Muslim's are NUTS

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but "rarely" is still support for terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

The question in that poll is "do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend Islam". Do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend America? What is carpet bombing, if not attacking civilian targets to defend America? Heaven forbid we hold ourselves to the same standards with which we hold to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you see an eqivalency between strategic bombing during a declared action and someone blowing up a bus of teenagers on their way to a market you are beyond help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm 100% that the terrorists consider all of their killings to be a part of a declared action.

As a matter of fact, isn't that EXACTLY what this thread is about? If what they are doing isn't part of a declared action, then all of the anti-Muslim sentiment is obviously misplaced.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Radical Muslims:All Muslims as Jerry Falwell Evangelicals:All Christians. The former isn't exactly representative of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recently, a couple of physicians were implicated in a series of terrorist attacks. They were also Muslim, but I was talking about this with some medical people. I decided to make the ABSURD and OBVIOUSLY SARCASTIC comment, something to the effect of "OMG where is the AMA publicly denouncing these physicians? Surely, this isn't the way of moderate medicine! We are a profession of peace! Why are physicians everywhere silent about this? Speak out publicly!"

Everyone thought that was a valid point. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant. FWIW, I've always been a little leery of doctors.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but "rarely" is still support for terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

The question in that poll is "do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend *Islam*". Do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend *America*? What is carpet bombing, if not attacking civilian targets to defend America? Heaven forbid we hold ourselves to the same standards with which we hold to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the same standard, and it's not even the same question: the first poll question you cite above regards defending a RELIGION; the second question you list above regards defending a COUNTRY.

Try asking how many Americans would support attacking civilian targets in order to defend Christianity and I'd bet the answer would be far different. That would be the parallel to the question of how many Muslims support attacking civilian targets in order to defend Islam.

Also, Christians haven't been marching in the streets demanding the execution of those who have insulted Jesus, as throngs of Muslims did over the Mohammed cartoons. Apparently Christians aren't so fanatically motivated to defend their religion from perceived attacks or insults, as are Muslims.

In my opinion, the differences in religion and religious worldview are actually greater than most Americans think.

Also, I don't think "support for terrorism" is the most important question or even the real root question at all. I think the most basic issue is support for Shari'a.

Shari'a is deeply inimicable to modern Western values regarding equality before the law and various freedoms which we in the West generally treasure as essential. It doesn't have to b e "extreme" Shari'a, either, for it to be deeply antithetical to these values: good old regular run-of-the-mill-type Shari'a accomplishes that very effectively. Shari'a is acknowledged and considered authoritative by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. IMO Shari'a is the problem, and everyone who believes in Shari'a holds very different values from modern Western values. Shari'a values are not beneficial or desirable in any Western society. That doesn't make Shari'a believers bad people, just different people; and different in a way that is not really assimilable into Western society.

Wikipedia Shari'a

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to like doing this, picking up on completely irrelevant discrepancies in an analogy and then going on about them as if they are important. Why is bombing to defend AMERICA somehow more morally acceptable than bombing to defend CHRISTIANITY? Is it because Christianity makes it clear that it is unnecessary to bomb in order to protect it? Well, thats fine, but of course thats just a lucky arbitrary coincidence. If Christianity DEMANDED using force in its defense, we'd be in a different spot, I suppose. Why is it more noble to intentionally target innocents to defend a nation than it is to do so to defend a religion? Both ideologies, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Radical Muslims:All Muslims as Jerry Falwell Evangelicals:All Christians. The former isn't exactly representative of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recently, a couple of physicians were implicated in a series of terrorist attacks. They were also Muslim, but I was talking about this with some medical people. I decided to make the ABSURD and OBVIOUSLY SARCASTIC comment, something to the effect of "OMG where is the AMA publicly denouncing these physicians? Surely, this isn't the way of moderate medicine! We are a profession of peace! Why are physicians everywhere silent about this? Speak out publicly!"

Everyone thought that was a valid point. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant. FWIW, I've always been a little leery of doctors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some interpret the Hippocratic Oath literally, but they are foolish. Hippocrates clearly meant some parts to be interpreted metaphorically, and while it leads to some misunderstandings (a ban on performing surgery? Obviously not literal! A ban on charging for medical education? LOL sooooo metaphorical) any open, honest reading of the Oath should lead you an understanding of what He meant.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but "rarely" is still support for terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

The question in that poll is "do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend *Islam*". Do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend *America*? What is carpet bombing, if not attacking civilian targets to defend America? Heaven forbid we hold ourselves to the same standards with which we hold to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the same standard, and it's not even the same question: the first poll question you cite above regards defending a RELIGION; the second question you list above regards defending a COUNTRY.

Try asking how many Americans would support attacking civilian targets in order to defend Christianity and I'd bet the answer would be far different. That would be the parallel to the question of how many Muslims support attacking civilian targets in order to defend Islam.

Also, Christians haven't been marching in the streets demanding the execution of those who have insulted Jesus, as throngs of Muslims did over the Mohammed cartoons. Apparently Christians aren't so fanatically motivated to defend their religion from perceived attacks or insults, as are Muslims.

In my opinion, the differences in religion and religious worldview are actually greater than most Americans think.

Also, I don't think "support for terrorism" is the most important question or even the real root question at all. I think the most basic issue is support for Shari'a.

Shari'a is deeply inimicable to modern Western values regarding equality before the law and various freedoms which we in the West generally treasure as essential. It doesn't have to b e "extreme" Shari'a, either, for it to be deeply antithetical to these values: good old regular run-of-the-mill-type Shari'a accomplishes that very effectively. Shari'a is acknowledged and considered authoritative by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. IMO Shari'a is the problem, and everyone who believes in Shari'a holds very different values from modern Western values. Shari'a values are not beneficial or desirable in any Western society. That doesn't make Shari'a believers bad people, just different people; and different in a way that is not really assimilable into Western society.

Wikipedia Shari'a

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to like doing this, picking up on completely irrelevant discrepancies in an analogy and then going on about them as if they are important. Why is bombing to defend AMERICA somehow more morally acceptable than bombing to defend CHRISTIANITY? Is it because Christianity makes it clear that it is unnecessary to bomb in order to protect it? Well, thats fine, but of course thats just a lucky arbitrary coincidence. If Christianity DEMANDED using force in its defense, we'd be in a different spot, I suppose. Why is it more noble to intentionally target innocents to defend a nation than it is to do so to defend a religion? Both ideologies, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, a country is much more than just an ideology. A country is an actual physical place with residents who actually live there. An ideology is an idea.

On smaller scale, if someone breaks into your home in a home invasion and attacks you and your family, they're attacking not just an idea but they are attacking you and your wife and children, physically. If on the other hand someone calls your religion or your pet ideas bad names, hey, that's a lot different don't you think? Which bone did it break when you were called some name?

So if America is physically attacked, as by Japan in WWII, it's an actual physical attack at an actual geographical location and against actual persons and actual property. If on the other hand Japan had merely officially called America's ideals and love for capitalism "a bunch of imperialist crap", that's just an attack in the world of ideas.

So defending your person and your country by using violence is a lot different than defending your pet ideas or your religion with violence. Someone attacking you or me physically is a lot different than calling you or me nasty names. You and I are not just ideas.

Nobody got physically hurt by the publication of the Mohammed cartoons (except for those poor unfortunates including a nun, who were savaged by Muslim mobs. And it's the mobs not the cartoons who harmed them).

I'd suggest you reconsider your premise that a country is just an ideology. You are more than an idea, right?

So comparing two questions: the first question involving the use of violence to defend an attack upon an idea, the second question involving violence to defend an attack upon actual persons and actual property, are two tremendously different things.

Christians aren't supportive of using violence against civilians to defend Christianity nearly to the extent that the poll shows Muslims are supportive of using violence against civilians to defend Islam.

There are defamations of Christianity going on frequently; Jesus is portrayed negatively in art and the written word, etc. Do ANY Christians march in groups demanding violent retibution against the insulters? Yet various groups of Muslims go crazy and demand (or even carry out) violent retribution when they perceive their religion or Prophet is being insulted. It's not just street mobs, either: high-ranking Islamic religious and political authorities called for the head of Salman Rushdie, for instance (one instance among many cases of death fatwas for things such as apostasy or blasphemy).

Do Christians do that in response to perceived religious insult?

Do Jews do that in response to perceived religious insult?

Do Buddhists do that in response to perceived religious insult?

What religion has actors who often do that in response to perceived religious insult, except the religion of Islam? I can't even think of one modern instance of Jews, Christians or Buddhists doing such things - yet Muslims are in the news regularly for burning down churches, calling for the death of apostates and those who insult Islam, etc.

Do you really think it's all about the same, or can you perceive some real basic differences in outlook and ideology and deeply held values?

I'll say again that I don't think such things make even fanatical Muslims bad persons. It's just a very different worldview, philosophy, religious ideology, culture and tradition that produces many people who hold very different values than the values you or I likely hold. That doesn't make them bad people; it makes them different people.

Bridging gaps starts with understanding, and turning a blind eye to common glaring differences is not the path to understanding. Also, turning a blind eye to important differences can be dangerous, but that's another discussion.

Thanks for reading.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sorry, but "rarely" is still support for terrorism

[/ QUOTE ]

The question in that poll is "do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend Islam". Do you approve of attacking civilian targets to defend America? What is carpet bombing, if not attacking civilian targets to defend America? Heaven forbid we hold ourselves to the same standards with which we hold to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

We ??????? Since when did canada get involved in anything ??????? Please don't say WE you have a nice quiet socialist country up there that has chosen to be the new switzerland. We're glad you want to stay out of everything and just play hockey. But Please DON'T say WE. You only associate yourself with America when it suits you and you attack us when it suits you. Spout your AC troll stuff somewhere else.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

or any of the polls provided in this thread, take a look at how many support suicide bombers/violence against civilians, and extrapolate how many people you think are terrorists. Your pulled out of thin air number of .01% is super [censored] up pal.


[/ QUOTE ]

A greater % of americans think attacks against civilians are "sometimes justified" than muslims. Guids, meet your petard. Petard, meet Guids.

[Mr Rat]

My Favorite Quote from 'The Kingdom of Heaven' where the main character states that he has lost his religion and the other guy states:

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of <u>every denomination</u> be called the will of god.

Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves and goodness. What God desires is here (points to the head) and here (points to the heart) and what you decide to do every day will make you a good man...or not."

EVERY RELIGION has fanatics...blame the individuals, not the whole. You judging a whole group is just as fanatic as those that use religion as an excuse for evil.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

EVERY RELIGION has fanatics...blame the individuals, not the whole. You judging a whole group is just as fanatic as those that use religion as an excuse for evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

As much as I agree with the sentiment of your post, and I wholeheartedly do, I don't think it is as simple and blaming the individual. It's not that all of these individuals are inherently evil. The social psychologist in me is compelled to say that the situations some of these individuals are placed in leads them awry.

None of this is to say that individuals shouldn't be held accountable, but if we just label these people as "bad apples" we won't come any closer to solving the problem.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point is, if anyone would spend any time doing any in depth research, or read the documents that these people are so adamant about, a lot of people would be changing their tune.

[/ QUOTE ]

i did some research and here is what i found:
Public Opinion in Iran and America on Key International Issues (The University of Maryland; january 2007):

80% of Iranians believe that attacks at civilians are never justified, while only 46% of Americans believe the same.

Overwhelming majorities of Iranians rejected as “never justified:” attacks on women and children (91%), the elderly (92%), and “wives and children of the military” (86%)…
…compared to Americans “never justified” attacks on: women and children 72%, the elderly 71% and wives and children of the military 74%.
Never justified attacks on government officials (53% I vs 24% A), policemen (49% I vs 37% A), intelligence agents (54% I vs 23% A).

also i found some info from your source (Pew Research Center) about approving abusive interrogation methods by catholics vs other groups. quite interesting.

[image]http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/RlNJnqGM05I/AAAAAAAAAAk/iPnS1bftTWo/s400/torture.bmp[/image]

[/ QUOTE ]

i was hoping for your thoughts quids.
in the mean time you might compare those numbers about support for attacks on civilians with some other another muslim countries here. you might be surprised. would you make some extrapolation on these polls?