost this crap? (1.20 / 5) (#43)
by alphaxer0 on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:00:27 PM EST

Did your mom stab your brain out with a coathanger or something, because you're not normal.

i'm not normal (2.50 / 4) (#45)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 04:19:49 PM EST

you meanwhile seem very normal

for a young teenager

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Stop with the name calling and answer the question (none / 1) (#76)
by alphaxer0 on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:03:05 AM EST



[ Parent ]
hilarious ;-) nt (none / 1) (#82)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:57:48 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I am. Now answer the question (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by alphaxer0 on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:20:58 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Hey man... (none / 1) (#54)
by cibby on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 07:31:47 PM EST

Fantastic opening quote from the 13th century. Perspective.

And a +1FP from me - a great editorial, and a great plea.

Blowhard. (2.16 / 6) (#55)
by Benway on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 07:44:28 PM EST



The taxi cab project. (1.66 / 6) (#57)
by Josh Ferien on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 10:02:14 PM EST

To most Westerners, the Muslim World is little more than an abstraction, an idealized cultural antipode or nemesis to give definition to amorphous blob that is supposedly the Western World.

After reading this open letter, which is to say, this letter to nobody, I realized that the Muslim World is not just a distant abstraction. Many of us encounter a little bit of it everyday.

I challenge every kuro5hin reader to open up the cultural dialogue: Print out a dozen copies of this letter and leave it in every taxi cab you take. Each taxi you see on the road is another piece of the Muslim World you can reach out and touch. It's time to make a connection.

Cordially,

Josh Ferien

The J is for Justice!

Right, except one tiny little problem (3.00 / 6) (#200)
by SmallFurryCreature on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:43:37 PM EST

What if the other guy doesn't want a connection?

People move into other countries all the time. There are several reasons to do this, small ones like saying dodging the draft (americas into canada during the vietnam war) cheap butter (dutch in belgium for smuggling) but the main groups can be categorized as the following.

Ex-pats, they are posted abroad typically for a limited amount of time and depending on how 'foreign' their posting is spend as little time there as possible. An american in holland would for instance barely bother to learn the local language (we all speak english anyway) and download the latest tv and read american newspapers. If there is a large number of ex-pats they typically form their own tiny little community. In way like a very temporary chinatown. They are usually little trouble although if the foreigness is great they may cause frictions, for instance super rich ex-pats living in luxury in a starving third world nation. Religious problems can also occur but usually great care is taken to keep the natives and expats apart into the more extreem cases.

Then there are imigrants. For instance a lot of dutch farmers fed up with the increasing enviromental laws and lack of land are moving to places like canada or australia. They pack things up and move. They say farewell to their old live and settle in a new place trying their best to fit in perhaps only bringing a few local customs with them but their kids will be natives before you know it. An Imigrant is also something else. This is very important and often forgotten. Dutch farmers moving to canada are not really imigrants after all they are something else. The word in emigrant. A person moving from holland to canada is emigrating from holland and imigrating into canada. It is the final group that causes the problems.

They are imigrants who do not emigrate. Now what do you call a group of people that move to a different country to stay there (not like expats who go back) but do not leave their old live behind them? Ask the americans, ask the australians. Or rather ask the people who used to live there before the colonists arrived.

Yup, colonisation. That is what is happening in the west with current muslim so called immigration. They are not seeking to become part of the western world, they are like the early settlers from europe into the new world. Come to bring their way live and claim the riches of their new homes for themselves and their ideals.

Is it dangerous? Well again, ask the natives of any place that has been colonized. If there still are any.

Am I kidding? No. The research is barely being done to support it but it is there if you are willing to think. If a survey is done that asks how willing each population group is willing to marry outside their own group and muslims score very high in being unwilling to do so then what does that tell you? How willing would american settlers have been to marry an indian? Or did they bring their own wives from back home? Like muslims are doing now?

As for culture, when muslim immigrants ONLY watch arabic television what does that tell you?

Remember one thing, you want to meet that other person half way. That is great but that only accomplishes something if the other person does the same thing. if not then you are left standing alone looking like a fool.

Your entire idea hinges on the fact that most muslim are immigrants. Not colonists. I say that when a group comes to a new place to seek their fortune but takes everything with them, their religions, their culture, their social network, their food, their customes then they are not coming to make friends with you. Anymore then any colonizer has ever done.

Yeah, it is hard to say. In the west we have more or less had to learn to get along regardless of religion, color, sexuality etc etc. What we have achieved is not perfect but it works. Yet can it survive colonisation by a group that is in essence a mono-culture to the extreem?

Multi-culturism only works if all the cultures get along. One group can ruin it for everyone else. Now lets examine how well muslims fit into a multi-cultural society.

Amsterdam used to be known as the gay capitol of the world where non-hetero's could be as free as hetero's. Until the muslims arrived, now teachers are afraid to talk about such subjects for fear of the reaction from muslim students. Same with teaching about WW2 and the holocaust. (oh and despite the fact that the largest immigrant group of muslims in holland comes from morroco who was an firmly on the allied site and fought against the axis. Many a morrocon soldier lies buried on european soil. But that was a different age.)

Of course it all ain't so simple. Real life never is but just outside the extreems you got two groups, the 'westerners' who have had to learn to get along with the other westerners, and the new single group of muslims who are in many way a throwback to early eurpean times when everyone was at war with everyone else.

People always bring up the crusades in discussions like this as an example of holywars. It is wrong. Far better is the constant wars being catholics and protestants (and them both killing jews when they were bored) and the various christians groups wich were slaughters by their fellow christians.

Europeans used to slaughters each other like cattle until post-WW2 this became to costly and we had to learn to get along.

The muslims relgion has not yet had to learn this.

If a christian relgious leader spouted half the crap you get out of even moderate imans he would be pulled back in an instant.

Sadly as we learned to get along in the west we also forgot how to react to a bully. The price of peace is forgetting what to do in time of war.

But once I was still naive and tried to reach out to people I worked with. I still do. Provided they are black, or poland or wherever. Sometimes they are assholes, sometimes they become friends. Muslims? Never. They just never seem able to meet you in the middle on anything. Their way or no way. Well, then it is no way.

One thing that I find most amusing about muslim defenders? They seems awfully ready to condone hatred against jews, women, gays, etc etc just so they don't have to say something negative about muslims. Reminds me of the people who used to defend communism ignoring all the wrongs being done in the soviet union.
WHAT?
[ Parent ]

I believe the phrase is (none / 0) (#210)
by Josh Ferien on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:34:55 PM EST

BOOYAH!

Cordially,

Josh Ferien

The J is for Justice!
[ Parent ]

colonisation (none / 1) (#262)
by thejeff on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:27:41 AM EST

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

Wouldn't your description apply to every ethnic group that immigrated in sufficient numbers. Think Little Italy, Chinatown, etc. Most immigrants try to cling to some familiarity if they can. If enough do they build little enclaves. Most of the time they don't last longer than a generation or two.

The difference here, I suspect, is more that they keep coming and in large enough numbers that the enclaves last and expand.

[ Parent ]

"Infestation" is the correct word. NT (none / 0) (#553)
by shm on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:03:20 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I think it's safer (none / 1) (#309)
by McArabian on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:22:14 PM EST

to say that most Muslim immigrants to the Western world are closer to "refugees" than they are to "colonisers".

Colonizers usually have an agenda and are usually richer/have better financial means than the locals in the country they are colonizing (hence the ability to colonize it). Colonizers also have the military backing of their homeland and rarely adhere to local laws and authorities.

Most Muslims who have immigrated to the West usually live in poorer neighborhoods (France and Britain are a good example in terms of Europe, and I have yet to see a big Muslim population in the wealthier parts of the United States).

As far as I know, with the exception of terrorist sleeper cells, most Muslim immigrants adhere to the local laws of the country they immigrated to.

The problem with refugees is that, at least with the first generation, there is always the hope of being able to go back once things have settled down (consider Lebanon and Iraq in this case). I'm guessing that's why it's difficult for them to intigrate fully into the dominant society. As with every immigrant population, second and third generation (those who were born and raised in the Western culture) are easier about integrating.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Nonsense (none / 1) (#484)
by decaf_dude on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 10:07:04 AM EST

It's quite clear that Europeans who immigrated to North America dropped all their Old World culture, traditions, and habits the moment they stepped off the boat.  After all, look at the Irish or Italian immigration to USA in the early 20th century: by WWI you could no longer spot Italian- or Irish-dominated communities in any major metropolis, let alone today.

Also, it's not just Europeans that are good at integration: look at Chinese, Vietnamese, or Koreans.  Can you tell you're in a neighborhood with large population of any of these communities?  Of course not, they're fully blended into the Americana.

It's just the Muslims, man, those bloody Muslims!   As I hope to have illustrated, the large scale immigration of Muslims/Arabs into the West in the past 30 years is quite clearly unique in its refusal to instantly transform into their adopted communities.  Right?

--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
ROR!!! (none / 0) (#527)
by McArabian on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:47:50 PM EST


"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

It's interesting to note (2.00 / 4) (#60)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 11:09:04 PM EST

Americans pretend to believe in democracy, but really we think we know whats best for everyone and they should just have the freedom to do what we want them to do.  This is especially interesting considering the fact that Americans are notoriously ignorant about the goings on of other countries.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
OK, I'll bite..... (none / 0) (#61)
by FeatheredSerpent on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 11:22:21 PM EST

...explain to us K5'ers why more people want to come to the US as opposed to Greenland. Um...better yet, how many people do you see immigrating to oh let's say to the great democracies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and OH yes, there is a flood of people in line wanting to immigrate to the great democracy of IRAN.

YFI, ask any immigrant to the US which is a better place to live, the US or the place they immigrated from.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]

Because its easiest to get in. (none / 1) (#99)
by Milo Mindbender on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:40:25 AM EST

Doh. I know surgeons who've had no luck with Australia for example.
According to Cheney and Rumsfeld Iraq has a lot of immigrants right now...

[ Parent ]
everyone, american or not, believes in democracy (1.00 / 2) (#63)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 11:40:11 PM EST

i don't understand your point

democracy is about you, the public, deciding who leads you

who doesn't want this, and how is this about america controlling what you think?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dear Moderate Americans (2.00 / 5) (#86)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:54:26 AM EST

Apparently not everyone believes in democracy, at least not the 40% of UK Muslims who would prefer Sharia law.

Under Islam, Islam is meant to be the State and Sharia the Law. Laws should not be left to some fallible man made system like democracy. Secularism and democracy are Western inventions considered unnecessary in Islam.

Please don't push your extreme views on democracy and your lack of morality on us moderate Muslims who are living happily under Sharia law.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

Wow, good link. (none / 1) (#87)
by alexboko on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:52:44 AM EST

Everyone interested in the Islam/democracy/secularism issue should read the link in Procrasti's post.


Godwin's Law of video games: if a company is out of ideas for a long enough period, they will eventually publish another World War II shooter.
[ Parent ]
ignorant propaganda nt (1.00 / 8) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:09:42 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You are saying 40% of UK Muslims are ignorant? (1.50 / 2) (#93)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:11:44 AM EST

You really have no idea what you are talking about regarding Muslim views.... This makes you the ignorant one.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
muslims are humans (1.33 / 3) (#95)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:23:48 AM EST

humans want their voices heard in their government

by becoming a muslim does your basic human nature suddenly change?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

If an athiest becomes a Muslim, (2.00 / 3) (#98)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:34:27 AM EST

does anything change? He is still a human, but now he believes in God and doing whatever God says must be done.

Islam teaches Sharia Law is the only true law, and the only law worth following because it is God's law. Human laws are not God's laws and are therefore wrong.

Sharia Law would not mean having their voices heard in government. It would mean the government is based on Islam. It is incompatible with secular democracy.

Denying that belief is at the core of Islamic teaching is simply displaying ignorance.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

denying extremists (none / 0) (#105)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:10:17 PM EST

own a religion is common sense

the moderates own islam, the moderates own christianity

any death cult which promises fire and brimstone gets what it wants: death. their own. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. you cannot adapt a belief system which runs counter to human nature and expect that there will be no conflicts, and no conflicts in which you ultimately lose

human nature is a constant, across all human cultures, and all time periods

do you understand simple truth or not?

you go to new york, you go to beijing, you go to damascus, what do you find?

good people, dumb people, wicked people, perverts, geniuses, obsessive compulsives, gamblers, devout fundamentalists, nihilists, atheists, gays, homophobes, etc., etc., etc.

it's all the same. a competition of ideas. and democracy always wins, not because i say so, or the west, but simply because in competition with other ideas, it wins battles. it appeals more, and it works on human nature better and provides stability and peace and prosperity. it recreates itself, and it spreads

extremist islam is no match for democracy. democracy organizes society better, and more efficiently, and beats extremism


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

In other words, (3.00 / 2) (#258)
by Ward57 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:52:19 AM EST

you're scared and don't want to admit it.

[ Parent ]
heh (3.00 / 2) (#116)
by army of phred on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:31:03 PM EST

Denying that belief is at the core of Islamic teaching is simply displaying ignorance.

this is CTS we're talking about here, ignorance is sort of his calling card.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

that would be true (none / 1) (#158)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:35:14 PM EST

if what i had said was what he said i said


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You no longer deny Sharia law is a core beleif? (none / 0) (#246)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:36:05 AM EST

I didn't get that impression earlier.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
The tricky part (none / 0) (#203)
by LodeRunner on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:56:07 PM EST

is that AFAIK Sharia law is open to interpretation, being in great part based on the "lesser" books of Islam other than the Quran (hence the sunni, sufi and shiite lines of thought, etc) so it's not an "absolute" picture as you paint. It may be easy to consider Islam to be FUBAR, but hopefully that's not the case.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

All forms take insulting the prophet or Islam, or (none / 1) (#240)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:43:51 AM EST

trying to convert people away from Islam as severe crimes. Whether or not that is always enforced is another matter, but the whole thing goes against my ideas of religious freedom.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
What's Sharia after all? (1.50 / 2) (#256)
by i chihi on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:05:54 AM EST

Sharia Law is mostly a "man-made" law, there's nothing in the Koran that states how much speeding fines need to be!

I lived in various Western and Muslim countries. In Tunisia, polygamy is forbidden and children schooling is required by law and the government refers to the Sharia as a basis of legislation. Under Taliban, the authorities used the "same" Sharia to allow polygamy and deny girls schooling.

I live in Britain and I don't see why we talk about British law vs Sharia? I see British law as just a form of Sharia: an interpretation of many divine and human sources.

The West has got this mythical image about Sharia: a law under which hands are chopped, sinners are beheaded and sex offenders are stoned to death. I think this is partly nurtured by some extremely rare occurrences of such atrocities, but mostly by a vilification of Muslims that started early since the Crusades and kept growing with the colonial campaigns.

[ Parent ]

To tell you the truth, (2.16 / 6) (#101)
by McArabian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:56:55 AM EST

I'm a moderate Muslim. I'm working towards a Phd in English Lit so I'd like to think of myself as being educated - and I don't believe in democracy.

I believe in a constitutional monarchy. I believe in having Parliament to represent a hetrogenous society, but I don't believe in the kind of democracy that the West is trying to implent on Islamic countries. The majority vote does not necessarily mean it's the 'right', 'moral' or 'ethical' vote.

I'm also a firm believer in socialism. Capitalism is powerfully attractive, but I believe the govt should be responsible for its citizen's basic rights such as healthcare, education, cheap co-ops and housing programs.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

you're in the minority (none / 0) (#103)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:00:45 PM EST

witness the votes in egypt, iraq, palestine, saudi arabia is introducing voting now, even iran has a "vote" (insofar as who is a candidate is decided by a theocrat)

and the voting is always very popular


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That's a pretty large minority. (none / 0) (#109)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:57:13 PM EST

40 percent of UK (Western) Muslims don't beleive in Western style democracy... I find it hard to think that less than 40% would think that in Muslim countries.

Is an Iranian democracy something you are advocating?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

not at all (none / 0) (#113)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:10:48 PM EST

but you're talking democracy versus sharia law, as if that were the only absolutes available to us, as if its not more complex

for example, i bet if you asked those 40% to describe what they meant, i bet you they would have democratic ideas spicing up their sharia law beliefs, to varying levels

plus, its not like intimidation and fear drive those numbers, right? if a gay man were asked if he was gay in a homophobic environment, i'm certain you'd have some very heterosexual words coming out of his mouth. as if moderate muslims don't live in quiet because if they spoke up the extremists would attack them, possibly kill them

in other words your glorious 40% number has no real meaning


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

My glorious 40% figure was part of an anonymous (none / 1) (#115)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:26:11 PM EST

poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper in the UK. That figure is not an example of moderates being afraid of speaking up for fear of reprisals.

Muslims, in general, will not speak against their more extreme counterparts (especially religious leaders), not from fear of reprisal but because they do not want to censor or be seen disagreeing with their fellow Muslim.

Also, I agree that western Muslims ideas would be mixed with ideas of democracy... however, they still want to bring Sharia law into existence anyway. That would mean theocratic rule and that would tend away from moderation in the long term.

I am saying that moderate Islam will tend towards fundamental Islam over time as Islam becomes more accepted in a population.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

ummm (1.00 / 2) (#117)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:37:34 PM EST

Muslims, in general, will not speak against their more extreme counterparts (especially religious leaders), not from fear of reprisal but because they do not want to censor or be seen disagreeing with their fellow Muslim.

you know this... how?

Also, I agree that western Muslims ideas would be mixed with ideas of democracy... however, they still want to bring Sharia law into existence anyway. That would mean theocratic rule and that would tend away from moderation in the long term.

you know this... how?

I am saying that moderate Islam will tend towards fundamental Islam over time as Islam becomes more accepted in a population.

you know this... how?

you've got some amazing insight there

or maybe it is you are pulling these statements out of your ass?

i see nothing at work in your statements except your own xenophobia

i await your glorious statistics proving your incredible conclusions without a shadow of doubt

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Right, so I pointed out that my statistic was (none / 0) (#131)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:27:14 PM EST

reliable, in contradiction to what you said, so now you want statistics for all the conclusions I draw?

If you had read the article I linked earlier you would already know that everyone living under Sharia law is core to the religion. If you don't believe the article writer, do some further research, check into this yourself. Its not one of my assertions.

Muslims not speaking against more extreme Muslims (in general) is something I have learnt by questioning my Muslim friends.

Azhar said "and I quote hadith 35 [of Nawawi's "Forty Hadith" taken from Imam Muslim narrated by Abu Hureira] which says this: `All things of a Muslim for another Muslim are unassailable and inviolable, his blood, his property and his honour". None should be violated - not his honour, not his property not his dignity.

Is criticism considered violating dignity or honour?

The last statement is derived from the other ones. It is a logical consequence of not speaking out against the fundamentalists and the structuring of power in Islam. Why do you think its so successful as a religion? It is also structured to spread, to suppress opposition and actively fight oppression (many in the Muslim world perceive that to be the US and the west).

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

have you ever been to turkey? nt (none / 0) (#160)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:36:21 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So, where did you go, did you like the pool bar? $ (none / 1) (#167)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:47:01 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
i've never been (none / 0) (#174)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:08:10 PM EST

my point is, even a superficial understanding of that country's history would educate you as to why the words you speak about islam are ignorance

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So, (none / 1) (#245)
by ionajn on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:15:50 AM EST

Which conclusions do you draw from your superficial understanding of Turkish history?

[ Parent ]
hey man (3.00 / 2) (#330)
by ensign on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:56:57 PM EST

Actually, the Turkish military acts as a benevolent oligarchy, deposing any Islamist leader that the population elects, saving the population from their own theocratic tendencies.  

At least, I assume you brought up Turkey because you thought you were providing an example of a secular democracy in a muslim-majority country.  If you meant something else, I missed it, so sorry.  Otherwise, you might do well not to call other people ignorant, at least not so hastily.
Find your friends online
[ Parent ]

Not out of fear (none / 0) (#259)
by Ward57 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:57:36 AM EST

of being seen to be speaking against their fellow Muslims, but fear of being seen to be speaking against Islam.

[ Parent ]
Constitutional monarchy (3.00 / 4) (#110)
by LodeRunner on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:59:19 PM EST

with an elected parliament still counts as "democracy" in my book. Or else the UK wouldn't count as a democratic state.

There are of course n levels of popular participation... Brazil (directly elected president) > US (indirectly elected president) > UK (constitutional monarchy).

In the end the model doesn't mean that much, it's how it's implemented: comparing the constitutional monarchies of the UK and Jordan, for example -- don't remember if 40 or 60% of the parliament is appointed by the King of Jordan... but then again the UK has the House of Lords.

In the US you have the two-party system which severely limits the choosing power of the people. Brazil suffers from the opposite problem, too many parties, forming sketchy alliances that make no sense in terms of political ideology -- there's a constant talk of "political reform" to set clearer rules about this, but it never goes anywhere.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

Good points, (none / 1) (#149)
by McArabian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:17:06 PM EST

and it's given me something to think about. Thanks.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Would you keep those branches secular though? (none / 0) (#152)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:25:42 PM EST

Which ones? And would the constitution be based on Sharia?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
you're so fearful nt (none / 0) (#161)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:37:30 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
That's difficult to answer (none / 0) (#170)
by McArabian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:53:05 PM EST

mostly because I'm still unsure as to whether secularism is the right way to go. I don't believe the monarch should be secularist mostly because monarchs act as leaders in a spiritual capacity as well.

I do believe in the concept of Sharia law (so will most likely support a constitution based on Sharia) but I do not agree with the current Sharia. One of the main problems I have with it is that there's little to no room for reform where there should be.

Also, it uses the Hadiths as one of the primary sources and a lot of the criteria to insure that a Hadith is "official" or "acceptable" is debateable.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

you realize that you doom the moslem world right? (none / 0) (#172)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:06:13 PM EST

the moslem world will be forever weak and poor with sharia and monarchy. secularism and democracy is the west's source of strength, so by saying what you have just said, you are saying that you want the west to dominate the moslem world forever, financially and in the peace and happiness of its people

the moslem world will reject monarchy and sharia, one way or another, someday, simply because your moslem children or grandchildren will come to realize that democracy and secularism do not diminish islam, and are not tools of the west


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I doubt I doomed anything. (none / 0) (#179)
by McArabian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:13:34 PM EST

But thanks for making me smile.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

the more people think like you (none / 0) (#193)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:37:02 PM EST

in the muslim world (sharia and monarchy), the longer the muslim world will know only poverty and war

this is true regardless of whether the west attacks the muslim world at every turn, or kowtows to every single one of the muslim world's demands

sharia and monarchy versus secularism and democracy is a choice whose results are known in advance

secularism and democracy explains the west's power in comparison to the muslim world

secularism and democracy are not tools of the west

it is foolish to confabulate theses ideas

secularism and democracy are as much yours as they are ours


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you're oversimplifying things (none / 0) (#198)
by LodeRunner on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:39:08 PM EST

It's not as simple as "A implies B, not-A implies not-B". In the UK you have monarchy and the King/Queen is also the head of the Church of England, and they don't know "only poverty and war". And I can easily point out a number of third-world countries which are secular and democratic, but aren't doing as well.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 1) (#204)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:00:32 PM EST

yeah england has a queen. if someone spits on her shoes and she goes "off wit' 'is 'ead" i'd like to see how much power that queen really has. answer: none. it's a powerless figurehead. you've made no real point

and yeah, the philippines is poor. except that they are drowning in corruption and the catholics weild WAY too much power. so maybe along with democracy and secularism you can add transparency

the point is, you haven't countered what i am saying about secularism and democracy. they still are the roads to a happy, rich, powerful country. it's just not an easy road if your society has other problems that democracy and secularism help destroy, but not exactly quickly

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

don't get me wrong (3.00 / 2) (#209)
by LodeRunner on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:25:35 PM EST

I'm all for the separation of church and state. And I'm a republican (as opposed to monarchist, not in the GOP sense, duh :) ). Therefore I don't want to counter your defense of secularism and democracy. But to defend those you don't need to go against monarchy, it's not an opposite of democracy if you have a parliamentarist state. I think McArabian was going for a democratic parliamentarist model of monarchy when she mentioned "constitutional monarchy" (IIRC she lives in the UK so that's probably the model she's basing herself on). One can say that even in the UK there's some separation of Church and State because the parliament itself is secular.

So I guess, if you have a secular parliament which is democratically elected, in a transparent fashion (ie, a truly independent parliament), having a religious monarch isn't "that bad" and may even be beneficial to separate things properly (avoiding stuff such as the confusing church/state relationship in Israel or the occasional flamefasts in the US over things like the Pledge of Allegiance). One of the great advancements of the UK was to turn the monarch into a powerless figurehead. Maybe that's the route to end theocracies in the Middle East. Let them have their religious leaders sitting on the fancy chairs, as long as the people is free to elect the people who actually run the country.

Thinking about it, I'm skeptical about presidentialist democracies working in the Middle East, at least in the short term (presidentialist governments there tend to degrade into decades-long dictatorships, see Iraq, Syria, Egypt).

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 0) (#405)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:53:05 AM EST

i think that's the way iran is going

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
That might be changing? (none / 1) (#237)
by BerntB on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:20:22 AM EST

This is my personal nightmare of the political development the coming decades.

Consider China.

They try to keep hard political control with economical freedom. Given present technical limitations, I doubt it will work in the long run.

But with a few generations more of surveillance equipment -- and it might be possible to have an economically effective 1984 state.

Maybe a variant could work in the Arab countries, with tight control -- "you can complain about the sports teams and corruption of those politicians that can be elected, but touch this area and your head comes off!"

"Better" living through technology! History will go back to a foot that stomps in a face, for all time!

[ Parent ]

Brazil politics (none / 0) (#299)
by bradasch on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:33:25 PM EST

"Brazil suffers from the opposite problem, too many parties, forming sketchy alliances that make no sense in terms of political ideology -- there's a constant talk of "political reform" to set clearer rules about this, but it never goes anywhere."

Too many is something like 6 or 8, but in the end, it's always a polarization between 2 conflicting ideas.

I see that as a benefit, not as a problem. In the US, more and more the two parties are becoming alike, with no conflict in major political ideas (it's fairly fashionable to discuss the gay rights to marriage, or pro-life-pro-choice, but those are minor issues overall).

The major drawback in having several parties and mainly two conflicting positions to discuss is that sometimes a party proclaims itself as the "third-way", without any addition of value to the debate. The main (and sometimes only) point used is "I'm not them". And idiots void of compentence to public administration get elected.

Sketchy alliances always will form, based on balance of power. It's inevitable, in my opinion.

Also, the constant talk of "political reform" is always aimed at reducind the possibility of corruption - which may be a good thing, but as it is, quite hard to obtain - corruption is always present at the base of all big political parties.

[ Parent ]

That isn't Socialism, it is a strong state (none / 1) (#235)
by BerntB on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:58:59 PM EST

I'm also a firm believer in socialism. Capitalism is powerfully attractive, but I believe the govt should be responsible for its citizen's basic rights such as healthcare, education, cheap co-ops and housing programs.
Where does Socialism ever work?

But, please, do try alternative ways of organizing the economy. It would be wonderful if something nice could be found that worked better than capitalism. (No tests close to where I live, since the failure modes of these experiments usually seems to have millions of dead -- hunger, civil wars, oppression, etc.)

But what you describe is not really socialism, it is a strong welfare state. I happen to live in one. And I have to disappoint you; it seems more and more like an Eastern Bloc country by every decade.

We have the highest taxes in the world (about half of GNP are controlled by public spending, one way or another last I checked) -- and public health care, free education and expensive housing programs.

The problem with the strong welfare state Sweden, is that it isn't stable. It get progressively worse.

The high taxes are hidden from view as much as possible and a majority of the voters get most of their money from handouts (paid for by the taxes in an incredible dance with money).

Those public programs for building? Doesn't give good and cheap housing here, at least. But we have lots of oligopolies earning lots of money in the building sectors (including unions helping to keep out competition). Also, the high taxes on work time makes building houses expensive.

About ten percent of the voters have gotten a health retirement the last decade. Lots of others have long leaves because of health reasons (for some reason, people get much more sick here...) (In the 80's there were lots and lots of short time health problems instead. The more things change, the ...)

There is no real interest from the government or need to get things working to win the elections (literally more than half of the voters get more money from transfers in the tax system than from vages). The unions are working with the government party (-: which strangely wins elections almost like in Egypt! :-) and gets all the laws it want. Not all of them are good for the economy (left wingers argues more or less that all economists are in a conspiracy; yes sounds like creationists).

Since such a large part of GNP is influnced by the government, it is quite easy to make the economy in election years very good, with excellent predictions. That, and the fact that more than half the population get more than half the money from the state (or some sort of tax transfers) make the elections easy to win.

Since the state has such a large part of the GNP and the main interest is to win elections... well, let me just say that not everything is optimized for the country's best.

The main problem is that you lose control. After paying taxes, very few people can afford to also pay privately to get private health care. This means that if the health care doesn't work for some kind of feature, that you have problems... (I know of a case that was told to wait until after the summer, when it was full staffing again, to get the tests for cancer done.)

The big companies are doing well, generally. But few smaller companies are growing to become big.

Ah, this is too complex. My point is that, after living in Sweden for a few decades, I don't really think this is stable.

[ Parent ]

The "welfare" in "welfare state (none / 1) (#308)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:11:30 PM EST

means social welfare. How is that not socialistic? Socialism works no worse or better than capitalism does.

[ Parent ]
disagree (none / 0) (#313)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:58:03 PM EST

I have very communistic and socialistic beliefs at heart, but consider:

In a capitalist society, men are free to form communes of their own within the society and live how they please, sharing and supporting each other. In a socialist society, men are not free to live independent of the grid, living and dying how they please.

Enforced socialism cuts through the society with division and pain, leaving scars in its wake; both of disagreement as well as collateral damage of those who become intractably dependent on the system.

[ Parent ]

LOLWHAT (none / 0) (#325)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:47:49 PM EST

No. Socialism does what benifits the society as a whole. Capitalism does what benifits the indervidual. Most western, democratic societies employ aspects of both ideas.

BTW: Where did you get that quote from? I hope it's not some Ayn Rand drivel.

[ Parent ]

as defined by whom (none / 0) (#332)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:03:21 PM EST

Socialism does what benifits the society as a whole.

Socialism purports to do what benefits the society as a whole, but ultimately some small group of men make the decision as to what steps should be taken towards that goal. The society itself might agree or disagree with these steps. The USSR was a purportedly socialist state, yet we could certainly argue that the government hardly did what benefited the society as a whole.

Where did you get that quote from? I hope it's not some Ayn Rand drivel.

Paraphrasing something I've said on here a time or two.

[ Parent ]

As defined by the dictionary (none / 0) (#361)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:18:26 PM EST

Also, you are confusing socialism with authoritarianism.

[ Parent ]
confusion (none / 0) (#428)
by samu on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:10:49 AM EST

actually no, i'm not confused w.r.t. socialism vs. authoritarianism.

socialism:

  1. : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
  2. a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
  3. : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
The state controls the means of production and distribution of goods. "The state" is almost always distillable into "a group of men elected or appointed to make decisions".

[ Parent ]
That's one deffinition (none / 1) (#435)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:56:37 AM EST

Let me guess; Capitalism is a much freer option where no small group can ever possibly controls the means of production and distribution of goods? Bullshit.

Google "political compass".

[ Parent ]

political compass, eh? (none / 0) (#452)
by samu on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:01:43 PM EST

considering i created and maintain this site (K5 interactive political compass SVG graph) i have a good handle on the political compass. i have your data from Jan 17th of this year: (-7.75, -7.23) and have long, long, long opined and championed socialism as a good, of cooperative society as a good. however if you check the raw data you will see that I have recently moved quite dramtically towards the right side of the graph. why? have i suddenly decided that capitalism is the great thing? have i suddently decided that society is no longer greater than the individual? have i started polluting more instead of less? have i bought a new SUV? no, none of these.

what i notice is that the government run social programs do a lot of harm rather than good, and leave the populace too angry and bitter to go out and actually do the good that is still needed to be done.

and believe me (hopefully you can) when i say i am no great fan of capitalism, and have no delusions that no small group can ever possibly control the means of production. i've never said anything of the sort. but i do believe that inefficient, corrupt social programs in a country can have less than the intended result, in fact can exascerbate many problems rather than mitigate or solve them, by creating dependency where none need exist, by creating additional problems, by ... well you will let me know if this is worth discussing here, or if i have failed to convince you that i am worth the time of discussion, or if i am just spewing more random randian bullshit.

[ Parent ]

What you have failed to realise (none / 0) (#469)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:36:52 PM EST

Is that neither of them work by themselves.

BTW. Where are all these examples of goverment-run social programs that do more harm than good? Are public hospitals really that evil? Free education? Are people protesting against public libraries?

Oh, and quite oftern a small group of people can control the means of production. Infact, in capitalism, that's good business.

[ Parent ]

You may have a point, (none / 0) (#318)
by McArabian on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:22:29 PM EST

I need to think about this further.

We're fortunate enough not to pay taxes in Kuwait. Community co-ops and housing projects are fairly successful as far as I know. Citizens also have a choice whether to have thier kids educated by the state (including university education) or have them sent to private school. Same goes for healthcare.

What this discussion (you, LodeRunner and a couple of others) points out to me is that a political model that fits well with one country can be completely wrong for another.

It just deepens my doubts about Western forces pushing the democratic model on Arab states. A good example is Israel's reaction having members of the Hammas group being officially voted in the Palestinian parlaiment.

It is naive to think that democracy will wipe out fundamentalism - most of the Muslim fundamentalists in the Kuwait National Assembly were actually elected officials, and more than anyone, they were the ones originally opposed to something as democratic as women getting the right to vote and run for office.  

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

"... nice work, if you can get it" (none / 1) (#386)
by BerntB on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:05:41 PM EST

We're fortunate enough not to pay taxes in Kuwait.
[...]
a political model that fits well with one country can be completely wrong for another.
Kuwait..? He he, talk about special cases! Don't hope for socialism -- that would mean Kuwait having to share the lucky natural riches. :-)

In the future, excepting a major catastrophe, the individual in the world will on the average continue to become richer. But even when the average individual in the world are a few times richer than today, most countries will have to work for it. Kuwait's kind of "problems" will by definition be unusual even then.

Kuwait's main problem is to support a stable system of countries around you, so you can keep your wealth... Which fits quite well with the wests needs to have stable governments that sell oil to us. (The secondary problem is to handle the riches without wasting them.)

Realpolitik says that you should be USA's closest allies on the planet. :-)

It is naive to think that democracy will wipe out fundamentalism
(I am scared of the fundamentalists in the Arab world doesn't start to cooperate with the bible belt ones.)

As you certainly know, Hitler was elected, too. :-(

It takes time to build a stable democracy -- generations in the west. If it is in Kuwait's best interest now is a difficult question.

Kuwait have lots of money for a century, or so? There are two main problems -- (a) how to maneuver internationally to keep the Saddams out and (b) to have a non-corrupt government that doesn't squander your lucky catch, Saudi Arabia style.

The best (only?) way to handle (b) is a very open system with lots of checks built in. Democracies have the problem that voters can vote for giving other's money to themselves. Despotism has the certain problem of corruption; people change with power.

Look at Norway. They seem to handle their money well.

There can't be that many from Kuwait studying English lit in England. Are you anonymous enough to seriously discuss kicking out your royals? Or is even that legal, now?

[ Parent ]

fix (none / 1) (#390)
by BerntB on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:27:19 PM EST

I wrote:
(I am scared of the fundamentalists in the Arab world doesn't start to cooperate with the bible belt ones.)

Change to: (I am scared of the fundamentalists in the Arab world starting to cooperate with the bible belt ones.)

If you are ironic, you might argue that I am like a Cold War American fearing communism, when it comes to religion. (*) This is one of the things that scare me, anyway. The religious ones ganging up on the anti-creationists, etc. Something like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact deal...

Arguably, the christian/muslim fanatics are more similar to each others than to us post-religious in western Europa and the coasts of USA.

Half ":-)" is ".-,", or something?

(*) (-: Go ahead, don't be so nice all the time! Use your verbal talent and have fun! You are a woman, so you don't fool anyone by not acting evil, anyway! :-)

[ Parent ]

I pretty much agree with you (none / 1) (#402)
by McArabian on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:49:23 AM EST

Realpolitik says that you should be USA's closest allies on the planet. :-)

AFAIK, Kuwait is a major US ally, if not the closest one, in the Arab world.

There are two main problems -- (a) how to maneuver internationally to keep the Saddams out and (b) to have a non-corrupt government that doesn't squander your lucky catch, Saudi Arabia style.

You've already answered the (b) part. I'd like to add that being such a small country, it's difficult for govt officials (whether monarchs or elected officials) to squander Kuwait's riches without someone noticing. That being said, where there's a lot of wealth, corruption is not far behind.

Also, Kuwait's main problem right now is not the political model it's working under, but trying to figure out who gets to be an active participant and who doesn't. Kuwaiti citizens are well taken care of, but the rest of the population (more than half) is still being disenfranchised.

As for part (a), until the first Gulf War, Kuwait has been pretty successful in staying out of intense political conflict (with the exception of its stance on the Palestine/Israel conflict) by being very generous with its foreign aid policy. After the first Gulf War, Kuwait had to adapt to allowing a considerable Western force on its soil in order to survive (a lot of other Arab nations view this as "selling out" to the West).

(I am scared of the fundamentalists in the Arab world starting to cooperate with the bible belt ones)

I fear fundamentalists as well, perhaps more than the average Westerner for the simple fact that their presence is ever growing back home and they do pose a serious threat to my current way of life. The main accusation fundamentalists have towards moderate Muslims is basically that the moderates have lost their faith and have been brainwashed by  Western ideology (secularization is a big one in this case).

So the real question is: how does one fight fundamentalism without resorting to violence or further abusing a disenfranchised people?
I don't know the answer, but I do know that adopting the Western model of secularizing the State is not the answer. That only aggravates the problem and proves the fundies right.

There can't be that many from Kuwait studying English lit in England. Are you anonymous enough to seriously discuss kicking out your royals? Or is even that legal, now?

Just to clarify, there are a lot of Kuwaiti students studying abroad both in England and America (I'm in America), and it's safe to say that almost every Kuwaiti citizen (back home) has access to the internet (though porn sites for the large part are censored). All of these people (whether anonymous or not) are pretty safe if they openly criticize the monarchy or the government. I don't recall anyone being thrown in jail for what they wrote on their blog/journal/message board/etc.
I haven't been reading the local Kuwaiti papers so I'm not sure whether the same goes for critics in print/broadcast media.

On the topic of being nice: I'm very aware of how my status as a Muslim makes it easier for people on K5 to dismiss me as illogical or a 'raving fundie'.
I HAVE to take into consideration what people here say to me whether I agree with them or not, and then I HAVE to be careful in my answers in order to have them to take what I'm saying into consideration. Once someone on K5 is dismissed as being a fundie, it's difficult to get the discussion back on track. I don't want to be dismissed in a forum that I view as pretty valuable in helping me understand "the other side".

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

monarchy?! (none / 0) (#267)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:05:58 PM EST

so you believe that it is a sustainable practise to inherit the penultimate power of the government through the chance of genetics? through bloody power struggles of succession?

[ Parent ]
Loderunner pointed out (none / 0) (#311)
by McArabian on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:49:31 PM EST

a few things that are making me reconsider my earlier statements about my political preferences.

I'm from Kuwait which is labeled as a constitutional monarchies (for all intents and purposes - people back home can argue either that it's a dictatorship or that it is too democratic).

The monarchy back home is fairly new compared to the ones in Europe. Back when Kuwait was just a few families, different tasks were handled by each family within the community based on the family's reputation and abilities. The Sabbah family was asked to handle local law and order (most Kuwaities were either merchants or pearl divers so the men were gone for monts at a time). So one can feasibly argue that they were 'elected' into the monarchy.

The monarchy in Kuwait is a semi-heriditary, the monarch has to appoint a successor rather than have that title go directly to the first born or brother. The monarchy is also balanced by a parlaiment (the National Assembly) of elected officials. Unlike the UK, however, the monarch is more than just a figurehead.

I suppose the situation in Kuwait is pretty unique (the country has a small population and is wealthy enough to take care of this population with no trouble at all), which is why I'm reconsidering my earlier statements. I feel that the current form of govt in Kuwait is mostly successful in adressing the needs of its citizens, but I'm having doubts as to whether this type of govt would be successful elsewhere.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

uniqueness (none / 1) (#312)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:54:53 PM EST

I suppose the situation in Kuwait is pretty unique (the country has a small population and is wealthy enough to take care of this population with no trouble at all)

If only more oil-rich countries would use their wealth to provide for their population as dutifully, instead of building palaces, buying cars, and amassing wealth in as few powerful men as possible.

You should do some research into the phrase "benevolent dictator". A benevolent, wise dictator could offer great things to a country. However picking the wrong dictator (Hitler, Hussein, GWB, etc.) leads to horror.

[ Parent ]

I don't think (none / 0) (#321)
by McArabian on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:37:48 PM EST

it's right to equate the Emir's position in Kuwait to that of a dictator (benevolent or otherwise).

The National Assembly recently voted to remove the current Emir at the time, Shiekh Saad al-Sabbah from power because they felt he was too sick to rule. Alternatively, the Emir does have the right to dissolve the National Assembly three times during his reign. So it mostly balances out in the end.

I suppose I'm a royalist mostly because it's easier to determine which direction the country is going when there is a long term leader as opposed to one who is changed every 4-8 yrs. It is also easier to hold the leader responsible for bad decisions than having responsiblity bounce from one administration to the next.

The bottom line is, I'm grateful for a monarchy that is moderate enough to be able to hold most of the extreme fundamentalists in check while still being able to hear them out.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

how about a constitutional dictatorship (none / 0) (#323)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:44:13 PM EST

the dictator dies, the country has an interim governor long enough to elect another populist dictator. but there's a constitution in place to prevent just absolute horror, and the dictator is balanced by some kind of judicial and parliamentary oversight.

hm. how about the US without term limits or mandatory election cycles for president, i guess.

[ Parent ]

Do you have examples (none / 0) (#326)
by McArabian on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:53:20 PM EST

of a successful constitutional dictatorship?

I have my reservations about this political model, but I'm curious to see whether it has been successful in application or not.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Contradictions? (none / 1) (#118)
by samu on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:39:58 PM EST

Those 40% of UK Muslims expressed preference to Sharia law, and apparently do not mind participating in polls. Preference is the foundation of choice. Does your "moderate Muslim" understand that Sharia the Law will be interpreted and enforced by the same fallibe men with whom he would not entrust the keys to the state?

And fundamentally, the question always remains: Of what good is mindless obedience to Sharia out of Fear, without faith? The same can be asked of the "Christian Right" in the United States who wish to legislate their morality. Of what good is mindless obedience to the state out of fear, without faith? Without the choice of sin, there is no piety in righteousness.

[ Parent ]

Muslims should live under the law of the land and (none / 0) (#154)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:27:18 PM EST

try and bring about change towards Sharia law.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
no shit! really!? what a thunderbolt LOL nt (none / 0) (#163)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:38:34 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Wow, the same thing you've been denying is (none / 0) (#239)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:40:58 AM EST

now a "no shit"er to you.

Good to see you finally agree.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

Answering the questions (none / 0) (#263)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:35:54 AM EST

What good is it for a man to follow Sharia out of fear of punishment instead of love of Allah?

And do you not agree that the rights of women under Sharia law are likely never to be compatible with western beliefs? Freedom of religion notwithstanding, stoning a woman for being raped will not be acceptable. Perhaps the moderate muslim needs to settle for something at least slightly less than state-enforced Sharia?

As for me, I will fight for the freedom of women in such countries to be able to choose a different life, instead of living as property. Such a life is hardly fit for a dog, and certainly not for a human being. Sharia law as currently practised in some muslim countries is not acceptable, simply and straightforwardly I cannot stress this enough. It is not a valid rule of law, no matter what religion or state, that keeps women as property.

[ Parent ]

Don't expect Rumsfeld to be calling you (none / 1) (#75)
by IceTitan on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:58:43 AM EST

anytime soon.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
thats the best thing (none / 0) (#77)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:07:17 AM EST

anyone has ever said to me

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
It's not like you're Ben Stein. (none / 1) (#84)
by IceTitan on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:51:20 AM EST


Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
[ Parent ]
you definitely can't win my money nt (none / 0) (#85)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:54:26 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You know... (2.33 / 3) (#78)
by Patrick Chalmers on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:19:04 AM EST

...I was all ready to come in here and post "If you're going to bash 1.5 billion people in your post, you should probably reconsider it", but then I came in and saw that your submission actually makes sense. So fair fucks to you.
Holy crap, working comment search!
Also: wtf, cts using his Shift key? [nt] (none / 0) (#79)
by Patrick Chalmers on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:19:56 AM EST

I said [nt], you cunt.
Holy crap, working comment search!
[ Parent ]
i use the shift to satisfy the grammar nazis (none / 1) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:24:43 AM EST

i hate them, but i'm not willing to lose my story for their flood of -1s, so i have to be realistic and use it

don't worry, i still am a kook who hates the shift key


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well (3.00 / 2) (#121)
by tetsuwan on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:50:13 PM EST

Your stories are usually 100x better than your comments. I did abstain on this, because all the while you think you are outreaching, you are preaching to the choir. As McArabian said, it is almost impossible to read to the tend because of the concentration of rightousness.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

s/tend/end (none / 0) (#122)
by tetsuwan on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:51:11 PM EST


Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

i write stories to reason with people (2.00 / 3) (#230)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:09:12 PM EST

i write comments to be myself

stories are work, comments are relaxation


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Very curious voting on this one.... (none / 1) (#89)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:14:56 AM EST

There was a concerted effort to vote this one down by nullo dupe-zombies. Fortunately, people saw through it. It should be on the front page.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
i find it very flattering (1.50 / 1) (#91)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:08:38 AM EST

for someone to go through all the effort

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
IAWTP (none / 1) (#96)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:30:52 AM EST



-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]
come on now (3.00 / 2) (#124)
by destroy some monsters on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:59:05 PM EST

there are as many nullo-dupes in the +1 FP column as in the -1 column.


[ Parent ]
Right so it always works out .... (none / 1) (#132)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:29:53 PM EST

the way it is supposed to.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]
AND WE WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED (3.00 / 2) (#120)
by destroy some monsters on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:43:51 PM EST

if it weren't for you meddling kids

[ Parent ]
you mean thelma and shaggy (none / 0) (#128)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:18:14 PM EST

notice the dork in the orange scarf always delegates all tasks in the beginning, then disappears with the hot chick, obviously to have sex the whole time, then he shows up at the end, to claim all the credit for thelma's (after losing, then finding her glasses) and shaggy's (properly stoned) work

that shows entire lesson to us was: "get stoned, solve crime"


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Another 13th Century Quote Here (2.52 / 19) (#94)
by dxh on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:17:54 AM EST

Here is one from the early 13th century by the great explorer Marco Polo from his diary of travels in the middle east:

The Muslims in Persia are wicked and treacherous. The law which their propehet Mohamet[Muhammad] has given them lays down that any harm they may do to one who does not accept their law, and any appropriation of his goods, is no sin at all.. And if they suffer death at the hands of Christians, they are accounted martyrs. For this reason they would be great wrongdoers, if it were not for the government. And all the other Muslims in the world act on the same principle. When they are on the point of death up comes their preist[Mullah] and asks whether they believe that Mahomet was the true messenger of God; if they answer "Yes" then he tells them that they are saved."

Yet again another quote demonstrating that Islam has been a evil death cult for nearly a millinia.  And its still the same.

And here is a bonus quote from the 19th centry by a young Sir Winston Churchill after having experience in the Middle East:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

I am afraid that list line might be prophetic soon if Europe does not watch out.

The fact is Islam has NEVER been moderate, there is no SUCH THING as Islamic-Extremists.  

That phrase is REDUNDANT.

You do (2.60 / 5) (#97)
by McArabian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:31:30 AM EST

understand that both of these figures are die hard colonialists, right?

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Yes (3.00 / 2) (#125)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:04:31 PM EST

and unlike being a 7th century illiterate arab warrior, being a "colonialist" automatically disqualifies you from communicating the truth.

[ Parent ]
both are disqualified (nt) (none / 0) (#130)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:25:43 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Churchill (none / 0) (#138)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:55:55 PM EST

was a great man. if his words were false then they would be contested. however they can't be, so his detractors dismiss his points as such, like Ms. McArabian and you do.

[ Parent ]
great men say stupid things (none / 0) (#141)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:02:06 PM EST

why, are you a member of the church of churchill? all words that come out of his mouth are gold? in the context of the larger issues we are discussing here, i find it rather hilarious and ironic that you should unquestionably accept anything the man says without any critical thought... isn't that the problem with fundamentalism?

i admire churchill alot. that doesn't mean that some things he said were just plain stupid


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

again i would like to point out that (none / 0) (#142)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:06:53 PM EST

you dismiss his words as such. you do not actually address the content of his words. this is obviously invalid.

[ Parent ]
allow me to address the contents (none / 1) (#146)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:12:59 PM EST

of the greatly esteemed churchill's words:

xenophobic racist wankery

content of words addressed

anything else i can help you with today?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no (none / 0) (#148)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:16:12 PM EST

you again dismissed his words <i>as such</i>, without addressing the content.

i might as well talk to a wall.

[ Parent ]

allow me to address his words <i>as such (none / 0) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:26:07 PM EST

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science

xtianity is a militant and proselytizing faith as well. it is not sheltered in the arms of science. science is apart from both xtianity and islam. it is the creation of secularism and moderate views

therefore, to miss these points reveals a strong xenophobic, racist, and ethnocentric vein in the esteemed churchill's words. he misses the same negatives emanating from xtianity that he sees in islam, and he confabulates xtian and secular work

any other intellectual charity i can help you with today?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

uhm (none / 0) (#159)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:35:50 PM EST

it takes a really blind man to compare christianity and islam.

let us compare what their respective prophets taught:

jesus: love, forgiveness, introspection, equality
mohammed: tactics on how to burn down infidel villages, kill their men and rape their women.

moreover, the vast majority of scientists in the past were christians, and a lot of them still are. so you're dead wrong in that regard.

[ Parent ]

you're an ignorant racist twat (none / 0) (#164)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:43:08 PM EST

you can't see any negatives coming from your society, and you take as the product of your society things that aren't

what is algebra asshole? who invented that?

ever hear of that great xtian scientist albert einstein?

and please, tell the people of the philippines, mexico, and peru how they were peacefully converted to christianity

meanwhile, oh great genius, tell us all about how bangladesh and indonesia were militarily conquered by islam

you're a moron, a genuine ignorant racist moron

try some simple education of simple facts about the world you live in, then get back to us, you stupid slut

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

point by point (none / 0) (#168)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:49:01 PM EST

you can't see any negatives coming from your society, and you take as the product of your society things that aren't

wrong

what is algebra asshole? who invented that?

the greek, dumbass.

ever hear of that great xtian scientist albert einstein?

what does this have to do with anything?

and please, tell the people of the philippines, mexico, and peru how they were peacefully converted to christianity

poor noble savages. we should've left them to continue their barbarism.

try some simple education of simple facts about the world you live in, then get back to us, you stupid slut

hahaha.

[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#171)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:57:07 PM EST

you can't see any negatives coming from your society, and you take as the product of your society things that aren't
wrong

okay... let's hear one

what is algebra asshole? who invented that?
the greek, dumbass.

would that be the christian greeks? (snicker)

ever hear of that great xtian scientist albert einstein?
what does this have to do with anything?

quote:
moreover, the vast majority of scientists in the past were christians, and a lot of them still are

and please, tell the people of the philippines, mexico, and peru how they were peacefully converted to christianity
poor noble savages. we should've left them to continue their barbarism.

wtf? is this in support of these words:?
jesus: love, forgiveness, introspection, equality

yes those savages with a written language and astronomy, math, etc.

and besides, you said: point-by-point, where's my point-by-point?:

mohammed: tactics on how to burn down infidel villages, kill their men and rape their women.
meanwhile, oh great genius, tell us all about how bangladesh and indonesia were militarily conquered by islam

i'm waiting, please keep it up, your ignorance is very amusing to me; ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

what? (none / 0) (#173)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:07:08 PM EST

how does one counter-example contradict my point?

what does colonialism have to do with what jesus taught?

what do bangladesh and indonesia have to do with what mohammed taught?

those savages didn't have any kind of science. star charts are nice, but they aren't science.

it certainly wasn't muslims who invented algebra. or anything else.

[ Parent ]

do i sense a backtrack? (snicker) (none / 0) (#176)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:10:19 PM EST

sound familiar?:

it takes a really blind man to compare christianity and islam.

let us compare what their respective prophets taught:

jesus: love, forgiveness, introspection, equality
mohammed: tactics on how to burn down infidel villages, kill their men and rape their women.

moreover, the vast majority of scientists in the past were christians, and a lot of them still are. so you're dead wrong in that regard.



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
i see. (none / 0) (#177)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:11:50 PM EST

you are incapable of reason.

[ Parent ]
you don't see any contradictions? (none / 0) (#180)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:13:45 PM EST

{and at this point in the thread, cts did show nilquark his ignorance and stupidity}

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
you showed nothing but your inability (none / 0) (#181)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:15:15 PM EST

for clear thinking. there are no contradictions.

[ Parent ]
got it ;-) (none / 0) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:19:55 PM EST

there are no contradictions at all in your words here

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/173#173

and here

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/159#159

got it, i read you loud and clear

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ignorance and low iq, i love to slay thee


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

oddball (none / 0) (#188)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:24:49 PM EST

what kind of life do you lead to compensate online like this?

[ Parent ]
im bored at work nt (none / 0) (#190)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:28:19 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Einstein (none / 0) (#307)
by anthroporraistes on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:08:01 PM EST

Was a Jew.

Or was that the point?

---
biology is destiny
[ Parent ]

Secularism is a creation of xtianity (The West) (none / 0) (#165)
by procrasti on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:43:49 PM EST

The west invented it and the west are still testing it. It is not universally accepted as positive in the Muslim world.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
secularism is a human invention (none / 0) (#169)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:49:34 PM EST

something the ancient chinese knew of, and muslims of the golden age... just view my quotes in my story above

xtianity did not invent it you ethnocentric retard, in fact, the xtians were rather late coming to the game

and, in fact, a lot xtianity is hostile to secularism

just listen to gw bush's views on creationism, for example

you're ignorant. you talk about something, yet you do not have all of the facts before you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ignorant propaganda (none / 0) (#276)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:01:26 PM EST

Either you don't know what secularism means or you are all out bullshitting, because Muslims were strongly theocratic even during their 'Golden Age'.

Typical of your ignorance CTS, spouted out like a retarded 3 year old who thinks they know everything and are the only one who could be right.

Show me something pointing to secularism being invented somewhere other than the west.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

ok (none / 0) (#404)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:51:11 AM EST

see the first quote in the intro to my story above

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

(snicker, wet pants in glee, lose, cry to mommy) (none / 1) (#410)
by procrasti on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:17:35 AM EST

Amazing, I read it earlier... it still says the same thing.

Here's a hint for you: Tolerance of others does not equal secularism.

I feel like I'm arguing with the special olympics kid.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you're thick as a fucking brick nt (1.25 / 4) (#427)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:09:49 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
ahhh, CTS insult == CTS has no Answer (none / 0) (#437)
by procrasti on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:31:50 AM EST

how refreshing.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
watch history being rewritten (2.50 / 4) (#202)
by LodeRunner on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:47:48 PM EST

The West != Christianity.

Crap, the Church actively persecuted scientists for their "heretic" ideas back in the day! Remember Galileo??

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

galileo (none / 1) (#236)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:37:54 AM EST

was mostly persecuted because he was a prick, not because of his ideas.

and again, one pop-counterexample does nothing to help your case.

and guess what: western society is based on christian morals and christian ideals.

why do you people find it so easy to find fault in your own culture, but you more or less glorify others? most others are all much worse from a humanist perspective.

will you be like islamist propagandists who say that muslims don't like us because of the crusades (wtf? they hit us first), or will you actually use that brain to think independently?

[ Parent ]

I would sig this (none / 0) (#300)
by LodeRunner on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:14:13 PM EST

"galileo was mostly persecuted because he was a prick, not because of his ideas." - nilquark

if my sig space was not already taken with the mandatory public service announcement.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

rofflecopters [nt] (none / 1) (#201)
by LodeRunner on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:43:55 PM EST


---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

What I'm trying to communicate (2.60 / 5) (#145)
by McArabian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:11:26 PM EST

is that having a colonial ideology automatically disqualifies any statements a figure makes concerning other civilizations.

The whole concept of colonialism revolves around undermining other civilizations in order to "go in there and civilize/enlighten the barbarians."

Whether there's a grain of truth in these statements or not is besides the point. The point is you should look at them critically and be very aware of where they're coming from.

If the case is that you HAVE an understanding of the ideology behind them and still agree with them, then that's your personal belief and I've learned from other interactions in K5 that attacking personal beliefs just turns the discussion into something petty and personal.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

the whole problem is personal beliefs (none / 0) (#150)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:19:22 PM EST

it is the ones who are promoting xenophobic, racist beliefs in the muslim world and in the west that bedevils all of us

therefore, you have no choice but to attack their personal beliefs. they are not allowed that refuge if what they believe is causing us pain and suffering

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

are you insane? (none / 1) (#151)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:20:54 PM EST

Whether there's a grain of truth in these statements or not is besides the point. The point is you should look at them critically and be very aware of where they're coming from.

the truth is irrelevant when told by someone you dislike???

[ Parent ]

grains of truth (none / 0) (#156)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:31:25 PM EST

do not add up to the "truth" you are talking about

in other words, if points a,b,c are agreed as true

but someone disagrees with your conclusions x,y,z

it does not mean he thinks point a,b,c are false

it's just that there's a lot of d,e,f,g,h... s,t,u,v,w in between that is patently absurd

so when you get the a,b,c correct, and someone disagrees with your x,y,z, perhaps you should start taking a critical look at all of those other letters in between

because some of those elements of logic, as supplied by you, are from your own xenophobic thinking, not anything evident as truth

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're right, (3.00 / 2) (#157)
by McArabian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:34:19 PM EST

let me backtrack and do this again:

Whether you FEEL there's a truth in the given statements by these figures or not is besides the point. You have to consider the source and the ideology that surrounds them, ie, consider the context.

Also, like and dislike doesn't come in play here. I didn't meet either Churchill or Marco Polo to like or dislike them. I respect their achievements and admire their success, but I'm indifferent to them.

Marco Polo and Winston Churchill are the last sources I would go to in order to gain a better understanding of the Arab/Muslim world today.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#185)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:20:26 PM EST

i wish you would apply that more universally. i.e. with islam. without that kind of consistency your words are just words.

[ Parent ]
moderate muslims exist, they are the majority nt (1.33 / 3) (#100)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:43:35 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I'm surprised at the voting on this comment (none / 0) (#104)
by bgarcia on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:08:41 PM EST

Maybe you disagree with the poster's conclusions, but the quotes he included are quite appropriate and I think such information helps in the understanding.

It's a shame that some people would rather bury the comment than discuss it.

[ Parent ]

why does racist ignorance need to be discussed? nt (1.00 / 4) (#114)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:11:43 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
because these issue exist (3.00 / 2) (#199)
by jcarnelian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:41:13 PM EST

Such statements about Islam don't come out of thin air: a straightforward reading of the Quran, as well as the statements of many Muslim religious leaders, support this kind of interpretation of the religion.  And Islam isn't just a religion, it's a set of behavioral codes and it's explicitly a political force, so from that point of view, it is also valid to analyze and criticize it.

Furthermore, this kind of scrutiny is not selectively applied to Islam.  The West went through centuries of internal turmoil when it applied the same analysis and criticism to its own religions.  Christian religious leaders used to be as politically powerful and intolerant as many of the current Islamic leaders, but their power has been greatly curbed in the West.

[ Parent ]

another one from .. (3.00 / 4) (#195)
by ObjectNinja on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:02:37 PM EST

Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam': "I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

[ Parent ]
Dictatorship? (none / 1) (#470)
by Peaker on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:39:56 PM EST

Funny that you say assume dictatorship, and not elected.

It does seem that Islam has something to do with dictatorships... And when a good dictator dies, a bad one comes along...

[ Parent ]

0 without references, 3 with (3.00 / 2) (#224)
by thefirelane on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:20:38 PM EST

Not that I'm surprised.. for some reason people always seem surprised when great leaders of the past exhibit the cultural attitudes of the times.

However, that being said, quotes (especially ones such as these) should have references so they can be cross checked. Otherwise, we all wind up with those stupid self-replicating untrue e-mail forwards clogging our in boxes.

With references, a 3, so everyone can know a little bit more about those figures from history.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
SORRY! Your correct. Here are the references. (3.00 / 3) (#231)
by dxh on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:28:00 PM EST

First Citation
From Marco Polo's Diary (The Travels of Marco Polo, pp57-58 Peguin Books 1958)

Second Citation
Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

[ Parent ]

Headshot from a world savior (2.00 / 2) (#102)
by slaida1 on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 11:59:51 AM EST

What arrogance is this? Who am I to speak? I am a secularist from the West. I respect Islam. I revere the Muslim world for the great advances in science- algebra, alchemy, etc., that the Muslim world made while Europeans were busy with tribal warfare.

Someone said: one of the differences of american culture is that one's worth is determined by his beliefs. And beliefs are determined by what he has ever said. If that's true, it'll hit you hard.

Anyway, what I don't like about this is that you appeal to race, culture and history that's outside the scope of anyone's lifespan. To me, it's the very root of all stupidity when a kid searches for his place in this world and instead of assuming his minuscule role lasting only 80 years or so, he starts taking responsibility for something that started hundreds, maybe thousands of years before he was born.

It's gone. That time of glory is long gone and I pity the tool who feel pride or togetherness for something that he was never part of. No pride, no gratitude, it's history and no one's business anymore.

Maybe this is the curse of an atheist knowing all that ever matters happens in one's lifetime because there's absolutely nothing outside of it. History means as much as science fiction.

I can't and won't understand any of this.

you're not an atheist (none / 1) (#107)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 12:17:09 PM EST

you're a nihilist

and absence of belief never beats belief, even stupid belief

belief grows and spreads

nihilism leads no trace

it's not that your wrong, its that in the competition of ideas for organizing society, you don't participate, and so you leave no ideological offspring

nihilism is nothing new, it was around in the time of the pharoahs, the romans, and today, and it will be with us in 2000 years. you're just a regular statistically dependable byproduct of any society: he who rejects all belief, in everything. there are always people who reject belief in anything. you're not new or revolutionary. you're old and boring and typical and common

nihilists are quiet and they are empty, and they fade from the earth, leaving no legacy

you don't represent a threat to extremist islam, and you don't represent a threat to a strident believer in democracy such as myself

i hate extremist islam, but i respect it, because there are epoepl who will die for that belief

as for you? i don't hate you, i don't respect you. what is there to respect? there's nothing to you, you're an empty shell


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ah yes, nihilists (none / 0) (#123)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:56:23 PM EST

as jews are to baldrson, so nihilists are to cts.

[ Parent ]
pretty much (1.00 / 2) (#126)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:09:21 PM EST

you have to believe in something in life. me i just believe in democracy

but to believe in nothing means you don't care. and since you don't care, why don't you shut up?

because it's logically inconsistent:

  1. you talk about world
  2. what you talk about is that you don't care
wtf?

prove you don't care: SHUT UP

in short: it's ok not to believe in anything. but then you give up your right to talk about anything. so i better not hear someone talking about how much they don't care. because they are full of shit if they do


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

nietzsche said (3.00 / 4) (#127)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:16:13 PM EST

that christianity (and by extension islam) is the true nihilistic belief because it fails to find meaning in this life, instead delaying it for afterlife.

so you see, there are many ways to view this. except i don't think you can. i think you're incapable of seeing something from another point of view.

[ Parent ]

i'm not christian or muslim (1.00 / 2) (#129)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:22:53 PM EST

so why do you think what nietsche said against them somehow tackles me?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
you defend their beliefs (none / 1) (#134)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:34:27 PM EST

under the guise of "spirituality", and i'm telling you that their beliefs might not be the best thing after baked bread after all, which is what you seem to think.

[ Parent ]
a moderate xtian/ mslm (1.50 / 2) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:44:26 PM EST

is better for the world than a nihilist

put it this way: conflict leads to change, and change is the only way to improve. conflict between competing ideologies is the conflict i'm talking about, so even a really, really stupid belief system is better than no belief system

because no belief system is static: it doesn't conflict with anything, it doesn't change anything, it doesn't improve anything. in short, it's useless. it's dead weight, freeloading

you can't win the game of life by not playing it

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

a nihilist (none / 1) (#140)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:00:58 PM EST

does not believe god has sent him on a mission to "reclaim" infidel land, goods and people.

conflict? look at how muslims fight and kill eachother. look at their society and belief system that is based on violence and blind adherence to middle-ages ideals. what have they achieved? nothing.

it's certainly not conflict that brings about change. it's cooperation.

[ Parent ]

yes, cooperation (1.00 / 3) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:08:12 PM EST

which is something else a nihilist is incapable of

nihilism is a parasitical existence. you will enjoy the fruits of your society, but you will not defend what your society believes in... you won't attack it either. you're simply empty dead weight

your words have no meaning. who says your words have no meaning? YOU SAY YOUR WORDS HAVE NO MEANING: YOU ARE A NIHILIST! lol ;-P

and yet you still talk. quite the logical contradiction there huh?: you argue passionately for being impassioned. very strange, no?

deduction: you're not really a nihilist. you have a belief system. you just lack enough self-awareness to realize it and articulate it. you're a work in progress. come back to us when you know yourself a little better

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you are wrong (none / 1) (#147)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:14:54 PM EST

nihilism is about realizing that meaning is internal. i.e. that we assign meaning ourselves.

clearly this is so; else everyone would have the same values and ideas. logical enough?

[ Parent ]

i agree with everything you just said (none / 0) (#155)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:27:24 PM EST

but what you just said is not nihilism

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
well, it's not my fault (none / 0) (#162)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:37:42 PM EST

if you rely on anecdotal knowledge and can't be bothered to research things.

[ Parent ]
oh great genius swami (none / 0) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:45:02 PM EST

please, i beg some enlightment from you on the definition of nihilism

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

*snicker* (none / 0) (#175)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:08:46 PM EST

i predict you will get far with that attitude. maybe even as far as outside your trailer park.

[ Parent ]
excuse me? (none / 0) (#178)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:12:30 PM EST

was that answer?

definition of nihilism, if you please, or i find you nonresponsive

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you could try reading something (none / 0) (#182)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:18:10 PM EST

about it. i'm tired of you.

[ Parent ]
you grow tired of me (none / 0) (#186)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:20:57 PM EST

got it. it's confirmed: nonresponsive answer. thanks for playing, you lose

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

there is a lot of literature about nihilism (none / 0) (#187)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:23:48 PM EST

i'm not paid to guide you in baby steps.

[ Parent ]
very true (none / 0) (#189)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:27:58 PM EST

since its you who needs them (snicker)

i know very well what nihilism is, it is you who is ignorant of its meaning

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

clearly (none / 1) (#191)
by nilquark on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:30:03 PM EST

your mental powers exceed those of all philosophers, past and future.

wait. no.

[ Parent ]

no they don't (none / 1) (#192)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:32:26 PM EST

they just exceed yours, you ignorant ethnocentric twat (snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
cts, I have a question (none / 0) (#365)
by Cadence on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:42:06 PM EST

You believe in democracy... in what sense?

I ask because most demo/capitalist implementations suck balls on a number of levels.

Puppet on the left, puppet on the right. LOL!

[ Parent ]

i agree with winston churchill: (none / 0) (#400)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:46:37 AM EST

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

democracy sucks balls. it's ugly, messy, loud, panders to the lowest common denominator, rife with compromising with people you loathe, slow, shallow, etc.

except every single other form of government sucks much worse donkey balls


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It ain't useless! (3.00 / 3) (#184)
by Chewbacca Uncircumsized on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:20:10 PM EST

It frees you up to build cool robots and stuff because you aren't wasting time angsting over the Grand Poobah of the universe will never forgive me for going outside without my hat on yesterday, which wasn't my fault, the kid was sick and I was up all night, maybe if I burn a couple fingers on the stove he'll let this one slide.

[ Parent ]
well said (none / 0) (#135)
by army of phred on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:41:05 PM EST

so you see, there are many ways to view this. except i don't think you can. i think you're incapable of seeing something from another point of view.

he's deliberately stupid, which means that he's wasting any talent that he was born with, and he's wasting his abilities by choice.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

you don't understand nihilism (1.50 / 2) (#139)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:59:13 PM EST

i'm making a choice, i'm believing in something

now you can criticize what i believe all you want, please do so

but if you don't make a choice yourself (nihilism means not choosing anything) you forfeit your right to criticize me, or even someone who believes in the craziest or stupidest shit

so please, criticize me, but if you are a nihilist, i won't listen to you, since you have forefeited your right to criticize me by being a nihilist: it's logically contradictory to be a nihilist and criticize me

if you don't understand that, you don't know what nihilism is


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Flaming Retard (3.00 / 2) (#244)
by Aneurin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:53:20 AM EST

There are many things that I have made no decision on, or even care not to make any choice regarding. That doesn't mean that I know nothing about these issues and have somehow zero to contribute.

Whatever someone's belief system (or apparant lack thereof) is has absolutely no bearing on the validity of any criticism they espouse, regardless of if they have made a choice (personal stance, whatever) on the subject. Your choosing to ignore them isn't anything to do with them forefeiting their right to criticize you-- you're simply forefeiting a chance to learn something and instead are acting like a childish little brat.

CTS, you continually make K5 fun. :)
---
Just think: the entire Internet, running on jazz. -Canthros

[ Parent ]

i agree with everything you said (none / 0) (#401)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:48:01 AM EST

except that nihilism isn't a belief system, it's an absence of one

i don't respect that, do you?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you should respect it. (none / 0) (#438)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:35:04 AM EST

A nihilist would presumably have no qualms about killing you on a whim. That's certainly not the kind of person I'd lightly turn my back on.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

Read Carefully (none / 0) (#457)
by Aneurin on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:38:31 PM EST

I did elaborate with "or apparant lack thereof" -- 'respecting' the position or non-position has no bearing on your choosing to outright dismiss the contribution at hand, CTS. Refute and argue it by all means, but always do so on the merit of the contribution rather than the stated or percieved ideological/moral/etc. stance of the other person.

I know you know this. :)
---
Just think: the entire Internet, running on jazz. -Canthros

[ Parent ]

think that ideological offspring again (none / 1) (#254)
by slaida1 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:56:36 AM EST

Thanks for clarifying the difference of nihilism and atheism for me again, however i think i'll forget it soon and keep using atheist for describing myself.

Ideological offspring of something that i did not invent or even fixed to suit me better is not very flattering. It'd make me feel like a tool, parroting same things I was told to the next generations. Ideological offspring of something that i said or wrote.. now that's what's happening even now, here. You noticed, you read, you replied to my post.

Doesn't that make you the carrier of my ideology? Even when you don't agree?

I don't care that there's no my name tagged to what I've said or started. It'll live on with or without it, if it has longevity. And in the end of (ti)me, it won't matter.

You respect extermist islam because they don't respect themselves enough to stay alive? Dead people don't need respect. They don't need anything, only their followers might accept those who show respect. So, respecting the dead is communicating with the living.

Btw, what is this: leads no trace..you leave no ideological offspring..fade from the earth, leaving no legacy..there's nothing to you, you're an empty shell? I thought I told you already, that emotional button you're reaching for is not there. I'm cool with fading away.

[ Parent ]

i respect extremist islam? (none / 1) (#403)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:49:54 AM EST

have you read a fucking word i said?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yes, you respect extremist islam. (none / 1) (#408)
by slaida1 on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 04:09:36 AM EST

have you read a fucking word i said?

Yes I have.

In this post, you wrote:
i hate extremist islam, but i respect it, because there are epoepl who will die for that belief

You hate it but you respect it. Or did you change your mind already? Or did I unfairly rip it out of it's context or something?

[ Parent ]

in the context of comparison to a nihilist (none / 1) (#429)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:13:05 AM EST

yes: i respect osama bin laden but hate him

but neether respect nor hate a nihilist

because if you fight for what you believe, no matter how kooky what you believe in, you're deserving of the respect of consideration that you might do something, and therefore you must be watched. like you respect drunks yelling and staring at you from across the street when you are all alone by giving them a wide berth and carefully watching them

not respect like "i think you're so cool"


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

From the muslem perspective (3.00 / 2) (#227)
by xL on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:34:34 PM EST

all this history is intensely relevant. History plays a large part in all of the Abrahamic religions. Religious conservatism taps into this sense of history, I think it's valid in this context to relate to such dwelling on the past.

[ Parent ]
WHAT ADVANCES? (2.00 / 2) (#232)
by dxh on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:36:54 PM EST

>I revere the Muslim world for the great advances in
> science- algebra, alchemy, etc., that the Muslim
>world made while Europeans were busy with tribal
>warfare.

What advances?  Its funny, listen to a Muslem talk for 10 minutes and they will claim they invented "EVERYTHING".

Its funny, it reminds me of militant black people always saying: "Black Man invented that first.  The white man stole it from the black man."

Its a lame attempt that militants in many cultures seem to employ to try and make themselves feel bigger.  

Most claims by the Muslems have been disproven as having been invented elsewhere such as India and China and traveled to the Middle East.  The fact that the Europeans got may ideas from the middle east does not make them to have orginated from there.  

They crack me up with their sad attempts at race supremecy.

[ Parent ]

Why (none / 0) (#344)
by TheLastUser on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:50:12 PM EST

why do all the stars have arabic names?
why can you read arabic math?

Of course, what have you done for me lately? A zero may be cool, but so is a space shuttle.

[ Parent ]

History is really kewl when you ignore it (none / 1) (#378)
by IVotedCthulhu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:46:02 PM EST

"Arabic numerals" are in fact Hindu numerals. It is worth nothing that their current form as spread by Western culture differs significantly from any of the transitionary phases between their inception in India, their usage by the Arabs, and their introduction into Europe. The explicit zero comes to Europe again from India. Someone else mentioned algebra. The very earliest forms of algebra are due to the ancient Egyptians, with the Indians, Greeks, and Chinese all developing techniques for solving various equations. Algebraic methods are reintroduced to Europe by Fibonacci. Modern (abstract) algebra is overwhelmingly a series of European discoveries. So really things obtain arabic-derived names in Western diction on account of European civilization collapsing after the fall of the Roman Empire, rather than because the Arabs invented arithmetic, algorithms, algebra and so forth.

[ Parent ]
oh good. (2.00 / 2) (#119)
by destroy some monsters on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:43:01 PM EST

cts got his baby FPed, now we won't have to thrash it in the queue any more.

hahaha!.... (none / 1) (#133)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:33:06 PM EST

that's a good one indeed!

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]
cts? [nt] (none / 1) (#137)
by seisa on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 02:49:10 PM EST



[ Parent ]
CircleTimesSquare /nt (none / 1) (#144)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 03:08:17 PM EST



-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]
cts dupe circle-jerk % (none / 0) (#194)
by creativedissonance on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 04:46:41 PM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
i have no idea who featherserpent is (none / 0) (#205)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:02:25 PM EST

furthermore, i've never used a dupe account in my life

it really is not my style


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

we believe you (none / 0) (#212)
by creativedissonance on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:59:51 PM EST

we really do


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
LISTENUP k5!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#215)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:19:17 PM EST

if anyone can prove i use dupe accounts, i will never post here ever again

bother rusty, bother an admin, take a gander at the logs, please: prove i use a dupe account

do you hate cxs? do you want to shut me up? here's your big chance! ;-P

i have nothing but confusion for anyone who uses a dupe account. i don't even understand the point of a dupe account. in fact, i use the same handle across different websites: fark, slashdot, etc. i have no aliases! ;-P

who here uses a dupe account? if you use a dupe account, could you tell me why you do, what the point is? do you have multiple personality disorder?

if you are going to accuse of something, show me the positives and negatives first. i want to understand how i am being insulted ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

FeatheredSerpent is NOT CTS... (none / 1) (#214)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:13:02 PM EST

We have never met, emailed, or otherwise know each other. CTS IS CTS, I am FeatheredSerpent.

I DO happen to agree with a lot of what CTS says and writes however.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]

maybe we should fuck with them (none / 0) (#216)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:22:02 PM EST

tell them how we work for donald rumsfeld or something. that i suck his cock on wednesdays and you on thursdays. that we are not the same person, but we are clones in service of the illuminati. if they are going to see signs and conspiracies everywhere they look, let's give the paranoid schizophrenics some fodder to play with, right? fuck with them. it's fun fucking with sad little minds ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
haha! Now that you mention it.... (none / 0) (#217)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:28:31 PM EST

might be fun screwing with their minds. It would almost be to easy, sorta like takin candy from babies tho.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]
where you live? alabama? got that form your link (none / 0) (#218)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:35:35 PM EST

i live in new york city

HEY ASSHOLES: HOW COME WE'RE THE SAME PERSON BUT LIVE 1000 MILES AWAY?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No I live.... (none / 0) (#219)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:38:31 PM EST

in Texas...bigger state. I work as a systems admin/programmer analyst. Taught myself C programming in the late 80's. My only addiction besides women are computers--haven't decided which comes first yet.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]
awesome addiction (3.00 / 1) (#220)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:45:11 PM EST

combine your two loves and discover alt.binares.pictures newsgroups LOL

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yeah!.... (3.00 / 2) (#221)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:51:30 PM EST

every night around 11:00 localtime.

Oh I also work too much. But wifelet and my computer are in the same room. So I can work from home, do a lot more work, get lots done, then I can goof off at work, unless some emergency arises at work. In which case, I am balls to the wall fixin' it so I can go back to goofing off. Thing is I realized early on, that I am paid more for my knowledge than production in the sys admin spot. When i was full time programming it was..."how many lines of code did you write today" ... ick!

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]

programmer here too (none / 0) (#222)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:58:03 PM EST

i hate large soul sucking corporations, you sounded like you worked for one. my position is pretty laid back too as you can tell, since i have all this time to devote to this site

but i'm glad to know my clone identity/ dup account has a nice life ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Thx, same here... (none / 1) (#223)
by FeatheredSerpent on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:11:07 PM EST

anyway, I agree with lots of what you write, you have talent and anyway, if one takes this stuff TOO seriously, one would probably, slit one's throat. So anyway congrats on beating the nullo-dupe-sombies.

I knew within the first 12 hours that you'd make FP anyway. I have come up with a technique that is rather scientific on how one can predict within 12 hrs or less what will make FP, SP or Dump It [Hint: look up Weak Law of Large Numbers at wikipedia]. I am testing it, and might post it in the queue. Then again, maybe just a diary or I might keep it a secret.

Then again, it might prove totally false bullshit, we'll see.

-- THE GEORGE W. BUSH CONSPIRACY GENERATOR --
[ Parent ]

dude, stop wasting your time here (none / 0) (#225)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:25:36 PM EST

and get your ass to vegas and start counting cards ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
of course, asswipe [nt] (none / 0) (#207)
by seisa on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:22:41 PM EST



[ Parent ]
it's really simple (2.75 / 4) (#196)
by jcarnelian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:07:51 PM EST

"A lot of us in the West are bewildered. We understand the repugnance in your reaction, we just don't understand the ferocity and scale of it."

Don't you think that Afghan or Iraqi villagers that didn't care about world politics or terrorism weren't just as surprised by the "scale and ferocity" of the US military response?

Politicians and religious leaders all over the world are using current events and national/political identity as a means of advancing their own agendas and gaining power, usually by justifying actions and evoking responses that have little rational basis.

Not that this is anything new.  Read your history books: from Hitler to ancient biblical stories, this is how large groups of people behave in real life.

ideologies conflict (none / 1) (#197)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 05:33:28 PM EST

conflict leads to change

change leads to improvement

this is reality

do you have a way for the world to improve without ideological conflict? i'd like to hear it

the afghanis were living under religious extremism, the iraqis under a despot

you may not like that change is violent and ugly, but i don't know of a way to make the world a better place without getting violent and ugly

and i don't think you can accept that religious extremism and despotism deserve to be around


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

unwise use of power (none / 1) (#467)
by jcarnelian on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:57:40 PM EST

you may not like that change is violent and ugly, but i don't know of a way to make the world a better place without getting violent and ugly If it takes force to topple undemocratic regimes and defend our way of life, I have nothing against it. My criticism of Bush is not that he used violence or war, but because he used them ineffectively, in a way that has threatened Western goals further and stirred up more resistance. Furthermore, Bush used them to advance his own personal agenda, not in the service of the American people.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#298)
by TheLastUser on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:13:51 PM EST

"the "scale and ferocity" of the US military response?"

Maybe you were watching FOX or something, but I seem to remember that Afghanistan was toppled princibly by Afghan warlords supported by US air power and special forces. I wasn't there but I think their use of force seemed commencerate with the task. If using, over the top force, was their plan, they could have done a lot worse.

Also, I wouldn't think that the Afghans would be too surprised by more war. The poor bastards have been in almost a constant state of war for 30 years. If the jihadis would go die somewhere else, they might actually enjoy some peace and quiet.

re: "people bahave badly" Too true. The mark of a young man is that he is willing to die gloriously for a cause, while the mature man is willing to work quietly for one. Young men are the "useful idiots" that are conscripted by people to forward their aims. They aren't always used for evil purposes, but they are always wasted.

[ Parent ]

simple but wrong (none / 0) (#569)
by egkamp on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:05:42 PM EST

There is a difference between villagers who don't care or track world politics being surprised by world politics intruding, and people who spend a good chunk of each day tracking the news, who are also surprised.

The fact is that either
a)these people are being whipped into a frenzy for an ulterior purpose, or
b)these people are irrational.

It isn't surprising that muslim sensitivities are so different, perhaps, once you look closer. What is surprising is that they truely are so repugnant.

[ Parent ]
Confirmed (1.85 / 7) (#206)
by loteck on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:12:04 PM EST

at 80 relatively worthless comments in his own story, most of which say the same thing over and over again in varying degrees of hostility and ignorance, K5 has, for lack of a better term, swallowed yet another CTS masturbation.

whats sad is that, in this case, CTS and this article and its comments pretend to represent K5 to a certain large, multinational demographic.

kurons need to more thoroughly consider their voting choices, especially when the content is being submitted by someone like CTS, who proves over and over that he is incapable of self-control and doesnt care to actually contribute quality as much as he just wants attention.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

everyone needs a stalker (none / 1) (#208)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:23:07 PM EST

it's such an ego boost

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
and a dictionary (3.00 / 3) (#211)
by loteck on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 06:50:14 PM EST

i see you've switched from "sycophant" to "stalker", perhaps you finally found a dictionary. look up "delusional".
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
sometimes i feel so alone (1.00 / 5) (#213)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 07:11:39 PM EST

but then i hear a voice in my lonely place, and there you are, with your head up my ass

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

how does my ass smell you sycophant? have you mastered regulating my bowel movements yet? i only ask, because you seem pretty fucking interested in me!

i never knew i was so fucking important

fucking leech

GROW YOUR OWN EGO YOU SMALL LITTLE WORM, STOP LATCHING ONTO MINE


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

lol retard (none / 0) (#488)
by army of phred on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:13:36 PM EST

have yet another zero. yawn.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
Here's my attention. [nt] (none / 1) (#226)
by diocletian on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:27:36 PM EST


_____________________________________

simple empathy is my motivation ~ circletimessquare

What's with all the capitalization? (none / 1) (#228)
by kelbear on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 08:46:14 PM EST

I thought Circletimessquare said on Slashdot that capitalization was pointless. Or was that a different Circletimessquare?
*I am dead, leave a message and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.*
same guy (none / 0) (#229)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 09:08:16 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/81#81

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Faith is a dirty word (none / 1) (#233)
by A synx on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:31:53 PM EST

I am merely asking you to be as great pious men when you see expressions against Islam. No. Faith is the problem. They must realize themselves as great men, not as great pious men. Pious men in following their imaginary god still end up killing for no reason.

wrong (1.00 / 4) (#234)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 10:39:55 PM EST

this is not limited to religion:

the idea is to have faith in the right idea

lack of faith in anything is worse than faith in a bad idea


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I have faith (none / 0) (#497)
by army of phred on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:21:22 PM EST

in this zero I have bestowed upon your stupid ass.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
Qantifying violence (2.54 / 11) (#238)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:40:46 AM EST

Let's be analytical about this. In the past five years, Muslims have used organized violence to kill around 3,336 Western civilians (2,986 for 9/11, 202 in Bali, 192 in Madrid, 56 in London). In the Iraq invasion alone, Western forces have killed an absolute minimum of 28,473 Muslim civilians, with scientific estimates going as high as 194,000 dead civilians (in a war, by the way, that was based completely on fabrications and outright lies with a heavy dose of religious fervor to garner support from the pious American electorate).

Until you are able to come up with some clear and reasoned justification for our wholesale slaughter of Muslims on many orders of magnitude higher than they have killed us, I have little time for, or interest in, your self-righteous bloviations about how their culture is somehow in need of reform or a civilizing influence. If we were butchering them at a slower rate than they are butchering us, then you might have a point; until then, your mock outrage against their protests is simply ridiculous.

There are many smart and well-reasoned analyses of the problems with the Muslim world. Yours is not one of them.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

Less butchery != all is good (none / 0) (#249)
by palfrey on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:16:08 AM EST

If we were butchering them at a slower rate than they are butchering us

Hah! So, because their butchery rate is less than the west, all is sweetness and light? Pull the other one, it's got bells on... both sides need reform and reflection, irregardless of who's killing more people right now.

[ Parent ]

Dear Western World (1.50 / 2) (#251)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:33:34 AM EST

Please stop killing everyone and be nice people like we all know you once were. Please return to your Prophet Jesus' morals as Allah intended.

As a famous philosopher of yours once said "What, Me Worry?"

It is more important that you stop bombing us than we not complain about cartoons because you have all the firepower and we have shit.

That would be very nice of you and if you do you will return to your golden age of respect in the world.

/parody

I mean, for fuck sake, if this article had been written for Westerners and not Muslims (fundamentalists or otherwise) this story would have been voted down straight away for its condescension and ignorance. The fact that this lets westerners feel all warm inside, absolve themselves from fault and blame the other guy instead, is the very reason why Muslims are justified in blowing you the fuck up.

Note, I agree with you that both sides need to change. I just think this article is a sick, condescending way of doing it.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you ignorant inbred fuck (1.00 / 3) (#355)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:40:34 PM EST

YOU CANNOT TALK OF THE MUSLIM WORLD AS A MONOLITHIC BLOCK

THERE ARE INSANE MUSLIMS

AND THERE ARE REASONABLE MUSLIMS

JUST LIKE THERE ARE INSANE WESTERNERS, AND REASONABLE WESTERNERS

STOP TALKING ABOUT THE MUSLIM WORLD AS A MONOLITHIC BLOCK YOU RACIST PREJUDICED FUCK

SEE THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MONOLITHIC BLOCK, AND THE REASONABLE AND UNREASONABLE HUMANS THEREIN

THEN, AND ONLY THEN, CAN YOU OPEN YOUR IGNORANT MOUTH, AND SAY ANYTHING OF USE OR VALUE

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Stop (none / 0) (#372)
by dxh on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:04:25 PM EST

>THERE ARE INSANE MUSLIMS

Nope..stop right there.  You had that part right by the rest of the comment is wrong.

[ Parent ]

you realize you are as evil as osama bin laden? (none / 0) (#374)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:08:39 PM EST

question for osama bin laden: why is it ok to fly airplanes into buildings and bomb beach resorts and subway systems?

osama bin laden: because all people in the west are evil

compare this exchange with:

[new] Stop (none / 0) (#372)
by dxh on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 09:04:25 PM EST

>THERE ARE INSANE MUSLIMS
Nope..stop right there.  You had that part right by the rest of the comment is wrong.
 



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
LOL -- inbred.... (none / 0) (#445)
by procrasti on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:48:14 PM EST

If only you knew. You are so ignorant and stupid (and typical of those two traits -- loud) that I get a real kick out of your rantings.

There are people of some sects of Islam that are reasonable and there are some sects of Islam that are not.

I suggest that in general Muslims will side with other Muslims even when they are not reasonable.

Even if that is not true, what you are doing is closer to treating them as a block than me. Rationally, you've asked the equivalents of Anglicans to take responsibility for the actions of Koreshians (or something like that). Its stupid, its retarded, and its only going to make those 'Moderate' Muslims feel even more isolated from mainstream society than they do now.

The other problems with terms like 'Moderates' is that everyone considers themselves to be moderate. 'They are all reasonable men'.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

that's so retarded (none / 1) (#266)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:03:48 PM EST

guy 1:

i watch a bus full of children over weeks. i carefully follow the route, map it. i calculate the best possible time to ram the bus and kill as many children as possible. but i screw up and only kill 2 kids

guy 2:

i hear there are guys killing children in this town. so i get my car and drive over there to fight these guys. i fall asleep at the wheel, ramming the bus full of kids. i kill 10 kids

is guy 2 5x worse than guy 1? he killed 5x more people, right?

gee, maybe there is something else going on here, i dunno, like INTENT

what does that magic word mean to you?

the INTENT of the west was to free iraq from a dictator. and all of your massive amounts of iraqis killed? HOW MANY WERE KILLED BY THEIR FELLOW IRAQIS MORON?

now, use your high iq: WHAT WAS THE INTENT CONCERNING THOSE KILLED BY AL QAEDA THAT YOU LIST?

in other words, what is the difference between someone who PURPOSEFULLY kills an innocent, and someone who kills someone BY ACCIDENT. hint: in the real world they call these things manslaughter and murder. they get very different punishments. one is a lot worse than the other

so brain exercise for you moron: why isn't just quantity of dead important again?

magic word for you to use in your answer:

INTENT

next i want you to tell me hundreds of thousands are killed every year by car crashes, and that's enough reason so we should sit back and relax and do nothing about al qaeda bombing civilians

you're so fucking retarded: morality via bean counting


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

"intent", as in paving on hell's road (3.00 / 3) (#292)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:49:50 PM EST

First off, if you think we invaded Iraq with either the stated, or the actual, rationale of removing a brutal dictator, then you are so removed from the revelations of the past 2 years as to be unqualified to talk about the subject at all. As it happens, it was the only beneficial side-effect of an otherwise unmitigated disaster.

In any case, it really doesn't matter. If you are going to go into any situation with the view that any deaths incurred by the other side are baby-killing monsters, whereas any death incurred by our side (including deaths by being tortured to death and summary executions) is just a sad and regrettable side-effect of our otherwise just and benevolent actions, then you really have lost sight of any moral objectivity, and you just wind up being a useful idiot for GWB merely because you can't cope with the horror that your advocation of violence without any sort of accountability might actually be part of the problem.

To summarize, using the short, declarative sentences you seen to like so must:

  1. Neither our stated, nor our actual, intent in invading and occupying Iraq was a benevolent humanitarian one.
  2. You are not an objective analyzer of the situation if you pre-judge any deaths we incur as being part or a greater good.


____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
so osama bin laden=gw bush? (none / 1) (#335)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:16:55 PM EST

so you are telling me gw bush sat in the white house with rumsfeld and cheney and went "yeeha! let's go kill us some iraqi children and drink oil from their skulls! yeeha!"

bush is a fucking moron, but he's not evil

he actually intended iraqis to be more free

you can criticize him for being a simpleton, but he is not evil

understand that?

meanwhile bin laden is evil: he actually INTENDED TO KILL INNOCENTS ON PURPOSE

this differentiation ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN LIFE

INTENT

so, i ask you, do you honesly believe bush went out of his way to kill iraqis on purpose, is this what you are honestly telling me?

and that he is therefore the moral equivalent of bin laden, WHO ACTUALLY INTENDED TO KILL INNOCENTS

is this what you are telling me?

if you say no, then you have to admit that the intent in iraq was some sort of good, no matter how malformed you think it was


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Look (3.00 / 2) (#339)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:39:01 PM EST

It comes down to this: both OBL and GWB have political goals. They both use propaganda and intentional falsehoods to trick people into killing and dying so they can achieve those goals. They both believe that their own side is working towards some greater good, and thereby justify to themselves the massive body counts as inevitable "collateral damage", while at the same time demonizing their enemy as the one who actually enjoys killing little babies, and so forth. In both cases, they managed to achieve their real goals (OBL got the US to leave Saudi Arabia, and GWB managed to get a new host country for permanent military bases) by tricking a bunch of starry-eyed children into thinking that their struggle was part of some great and vast holy war.

To be perfectly honest, I hold both sides in nearly equal contempt. Granted, while GWB's body count is orders of magnitude higher than OBL's, his war does have the potential of having a positive side-effect of improving the lives of the citizenry in his invaded country, so I think it is mostly comes out a wash.

It is easy to talk about "intent" as being some omnibus justification for anything your side decides to do, but when it comes down to it, the agonized screams of the wedding guests that die as a result of a US bomb are about the same as those of a wedding guest that die as a result of a Jordanian suicide bomber. They scarcely care that some kid halfway around the world, who is sitting behind a keyboard and has never once witnessed firsthand the horrors of war, sleeps better at night because he knows that the motives of the killers that his tax money pays for are right and good and just.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

no, completely wrong (1.00 / 2) (#351)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:20:55 PM EST

"the agonized screams of the wedding guests that die as a result of a US bomb are about the same as those of a wedding guest that die as a result of a Jordanian suicide bomber"

if the us bomber bombed a wedding party ON PURPOSE, you would be right

but that's not the case is it?

if i drive a truck into a parade of people on purpose, versus i drive a truck into a parade of people because i fell asleep at the wheel, these things are both wrong BUT ONE IS A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT WORSE, BY ORDERS OF MORAL MAGNITUDE, THAN THE OTHER

if you honestly equate the evil, obl, with teh stupid, gwb, you are, hands down, STUPID and IGNORANT of SIMPLE QUESTIONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG that a kindergartener could appreciate better than you

most importantly, above all: I.N.T.E.N.T.

if i drive an airplane into an office tower ON PURPOSE versus i drop a bomb on a mosque rather than a military base BECAUSE MY MAP WAS WRONG these things ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT

really: if you exclude intent in your analysis of the world and its players, your analysis of the world and its players is worthless

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well... (3.00 / 3) (#362)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:20:47 PM EST

most importantly, above all: I.N.T.E.N.T.
I disagree, plain and simple. You seem to be saying that person A killing N people with "bad intent" is always necessarily morally worse than person B killing N*X people with "good intent", for every value of X. In the case of Islamic terrorists vs. Western military, X is somewhere between 8.5 and 58.1.

Is there any value of X that would make you re-think your assertion that intent is everything and that the ends justify the means? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

simple first year law school: (none / 0) (#371)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:03:04 PM EST

what is the difference between manslaughter and murder?

all moral codes, of all time, of all cultures, understand the difference between these two ideas

now, answer the question, and educate yourself

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It's one thing to (3.00 / 3) (#380)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:54:05 PM EST

accidentally run someone over in your car. That's called "manslaughter".

It's another thing to lie your way into a war and go to kill a bunch of purported bad guys, along with the tens of thousands of unquestionably innocent civilians that just happened to get in your way.

If you think the two scenarios are the same, then you are morally and emotionally retarded.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

absolutely true (1.50 / 4) (#383)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:10:52 PM EST

within the vacuum of anything else going on

such as getting rid of a despot such that the cost of getting rid of him is less than continuing to allow him to exist

tell me, oh righteous moral one, what is the moral cost of allowing a despot to continue to exist?

what is that cost compared to the moral cost of getting rid of him?

or do you think you live in a perfect world where every choice you make is between good and bad?

i live in a world, which is called reality, where sometimes the only choices you have is between two bads, one worse than the other

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Rates of death would be one factor (3.00 / 2) (#392)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:49:16 PM EST

tell me, oh righteous moral one, what is the moral cost of allowing a despot to continue to exist? what is that cost compared to the moral cost of getting rid of him?
Good question, and one I don't have an answer to. History will ultimately make this judgement, and I am open-minded enough to accept that it is possible that it will eventually judge in favor of the US actions.

However, that doesn't change my objection to starting a war based on lies and fabrications against a country that posed no threat to us. There were easier ways to depose Saddam that we could have used. The pain and simple truth is that there are an awful lot of innocent people that were killed with my tax dollars in this non-defensive dishonestly-sold war. You might think that my moral code is silly or childish, but it is now shared by the majority of Americans.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

the war was right (1.50 / 4) (#394)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:21:43 AM EST

how it was sold was wrong

that wmd bullshit was a joke from day one

i would have preferred, had we had an intelligent, thoughtful president rather than a stupid rich frat boy, that it had gone like this:

"in 1991, we did not remove saddam hussein because the political equation was such that the american people would not have accepted so many american body bags coming from baghdad. it was righ to remove him then, but the cost was too high. however, after 9/11, the political equation has changed: the american people now understand that misery exports misery. that suffering somewhere is suffering anywhere. and that we will pay in american body bags for the suffering in the middle east, the only quesiton then is do we want those body bags coming from downtown manhattan, or from downtown baghdad. and so it is with a beavy heart that i say today that we must help clean up the middle east, and iraq is the first and obvious step, because we do not want iraq falling to al qaeda, and giving al qaeda legitimacy in the eyes of the muslim world. we must take the initiative, and decide how this conflict is fought, because it is already being decided for us that we have to fight, for our benefit, and for the benefit of the muslim world"


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

that wasn't too bad a post (2.50 / 2) (#450)
by army of phred on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 02:07:47 PM EST

if you weren't so deliberately ignorant I might have given you something other than this zero.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
just to sum up (none / 0) (#294)
by bradasch on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:54:54 PM EST

I already read you explaining your "intent theory" over and over, and something always bugged me.

If intent is what is important, then we are down to judging intent, and not results any given intent may provide.

I find that absolutely disturbing.

Why, you may ask?

We, human beings, are not very good at judging intents. We come back to the same problems we already have.

Just my 2 cents.

[ Parent ]

easy answer (2.00 / 2) (#334)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:12:27 PM EST

because no one can read the future

what you are asking for is hindsight, that we judge what we did then knowing what we know now

in situations where no logical, coherent, intelligent person can say for certain what will happen, and the choices are difficult, it is not intellectually honest to say later "see, we did the wrong thing"

as long as someone acts in good faith, they cannot be criticized this way


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i don't think so (none / 1) (#340)
by bradasch on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:40:59 PM EST

"see, we did the wrong thing" is a necessary step to  *learn* to make the right choices.

I agree that if someone acts wrongly in good faith we shouldn't condemn solemnly any attitude, but still we should at least acknowledge that is was wrong and learn from the mistake.

Good intent is not a free pass to complete absolution.

[ Parent ]

agree 100% (1.50 / 2) (#348)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:15:30 PM EST

if you are using all of historical experience and logic and intelligence to make a decision, you cannot be held accountable in hindsight

which means if you are NOT acting in good faith, you are open to criticism

at the same time, if you are acting in good faith, you cannot be rightfully criticzed by people who are not using all of history and logic and intelligence

the trouble is, everyone has a different opinion, and everyone thinks their intelligence and experience is the sum total of all experience and intelligence

and so the debate rages on when the stakes are high, the risks are high, and the proper path uncertain

life is not a math equation, much of what is "right" and the "truth" of the matter actually comes form the intent and the actions of the actors involved

so beware anyone who tells you its simple or obvious about the state of the middle east, from the left or the right

they are immediately wrong and their words should be suspect

it's not simple, and its not obvious


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (none / 1) (#350)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:20:12 PM EST

because no one can read the future
Bingo! That's why the ends do not, in fact, justify the means: because no one really knows what the ends will be. That's why your whole theory of redemption-through-intent is completely bogus.

If you do a bad thing for good reasons, should the moral judgement of your actions be based on whether the eventual outcome happens to be positive or negative?

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

according to you then (1.50 / 2) (#352)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:23:40 PM EST

there is never any justification for doing anything, or any action, for absolutely any agenda, of any ideology, ever

(slaps forehead)

what, humanity to you is some sort of unthinking passive fungal growth?

i cannot even fathom how you think of the world and the people around you with that sort of thinking

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 1) (#363)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:23:40 PM EST

I believe that both intent and actions should be pure and good.

You believe that the actions don't matter, provided the intent is good.

That's where we differ.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

no, this is where we differ: (1.33 / 3) (#370)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:01:25 PM EST

i recognize that the struggle is ugly: not all intelligence is pure, not all chosen paths are clear

you hold onto the notion of absolutely pure and good action not because you are wiser than me, but because you are less wise than me: you imagine a world where all intent is obvious, all signals are clear, and all action is virtuous

simple miscommunication renders your nirvana impossible in the real world, not to mention a million other phenomena of human nature

see, you are not really at war with me. you are at war with reality

but you attack me, for no other reason than that the ignorant and naive always attack the messenger before they digest the message

i am your messenger, this is my message: the world and human nature is ugly, rife with conflict and bad intent. in that sea you must step to do good, and you cannot step into that sea without getting wet yourself

now you go ahead and keep on attacking me if it makes you feel better, but you are not really disagreeing with me

you are disagreeing with reality, because you are ignorant of how ugly it really is

make peace with the real nature of the world you live in, then act and do good


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Generally speaking... (3.00 / 2) (#358)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:01:36 PM EST

...it is deontic and virtue ethical moral philosphies which place most of the weight on intent, not consequentialist ones. And an end justifies the means type argument is almost certain to be consequentialist in nature.  

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
There are two separate issues at hand (none / 1) (#364)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:33:08 PM EST

  1. Saying that it is OK to lie and fabricate evidence and kill a lot of civilians in an invasion and occupation of Iraq because the majority of the citizens will hopefully wind up being better off in the long run is an argument from consequentialism.
  2. Saying that it is OK to kill a lot of civilians, because what we really intended to do was kill a bunch off bad guys, is an argument from virtue ethics.
I generally subscribe to neither of these two arguments.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
"Intent" and "accidents" (none / 1) (#297)
by Drog on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:13:00 PM EST

the INTENT of the west was to free iraq from a dictator

Actually, that was not the stated intent before the Iraq invasion. It was the stated intent after the invasion was over and no WMD's were found, however.

all of your massive amounts of iraqis killed? HOW MANY WERE KILLED BY THEIR FELLOW IRAQIS MORON?

A report published last July said that 24,865 civilians had been killed in Iraq in the two years following the invasion. 37% were killed by US-led forces (53% of whom were killed by explosives, 60% of those being due to air-dropped bombs). Anti-occupation forces/insurgents accounted for 9% of the deaths, while criminal violence was blamed for 36%.

Your point about intent and accidents is valid, but it's a slipperly slope to call all the civilian casualties due to U.S. forces "accidents". When you never target civilians and truly wish them no harm, but you "know" many thousands of them will be killed by your air-dropped bombs that you "choose" to drop when you "choose" to invade, then are those civilian deaths an accident? They were predicted and they occurred. Where's the accident?

Saying that they didn't intend to kill civilians does not excuse them from doing so. Because they had the choice to invade or not. And a lot of the world disagreed with that choice, believing that the end (Saddam's removal from power) did not justify the means (kills thousands of innocent civilians, mainly women and children).

To use an example like you did, if you attempted to apprehend a suspected murderer running through a crowd by shooting him with machine guns, causing the unintentional deaths of dozens of bystanders, those deaths could not be deemed accidental because you recklessly endangered their lives. Even though you got the guy, the end didn't justify the means.

None of this excuses the intent nor the end-result of terrorists, of course. I just thought your argument was a bit too simplistic for the actual case of the Iraq invasion.

Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum". News feed available here on K5.
[ Parent ]

wrong analogy (1.33 / 3) (#336)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:28:38 PM EST

kidnapper takes a hostage, and holds a gun to their head and ask for $10K, what do you do?

if i try to shoot the guy, i may miss and kill the hostage myself, or i may not kill him fast enough, and he may kill the hostage before he dies

or i can give him $10K

i i give him $10K, he'll surely kidnap again, and many will copy him: i show that kidnapping is profitable

if i just ignore him, and he kills his hostage, i cannot consider myself a moral person: i must fight for the sake of the innocent, i cannot stand idly by while innocents suffer and have a clean conscience

and if i fight for the innocent, and cause damage, i must suffer fools like you, who will blame me for what the hostage taker set in motion

saddam hussein held his people hostage. he had no legitimacy in their eyes, and no legitimacy in the world's eyes. he invaded his neighbors and brutalized his people. he needed to be taken out

i cannot give him what he wants. and i cannot do nothing. i must try to fight him, despite the risks involved. all of the damage i did in removing him IS STILL LESS THAN THE DAMAGE IN ALLOWING HIM TO CONTINUE HIS REIGN

and yet i still must suffer simple fools like you, who blame me for what hostage takers do

there is no morality in your position. only incrimination. for you don't see the real picture, and see the real accountability and responsibility for the creation of iraq the hell hole on the feet of saddam hussein

because are ethnocentric: you see the west as responsible for everything, because in your ethnocentric eyes, you cannot see an arab as your equal, someone who can be held responsible and accountable, an equal. no, in your eyes, arabs are crazy uncontrollable people like lightning strikes or shark attacks, and that only the west is responsible for setting any of their rage into motion

silly me, my position is that, as my fellow human being, they are responsible for crimes they commit, and i will hold them accountable for that, AS MY EQUAL, IN EVERY WAY

because i'm not patronizing and condescending to arabs like you are, who hold the west accountable for what they do

you're a racist if you cannot look at an arab and hold them accountable for the current status of their countries and their region and their culture


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hypocrisy (3.00 / 2) (#396)
by Drog on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:38:07 AM EST

So I'm a fool, I'm ethnocentric, patronizing and condescending, and I'm a racist to boot? And you surmised all that because I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq? Well thank you very much.

While we're name-calling, you're a gullible, narrow-minded, hypocritical, war-mongering simpleton with a misguided superiority complex who covers his inability to defend his views via reasoned debate by resorting to childish insults.

Now that the personal attacks are out of the way...

Invading a country is not the only way to remove a dictator. If you DO invade though, bombing the hell out of its cities (minimizing your casualties at the expense of their civilians) is not the only way to do it.

There are plenty of other ruthless dictators in power today. Kim Jong II, Than Shwe, Robert Mugabe, Omar Al-Bashir, just to name a few on the top-ten list. But nobody's calling to invade their countries -- including you, I think. If Hussein needed to be taken out so badly that it was worth the huge civilian casualties, then surely it's hypocritical to NOT take out all the other ruthless dictators too, no?

You talk about the need to see Arabs as equals accountable for the current status of their countries, their region and their culture. Yet you firmly believe that the Iraqi people needed the West to save them from their dictator. How patronizing, condescending and hypocritical is that? Who says they couldn't have done it on their own? People rise up all the time to remove tyrants from power.

As for going after the actual terrorists, invading Iraq did nothing to help that mission, since Iraq had no WMD's nor any contact with al-Qaeda. Instead it diverted resources from searching for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and created a breeding ground for recruiting and training new terrorists that otherwise might never have existed.

But my original post was about taking responsibility for one's actions. I do not believe one can maintain the moral highground in saying that they may have killed 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians but that's okay because it was accidental and there was no other choice other to invade. They chose to invade (against the wishes of most other nations in the world), they chose to employ heavy bombing in densely populated areas, and they did all this NOT in the name of removing Saddam Hussein from power, but in the name of protecting themselves and the rest of the world from a dictator who "might" someday choose to help terrorists.

Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum". News feed available here on K5.
[ Parent ]

no hypocrisy at all (1.50 / 4) (#397)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:46:52 AM EST

you just don't know me very well

"There are plenty of other ruthless dictators in power today. Kim Jong II, Than Shwe, Robert Mugabe, Omar Al-Bashir, just to name a few on the top-ten list. But nobody's calling to invade their countries -- including you, I think."

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/723

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

careful (none / 1) (#376)
by gdanjo on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:24:57 PM EST

the INTENT of the west was to free iraq from a dictator. and all of your massive amounts of iraqis killed?
Is it not the "intent" of fundamentalists to "free" us from the evils of a non-Islamic society?

You use "free" and "dictator" rather gratuitously - one weasle word to evoke warm fuzzies, and the other weasle word to evoke cold pricklies. 1 warm fuzzy to neutralise 1 cold pricklie and you get 1 super-warm fuzzy. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Using non-emotive words we can translate this to "the INTENT of the west was to remove the leader of Iraq." Doesn't sound so warm'n'fuzzy now.

It's also false: the INTENT of the west was to remove weapons that we were told existed, but actually don't.

If "intention" is so paramount, why do you not have anything to say about the real intention of the invasion?

you're so fucking retarded: morality via bean counting
And here I thought you were a utilitarian.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Or, more appropriately, (none / 1) (#430)
by Znork on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:21:00 AM EST

guy 3:

"i hear there are guys killing children in this town. so i get my car and drive over there to fight these guys. I'm in a hurry, so I'd better take the shortcut through the daycare center. Ooops, ran over a dozen napping kids. Ah, school crossing, where is the brake on this thing, oops, another handful. Oh, I'm lost, lets ask the driver getting out of the car that's just rammed the bus over there. He says those evil guys are disguised as kindergarten teachers, so better off to shoot that place up..."

In the area of ethical accountability between accident and murder there's a whole range called gross and willful neglience and reckless endangerment, which is much closer to 'murder', whatever the original intent was.

The actual effects of going to war were no more unpredictable than the effects of willfully ramming a truck through a daycare center.

I dont think you'd get far with an 'accident' defense in court. You'd do better with an 'insanity' plea.

[ Parent ]

The moral of the story? (none / 0) (#273)
by viza on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:53:05 PM EST

moral of the story?

Don't fuck with the USA.

Don't fund terrorists or support them in any way.

Turn extremists and insurgents into the authorities when. you find out about their activities.

The sooner they die or go to prison, the sooner we leave the mideast. Turn them over, and we'll leave. It's really simple.

Until that happens, we're not leaving. Religion has nothing to do with it. It's about self protection.

Call it "holy war", "jihad", make up thousands of philosophical bullshit ideological reasons if you like, riot and burn US interests because of European cartoonists, call it what you like, but that's all it is and acting like crazed lunatics or blowing shit up won't change anything. It will make it worse for yourselves.

If you guys were so smart, you'd have realized by now that this type behaviour doesn't solve anything.

-Viza

[ Parent ]

You might be right (none / 0) (#291)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:41:49 PM EST

Don't fuck with the [insert empire here]
So said the Russians to the Afghans in the 1980's, and the US to the Vietnamese in the 1970's. Chest-thumping and flag-waving might make you feel good about your support for your war that was based on fabrications (or, perhaps, it allows you to not think too hard about that sad reality), but it doesn't really provide any useful insight into the situation.

In any case, you may be right. We may so thoroughly crush the Arab world beneath our boot heel that no person of Arab heritage or Muslim background will ever dare raise a hand against any Westerner ever again. However, they've been pretty well crushed such a very long time already that I personally don't think that further bloodshed on a mass scale is really going to achieve any useful end.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

fabrications? (none / 1) (#319)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:23:10 PM EST

Which fabrications was the Iraq war based on? I must be out of the loop; I've not seen any such fabrications.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Are you serious? (3.00 / 2) (#322)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:41:32 PM EST

That Iraq possessed nuclear weapons? That they had UAVs that they were going to use against us? That that had mobile biological weapons factories? They they had links to Al-Qaeda? Unless you've been living under a rock for the past three years, you know that these things have all turned out to be false, and were based on data that was known, at the time, to be dubious in most cases, and outright fabrications in others.

If you truly didn't know these things, I'd recommend starting with the House Committe on Government Reform "Iraq on the Record" report.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

actually... (none / 0) (#324)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:45:45 PM EST

Actually, I know that all these things were never conclusively proven to be the case, with the recent exception of the WMDs. I, nor likely anyone else, ever heard anything about UAVs.

And, in case you hadn't been paying attention, "Al Queda" has been a blanket term for organized islamic terrorism since the start of this jihad.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Benefit of the doubt (none / 0) (#327)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:53:26 PM EST

Actually, I know that all these things were never conclusively proven to be the case [...]
It's one thing to give the benefit of the doubt with the people you have entrusted your national security to. But if you are saying that all the things they said still might be shown to be true, then you are delusional. As I say, read the report, and if afterwards you still think that they were acting in good faith and honesty, then we'll have a lot to talk about.

To take one example of many, when Dick Cheney said "we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Meet the Press Mar. 16, 2003), that was, in fact, a lie. Dick Cheney didn't believe it. No serious intelligence worker anywhere in the world believed it. And it was, in fact, completely untrue. The very definition of a lie. Will you at least acknowledge that one point?

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

its pretty well known (none / 0) (#333)
by army of phred on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:09:04 PM EST

essentially Bush admits as much himself, ie., he has still maintained that he would have invaded Iraq even based on what his administration knows now, so this means that the only reason for the WMD theories was to present the public with reasons to invade at the time, however the administration has admitted that the war was really not about WMDs.

A very clear and complete fabrication.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

yay, more ANSWER talking points! (none / 0) (#278)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:06:09 PM EST

Your little tu quoque outburst, which itself rests on dubious data and is completely beside the point, in no way invalidates circletimesquare's argument.

The problem here, I think, is that you despise mainstream America so thoroughly that you've blinded yourself to the Islamic world's--and frankly Islam's--major shortcomings.

Are paternalistic talkings-to, like circletimesquare's, the answer? Of course not! And nor is casting the cartoon violence as a reaction to Western transgressions.

source: National Review Online

[ Parent ]

Oh, come now (none / 1) (#296)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:08:49 PM EST

Your little tu quoque outburst, which itself rests on dubious data
It is nice to see that I can still draw you our of the woodwork with your hysterical denunciations the moment anyone ever brings up an attempt to count the people that have died in your precious invasion. And as for "tu quoque" arguments, your past behavior proves that it isn't always such a bad idea to take an opponent's past dishonesty into account when debating future topics.

Regarding the "dubious data", do you have any better sources? Or would you just prefer that no one try to count? I suspect the latter ... it would probably helps you sleep at night. As usual, I expect this challenge to go unanswered by you.

... is completely beside the point, in no way invalidates circletimesquare's argument.
Not really. When CTS claims how, golly gee, he's so bewildered how a bunch of Muslims can get all whipped up into a fury and go around busting stuff, he is speaking as a representative of a country that has wound up killing many, many times as many people in the past few years based on being tricked into thinking that they were doing it because they were at risk from a nonexistent threat. A few Muslims run around burning down embassies? That pales in comparison to an entire nation tricked into believing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and was going to attack them with nuclear weapons if we don't invade and occupy their country. And if tens of thousands of people are dead as "collateral damage", if we have to use torture and extra-legal internment, then so be it.
The problem here, I think, is that you despise mainstream America so thoroughly that you've blinded yourself to the Islamic world's--and frankly Islam's--major shortcomings.
Umm ... I hate to break into whatever right-wing Ivory Tower you've ensconced yourself in, but have you read any polling on the subject recently? I am in the mainstream. It is the apologetics of people like you whose support is eroding day after day.
Are paternalistic talkings-to, like circletimesquare's, the answer? Of course not! And nor is casting the cartoon violence as a reaction to Western transgressions.
I never "casted the cartoon violence as a reaction to Western transgressions". What the hell are you talking about? My point is that CTS is not preaching from a position of moral strength.
source: National Review Online
Why aren't I surprised?

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
and in other news from Neptune... (none / 0) (#305)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:57:55 PM EST

Your characterization of the academe as "right-wing" contradicts your following claim:
    I am in the mainstream.
The Whole Foods-eating, Howard Dean-voting liberals who dominate the American university discourse may well seem right-wing from, say, the perspective of a shill for Hugo Chavez; but these good folks are decidedly to the left of America's center of political gravity.

What's the origin of the canard that "entire nation [was] tricked into believing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11..."? Many on the right (correctly) saw a convergence of Saddam's and Al Qaeda's interests, but few gave much credence to reports--from the Czechs, I believe--that Saddam was somehow tied to the attacks themselves.

[ Parent ]

Canard, is it? (none / 0) (#320)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:36:44 PM EST

The Whole Foods-eating, Howard Dean-voting liberals who dominate the American university discourse may well [...]
I meant your personal Ivory Tower, not whatever University you managed to sucker into letting you teach at.
What's the origin of the canard that "entire nation [was] tricked into believing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11..."?
That'd be the Washington Post. 69% of Americans believed, until very recently, that Saddam Hussein "was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks". A whopping 82% believed that he "has provided assistance to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network". As even you are forced to admit, these things were untrue, and yet the overwhelming majority of Americans believed them.

Why is that, do you think? Care to take a gander?

Many on the right (correctly) saw a convergence of Saddam's and Al Qaeda's interests, ...
Name one. Name me one single prominent thinker who still holds this view and who has not been utterly disgraced.
... but few gave much credence to reports--from the Czechs, I believe--that Saddam was somehow tied to the attacks themselves.
First off, pretending that the continued and repeated citing by Dick Cheney and others of the Czech reports of meetings between Atta and Iraqi security forces was the only bit of misdirection that your beloved administration did in promoting the war is beyond the pale, and you know it. If you are really that ill-informed, you might start off by reading the House Committe on Government Reform "Iraq on the Record" report. It'll rock your world.

Furthermore, even if few in your circles give much credence to these falsehoods, you sure as hell helped promote them to the masses of Americans that got sucked into the propaganda that your side was so dishonestly parroting. As long as you are pretending to hold the attitude of "golly gee, I don't know how all these people could have gotten such silly ideas", nothing you say on the matter can really be trusted.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

I want to hear more about (none / 0) (#349)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:15:52 PM EST

my "personal [i]vory [t]ower". You keep appealing to your own cognizance of the real, gritty situation, but that can't be squared with your seclusionist refusal to alter the nasty pre-2003 status quo in Saddam's Iraq.

Your little theory of the Bushies brainwashing middle Americans lacks only a mechanism. Otherwise it's flawless.

Conjecture: you were radicalized circa early 2003 and you've been carefully scrutinizing events ever since (and that's great!), but your knowledge of pre-9/11 is relatively scant.

Show me one of your own "prominent thinker[s]" and I'll show you somebody whose analyses during the '70s,'80s, and '90s turned out to be scandalously wrong. They were wrong about US policies towards Cambodia, the USSR, Yugoslavia, and now Iraq.

As an aside, faculty don't sucker universities into letting them teach. It's precisely the other way around.

[ Parent ]

My "little theory" (none / 1) (#357)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:57:12 PM EST

I want to hear more about my "personal [i]vory [t]ower".
That'd be the ivory tower in which you think it is OK to invent and plagiarize in order to promote your ill-conceived analyses. That'd be the one in which you are caught lying about sources, and then refuse to admit it, even when the evidence against you is overwhelming. That'd be the tower you would need to be secluded inside in order to block your ears to anyone who mentions anything about civilian causalities, saying that they must be Communist propagandists, "shills for Chavez", or, my personal favorite, "Saddamites", all while studiously ignoring the presentation of facts, figures, and numbers from reputable sources.

That'd be the tower that you would need to be living in where you franticly protest your innocence and good intentions, all while caricaturizing your opponent rather than debating him.

Your little theory of the Bushies brainwashing middle Americans lacks only a mechanism. Otherwise it's flawless.
Lacks a mechanism? Are you kidding? Come back after you've read the report I directed you to and say that again with a straight face. Or at least acknowledge that I've presented you with plain and clear details of a coordinated effort on the part of the administration to trick Americans into thinking that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and represented an imminent threat to the country.
Show me one of your own "prominent thinker[s]" [...]
Again, you dodge my question, so I'll repeat it, just so our audience can watch as you dodge it yet again: name me one single prominent thinker who still holds this view and who has not been utterly disgraced. Just one. A single name.

You can't.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

You can't possibly expect (none / 0) (#366)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:42:13 PM EST

an informed person to regard as reliable a report prepared for Henry Waxman by a bunch of Democratic Party flacks (I'm sorry, I mean the "US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform -- Minority Staff Special Investigations Division") and grounded on assertions by Joe Wilson, CBS, and sundry leftish op-ed writers. Futhermore, it still doesn't provide a mechanism for your theory. Maybe you have a specific, world-rocking passage in mind?

Don't you think that if I'm as unscrupulous as you're making me out to be I'd be capable of dodging your attacks by simpling posting from a different account? Hey, maybe you're also CTS. If that's the case I have been well and truly trolled.

Finally, some commies are good. Like the fine gentlemen who run Harry's Place.

[ Parent ]

Rocking your world (none / 1) (#377)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:29:11 PM EST

Maybe you have a specific, world-rocking passage in mind?
How about this one: "we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003). That sure rocked a lot of worlds. It also happened to be a complete bald-faced lie.

Or how about this one? "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." (Cheney, Meet the Press). Golly, what do you think he meant for listeners to take away from that statement?

Or how about: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding." (GW Bush, May 1, 2003). Or how about when Cheney said: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s"? Are any of these things jogging your memory?

Look: they lied. I know it. You know it. I know that you know it. Your mock protestations of ignorance and befuddlement at how your fellow Americans could have possibly gotten the notion into their head that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were connected are becoming tiresome. I don't know whose benefit they are for: mine, or some lone audience member who might not be aware of your history of dishonesty, and who thereby might give your bloviations some grain of credence.

Furthermore, the fact that you claim that no "informed person" would rely on a report written by "Democrats", or one that contains information from "CBS" or "Joseph Wilson", tells an awful lot more about you than anything else. You've clearly been inoculated against any contrary opinions by Fox news or somesuch if you are refusing to listen to facts merely because they are stated by some mythical Democrat/CBS/Joseph Wilson cabal that you are constantly railing against.

Also, don't think that I haven't noticed your continual ignoring of my challenge for you to provide a single credible thinker that supports your opinions on Iraq.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

Consider my world not rocked (none / 0) (#407)
by Lode Runner on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 04:04:27 AM EST

Do you have access to the secret documents revealing that Cheney knowingly misled Americans when he claimed that bits and pieces of nukes were floating around Saddam's Iraq?

By "base" Cheney meant the Middle East, not Iraq per se. How do know Bush wasn't referring to Ansar al-Islam?

"The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s" is a factually correct statement.

Look, son, Americans lump Qaeda and Saddam because both parties are Arab, Muslim, and hate America. Americans didn't need to be brainwashed into linking the two; they believed it by default. I think you could make a case that the Bush administration cynically left Americans' unfounded beliefs go uncorrected, but I suppose that position isn't sufficiently off the deep end for you.

As for trusting the Democrats, you've clearly been in the minority regarding that issue for years.

All you need to do to get me to name a credible thinker who supports my position is to name a credible thinker who supports your position. Surely you don't hold me to different standards than yourself?

[ Parent ]

Woah there, hoss (none / 1) (#409)
by shinshin on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 04:28:39 AM EST

Do you have access to the secret documents revealing that Cheney knowingly misled Americans when he claimed that bits and pieces of nukes were floating around Saddam's Iraq?
Hang on. Are you saying that Cheney's statement of "we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" was somehow not a lie? Because it was. He didn't believe it when he said it, because no one in any intelligence agency anywhere in the entire world believed it then or ever. Because it is utterly ridiculous to think that Iraq had the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, and Cheney perfectly well knew it.

This isn't a point you can win. If you persist in trying to defend Cheney's assertion that Iraq had a nuclear weapon, you are arguing against facts that are well-documented and on the record. I challenge you to acknowledge that at least this one single statement was a lie.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

you'll never know (none / 0) (#411)
by Lode Runner on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:21:25 AM EST

The Vice President has access to the findings of US and other intelligence agencies. You don't. Yet here you are making claims about what the veep and the world's intelligence services know.

You can prove me wrong by simply posting every classified document in the world to your K5 diary. The word limit will be an issue so you'll want to split it up.

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 1) (#443)
by shinshin on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:26:56 PM EST

As a simple point of logic, you are correct. It is impossible to logically prove that Cheney was lying unless we have access to every bit of data that he had at the time.

However, if you really believe that there was a single intelligence source that thought that Iraq might have managed to build a nuclear weapon, then you simply do not know what you are talking about, and are unqualified to hold this discussion, to say the least. The IAEA didn't believe it. The CIA didn't believe it. No one in the world believed it. Hence, it was a lie.

So answer me this one question: do you believe that there was any intelligence source in the US government that believed that it was possible that Iraq had built a nuclear weapon? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

processing.... processing... (none / 0) (#454)
by Lode Runner on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:12:06 PM EST

I can't answer that question because I don't have access to the pertinent information.

I suppose we could argue about hunches, but we've precicious little useful data at our disposal. Sparrows and crumbs.

[ Parent ]

Stop dodging (none / 1) (#460)
by shinshin on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:32:16 PM EST

Just answer the question: do you think it is plausible that any intelligence agency in the world thought that Iraq might have build a nuclear weapon. I only want to know if you personally think that that is plausible. Yes or no.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
reconstituted nuclear weapons (none / 0) (#474)
by Lode Runner on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:16:01 AM EST

That's so 2003 but here you are banging on about it. God bless the boys at Powerline, God bless 'em.

[ Parent ]
The good old "misspeak" defence (3.00 / 2) (#495)
by shinshin on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:18:48 PM EST

What it comes down to is that regardless of how it is spun by Powerline Blog, the NRO, and whichever other lunatic right-wing propaganda machine you are using to get your news from, even if Cheney did, as they say, "misspeak", it would only be an honest error if he or his office subsequently issued a correction. Which they never did.

If I erroneously say that Iraq has nuclear weapons (around the same time our capable National Security Advisor is making statements like "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), and then do not promptly correct my mistake, then that is not a "misstatement". That is a lie.

And you damn well know it.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

So let's get this straight (none / 0) (#531)
by Lode Runner on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:10:55 PM EST

You think it would've been out of the realm of the possible that in 2026 a city gets nuked by terrorists supplied by Uday Hussein's sanctions-free Iraq?

Your argument distilled:

Step 1: drop sanctions and leave Saddam in place
Step 3: safety

Remember, when we approached this sort of problem your way--i.e. the Jimmy Carter way--we got North Korea.

[ Parent ]

I'll take your attempt to change the subject (none / 1) (#555)
by shinshin on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 03:56:18 AM EST

as tacit admission that your folks did, indeed, lie to get us into the war. So I guess we'll consider that topic closed.

As to your "well, maybe a future Iraq might have someday nuked us", I guess I can't really argue with that. Maybe a future Brazil will nuke us too. Who knows. What it comes down to, though, is that we invaded a country that did not pose any immediate threat at all, and we did so based on lies and deception. And tens of thousands of innocent people are dead as a result. You consider it worth it. I don't.

By the way, did you see what the editor of your favorite rag recently wrote? Seems like you, Lode Runner, are the only cheerleader in town these days.

Rah rah rah.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

*grin* (none / 0) (#557)
by megid on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 11:25:23 AM EST

Lode runner is just a brainwashed idiot. I'd rather argue with an Inquisitor about Master Eckarts theories -- both belong to the same culture, but are entirely different in their freedom of thinking.

Well performed, btw. My applause for all the nice links!

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]

If you're going to play erudite (none / 0) (#561)
by Lode Runner on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 02:15:53 PM EST

... you need to be at least somewhat intelligible. Spellchecking doesn't hurt either.

[ Parent ]
what it comes down to: (none / 0) (#559)
by Lode Runner on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 01:47:32 PM EST

We deposed a nasty dictator, nipped an existential security issue in the bud, and sowed the seeds of democracy, all over your strenous objections.

Hey, anyone with a nuke could nuke us. But some parties would be more likely to do so than others. Who would you rather have nuclear weapons: Saddam's Iraq or Brazil? I'd say Brazil, even it's run by a drunkard socialist.

Buckley was always against the war. I suspect that you wouldn't've posted his article if you'd known that. The NRO, of course, is to be applauded for publishing him, though; there's no such debate in any of your favorite echo chambers, which is probably why you like them so much.

[ Parent ]

And yet you persist (none / 0) (#560)
by shinshin on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 02:09:10 PM EST

nipped an existential security issue in the bud
Have you learned nothing? Iraq was not and existential threat. They simply weren't. No amount of prevaricating on this issue is going to change that fact. Given the amount of work I had to do to squeeze from you even a tacit admission that there were lies that were told about Iraq's alleged "reconstituted nuclear weapons" to the American public, it's certainly going to be an uphill battle trying to bring clarity to your intentionally muddied waters on this point. But it's a battle I relish, because it always ends up with you being exposed as a liar, a plagiarist, and a distortion expert.

You know, if you were to come forward and admit that your side did, indeed, lie about the threat that Iraq posed, and yet it was still justified that we invaded and occupied Iraq, and that the tens of thousands of dead, the torture and internment and generally un-American behavior that we have been paying for is well worth it, then I would at least have some respect for your position. It's an honest and (barely) tenable position to hold, albeit one that I strenuously disagree with. But as long as you are issuing outright lies on the subject, you are just another Republican flak who needs to be public discredited in order to clear the way for an honest discussion of the matter.

The NRO, of course, is to be applauded for publishing [Buckley]
Applauded for publishing him? He is their goddamn founder and editor! Next you'll be applauding the graciousness of K5 for allowing Rusty to post his opinions on one or two matters.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Someday you'll own up (none / 0) (#562)
by Lode Runner on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 02:47:33 PM EST

to recognizing your position as being objectively pro-Saddam. Come clean and then we'll talk. We've already been over this many times, though.

You keep saying you want an honest discussion, but then you devote the bulk of your posts to constructing derisive caricatures of your opponents; and I've never seen you approach contrary evidence with an open mind. It took a dozen posts to get you to spell Qaeda correctly.

Buckley may have founded NR, but he is now just one editorial voice among many at NRO (cf. The Nation, which is run Soviet style).

[ Parent ]

Hardly (none / 0) (#563)
by shinshin on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 09:31:38 PM EST

Someday you'll own up to recognizing your position as being objectively pro-Saddam
Returning to your old tried and true tactic of referring to anyone who disagrees with you as a Saddamite, eh? As I've said before, if you can't imagine that it is possible to both hate Saddam Hussein and also think a unilateral war and lengthy occupation of Iraq is a bad idea, then that's your problem, not mine. But you're aren't that much of a simpleton, are you?
and I've never seen you approach contrary evidence with an open mind
I guess if you ever presented me with any contrary evidence beyond hyperbole and distortions, I might listen to it. It is you who are the one that goes into an apoplectic fit whenever anyone brings up the studies that have done that show the number of civilians that have been killed in our unilateral invasion, not me. It is you who tries to run interference, with not a single concrete source, for the bald-faced lies that Iraq had a nuclear weapon, not me. It is you that is caught lying again, and again, and again.

Pretending that it is me that doesn't want an "honest discussion" is well beyond absurd.

Buckley may have founded NR, but he is now just one editorial voice among many at NRO [...]
Come now. That's quite a step down from pretending it was an act of graciousness and openness to debate that prompted the National Review to allow Buckley to air his opinion that Iraq is lost. They could hardly have turned him down.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
round we go (none / 0) (#565)
by Lode Runner on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:40:10 AM EST

Returning to your old tried and true tactic of referring to anyone who disagrees with you as a "Republican flak [sic]", eh? As I've said before, if you can't imagine that it is not possible to both hate Saddam Hussein and also think a unilateral war and lengthy occupation of Iraq is a bad idea, then that's your problem, not mine. But you're aren't that much of a simpleton, are you?

I guess if you ever presented me with any contrary evidence beyond hyperbole and distortions, I might listen to it. It is you who are the one that goes into an apoplectic fit whenever anyone questions the frankly political studies that have [been] done that show the number of civilians that have been killed in our unilateral invasion, not me. It is you who tries to run interference, with not a single concrete source, for the bald-faced lies that Iraq was in no way pursuing nuclear weapons, not me. It is you that is caught lying again, and again, and again.

Pretending that it is me [who] doesn't want an "honest discussion" is well beyond absurd.

[ Parent ]

You know (none / 0) (#566)
by shinshin on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:19:43 AM EST

your plagiarism was more interesting when you were ripping off Michel Foucault's writings and pretending they were your own. Reciting my post back to me doesn't even make any logical sense. Also, you look like a buffoon when you incorrectly correct my spelling; you might try to get past your allergy to solid sources and references and pick up a dictionary.

I genuinely look forward to your next smack-down.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

pop quiz (none / 0) (#567)
by Lode Runner on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 04:01:53 AM EST

one of the following phrases is correct:

  1. you are just another Republican flak who needs to be public[ally] discredited

  2. you are just another Republican flack who needs to be public[ally] discredited
Rhymezone's assertion that flak can be defined as "a slick spokesperson who can turn any criticism to the advantage of their employer" is simply incorrect. Some of the other, more authoritative sources OneLook points to note that flack is a variant of flak (the anti-aircraft or criticism variety), but none besides the UltraLingua English Dictionary (with "flak-catcher") describe flak as an alternate spelling of flack. Proof of concept: google "GOP flack" and "GOP flak" and note that the people who employ flak as you did are semi-literates.

Look, I fuck up all the time when it comes to spelling. Just eat the loss.

Foucault is sufficiently well known that plagiarizing him is impossible. What next? Pastors excoriated for plagiarizing the bible?!?

[ Parent ]

Sufficiently well known (none / 0) (#571)
by shinshin on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:18:48 PM EST

Look, I fuck up all the time when it comes to spelling. Just eat the loss.
Then why on earth do you spend so much time and space trying to correct the spelling and grammar of your opponent's postings, as if it were somehow relevant to the actual content of the debate?
Foucault is sufficiently well known that plagiarizing him is impossible. What next? Pastors excoriated for plagiarizing the bible?!?
That's rich. Tell me, is that the policy at your university? That plagiarism is OK as long as the original author is "sufficiently well known"? Even if What Are the Iranians Dreaming About were a well-known work (which it isn't, even when it was published in French in Le Nouvel Obs in 1978), you're still not allowed to pretend it is your own.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
As a pseudonymous poster (none / 0) (#577)
by Lode Runner on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 10:25:21 PM EST

I lay no claim to anything posted under this account. I transmit ideas, that is all.

I pick on your major spelling errors because your reactions elegantly expose you as a bullheaded ignoramus. If you're willing to stonewall over "flak" for egotistical reasons, imagine what you'd do on the issue of Iraq, in which your ego and ideology are at stake.

[ Parent ]

As a pseudointellectual poster (none / 0) (#580)
by shinshin on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:37:30 AM EST

I lay no claim to anything posted under this account. I transmit ideas, that is all.
And so you lie and plagiarize. Great that you have such respect for the forum.

It's a wonder that you even bother.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

you skipped a step: (none / 0) (#589)
by Lode Runner on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 06:16:16 PM EST

acknowledging your error with regard to flak/flack. Your rectitude depends on it.

Or maybe not. Sincerity vanished from K5 circa 2002; and although you've had a good run with your Jimmy Stuartesque outrage, your shtik is beginning to get stale.

[ Parent ]

Tell you what (none / 0) (#590)
by shinshin on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:53:42 PM EST

acknowledging your error with regard to flak/flack. Your rectitude depends on it.
Come clean and admit that your folks lied to get us into war, and I'll agree to your spelling assertions.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
okay. . . (none / 0) (#591)
by Lode Runner on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 12:04:48 AM EST

I'll come clean:

Ahem!

Given the evidence presently available there is no proof that the Bush administration knowingly deceived the American public during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Okay, your turn; and bear in mind that my spelling "assertions" are incontrovertible.

[ Parent ]

Oh well (none / 1) (#592)
by shinshin on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:17:47 AM EST

I know they lied. You know they lied. Everyone here knows they lied. I suppose it is a waste of time trying to coax some honesty on the subject from someone who refused to ever come clean about his own past bald-faced lies, but I still retain a sliver of hope that you will someday find it in yourself to hold an honest discussion on the subject.

Clearly, today is not that day.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

speaking of old claims (none / 0) (#594)
by Lode Runner on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:40:43 AM EST

Are you still standing behind your Irvingesque assertion that "under Saddam for the past 10 years [1994-2004], approximately 3,000 Iraqi 'everymen' were unjustly killed"?

Hey, what's an order of magnitude or two between friends, right?

[ Parent ]

Every time (none / 1) (#595)
by shinshin on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:09:31 AM EST

you respond by trying to dodge the public and incontrovertible proof that you are a liar, rather than simply coming clean, admitting you lied, and being done with it, you merely drive another nail into the coffin of your credibility. This pavlovian response is really quite fascinating.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Every time (none / 0) (#598)
by Lode Runner on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 01:07:59 PM EST

you respond by trying to dodge the public and incontrovertible proof that you are a liar, rather than simply coming clean, admitting you lied, and being done with it, you merely drive another nail into the coffin of your credibility. This pavlovian response is really quite fascinating.

[ Parent ]
In the fitting words of George Orwell (none / 0) (#601)
by shinshin on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 08:23:57 PM EST

"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Here's a better one: (none / 0) (#602)
by Lode Runner on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:29:38 AM EST

"If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one."

Orwell shied away from this position after the War because he didn't want to lose sight of pacifists' motives, but you're no pacifist.

[ Parent ]

Yes, but his was was a defensive war [n/t] (none / 0) (#603)
by shinshin on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:22:56 PM EST



____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
see Coming Up For Air $ (none / 0) (#604)
by Lode Runner on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:32:03 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I'll see your 194K and raise you 100K more. (none / 1) (#359)
by SnowBlind on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:06:21 PM EST

Sure, why not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict And, yes... we can play this silly game of who is killing more ALL DAY LONG. I have a bunch more examples of wars started in the region by Islamic fundementalists if you want to go down that path.

There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
[ Parent ]
not mock outrage, but disgust (none / 0) (#568)
by egkamp on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 02:52:31 PM EST

I would suggest you refactor your numbers, using "innocent civilians targeted" rather than "Western civilians". Otherwise, you hide what is going on inside of a Middle East/West labeled cubbyhole. The fact is that inflicting terror by paying people to be a human bomb, to blow up civilians, is a form of insanity. This isn't really about Christian vs Muslim. This is about protecting innocent civilians from the deadly and dangerously insane. If there are an order of magnitude more terroists dead, then that is a good thing. If these wheren't religious extremists, but rather a club organized around cooking recipies, their behavior would still be as insane.

[ Parent ]
who? (2.40 / 10) (#241)
by Muslim on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:58:33 AM EST

hi
as a muslim, i was just wondering who is this guy you are quoting? oh right, a mawlana, a sufist (is that the right word?). wake up. u r quoting a minor sect's religious leader. the majority of muslim's are sunni. deflate point.

next, go read up on sufism from a sunni point of view, while u r at read on shia and druze. and no, the wikipedia is NOT authoritative, it is written by people like you.

next, violence has happened, by how many? i dont know ..but lets assume 50,000 no .. make that 100,000 muslims. out of 3 billion .. thats not even 0.001%. ok .. so a few bad apples are giving the rest a bad name. that i agree has happened.

next, tolerance is necessary. actually, would those in power (editors/politicans) who provoked muslims have been fired/forced to resign if there had been no reaction? so .. personally, while i have not carried out violence, i m personally, undecided whether violence doesnt bring the appropriate, required response.

next, golden age. when and how? when a muslim community built their vision of a country. you and your president destroyed their country. when something happens in a country that the west dislikes, they destroy their country. it is said in the middle east that america will go to war against syria and iran. and maybe even egypt. how do u build a golden age in war time? u need years of peace before a golden age can even begin to come about. ask any economics student.

there is something extremely important you all must understand, freedom of speech is good. i must be able to tell the most powerful man in the world  he has done wrong, i must tell my neighbour the right or wrong way to do something. i must be able to express my opinion, but understand there is a limit. LIMITS. there is always a limit. draw the line somewhere. you dont want a loved one to tell you "you are coyote ugly". nor would it be ethical for you to follow your army commander's order to destroy every man, women and child in a village. there is a limit to the length of your life. there are limits in life. and one of those limits is to NOT blaspheme Allah or god as you might call him NOR his prophets. which btw, includes "jesus christ" whose real name is only jesus or isa (peace be upon him)in arabic. notice how muslims dont blaspheme against him?

i am tired of arguing. so i will stop now.

muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order

IAWTP up to the paragraph on free speech. (2.25 / 4) (#242)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:36:39 AM EST

You would think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could look after his own detractors, and strike them down with his own noodly appendages if he desired. He doesn't need you to whip me too.

Would you be upset if I drew a cartoon of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with bombs for meatballs?

Why not? He's as real a religious entity as Allah.


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

Dude, (1.00 / 3) (#255)
by Comrade Wonderful on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:05:31 AM EST

don't use the term Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless you want to be a total dork.

[ Parent ]
There is no God but the Flying Spaghetti Monster (2.40 / 5) (#260)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:05:55 AM EST

and Chuck Norris is his pirate.

So shut the hell up unless you want to die infidel.


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

gay. nt (1.20 / 5) (#268)
by Comrade Wonderful on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:21:04 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Why - 'cuz *you* say so? (n/t) (3.00 / 3) (#303)
by smithmc on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:48:43 PM EST



[ Parent ]
die asshole (1.00 / 9) (#271)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:50:03 PM EST

this is a serious discussion, did you notice? we're actually talking east meets west here, this is good stuff, and you come in with your fucking geek shit

go to your room and play with your toys and let the adults discuss some important stuff now little child


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ITS VERY FUCKING IMPORTANT ASSHOLE (3.00 / 7) (#280)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:09:19 PM EST

Because I am entitled to my right to believe what I want to believe... That involves ridiculing the ridiculous... Islam sets itself above ridicule, and you are denying and apologising for this attitude.

These freedoms are the basis of this debate. The FSM is a perfectly apt example here, because it has about the same rational standing as Allah or any other God, and almost everyone can agree it is ridiculous.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

you lack communication abilities (2.00 / 2) (#287)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:31:24 PM EST

say this to your average muslim in egypt or syria:

"The FSM is a perfectly apt example here, because it has about the same rational standing as Allah or any other God, and almost everyone can agree it is ridiculous."

their answer:

"the what? the who?"

the issue, moron, is communication: are you trying to communicate to muslims? or snicker at your retarded dweeb joke?

you're not trying to communicate. you're trying to mentally masturbate


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i think what he is trying to say is that (3.00 / 3) (#290)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:37:52 PM EST

just because a lot of people share a common delusion doesn't make it true or worthy of respect in any way whatsoever. unless you are afraid that they will kill you otherwise.

[ Parent ]
that's 100% true (none / 1) (#337)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:31:30 PM EST

if grouping people in simple monolithic blocks had any valid meaning

muslim != crazy person

muslim != sane person

muslim = sane people and crazy people

just like

christian != sane person

christian != crazy person

christian = sane people and crazy people

understand these simple lessons in logic yet you ethnocentric asshole?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

what? (3.00 / 3) (#389)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:24:46 PM EST

grouping people based on their BELIEF SYSTEM THAT DEFINES THEIR ENTIRE LIFE makes no sense at all?

PUT DOWN THAT BONG RIGHT NOW.

[ Parent ]

all english have bad teeth (2.50 / 4) (#399)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:43:04 AM EST

all irish are drunks

all canadians like hockey

all americans are warmongers

all christians are peace loving

all muslims are maniacs

all asians eat dogs

all africans practice voodoo

welcome to nilquark's dim little brain


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I wrote the comment you quoted to you, moron. (none / 1) (#295)
by procrasti on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 02:03:09 PM EST

Why don't you tell your average Muslim in Egypt or Syria:
There is no God but Pokey and Mr. Nutty is his Prophet -- paraphrasing me

and see how far you get even without them having an in-depth understanding of the nuances of Pokey and his adventures. At best you will be lucky if they walk away.

You see, most people understand the metaphor when they hear the name in context... I know I didn't have to go to Wikipedia to get a general idea the first time I read it. Maybe you think Muslims who read my comment have difficulty using google?

What about:
There is no God but Democracy and Secularism is his Prophet? -- paraphrasing you and with the rest of the west.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

so (none / 0) (#338)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:33:15 PM EST

there is no one on the muslim world who can be reasoned with?

are you telling me that as soon as you call someone muslim, immediately, 100% of the time, that person is a nutter?

that it is better to condemn an entire region of people as crazy, beyond reasoning abilities?

is that what you are telling me?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Change Muslim to Christian Scientist (2.00 / 3) (#413)
by procrasti on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:11:25 AM EST

and ask me the questions again.

Yes, there are Christian Scientists that are moderate and can be reasoned with. They are not all immediately 100% of the time nutters.

OTOH, Christian Science itself is a bad thing and causes otherwise good people to do bad things. The religion itself encourages this bad behaviour, so it's fair to judge them as a group.

Having said all that, I still respect your average Muslim more than your average Christian Scientist, but denying that someone's faith affects their actions, and the actions of its members as a group, is idiotic.

Either way, in the previous comment to that you were arguing that Muslims couldn't handle google or understand basic logic.

Furthermore, I still think you would probably get a bloody nose taking the piss out of their 'No God but Allah' line in a Muslim country. Like I said, you would be lucky if they just walk away. Yet the statement about FSM is no joke.

Once 'God', Thetans or Pink Unicorns are the explanation, there is a point beyond which you cannot change someone's mind through reason, because the very basis of their understanding of the universe is not based on reason.

The closest you will get to your ideal is getting Muslims to accept that Sharia is a personal law for dealing with their own life and is unacceptable as a basis for government. Sharia itself must be altered to fit in with western views if it would tolerate non-Muslims and yet treat everyone equally (Sharia does not do this). Unfortunately this goes against basic Muslim teaching. (You should have known this before being a condescending twat).

There is no god, but democracy and secularism are its prophets --- is a very offensive line to your average Muslim, and it's what you are trying to make them accept.


-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

impossible for us to understand each other. (3.00 / 3) (#243)
by denne on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:40:34 AM EST

there is something extremely important you all must understand, freedom of speech is good. i must be able to tell the most powerful man in the world he has done wrong, i must tell my neighbour the right or wrong way to do something. i must be able to express my opinion, but understand there is a limit. LIMITS.
This illustrates how far the understanding between the west and east is apart. One of the most important rules there is about freedom of speech is that there is no limit!

if there was a limit on what you could say, it would be censorship, which is absolutely incompatible with freespech and democracy.

and as a reaction to that, a western man/woman is not able to picture for them self how it feels to be a muslim today, no more than a man is able to see through the eyes of a another man. we have understood that muslims feel very disturbed by the cartoons, but how and why the muslims feel is impossible for us to interpret any deeper.

When muslims demand to punish the editors/politicians for involvment of the cartoons, this also feel like a big humiliation and respectlessness of the western free spech.

[ Parent ]
There's no absolute freedom (3.00 / 2) (#247)
by i chihi on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:54:55 AM EST

I don't think there is such thing as an absolute freedom of anything. The press is free to publish the plans to release hostages, but cannot do it: that's a limitation, call it ethical, moral or legal, it's still a limitation.

Recently David Irving was sentenced to a prison term for questioning parts of what we learnt about the Holocaust. That's a limitation, a legal limitation.

The press is a power that can drive society, so, just like the police, it needs to have limits. Any absolute power has the potential to turn into a deadly power.

[ Parent ]

free information (3.00 / 2) (#252)
by denne on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:41:22 AM EST

"Recently David Irving was sentenced to a prison term for questioning parts of what we learnt about the Holocaust. That's a limitation, a legal limitation."
The sentencing of David Irving tell you more about where our democracy is heading than how to handle free speech. Every man should have to right to say what he feel is important to be said. Then it is up to the majority of the people in the society to be critical and evaulate all information that is available. But all information should be free and available

But, to my defense, I dont know anything about the man, or what he has said, or why he was sentenced to prison.

[ Parent ]
Generalisation! (3.00 / 2) (#248)
by i chihi on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:59:07 AM EST

Concluding that Muslims called for the death of the cartoonists because very few elements did is an extreme generalisation.

After September 11th, a high-ranking US official called for the destruction of Kaaba and the forcefull conversion of Muslims. None, I believe, concluded then that Christians wanted to destroy Kaaba.

[ Parent ]

you missinterpreted my post (3.00 / 2) (#250)
by denne on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:32:07 AM EST

Concluding that Muslims called for the death of the cartoonists because very few elements did is an extreme generalisation.
I never mentioned anything about killing people, but you interpreted punishment to something like wanting them dead.

What I really meant was that some muslim leaders in western world and in muslim countries has said that they want the people involved punished by the blaspheme paragraphs in our own law.

[ Parent ]
Maybe not so far apart (3.00 / 4) (#253)
by thejeff on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:54:46 AM EST

Let's not get carried away by the free speech rhetoric. I don't know of any country with no restrictions on speech.

In addition to the obvious "fire in a crowded theater" restrictions, there's libel, obscenity, hate speech, incitement, truth in advertising and probably others. Not all everywhere, but I'll bet some can be found in any functioning democracy, so it's hard to see how they can be absolutely incompatible.

So it is (and always has been) more a question of negotiating where those limits are, than of saying there can be no limits. How long ago did western (Christian) countries have blasphemy laws?

[ Parent ]

blasphemy laws (none / 0) (#282)
by denne on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:12:58 PM EST

So it is (and always has been) more a question of negotiating where those limits are, than of saying there can be no limits. How long ago did western (Christian) countries have blasphemy laws?
Most western countries still have blasphemy laws. But they are not practiced anymore. They are "sleeping" laws. Many religious people are now raising their voice to get them back. Which I hope never is going to happen, religion should never get privileges in the laws of a country.

[ Parent ]
why not? (none / 0) (#304)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:55:18 PM EST

Let's imagine a ficticious piece of uninhabited land, for sale, that can become a sovereign nation. (Let's say China for example wants to sell some island for profit, meh, I know it's not realistic, but bear with me.)

Let's say the mormons buy the island for some $Billions. They set up a little mormon country with mormon laws.

My principal problem with this country would be if people were not absolutely free to leave if they did not like the laws, not that it was a "religious country".

[ Parent ]

thank you for responding (2.00 / 3) (#264)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:50:37 AM EST

hi

as a muslim, i was just wondering who is this guy you are quoting? oh right, a mawlana, a sufist (is that the right word?). wake up. u r quoting a minor sect's religious leader. the majority of muslim's are sunni. deflate point.

ok, then what about the contents of his words? the value of what is said, rather than the value of who said them?

next, go read up on sufism from a sunni point of view, while u r at read on shia and druze. and no, the wikipedia is NOT authoritative, it is written by people like you.

i know about the different branches. i was at an ismaili wedding 6 months ago. what is your point of saying this? who is "people like me"? if you mean people like me who don't understand the cartoon demonstrations, then you are speaking to the right person. and a person like me is trying to speak and saying so much violence and inferno over cartoons is weakness in the muslim world, not strength

next, violence has happened, by how many? i dont know ..but lets assume 50,000 no .. make that 100,000 muslims. out of 3 billion .. thats not even 0.001%. ok .. so a few bad apples are giving the rest a bad name. that i agree has happened.

"only 0.03% of americans are in iraq right now. ok .. so a few bad apples are giving the rest a bad name." does that make sense for me to say to you? no. it doesn't mean anything. reread my first paragraph: "Many say the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed were a direct provocation of Muslim sensibilities. And they would be correct. And equally true is that most Muslims who are rightfully deeply insulted by the cartoons wage peaceful protests. And some say that the Western media only focuses on the most violent of reactions in the Muslim world. However, the problem is that, even with all of these mitigations, there is still a large segment of the Muslim world that thinks their reaction, violence, is appropriate for cartoons"

and how can i prove that? you prove that, you say violence yourself:

next, tolerance is necessary. actually, would those in power (editors/politicans) who provoked muslims have been fired/forced to resign if there had been no reaction? so .. personally, while i have not carried out violence, i m personally, undecided whether violence doesnt bring the appropriate, required response.

and why should the editors be in jail in yemen and jordan? some imams have said they should meet the sword... FOR PUBLISHING CARTOONS??!! here in the west we slap our forheads, what nonsense is this

next, golden age. when and how? when a muslim community built their vision of a country. you and your president destroyed their country. when something happens in a country that the west dislikes, they destroy their country. it is said in the middle east that america will go to war against syria and iran. and maybe even egypt. how do u build a golden age in war time? u need years of peace before a golden age can even begin to come about. ask any economics student.

i agree, this is all wrong. so how does the muslim world gain strength to repel invaders? why is the muslim world so weak? why isn't the muslim world strong like the west? that is what i am getting at: egypt was humiliated by israel militarily in the 1960s/ 1970s, right? why didn't egypt and syria shove israel into the mediterranean sea? I AM TELLING YOU WHY: tolerance of free expression makes strong societies. a society that has so much strong reaction over cartoons is not strong. and so the muslim world is weak

there is something extremely important you all must understand, freedom of speech is good. i must be able to tell the most powerful man in the world  he has done wrong, i must tell my neighbour the right or wrong way to do something. i must be able to express my opinion, but understand there is a limit. LIMITS. there is always a limit. draw the line somewhere. you dont want a loved one to tell you "you are coyote ugly". nor would it be ethical for you to follow your army commander's order to destroy every man, women and child in a village. there is a limit to the length of your life. there are limits in life. and one of those limits is to NOT blaspheme Allah or god as you might call him NOR his prophets. which btw, includes "jesus christ" whose real name is only jesus or isa (peace be upon him)in arabic. notice how muslims dont blaspheme against him?

and this is why the muslim world is weak, and will stay weak. listen to me, listen to me carefully: if pictures of cartoons can anger you so, then you are weak. and you will stay weak

listen to me, because this is the truth, whether you realize it or not: when muslims can look at pictures of the prophets and yawn, you are strong people. because you have strength. quiet strength. but if pictures of the prophets can whip your societies in to anger and frenzy, you are weak, and you will stay weak

i am simply telling you how to make the muslim world strong, to repel invaders, colonists, to resist immoral influence: to tolerate. and if you disagree with me, that is your choice. but the choice you are making dooms your children and grandchildren to poverty and war and suffering. from the west? no. from yourselves.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Limits (3.00 / 4) (#269)
by alspar on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:33:03 PM EST

I am sick of hearing about limits on freedom of speech. You are right, there are limits. However, crucially these limits are self-imposed. The muslim world seems to think that these should be imposed legally.

Here comes the problem. You believe Muhammmed should be prohibited from satire because that is offensive to you. By the same token, I believe that the Koran, because of aspects of it which I find offensive, should also be restricted. So how do we resolve this issue? We both agree to tolerate the other's beliefs. This does not mean "approve of" or "support", merely tolerate. This is not to say that you shouldn't go out and protest for what you believe in. However, your protest should be directed at the newspaper in question and not any individual government.

I assure you that the continued violence has done nothing to persuade anyone of the muslim viewpoint. If anything, the need to confront some of these countries, where Western hatred has state sponsorship, has become more apparent.

[ Parent ]
Curious (none / 0) (#293)
by TheLastUser on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:53:47 PM EST

What does the Saudi law say about Christians drinking alcohol? One religion bans alcohol the other requires it for its observances? An absolutest view of the world is too naive to be workable.

It comes down to manners I think. Its fine to lead your life as you see fit, but only a bore tries to tell other people how to live.

People are naturally social animals, to act in an antisocial way is unnatural.

Only a child would fail to understand that people have different customs. Only a child is surprised that people wish to live differently than they do. The intersection of customs is the realm of manners, the cornerstone of society.

Its sad that so many people have no concern for their fellow man, who is, after all, their natural ally. A picture of Mohammad is bad manners, just like blowing your nose at the table, showing the sole of your foot, or any of a number of faux pas that might be committed. Not because you are a Muslim, but because you recognise that it is upsetting to people who are Muslims. Similarly, when someone has committed an indisgression, either by ignorance, or otherwise, they need to be edjucated. Rightious indignation followed by wanton destruction of property and murder are hardly a reasonable response to something that probably has its roots in ignorance.

[ Parent ]

the problem (none / 0) (#302)
by samu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:31:14 PM EST

Is that a woman who is not property is an insult to fundamentalism muslims, and I am sorry, but at least on this point I will always and must always be insulting. On this point I will not waver. I could give up blowing my nose at the table, or showing the soles of my feet, etc. But to think that there can be compromise between the crowd that believes in the burqa and the crowd that believes in self-determination is perhaps a bit too hopeful. To me it is obvious that a woman should have as much right to choose her fate and religion as a man. To me it is obvious that stoning is not the appropriate punishment for a woman who is raped; in fact she should not be punished, it is the rapists who should be punished. To me these things are obvious and universal.

Now, whether crude sketches should provoke firebombing businesses unrelated to the artists or publishers, we might debate. But I speak from within the Tao (reference to the Abolition of Man), and while without any religious claims whatsoever I do believe in the absolute truth that men and women have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[ Parent ]

Woman and Islam (none / 1) (#341)
by TheLastUser on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:42:59 PM EST

My main point is that nobody has the right to tell another how to live. If a person finds another's actions offensive they can seek to edjucate them but they can't, at the risk of hypocricy, tell them that they must change.

Should people wear burqas? You can only answer for yourself, do you want to wear one. The same goes for the fundamentalist.

People are free thinking social creatures, it is unnatural for us to live without the society of others or to think in a collective, like ants. People that propose this way of life must be reasoned with, and if that fails they must be resisted.

[ Parent ]

Billshit (none / 1) (#433)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:50:27 AM EST

I have the right to tell you how to live any time I feel like it. You have the right to disagree. If your worldview is so fragile that it can't stand up to my mere barrage of words and you must therefore react with violence to silence me, then you're better off commiting suicide than wasting the precious sentience nature bestowed upon you setting up limits to the thoughts which you can tolerate considering. Just don't expect any help from me, I've washed my hands of the matter.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

I shit on your limits to free speech (1.50 / 6) (#270)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:44:01 PM EST

your prophet was a dung-flinging monkey that liked to fuck little girls while watching infidels get executed.

i shit on you, and i shit on your retrograde culture.

[ Parent ]

die you ignorant sack of shit (nt) (1.12 / 8) (#272)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:51:33 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
i shit on you too, cts (1.50 / 4) (#274)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:54:58 PM EST

go back to coding ASP.NET or whatever tripe-ish job you do.

[ Parent ]
i know you shit on me (1.00 / 6) (#275)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 12:57:10 PM EST

and you shit on the muslim guy who responded

you shit on all of us

you're so high and mighty, all we can see of you is just one giant asshole

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

damnit cts (2.00 / 3) (#279)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:09:04 PM EST

stop telling me who i shit on. so far it's only you two.

[ Parent ]
yes (none / 0) (#284)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:21:52 PM EST

people engaged in dialog

so deseving of being shit upon by you

i think i have a superior alternative: why don't you shut the fuck up and go the fuck away?

of course i know you won't, but that's ok

when him and i are finished dialoging, we'll come for you:

the loud stupid useless turds in the west and the muslim world who stir up all the trouble in the first place

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

there is no dialogue, dumbass. are you blind? (2.00 / 3) (#310)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 04:24:36 PM EST

he spews some shit here, thinking about how smart he is, and then erects a mental shield between himself and the replies. even if something you said made sense to him, he'd just see it as a test of faith from allah and then go back to dreaming about killing them evil western kuffar.

[ Parent ]
YES, FUCKTARD (none / 0) (#356)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:46:41 PM EST

BUT THAT IS NOT THE ENTIRE MOSLEM WORLD

THAT IS A USELESS SEGMENT OF IT THAT WE MUST PUNISH

AND WE NEED MODERATE MUSLIMS TO HELP US TO PUNISH THE ASSHOLES YOU DESCRIBE, BECAUSE THOSE MODERATE MUSLIMS ARE OUR NATURAL ALLIES: THEY SUFFER MORE FOR THE SAKE OF THE INSANE MUSLIMS THAN EITHER YOU OR I DO

BUT YOU'RE NOT FUCKING HELPING, YOU IGNORANT PRICK, BECAUSE YOU ALIENATE THE REASONABLE MUSLIMS

BY CONDEMNING THE ENTIRE MOSLEM WORLD AS A MONOLITHIC BLOCK

IS ANY OF THIS SINKING INTO YOUR IGNORANT SKULL YET?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

shit-for-brains (1.50 / 4) (#456)
by nilquark on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:27:43 PM EST

you were referring to having a non-existent dialogue with the k5 user "Muslim". Can you follow your own contexts? this doesn't appear to be the case.

I still see no dialogue. Where are all these super-intelligent tolerant muslims that you say are in the majority? Surely, one would come around by now. There's more than a billion of them! Are they avoiding k5?

[ Parent ]

Is this over your "limit"? (2.50 / 6) (#277)
by BerntB on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:03:11 PM EST

there is always a limit [..] you dont want a loved one to tell you "you are coyote ugly". nor would it be ethical for you to [do war crimes] [..] there are limits in life. and one of those limits is to NOT blaspheme Allah [..] NOR his prophets. which btw, includes "jesus christ"
There are laws on what is legal. Then there is good taste which varies a lot, often inside a given family.

You will not see laws in the west again to disallow blasphemy. We had such laws, before pulling the claws and fangs of our priests. We don't want to go down that painful road again.

The fun part is that I'd be in trouble, just by discussing religion!

This is one of my favorite arguments when discussing christianity (also relevant for islam). It is a moral argument presented (primarily) not to insult, which I've never seen answered.

In many (/most?) non-democracies you find "civil servants" that ask questions of prisoners -- using something like a blowtorch. (Your Egypt is criticised for torture, btw.)

Every civilised person would agree that such torture is horrible and no person deserves such a death.

Still, quite a few people would think e.g. Hitler and/or Stalin deserved such deaths, because they considered such treatment right for innocent civilians.

Very few humans are such sick bastards that they would want to torture even Hitler or Stalin with something equally bad for years before letting them die -- these people are probably mentally ill; it is just too horrible.

But compare these mentally ill to the christian or muslim god with their Hells. Those gods literally plan to use a blowtorch on people for eternity.

If this god should exist, it might of course also be insane (-: would explain schlager music :-). Otherwise, by definition, the christian/muslim gods are the worst asshole of all time. And people follow and worship them?! Nazism and communism looks like Amnesty International when compared to christianity and Islam...

Even with proof that one of these gods really would exist, I'd refuse to worship the bastard. There are some moral limits on what I approve of in others! An attitude which would mean the blowtorch for eternity...

(I saw this argument first in a book from the early 70s by Ingemar Hedenius, a Swedish pilosophy professor at Uppsala University.)

It is a valid argument that islam and christianity are worse than nazism and communism. Do Hedenius and I deserve jail or death for this? Do you seriously think I (or anyone) deserve the blowtorch for years? For eternity?

[ Parent ]

damn the priests (none / 1) (#283)
by denne on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:19:22 PM EST

Even with proof that one of these gods really would exist, I'd refuse to worship the bastard. There are some moral limits on what I approve of in others! An attitude which would mean the blowtorch for eternity...
I think you are a bit hard on religion. It is the people that interpret the religious books that are the real bastards. I cant think of any religion that does not preach love and understanding as part. Different people has then interpreted this into some horrible way that capture innocent people in fear of their god.

[ Parent ]
Horseshit! (1.50 / 2) (#286)
by jubal3 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:27:42 PM EST

Read the Koran pal, violence and suppresion of other religions, (especially polytheists) isn't an interpretation, its there in so many words in black and white.

While its true you would be hard pressed to find any overt justification for the Christian excecces (crimes) of the past in the New Testament, that is certainly NOT the case with Islam..and pretending that it is the same is plain dishonesty.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

A bit naive.. (1.50 / 2) (#288)
by BerntB on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:33:06 PM EST

I cant think of any religion that does not preach love and understanding as part. Different people has then interpreted this into some horrible way that capture innocent people in fear of their god.
Hedenius argued that the Hell teachings was well integrated in Jesus' ethics and would be hard to remove and still have something left. I am no theological scholar and am not competent to argue the point. The Hedenius book is in Swedish, sadly.

The humane variants of religion seems to be mostly after the priests get their fangs pulled. 'circletimessquare' might be correct about the medieval Islam, I don't know. (Buddhism is another example, but it looks more like a philosophy. Maybe hinduism, too. I am afraid to study those two -- there might not be enough reasons to hate 'em! :-)

[ Parent ]

Buddhism (3.00 / 2) (#546)
by Lacero on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 09:34:37 AM EST

Buddhism is interesting in that it tries to remove all normal hooks for worship, such as a god. You can argue fairly strongly that the veneration of buddha is against the point of the religion.

Most forms of buddhism ended up mixed with hinduism and grew a large mythology based on enlightened beings, in practice this seems like a form of polytheism, although they're technically closer to saints.

But buddhism is definately the purest religion I know of, in that it tries to alllow it's followers to be individuals and not to do what a higher power says, whether that be god or priests. And any religion with ritual debate can't be all bad.

I'd say the distinction between a philosophy and a religion isn't meaningful, although I guess you could argue a philosophy is believed because it makes logical sense to do so and religion is believed "because". If that argument works for you buddhism is definately a religion.

As Hinduism is linked to a caste system (and in some peoples eyes racism) I'm sure you would find something to hate about it if you looked hard enough. I've never studied it, there's too many obscure native american religions that are more fun to read about.

[ Parent ]

The definition of religion... (none / 0) (#554)
by BerntB on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 02:17:11 AM EST

I'd say the distinction between a philosophy and a religion isn't meaningful, although I guess you could argue a philosophy is believed because it makes logical sense to do so and religion is believed "because". If that argument works for you buddhism is definately a religion.
The "usual" definition of religion is that it is a theory that makes claims of the existence of some supra-reality. Almost(?) always with some beings that control the after life, etc.

If people aren't indoctrinated in a religion as kids, few become religious (just wrote about it here).

Buddhism seems to not follow that "wish fulfillment" model...

Your thing is mythology, then? You're really Greg Stafford? :-)

[ Parent ]

Greg Stafford (none / 0) (#558)
by Lacero on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 12:52:34 PM EST

Belief in a supra-reality seems vague enough to work in all cases, do you think Zero Point Energy counts? I can't say I've heard of a religion that doesn't include beliefs about death, but then I've not heard of one that doesn't include beliefs about sex.

I see the explanations religions provide as being separate to their purpose, the explanations are just needed for people to believe in them rationally. To believe them irrationally the power of the group is enough, like the experiments where people stare at a spot in the sky and count how many people they get copying them. I realise I'm weakening my argument for the definition I used before, that'll teach me to post quickly :)

I read a book that claimed the purpose of religions was to give humanity some kind of "truth" to cling to. When language appeared we learnt how to lie and how to think and communicate "what if..". Religion and ritual provide a kind of truth that helps stop societies tearing themselves apart with lies and distrust.

It's a fairly convincing read (first chapter here), although it takes such a general view you can apply what it says to almost any kind of social group.

I'd like to see references for what you've written in that other post, but it's easy to believe. I wonder sometimes what people believe if they're non-religious, the number of people who read horoscopes and go to mediums shows there's belief of some kind. Have we become so used to religions of the book we don't recognise mysticism when we see it?

As for my thing being mythology, I guess you've been reading my past posts or something? :) I got a bit of a surprise when I found this but I found the real Greg Stafford a bit later, no I didn't make HeroQuest :)

For the record, my thing is how people think. Mythology and religion both come under that heading for me.

[ Parent ]

the latest Sunni statement on Shia: (2.00 / 3) (#281)
by Lode Runner on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:10:49 PM EST

via BBC

I think I'll stick with Wikipedia thank you very much.

[ Parent ]

muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order (1.50 / 2) (#285)
by denne on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:24:58 PM EST

"muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order"
european, swedish, male, happy, coffey drinking, partying, computer specialist, snowboarding, likes television in the evening, should do the dishes soon, maybe brush my teeth, christian, in that order.

[ Parent ]
Religious guy, that denne, for a Swede :-) -nt (none / 1) (#289)
by BerntB on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 01:35:55 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Both of you (1.50 / 2) (#414)
by nidarus on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:21:16 AM EST

You're European and Swedish first and male second? Does it mean you'd rather get a sex-change operation than move to a another country?

[ Parent ]
so? (1.50 / 2) (#314)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:01:00 PM EST

That doesn't make what he says any less true.

I have yet to hear one - just one Western imam of a popular Muslim organization denounce - not appoligize or weasel around a denouncation - the actions of "radical Muslims". Not fucking once. And until I do, I'm going to assume that they're in cahoots.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

one more thing... (2.00 / 3) (#316)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:13:02 PM EST

next, golden age. when and how? when a muslim community built their vision of a country. you and your president destroyed their country. when something happens in a country that the west dislikes, they destroy their country.

THe only country I can imagine you referring to here is Iraq. Why didn't you just come out and say so? You didn't want to appear an idiot? Saddam was making WMDs (this much is not disputeable at this point, sorry leftists), threatening the US, and skirting the authority of the UN. He was provoking a fight.

it is said in the middle east that america will go to war against syria and iran. and maybe even egypt.

It's a possibility, but not a hopeful one. Maybe if you clean up your country's governments you will advert the cause of such attacks: mullahs bent on world domination and the destruction of the West. You think we're spending trillions of dollars on warfare, "peacekeeping" and infrastructure in "your" countries in order to "make war" on your people (muslims, arabs)? No, we're doing it because the current political stability in the middle east is unacceptable. It is directly hostile towards the West, and the instability of the region is what we are trying to fix by bringing democracy.

I know personal freedom is an antithesis for Islam, but it's a change that has to be made. Your collective culture has been trying ever harder for the last 50 years to push in the door of our society. We can't have that.

how do u build a golden age in war time? u need years of peace before a golden age can even begin to come about. ask any economics student.

Or, I could simply look around and see when recent golden ages occured: the US has had several, all directly following war (our Revolutionary War, Civil War, and World War II). Maybe if the Muslim world were not in a perpetual state of internal war you'd be able to bring about such a golden age. Stop trying to smear the US with your problems.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Saddam was making WMDs? (none / 1) (#331)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:01:31 PM EST

Saddam was making WMDs (this much is not disputeable at this point, sorry leftists)
Do you really believe this? Because if so, you are the last person in the world who does.

I'd be interested in hearing your sources.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

Hey numbnuts! We have him ON TAPE!! (none / 1) (#343)
by dxh on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:46:16 PM EST

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

[ Parent ]
From 10 years ago (none / 1) (#373)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:06:00 PM EST

The fact that that Iraq had some chemical and biological weapons programs 10 years ago does not make it any less of a lie when the Bush administration said 3 years ago that Saddam had active chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. They knew what they were saying was false at the time, hence it was a lie.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
Shovel (none / 1) (#384)
by dxh on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:16:02 PM EST

Yeah, here is a shovel keep digging in that shitpile you call your logic.

[ Parent ]
So are you saying (none / 1) (#391)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:35:59 PM EST

that you do believe that the statements the administration made about Iraq having WMD were true? They weren't, and no rhetorical gymnastics on your part are going to change that simple and plain fact that is now well known throughout the world.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
there is no compulsion (none / 0) (#420)
by Muslim on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:28:26 AM EST

there is no compulsion in religion .. for non muslims. i cant force you to my way of thinking, nor can i force you to follow my laws.
i cant force you to be nice to me either or force you to stop insulting me.

kiroshin has become like wikipedia. a big blob of slime on the internet.

oh and btw .. i was talking about afghanistan. and by bringing democracy to palestine, you now have a government for the people, by the people who you and  america will punish coz you dint like the democratic process. beeep you lose two-face with forked tongue.
muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]

Tell that to your fellow Muslims. (none / 1) (#464)
by Apuleius on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:52:04 PM EST

That is, the ones who continue to engage in exactly that: compulsion in religion. The ones who have been kidnapping Coptic girls and making them convert, for starters. Tell that also to the democratically elected Palestinian authority's main party, Hamas. You know, the party that openly speaks of imposing Muslim law on non-Muslims. They sure as hell belive in engaging in compulsion in religion. When you're ready to add "decent" to your attributes, let me know. More importantly, be sure to let us know where "decent" would rank against Muslim, Egyptian, Arab and Male.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
You're insulting yourself (none / 0) (#551)
by shm on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 10:55:52 PM EST

With your lies. Ever heard of Dar-ul-harb and dar-ul-islam? WTF does that mean if there is no compulsion.

[ Parent ]
Here's more compulsion in religion (none / 0) (#576)
by Apuleius on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 09:52:25 PM EST

A Coptic girl kidnapped.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Religions are mutually blasphemous (3.00 / 5) (#345)
by kraut on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:00:07 PM EST

>  there are limits in life. and one of those limits is to NOT blaspheme Allah or god as you might call him NOR his prophets. which btw, includes "jesus christ" whose real name is only jesus or isa (peace be upon him)in arabic. notice how muslims dont blaspheme against him?

You've just commited blasphemy by calling the Son of God a mere prophet.

And Jews will find it blasphemous that I call Jesus the Son of God.

So, the three religions of the book, while based on the same tradition, are mutually offensive and blasphemous; don't even get me started on Buddhists and Hindus.  

There are limits to free speech: Incitement to violence and murder.  You can't place limits on freedom of speech because of religious sensitivities, otherwise you could say nothing at all.

[ Parent ]

And who are you to set those limits? (3.00 / 4) (#346)
by Apuleius on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:03:18 PM EST

I am not a Muslim. To me, Muhammad was not a prophet. To me, therefore, he was a false prophet, and a bandit to boot. Who are you to demand that I never say it?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
As much as I don't care about what you think (none / 0) (#382)
by IVotedCthulhu on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:58:42 PM EST

Three billion muslims? That's about twice the estimated number. You just tried to attribute Islam to almost half of the world's population.

[ Parent ]
"u r" (none / 0) (#552)
by shm on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 10:57:57 PM EST

How can I take you seriously when you can't spell?

[ Parent ]
Why are you two arguing over what a word means? (2.50 / 2) (#265)
by slaida1 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:52:57 AM EST

Why is it so important for you two to know what nihilism means? People define words, not the other way around.

you're a nihilist.
ye but nihilism means good things.
no it does not.
by my definition it does.
well your definition is wrong.
no it isn't.
by my definition of wrong, it is.
well, you're wrong about wrong then.
no i'm not.
yes you are.
you don't know what yes means.
yes i do.
see? you just proved it.
no i did not, you're confused.
less confused than you.
maybe but i'm not confused about big issues like you are.
like what?
that you're a nihilist.
hey that was my line!
no it wasn't.


enlightenment! (2.66 / 3) (#306)
by soul rebel on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 03:59:24 PM EST

i think enlightenment is the keyword, either people learn to think for themselves or they will be abused by capitalist governments, religious extremists or other individuals that are keen on expanding their power. sad thing is: it is rather hard to teach people to think for themselves, both in the western world and in the "rest". the only difference in europe and north america is the "program" people are taught: in europe and the america they tell you, you have the highest level of life on the world and that your country is so superior, just consume and everything will be alright! then in the poor countries they tell you, its all the evil western countries (which imo has more truth then the other stories, but is still brainwash). religious extremism (muslim or christian or whatever), patriotism... is all the same to me: just another way of controlling people. just my 2 € p.s.: although i am 100% atheist i respect belief, in contrast to religion; religion being instrumentalised belief (after all what is belief if you are told what to believe in?)
-------- "What is robbing a bank, compared to founding a bank?" Berthold Brecht
don't kid yourself (none / 0) (#367)
by gdanjo on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:48:08 PM EST

"Thinking for yourself" does not guarantee anything. Good thinkin' people can degenerate to rabid fundamentalists at the drop of a hat (or a building... or two). And don't kid yourself into thinking that it could never happen to you - given extreme enough circumstances, you'd fold like the rest of us.

Dan ...
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

plagarized? (1.00 / 6) (#315)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:01:56 PM EST

Um, are you sure this is your original work? Because I'm dead certain I've read this elsewhere a couple weeks ago, likely on a conservative blog.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

i'm not conservative, i'm a social liberal (1.00 / 5) (#329)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:56:46 PM EST

and this is 100% my own

don't fucking accuse me of plagiarism you scum


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

christians and muslims contrasted: (1.55 / 9) (#317)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:18:18 PM EST

Christians:
Reaction of the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, The Most Revd Peter Akinola on recent events in Nigeria

   1.
      Having watched with sadness and dismay the recent development in  some  States in the Northern part of this Country where many Christian Churches and other property have been wantonly destroyed by some Islamic fundamentalists, the Christian Association of Nigeria is compelled to issue the following statements:

         1. From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths has been sadly misunderstood to be weakness
         2. We have for a long time now watched helplessly the killing, maiming and destruction of Christians and their property by Muslim fanatics and fundamentalists at the slightest or no provocation at all. We are not unaware of the fact that these religious extremists have the full backup and support of some influential Muslims who are yet to appreciate the value of peaceful co-existence.
         3. That an incident in far away Denmark which does not claim to be representing Christianity could elicit such an unfortunate reaction here in Nigeria, leading to the destruction of Christian Churches, is not only embarrassing, but also disturbing and unfortunate.
         4. It is no longer a hidden fact that a  long standing agenda to make this Nigeria an Islamic nation is being surreptitiously pursued. The willingness of Muslim Youth to descend with violence on the innocent Christians from time to time is from all intents and purposes a design to actualize their dream.
   2.
         1.
            It is sad to note that all acts of hostility meted against Christians by Muslims in the past have remained unaddressed with nobody paying compensations or the culprits brought to justice.
         2.
            We do appreciate the fact that at this stage of our national development, peace is absolutely necessary for realizing our dreams and aspirations. It is in view of this that Christians in Nigeria agreed to participate in the forthcoming National Census as sacrifice for the peace and progress of this nation, in spite of our protest over the non-inclusion of Religion and Ethnicity as necessary demographic data.
         3.
            May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation.  Nigeria belongs to all of us - Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths. No amount of intimidation can Change this time-honoured arrangement in this nation.  C.A.N. may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue.
   3.
         1. We now demand that further destruction of Christian Churches and property in this nation be permanently put to an end.
         2. All levels of Government in this country should take adequate steps to protect the lives and property of Christians everywhere in this land as no further destructions will be tolerated or ignored.
         3. The Federal Government and those States where Christian Churches have been destroyed are hereby urged to take urgent steps at rebuilding those structures and paying adequate compensation while assuring Christians of adequate protection in this country.  These governments should now show in practical terms that Nigeria belongs to all of us by going beyond mere promises of rebuilding destroyed Churches and property as in the past to actual reconstruction, which will help the victims to quickly put this unfortunate incident behind them. A stitch in time saves nine.

Signed

Most Revd. Peter J. Akinola (CON, DD.)
President, Christian Association of Nigeria

Muslims:

(too busy burning shit down and killing people over a couple of cartoons)


understand this (2.00 / 2) (#328)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 05:55:32 PM EST

i view the current conflict in the world as moderate muslim and moderate christian, operating together, versus extremist christian and extremist muslim

if, as you suggest, over and over, that the current conflict in the world is mounting up to be muslim versus christian, then we are talking a conflict that will claim millions of lives

now i ask you this: what do you want: millions of lives, christian and muslim lost?

answer me this you fuck scum: you want blood on your hands or not?

for if you view the conflict on this world as christian versus muslim, you WANT millions dead

so i ASK of you: see it as extremist versus moderate, NOT christian versus muslim

i ask you this TO SAVE LIVES

if you still choose to think in terms of christian versus muslim, blood is on your hands you stupid motherfucker, and you are no better than osama bin laden

because motherfucker YOU ACCUSE ALL OF ISLAM OF SO MUCH BLOOSHED

SO WHAT'S THE ANSWER YOU FUCK?

CONDEMN ALL OF ISLAM?

THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT???

THEN YOU WANT BLOOD

AND YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN YOU FUCKING ETHNOCENTRIC BIGOT

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

useless (2.25 / 4) (#342)
by bradasch on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 06:46:08 PM EST

I could post a note from some known muslim condemning the riots over the cartoons - there were several of them - and finish with:

Christians:

  (too busy calling muslims names over some overreacting fundamentalists)

And, by your own standards, I would be correct.

You're useless and obsolete. You do nothing to contribute.

Thanks for nothing!

[ Parent ]

thank you for some reasonability (none / 1) (#353)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:32:56 PM EST

it is the thinking of the person you are responding to which leads to widescale death and destruction

he is not willing to look at the muslim world and see good and bad people, people you can reason with, and people you cannot reason with

the useless asshole you are responding to has this label: "muslim=crazy and bad", and he slaps it on 1 billion people, smacks his hands, and calls it a day, problem solved

he is a fucking racist ethocentric sleaze, as evil and vile as osama bin laden, because that is EXACTLY the kind of thinking osama bin laden uses when justifying killing innocents in the west: "all of the west is evil, therefore killing westerners in the subway, or on a bus, or in an office tower, or at a beach resort is acceptable"

if the asshole you are responding to gets his way, it is nothing but millions of muslims and christians dead, in reprisal after reprisal, for decades

all for the sake of simpletons prejudicial mind

he is the very epitome of evil

it is upon our backs: moderates in the west and the muslim world, who can reason with each other, and agree with each other, who will save us from the extremists. the extremists in the muslim world, like osama bin laden, and the extremists in the west, like this asshole nilquark

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

reasonable muslims? (1.00 / 9) (#388)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:14:57 PM EST

Where? I have yet to see one. No, not McArabian. She's polite as fuck, but there are flaws in her reasoning the size of the Grand Canyon, and you people are either stupid or reflexively contain yourself. I think these reasonable muslims are logically impossible, as no humanist would continue calling himself a muslim these days.

AND GUESS WHAT!!! CALLING PEOPLE NAMES ON THE INTERNET != KILLING PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT MUSLIMS DO!!! LOL

[ Parent ]

stupid ignorant twat (none / 0) (#398)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:39:03 AM EST

it is really beyond your ability to conceive of a muslim who thinks that the cartoons were in bad taste but anything except angry letters to the editor in response is unacceptable?

the existence of such a muslim is beyond your abilities to recognize?

you are one dim bulb

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

writing angry letters is your measure (2.00 / 3) (#447)
by nilquark on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:25:37 PM EST

of rationality? your standards are incredibly low. no wonder that you're such a dolt.

[ Parent ]
Dude, relax. (none / 0) (#436)
by Comrade Wonderful on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:13:06 AM EST

Where in his post was a statement such as "Every last Muslim in Nigeria is a criminal?"

Nowhere, that's where!

He seems to be calling for Muslim parents to restrain their kids from burning down their churches.  Or if youths mean older people, presumably he is asking for community pressure on them.

He addresses this call to who?  The Muslims!

Why is that?  Because it's the Muslims who are burning down their churches!

Not the Christians.  Not the Jews.  Not the tribe of weird clicky sounds.  Or the spirit of the mountain.

Only one with an axe to grind (you!) would assume it to mean that all Muslims are responsible.

[ Parent ]

you fail reading comprehension (none / 0) (#462)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:37:52 PM EST

"Only one with an axe to grind (you!) would assume it to mean that all Muslims are responsible."

about as opposite to everything i said in my story and every single post underneath as you can get


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

100% missed the point. (none / 0) (#483)
by Comrade Wonderful on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:11:30 AM EST

You were chastising the guy for painting all Muslims with the same brush, when he actually did nothing of the sort. You are so quick to jump on this line of thinking that you (Only one with an axe to grind (you!)...) don't realize this.

[ Parent ]
you should (none / 0) (#515)
by bradasch on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:18:19 PM EST

read more the other comments this guy did. He's painting all Muslims with the same brush, all over, repeatedly.


[ Parent ]
Go for it. (1.20 / 5) (#387)
by nilquark on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 11:14:39 PM EST

I have yet to see anything about this from muslim leaders as influential as Akinola.

btw CHRISTIANS CALLING MUSLIMS NAMES OVER THEM BURNING DOWN THEIR CHURCHES AND KILLING PEOPLE? OH THE HUMANITY!!!

[ Parent ]

not only (none / 1) (#416)
by bradasch on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:03:18 AM EST

you are full of prejudice (how not-christian is that?), but also you are uninformed and lazy.

That's a good combination you got going there!

[ Parent ]

You must be joking. (none / 1) (#480)
by grendelkhan on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:15:11 AM EST

Are you telling me you don't see the difference between

(too busy burning shit down and killing people over a couple of cartoons)

and

(too busy calling muslims names over some overreacting fundamentalists)

?

Doesn't that difference kind of negate the point you're supposedly making?
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

i said i'm too lazy (none / 0) (#514)
by bradasch on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:16:05 PM EST

but i'll say it again. I could lose time and google for violent acts commited by Christians over history, just to prove you wrong.

But that would make me wrong too.

If the minority of *any given religion* is extremist and violent, it's not a pretext to bad mouth *the whole religion*. You know why? Because there are violent extremists in *all* major religions, all over the world.

Are you calling for a complete elimination of religion in the world? That's really far-fetched utopic, unrealistic.

Or, if you are looking at things with a blind partiality, who's to blame?

I responded to a extremist from one side, wrong as the extremists of the other. Extremist, *NOT* violent, since I don't know him, just his words.

So yeah, try to grasp a little more meaning from what I wrote, I'm not your regular troll ;-).

[ Parent ]

Did you even read the statement!? (2.00 / 2) (#415)
by cyrus on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:36:28 AM EST

Nigeria's leading Anglican archbishop is warning Muslims that they do not have a "monopoly on violence"...
~c
[ Parent ]
wrong (1.00 / 3) (#418)
by Muslim on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:15:32 AM EST

a press release was release by the azhar university president and other leading religious figures. u can find one at http://www.amrkhalid.net.
why dint you hear about this? well, the answer is .. its not dramatic nor newsworthy when muslims peacefully state their objections. so why print it? after all, its now common practice to stereotype the muslim as a terrorist, rebel, violent, mean, wife, beater, bigot, double standard, etc.
so, don't believe everythign u read or hear. do ur own research and when you do, get it from a non-biased source (reading a book on islam by some christian or jew is what i mean)
muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]
wrong shithead (1.50 / 2) (#503)
by nilquark on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:53:59 PM EST

stop acting like you're the victim of a fucking media conspiracy, when the western media constantly under-reports wrongdoings by muslims and even when they do report, they always point out how the groups doing it are completely fringe and frowned upon by 'real muslims.'

fucking whiny shitheads. why don't you go blow up some israelis and then whine whine whine about how terribly unfair we're being when we don't congratulate you?

[ Parent ]

Check up on LRA in Uganda (none / 0) (#421)
by tetsuwan on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:18:48 AM EST

Sadly, the perpetual wars of Africa are conducted under all kinds of religious banners.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

White man speak with forked tongue. (1.50 / 2) (#347)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:11:53 PM EST

Big-time negotiators, false healers and woman haters,
Masters of the bluff and masters of the proposition
But the enemy I see wears a cloak of decency,
All non-believers and men stealers talkin' in the name of religion
And there's a slow, slow train comin' up around the bend.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

wtf? nt (none / 0) (#354)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 07:34:27 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Who heeds your empty talk? (none / 1) (#368)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:48:47 PM EST

Who does your huffing and puffing protect from death and discrimination? Then who are your allies when you air your back-handed incriminations to anyone who feels guilty enough to listen to you?

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 0) (#369)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 08:54:58 PM EST

i'm sorry i awoke whatever conception of whatever demon born of paranoid schizophrenia that dwells in your head. i'm sorry your dim wit identifies that phantom demon with my real world visage. but i am not that demon in your head

please, keep railing against this demon if it makes you feel better. you keep up that good fight there dude

just please be aware as well that i am not that demon in your head


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Duck (none / 1) (#375)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:23:54 PM EST

You duck my question. You duck causes. You duck your government. You duck your eyes from the bereaved.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

please pose me a question (none / 0) (#379)
by circletimessquare on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:49:36 PM EST

but please, pose it to me, not dick cheney, because i'm not that stupid fuck dick cheney

understand?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

same question (3.00 / 3) (#406)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:18:38 AM EST

In your world Muslims are a single image spanning continents and cultures. Your language is critical to that construction: Dear Muslim World, as if there were a single agent of Islam motivated by a single set of cares. It is a generalization that exists only for and in relation to its western counterpart: you write in the service of Dick's civilizing mission in a world of conflict between good (cartoons) and bad (911). Your essay validates the same notions of moral superiority that helped to justify a war to impose our way of life on fuzzy-wuzzies and secure our future in a fearful compilation of cultural prejudices, the Muslim World, before it advances on Bloom County to impose Sharia law. Like I said to you before, only by elevating your cultural chauvinism into universal principles can you continue to lack awareness of the inadmissibility of what we've done as opposed to merely what we say and how we talk about it. So, who are your staunchest allies when you air your back-handed incriminations to anyone who feels guilty enough to listen to you: dicks, or the figurative moderate Muslim under Dick's rubble?

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

response (1.33 / 3) (#426)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:08:43 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/422#422

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yeah yeah you love Muslims (3.00 / 4) (#441)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:16:13 PM EST

So does Osama's mother.

The point that eludes you continually is there are many Muslim Worlds. Each one has a history, a culture, a natural and social economy. In many Muslim Worlds the people live on Fort Knox but they are poor and neglected, repressed, cursed to fuel your own progress. You can't expect to wipe those slates clean with free-speech accounts of gathering discrimination and propaganda stunts in places like Denmark, where you focus on the reaction and don't mention the forces and factors that influenced it. You fail to explore the escalation, nature and impact of the media coverage itself, indeed you are a part of it, which will eventually lend urgency to the case for military intervention in Iraqistaniran, as if that wasn't the point. In short, free speech is just another weapon with which you make love to the Muslims. Your love is conditional, which is no love at all. You love yourself in others. I love Osama for not being the exotic wench you want him to be.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

again, you're talking to your demons (1.66 / 3) (#449)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:44:51 PM EST

not me

"The point that eludes you continually is there are many Muslim Worlds."

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/353#353

i didn't read anything you wrote past that sentence. because you are railing against some visage in your mind that is not me

now, for the THIRD FUCKING TIME I AM SAYING THIS you dense brick: kindly refer to WHAT I AM SAYING AND WHO I AM rather than the demons of dick cheney running around your head


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I understood you the first million times (3.00 / 2) (#455)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:21:01 PM EST

Once again you focus on individuals instead of societies with real histories you wish to wipe clean and inscribe on them jingles about buying the world a home and furnishing it with love, growing apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves. Are you that vacant? The moderate west isn't repressing Muslims with jingles and the epitome of evil isn't retaliating in harmony. Both sides use real weapons to hurt flesh and blood people. _It's all very ordinary_. When individual, group, business and national interests in your own society have Muslim dignity as the goal, only then am I prepared to hear you preach yourself to twice your usual bloated size with Orientalist crap about moderate Muslims.

♪ Stupid. ♪

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

huh? (2.33 / 3) (#458)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 04:41:34 PM EST

grandparent, first sentence:

"The point that eludes you continually is there are many Muslim Worlds..."

i stop reading... you've said something contradictory to the most brain dead obvious of what i am saying

now you say, first sentence:

"Once again you focus on individuals instead of societies..."

wtf?!

i stop reading... now you're just contradicting yourself!

dude, are you ok? i mean coherence isn't your strong suit but you seem especially ramble-ific today

but please, go sit in your corner and vent signs and evil eyes at me if it makes you feel better

you need a blanky and a nap i think


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Worlds, plural, not individuals, singular. (1.50 / 2) (#468)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:20:33 PM EST

I have no doubt that in your petit bourgeois consciousness the historical and social context of Manhattan cruise-missile liberals is exactly the same as that of one-legged waifs from Fallujah. It is this instinct for moral expediency that succumbs to Coca-Colonization, koombayah-breath, and makes you feel morally superior to, but also more lethal than, "Islamofascists". Hater.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz (2.50 / 2) (#472)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:33:21 PM EST

i've often found that people attack others from their own perspective

for example, identifying an enterprise as racist only because it bridges two cultures, when there isn't any inherent racism to it really: the commentator is supplying his own racist thoughts to come to racist judgments

for another example, you speak of hate, with hate-filled words


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ok (2.00 / 3) (#476)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:29:23 AM EST

I will try one last time to penetrate the fog. In your world there is one Muslim image made up of good and bad people. There are sufficient bad ones to mobilize soldiers and call it war — against bad people. Of course, no one ever went to war against good people, so the Muslims we have harmed, they are bad people, or else we wouldn't have harmed them.

In my world there are many Muslim images made up of people, period. Bad doesn't enter into it. There's no need to encourage people to whitewash that which their conscience says is not quite right. There is no need to reconstitute harm through moral justification, sanitizing language, generalizations impossible to verify and exonerating rhetoric, because in my world a mujahid is conceivably equal to a soldier (everything just depends — on everything else) and bin Laden is the same as Bush. In your world people fuck to stay virgins.

Your article answers the question, how do we justify? I think your justification fails miserably (it is Manichean, decontextualizes violence, ignores reasons, causes, goals, and so on) but really what I've been asking all along is why do you feel the need to justify at all, over and over again?

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

maybe now i have your full attention (2.00 / 2) (#486)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:29:32 PM EST

and you will now listen to me:

the west versus the muslim world is not the state of things

the state of things (the current conflict, or do you believe there is no conflict and i am creating it? that's a nice delusion) is extremist versus moderate

that is: moderates in the west have more in common with moderates in the muslim world

more in common than moderates in the west have in common with extremists in the west

more in common than moderates in the muslim world have in common with extremists in the muslim world

get it? do you see what side of the conflict i am on now?

so when, as a westerner, i condemn osama bin laden, it is not in the name of the west condemning the muslim world, it is in the name of, and with the full support of, moderates in the muslim world. in fact, they hate him more than i do. he represents more death and destruction for them than he does for the west

and when, as a muslim, someone condemns pat robertson, it is not in the name of the muslim world condemning the west, it is in the name of, and the full support of, people like me: moderates in the west. us in the west hate pat robertson more than he is hated in the muslim world. he represents more death and destruction for us than he does for the muslim world.

do you see now?

i don't see: west versus muslim world

i see: moderate (muslim or westerner) versus extremist (muslim or westerner)

therefore, when i condemn bin laden, it is not in the name of ALL the traditional western bogeymen you imagine me to be speaking in the name of

than with what arrogance, patronization, imperialism, condescension, etc. do i speak from when i condemn osama bin laden?

it is the name of my fellow human beings

and THE SAME APPLIES IN REVERSE WHEN MODERATES IN THE MUSLIM WORLD CONDEMN EXTREMIST ELEMENTS IN THE WEST

do you hear me now? do you understand who i really am now?

so please don't rail against your cold war bogeymen anymore and look at me. we're really not the same


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

There you go with the Muslim World again. (1.33 / 3) (#511)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:32:37 PM EST

_Which_ Muslim World! It is one thing for Muslims in England to inflict on themselves and their moderate peers the economic, political and personal consequences of dastardly plans to cause mayhem in the suburbs of London where infidels have not learned to acquiesce to the prophet Mohammed, quite another to resist in the Middle East, with religious imagination or in secular babble, it hardly seems relevant, and be reminded of Muslims in England for it. If it were one Muslim World where every act of violence was related to every other act of violence the former would be a plausible threat. It fucking isn't.

When I ask "who are your staunchest allies when you air your back-handed incriminations to anyone who feels guilty enough to listen to you", I'm not challenging your humanism. I believe it's in earnest. I'm challenging the alchemy in current American discourse whereby detrimental actions are transformed by argumentation into something acceptable, if not positive. I'm challenging a significant culture of justification in which people are unlikely to say to themselves "we're hypocrites, they deserve better." I posed an honest question which deserved an honest answer aside from your personal feelings for Muslims and de-contextualized logic of moderate vs. extremist. I expect you to answer or else to count victims and put up or shut up about good people good and bad people bad.

Please, no more red-bating rhetoric. Because you encourage a democratic charade don't mean I scream "PIG!" at police.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

is there a conflict going on in the world? (none / 1) (#518)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:49:19 PM EST

is there a conflict or not?

because you seem to throw at my feet guilt for the existence of the conflict

as if one side of a multi-sided conflict is guilty alone for the existence of it

furthermore, i will not defend or apologize for that which i did not create or encourage. but i will fight for what i think is the right way to go. and i am glad you finally see that the way i think things should go does not fit into yout predefined molds

so why are you arguing against me? because you are saying i am guilty for what others have done?

look at the merits of the solutions i am proposing, and limit yourself to that. because to hold up to me the suffering i am trying to alleviate as a reason why i should stop trying to alleviate it is insanity

it's very simple: is there a conflict going on or not? what is the RESOLUTION to that conflict?

examine that, and tell me where i am wrong. but don't say to me i am responsible for the existence of the conflict. that's absurd


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

it was a very simple question, i thought (1.50 / 2) (#521)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:09:04 PM EST

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

YOUR AMERICAN PROPHET HAS SPOKEN, BEYOTCH!

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

reality: (none / 0) (#522)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:20:12 PM EST

conflict leads to change

change leads to improvement

therefore, without conflict, there is no improvement

it is impossible to improve anyone, any society, any culture, any religion, any hation: any human enterprise, without conflict

humanity is not a passive silent fungal growth

it builds guns, and it shoots them

this is not in the hearts of americans, this is in the heart of every single human who has ever lived and will ever live, including you

you attribute to me crimes that i am no more guilty of than yourself

but it serves your ivory tower to deny this

so i don't think i'll be breaking this essential lie you tell yourself to maintain your psychology on this message board, and so there is no hope for getting through to you

you who are so blind to the reality in which you live

keep up the denial, please, enforce the walls of your ivory tower. and please, if it makes you smile, piss on our heads, us down here in the mud, struggling to improve the world

but don't for a moment think, when all is said and done, that you matter to the world, you who has nothing but spite for human nature

go ahead, recite some more spiteful holier than thou poetry if it makes you feel better. whatever you use to build the walls of your ivory tower, so be it

you are a distant and cold, and you don't matter to that which concerns you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

conflict leads to change (2.00 / 3) (#523)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:27:24 PM EST

fucking leads to virginity

you who are so blind to reality

poland leads to germany

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#525)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:31:30 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/723

I Fucked Her, and Made Her a Virgin

It is a frequent refrain: "You can't fuck for virginity" as a call against waging war for peace. Except that, you CAN fuck for virginity. The real world is replete with phenomena that appears to be logical contradictions or enigmas on the surface, but make sense when you understand the dynamics of how the real world and real human nature works. In other words: you abort unwanted fetuses to help children. You allow gay marriage to strengthen family values. Both of these statements are true, and are liberal notions, and yet, are surface contradictions.

A mother who can't support an unwanted and therefore unloved child should be allowed the option to abort an unwanted fetus so that she can arrive at a more economically and emotionally supportive environment to bring into this world a wanted, loved child. She shouldn't be forced to support an unwanted mistake, while the father is simply unseen and allowed to get away with impregnation and then desertion. Likewise, a loving gay couple can raise an adoptive or alternatively conceived child in a superior fashion to plenty of heterosexual couples who, for many common reasons, make awful dysfunctional parents. Why should one be allowed to exist and the other denied? The bottom line is the raising of healthy, happy, well-loved children, not simple biology of conception.

And so the surface contradiction goes: peace is achieved by the outward exertion of ideologically superior ideas. Peace is not achieved when ideologically repugnant ideas like authoritarianism are allowed to exist and blossom unopposed. An ideology exerts an outward pressure, and blossoms, or it doesn't exert an outward pressure, and it dies. In other words, believe it or not, peace is served by war. You can fuck for virginity. Virginity is not a stable state of existence: you eventually have sex, just like never fighting for your beliefs is not a stable state of existence: your beliefs will be challenged some day, and you must fight for them, or change your mind, or submit to inferior ideas. People who never fuck die leaving no children, and fade from the earth. Just as those who don't fight for what they believe leave no ideological offspring, and fade from the Earth.



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Translation: (none / 0) (#564)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 01:56:26 AM EST

"The problem with the Muslim World is our superior ideology."

Rosebud?

I shall file your pearls of wisdom about "conflict leads to change" under 'F' for WTF, alongside such motivational proverbs as "to a first approximation, people are dead" and "if at first you don't succeed, bomb them." So does peace lead to change, yes?, but it seems no one taught the central committee "treating war as inevitable is a self-fulfilling prophecy", because a superior ideology intent on change instead of on its own prophecies does not revoke Tariq Ramadan's visa and nominate Daniel Pipes to the board of the government's leading peace tank, or flatten cities when its taboos are violated, or sound like the last one. How's flicks? Why not try to change the world one actress at a time instead of all at once?

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

It is sad (none / 0) (#381)
by shinshin on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 09:56:45 PM EST

that kids these days have forgotten Bob. This country would be a much better place if only they would teach America's greatest poet in the classrooms.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]
not as forked as the rest of the bunch (1.50 / 2) (#478)
by jcarnelian on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:38:58 AM EST

Yeah, Europeans lied at lot and killed a lot.

But the thing is: the peoples they conquered were, with few exceptions, even worse: war-like, tribal, misogynistic, totalitarian regimes, if they even amounted to something as complex as a "regime".  Many of them were on the verge of exterminating themselves in war or ecological disaster anyway.

And for all their faults, the Europeans were the only ones to even come up with notions of individual freedoms, including freedom of expression.  If it weren't for that, you wouldn't be able to whine about it in this forum.

It would have been historically interesting to see what Asia, the Americas, Australia, and Africa had turned into if the Europeans had left them alone, but it probably wouldn't have been overall better for the people or societies involved.

[ Parent ]

Rise up and be a whole man! (1.66 / 6) (#385)
by crunchycookies on Wed Feb 22, 2006 at 10:41:27 PM EST

"Rise up and be a whole man," said the master to his slave for the master was an enlightened man. "Throw off your anger and your primitive ideas", the master went on. And so the slave, perhaps wearying of the lecture, rose up and killed his master. With that his anger subsided. In time he became moderate and compassionate for that is the nature of free men. In further time his children and the master's childern grew to respect each other and become friends and so they both became enlightened.

So you lecture the oppressed because you are enlightened?

The Islamic world is rising up to throw off their oppressors including ones so enlightened as you. Westerners like you complain bitterly because you only care about their best interests. They simply don't understand that sometimes bombs are necessary to bring your enlightenment to them. That some of them may disagree with you is simply more proof that they are in need of your enlightenment.

You do understand that American presidents have had more say in who rules most of the Arab world than the Arabs do. You do understand that America supports Israel, a country that discriminates against people on the basis of religion and ethnic origin. You cannot understand why they object.

However, this is all coming to an end. They are rising up and driving out us westerners. All of the kings, tyrants, and the racist state will be reformed or gone. When they have gained their independence they will then work on democracy and enlightenment. That is the way it always works, independence first and sometime later democracy and enlightenment.

Consider all the old colonies spread across the third world. During the 1950's and 1960's they threw off their colonial bonds. They are still working on the democracy and enlightenment. It is a long and ugly process, unfortunately, but it does seem to be in the nature of man. How many long for the days of colonial rule? None!

The Arab world is just starting on this process. If we were truly enlightened we would cheer them on. In time we will realize what a great victory they have won but it will be many years before we see it that way. Perhaps it will be our children that offer congratulations and friendship.



Keep rising.... (1.50 / 4) (#393)
by dxh on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:20:17 AM EST

Yeah, if the Islamic world keeps on with their rising they are gonna be in for one HELL OF A FALL once the west gets pissed.

Good thing muslems are generally ignorant and their blind hatred blinds them to the real power of their enemy.

Eventually the rest of the world will wake up and realize that Islam isn't a religion, its a sick death cult started by a sick, evil bastard(mohom)  just like Nazism(hitler).  

Some day soon muslems will be hunted down and elimiated just like we did the nazi's.

[ Parent ]

you're such a racist (none / 1) (#395)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:25:29 AM EST

i see my equal, in every way, when i look at an arab or a muslim

you see a child

you're a condescending patronizing racist

your words explain the current world situation quite well, for how the current world situation works in a racist mind

pretty humorous then that your words describe how your mind works, and not mine

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

They are (none / 1) (#490)
by Stain of Mind on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:31:46 PM EST

you see a child

If they would stop acting as child, they wouldn't be seen that way.



[ Parent ]
better response (none / 0) (#424)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:08:14 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/422#422

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You continue to intrigue me... (2.50 / 4) (#417)
by less than three on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:22:47 AM EST

circletimessquare. Some time ago you posted a comment about the radical elements of Islam being not all there is to the religion, and continued on to talk about churches as the whorehouses of the soul. After I read that post I knew you had grasped something which made your words worth reading.

Now, though, I have to wonder just where your head is at. It seems a futile effort indeed to implore a man to stretch the bounds of his world. Most make the walls of their reality in concrete, and will not tear them down and rebuild them until life forces them to do so. When you speak of things beyond their walls, your truths are nonsensical at best and infuriating at worst. Is it really your belief that anything can be done with a beast so stubbornly blind as the common man?

--
orz

fucking elitist (1.50 / 2) (#444)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:34:30 PM EST

Is it really your belief that anything can be done with a beast so stubbornly blind as the common man?

i don't know, you elitist snob, i'm sorry they're not indoctrinated into your sci fi book club. now go back to playing chess and reading great literature in your ivory tower. you know, the only stuff that really matters


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I sit in front of my computer all day (none / 0) (#479)
by less than three on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:00:49 AM EST

browsing /b/ on 4chan. I can't imagine a more vapid existence. I don't read books... I don't view art... I don't do anything that anyone would say has any kind of substance whatsoever. Unless you consider Final Fantasy games to be some form of high culture, that is. In short, I don't engage in the kind of mindless mental masturbation you seem to think I do. I gave that up long ago when it became overwhelmingly apparent that it was completely worthless. Instead, I'm mentally flacid 24/7. You might consider this a retarded excuse for an existence, but in fact I understand far more now than I ever have before. I find that when I shut off my head I see things that escaped my grasp before. My perspective slowly grows, for reasons I can't begin to understand.

I don't see anyone else so inclined to understand anything more than they absolutely have to, though. Most people seem to deal in a world most concrete: one which consists entirely of work and leisure. One largely made by circumstance, not volition. I guess I am elitist (although that last post came out more snobbish than I intended it to), but that's only because I don't see anyone else behaving as I do. Whether that makes me elite or insane, I'm not sure. I probably shouldn't have even bothered to open my mouth, as it's only served to remind me that I don't have the right words.

--
orz
[ Parent ]

How Trite (2.00 / 3) (#419)
by SkullOne on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:15:45 AM EST

What a trite, condescending flame towards Muslims. In one post, you claim you see an equal in every muslim, yet the whole article treats them as though they are children stuck in the 13th century, to look up to the west as moderate guides to enter the 21st.
Which is it?
Either you secretly admire them, and wish to be them, or this article is about your secret loathe of their existence.

response (1.00 / 2) (#423)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:07:54 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/422#422

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
not satisfied (none / 0) (#477)
by SkullOne on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:23:23 AM EST

nt

[ Parent ]
to all the racists who responded (2.16 / 6) (#422)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:07:25 AM EST

racist:

muslims are like lightning strikes or shark attacks. printing a cartoon is like swimming off the great barrier reef with a bleeding foot or dancing on top of a bald hill in a lightning storm: if you are killed, you deserve what you get

this is a condescending and patronizing attitude. you don't expect responsibility and accountability from muslims, you expect the behavior of a child. a shark will seek out blood instinctively, thoughtlessly, it is an animal. therefore, if you go swimming off the great barrier reef with a bleeding foot you ARE responsible if you are attacked.

the racism test:
if i show a cartoon of the prophet mohammed to a muslim, what's your answer on who is reponsible for any resulting violence? is it my fault if the muslim attacks me violently? or is it the muslim's fault?

are you a racist? or not?

not racist:

a muslim IS MY FELLOW HUMAN BEING, MY EQUAL IN EVERY WAY, MY BROTHER, MY FELLOW MAN. therefore, if i show him a cartoon of the prophet mohammed, I EXPECT HIM NOT TO THREATEN ME WITH DEATH

muslims are my equal. my equal in terms of responsibility and accountability as well. therefore, if i took one of the prophet mohammed cartoons, made it a placard, and walked down the street in damascus wearing that placard i expect to be yelled at, stopped, have the placard forcibly removed, then yelled at some more, verbally abused, chastised, and insulted. i don't expect to be physically attacked.

why do i expect this? because i expect the same if i wore an insulting placard in lagos, a denigrating placard in moscow, a prejudicial placard in beijing, a derogatory placard in new dehli, a demeaning placard in bangkok, or a hateful placard in caracas

NOT JUST IN TORONTO. BECAUSE I VIEW A WESTERNER AS THE EQUAL OF ANY OTHER RACE OR CREED

what kind of nonsense am i spouting? it's called EQUALITY. to view the west as some eternally wise, eternally calm entity capable of withstanding great insults with nary a hiccup in response, and to accept that the muslim world will foam at the mouth, to incite violence and infernos at the sight of a cartoon is not understanding or empathy

it's condescension, patronization, ethnocentrism, and racism

this observation is the truth, plain and simple


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Islam is not a race. (3.00 / 3) (#431)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:34:44 AM EST

NT

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

well yeah (1.40 / 5) (#432)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:39:55 AM EST

but you get my point

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
uh, not really. (3.00 / 2) (#434)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:55:42 AM EST

What is it again? Lemme see, if someone riles up a bunch of delusional adherants to a fairy tale belief-system by challenging its preposterous taboos, and a bystander says, while that someone is getting stoned, burned at the stake, hanged, or generally treated in a manner inconsistent with staying alive, "well you really should've seen this coming, don't you think?", the bystander is a racist? Is that more or less it?

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

congrats, you fail reading comprehension nt (none / 1) (#439)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:49:46 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Or perhaps you fail at cogently... (2.50 / 4) (#440)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:51:37 AM EST

...making your argument. So, give it another try. What the fuck is your point?

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

Racism versus cultural elitism (3.00 / 4) (#451)
by xL on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 02:46:00 PM EST

There is some merit to the argument that condemning muslem beliefs or behavior is not necessarily racism, in basically the same way that having an opinion about zionism does not equate anti-semitism. On the flip side, there is some dishonesty in separating the two. A lot of what constitutes racism is nothing otther than intolerance for people who behave differently. Any culture on earth is filled with people showing many kinds of irrational behavior. It is the irrational behavior we see in other cultures that frightens us, where we are used to many forms of irrationality amongst our own. CTS' point, within this model, would basically be that, overall, the Western culture has, over its bumpy course in history, been more succesful in making its internal irrationality harmless and that the assumption that people living in other cultures would not be able to achieve the same is tantamount to a process of dehumanizing those people into some 'force of nature' instead of seeing them as human beings with logical and emotional capacities much the same as yours and mine.

This shifting of the argument by right wingers in the Netherlands (after the example of the late Pim Fortuijn) from, well, hating the brown people because they are brown people to hating them because they adhere to an inferior culture, seems to me to be much more a refinement of the same old xenophobia on other terms than an honest distinction. We're used to calling it racism, but perhaps that never was what it was all about in the first place.

[ Parent ]

What's intolerance? (none / 1) (#453)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:09:29 PM EST

I'm not of the mind that we should hate people of so-called "inferior cultures," but must one tolerate every range of behavior without daring to criticize? I really am not the type to sully my lips by kissing the ass of anyone's sacred cow, be they evangelical christian, atheist, muslim, jew, animist, discordian (well, sacred chao in that case), scientologist, or what have you. I don't really care what race the believer in question claims, since I don't believe in that construct either, though I recognize the privileges I am granted because of my racial classification by those that do believe in it within the culture I inhabit. I'd prefer to divest myself of these privileges in exchange for a society in which the fiction of "race" is not propogated, but I digress.

The fact is, among certain self-selected groups, and by virtue of the nature their particular self-selection, certain consequences can be easily extrapolated from certain, shall we say, antagonistic behaviors through the judicious application of what is often referred to as "common sense". For instance, one could try to make a (for now) legal and constitutionally protected protest against the policies of the USA by burning the flag of said nation. If one chose to do this at, say, the location of a tailgate party for a NASCAR event, or a Ku Klux Klan gathering, or similar odious assemblage of barely sentient knuckledraggers (spare me your hurt feelings race (get it? race? I slay me) fans, I really don't give a shit), the rather predictable outcome is a non-constitutionally protected ass-whooping for the flagburner at the very least. So the antognizing of muslims by drawing unflattering cartoons of their prophet.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

you're so ignorant (none / 0) (#461)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:33:31 PM EST

if it's wrong, it's wrong

if you go violent because of speech, you are wrong. the speaker is not wrong

if a muslim newspaper printed an image of jesus christ blowing a dog and filipino catholics burn the egyptian embassy, who did the wrong? THE FILIPINO CATHOLICS DID THE WRONG. PERIOD. END OF STORY. COMPLETELY CULPABLE

this standard of behavior of not letting violence come from speech applies to ALL CULTURES, ALL RACES, ALL RELIGIONS, ALL NATIONS

this crazy wacky standard?

it's called EQUALITY

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Where did I say otherwise? (2.50 / 2) (#463)
by fn0rd on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:44:53 PM EST

Wrong doesn't mean predictable. People do predicatably wrong, immoral, evil, and generally bad stuff all the time. Goading them into to doing it so you can make yourself look like a martyr isn't heroic, it's Darwinianism in action.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

got it (none / 0) (#466)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:17:50 PM EST

the way of fn0rd: it's wrong, but that's just the way it is

next time i see you, remind me to bash you in the head and take your wallet

i mean i'm from new york, we're just crazy on the street like that

don't try to fight it man, that's just the way it is, learn to accept that i took your wallet because i'm a crazy new yorker. you provoked me with your full-looking wallet dude, it's your fault. you shouldn't have looked so economically strident

yeah, it's wrong, but that's just the way it is dude. don't try to tempt darwinism by trying to get your wallet  back, then i'll just have to kill you. that's just the way it is man, just live with that

you have to learn to accept us crazy new yorkers. yeah, the way we behave is wrong, but what can you do man?

expect people to know the difference between right and wrong? that's just crazy talk

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Come on up here and try it (3.00 / 2) (#482)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:00:13 AM EST

You're so fucking stupid I don't know where to begin. Where have I said that anyone needs to accept what's going on in the Middle East? I said it was fucking predicatable, you nimrod (and that the provacateurs did nothing noble or heroic in drawing their rather unimaginative, lame-ass, and blasphemous cartoons). Not that it was OK, or that nothing should be done about it. All you can do is spout ad hominems and build up straw men, because you have no fucking point. Oh, other than "burning embassies is bad, mmkay." Well, thanks Captain Obvious. We all would have no idea what to think about the situation if you hadn't let us know. I'll make sticky note and put it on my monitor: "Do Not Burn Embassies."

Stupid ass.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

(snicker) (none / 1) (#487)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:32:15 PM EST

yeah, but your answer on how to avoid burning embassies is retarded: don't draw cartoons

i say: draw cartoons, and extremist muslims learn tolerance

see the difference?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That's not my answer. (3.00 / 2) (#489)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:27:33 PM EST

Draw all the cartoons you want. Draw Mohammed getting a handjob through the holes in Jesus' hand. I don't really give a shit. Just don't act like a big fucking crybaby martyr when the blowback hits. When the people you offend are burning shit down, you think telling them "but, but, hey man, it's like, my right to draw lame-ass cartoons" will suddenly make them reconsider.

cts goes to Syria:
"Dude, did you ever hear of Rumi, man? He's, like, so deep. My ex-girlfriend in the ashram turned me on to him back in 1996. Totally blew my mind. Him and Khalil Ghibran are, like, so totally awesome, as poets, you know? So, like, anyway, he said... what's that? You think he's a heretic? You think I'm an infidel who deosn't know jack shit about Muslim history and culture? Why are you picking up those stones, dudes?"

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

that IS your answer (none / 1) (#492)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:59:40 PM EST

you are asking me to accept violence because of cartoons

so, like i said in my "strawman argument": i'm going to punch you in your face and steal your wallet because i'm a poor and crazy new yorker. you say that's wrong? well, my answer to that is:

"walk around with a big wallet. wave your wallet around and shout how much money you have. I don't really give a shit. Just don't act like a big fucking crybaby martyr when the crazy new york mugger hits. When the poor new yorkers you offend by being richer than them are stealing your shit, you think telling them "but, but, hey man, it's like, my right to have more money than you because i work harder than you" will suddenly make them reconsider. "

if it is WRONG, it is WRONG. END OF FUCKING STORY


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well put. (3.00 / 3) (#494)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:12:54 PM EST

I'm not asking you to accept dick, by the way. I'm asking you to stop fucking whining ineffectually. If you want to change anything, posting a half-baked, poorly written, ill thought-out, incoherent diatribe on an obscure discussion website is a shitty way to go about it. Write about how you flew to Jordan and engaged in a constructive dialogue with rioting Muslims and I'll be the first one to boost you onto the pedestal you haven't yet earned the right to occupy.

Oh yeah. A TAUTOLOGY is a TAUTOLOGY. END OF FUCKING STORY.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

lol (none / 1) (#498)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:21:53 PM EST

doubting someone's conviction is basically you declaring bankruptcy in your argument. because you're not arguing with me anymore, you're conceding defeat by going to the argument of last resort: doubting my ability/ desire/ intent to actually put my money where my mouth is. you're not arguing against my statements itself anymore. you're argument against the veracity of my statements:

"ok you are right! but you live in your parent'ss basement and sp you will never do what you say you will do!"

snore...

YOU'RE MISSING THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT ASSHOLE

THIS ENTIRE TOPIC IS ABOUT NOT ACTING

IT IS ABOUT DISCUSSING INSTEAD OF BURNING AND BOMBING AND ATTACKING PHYSICALLY

get it yet?????????????????????????

you're so fucking stupid. you've already conceded defeat on my argument, so now you are doubting my ability/ desire to act

WHEN MY ENTIRE FUCKING ARGUMENT IS ABOUT NOT ACTING, BUT DISCUSSING INSTEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(snicker)

you lose fucktard!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Discussing with who? (2.50 / 2) (#500)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:36:51 PM EST

You're talking to the wrong people. Why? Because you don't have the wit, balls, or moral authority to talk to the people whose minds need changing. Typical. You'd rather crow about how superior you are here, where noone who gives a shit could read it.

Discussion, whether you understand it or not, is a form of action. I dared you to go and discuss your point of view with the people who you're supposedly writing to. Sadly, the void between your legs leaves you too afraid to try.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

oops, wrong again (none / 1) (#502)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:51:28 PM EST

it's on teh intarweb!

do you know what teh intarweb is dorothy?

it means you can make a pretty story, and someone in uzbekistan can read it!

omg! so cool!!!!!!!!1! teh awesomeness of teh intarweb!!!!1!

(snicker)

oh! look fn0rd! what's this?:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/2/20/3858/45254/241#241

a muslim from egypt dialoging with me!

now what did you say again fucktard?:

You're talking to the wrong people. Why? Because you don't have the wit, balls, or moral authority to talk to the people whose minds need changing. Typical. You'd rather crow about how superior you are here, where noone who gives a shit could read it.
Discussion, whether you understand it or not, is a form of action. I dared you to go and discuss your point of view with the people who you're supposedly writing to. Sadly, the void between your legs leaves you too afraid to try.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING YOU BLIND DUMB FUCK

you're such a loser

btw, i got an email from a guy in africa last night thanking me for this article. do you want me to forward it to you?

you know, email, a tool of the internet? where someone FAR AWAY can engage you in a conversation?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCKING INTERNET IS YET??

what a fucking moron


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So where are the replies? (2.50 / 2) (#504)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:54:40 PM EST

Huh? Where are they? You checking the server logs? You see many Uzbecks logging in here? No? What's that? Not everybody in the Middle East can read poorly formed English? You don't say!

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

(smacks forehead) (none / 1) (#505)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:58:14 PM EST

so for a westerner to talk to a middle easterner, he has to get in an airplane and stand with a bullhorn in the middle of damascus

he can't write an article on the internet, this fancy new tool you are apparently unaware of that allows people from far away places to communicate

in fact, that's exactly what i have done, as proven by people form the middle east responding to me under the text of my article

;-P

you're done, you're through, you've lost

you're just too ignorant and stubborn to admit when you've lost

good day sir


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Apparently not. (2.50 / 2) (#506)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:01:20 PM EST

You conceded as much already.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

i am in alexandria (none / 1) (#508)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:03:49 PM EST

i type in kuro5hin.org

my story appears

understand the concept yet?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

That's likely (none / 1) (#509)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:23:42 PM EST

Some guy in Amman or Beiruit is going to randomly type http://www.kuro5hin.org just to see what happens, eh? Keep smokin', bitch.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

poor fn0rd, he must be a masochist (none / 1) (#510)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:30:51 PM EST

poor fn0rd, likes to be beaten by me, time and time and time again

scroll to the third story:

http://www.sabahan.net/

look familiar?

ay, where is that website hosted dear fn0rd?

heehee

come here fn0rd... SMACK!

you would think a normal person would run away with their tail between their legs after being smacked so mightily

but no, fn0rd is all about "thank you sir, may i have another"

here, fn0rd, looky here:

http://portal.kithara.gr/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=123

come here fn0rd... SMACK!

these and other funny appearances of the word "circletimessquare", thanks to k5's impressive international reach, brought to you by our friend google

please, respond again, my dear bitch fn0rd, apparently you just want to be my masochistic gimp in the trunk in my basement

such a sad fellow, to be roasted so thoroughly by your stubborn pride

fn0rd = cxs's bitch, and he likes it


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It has received no answer. Nor will it ever. (2.50 / 2) (#512)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:43:28 PM EST

I'm sure the teeming masses in the Arab world will be bending an ear your way in a moment or two. In fact, I suggest holding your breath until the moment of singularity, it kinda hieghtens the suspense.

Pardon me while I cover my ears to buffer the infernal racket of billions of fingers worldwide searching google for 'circletimessquare'.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

i'm not important (none / 1) (#513)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:00:48 PM EST

i don't think i'm important

no one with a healthy ego thinks they are

i am but one voice among billions

at the same time, i vote in presidential elections. because i still matter. witness al gore in florida in 2000 if you think a tiny voice does not count for big differences

and so i speak my words, and lo and behold i show up on malaysian and greek websites

i'm not important, but i matter, because little changes add up. i am but one voice among milions, in the west and the muslim world, for example, who think the same about the subject matter of cartoons. and we defeat those who think violence because of cartoons is ok, not by being silent, but by speaking up

in this way, i matter

just as much as you matter, btw, dear fn0rd

any other intellectual charity i can help you with today?

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You could be important. (2.50 / 2) (#516)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:23:16 PM EST

If only you said something a bit more meaningful than "Bad Muslim! No Burn Embassy! Bad, Bad Muslim!" As it is, for all your bloviating windbaggery, you say astonishingly little.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

says you (none / 0) (#517)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:28:42 PM EST

not those who voted this +1 fp

that's the power of many little voices: together they add up, and create a larger meaning

so when i listen to you say my words suck, i only have to look at all of the +1 fps to know you are wrong

you don't have to like me or the words i say, but you can't deny the fact that so many agree with me

it is not about defeating circletimessquare, dear fn0rd, it is about defeating moderate muslims and defeating moderate westerners

because on the words i say on the matter, they agree with me

why do you wish to side with the extremist muslim or the extremist westerner?

i don't think you do, so why not side with me and the other moderates?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Trolls one and all. (3.00 / 2) (#519)
by fn0rd on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:05:28 PM EST

NT

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

the troll (none / 0) (#520)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:08:08 PM EST

doth peereth out his hole
and the troll doth seeth nothing but trolls


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I, and probably a lot of other people, (2.00 / 3) (#524)
by nilquark on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:30:37 PM EST

only voted this up to see you being shat at.

[ Parent ]
awesome (none / 0) (#529)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:56:32 PM EST

i'm sure someone somewhere voted for lyndon larouche for president of the us in the last election so they could laugh at what douchebag he would be in the white house too

pretty stupid reason to vote for him though

but i'm already familiar with the low iq dim bulb that is nilquark as well

so keep it up dim bulb! inspire us with your stupidity!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

well maybe (none / 1) (#538)
by LodeRunner on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:26:10 AM EST

...in Saudi Arabia... but what would be the odds, I wonder.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

THANK YOU! ;-) nt (none / 0) (#459)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:26:15 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I agree (1.00 / 3) (#448)
by nilquark on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:42:45 PM EST

retards are your equals.

The stupid and violent are not, not will they ever be, my equals, and I have no intention of ever treating them as such. That would be  condescension. (Hint: don't use big words that you do not know the meaning of.)

[ Parent ]

ok (none / 0) (#465)
by samu on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:06:30 PM EST

what is your opinion of so-called "equal opportunity" laws in the US? perhaps my memory is wrong, but in the haze looking back i vaguely remember you solemnly and vehemently defending "reverse racism". are people equals to be treated equally, or not? if i remember incorrectly, i apologise.

[ Parent ]
You nailed it (3.00 / 2) (#471)
by localman on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:28:59 PM EST

Exactly.  I expect as much from anyone as I expect from myself.  You can make fun of my beliefs and I will not react with violence.  I expect the same of all people.

Tolerance is more valuable than political correctness.

Good article, good comments.

[ Parent ]

Have it your way (none / 0) (#614)
by garote on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:32:06 PM EST

Yet your essay is only so much masturbation.  Even if you were to print it in arabic on ten billion leaflets and air-drop it all over the mideast, your message would go unread and be used as kindling.  You've made it abundantly clear that you can't understand how a religious cartoon could inspire these people to murder, and lacking that basic understanding you stride along in your self-assured secular bubble and crap this condescending, preening material in your wake.  Remember that banner on Bush's battleship, that read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?  That's where you're at now.  You've lobbed this love-grenade into nowhere, and stood ready for your photo-op, and meanwhile it's NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED and the world turns on.

[ Parent ]
(snicker) (none / 0) (#619)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 06:43:27 PM EST

yeah, i'm such a patronizing condescending monster

thinking that moderate should triumph over extemists

god what a horrible demon i am

truly i should have empathy for people who threaten death and destruction for cartoons

you have shown the way: complete captilutation to the foreign exotic strange other culture is superior to my desire to judge all humanity according to a yardstick of tolerance

this global goal of understanding of mine is truly inferior to your world of judging cultures in such a way that a human being in one culture is completely unlike a human being in the other

and of course, my attitude makes me a gw bush-loving, dick cheney dick sucking sycophant, of course! it's obvious!

BWAHAHAHAHA ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Is that all you got? (none / 0) (#625)
by garote on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 05:45:36 PM EST

I guess that's the best you can do because that's all you ever seem to have -- a backhanded litany that's less a response to people's points and more a bunch of wholly unrelated, inflammatory hogwash leavened with as many insults as possible. I'm glad the forum kicked you in the balls for this insipid post. Stay in your hole longer this time.

[ Parent ]
Good point, but poorly written (2.50 / 4) (#425)
by wuckers on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:08:36 AM EST

This was painful to read; not only for the numerous sentence fragments, grammatical errors, and punctuation mistakes, but for the awckward, unnecessary flowery language (e.g. "I implore you, dear Muslim world" - like sucking on lemons!). Sorry - your point is fairly good, but your delivery is tin-pan. After reading this, I'm not left considering your thesis, but rather why even bother to make this point - in a matter that is (I think) supposed to be representative of secular Westerners - if you're going to write it like a C student in Freshman Composition???

It's frustrating, and it takes me back to my days in academia when style was a common substitute for substance. This article should have been 2 paragraphs, tops.[/rant]

whatever nullo nt (none / 1) (#442)
by circletimessquare on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:20:52 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
You know what? (none / 0) (#613)
by garote on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:22:18 PM EST

The whole essay should have been deleted entirely - leaving just the introductory quote, and the attribution.

[ Parent ]
Best FARK Photoshop contest EVAR! (2.00 / 4) (#446)
by dxh on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 01:11:27 PM EST

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1898359

yah (none / 1) (#475)
by nilquark on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:08:09 AM EST

you should see what they did on 4chan.

[ Parent ]
This reminds me (2.75 / 4) (#473)
by chrobry on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 11:35:56 PM EST

This reminds me of the time, I been asked to build mail filter. The idea was to eliminate "dirty/bad" words from e-mails. I build a system, and downloaded a list of many dirty words (good portion of which I never even heard off). I ut this list in, and made it live. The most amazing thing happened, I had our international folks complaigning. Apparently, some words that were blocked were normal words, and they needed them to speak, so I unblocked them. Only to get a flame letter from other part of the world, that couldn't believe that the word could be allowed.. It was a huge insult. The point? What is normal in one place its insult in another. Personally I could care less if you make pictures of the Prophet, but its an insult somewhere else. That is life... If we are to base our lives on what is insulting where, nothing ever could be said, and nothing ever could be pictured. Any person, or culture that becomes aggresive simply because someone said something they didn't like, HAS to evaluate itself. Take a long and hard look. Something like that is ok in 5th grade, but anything older then that its beyond improper. One more thought to the guy who said "Muslim first, etc..", try to be Human first. This is a lesson to you and to the rest of us. Identify with other things second, or third.

You obviously don't understand the problem (2.75 / 8) (#481)
by jubal3 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:46:18 AM EST

Quoting a Sufi scholar as "highly respected scholars of the Muslim world." Means you either know nothing of Islam or you're being downright dishonest.

The Sufis are considered heretics at worst and eccentric fringe wackos at best, all over the Muslim world. They have been ruthlessly persecuted in every Muslim society in the world at various times, and barely tolerated at others.

You clearly know nothing of this religion, you've clearly neither read the Prophet, nor studied the Hadith.
The Prophet clearly states the teachings and laws he gives are the laws for all time, direct from God. They cannot be altered, nor "reformed." Specifically he says they cannot be altered, and that being from God, they are in fact perfect, far beyond any system which man could devise.

The great body of Muslim scholarship agrees on this point. And all the work since the death of the last Caliph has been an attempt to make some kind of workable system based upon the teachings of the Prophet.

You quote a Sufi scholar to make some point? You're being dishonest. That's like quoting a snake-handling Pentecostal to Catholics as some kind of supposed authority, or some early Gnostic writings, which have long been declared heresy.

"Moderate" Islam you speak of is more a cultural remnant than a deep religious conviction. It is notably practiced mainly among Muslims living in Christian countries, countries which prohibit the exercise of shari'a. These are like Catholics who go to church once a year. Yes, they are Catholic, yes they believe in the creed. But they are not particularly devout, nor particularly exercised about current dogma.

It is no surprise that these Muslims have had to "moderate" their religious practices, they have no choice. Where there has been a choice, Muslims have almost always chosen a traditional interpretation of the religion.

Add in to this the fact that the "Muslim World" is predominantly made up of the most economically and politically backward places in the world, places where illiteracy and grinding poverty is the norm, where the very concept of the "nation state" is a foreign idea. These are places still living in the 13th century, and sadly they have no ability to have a Martin Luther come along. If you understood anything about the religion you would understand that.

The things which led to the enlightenment in the west cannot happen in the Muslim world without throwing out not just interpretations of scholars, but by a complete disregard for the words of the Prophet himself.
This is why the Sufis, and the Sikhs, and the Bahai's are tiny, persecuted minorities anywhere Islam is the dominant religion. All were attempts to "reform" Islam, all failed utterly to have any large impact on the faith.

 And lest you forget, Islam's "golden age" was not made up of one nation state, but many small city-states, and further that it was engaged in an active attempt to proselytize by the sword anywhere it could. And yes, in it's "golden age," printing a disrespectful cartoon of the Prophet in a place like Baghdad would get you killed.

Your letter, even if it were re-printed in every newspaper in the mid-east, would not be paid the slightest heed. If you want Muslims to reform, first become one, then spend a couple of decades getting yourself an education, as any respected Imam has done, and then speak about "reform" and  "tolerance."
Muslims are tolerant, to a point. But the kind of disrespect shown in those cartoons goes far beyond what most Muslims in the world consider tolerable. Only lack of power keeps them from doing what they did until the Ottomans failed at Vienna.

These are all truths about Islam. They are sad truths, because they put 1.2 billion people in the position of continual subjugation by a world rightfully fearful of their resurgence, or of throwing out most of their religion in favor of some watered down version acceptable to the rest of the world.

This is the nature of the current situation. It's a sad one. It's one likely to produce great conflicts for many, many years to come.

Pretending that it's only "extremists" who are the problem is self-imposed blindness.



***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***

References? (2.50 / 2) (#485)
by BerntB on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 12:20:08 PM EST

Could you give references? I care because this was politically incorrect to the highest degree, which is always fun!

These "moderate" muslims sounds like moderate christians in Europe (i.e. doesn't really care).

Your description of "real" muslims sounds like the bible belt (or Europe more than a hundred years ago). At that time, the idea that the christian church would be rewritten to become tolerant seemed far away (read Russel's "Why I am not a christian" to see examples of the attitudes.)

Is there a reason to think that the muslims will stay in the hmmm.. "qoran belt" and not become civilised?

(Disclaimer:
I don't really care what yet another stupid religion contains -- I follow this question mostly because my local Swedish media has sugarcoated their Mid East coverage beyond honesty.)

[ Parent ]

Do what I did (3.00 / 2) (#493)
by jubal3 on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:09:29 PM EST

Read the books, talk to your local Imam, take a few classes.

This is widely accesible info and only western non-muslims would claim that I'm totally off-base here, though some westernized Muslims might take issue over their piety, which I am not actually calling into question.

Ask the next Pakistani cabbie you meet about his views on "reforming" the teachings found in the hadith(s).

"It can't be done" is what you'll mostly find is the answer.

Christianity hs the virtue of being especially vague about current, operative commandments. Islam is not vague at all. The vagueries were adressd in the Hadith, that's what they are there for.

Martin Luther could make claim to all kinds of things and not be throwing out the religion. To try to do the same with Islam would be like the 99 theses sayig "Jesus was only joking."

I'm tired of people trying to claim that Islam is just like Christianity. It's not at all. It's a fundamentally different belief system from a totally different culture.

And trying to "make nice" won't change the facts unpleasntt as they may be.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

Virtue of vagueness? (3.00 / 3) (#499)
by shinshin on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:35:05 PM EST

Christianity hs the virtue of being especially vague about current, operative commandments. Islam is not vague at all.
What makes you say that? Passages like the following are pretty explicit:

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." (Exodus 35:2)

I don't think it's a vagueness of commandments in Christianity that made it reform-able, but a willingness by the participants to overlook those aspects they simply don't like. Even the most ardent Bible-belt fundamentalist won't ever argue that we should execute people for working on Sunday, and yet it is spelled out quite clearly in the book they claim to be the literal word of God. If Christians don't have a problem ignoring the bits they find inconvenient, why can't Muslims do it too?

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

Thats the Old Testament (3.00 / 3) (#532)
by jubal3 on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 02:03:27 AM EST

Which has always been a completely pick and choose thing on the part of Christians, whether its the Catholics or Protestants. Those were the JEWS' rules, not the CHRISTIANS' rules.

Further, the 10 commandments as such are pretty innocuous and simple rules compared with the rest of Levitical law, and certainly when contrasted with the words of the Prophet.

One Martin Luther broke the Catholic stranglehold on dogma, the whole can of worms went up for debate. And you can find churches as meek and mild as you please or as fundy as you please from the 16th century on. And NONE of them had to throw out the basics of Christianity: the separation of Man and God, The need for salvation,The divinity of Christ, or the fact of the crucifiction and resurection.

Luther never challenged any of those things, nor do any mainline Christian churches today.

The NEW testament, particularly the Gospels, are quite vague on any number of issues. And there exists no Talmud or Hadith in Christian tradition to make some hard and fast clarification of vagaries.

Further, was Paul for instance a complete authority? He wasn't the "Messenger of God" as the Prophet was. He was just a disciple.It's open to interpretation in other words. Not one Christian in a thousand believes fro instance that women having short hair is sinful, but Paul said it was as plain as day.

No, the curse of the Muslims is that their religion is astonishingly well documented from multiple sources, at the time of or right after the Prophet. Yhey were obsessed with writing everyting down for the very reason that the Christians had so much trouble even deciding what texts to include in the Canon.

So sorry, don't reply to me about Christian Dogma taking one line out the the old testament.

Further, look into the long held belief by the Catholics as well as many other Christian faiths that the canon is not to be interpreted literally.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

Quibble: Paul /is/ an authority (none / 1) (#536)
by padda on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:23:58 AM EST

Further, was Paul for instance a complete authority? He wasn't the "Messenger of God" as the Prophet was. He was just a disciple.It's open to interpretation in other words. Not one Christian in a thousand believes fro instance that women having short hair is sinful, but Paul said it was as plain as day.

Paul says he thinks he has the 'Spirit of God' and his books are in the Canon, afterall; there were eminent-but-lesser Christians whose writings we also have, which aren't.

I think those minor points (women covering heads in church etc) are ignored, exactly because people feel it's an irrelevant cultural thing, not because Paul was lesser (some few denominations do abide by them). I wonder if Christianity's spread to other cultures helped smooth it out some, on that score. Afterall, hasn't Islam stayed mostly in the Arab world for the bulk of its existence?

[ Parent ]

The point I was making (none / 1) (#539)
by jubal3 on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:30:14 AM EST

Is that to "interpret" Paul's teachings (or ignore large protions of them) is commonplace.

Not so with something the Prophet said, especially when it comes to specific prohibitions or rules.

Yes, I know his writings are in the Canon and accepted as divinely inspired. I'm not really claining they aren't, it was an illustrative point.



***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

But that kills your point (none / 1) (#547)
by padda on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 11:06:25 AM EST

Even though it's Canon, people wiggle out of what nowadays is immaterial and against current culture. For whatever reason - there's no Christian Hadith / Talmud to ossify and nail down every meaning, or maybe the set of books is more contradictory in general than those others so, at some level they're focused on principles rather than Law - or most likely, a major point of Christianity is that you're free of Hebrew Law so, being bound now by hair-covering just doesn't make sense.

In fact this last idea gives strong support to your opponent in this thread.

[ Parent ]

Uh, what? (none / 0) (#545)
by BerntB on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 05:17:27 AM EST

And you can find churches as meek and mild as you please or as fundy as you please from the 16th century on.
Well, maybe you could find tolerant churches in the 16th century, but... which? (Quakers?) From what I've read, tolerance is later. (At least for the state churches in the major western countries.)

A famous example is Thomas Paine, who was outcast for opinions that a bishop in most christian churches would accept a century or two later as evident. (See "Why I am not a christian", Russel.)

[ Parent ]

some sunni terrorists (1.25 / 4) (#507)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 03:02:32 PM EST

just blew up one of the most holy of shia shrines a few days ago in iraq

you're not championing muslim dignity against western aggression, you're taking sides on shia versus sunni

when i say rumi is a well respected muslim scholar, this is true

not because a shia says so, or a sunni doesn't say so, but because a MUSLIM says so

so why do you think you've proven me wrong by choosing sides in sunni versus shia?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Do yo honestly not know the difference (3.00 / 4) (#533)
by jubal3 on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 02:11:23 AM EST

between SUFI and SUNNI?

What the hell sides are you talking about?
All I said is that quoting a Sufi scholar is NOT an appeal to authority, as you obviously thought it was. Not one Muslim scholar in a hundred would take him as an authority. If you doubt this, go visit a couple of mosques and ask.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

pope benedict (1.20 / 5) (#540)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:30:44 AM EST

doesn't get much play with the orthodox church

but he's still a respected christian leader

are you able to parse that logic?

actually, you'd probably find some asshole orthodox church members agitating against the pope's name... and moderates within the orthodox church asking them to please relax and let the man be respected as a christian leader

...then this muslim moron comes in and says that the asshole extremist orthodox guys are right, and the pope need no respect at all

sound familiar, moron?

rumi is a respected muslim scholar, and moderate sunnis would agree with this, no matter how much they disliked what he actually said and how little allegiance they felt for him. the asshole extremist sunnis, however, they would agree with you though

so thanks for stepping in and proving to be a devisive asshole in the support of extremists with your words


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

A Catholic Pope (2.50 / 2) (#544)
by jubal3 on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:50:59 AM EST

has one HELL of a lot more standing, even among protestants, than a 13th Century Sufi scholar has among the world's Sunni OR Shia muslims.

If you want similar comparison, try quoting Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's witenesses to Christians as some kind of bilical/religious Authority.  Most Christians would think you were a fool to think the writings of someone they consider a heretic or at best a nutcase would be a convincing argument.

Even though there are JWs all over the "Christian world."


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

jehovah's witnesses (1.00 / 5) (#548)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 12:52:44 PM EST

is a little over a century old

sufi islam goes back to the days of mohammad himself, so they are less like a sepearate religion and more like a monastic order: emphasis on poverty and solitude and suffering leading to mysticism

so if you are going to dis sufism, you might as well dis buddhist and christian monks as well

your ignorance is showing


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Just a few things (2.77 / 9) (#526)
by McArabian on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:41:13 PM EST

You're bang on about the Sufi scholar stuff. Muslims back home rarely consider any theories the Sufi's have concerning religion because they are considered pretty marginal in comparison to "real Islam."  However, I did detect a resurging interest in Sufiism  back home (Kuwait) before I left. It could be a fad or it could be something more, I never had the chance to see anything come of it before I had to leave for America to finish my studies.

"Moderate" Islam you speak of is more a cultural remnant than a deep religious conviction. It is notably practiced mainly among Muslims living in Christian countries, countries which prohibit the exercise of shari'a. These are like Catholics who go to church once a year. Yes, they are Catholic, yes they believe in the creed. But they are not particularly devout, nor particularly exercised about current dogma.

It is no surprise that these Muslims have had to "moderate" their religious practices, they have no choice. Where there has been a choice, Muslims have almost always chosen a traditional interpretation of the religion.

I have to disagree with you about this one. I don't have numbers with me so I will speak from personal experience (just as I'm sure this is where you're coming from). Most of the moderates I came across were actually Arabs living in the Middle East. In fact, my own religious outlook became more moderate  after I've had considerable contact with other Moderates and started thinking critically about what I've been taught during 'Religion class' in school.

The "moderates" I came across here in the West are usually non-practicing Muslims (they admitted this to me, I am not applying my own label to them). Non-practicing Muslim tend to be 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims living in the West who consider themselves Muslim in name only (both parents are Muslims) and have rarely read the Quran or the Hadiths.

The other faction of Muslims I came across here are those who have taken on an Islam as a political identity (Nation of Islam, etc). I've only met a couple of them so I can't really make a judgement as to whether they are non-practicing Muslims or not.

The third faction of Muslims I came across here in the West are pretty traditional/conservative. Yet, even in this faction one has to differentiate: there are those who are satisfied with their women wearing a hijab (but don't mind them wearing tight pants or jeans), and there are those who still believe in a Wahabbi lifestyle (niqab/burka etc). Of the latter, I remember coming across a large community of them in Los Angeles.

The term "moderate" is pretty slippery itself. It's relative: I consider myself moderate in comparison to a woman who believes that wearing a hijab brings her closer to God. She probably considers herself moderate in comparison with a woman who believes in wearing the burka in public. I'm sure other Muslims consider themselves moderate in comparison to me.

What I did notice back home is that class plays a big role in terms of how you relate to Islamic teachings. Most of the moderates I've met, especially the revolutionary ones, are usually upper class. The lower you go on the social ladder, the more difficult it is to find moderate Muslims (moderate in my terms). Don't get me wrong, there are definitely a lot of conservative Muslims within upper class society, but while they are certainly respected, they are considered to be too "inflexible" and a little "backwards" by their peers. And then, there's the arguement that upper class can "afford" to be liberal (send the women out to study abroad, travel to see other parts of the world, etc).

The things which led to the enlightenment in the west cannot happen in the Muslim world without throwing out not just interpretations of scholars, but by a complete disregard for the words of the Prophet himself.
This is why the Sufis, and the Sikhs, and the Bahai's are tiny, persecuted minorities anywhere Islam is the dominant religion. All were attempts to "reform" Islam, all failed utterly to have any large impact on the faith.

I don't know if this has been noticed in the West or not, but Islam is definitely in a status of flux back home. The growing movement towards reform is slowly gaining momentum. However, I will concede that this is probably because the growth and popularity of extremism has reached alarming levels. It is a reaction rather than an action.

Also, I'm a bit disconcerted with all this talk about Islam in the 13th century and Islam during the "Golden Age", etc. Violence was an acceptable mode of communication back then for everyone, including the Western world. I don't believe that most Muslims today are in that same thinking space as Muslims were back in the 13th century.

And here is my apology concerning the extremists:
As I've already mentioned, most of the extremists come from the lower classes. The lower classes (especially in the Arab world) have been neglected and disenfranchised pretty horribly. As the Arab world is forced to move towards a more democratic political model, extremists were finally given a voice and with it, a considerable political presence. The moderates are now caught in the middle: (I've already asked this before) How do you quash fundementalist ideaology without disenfranchising a significant portion of society while still trying to adopt a politic that would make you, not only an active, but an accepted member of the global community?

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

hmm, class issues (2.25 / 4) (#528)
by circletimessquare on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 05:52:34 PM EST

why were the 9/11 bombers from rich western-influenced lifestyles then?

osama bin laden himself is a millionaire

that's what concerns me: extremism doesn't seem to be so tied to class as you suggest

extremism seems to be pretty much its own thing, not necessarily born of poverty

otherwise, you could just attack the roots of poverty and do away with extremism


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Good point, (2.71 / 7) (#530)
by McArabian on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 06:18:21 PM EST

and something I'm still thinking about.

I will say this: I do believe Bin Laden is an anomly in terms of class and religious ideology. He was disowned by his family for his religious extremism way before the 9/11 attacks. And I think he was banished from Saudi Arabia at one point - also way before 9/11 (which goes to show that even the Saudi govt has limits when it comes to extremism).

Bin Laden has always been in support of violence, his wealth and status, and his fight against the Soviet Union forces in Afghanistan made him a hero to a very disenfranchised people at the time (the muslim Afghanis).
The fact that Osama had to resort to terrorism goes to show that he was not willing to work within the political system in order to protect his religious ideology.
The worrisome part about Osama is his recruiting strategy. You're right, he does favor recruiting young Arab/Muslim students from affluent families, especially if they are living/studying in the West. Those targets are usually the most vulnerable because: a) they are living in a cultural environment very different from their own and will most likely seek (at one time or another) a space that feels more familiar and b) their affluent background makes it easier for them to "pass" as liberal moderate Muslims while at the same time, they are able to finances Osama's projects.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
[ Parent ]

Not only that (2.66 / 3) (#534)
by LodeRunner on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:14:03 AM EST

He was disowned by his family for his religious extremism way before the 9/11 attacks. And I think he was banished from Saudi Arabia at one point - also way before 9/11 (which goes to show that even the Saudi govt has limits when it comes to extremism).
Ironically, it seems that the first government to issue an Interpol arrest warrant for Bin Laden was, of all places, Libya in 1998, and the US (UK? don't remember) chose not to turn him over to Kaddafi when they had a chance.

---
"dude, you can't even spell your own name" -- Lode Runner
[ Parent ]

rejoinder (3.00 / 5) (#535)
by jubal3 on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:18:47 AM EST

First, thanks for the considerate and thoughtful reply.

Secong let me clarify that I am not a Christian, Jew nor Muslim, though I have studied Christianity and Islam at some depth, though Judaism only a little.

I don't claim to be a scholar, but I have enough knowledge of the reigions to know when someone is blowing smoke up my ass, as CTS is with his letter. (which I found incredibly condescending at best, and obviously not written to Muslims but to westerners continually trying to convince themselves that Islam is just like Christianity only with Hijabs)

I agree with you on the class issue. Unfortunately the lower classes are about 95% of the Muslim population. This is a real similarity between Christians and Muslims...the lower the level of education and income, the more fundamentalist (traditionalist) you are likely to be.

I think it is especially true with Islam, whether talking the Sunna, the Koran or the Hadith, that the tendency towards fundamentalism is more inherant in the religion because the texts themselves are fairly clear on a great host of issues, though less so with others (and the Hijab/burqa is a perfect example of this vagueness).

An intellectual approach, informed by modern history and an understanding of modern historical methods would OF COURSE lead one to put a great many of the teachings of a religion into the context of the time and place and culture in which they were originally stated, even IF (as in the case of the Prophet) they were explicitly said to be for all time.

This is the case with most mainline Protestant churches as well as the Catholic Church. They are responding not because they are so enlightened, but simply because the faithful themselves will no longer put up with a fire and brimstone "do what the holy man says or else" kind of approach.

However go to South America, and you will find a VERY much more conservative Catholic church than you are likley to see in Europe or the US.

It seems a truism to me that ignorance, which comes from cultural isolation lack of education, breeds  more traditionalist interpretations and approaches to religion.

But the changes to Christianity have already been made. For Catholics in rural Mexico to moderate their veiws greatly is not such a stretch. It's already been done elsewhere, and the changes themselves were not as fundamental as some might think. (Martin Luther turned Catholic and Papal AUTHORITY on its head a lot more than he did any central Christian tenets).

But how are you going to "moderate" 95% of the muslims in the world..particularly the Arab and arab-dominated world?

We will be waiting a long time indeed for that to happen...it took the Christians some 2 hundred years of bloody inter-religious wars to calm themselves down enough to get to the enlightenment. -And I would submit the battle was less difficult than the one Islam faces, from a strictly scriptural viewpoint.

I've heard from other sources about a "civil war within islam," or a "reform movement within Islam," but it seems a great deal more like the empty wishes of a few fairly powerless intellectual elites...people who were never the problem in the first place...than any real serious movement towards reform. Maybe Im wrong, God knows  would like to be, but I don't see it.

And Finally, as to "Golden Age," I too tire of it being touted.

As I see it, Islam was in the 8th and 9th centuries an incredibly enlightened, tolerant force full of civilizing influences FOR THE TIME.

In other words, compared to the European Christians, who were mired in the barbarism of what we rightly refer to as the DARK AGES, Islam was great stuff.

Unfortunately, what happened to the West, never happened to the middle east. We got the plague, the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightentment..you got the Mongols and the Ottomans.

In other words the seminal things that brought about the very gradual rise of the west simply never occurred in the culture or religion of the arab world..a wold whcih with the fall of the Ottoman empire has come to dominate Islam as much as it ever did.

What was passed along as it certainly was, was passed on to intellectual elites, not to the poeple at large. The Ottomans kept the arab world in poverty and subjugation, far more than the Europeans could have hoped to do. and following the fall of the Ottomans, the entire region has tried to cope with nationalism and pan-arabism and salaffism without ever having had the chance to go through the several hundred years of cultural development that the west went through to achieve it's ascendancy in the first place.

Long way to get there but how the hell do you fix a situation like that? I have simply no good Ideas. I wish I did, but I don't.

A ressurgent Islam scares hell out of most westerners because of the face of Islam today and for the forseeable future. It's an ugly face, it embraces things which are anathema to the very core of our enlightenment ideals. It seems frighteningly inflexible, militantly expansionist nd politically very frightening if it should ever gain great power. Why is everyone so freaked out over Iran getting nukes? It's the religion and its place in that government, not the skin color.

So yuo have a frightened west, reaching out to quash Islam, which reacts with more violence and understandable pride in itself and its past, which provokes yet more western reaction.....

I do not see a peaceful solution to this within my lifetime, nor probably within my children's.

People brning embassies are I think, largely the ignorant masses being maniuplated by traditionalst religious leaders and political opportunists. The Muslims demanding apologies from the Danish government and wishing to enact Blasphemy laws are the very "moderates" everyone is trying to convince themselves are in the majority.

What to do? I don't know. But having an honest discussion of the facs, unclouded by wishful thinking about religion woul be at the least a start.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

LOL (1.10 / 10) (#537)
by circletimessquare on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:24:16 AM EST

I don't claim to be a scholar, but I have enough knowledge of the reigions to know when someone is blowing smoke up my ass, as CTS is with his letter. (which I found incredibly condescending at best, and obviously not written to Muslims but to westerners continually trying to convince themselves that Islam is just like Christianity only with Hijabs)

you then proceed to condescend, and talk about islam evolving like christianity

hilarious! thanks for making me laugh


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

knowledge leads to peace (none / 0) (#624)
by bithead on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 12:44:25 PM EST

Knowledge lightes the way to peace, ignorance the way to conflict.

Peace has more power than conflict. Peace does more to solve problems, conflict does more to create problems.

Framed in terms of knowledge and ignorance, the problem seems to look a little different. From your insightful words I gather that western christianity benefits more a longer tradition of knowledge that does Islam. Still, it would seem as long as we have ignorance with us, violence will find haven and reinforcement. I only suggest this as sometimes a different way of viewing things helps improve them.

[ Parent ]
Sufism. (none / 0) (#610)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:48:09 PM EST

I actually like Sufism not just for its piety but for its music; the cultures of South Asia would be so much more bare hadn't it been for those wonderful qawwalis, those colourful dargahs and those wonderful Mughal and Ottoman miniatures depicting, among other things, the Archangel Gabriel accompanying the Prophet on his hejira to Mecca.

Yup, you read that right. Not quite Baghdad, but 15th century Istanbul actively depicted the Prophet Mohammed in its drawings.

That said, I like to think of Sufism as an ex-pat Islam phenom, much like cricket being more popular outside England than inside, seeing as it is that most of the masters weren't Arabic in ethnicity, but Turk, Persian and Indian. Rather big back in India though; the entire Pakistani cricket team, for instance, took time off to visit Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti's dargah in Ajmer in one of their recent tours, despite the fact that their nearest match venue was some 300 km away.

---
The Big F Word.
[ Parent ]

Thanks for putting circle in his place (none / 1) (#612)
by garote on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 07:19:16 PM EST

It seems I've had to read the condescending, uptight babbling of that noxious prat on just about every story posted here on K5.  It's nice to see someone point out what an armchair philosopher he is and put him in his place.  Kudos to you.

[ Parent ]
i aim to please (none / 0) (#618)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 06:38:32 PM EST

that i piss people like you off lets me know how right i am

its when people like you are pleased with me do i know i've done something drastically wrong

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The real problem, at 2 levels (2.66 / 3) (#491)
by elrac on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 01:35:50 PM EST

I'm a bit late to the party, but I can't resist throwing in my 2c worth.

Someone earlier pointed out the basic problem: That man is tribal, group-minded, aggressive, hostile and deeply affected by instincts hardly removed from his animal past. OK, that's not what he said, I'm rephrasing it. In simpler terms, "us vs. them" is a big part of our makeup, and we tend to form groups and hate people who are in other groups. I feel smug and right thinking of Muslims as rag-headed primitive religious zealots, and no doubt they feel righteous and justified to consider me godless, depraved, decadent, yea worthless.

It should be the goal of every human being to raise himself above primitive thoughts and actions like this. We're becoming a global society, and this kind of behavior is simply so... last millennium. It's not helping any group's survival these days, in fact it's proving counterproductive.

Overcoming our animal-born primitive instincts is perhaps part of what Jesus allegedly preached. I'd recommend becoming a good Christian and heeding his word, except... that way lies the second problem.

Even if there ever was a Christ, and that he had useful things to teach, that's all irrelevant these days because his word has been perverted way beyond recognition by churches and governments. You see, religion is not about God. It's about mind control. A bunch of people think up a religion, and it allows them to tell other people what to do and how to live. Also, it gives people a nice criterion for forming another "us vs. them" split. Killing for Christ, sure thing. He'd be real proud of y'all.

Yeah, I'm down on Christianity. I don't so much care that it's a myth, the Bible a sad collection of implausible tall tales and foolish raving. But the Spanish Inquisition should have been grounds enough to neutron bomb the Church and sterilize all its sycophants, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Christianity has been a tool for dominating, intimidating and bleeding the foolish masses for centuries, and the sooner it goes away for good, IMO, the better. Just think: Without Christianity, the Shrub would lose his redneck power base and the world would be a much better place.

Now just to make sure everybody has a reason to kill me, let me hasten to add that I think that Islam is not one whit better; it's a poor copy of stupid ideas stolen by an illiterate loser from Judaism and Christianity just so Arabs could have their own religion. Why does it gain ground? I dunno - I suppose stupid people WANT to believe in crap. Thank God I'm not religious! Again, I'd have no trouble with people insisting on being poor and performing a bunch of rituals. Also, I believe abstinence from alcohol is a damn fine idea: alcohol is at the root of a lot of human suffering. But their concept of "convert or kill" makes these foaming-at-the-mouth barbarians unfit for life in the modern world. It's hard to form a global society when you keep having to watch for knives in your back, or bombs in your subway. Also, it's rare for a religion to have the chutzpah to insist that not only its own members adhere to its precepts, but also complete and utter strangers in Denmark. Islam is a global nuisance!

If mankind is to advance, the first step is not tolerance toward other religions - the far, far better thing to do is to abandondon any and all religion with, may I say it, abandon! Only then will people be able to grasp that they are each masters of their own fate, shapers of their own destiny, and that whatever they intend to accomplish needs to be done in this life or not at all. They must realize there's no heaven, there's no hell, there's no divine forgivenness: If you fuck up, you either fix up the mess you made and die happy, or you don't and die sad. Only then will people seek their own path based on their own experience and information from sources of their own choosing, and get an honest chance to make the best of their life.

The West's next crusade should be a crusade against Christianity; I'd like to see bibles burned at the stake! The world's Muslims should declare a jihad on Islam and and for heaven's sake, if your women are pretty, don't cover them up! Finally, to alienate yet another group, the Jews should dedicate a sabbath to burning their old torath, take a drive and enjoy a juicy bacon cheeseburger. Then they all could unite in harmony and go look for a new dividing line beweeen us & them.


If you can't beat them, at least tie them up!
you're as intolerant (none / 0) (#496)
by army of phred on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:20:40 PM EST

as those you attack.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
In tolerant vs not, intolerance wins (none / 0) (#541)
by padda on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:36:53 AM EST

Norman Cantor, a famous medievalist made the remark that religions in Rome were mostly tolerant, but which of those survives today? There's an imbalance of acceptance; the intolerant is accepted by the tolerant but not the other way around. That, and the fact that to stay coherent you need some boundaries. Then too, religion is basically about satisfying the desire for filling in gaps, and for certainties; I think the advantage is all to intolerant forms as long as they're not too out of step with human life and reality.

[ Parent ]
.. which says to me we should be intolerant (none / 0) (#542)
by padda on Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 03:39:03 AM EST

(I knew I had a point)

.. in a way it's the only thing that says we're as serious about our beliefs as they are about theirs. And them, for that matter.

[ Parent ]

Nice idea (none / 1) (#501)
by Herring on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:41:43 PM EST

but I can't see it working. Irrational certainty is a lot more comfortable than rational uncertainty to too many people. I think a lot of European countries would elect an admitted atheist, but I can't see it happening much outside there.

I think that the problem is that atheists are a persecuted minority. I want to walk down a busy street without being shouted at that I'm going to be tortured for all eternity. I want my tax money to be used effeciently - I don't want grants or tax breaks to go to whatever group of loonies (who believe the same bullshit) gets sufficiently large to call itself a religion (note that in the UK, secular organisations applying for the same charitable status as religions have been turned down).

To be threatened and have to alter my behaviour for committing a perfectly legal act is to my mind unacceptable.

Oh, and if depictions of any Islamic prophets are forbidden, then why aren't Christian churches - who have been known to have the odd statue or picture of Jesus - being targeted? Maybe because attacking secular organisations is OK, but attacking someone else's religion might cause problems. All religions are, to some extent, blasphemous against each other.

I'm sure I had a point in there somewhere, but it seemed to get lost. Anyhow, I think if there is a way out of this, it's to put religion back as a personal, not a political thing. How long have blowjobs been legal in all 50 states of the US? Not long. Why was oral sex illegal in the first place?

Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
[ Parent ]

Contradiction (none / 1) (#575)
by videntur on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 08:40:47 PM EST

Author's thesis: It should be the goal of every human being to raise himself above primitive thoughts and actions like this.

Authors recommendation: Violence by means of ... The West's next crusade should be a crusade against Christianity; I'd like to see bibles burned at the stake! The world's Muslims should declare a jihad on Islam.

I find that contradicting, to read that from a poster who promotes the edification of man.

[ Parent ]
No contradiction (none / 0) (#584)
by elrac on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:36:09 AM EST

There has been a worldwide war on smallpox. Smallpox is now, for all intents and purposes, gone from the face of the earth. I sincerely hope you'll agree that it was a Good Thing that this war was fought and won, and that his has helped and advanced mankind.

My stance, to state it briefly, is this: Religion is like smallpox an illness whose eradication will advance mankind. I advocate the burning of Bibles, Torahs and Qu'rans, not of people or valued property. I do not consider (safely) burning a bible an act of violence: It's no more harmful than burning a flag or a copy of the New