The Anti-Civilization Thread

[pookiebear]

I think everyone has a valid point and I just want to throw in my opinion on this issue. In a Utopia world where everyone can live in harmony it is easy to do " the right thing" such as be kind to your fellow man and be enviromentally correct. One can argue pros and cons for the U.S policies and support for Isareal all day long and get no where. In the end of the day it's all about self preservation. Mankind in his most natural and purest form is an animal with the instinct to survive and multiplies. It is our inate instinct for things such as greed and aggression, through thousands of years of "civilized" breeding in the end we cannot change what our instinctive nature have made us. Isareal, in order to survive, have team up with the biggest kid on the block. It takes years for Isareal to bring it's blight to the U.S, they accomplished through education and wealth. The reason why U.S is pro Isareal is because many of the professional in the U.S are decendent of Isareal. When One have congressman, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and teachers that are decendent of Isareal it is easy to pass policies that are pro Isareal. What puzzled me is that if the Palistine want to U.S as a friend and alliles why dont they do the same ? Instead of burning the flag and chanting hatred towards U.S is not going to change it's stance for Isareal nor will it create any sympathy for Palistine.
Regarding Muslims vs. Christians my take on it is the religion itself meant well but the pratice of religion and the leadership are the main corruption and that is why there are conflict in the world today. Many religious leaders hold themselves in regards as "God's" messenger and along with those positions are a set of priviliges and power. Any deviation of the gospels as we know it will invalidate them as " the messenger" and will eliminate their positions. If one look back at history every religion offers the same thing in the end, it's the label and the Messiah whose name is different. Every religion preaches the expansion and the population growth of its believes and the destruction of any none believers, thus the Crusades in the middle ages.
Many of you speak ill agaisnt capitalism and the evil that it brings to societies. Capitalism is the purest form of nature's survival of the fittess in society. The reason why communism or socialism does not work well is that when given the opportunity individual will do nothing to get everything they will take advantage of it. Many people speak of that the government are those who are the richest in society should bear the brunt of cost for those who have nothing. I'm all for everyone paying their fair share in society. But why punish those who works the hardest to achieve those things in life by granting those who have done the least by rewarding them ? I understand that there are sector of our society that need to be taken care of the old, the very young etc.. everyone else should put in an effort to earn an honest day pay. In the end what it comes down to is the have vs. the have not. If one is not sucessful financially and can not make it in life it is far too easy to speak of grants, special social programs and entitlements.But when they do make the money and become "the wealthy" one it is harder to write out a check to pay for those things that everyone else is asking for. In the end self- preservation is the true motivation and regardless of politics, economics, religions, or idealology everyone is out for their best interest.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Mirror, mirror

Korbel,

Our friend JB issued the same kind of statements on a thread dedicated to 9/11 as a means to root Islmaic terrorism in their own inability or unwillingness to evolve into "more open civilized societies". Using the good old mirror, I wonder how he would react should someone were to explain Tim McVeigh's Oklahoma bombing with a similar logic. What? Americans failed to evolve to a civilized society?

 

[JustBob]

ARE YOU REALLY, REALLY, DONE THIS TIME?

Hmmm yeah, because as your latest reply suggests, you never had, you don't have, and you will never have any intelligent counter-arguments to offer... So keep going with that monologue you're having with yourself...

Good because now we'll speak of YOUR agenda starting with your consumed zealousness to cite works from scholars publishing in right-wing think tanks.

Stay tuned...

Hahahahaha. ZM, ZM... I know all those pesky little tricks. All of them. From dismissing arguments off-hand, refusing to engage in debate, dodging, distorting, and attacking the source instead of the arguments presented because you are incapable of doing so.

You woudn't last a single day on any serious political forum.

Can you at least try to come up with something new in the realm of anti-debating? At least that might keep me entertained...

 

[JustBob]

Korbel,

Our friend JB issued the same kind of statements on a thread dedicated to 9/11 as a means to root Islmaic terrorism in their own inability or unwillingness to evolve into "more open civilized societies". Using the good old mirror, I wonder how he would react should someone were to explain Tim McVeigh's Oklahoma bombing with a similar logic. What? Americans failed to evolve to a civilized society?

Good lord man, are you friggin serious? Are you really trying to compare autocratic, patriarcal, oppressive (hey! there's oppression for you!) and intolerant societies who suppress women's rights and have no separation of church and state to western societies? Not only that, but are you also comparing the isolated actions of a single (or even a few) nutcases in the US to an entire organized Islamic fundamentalist movement? Damn, you're even more delusional than I thought.

Oh and Korbel, in that same 9/11 thread, our friend ZM is the guy who seemed quite fond of conspiracy theories... No sirry bob, reality just isn't good enough for him when pursuing his anti-US agenda. That booga booga nonsense makes them look so much more evil!

 

[JustBob]

What's most distressing about what you say about Muslim extremists and Islam, Justbob, isn't that you are way off base. It's that you both taint your statements with over-generalizations bordering on stereotype...and most egregiously that you indulge in relating all the wrong in Muslim history with practically no acknowledgment of the same character in Christian history as a counter balance for comparison.

Korbel

Why the heck should I provide counter-balance? Do you want me to go back to the Crusades in order to show how evil Christians can be? Thats totally besides the point. The point is that between roughly year 1400 and today, western civilization, along with a more liberal interpretation of it's religious texts, has evolved into (mostly) democratic societies, has separated church from state, has established secular laws, has abolished slavery, has given women rights, and has adopted values and principles that one would generally consider "civilized". Muslim societies have pretty much completely failed in that regard.

Now if "I taint my statements with over-generalizations bordering on stereotypes", please point out where I've done so and if I can expand and/or clarify, I will do so.

Of course you don't have to answer this...but how DO you compare the same malicious tendencies of both religions? Good side...bad side...there's not much difference.

I don't. Because it's simply not comparable. Wake me up when organized groups of fundamentalist Christians eliminate the separation from church and state, get rid of secular laws, take control of nations, start calling for Jihad, have a goal of destroying western values and establishing a worldwide caliphate, and start randomly and not so randomly blowing themselves and other people up.

 

[korbel]

Surprised!

Why the heck should I provide counter-balance? Do you want me to go back to the Crusades in order to show how evil Christians can be? Thats totally besides the point. The point is that between roughly year 1400 and today, western civilization, along with a more liberal interpretation of it's religious texts, has evolved into (mostly) democratic societies, has separated church from state, has established secular laws, has abolished slavery, has given women rights, and has adopted values and principles that one would generally consider "civilized". Muslim societies have pretty much completely failed in that regard.

Now if "I taint my statements with over-generalizations bordering on stereotypes", please point out where I've done so and if I can expand and/or clarify, I will do so.

I don't. Because it's simply not comparable. Wake me up when organized groups of fundamentalist Christians eliminate the separation from church and state, get rid of secular laws, take control of nations, start calling for Jihad, have a goal of destroying western values and establishing a worldwide caliphate, and start randomly and not so randomly blowing themselves and other people up.

Hello Justbob,

Why? Because in my view failure to acknowledge that Islam is not the only religious system that has inflicted extreme abuses not only demonstrates a heavy bias, it greatly weakens credability. If you are a Christian, you cannot blast Islam with such persistency for the violent and generally abusive elements in it's past or present in view of the same long violent history from Christians without opening yourself to hypocrisy. It's fine if you want to focus on one subject. But given the length and depth of your scourging of that religion you began to look xenophobic a long time ago by the relentlessness of your focus on their extremism instead of the many positive aspects of Islam. Or don't you believe there are any?

As for democratic societies since "1400", you sure don't have a good grasp on history. The Spanish alone from 1492-1824 were guilty of mass enslavement, malicious virulent religious persecution, imperialism, and mass genocide in 2/3 of the Western Hemisphere. Slavery by Western European nations of Africans did not start to end until well into the 19th century, and Africans as property was recognized by the US Constitution. Bounties were given by the US and state governments for the extermination of certain Native American tribes. The British made India a colony (ie Indians serve the British) and used opium to "pacify" the Chinese for profit. How do you feel about the burning of heretic, and women as witches? Lest we forget, Nazism was not a Christian concept but it did sprout from one of the greatest Christian nations. Up to the 1950s nearly every square foot of Africa was an exploited colony controlled by Europeans for their benefit not the native people. Since 1492 the West has sought to impose it's values everywhere in the world most often through subjugation, slavery, or extremination. Women had little or no rights even after women's suffrage. Stalin, of an orthodox Christina nation, may have murdered 25-50 million people and threatened the state of the world until his death. Today charlatan televangelist ministers fake miracles or offer salvation for profit, and some priests prey on children. And there is so much more. This is just the "highlights"...so to speak. Even in the American democracy the only people qualified to vote in the beginning were male white property owners meaning only 1/16 of the people who are eligible today.

As for Christian fundamentalists, I did an in depth study on them, even readin two of Ralph Reed's books. If you don't think extreme fundamentalist conservative Christians don't want a totalitarian theocratic society based on Mosaic law in the US, and to spread that over the world...then either you don't know them at all...or you think: hey that's just terrific. But it is no different than the goals of extreme Muslims. Only the methods are different...for now. Separation of church and state is just a gross incovenience for these wanna be theocratic fascists. As some of them are so fond of pointing out..."God is no democracy"!!!!!!!! That's an exact quote. How about: "GOD WILLS IT"!!! But go on ignoring or deny this fact if you will. IT'S STILL TRUE!

Sadly,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Religion

All organized religion is pure evil.Little purpose is served by trying to determine that one specific group is a hair less evil or more evil.

 

[korbel]

All organized religion is pure evil.Little purpose is served by trying to determine that one specific group is a hair less evil or more evil.

Hello Eastender,

I would not say..."evil". But the character of the three major monotheistic religions are essentially the same. You are perfectly right about the general differences.

OK,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

One Day........

Hello Eastender,

I would not say..."evil". But the character of the three major monotheistic religions are essentially the same. You are perfectly right about the general differences.

OK,

Korbel

Well,hope that you never meet evil.

 

[JustBob]

Hello Justbob,

Why? Because in my view failure to acknowledge that Islam is not the only religious system that has inflicted extreme abuses not only demonstrates a heavy bias, it greatly weakens credability.

In a thread titled "The evils of religion" you would have a point. In a thread discussing terrosist acts commited by Islamic fundamentalists you don't.

If you are a Christian, you cannot blast Islam with such persistency for the violent and generally abusive elements in it's past or present if the face of the same from Christians without opening yourself to hypocrisy.

See above. Should I feel obliged to bring up jazz or reggae in a thread discussing classical music? The answer to that should be obvious.

It's fine if you want to focus on one subject. But given the length and depth of your scourging of that religion you began to look xenophobic by the relentlessness of your focus on their extremism instead of the many positive aspects of Islam. Or don't you believe there are any?

Again see above. This is irrelevant to the topic discussed. There are indeed moderate Muslims, and fortunately (although they are for now confined to the West) they have started to speak out against fundamentalism. I already pointed this out.

As for democratic societies since "1400", you sure don't have a good grasp on history.

Misquote and/or distorsion. I said:

"The point is that between roughly year 1400 and today, western civilization, along with a more liberal interpretation of it's religious texts, has evolved into (mostly) democratic societies..."

I never used the word "since", nor did I imply that there weren't a number of bumps along the way, hence the word "evolve" (some more slowly than others, YMMV).

The Spanish alone from 1492-1824 were guilty of mass enslavement, malicious virulent religious persecution, imperialism, and mass genocide in 2/3 of the Western Hemisphere. Slavery by Western European nations of Africans did not start to end until well into the 19th century, and Africans as property was recognized by the US Constitution. Bounties were given by the US and state governments for the extermination of certain Native American tribes. The British made India a colony (ie Indians serve the British) and used opium to "pacify" the Chinese for profit. Lest we forget, Nazism was not a Christian concept but it did sprout from one of the greatest Christian nations. Up to the 1950s nearly every square foot of Africa was an expolited colony controlled by Europeans. Since 1492 the West has sought to impose it's values everywhere in the world most often through subjugation, slavery, or extremination. Women had little or no rights even after women's suffrage. Stalin, of an orthodox Christina society may have murdered 25-50 million people and threatened the state of the world until his death. And there is so much more. This is just the "highlights"...so to speak.

Ok, thanks for the history lesson. But that does absolutely nothing to disprove my point that Muslim societies have stagnated and failed to evolve into (added for you: flawed) democratic/civilized societies, while western societies mostly have.

As for Christian fundamentalists I did an in depth study on them, even readin two of Ralph Reed's books. If you don't think extreme fundamentalist conservative Christians don't want a totalitarian theocratic society based on Mosaic law in the US, and to spread that over the world...then either you don't know them at all...or you think: hey that's just terrific. But it is no different than the goals of extreme Muslims. Only the methods are different...for now. Separation of church and state is just a gross incovenience for these wanna be theocratic fascists. As some of them are so fond of pointing out..."God is no democracy"!!!!!!!! That's an exact quote. But go on ignoring or deny this fact if you will. IT'S STILL TRUE!

Sadly,

Korbel

Well obviously, any ideology religious or otherwise can be distorted and we should be wary of all forms of fundamentalism/extremism. But, I don't think that anyone can argue that the current Islamic fundamentalist issue totally dwarfs any other type of fundamentalism you can find.

 

[korbel]

Good

Hello Justbob,

You're welcome. I detect some acknowledgement. Yes you can make your case as firmly as you want, and legitimately. But without perspective and balance you are vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy and xenophobia. Not that I should count, but that is the way I see it.

Bonne nuit,

Korbel

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Hmmm yeah, because as your latest reply suggests, you never had, you don't have, and you will never have any intelligent counter-arguments to offer... So keep going with that monologue you're having with yourself...

What can I possibly say to a cartoonist to convince him that he's not the painter he believes he is? The picture you're drawing of Islam is disfigured beyond recognition. Radical Islamists represent a drop in the ocean of 1 billion Muslims and yet you never fail to use them as a pretext to indulge in your wild imaginings of a completely secluded, fanatic and violent subculture as well as to expound woolly theories which serve mostly your interest in overshadowing the widely acknowledged fact that Islamic terrorists are a category of their own drawing support from a reservoir of bitterness over both Israel’s military occupation and U.S. policies in the Middle East.

How can I possibly take you seriously when, in a matter of a few fashionable utterances, you completely dismissed the fact that the U.S. has done a commendable job of intensifying the problems in the region, one way by systematically vetoing practically every Security Council resolution? 1972: up to 500 Lebanese and Syrian civilians were killed in air attacks by Israel in response to the killing of 11 athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich. The attacks occured as nine simultaneous air raids by Phantoms and Skyhawks on Lebanon and Syria. In al-Hama, a suburb of Damascus, houses were bombed indiscriminately and people were machine gunned as they were running for cover. The UN issues a resolution condemning the air raids. What did the U.S. do? They vetoed the resolution. One year later, an Israeli commando kills 3 Palestinian leaders in Lebanon while Israeli forces shoot down a Libyan airliner flying over the Sinai Peninsula (occupied by Israel), killing all 106 passengers. The U.N. issues a series of resolutions, one affirming the rights of Palestinians and calling on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, another one condemning Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians and a third one which condemned Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. What do you think happened? The U.S. vetoed all three resolutions.
In 1976, Israeli forces besiege and shell the village of Hanin in Lebanon, killing 20 people. Bint Jbeil is also shelled, killing 23. The U.S. vetoed four United Nations resolutions. The first condemning Israeli attacks against Lebanese civilians, the second condemning Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories, the third calling for self determination for the Palestinians and the fourth affirming Palestinian rights. I can go on like that over several pages: jumping to 1984 and some twenty U.S.-vetoed U.N. resolutions condemning Israel later, the U.S. vetoed U.N.’s resolution condemning Israeli actions in Lebanon. The resolution referred to Israeli raids of civilians in Jibsheet, killing 7 and at Sohmur, where 13 were killed after being ordered by Israeli troops into a mosque.

The list of Israelo-Palestinian resolutions vetoed by the U.S. extends ad nauseum:

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in
Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on
Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the
occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the
Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in
occupied territories.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled
by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights
violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of
Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in
occupied Arab territories.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations
Conference on Women.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living
conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied
territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the
Palestinians.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians,
human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in
Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights
occupied in 1967.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern
Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern
Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the
occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade
and development. 3 resolutions.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese
civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human
rights, trade, media bias, the environment and
development. 8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions
in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the
League of Arab States.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study
the underlying political and economic causes of
terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism
and to differentiate it from the struggle of people
from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international
debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in
the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and
1989).
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by
Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in
East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
2 resolutions.
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip.

and so on and so forth...

Given this, how can you just occult, as you did, the fact that such an abusive and biased exercice of one permanent Security Council member's right to veto constitutes one of the main reasons why Muslims, in general, are defiant of the U.S. while a minority of them has come to "hate" the West? How about opening them blinders for a change?

(not done... tired... will also address your pseudo-argument so you put it to rest once in for all - Your insults, by the way, something you've been making good use of on this thread (not only towards me but also towards Korbel) only speak of you, not me or anyone else)

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Caricature - part 2

autocratic, patriarcal, oppressive and intolerant societies who suppress women's rights and have no separation of church and state

To fully understand the underlying reasons for Islamic terrorism, one only has to know what would make it stop today and, in this view, be able and willing to understand that the regional conflict, since 1948, between Israel and the neighbouring Arab states - where the Palestinian people played mostly the role of the victims - is more than a plausible source of Arab bitterness from which - even today - violent fractions are feeding their hatred of the West. To claim otherwise, is to occult the widely accepted reason why peace was never made in the region: U.S. unconditional support of Israel's forceful occupation of Palestine and role of the region's brigadier. U.S.'s systematic vetoing of U.N. resolutions serves as evidence but so much more can be said, way too much to fit in this forum, but suffices to point out a few key factors, the main one being the strategic and economic importance of the region.

This is where the great industrial powers and political powers of the West come in hand in hand. The region has been on the radar, first of the European masters, and after that of the U.S.. Lord Balfour's famous quote, though expressed as early as 1902, speaks acccurately of the mindset the European powers of the time and the successive U.S. administrations (beginning shortly after WWII) always had, including the current Bush administration: "I do not care under what system we keep the oil, but I am clear that it is all-important that this oil should be available". From there, it was clear that the fate of the region was sealed: the oil of the region would become - as Secretary of State Hull emphasized in 1925 - "the world's greatest price". From there, it was clearly established that the West would make every effort to make this great prize available and, to the extent possible, under the control of European (for as long as they were able to) and American oil companies.

(to be continued)

 

[JustBob]

There he goes again... Sorry Ziggy, but you don't debate, you rant. And you just used one more of these rants to further expand and push your anti-US, anti-Israel agenda. And you're so fixated and blinded by the issue of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that you refuse to see anything else. You're the one with blinders on here not me.

I fully acknowledge the situation in the Middle East and this will sure come as a surprise to you, but I get heavily criticized on another forum for supporting the Palestinian cause and criticizing Israel and the US. And I know full well that Arabs tend to view the world thru the prism of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. However, while this might serve to fuel the fire of Islamic fundamentalism, and upon further historical/sociological/cultural analysis of Muslim societies, you have to come to the conclusion that the root cause of Islamic fundamentalism is deeply grounded in religion and in the failure of the Muslim world to accept criticism, foster debate, and evolve into open, democratic, "civilized" societies. "Grievances" might fuel the fire, but are NOT the root cause of the fire.

Furthermore, when I refer to the link between terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, I refer to international terrorism. And here as well you seem to be missing an important distinction, which is not to confuse international terrorism with so-called liberation movements like Hamas and Hezbollah. The later might have their roots in "grievances" but have little to nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Hamas and Hezbollah are not pushing an Islamic fundamentalist agenda. Hezbollah, for example, has CHRISTIAN support in Lebanon.

I stated my case enough times, that I frankly do not know how many other different ways I can try to express it...

1. The history of the Muslim world did not start and does not stop with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Your absurd fixation on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is ridiculous, but hey that's your agenda...

2. Muslim societies have generally failed to evolve into more open, tolerant, democratic societies which, thru a more liberal interpretation of their religious texts, have adopted separation of church and state along with secular laws, values, and principles. They are still stuck in oppressive, autocratic, patriarchal regimes.

3. Islam does not have a Vatican. There is no central body which oversees the interpretation of Islamic texts and doctrine. Heck, there isn't even a definitive set of rules and guidelines to define the process by which one becomes an Imam. This makes distorsion/perversion of Islam much easier.

4. More liberal interpretation of religious texts has been staunchly and sometimes violently rejected, even in so-called moderate countries like Egypt. I believe I posted examples of this in the other thread. Only in the West (and then again not much, although it's slowly changing) have moderate Muslims managed to call for self-criticism, foster debate, and promote a more liberal interpretation of religious texts.

So one last time, your "grievances" argument is overly simplistic and I would like you to offer the opinion of ONE Muslim scholar or moderate Imam who agrees with you. Well ok, you might find one if you look hard enough, but the overwhelming concensus is that it's high time that Muslims stop blaming the West for all their failures and take a good look at themselves. If you disagree with that, prove it.

And further... further... more, how do you explain the following:

1. Muslims do not have the monopoly of grievances. One more time, how do you explain that other people, despite said grievances, have managed to evolve into democratic, mostly civilized nations and generally do not use disrorsion/perversion of their religion to call for Jihad and blow themselves and other people up. And let me point out the irony again, no people in the history of mankind have been more oppressed than the jews.

2. How do you explain the reactions to the Pope's comments and to the Muhammad drawings using solely your "grievances" argument? What grievances do fundamentalist Muslims have against the Vatican, the Netherlands, and the UK and Spain for that matter...

3. How do you explain homegrown terrorism in Europe with your "grievances" argument, when the profile of said terrorists shows that they are mostly young, educated, and not particularly religious to begin with. Here's a hint, why do people join cults?

And lastly, do you believe that intelligent, rational people (i.e. not blinded by religious or other forms of extremism) tend to take responsibility for their own actions or do they simply blame others for all their failings?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Caricature - part 3

60 years-story short, it has always been clear that the settlements to accommodate the belligerants were imposed in the interest of the superpowers. It was only after the 1973 raids lauched by Egypt and Syria into Israeli conquered territories, that the U.S. modified its policies, hence allowing the return to the 1967 borders as set forth by U.N. Security Council Resolution #242 of November 1967 calling for a peace treaty, demilitarized zones as well as a Palestine state located in parts of the West Bank and Gaza, subordinated to Jordan and Israel.

Leaving the stories surrounding the oil issue open for discussion as practically a day-by-day timeline would be required to fully understand all the implications. The whole idea, though, is not all that complicated to grasp: profit was always the name of the game and a matter of the fittest to gain.

(to be continued)

 

[JustBob]

This is just a couple, but you can find hundreds of articles/comments on this issue. Saddly, the calls from moderate Muslims almost exclusively come from the West. Although one can't really blame them because they often put their lives at risk, simply by speaking out. Criticism of Islam is simply taboo.

And hmmm, not a single mention of Israel or US oppression...

Syrian-born psychologist Wafa Sultan said moderate Muslims have always struggled to make their voice heard even within their own religion, but that the cartoon uproar gave them a platform to present their ideas to the whole world.

"The cartoon crisis was the first step to break out of the box in which we have been sitting since the 7th century," Sultan said, referring to the time of Islam's founding. "We as Muslims must learn to listen to others' opinion."

"The reaction to the cartoons, then to the Pope's remarks and the opera in Berlin, are making more and more young Muslims aware of a certain rigid strain of Islam that is pushing its way into the West," Canadian author Irshad Manji said.

"I call that kind of Islam 'fundamentalism.' It sanctifies everything that is related to the founding moment in the 7th century _ the Prophet Muhammad and the Quran," the author said.

Moderate Muslims Speak Out (LH)

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called "Islamaphobia" in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to:

· reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

· eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

· reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

· and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

· We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

· to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

· and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.

Dozens of Danish Muslims are joining the network of moderate Muslims, the Demokratiske Muslimer (Democratic Muslims). About 700 Muslims have already become DM members and 2,500 Danes have expressed their will to support the network. The initiative has caused anger among the Danish imams and their leader, Ahmad Abu Laban[sic], who have referred to the moderates as “rats”. The imams feel that they are beginning to lose their control over part of the Muslim population.

Moderates such as Kamran Tahmasebi say they have had enough of fanatic Islamism and its intimidation of the Muslim immigrants in Denmark. “It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago,”...

Mr Tahmasebi is one of the people involved in the newly established network of moderate Muslims in Denmark led by Naser Khader, a member of the Danish Parliament…who has for a long time been living under police protection… “Naser Khader has carried this responsibility for too long. I share his beliefs and now I want to stand up and say so. Apart from that, as a parent I feel a responsibility to fight, so that my children will not have to live under Islamist dogmas. They shall be able to live free in this country.”...

Moderate Muslims afraid to speak out

Members of Denmark's moderate Muslim community say they are reluctant to speak out with critical observations of their religion, fearing social isolation, threats and violence....
Danish-Pakistani author and political adviser Mohammad Rafiq recently published a book in which he openly criticised the practice of forced marriages. Following the book's release, Rafiq was the target of threats from Muslim extremists. He has so far refused to withdraw from the public arena, but says he knows people who are deliberately keeping quiet out of fear of reprisals.

"I've nearly been assaulted, and I've gotten threats. Not many people dare to speak out - they're just keeping quiet," said Rafiq.

Iranian-born social worker and Socialist People's Party city council candidate for Svendborg, Masoun Moradi, recently received death threats for writings perceived as critical of Islam.

Moradi likewise says he has no plans to censor himself, but says the reactions to his criticism from fellow Muslims is proof that others have given up.

"I've gotten three calls so far from other Danes of foreign descent who've gotten involved in the debate. They say they've also received death threats, but they haven't gone public. It's horrible that this kind of thing is allowed to happen. People born in Denmark regard freedom of speech as something quite natural, but for me it's a gift that must be safeguarded," said Moradi.

Lebanese-born Rabhi Azad-Ahmad agrees. Azad-Ahmad currently chairs a multicultural association in the Århus suburb of Gellerup. The group arranges regular debate meetings, and as chairman, Rabih Azad-Ahmad is active in local media.

"There are still extremists out there making life miserable for their own, and completely robbing some people of the desire to discuss anything. I myself have received threatening letters and heard rumours going around that I was anti-Islam," said Rahi Azad-Ahmad, noting that his own mother once asked him to refrain from speaking publicly.

"But I fled another country because I did not have freedom of speech," said Rabih Azad-Ahmad.

MP Naser Khader was born in Syria, and since moving to Denmark has become a well-known pundit and unapologetic critic of some aspects of Islam.

"I know several people who've gotten involved in the debate and subsequently pulled out of it altogether. One woman called me, quite shaken, and said she'd been threatened. Maybe the rest of us are tougher, but the fact remains that freedom of speech is the breath of democracy - and if you take that away, then democracy dies," said Khader.

 

[JustBob]

And the ZM trainwreck continues fullspeed ahead... Blinders on, fingers in ears: "must keep bashing Israel and the US, must keep bashing Israel and the US, must..."

And then he wonders why he gets "insulted", taunted and ridiculed...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

There he goes again... Sorry Ziggy, but you don't debate, you rant. And you just used one more of these rants to further expand and push your anti-US, anti-Israel agenda.

Gotta love the way you depict me as the idiot and you as the smart guy: "I debate, you rant": talk is cheap on your side of the board but, anyway, since I was about to address some of your arguments, your post comes in handy: I will answer a point or two for now because I don't exactly have all day and I can foresee that this will soon turn into an exercice of futility and of (your) insults throwing.

I fully acknowledge the situation in the Middle East (...) And I know full well that Arabs tend to view the world thru the prism of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. However, will this might serve to fuel the fire of Islamic fundamentalism, and upon further historical/sociological/cultural analysis of Muslim societies, you have to come to the conclusion that the root cause of Islamic fundamentalism is deeply grounded in religion and in the failure of the Muslim world to evolve into open, democratic, "civilized" societies. "Grievances" might fuel the fire, but are NOT the root cause of the fire.

It's mainly because of statements like the one above that I view your depiction of Islam as caricatural and your views on the "why's" of terrorism as - not completely wrong - but certainly out of focus when it comes to explain Islamic terrorism and assess ways to put an end to it. For the record, I am also well aware of the necessity (expressed by Islamic leaders themselves) of reforming Islam. Are you familiar with Tariq Ramadan works? You would spare me all the burden of summarizing his thoughts if you are. In spite of him calling for a deep reform of Islam and identifying the difficulties to put forth such needed reform, there's no statement made as to the Muslim world living in complete archaism and, most importantly, contrary to you, to some kind of "fatality" of Islamic fundamentalism. Could it be instead that, by "Islamic fundamentalism is deeply grounded in religion", you meant to say "in the practice of the religion" and not the "Koran" itself? That would not have the same significance at all, I hope you can appreciate that.

In any case, neither Ramadan, neither scholars like Mohamed Talbi and Farag Foda are depicting Islam the way you are: they all call for an Islam in agreement with the ideals of laicity and democracy, the promotion of women's rights, etc. but nowhere do I see the slightest suggestion that Islamic terrorism (under whichever form) would end the day Islam will have completed succesfully its efforts for modernization.

Basically, this idea is nowhere to be found in the works of these prominent authors which seriously leads me to think that these sort of suggestions you're making add up only to self-serving recuperation.

The way also you posted your essays in the context of the 9/11 attacks led to think that the majority of Muslims are archaic, which is grossely false. Your chronology is simply off. First, it must be said that the modernization of Islam has been "work in progress" for over a decade practically everywhere and, in some regions of the world, like Egypt, for at least the last two generations. Egyptian leaders like Taha Hussein and Salama Houssa were both born before the first World War and were very much active in opposing, to religious conservatism, a far more modern view of society. Later, but not that much later, people like Zaki Naji Mahmoud would defend a neo-positivist view of society which was much inspired by Bertrand Russel. Mahmoud Amine El Alen was a marxist, Louis Awad was a well-known revisionist and Fouad Zakariya literally attacked Islamic secularism... The list goes on and the evidence showing that Islam is not, as you clearly stated, incapable of modernization is completely off the charts. It's been work in progress for quite a while and despite the difficulties and resistances, there's been more success stories than you are willing to admit.

Part of my initial reluctance to discuss certain issues with you comes from the rampant generalizations and insults (not yours but from other posters) against what should be known to be one of the largest segment of population of the planet, with 1 billion human beings! This issue was discussed ad nauseam but there would still be a lot to say about how your statements on Islam caricatures what Islam is: not only a religion, but a culture and one of the greatest civilization of history, certainly one of the most brilliant that humanity has ever known. It's thanks to Muslim philosophers and scholars that some of the foundations of our own culture - prominent texts of the Ancient Greece - were preserved and forwarded to us, texts without which a priceless amount of mathematical (specifically algebra) and scientific knowledge would have been lost.

Finally, your depiction of the Koran as being a "religion of hate" is downright ignorant. Whoever cares to know, the Koran speaks of only one God, infinitely good and protective but also capable of punishment. It speaks also of human's responsabilities of doing good and of the Last Judgement, Heaven, Hell and eternal life after death. It tells the poors not to despair, to prey and hope. Sounds familiar? Not at all a religion of hate: "thou shall not kill" is a universal law widely recognized by Muslims.

Amateur...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

And the ZM trainwreck continues fullspeed ahead... Blinders on, fingers in ears: "must keep bashing Israel and the US, must keep bashing Israel and the US, must..."

And then he wonders why he gets "insulted", taunted and ridiculed...

That thing you got up your ass, make sure you rince it well before sticking it in your mouth, it's your pacifier. Maybe you should pursue this discussion with Beautydigger: you two deserve each other.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Good lord man, are you friggin serious? Are you really trying to compare autocratic, patriarcal, oppressive (hey! there's oppression for you!) and intolerant societies who suppress women's rights and have no separation of church and state to western societies? Not only that, but are you also comparing the isolated actions of a single (or even a few) nutcases in the US to an entire organized Islamic fundamentalist movement? Damn, you're even more delusional than I thought.

Take my hand and let me guide you through the dictionary. Do you see that word starting with an "I"? The word is "IRONY", you pronounce it "ahy-ruh-nee", got that?

Now let go my hand.