26 months equal 202 lives

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5078540.stm

[jumpy]

split between those who espouse violence as part of what they say is legitimate and necessary jihad, and those who believe in a longer term struggle requiring patient proselytizing and military preparation

None of those two ends of the spectrum sound very nice to me, "violence as part legitimate and necessary jihad" & "a longer term struggle requiring patient proselytizing and military preparation"
translation: War now & talk now, then War later. Whatever happens in the meantime you're gonna have war.

crap

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by jumpy

None of those two ends of the spectrum sound very nice to me, "violence as part legitimate and necessary jihad" & "a longer term struggle requiring patient proselytizing and military preparation"
translation: War now & talk now, then War later. Whatever happens in the meantime you're gonna have war.

crap

Just dismiss it with the wave of a hand. Ask Scandium. He knows how.

[Skybird]

As long as he still has a hand But a waving stump may do the trick, too.

[scandium]

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right?

[August]

Originally Posted by scandium

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right?

No you're just blinding yourself to reality. He isn't just some nut, he's a nut with followers. A lot of followers.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by scandium

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right?

Seems about right.

You put all Christians into the same category based on what some genocidal priests did to the natives around the area where you live (it's a big neighborhood eh?), why can't you do it to Muslims too?

You fail to separate church and religion, doctrine and theology, mystics and ritual practice, phisosophy and politics. Just like you can't do the separation in Christianity, you can't do it in Islam, and while you demonize all of Christianity, you sanctify all of Islam.

If I asked you to give me the name of just one Christian Priest, or Bishop, who demanded natives from the American continent to be treated equally, to be considered equal under the law, and respected as the rightfull owners of the land, would you be able to do it?

No? It's irrelevant? History is on your side? Selective history?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by August

No you're just blinding yourself to reality. He isn't just some nut, he's a nut with followers. A lot of followers.

Alright, a nut with followers. A lot of followers.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

You put all Christians into the same category based on what some genocidal priests did to the natives around the area where you live (it's a big neighborhood eh?), why can't you do it to Muslims too?

What category am I putting all Christians into? Nowhere have I ever said they are all genocidal, only that following Jesus rather than Muhammad has never been an exemption from committing the "war, aggression, repression, and land grabbing" that Skybird associated with Islam. My own Europeab Christian ancestors are a good enough example of this, so I used them.

You fail to separate church and religion, doctrine and theology, mystics and ritual practice, phisosophy and politics. Just like you can't do the separation in Christianity, you can't do it in Islam, and while you demonize all of Christianity, you sanctify all of Islam.

I neither demonize Christianity nor sanctify Islam. You are right that I don't make many distinctions because historically they have been intertwined.

If I asked you to give me the name of just one Christian Priest, or Bishop, who demanded natives from the American continent to be treated equally, to be considered equal under the law, and respected as the rightfull owners of the land, would you be able to do it?

No? It's irrelevant? History is on your side? Selective history?

Selective how? Because I focused on North America and Europe, where Christianity has always reigned supreme?

[TteFAboB]

In another thread you put the responsability of HIV deaths in the hands of Christian "religionists". One Christian who doesn't distribute condoms in Africa is enough in that case, however, one terrorist is not enough to do the same with Islam in this case.

You did not answered my question, I'll take that as a negative answer, you do not know of any Christian of any church who fought for indians to be treated equally as Europeans, perhaps you don't know all of history.

Very well then, it's all equal, it's all relative, one crazy Imam cannot stain the image of 1.2 billion Muslims, but whatever some cross-totting Christian supreme ruler of Europe, who happens to be your ancestor, did back then suits all Christians just fine.

[CCIP]

Did you even read Scandium's post there, I wonder? :hmm:

Sorry, I'm with him on this one. No need to demonize anyone here; we're all people. Let's face it, there is a nasty case of "mass psychosis" going on with Islam nowadays. But it's just a violent case and there are other non-violent cases around there.

And yes, I'll put any groups who say "this is the truth because it says so on a piece of paper allegedly written by so-and-so so many centuries ago" into either latent, potential, non-violent or violent "mass psychosis" cases indeed.

Spirituality, mysticsm, and all else is fine and good. But when there are real negative ramifications to a dogma, then why point fingers at one and dismiss another?

There is one thing I will always reject, and that's countering/juxtaposing/separating-in-terms-of-prescribed-treatment Islam with Christianity, Judaism, or what have you. It's an irrational solution to a problem with irrational people. Sure doesn't sound promising to me :hmm:

[Ducimus]

It's hard NOT to lump all muslims into the same coal pile when they always seem to present a unitied front, in whatever they do. From their mass worshiping to their mass demonstrations over somethign as trivial as a carton. From their firebrand words, everyhthing comes accorss on the same note. Sure you'll have the odd muslim who will say, "No this is not islam", but their usually living in a western nation.

I know theres a mentality develping thats hard to a resist.. a mentality of "Them vs us". Im already past that. I feel its a case of "Them OR us". There will never be peace, there ill never be a stop to the terrorism, until one of the us is gone. That, im afraid, will be the cold hard reality to face. I hate feeling that way too, i really do. It's so hard not to.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I know theres a mentality develping thats hard to a resist.. a mentality of "Them vs us". Im already past that. I feel its a case of "Them OR us". There will never be peace, there ill never be a stop to the terrorism, until one of the us is gone. That, im afraid, will be the cold hard reality to face. I hate feeling that way too, i really do. It's so hard not to.

Don't feel alone with those thoughts.

[Iceman]

It's like when you put things in a centrifuge how things are forced to seperate. I feel the seperation process in action myself. Light and Dark must seperate.....But WE decide which is which or which we choose.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right?

Excerpt from essays by Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald:

Let us assume that the estimate, given by one , that 10-15% of Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists. One does not know how this figure is arrived at. Ali Sina and other defectors from Islam, whom I trust, consider it to have the percentages backwards, for they suggest that 85-90% of Muslims might become potential terrorists, or supporters of similar acts, or would be ready to harm non-Muslims in other ways, in the conduct of Jihad. Who knows, really -- and how could we ever be certain? But even the gleeful behavior of masses of Muslims all over the world, after 9/11, or the numbers of people naming their sons "Osama," or the kinds of things routinely said and applauded at meetings of Muslim nations, or the kinds of demands made on Infidel societies by Muslims now living in their midst, or the behavior of Muslim pressure groups to limit the power of Infidels to undertake reasonable security measures (including, precisely, profiling to target not a race, or an ethnic group, but the adherents or potential adherents of the ideology of Islam), and the enormous efforts to conduct Da'wa by every conceivable and sly means, including the rewriting of textbooks to transform the history of Infidel lands, and to target the most vulnerable members of society(prisoners, immigrants, schoolchildren) for the conduct of Da'wa -- all of this should give any Infidel who has studied the theory and practice of Islam, considerable pause.

But suppose that the lowest estimate -- 10% of all Muslims -- were in fact somehow true? No, let us make that figure 5% -- only 5% are potential terrorists. Then what? If one out of 20 Muslims allowed into the Western world holds to these ideas, where are we then? Or what if one of the other 19 picks them up from that one? We have no way of insuring that every single Muslim will forever and ever be immune to such appeals.

That being the case, it is a matter of obvious prudence for Western governments to study carefully the question of Muslims migration to the Western world. Even if the figure of “only” 10% is accurate, we would be mad to continue to allow in and give citizenship to such a pool of people without a moment’s hesitation or examination or consideration. Infidel governments should not allow their policies to be dictated by fear of offending, or by believing their own absurdities -- no one should continue to mouth the kind of absurdities about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance" that we have had to endure in the past.

Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out.

From Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences

It's a "war on terror," and those "terrorists" are a "handful of extremists." No, they're slightly more than a "handful of extremists." Now they're ten percent, and now potentially 50 percent, or if we are to believe the ex-Muslims, the keen apostates, more like 80% or more of those who take Qur'an and Hadith seriously support acts of terror. And then, of course, we are not entitled, are we, to even discuss Da'wa and the demographic conquest of Western Europe -- even if such matters are discussed openly, with great anticipation and pleasure, at Muslim websites. That would not be possible.

Who's crazy? Who's schizophrenic? Is it Moussaoui? Is it Al-Sharbi? Or is it those Infidels who are still unwilling to look at the teachings of Islam -- the Infidels who are still too paralyzed with fear of what they might find out and who thus remain incapable of even beginning to study the texts of Islam, and to discover what caused the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation and then codified oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and indeed everyone under their control who was not a Muslim.

Who is crazy? Is it Al-Sharbi, or those who are discussing his case who will tell us that he's just "one more nut case, like Moussaoui"?

From Who's crazy?

I read the news today, oh boy:

40% of Young Dutch Muslims Reject Democracy

Speaking of Abu Bakar Bashir and a minority of extremists:

Mass Murdering Cleric Gets Heros Welcome