London, Terrorism and the World - DPChallenge Forums

07/14/2005 12:47:33 PM · #251

This is why Americans don't want the Gitmo prisoners tried. In truth, we really don't trust our court system anymore. In the following case, a confessed murderer was released because a police officer failed to include a particular word when he read him his miranda rights. (First we let them go if they were not read. Now a simple misreading is enough to let them go.)

There is a collapse in America's justice system that allows too much leniency and care on the part of the criminals. If I have a daughter who is raped and killed by a man and he is let off because the officer forgot a word in his reading of the miranda. Rest assured, I will kill that man and the judge who released him.

These situations will allow no option except for the return to vigilantism. From what I understand, Britain does not have this problem because their law dictates the matters as seperate cases. So, if someone illegally videotaped a murderer's confession. It can be used as evidence in the court trial. The videotaper will have a seperate case to determine the penalty of their crime. In America, the murderer often gets to walk free due to such. Imagine being the parent of the victim and watching such a man walk free on such a technicality. Now, imagine being the parents of his next victim.

"Missing word in Miranda warning allows accused killers to go free
He's on videotape calmly recounting to a Broward Sheriff's detective why he shot his best friend. A jury needed less than two hours to convict him of the May 2000 slaying. A judge sentenced him to life. And three months ago, John Q. Ripley walked out of prison."

Article

07/14/2005 12:48:11 PM · #252

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/14/2005 01:07:23 PM · #253

Originally posted by theSaj:

Sadly, it looks like Britain is reacting no better, if not possibly worse than the U.S. :(

Muslims agonize over London bomb attacks

More than 100 revenge attacks - including the alleged beating death of a Pakistani immigrant - have been reported across Britain since the London bombings. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Britons not to judge all Muslims by the acts of those inspired by a "perverted and poisonous misinterpretation" of Islam.

CLICK HERE

I'm totally confused. I cannot find any reports of these attacks in my newspaper and have not seen them on the British TV. The young man whose jaw was broken was in a brawl - does not say it was anything than usual saturday night fight. The danger here is putting every incident down to the bombings. In Leeds there is already a strong racist group but all appears calm there ( only 20 miles from my house).
Nottingham is another are where there is racial tension usually so could have been isolated incidents but not heard of them
London also very calm. No apparent tension on streets.
VERY surprised if this is as widespread as inferred and also very surprised if any of this has been kept out of the news over here. Not saying it hasn't happened but will be interested to watch out for reports. Will let you know if anything comes up.

By the way there is no doubt anyone involved in any retaliatory action would be arrested and charged.

:(
P

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/14/2005 01:08:28 PM · #254

Originally posted by theSaj:

07/14/2005 01:23:24 PM · #255

My guess, is a lot of it...are probably not racially motivated but situally. We had that problem, where any "conflict" after 9-11 was assumed to be racially motivated - and I bet many are nothing more than the crap that happens with retail clerks and customers on a daily basis.

But in the context, everything gets interpreted differently.

:(

Hopefully, it's just exaggeration...

07/14/2005 01:30:35 PM · #256

There are a lot of newspaper reports of over 300 retaliatory attacks and the fire bombing of mosques. There is a report linking a murder with Islamaphobe taunting.

TheSaj - I hope that you condemn these actions, and do not "conditionalise" the actions with statements such as "but then one in five [your statement - 20%] Muslims support terrorism or at least do not condemn it heavily enough, and Islam kills many women every day". It is those kind of remarks that people use to justify their actions against innocent people.

All the criminal acts are exactly that: criminals. The people committing the killing and acts of criminal violence and damage will be subject to the full legal process. I would not suggest that they be dealt with in anything other than under due process, no matter how religiously prejudiced and unbalanced they are.

Personally, I condemn those who use prejudicial language to stoke up emotions against all members of a religion.

The BNP is regarded as having record chances of a good turnout in a forthcoming by-election.

A sad day for moderation and rational and informed rule.

07/14/2005 01:45:02 PM · #257

Originally posted by theSaj:

Sensitive as ever. Fire bombing of mosques not being a religious-hate crime? You are probably right - these guys with burnt out places of worship are such exaggerators - they are so used to writing political tracts exaggerating the evil of the US that they get carried away when describing abuse against them - that is when they are done with torturing their women folk.

Thank goodness for your brand of anti-political correctness, seeing straight through the taunting of a Pakistani man visiting his relatives, as being "Taliban" and being killed. How can that be correlated with a indiscriminate wave of Islamaphobic feeling - why would anyone get the idea that a large chunk of Islam, and way too many muslims are to blame?

Incidentally, Pakistan being the world's second largest Islamic country, a firm supporter of the Bush invasion of Afghanistan and lending its military support in the region (maybe their actions in militarily assisting Bush's war against terror are "conditionalised" still too far for you to accept that there was any true condmnation of terror by Islamic nations).

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/15/2005 04:39:09 PM · #258

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Sensitive as ever.

OKAY... *whack*

Shake out of it LegalBeagle, *shake* *shake* *shake* you awake?

THIS IS WHAT ANNOYS THE HELL OUT OF ME!

Sensitive as ever...damn straight, I'm too sensitive!!!!

And yes, now, I am going to insult you - you are a bigot LB!

Now let me explain...I saw an article about 100's of retaliatory attacks. This after my nation was ridiculed as having a plague of reactions and being told how much better Britain was for not having such a plague.

I saw said article, but I was suspect of the source. I believe that at least some were likely but doubted quite so many. I did not have more than one source article and that one potentially hear-say. And was questioned on it by RiponLady:

"I'm totally confused. I cannot find any reports of these attacks in my newspaper"

So I assumed it was an exaggeration, perhaps a right-wing exaggeration, etc. I was trying to give you LB and Britain the benefit of the !@#$%ing doubt. I was assuming that it was perhaps an media exaggeration or what not. Hence my reply.

"My guess, is a lot of it...are probably not racially motivated but situally.....Hopefully it's just exaggeration."

I wasn't trying to !@#$% downplay the wrongness or severity of such crimes. I was unsure of the validity of the existence of them and had no other articles to confirm the claim that even one instance of attack happened. So I back down, perhaps it was bad info, and someone trying to list every incident that happened as a hate crime for media sensationalism.

"There are a lot of newspaper reports of over 300 retaliatory attacks and the fire bombing of mosques." - LB

Unlike you, I am not in Britain nor have i seen more than that one article. I'm not trying to deny them. I didn't want to !@#$% accuse you and your people without more evidence. Now that you've provided it...

A) if America had a plague it sounds like you have an epidemic akin the black plague.... *sheesh*

B) I condemn such actions fully. Just as I condemned the few morons in our country who did like wise. I believe perpetrators should be severely punished for such actions. They are uncalled for, inexcusable, and deplorable.

C) All "crime" to me is "hate"... I believe "murder" is "murder" (the motive is always disgusting). And I believe such perpetrators of crime should be punished. I believe their actions are deplorable. But I don't think we need special laws.... "murder is murder" "violence is violence" "hate is hate".

D) But I also believe your actions are deplorable... you have such a complex LB that it's truly sad. You see what you want to see. You think you understand - but you are as clueless and intolerant and extreme as a KKK member. Ready to spew so much hatred and disgust toward me because you totally misunderstood what I said. As you have done near a dozen times. Why? Cause you're a bigot in the truest sense of the word.

You repeatedly put words in my mouth which I've never said and in contexts I've never put them. If I say something, you assume it's purpose is for that which it's not. And you do it so constantly that you pile it in as a whole and interpret every statement from your assumed point of extremism. You are far more extreme than I my dear LB.

"Thank goodness for your brand of anti-political correctness, seeing straight through the taunting of a Pakistani man visiting his relatives, as being "Taliban" and being killed. How can that be correlated with a indiscriminate wave of Islamaphobic feeling - why would anyone get the idea that a large chunk of Islam, and way too many muslims are to blame?"

And this LB, is exactly why I don't adhere to your elitist political correctness. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and doubted the one source I had seen. I wasn't trying to downplay the wrongness and horribleness of such types of incidents...I was trying to be polite to you and give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I should have come out and said... "You accused America of a plague and you guys have for all your claims of being better than Americans on this issue - far surpassed us with your intolerable plague of death and insidious disgusting behavior."

I NEVER - NOT ONCE DOWNPLAYED THE WRONGNESS OF SAID ACTIONS!!!!
(I was only unsure of whether they were actually occurring)

And frankly, as far as I am concerned you owe me an apology, and my country an apology.

To me, for so skewing and misapplying what I spoke and what I was referring to.

To my country, because if you're going to accused me of a plague....than damn well admit your own plague and accuse me cause you told me "We do not want revenge killings and/or tension in our city and country." Well your nation sure seems "plagued by an epidemic" to use your terminology.

And this over a much smaller tragedy, (though far from negligable - as it is quite tragic and sad especially for those directly influenced by it)....but far from 3,000+ dead & two irreplaceable major landmarks lost forever.

Man...you got issues....

*sheesh*

Please LB, take a "breathe" ... perhaps if you were not so prejudice you would not interpret everything Americans like me say out of context and to such an extremist interpretation.

- The Saj

PS - And lastly, I'll post the following:

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

(that's some staggering statistics....the good news, they're declining pretty much everywhere but Jordan. But you go off on me for my claims. There you have it from their own words. And no, that's not all of the muslims. And no, I think most western muslims do not feel that way. But those nations have very large muslim populations. And those percentages even if you said "no muslims" in any other countries felt likewise would still equate to a substantially high number of extremists.

And if you do not believe that a willingess or acceptance to "suicide bomb civilians" is extremist - than you're a bloody fool and a moron and any other good British insult I am unaware of. But I believe by your own words you stated such behavior is extremist. So, yes...now I think a second apology for calling me a hate monger in saying 5%-20% of predominatly muslim nations.

Good day Sir....

Message edited by author 2005-07-15 16:55:44.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/16/2005 05:32:58 PM · #259

Here are some verses from the Quran:

4:101 When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the unbelievers May attack you: For the unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
8:12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
7:4 How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
59:2 He it is Who hath caused those of the People of the Scripture who disbelieved to go forth from their homes unto the first exile. Ye deemed not that they would go forth, while they deemed that their strongholds would protect them from Allah. But Allah reached them from a place whereof they reckoned not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So learn a lesson, O ye who have eyes!
8:7 Behold! Allah promised you one of the two (enemy) parties, that it should be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the unbelievers;-
3:156 O ye who believe! Be not like the Unbelievers, who say of their brethren, when they are travelling through the Earth or engaged in fighting: "If they had stayed with us, they would not have died, or been slain." This that Allah may make it a cause of sighs and regrets in their hearts. It is Allah that gives Life and Death, and Allah sees well all that ye do.

No comment :-) (unbeliever = non-Muslim)

Message edited by author 2005-07-16 17:33:50.

p2jvr

Canon EOS-40D

07/17/2005 04:59:08 PM · #260

Been away for the weekend and not been able to post. It does seem that the retalietory attacks over here have been kept quiet. Seen short sentence in one newspaper that mentioned over 100 incidents. I hate this! I don't know if the papers have been told to keep it quiet to avoid any escalation or whether they have not reported them for another resason. All I can say is it is VERY unususal for the British press to be muzzled. I don't know if it is best not to report them or not.

Saj I know LB has been away this weekend too so that is probably why he hasn't responded to your post. I can see where you were coming from because you replied in response to my post about not hearing of many attacks. There is not widespread condemnation of Muslims in UK at present. Most level headed people are very aware of this being fanatical murderers and not because they were Muslims. There is no excuse for the attacks on Muslims and I know this has added fuel to the bigots in UK who are just looking for a chance to express their racial hatred.

There is a lot more coming out in the press about the bombers - background all seems to be normal lads who have been in contact through Youth groups or Pakistani religious schools with extremism. There is a theory that they did not think they would die and were duped into believing the bombs were on timers. Apparently they did not fit the MO of suicide bombers having ID on them and not actually holding the bombs when they went off, leaving no wills, etc.

There is no doubt the government is going to come down hard on extremist leaders in the Muslim faith which I think could fire up more troubles. I certainly do not think this is the end of our problems.

:(

P

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/17/2005 05:02:05 PM · #261

sorry posted as my husband again!!!!
apologies the above post and views are mine not p2jvr

P

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/17/2005 05:04:34 PM · #262

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Pitsaman

I am sure there are equally inflamatory verses from the BIible that coud be quoted eg "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

Any religious tract is extreme but it is how it in interpeted by the reader or believer and applied to modern life that is important.
P

07/17/2005 07:02:33 PM · #263

I am pretty fed up of being constantly accused of misquoting you out of context - you do it repeatedly, and I have quoted your words largely directly.

In my last post I skewed your words by taking them to an extreme by way of holding them up to your face and trying to show you how they can be interpreted, and the feeling that they can invoke - it was deliberate exaggeration by way of example. I don't think that anyone rational reading the post would believe them to be a summary of your posts thus far.

Your first post was particularly damning for your argument, and it is one that I have returned to several times. I don't think that the quotes were out of context in that regard. Your posts do read extremely similarly to statements of the BNP (except that the BNP correctly identifies that their opposites are the political liberals (and liberal elitism), not the political left). They also claim to be sensitive, and to see through "political correctness gone mad". Cf. your comments on my "elite political correctness". However, they accept that their policies are ultra-right wing.

I have explained what "plagued" means - you have got very hung up on one word, and one interpretation. I have spoken to three people in the last two days who were in the US on and immediately after 9-11: they all commented, in the context of the English threat and the topic of revenge attacks, on how loaded and charged the atmosphere was. An atmosphere in which a lot of prejudice grew very quickly. This materialised itself in some hate-crimes. It is doing the same in the UK. This kind of thread is a symptom of that very tension (I do not think that people would really be dicussing the issue, or criticising Islam, but for the bombings. It is the bombings that has thrown one religion into the spotlight, for a number of critics to criticise roundly. So: plagued, in the context of bad feeling plaguing your nation and mine. Plagued in that bad feeling resulting in hate crimes.

My criticism was directed at those inciting and propagating the misinformation that spreads the hatred - it is the only reason why I have been carrying on this thread - your very first post is exactly the kind of vitriolic writing that causes the reactionary problem.

I have never tried to criticise the US for it specifically, nor said that the UK is better. You have an enormous chip on your shoulder: stop reading everything as a direct criticism of your country. I criticised the wave of violence and said that I did not want it to happen here (as you quote me later in another context). It is happenning here - it deeply saddens me, and makes me very cross. I do not pretend that the UK is "better", nor did I say as much.

The slightly worrying thing is that you keep on thinking it is "just a few morons" in the US who are perpetrating the hatred against Muslims, while a large proportion of muslims are supporting the terror.

I think that about 50% of what you write is probably objectionable down to sloppy phrasing, and 50% is objectionable down to your right wing leanings and some misbelief. I have repeatedly picked up on some of your most objectionable phrases, and you have (in my book) failed to explain them properly. For example, you agreed that you probably mistyped when blaming Islam, the religion, for killing many women every day. But then you modified your statement to say - it is Muslims who kill many women every day - you refine one objectionable phrase into another objectionable phrase.

The figures you posted make interesting reading: the do back up some of your claims in part - but only in part. The question was whether suicide bombing and targetting civilian targets was justified to defend Islam. Of course I denounce the philosophy of attacking soft targets (suicide or not - not quite sure how that affects anything). Such is an extreme view. However. it is one question, and there are more reasons for the figures than just support of terror per se. The countries chosen are not representative of the Muslim west, and do not necessarily represent the views of the moderate interpreters of the Muslim faith. Your criticisms against "Islam" remain unfounded, and some statements such as the one on women still amaze me.

As for apologies: I have not insulted your country. My comments are deliberate as regards your use of words, and need no apology.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/17/2005 07:05:50 PM · #264

Originally posted by pitsaman:

"No comment" is an outright lie. Negative presentation by selective editing is one of the most objectionable forms of commentary of which I am aware.

deapee

Kodak V803

07/17/2005 07:09:17 PM · #265

Oh goodness, are we still at this? Let's just rent some boxing gloves and you guys can all duke it out. ;)

07/18/2005 10:43:47 AM · #266

"In my last post I skewed your words by taking them to an extreme by way of holding them up to your face and trying to show you how they can be interpreted"

Yes, and if one were to do that with your own words they can be taken as such. That's your problem LB. You add thoughts that were never said. In fact, you have to often add words to change it. And the result - you damn people for things they have not done.

"I don't think that anyone rational reading the post would believe them to be a summary of your posts thus far."

What you did was to me out and out defrauding - and here your even admitting it. And this is very typical of your behavior.

"I have explained what "plagued" means - you have got very hung up on one word"

Yes, because your accusational tone and way you phrased it and the context you said it was as an insult and an attack. And frankly, far out of line. Just one of many numerous examples of you taking things to extreme in your condemnation of people you disagree with. See you do this in your head so you can feel good about yourself for condemning people you disagree with instead of addressing their concerns and points directly.

And because you mis-used the word. A plague denotes widespead and high levels of infection. A plague is used when a significantly large percentage of the population is showing signs of infection. So either you were using it as it came across or you misused it and owe us an apology,

"I have spoken to three people in the last two days who were in the US on and immediately after 9-11: they all commented, in the context of the English threat and the topic of revenge attacks, on how loaded and charged the atmosphere was."

And guess what... I was here, in fact one of my best friends was at Ground Zero cleaning up on September 11th. The atmosphere was...mourning, togetherness, fear, support...in fact, it was quite interesting because on that day and for several weeks following it seemed like Americans put away so many of their petty issues. Racism seemed non-extistant...blacks, whites, asians, everyone was coming together and were seeming "people".

There was very little "charged" feel (as you interpret it). Was it "charged" yes....but most of that was with regards to what was going to happen next, was it over, OMG..." And by the way, I live about an 1-2 hours from NYC. So I am speaking firsthand...

"An atmosphere in which a lot of prejudice grew very quickly."
Maybe in a few hick country areas. But most of what I saw was simple pride and support. Sure I saw a truck with it's window painted that said "Nuke the Bastards". That was one extremist proclamation in weeks after an horrendous deed.

As for Americans and American Muslims. Most Americans were very concerned and motivated to not see backlash. Many supported the arab immigrants they knew. (ie: I used to go across the street from my work to a gas station to get a snack and a drink. There was a Arab immigrant named Hassan who worked there and who I'd always chat with. We simply talked and I wished him well-being and safety. And so did most people. Many Americans understand that most of the Arabs in the U.S. are here because they're trying to escape the "insanity" of the middle-eastern region.

"Plagued in that bad feeling resulting in hate crimes."
And that is far from what you said...and how you said, which was to "look" down on Americans in a "we are better than you" tone. And to inflate the magnitude of events disproportionately than what they were. So yes, if you want to say such behavior as to "hate/attack a fellow man simply because of his ethnicity" is a plague of the human race - I'll agree - cause it is. But that is not at all what you said. And I believe you are back-pedalling quite far on this.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Your first post was particularly damning for your argument, and it is one that I have returned to several times..... your very first post is exactly the kind of vitriolic writing that causes the reactionary problem.

Let's review my first post...

Originally posted by "thesaj":

Mind you, we hear all about the displaced Palestinians and those killed by Israeli soldiers. However, let's not forget a few facts:

a) many of the displaced Palestinians were displaced by neighboring countries like Jordan who siezed much land.

b) sure, there are 600,000 displaced Palestinians. However, how often do you hear about the 500,000 Jews who were displaced from the surrounding Arab countries. These are Jews who's families lived in the middle-east since before the Romans, Greeks and Persians.

c) there is a big difference between killing people while they're shooting you, or even innocents dying in the cross fire (because if the terrorists were not firing there would be no crossfire for their children to die in)....as opposed to attacking civilians and children on buses

d) I know the Israelis love their children....I really have to question much of the Palestinian society as being diseased for sending their children out as bombs. Now, I will iterate I have several friends who are Palestinians. And I will attest that most Palestinians simply want peaceful existance and the right to prosper their families. But sadly, it is very hard to differentiate between a such a Palestinian and a violent Palestinian.

e) and yes, it was easier for America to support a democratic european influenced state then tyrannical dictator and/or petty prince ruled regimes.

So let's see was it some horrible evil post...so insidious as to make you return to it repeatedly.

a) Historical fact....see nothing wrong though I am sure you do.

b) Historical fact.... that many Jews were displaced into Israel from the surrounding sides. So yes, I am sick and tired of the unilateral statements. Address the wrongs on both sides. Not just one. So I see nothing wrong with this but I am sure you do.

c) As for (c)...the events are tragic. And I hope for a world where neither occur. But this is a fairly established understanding throughout the world. In fact, you've acted on this basis in your own statements. I believe you stated support or at least understanding on the action in Afghanistan in your posts for essentially this reason.

d) First off, if you do not see a problem with sending children as suicide bombers or using them as shields than you're insane. And if that is not a sign of a diseased populace than I don't know what is. And if you are taking offense of me saying I "have to question much of the Palestinian society" as diseased (especially in context of your plague reference) followed by I "believe most Palestinians simply want peaceful existance and the right to prosper their families". And the problem is that it's extremely difficult to distinguish one from the other. And please don't tell me it's wrong to typify a segment of population that uses children as bombs and shields as "diseased" but okay to label a significant percentage of Americans as "plagued".

e) I guess you'd find it easier to

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The slightly worrying thing is that you keep on thinking it is "just a few morons" in the US who are perpetrating the hatred against Muslims, while a large proportion of muslims are supporting the terror.

I was here, and I saw very little - that is not to say it didn't happen. And in fact, it did. And it was tragic and unacceptable. But compared to the said polled regions (which are mostly Islamic based governments and establishments) - it's quite differing.

"The question was whether suicide bombing and targetting civilian targets was justified to defend Islam."

And I believe if you asked most Americans "whether suicide bombing and targetting civillian targets was justified to defend Christianity." they would offer a resounding "no". Most Christians, the vast majority, offered a resounding "no" in response to whether targeting abortion doctors to save the lives of the unborn was justified. So when you try to compare the two, the American and said polled states and the responses given by the populace - they are far different. When you compare them the way you do, the result is that you make yourself out to be an extremist - to us.

"The countries chosen are not representative of the Muslim west"
Please show me an example of a Muslim nation in the West. Most people are referring to the region in which most Muslims reside. Middle-East/Africa/Asia juncture. And in that region, it typifies too well sadly.

"and some statements such as the one on women still amaze me."
In the context you take it...it probably would. But you see, I don't believe hardline/fundemental Islam respects women. I believe it respects the "role" of women but not women themselves. Too me, forcing women to be covered, to stay indoors, to not function unaccompanied, to be denied education. To be divorcable by "three statements" and not have any recourse or means to divorce an abusive husband. Are NOT to me "respect of women"... I am sorry.

You make statements that are equally wrong as mine. When you say "Islam" respects women. You insult women. When I said:

"And yes, sure witches or women thought to be were killed. We're talking a small handful compared to the number of women Islam kills. In fact, I'll wager that Islam kills more women in a day than the American Colonial Colonies did in their entire existance."

Yes, I mispoke, it should have been (translated into PC for LB) "particular adherants of Islam kills more women in a day".

And both are partly mispoke because there are various factions/denominations within Islam. And neither your point nor mine address such properly. My statement when factored on a whole becomes accurate because those extremist and fundamentalist denominations of Islam do indeed purport such heinous behavior on and toward women. And they are a part of the claimants to Islam. And not an insignificiant quantity either. However, your comment, works fine if you are just referencing the sections and denominations of Islam that do in deed respect women (and not just the role in society). But you did not quantity your statement either when you said "Islam" respects women. Islam as practiced by who. And this is the problem. First, such being extremely wordy so neither side quantifies as they should. Second, the difficulty for an outsider in distinguishing one quantified part from another. Furthermore, I see you very much as a hypocrite. With the crap and insults you toss toward christians. Even quantifying as "christian right" which you've shown very little understanding of who constitutes the christian right. What they believe. How much it varies. But I forgot...it's okay for you to insult, apply, or vindicate universally against christians. But damn anyone to a bigoted extremist who does the same....damn them 10 times even if they've quantified time and time agains that they are not referring to the entirety but to the active sections for which discussion is about.

And just as you raise a hissy fit when a statement of mine containing a negative is applied universally. I raise a hissy fit whenever you apply a positive claim universally so as to make it false as well. No, I am not going to sit back and here people laud that Islam is peaceful and respects women. I will accept that one segment of Islam is peace and respects women. But I am fully undeniably aware that another segment of Islam is not peaceful nor does it respect women. And neither portion is of insignificant size. And sadly, there is no term to distinguish one from the other. And it's too much of a pain in the ass to add 3-4 quantifiers in an attempt to specify only to have a moronic ass like you come and find some way it can be applied to the whole because of a lack of a 5th or 6th quantifier.

And after dealing with such for a couple years now...yes, I'll go on record as saying that "There is a problem with and in Islam!"

And that does not mean there is a problem with every Muslim. But at least some of them. And that some is a part of Islam. Thus there is a problem in Islam!

- The Saj

07/18/2005 10:47:08 AM · #267

Originally posted by deapee:

Oh goodness, are we still at this? Let's just rent some boxing gloves and you guys can all duke it out. ;)

Yeah...too many people were complaining the "positive" path was boring. And I'm not sure Legalbeagle has a positive bone in his body - as he seemed to make some strong objections against the positive tack.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/18/2005 09:55:51 PM · #268

ok

Message edited by author 2005-07-18 22:03:31.

Example of why we don't trust courts for trying Gitmo prisoners

07/19/2005 09:23:13 AM · #269

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

07/19/2005 12:58:06 PM · #270

Ok - last post.

Jason, you continually miss my point. You constantly pick up on and defend small points, while I am trying to drive at bigger points (eg your several posts on my use of the word "plagued" is out of proportion. This is because bad feeling manifested itself following 9-11. I initially recalled it from the UK news, where the backlash was reported as being significant. The reaction was not necessarily in NY - one of the most metropolitan and diverse cities in the US, but some of the less tolerant states. On searching quickly, at pawdrix's request, it was reported that there were 8 related murders. I am just guessing, but I would guess that there were a lot more examples of, say, spitting and verbal abuse, physical abuse and acts of vandalism. But you debate incessantly whether this bad feeling was a "plague" or something lesser. I do not care: my point was that there was a backlash in the US, and I did not want it to happen here (though in vain). A sentiment I am sure that you would agree with: unnecessary violence is generally not tolerated. But instead, you have spent a lot of time telling me that I am acting in an elitist manner and demanding an apology for a perceived slight.

To get away from the numerous areas of minor dispute, I wish to reiterate my central point, and hope to do so by giving examples of what you have said, and how it could have been phrased in such a way as to avoid the negative connotations that you have applied.

My principal issue has been the prejudice that your words appear to excite. I would also like to contrast the language you have used with that used in examples of statements that exhibit racial prejudice. By giving such examples, my aim is to highlight the elements of your language that are prejudicial in the context of a prejudice that is well recognised, and has become socially unacceptable in a manner that religious persecution for some religions has not (but, I would argue, should). It avoids some of the complications, as the detail of the Qu'ran do not assist with this general point. The example I will use is homicide: The US Justice Dept. reports that "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002" (//www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm). This is a "fact", as good as any, and I hope that my presentation of it using your phraseology makes my concern apparent.

Example 1: 1st post

Originally posted by theSaj:

d) I know the Israelis love their children....I really have to question much of the Palestinian society as being diseased for sending their children out as bombs. Now, I will iterate I have several friends who are Palestinians. And I will attest that most Palestinians simply want peaceful existance and the right to prosper their families. But sadly, it is very hard to differentiate between a such a Palestinian and a violent Palestinian.

How I would have phrased such a sentiment:

Palestinians have an enemy in their midst: it is impossible for the world to distinguish between Palestinians who are moderate, those who support the extremist beliefs, and those who practice those extreme beliefs. I have to question the diseased minds of those people who act as suicide bombers and those who brainwash them. It is unbelievable that some of those people even use their children in their terrorist acts.

Reasoning:

I have muted the following implications: that most of Palestine is mentally "diseased", that most Palestinians send their children out as human bombs, that those who are not mentally diseased abusers of children cannot be distinguished from the remainder, which gives the consequential conclusion that all Palestinians should be treated as being mentally diseased persons who send their children out as human bombs.

I have deleted the references to "some of my best friends are [x]" statements because such statements are almost always used to justify the impartiality of the statement giver, whereas they do not provide such justification. When followed with a "but", they fall into the trap of making the statement giver sound over defensive, probably because they know that their statement is not socially acceptable, and it is the only "justification" that can be found.

The prejudice, re-expressed in terms of race:

I know that white people love their children. I really have to question much of black society as being diseased for bringing up their children to commit murder. Now, I will iterate I have several friends who are black. And I will attest that most blacks simply want peaceful existance and the right to prosper their families. But sadly, it is very hard to differentiate between such a black and a murderous black.

Example 2: 4th Post (this is the one I have largely been referring to: it is in the group of first posts you made)

Originally posted by theSaj:

Nearly every place this religion borders on - there is conflict by the extremists.

How I would have phrased such a sentiment:

I would distinguish Islam, the religion expressed in the Qu'ran, from the actions of nations that have Islam as their state religion, or where the populace are predominantly Islamic in faith. Those nations have recently been involved in a number of disputes. There appears to be increasing polarisation between those Islamic states and non-Islamic states. In a number of those disputes, religion is raised as an issue, demonstrating increasing tension between Islamic and non-Islamic states.

I would add a further distinction: there is a movement by some hard line Muslim leaders to establish a "nation of Islam". The distinction is politically useful in certain states, as a common factor that enables a group of states to wield greater power than they would individually. Some protagonists, including Osama Bin Laden, appear to have take that to an extreme, and have such a super-state as their goal. That is objectionable on a number of grounds, not least because government by way of religion offends a core principle of good genvernment in the West, separation of religion from state, which has been of significant value in the growth of civilisation.

[I do not agree with parts of this, but if I were to express itâ�¦] I consider it likely that there is a connection between the actions of Islamic states and the manner in which Islam is practiced within those states. The practice of Islam in those states is of the hard line variety and that spills into their politics, reflecting an existing failure of the need to separate religion and state.

Reasoning:

The constant reference to "Islam" being the problem, leads to the conclusion that the religion is fundamentally at fault. It feeds the objectionable practice of choosing the most negative phrases from the Qu'ran (no more objectionable than parts of the Bible), using a negative translation, and pointing out the religion as having "gone bad". It is implied that the only solution to such a problem is to "change Islam" - ie change the holy writings. Which is not likely: the Qu'ran contains the words of god via Mohammed and the book is no more likely to be changed than a redraft of the Bible made. So, the ultimate conclusion from such statements is that Islam is fundamentally flawed, and it is unrealistic to expect to change it, so it must be opposed and, from that, eliminated. Such a statement does nothing other than inflame conflict.

I have been careful to split out the various methods by which "Islamic state" can be interpreted. I have muted the idea that all conflicts with Islamic states are the fault of the Islamic states (eg the Russian slaughter of Chechen separatists is hardly the "fault" of the Muslims. The Yugoslav conflict was nationalistic until Milosovic cast it in religious terms in order to obtain advantage). In some people's opinions (mine included), the US invasion of Iraq was not the fault of Iraq. You yourself included the US and Israel at the top of your list - two non-Muslim states, of which the US is predominantly Christian (with no Islamic state border) and both have strong Jewish factions - and each has been a recent military aggressor. From recent news reports, I understand that the subsequent terrorism in Iraq is substantially factional, with a substantial number of bombs being placed by factions controlled by the remnants of Saddam's family and supporters (though the religious extremists try to take responsibility fore everything for their own ends). By casting the wars in purely religious terms, the extremists, whose agenda is more complex than that, win: the conflict and division assists them, not us. There is more than one side in every conflict.

The prejudice, re-expressed in terms of race:

"or wherever you've got your views on blacks as a race"

Might it be from viewing the actions of black people themselves?

Please tell me of a single place where there is a nation with a large black population nation and there is not civil strife, revolution and/or murder. In fact, the vast majority of civil strife and criminality in the world is conducted by blacks [List goes from Haiti to large parts of Africa (from S. Africa to Zimbabwe) and the US]"

Nearly every place these people inhabit - there is conflict by the extremists.

Originally posted by thesaj:

And yes, sure witches or women thought to be were killed. We're talking a small handful compared to the number of women Islam kills. In fact, I'll wager that Islam kills more women in a day than the American Colonial Colonies did in their entire existance.

This is a big one.

How I would have phrased such a sentiment:

Women have been struggling for equality with men for centuries, and in many parts of the poverty stricken and repressed world we see that struggle decades or centuries behind the position in the affluent West. In some parts of the world, this inequality has taken a particularly violent form, as a consequence of which women are killed, abused and seriously injured. Whereas such abuse, if discovered in the West is usually dealt with by the authorities using the criminal law, the strength of law in those places can be weaker. As a consequence, when discovered, the culprits do not face sanction, and excuses can be made for their behaviour. Those excuses vary from purported cultural and historical traditional laws, to purported religious reasons.

Reasoning:

People are killed and injured every day. Women (and to a far lesser extent, men), are abused every day. It happens all over the world. Your language is evocative of a slaughter taking place on a daily basis, among people of only one religion, by virtue of their religion. In contrast you have the US, for which you treat such abuse of women as a 300 year old history lesson.

Your words indicate that the problem is in Islam (later adjusted to mean hard line Muslims). The problem, you imply, is confined to a religion. By doing this, first you misrepresent the many other women being mistreated in society, who are abused by reason of culture, lack of order and poverty. Secondly, you imply that Muslim women are being mistreated on religious grounds. Thirdly, you imply that members of other religions do not suffer the same abuses.

The problems with your words are multitudinous (if the problem is religion, why do we not see those crimes being committed on a widespread scale in the West, where we have a significant Muslim population? Why do we see so many cases of abuse and murder in our predominantly Christian society?).

I know that there have been some high profile cases of women being tortured and/or killed, for abhorrent reasons. But your words suggest that this is typical of Muslims. In terms of people being killed, the only statistics I find are on this page: //www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html. The US has a homicide rate of 18.57 people per 100,000 per annum. The only Muslim country on the list, Kuwait, has a homicide rate of 1.01 per 100,000 people. These figures do not prove anything, but are indicative that the killing on religious grounds of women in Islam is a practice that is astonishingly small (statistically insignificant), correlates with the number of killings in other countries regardless of religion, and (I would guess) correlates most closely with poverty levels and low education levels.

The prejudice, re-expressed in terms of race:

And yes, sure witches or women thought to be were killed. We're talking a small handful compared to the number of women black men kill. In fact, I'll wager that black men kill more women in a day than the American Colonial Colonies did in their entire existance. [/quote]

[This statement is probably true. Making it does not mean that I am "seeing through the politically correct bullcrap". It means that I am taking a fact and using it to unreasonably prejudice black people without regard to the reasons for the fact's accuracy.]

Originally posted by theSaj:

[referring to 9-11] Furthermore, most of the nation looked upon that shortly there after as "wrong" and ensured it would not happen again. That is not the case with Islam, as most muslims defend the actions of such terrorists or try to conditionalize it instead of callingh it wrong. Islam is in desperate need of a renaissance.

How I would have phrased such a sentiment:

Most of the world looked on in horror at the 9-11 attacks and condemned the terrorism. A number of people supported the acts of the 9-11 terrorists, the most obvious being the supporters of Osama Bin Laden and those who have opposed the US for political, religious or cultural reasons. Scenes of support for the attacks were limited to hard line clerics and few supporters in the West. In the Middle East, there is broader resentment against the US and this manifested itself in a greater degree of support for the attacks.

There is continued support for terrorist action, with suicide attacks (and the consequent martyrdom and hero-worshipping of suicide bombers) being the most disturbing. These attacks are predominantly directed at Israel, where the continued dispute with Palestine peoples raises a significant degree of hostility throughout the area. Support for the dispute with Israel has led to increasing acceptance and support of extremist action. Anger is directed at the US for its uncritical support for the Israeli position, and more recently for the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Suicide bombers and support for them are predominantly motivated by religious rhetoric, though the motivations of those issuing the rhetoric is less clear. One strong motive appears to be the division of peoples on religious grounds, in order to create a polarised conflict from which the disparate groups of terrorists stand to gain most.

There continues to be widespread criticism of US foreign policy, in particular from the Muslim community. It must be hoped that the support seen predominantly in countries neighbouring Israel for suicide bombing continues to decline and does not extend to Muslim communities outside of that region nor in other conflicts.

We must call upon and support the attempts of the Islamic moderate to reduce the influence of the Islamic hard line and extreme factions.

Reasoning:

The use of the word "most" is misleading, even in the light of your statistics: the statistics relate to countries with strong ties to the Middle East conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people, and even then do not provide evidence of a majority.

Referring to "most of the nation" ignores (or singles out) the significant Muslim portion of the US.

I am still not clear what "conditionalizing" is - I believe that you are referring to criticisms of the US. As I have said before, such criticism is not support for the terrorism, and indeed is healthy: what nation is above criticism? Being the subject of terrorist activity does not absolve you from criticism.

Rather than criticising "Islam", the religion, why not criticise the hard liners, who interpret that religion in such a way as to seek to justify the terrorism? By doing otherwise, you are implying that the religion is fundamentally flawed - suggesting that the religion must be reformed, rather than its adherents. Recall that Christianity has undergone such a moderating influence in the last centuries, and did not need renaissance reformation (the Catholic church is unreformed).

[NB, I still do criticise the Christian hard liners in the same way as hard liners for other religions - do not know why you keep on banging on at me for criticising all religions equally, and suggest that I am singling out that one religion (it is only more useful by way of expel because it is the one I know the most about, and is the most relevant as you are a Christian and much of your country is Christian, and I presume that you also know more about it than you do, say, Hinduism or Sikhism, though I have sought to provide you with examples from those religions of hard line doctrines that I also disagree with).]

The prejudice, re-expressed in terms of race:

Furthermore, most of the nation looked upon that [the high murder rate among blacks] as "wrong" and try to ensure it would not escalate. That is not the case with blacks, as most blacks try to explain the reasons for the actions of murderers or criticise domestic poverty instead of calling it wrong. Black culture is in desperate need of a renaissance. [/quote]

Originally posted by theSaj:

"possibly improsoned and deported to Guantanamo where proper interrogation techniques can be applied without regard to western values and basic human rights"
There is very little evidence of severe abuse in Gitmo. And I am sorry, when i hear that they're forced into hot rooms or air conditioned rooms - that's NOT torture. You should see what they do - namely cut off heads.

How I would have phrased such a sentiment:
Erm - I really cannot.

Reasoning:

"they" distances a group from "us". "They" implies Muslims, and does not distinguish between any one of them. As for the torture - your statement belittles the experience of men isolated for hundreds of days, or placed in rooms too small to stand or to lie down in, without being able to talk to the outside world. You have demonstrated a failure of empathy. Your refusal to accept anything less than indefinite imprisonment does you little credit. You have taken "tooth for a tooth" a little too far, and in the process lost part of your humanity. As was told by a bishop the other day, "Turning the other cheek" need not mean allowing yourself to be walked all over: it means refusing to sink down to the other person's level.

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 13:10:35.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

07/19/2005 01:39:46 PM · #271

The problem here is the EU is composed of different countries, each with different laws. In the fight against terrorism, they have to come to some agreements as to make the laws more consistent and homogenous so that these extraditions can take place for people who are genuine terrorist threats or financiers, like Darkazanli. He has been known to have ties to al Qaeda for a long time and has been under investigation since 1998, but they haven't been able to come up with any firm evidence linking him to any crimes because he is involved with money laundering and bogus businesses for channeling moneies and these are the hardest crimes to investigate. Germany is already working on changing their laws to allow his extradition to Spain, but in the meantime, he's going to be watched very closely by all of the intelligence organizations involved with counterterrorism. Over time, the authorities will prevail in finding the funding sources for terrorism.

However, in no way does the case of Mr. Darkazanli excuse the Bush administration for treating the detainees at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or those in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program abusively and without due process. If they have genuine suspicion of criminal terrorist activity they should be holding public hearings so that the world can see who they are. If the Bush administration have any evidence of terrorist intent of the detainees, then the world would acquiesce to their detention and the Bush administration should be happy to hold hearings, as it would most assuredly take the heat and extreme criticism off of them from the world community. Torture and mistreatment of the detainees not only put our military personnel at risk of equal, or worse, treatment, but most military higher-ups and intelligence experts agree that torture does not render reliable informants or information. Victims of torture say anything the torturers want to hear when under interrogation.

Places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are doling out their own versions of terrorism and the Arab peoples are well aware of this. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recently come out condeming the actions and policies of the Bush administration in Iraq, as have other groups, such as The World Tribunal on Iraq. Along with the Iraqi invasion and occupation by the predominantly American and British forces has lead many Muslim people to view this as a war against Islam so that the ranks of terrorist organizations are swelling, not with career terrorists, but with people who never before associated themselves, or supported, terrorism. We have the Bush/Blair project to thank for this and the British people have paid dearly for the indiscretion of their leader.

According to a report by Chatham House, a well respected British think tank, "... there is â��no doubtâ�� that the invasion of Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK and for the wider coalition against terrorism. According to the paper, the situation in Iraq has â��given a boost to the Al-Qaeda networkâ��s propaganda, recruitment and fundraisingâ��, whilst providing an ideal targeting and training area for Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists." This does not sound like the rhetoric that Bush and Blair would like to have us believe that the terrorist don't like our freedoms. The terrorist attacks, both inside and outside Iraq, represent a resistance to policies of the US and British governements. It doesn't seem to hard to figure out why the Bush administration has pulled out of the International Criminal Court.

One could also ask why the Bush administration is not consistent in their fight on terrorism, as they themselves are harboring a known terrorist in Luis Posada Carriles. They refuse to extradite him to Venezuela, despite that country's protestations.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Example of why we don't trust courts for trying Gitmo prisoners

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 14:00:28.

07/19/2005 06:36:22 PM · #272

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

(eg your several posts on my use of the word "plagued" is out of proportion.)

No more than your out of proportion comments and interpretations of so much of what I've said.

"On searching quickly, at pawdrix's request, it was reported that there were 8 related murders."

Incidentally, 3 of those are determined to be related and the others are suspect. With at least one being a crime of passion (jealous ex-b/f) and another a bad been transaction gone sour. Though it is likely that the atmosphere contributed to a lessoning of mores in both those cases. And all the deeds are horrendous whether ethnic hate or passion hate.

"I do not care: my point was that there was a backlash in the US, and I did not want it to happen here"
My point, is you did not expressed such. You chose your words poorly. And you presented your statement in a critical way so as to make an argument.

"We do not want a repeat of the racially and religiously motivated revenge attacks that plagued the US after 9/11. It sounds as though those messages are just not getting through to you." - LB

You try to insinuate that I support or my views are the cause of such they are not. You tried to insinuate something as more than it was. And in context to make it seem as if your nation was choosing a different path. In truth, there were nearly 10x the number of incidents in Britain than the U.S. for the size of the incident (WTC toll / GB toll). And I did not see you mention a thing until it was brought out. And even then you did so only to accuse me supporting such incidents - which in no ways have I done. And you even admitted that your post was fabricated to make a point and that anyone should be able to see that. (Dismissing the fact that anyone not reading the whole thing would likely not realize that fact.) Then you question my offense at such...

"A sentiment I am sure that you would agree with: unnecessary violence is generally not tolerated."
Absolutely agree upon. It's called Passive Restraint. It's not pacifism. Cause I believe there are times force is necessary. But to apply only when necessary and as a last resort.

"My principal issue has been the prejudice that your words appear to excite."
You see, the problem is, that you do not see the prejudice of your own words. Every time the left mentions 600,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes...but fails to state that 500,000 Jews were also displaced from there homes in the surrounding Arab regions. That is a prejudice and an unfair bias.

"The US Justice Dept. reports that "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002". This is a "fact", as good as any, and I hope that my presentation of it using your phraseology makes my concern apparent."

How dare you say such a racist and anti- african-american statement like that. You are racist. See...if you weren't you wouldn't have even said such a thing. Perhaps less whites are caught committing homicide. You should have re-phrased that to say "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to be convicted of homicide in 2002."

*grins*

Welcome to your world bro...

Mind you, most of my points in my first post (the one you so vehemently and repeatedly address), were facts.

"Palestinians have an enemy in their midst: it is impossible for the world to distinguish between Palestinians who are moderate, those who support the extremist beliefs, and those who practice those extreme beliefs. I have to question the diseased minds of those people who act as suicide bombers and those who brainwash them. It is unbelievable that some of those people even use their children in their terrorist acts."

And yes, mind you, would you happen to tell me in giving millions, and billions of $$$ in aid how you are going to tell them apart? Can you tell me the common characteristics of suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel? this way gate guards can keep just those ones from coming thru? if not, how can you say it is racist to prevent all Palestinians from entering when one cannot differientiate and that is the only substantial identifier to make determination with?

"that most Palestinians send their children out as human bombs, that those who are not mentally diseased abusers of children cannot be distinguished from the remainder, which gives the consequential conclusion that all Palestinians should be treated as being mentally diseased persons who send their children out as human bombs."

And you also failed to quote me that I said "Most palestinians just want to be allowed to live in peace and pursue the well being of their family". In truth, I shouldn't say that should I?

I should say those peaceful Palestinians who only want to live in peace and pursue their well-being of their family because I do not know if that is most...just as I don't know if most are diseased. You see, this is why I so passionately hate your politically correct syndrome. It's not fair, it does not have rules or balance - it is just indeterminately set based on politeness and association.

Furthermore, for all your hoop-la you've failed to achieve the necessary goal. Protection. Yes, in regards to protection "the consequential conclusion that all Palestinians should be treated" or at the least potentially. Let me explain. Like you referred to America's post-911 plague, and my reference to "diseased"....much is quite similar to a disease. If a population is infected by a contagious disease and specifically one for which you have no testing means to identify and seperate the infected from the non-infected. You isolate the entire population within "infection potential". Is this a good thing? Is restricting the freedoms of people a good thing? NEVER...but sometimes it's a necessity.

If an untreatable unidentifiable smallpox plague were to occur in the U.S. they would quarantine the area. All those citizens would be detainees unable to move about. Perhaps interred in a camp. And guess what.....they'd never ever be "tried"...rather, they would be held until there was assurance that they no longer posed a risk to society and could then be released.

"probably because they know that their statement is not socially acceptable"
No, because they know in their hearts they do not have a prejudice to such individuals of a said group but they know that since they are referencing an observable characteristic exhibited within the group as a whole (that does not mean all but within) that some leftist SnOB will surely come out decrying "hate-mongering, racist, extremist" and usually these "liberals" are all talk...very little actuality (from my personal observance they're dishonest lip service). I often find it funny that "liberals" will so often be "polite" but then won't actually "have any such friends"...

I found it quite funny when a high school friend of mine had her "coming out of the closet party" and so many were worried how I'd react and whether I'd still be her friend. They weren't sure whether to tell me...being a christian and all... (now mind you there is common prejudice - though perhaps not wrongly earned). As I said, I don't necessarily support such lifestyles but it's not going to stop me from being her friend and loving her. The irony....it was my "liberal" friends who had much more problem truly accepting her and dealing with the matter.

"I know that white people love their children. I really have to question much of black society as being diseased for bringing up their children to commit murder. Now, I will iterate I have several friends who are black. And I will attest that most blacks simply want peaceful existance and the right to prosper their families. But sadly, it is very hard to differentiate between such a black and a murderous black."

Not quite the same situation...but I will iterate this. Would one be wrong to say "there is definitely a problem in the black community, it is undeniable, and can clearly be seen by the homicide rates - even black on black murder rates." And saying something like that will usually get me trashed as a racist. *shrug* But THERE IS A PROBLEM! Bill Cosby is hated by the media because he's saying the same thing. But they can't call him a racist cause he's "black". And they (media) so hate him for saying so. But most of the blacks I know respect him and agree with him.

""Nearly every place this religion borders on - there is conflict by the extremists."
I would distinguish Islam, the religion expressed in the Qu'ran, from the actions of nations that have Islam as their state religion, or where the populace are predominantly Islamic in faith."

But it's not necessarily the governments. (I believe you mentioned that many of those states the governments state they're against terrorism. It's the extremist adherants/claimants of Islam. So here....even when I've quantified that the "conflict" is only on the part of the extremists. That's not enough. This is why I believe no matter what anyone says. It will not be enough. The "the religion expressed in the Qu'ran" does not exist, "the religion expressed in the Bible" does not exist. The Qu'ran and the Bible exist (and one can discuss whether either or both or none are the actual word of God). But the "religion expressed" comes from the adherants and is expressed by the adherants. You'd be more honest if you condemned both the Qu'ran and the Bible...(as both have sections that can be taken as offensive and are in great opposition to liberal thought) or simply focused on the "religion as expressed by the adherants". In which case... my comment of "by the extremists" is 100% adequate.

In truth, I think you're just beating around the bush with your own prejudices and are being dishonest to your own heart. So you try to see fascist, racist, etc. anywhere you can in people of differing opinions for you so that you can justify your dismissal of others.

"I would add a further distinction: there is a movement by some hard line Muslim leaders to establish a "nation of Islam"."

So now I cannot even be critical of terrorists. I must term them "hard line movers".... ???

"The constant reference to "Islam" being the problem"

I said there is a problem within "Islam"...I did not say "Islam" is the problem. The only time I make such quantification is when I say "Mankind is the problem"....actually, when I say it I quantify it as "Mankind, and his lack of love for his fellow man, is the problem!"

"It is implied that the only solution to such a problem is to "change Islam" - ie change the holy writings."
Once again, you assume the interpretation of people's statements. You assume that if someone says "change Islam" that they mean alter the holy writings. When usually, they are referencing a change in the common (mis)interpretations or practices of said writings. For example: sure it says in Scripture to put "x" to death for "y" action. And there are some who want to act in such fashion individually. (When such is to be done within the judiciaries of government.) And many were killed by such. I believe, to this date, the medieval Catholic church is still responsible for killing more protestant/reformation believers than any other entity. However, a "change" was made to how christianity was being practiced in the "West". One might say an enlightened understanding or perhaps a more gracious and loving and redemptive understanding. And it is to such a change that most reference when they say Islam needs a change. And they are not referencing everyone in Islam...simply in general because Islam includes such. Just like christianity includes the abortion doctor killer. In perhaps name only. But it is within the the sphere of the "Christian" label. It bespeaks to those needing the change - not those who've already underwent the necessary change or had no need of change for they were not so tainted.

"So, the ultimate conclusion from such statements is that Islam is fundamentally flawed, and it is unrealistic to expect to change it, so it must be opposed and, from that, eliminated."
In fact, much of Europe has taken this approach to christianity. I believe several passages of Scripture are now labelled hate speech in one or more nations in Europe and one can receive jail sentences for publicly reciting them.

My listing of the occurrences throughout are widespread, and vary. And the blame and extent of the blame varies as well. India, often known for it's more pacific and peaceful approaches (being one of the few asian Colonial provinces to gain freedom thru non-violent means). Yet there is immense conflict. My point was to show something as widespread. Particularly, the "extremists" as being wide-spread throughout the regions.

"There is more than one side in every conflict."
[This is a fundamentally flawed statement. You say this with absoluteness. It is indoubtably not the case. And this is easily observed on a children's playground. Often, there is only one side in a conflict. This is probably why we are so divergent. You likely believe such to be true to the core of your being. And I know it to be a false premise and philosophy. Very few kids who were bullied will agree with your statement. You see, no matter how much such kids as "nerds", "runts", "geeks", etc tried to avoid conflict, relocate, etc. The conflict came to them. Was it anything they did? No...it was simply because they were there. "Existence" is not justification to blame conflict upon.

You are judge like Principal Florio (a !@#$% ass) who would always lecture how it "takes two to start a fight". Well guess what world.... IT DOESN'T!!! It only requires one person to start a fight (although two are fully capable of doing so). I believe your above statement is a fundamental flaw in your entire premise and ideology and understanding of the world.

Because unlike you I do not believe that one's existence is enough reason to condemn someone for conflict (in other words, just cause you're in the playground and got attacked by a bully is not cause enough to blame you for fighting).

In truth, I think such statements represent a failure in leadership. An inability to address the matter and an attempt to simply escape by blaming both parties. I also believe it is utterly wrong and an extreme injustice to tell a young kid who never even threw a punch back in his defense that he is just as guilty as the bully who repeatedly beats him up.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Might it be from viewing the actions of black people themselves?

Please tell me of a single place where there is a nation with a large black population nation and there is not civil strife, revolution and/or murder. In fact, the vast majority of civil strife and criminality in the world is conducted by blacks [List goes from Haiti to large parts of Africa (from S. Africa to Zimbabwe) and the US]"

Nearly every place these people inhabit - there is conflict by the extremists.

The difference between you and I. You get wrapped up on the semantic. I would look at that and say... "Okay, what do we do to change it? how can we fix it? why is it happening?" to me, denial is a poor excuse. And to me, a failure to address and fix issues is much more prejudice.

Oh, by the way...not positive cause this is not an area I am quite familiar with. But I believe Bermuda has a large black populace and is not plagued by civil strife, revolution or genocide. This leads me to believe that such is possible and we should devote ourselves to helping the changes occur elsewhere to eliminate those events in the regions that are plagued by it.

"And yes, sure witches or women thought to be were killed. We're talking a small handful compared to the number of women Islam kills. In fact, I'll wager that Islam kills more women in a day than the American Colonial Colonies did in their entire existance."

I believe that was in reference to a statement essentially saying "christianity kills women"

"Whereas such abuse, if discovered in the West is usually dealt with by the authorities using the criminal law, the strength of law in those places can be weaker."

And here I think is the beauty of interpretation. What is "the West" but a place that went thru a "change". In fact, it took a change on the part of active christianity in that region to allow such a development. It took "Christianity" stopping it's horrendous behaviors and diseased deeds. Does that mean all of christianity? of course not...heck, you had christians as far as asia many of whom completely unaware of the going ons of Europe or the existance of the Americas. So, when people say that the middle-east or the Islamic World (a term for the area of predominantly and densely islamic nations) need change. Or Islam needs change. It is this change that many feel is necessary to see said region become more akin to your West.

"People are killed and injured every day. Women (and to a far lesser extent, men), are abused every day. It happens all over the world. Your language is evocative of a slaughter taking place on a daily basis, among people of only one religion, by virtue of their religion. In contrast you have the US, for which you treat such abuse of women as a 300 year old history lesson."

There is a difference between occurrences and accepted occurrences. Yes, women are raped in the U.S. every day. But such is not an accepted practice. There is even still some prejudice toward women in the workplace mostly on the part of the older generations. But such is not commonly accepted. And women now can work, vote, got to college, etc. quite freely in the U.S. and some would argue even easier than men in some of those areas. And I address the issues which are existant today...not yesteryear or before I was born.

I don't speak out about slavery because it was before my time, even before the time of my immigrant ancestors arrival to America. I do speak out about slavery in Sudan, the middle-east, and yes, in America (with regards to Chinese restaurant slave-labor and Russian prostitution) and gripe "why so little is being done about those".

"The problem, you imply, is confined to a religion."
No, I never said it was confined to a religion. You said that (or read that) because IMHO you're bigoted. But I did imply there is a problem within the religion.

"Secondly, you imply that Muslim women are being mistreated on religious grounds."
This, is a documented fact, that many women are mistreated on religious grounds.

"Thirdly, you imply that members of other religions do not suffer the same abuses."
No, you imply that. See you take a statement addressed on a topic to be exclusive. And I believe in most of my comments concerning such I quantified that they occur elsewhere. However, at this time, they are happening at a high level in "|||" region.

"(if the problem is religion, why do we not see those crimes being committed on a widespread scale in the West, where we have a significant Muslim population? Why do we see so many cases of abuse and murder in our predominantly Christian society?)."
As I said because of "renaissance" and the "Islamic" region is in need of a renaissance. Why do we so much abuse and murder in our predominantly christian society.

a) because we are failing to teach responsibility
b) because we've mostly thrown off our moral mores and moved to a relativistic moral code
b) because we're too cowardly to address it when we see it

"but are indicative that the killing on religious grounds of women in Islam is a practice that is astonishingly small"
You are speaking "apples" and "oranges", I am not speaking quantity of killings. I believe it's quite well known America is excessively high in that regards. However, we're talking the motivation and acceptance of such killing. Which I do believe is akin to the "witch trials" 200 yrs ago. In that they are killings that are being accepted by society or pockets there of and done in an established way as opposed to the vagabonds and wanton murder, greed, and villainry. And it is generally accepted that even these reasons are appalling and there is a societal stance against them with intolerance of their occurrence.

"(statistically insignificant)"
Not too the victims...

(I find it funny, depending on if the view is right something is insignificant or not. And this goes for me in debating as well. We are all guilty of this. And this is my point all along. That, you, I, etc. are human. I look at every man as being humand and judge each individual individually. But I also will look at a demographic and make a generalization if such does exist. I don't play word games - to me, it makes no point to be polite when telling someone they're driving off a cliff. You simply shout to them "stop...your going to go over a cliff".

- The Saj