SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Merged: How an unseen film triggered a panic throughout the West

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Merged: How an unseen film triggered a panic throughout the West (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133466)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba

Just another one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_modernity

Well the fastest growing "reform" movement inside Islam is Wahhabism, they especially target the young, future leaders of the islamic world and immigrants in the West.

Reminds me of Communism that targeted the youth, students and formed fifth columns in democratic countries, with the ultimate goal of world domination.

I've found that while being attacked, I seldom have time to engage the attacker in philosophical dialog concerning their theological beliefs. So...

My solution to attacks from disadvantaged sociopaths and religious extremists of all kinds:

http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/image...bodyarmour.jpg

Full body armor. Don't leave home without it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepIron

My solution to attacks from disadvantaged sociopaths and religious extremists of all kinds:

http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/image...bodyarmour.jpg

Full body armor. Don't leave home without it...

That picture is an insult you infidel crusader!!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...uslimspope.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

So all Muslims are trying to take over the world? I guess I'd better watch my back.

Sharia law is mandatory.

-S

It would be, if every Muslim interpreted their religious texts literally. Judging from the actions of the vast majority of the Muslim population, I would have to say most do not.

PD

But Subman is right. Ypu need to chnage your understanding what a true muslim is. If he does reject even some parts of sharia - he is not muslim in Quranic understanding. You may describe him as something, as anything, as whatever you want, but not truly islamic. The term Muslim/Islamic is reserved to describe a certain type of ideolgy with a certain set of key features - and an understanding of shria being mandatory. It is understood to be the tool keeping the faithful on the way laid down in the quran - voluntarily, or enforced.

Let'S not confuse labels, terms and names. It has become a bad habit in western disucssions of islam. And we alread pay high prices for that.

So when you say Muslims are ________, you do not refer the billions of people who call themselves Muslims, but really must not be if they don't follow what you may consider core parts of the text: eg's killing infidels and taking over the world?

I'm not being facetious, just asking for clarification.

PD

You may remember that I also refuse to accept all of today'S Christians as Christians. In this term, the word "christ" is included", it is Jesus (called the Christ) who is the basis of true Christianity, and consequently, the scripture christianity must base primarily on are his teachings, as reproted and told in the glad tidings - these are the heart and core of christian scripture. Before Jesus, there wasno such thing like "Chrstian relgion". There was Judaism before, and not before Jesus appeared there formed somethign up that was refrred to him and was called Christianity.

the message of Muhammad, and Jesus are totally antagonistic to each other. both men lived what they preached, the one preaching peacefulness, forgiveness, and rejecting aggression and earthly goods that just would pass while only soul's qualities could last through times and maybe find a place in "heaven" (it was not Jesus saying that by gods forgiveness everybody could find entrance into heaven, he even said the opposite, that everybody needs to make his own effort and that many do waste their life; it was the church introiucing the concept of sins and a forgiving daity - by that the church laimed a psotion of power by mediating between God and man, which founded it's politcvial and social influence). However, Jesus even died in the way he lived, and recommended to spend life. miuhammad did the same, but since he was little more than a bandit, he robbed and murdered, waged war and conquered, and this is pretty much what the quran, in more or less msystified form: by separating between Muslims and non-Muslims - demands as well. this is no surprise, since Muhammad invented his little clever ideolgy to give himself a relgious status that allowed othersnot to question is claim for power and rulership without risking to be accused of heresy: the quran pretty much reflects muhammad's own attitude on things, his drives for goals and deeds and actions. Both Jesus and muihammad's message couldn't be any more different.

So, since these things are included in the Quran, and the Quran got stuck on the level that compares to the old testament, not the new one or the glad tidings, a reformation nevcer took place, and where schlars and sects tried that, Islam was very successful in supressing them, wiping them out, killing them with the same drive and ambition, but far greater success, like the inquisition acted in medieval europe. Islam is fundamentalism, fundamentalism is not a sub-chapter inside Islam. And it is all that what muhammad was: intoerant, aggressive, conquesting, wanting to be in total control of others, of individuals, families, communities, state. there is no limit, and thus nom space for tolerant coexisting. the systematical repression and discriminating of Jews and christzians is ordered for in the Quran, ranging from limiting cloathing (and signaling cloating) over jobs, career options , and the obligatory submissive behavior of dhimmi towards muslims, ignoring that being under penalty (in a law suit that again discriminates non-Muslims, and females anyway). For example, if you think yellow batches on cloathing of jews was an invention of the Nazis, you are wrong - it'S demanded for by Islam (dont remember this moment if Quran or Hadith/Sharia). ;)

Islam forbids by law (this is exactly one of the prime issues sharia fas cinstructed for!) to fall off from it (death penalty), and it also forbids not to follow the demands of quran in full detail (severe penlty, even death penlty). In fact Arabs often attacked African Muslim people to sell them as slaves by accusing them of not being trulky muslim by not folliwng Muslims rules to the fullest. the main interest for these wars of course was slavery and the profits from it, but the acusation nevertheless is in confomrity with Quranic law: it is not allowed not to follow isdlam in full detail.

So you see why I say everybody not following Quran in full, but only partially, is n ot reall representative for Islam'S self-understanding and definition. Christianity formed a tradition of splitting into several sects and churches, some branches being not as strict as others, but in islam, this is a big no-no. Muhammad wanted to keep his community (his power basis) together at all cost, and for that totalitarian control and uniformity, no chance for rebellion by threatening apostacy with death (like Mafia does today, for example), it was necessary to rule out any chance to ever leave Islam (muhammad's party) alive, or not to follow the cult completely. True Islam does not know half things. really, it is like with the Mafia: once oyu have become a family member, you never can leave again, if you do, you need to hide, for you get hunted.

That's why I say it is fundamentlist by nature. fundamentalism is not an internal distortion - it is it's true nature. Thus, "Muslims" already violating aspects of Islam, and maybe reall with all their heart are attracted by freedom and certain western values Islam is totally hostile to, may be respectable people (if they are not deceiving you, but are real) - but one thing they are not: being truly representative for Islamic ideology. In the past, one "Muslim" member of this forum whom I really do like in a way became very angry when I told him that by his defense of certain key values of wetsern societies I cannot accept him as a true Muslim. Her was angry - but for me, it was a compliment. what I told him in fact is that I do not see him as a totalitarian stuoid fanatic.

If I would tell anybody I really see him as a Muslim - he would have all reason to feel deeply offended - of poor himself. :)

Not everything that is branded as muslim, is Muslim. And not every Christian is truly a Christian. In fact I say: most Christians are not at all. so you see, I talk and argue on the level of the real core of ideologies, not about superficial labels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

So all Muslims are trying to take over the world? I guess I'd better watch my back.

Sharia law is mandatory.

-S

It would be, if every Muslim interpreted their religious texts literally. Judging from the actions of the vast majority of the Muslim population, I would have to say most do not.

PD

Typical Skybird, ask for a clarification and get a full length op-ed. I was afraid of this, but seriously...This is a great post, and unfortunately I am not going to take the time to respond to it properly now as I have to go out to dinner soon :p. But I will later tonight. For now I will say that we agree on most broader points, our differences are in the definitions. Those superficial labels, as you say. :)

PD

Edit: okay, so not tonight. but I am going to have a Skybirdian friggin' post for you when it's done this weekend.

PD

I yet need to see the Jesus cartoons which were not published by jylland posten...Kinda ironic, isn't it? :hmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I wish you were right, but Wilders claimed himself to be anti-Koran. If he can't stand that book he shouldn't stand the old testament as well. Yet he doesn't bash the old testament nor does he say that all Jews are the same as orthodox Jews. That's quite double standard. Saying to moderate people that they're fascist isn't the best way to get rid of radicals I'm affraid.

I don't see it that way. I can see his need to say the Koran is facists simply because it is purported to be the word of God himself and not questioned, which leaves it mandatory that all Muslims take over the world. They have no choice in the matter. THe Old Testement doesn't call for this, and is actually superseeded by the New Testement if you are a Christian.

And these are not moderate people.

-S

I haven't heard of anybody (in modern times) enforcing the Old Testiment on people.

http://www.brainshavings.com/images/binladenbert.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

I yet need to see the Jesus cartoons which were not published by jylland posten...Kinda ironic, isn't it? :hmm:

As far as I remember it was a different editor that commissioned the Muhammad drawings. Doesn't completely tarnish notions of hypocrisy, rather it complicates them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

I yet need to see the Jesus cartoons which were not published by jylland posten...Kinda ironic, isn't it? :hmm:

But we have a tv series making ridicule of the church and pope, and not speaking for your country that i dont know: in germany we have critical cartoons in newspapers whenever something on church policies is being reported. and sometimes they even do not stop at naking jokes about jesus hanging ´from the cross.

not to mention monthy python's life of brian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

@Skybird : allright, but this is only rhetoric.

So says you in your wisodom whose source and origin remains mystery to me.

Quote:

You see you're being radical :)

.

In this time where words does not mean anything anymore since everybody uses them in a different meaning, I ussually get called worse than "radical" when opposing and rejecting Islam. Usually I get called a Nazi, or a racist. If you say i am radical and if you want to say that I am very uncompromised and detmerined in my rejection of Islam by that, I take that as a compliment, for you say I do not negotiate and completely refuse to deal with an ideology that I do not see as any better than that of the Nazis, and that in fact honours me (and yes, there have been "friendly" Germans being convinced by the friendly image they have created inside their heads all by themselves of what they thought Nazism was, for they did not know all the evil grim apsects of it, and what was happening in that hidden camp behind that forest. Such people were NOT dealing with the real Nazism out there, obviously, and were not representative for Nazism). And if you believe it or not, I even received (paper) letters with death threats here were I live, calling me infidel scum that will see the thousands pains of hell for an eternity to come.

I love it when some brain-amputated meaningless little sucker with a head full of poison thinks he needs to plan decide and speak on behalf of a deity. Stupid idiot.

Quote:

It's clear with the example you gave that saying to a "moderate" or "progressist" Muslim that he isn't Muslim doesn't help much.

Help in what? I think precision in using terms and labels always is of helpt, even if that means some people need to relearn what these labels mean. that'S for example why I refuse to call islam "fascism". I never talk of Islamofascism, liek som eother critics. Both are totalitarian concpts, yes, but fascism is linked very directly to a certain time, place and Italian politicl movement, of which Islam is no part. Every fascism is totalitarianism - but not every totalitarianism is fascism.

Quote:

An interesting article, it's a google traduction so not the best but it should do : here

Yes, reform attempts there have been time and again in Islmaic history, and I often have said that. But I also had to point out that these attempts were fought dpown bitterly, and that Islam has been far more successful in keeping them down or even anihilate them. The historical Sahaladin, which is so much mystified and set out as a shining exmaple of Islam'S bright glory even here in the west, a just and tolerant king whom we shall owe so much - well this man has been amongst those rulers who was especially eager in surpessing any reformist thinking in Islam, which by islamic law simply is heresy and must be penalised. sahaladin gave orders to execute quite many promising "reformist" thinkers during his rulership, and killed some of the most promising alternate thinkers in all Islamic history.

Thinik twice what idols you worship, dear Westerners. History books will tell you that by his grave there shold be an encription, saying something like "He cleaned the earth from the dirt of the infidels".

Last but not least you judge a foreign ideology by how it deals with critics. If critics like the woman in your article would be so very representative and so much supported in islam (both moderate and radical Muslims, to use your separation), then I wonder why persons like this throughout history of Islam experienced so little support from "moderates".

If there are moderates indeed, I drmand them not to remain silent, but to stand up and fight against the evil within their muslim community, rip many pages out of the Quran, make certain primnciples regarding ethics and values obligatory and madatory and integrated part of Islam'S message - which would mean to stop Islam being Islam, of course. As long as they do not do that, Islam in egenral bcomes stronger by the number of heads in their families, and thus I need to see them as neither supportive, nor true in saying they want to respect those parts of our values they have accepted from Western culture (at least they say). some things do not go together. What is a liberal Nazi? A democratic stalinist? A humanistic Muslim? you eithersupoort Islam, or you don'T, just ripping it apart and picking what you like, and refuse the others content - that is not possible in Islam. You should have understood by my earlier replies that Muhammad wanted to prevent especially this falling apart, and falling into subgroups, and islam'S laws reflect that. the main factor of power and strength in Islam is it's monolithic unity - and this is not design by random chance, but was muhammad's intention. Unity mans strength, strength means to enforce unity, no matter how, no matter the cost. That is why apostcy is under thread of death penalty. Once Islam owes you, it owes you forever. Once a member of the honourable family, you leave it only throgh death. Once in the infnary trench, you either fight or get court-martialed and executed. It'S the same pattern and the same intention in all three examples: strength by (totalitarian) unity, unity by strength.

Anyhow, I wanted to point at the reaction Wilders managed to cause by what currently is not more than a bluff, and what this tells us about ourselves and our leaders, and societies. that it has turned into a long discussion of Islam itself again, was not really my intention. So maybe we ( and I :) )could focus on the topic then and stop testing Neal's patience any longer. ;)

And all what has been said about Islam here - by me in attack, and others in defense - has been said many times before throughout the past three years anyway. so, it is not really any new.

I'll try to get the topic back on track

It is a worrying trend to see, Muslims having conflict with Christian country, and vice versa.

Clearly, it is vital for us to respect each other's religion. It is inappropriate, for anyone of us, to offend each other's religion. This is vital in the world, since all of us hold different beliefs

What some of the mass media is currently doing, is offending Islamatic religion. Doing this, not only offends others but also devaluates one's dignity. Furthermore, at this moment, when the radical Islamatic groups are rampant and hostile to Westen government, it would be wise for anyone to stop offending them since creating these stuff, does nothing good except degrading one's dignity and creating another enemy out of air.

Couldn't disagree more. If I offend "radical Islamic groups", as you called them I couldn'T care less, and if they turn violent, okay - then confront them on their own stupid terms that turn them towards violence. what you essentially recommend is that the threat of violence, the Islamic bullying of non-Islamic societies and trying to intimidate them - should be rewareded by falling back, giving them what they want, and respect them in their aggressive behavior that is a mixture of lacking control of temper, primitve mind setting, straight stupidity and murderous hysteria.

Avoiding conflict at all costs is no virtue, Peterloo. some fights need to be fought, for things are at risk that are too precious to hand them over only in order to avoid conflict at all cost. weakness is no virtue, never, for it always reduces your options, and limits you ability to act by free will. when you are weak, you must agree to do what you are being forced by the other to do. when you are weak, you do not have the strength to follow what you want to do by free will. You may even be forced to do what you consider to be the wrong thing, for you are not strong enough to follow what you consider to be the prinrciples you think of as being right. Weakness is never anything else than weakness. The americans have a wonderful saying, somethign that Rooseveelt said, and I like that quote very much: "Always speak with a low voice and have a strong club with you." It means do not search conflict, do not foolishely launch conflict over things that are not worth it - but be prepared to fight any moment, for you do not know the other's mind, and you may not wish to surrender to his demands, and you cannot know if somebpody already lies in waiting to assault you, depsite your noble, well-meant thinking. Or to sum it up with Shakespeare: "Readiness is all." Accepting weakness as such and considering it to be adorable and okay and not wanting to change it, puts disgrace on the person willing to do so. Being weak is a fate many cannot avoid, and the shame does not lie in the fact itself. But trying to declare it a virtue, a glory, a fame - that is most disgusting, and a shame indeed. Being strong, incrasing your options thta way, but act responisbly despite your strength - that is the way to go, that is a sign of deserved fame, and sense of responsibility.

By the attitude I see at work on a wide general scale today, I am glad and feel lucky that Hitler haunted my country 70-80 years ago and not today, becasue today nobody would have the spine and guts anymore to confront the Nazis and even go to war to prevent europe turning into the questionable glory of 1000 years of German Reich.

Avoiding conflict at all cost is no priority of mine, but securing certain objectives - that is my priority. If these can be won without conflict - okay, fine, I'm all for it, I am pragmatic and economic. If not, I accept conflict as well. As little conflict as possible, but as much as is needed to make sure certain essential key objectives are achcieved. Acchieving the objectives - that is my priority. In this europe of peace-drunken, lulled and bored people who do not value peace and freedom becasue they never had to live without it and thus easyheaded waste it with both hands and give it away all too foolishly, I necessarily must me perceived as a radical, becasue by the standards of this society, my determination cannot escape to be perceived as just that. Must I care for that, and change my mind just because of that? Certainly not.

Skybird, of course, I agree with using (minimal) force to retilate those terrorist groups (like al-Queda) in case that the key objectives cannot be obtained via peafceful means

If one country is going to wage war on another, the country attacked should not retaliate, in my point of view. But what these peoples are doing is just provocative, as I see.

I'm not avoiding conflict, I'm just trying to condemn a minority of people who offend others religion and try to bring unstability to the general public, this includes discrimination towards others, or trying to create groups of people who are unfriendly to each other, which results from their foolish act

I understand that my final statement

Quote:

when the radical Islamatic groups are rampant and hostile to Westen government, it would be wise for anyone to stop offending them since creating these stuff, does nothing good except degrading one's dignity and creating another enemy out of air.

might imply an avoidance of conflict by pleasing the radical Muslims.
However, as what we see, the newspaper which posted a offensive cartoon concerning Muhammed did caused trouble, not only to the editor who published it but to the government officials (who is olibigated to protect the editor) and his friends, his family, who are completely innocent in this event but are at stake of being killed by radicals, because of this foolish act. That's like, offending others' religion = offend your family + friends.
It is just like nobody is first agressive towards you since you were first neutral. But your action provocated others and make another person hostile to you. This person is the enemy created by you.

Quote:

You're being far too much "politicaly correct". I'll narrow the answer to the cartoons : carricatures are meant to be disrespectful. Most politics are carricatured, some of them drawings being far more offensive than the "Islam cartoons" which were actually not really "good" for carricatures. Yet I don't remember of any politic burning down the house of a cartoonist, do you ?

I am sometimes too down to earth when I consider the events.

If you consider those carricature, yes, they are offensive, I must admit, especially in point of view from the government. However, I believe, as they are aimed towards a policy, the polics do not get offended as they might consider that it is another comment towards a policy. No policy is perfect, so there must be some people agreeing that and disagreeing that. That means a new policy must be welcomed by some while criticized by others. Furthermore, they probably have got used to that.

However, it might be another story when it comes to religion. Islamatic religion, is the second greatest religion in the world. With millions of followers, I must say that some of them will get flamed and angry by that, since they are peaceful while being tagged as radical, the God they believe in is friendly while being labelled as hostile.

Maybe I make a analogy as well:
If I say John Bush's "No child left behind" policy is completely nonsense, John Bush won't get mad on me, probably because he has got used to critisms
However, if I say that all USA people are nonsense because John Bush's nonsense policy, I'm sure some people will get mad on me

This, the difference between the number of people concerned, perhaps, makes the difference.

Good analogy through. I havn't considered viewing the event in this way before :)

Quote:

If you consider those carricature, yes, they are offensive, I must admit, especially in point of view from the government. However, I believe, as they are aimed towards a policy, the polics do not get offended as they might consider that it is another comment towards a policy. No policy is perfect, so there must be some people agreeing that and disagreeing that. That means a new policy must be welcomed by some while criticized by others. Furthermore, they probably have got used to that.

However, it might be another story when it comes to religion. Islamatic religion, is the second greatest religion in the world. With millions of followers, I must say that some of them will get flamed and angry by that, since they are peaceful while being tagged as radical, the God they believe in is friendly while being labelled as hostile.

So they are peaceful but cartoons can make them radical and violent?:dead:

Quote:

Maybe I make a analogy as well:
If I say John Bush's "No child left behind" policy is completely nonsense, John Bush won't get mad on me, probably because he has got used to critisms
However, if I say that all USA people are nonsense because John Bush's nonsense policy, I'm sure some people will get mad on me

This, the difference between the number of people concerned, perhaps, makes the difference.

Good analogy through. I havn't considered viewing the event in this way before :)

So what, will they burn an embassy?:doh: Im wondering what makes people this soft that they wont defend their freedoms. I could make an analogy how they probaly are walked all over in their private life also.:hmm: