Quote :

"haha...you think people are nice and will do whatever it takes to get along...haha...you must be out of your mind...its a good thing people like you arent in charge or we would all be dead or praying to allah 5 times a day...if people like you are in charge...man..are we screwed "

Soo... that's a yes to wanting to kill a billion people?



[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 11:02 PM. Reason : And Iran's leader is suppose to be the next Hitler?]

9/21/2006 11:01:48 PM

absolutely not....

it is a yes to wanted to win the war..a war that is already going on...which many libs dont want to admit or just wish would go away

its a yes for wanting to win the war



[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 11:04 PM. Reason : wordsinpeoplesmouthsyay!!!!keeptrying]

9/21/2006 11:03:32 PM

So then in your mind, what are we going to have to do to win this war?

Who is this war even between?

The US and Iran? Pakistan? The US and Muslims?

Who are we defeating in your war?

9/21/2006 11:06:56 PM

well...in OUR war...we are fighting islamofascists (yeah yeah...repub talking point...its true)

they want all of us dead...thats thier starting point...

us: so what do you guys want??
them: we want you to die
us: well what is we ...
them: you are pig infidels....we want you to die

how to argue with that??

so...alot of muslims dont think like that...but alot do. even if they arent avid al-queda/hamas/etc members....alot of them support those activities and love seeing the US harmed...

so...i am for winning the war...the war that we are all in....the war that you are involved in...

9/21/2006 11:15:24 PM

^ I understand all that.

My question is how do you fight that?

Who specifically is the "them" in your skit?

For example, we are trying to stabilize Iraq now. Is the muslim fanatic an element there? Are we just suppose to raid Mosques and such, and find all the insurgents?

Do you want the US or the UN to move in to Iran and Palestine, and just start wiping out the clergy, or what?

I'm not in a war. I don't walk around on a daily basis fearing attack from Muslims. I'm actually more afraid (but only marginally so) of some whackjob redneck stereotyping me as a middle eastern muslim terrorist or something, than from Muslims attacking me.

I'm going to quote myself from earlier in the thread...

Quote :

" When those Islamo-fascist say "the West" they don't really know what they're talking about. They assume we're all just a bunch of Islam-hating Christians who pray every night for their destruction, and the rise of Christianity (an assumption they don't have to jump too far to make, judging by a lot of people's comments). This is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with, but the means of dealing with it aren't by labeling them all with a broad-stroked brush of whackos. Our Christians aren't as nutty as their muslims, but that's because we have our gov. to do the dirt work. You won't find too many Christians shedding a tear for dead muslims, because most of them supported the war anyway, and that's a part of war. The Islamo-fascist don't have the backing of the most powerful military in the world, so they resort to suicide bombs and guerilla attacks to do their work. But even those suicide bombers, who feel they're doing the work of God, are being manipulated by a leader whose motives are more political, just like the Christians who feel their elected representatives enable the work of God, are being manipulated for political means. The issue is far more complicated than "us vs. them" or "Muslims vs. the world." Look back on history and try to find any war with motives so simplistic. There is an interplay of politics, economics, and social aspects at work, and the respective gov.s have their own motives in portraying it one way or another. The apparent nuttiness of the Muslims doesn't come about on its own, their leaders paint the moves of all western nations as attacks on their religion and society and safety. Could the problem be fixed by stomping out all opposition in the violent manners of war? Sure it can. Is this the "right" thing to do? I don't think so. The conflicts aren't going to be resolved without violence, but all-out violence isn't the only answer. "

To me, it's a problem of politics. The problem with the war in Iraq is not its intentions, it's the execution. We tried to brute-force thing, mounting an all-out war, and it has resulted in a terrible situation for Iraqis. It's a breeding ground for anti-Americanism that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and all to do with us screwing up their country, from their view (it's the same story all over the world with Germany and Japan being our successes in the distant pass, and none in the recent past). But, like people in America, the common citizen is mostly lazy. They only care about politics as far is their doorstop. So, the political leaders in the respective areas rally people together, and a very effective means of doing this is religion, and they use religion to band people together to hate on America.

We need to solve this by attacking the political elements, once they are gone, the religions elements will settle themselves. War won't work because just like in Iraq, we won't be fighting an army, we'd be fighting the people.

Where am I going wrong in this line of thinking, from your perspective (man, i'm starting to sound like Gamecat...).

9/21/2006 11:41:31 PM

^ I don't know where you're going with that, but I'm interested in reading more.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Where did I say that crazy Christians should get a free pass?"

You didn't. By limiting your comments to crazy Muslims, you failed to condemn the more honest--and less culturally segregated actors--crazy people. Your preference for blaming it on one religious denomination of them was my specific problem. You've already conceded the point, and it's done as far as I'm concerned.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Stop trying to paint everyone else as a crazy Christian out to kill every single Muslim."

I'm not, I don't, and I don't think everyone else is a crazy Christian out to kill every single Muslim. If I did, well, I'd be ignoring the vast number of non-Christians in this forum. I do see Islamaphobia in a lot of comments like your own, however, and I'm fully justified in calling it out for what it is.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Please explain to me how watching the 700 Club is equivalent to flying planes into buildings, or beheading people, or suicide bombs. I'm really curious."

Pay $700 = Be Saved.
Wage Jihad = Eternal Virgins.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are well-known figures on the Islamic side of this debate. They make myopic public statements suggesting radical, inflammatory actions be taken against other parts of the world, too. Why? I don't claim to know. But I'll bet it's for the same reasons it's acceptable to blame "crazy Muslims" instead of "crazy people."

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: However, part of being a mature member of society is having the self-control to not fly off the handle EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN TIME ANY SLIGHT WHATSOEVER IS PERCIEVED."

Agreed. Extending that a bit, I'd say we ought to re-examine why it's the Muslims who almost exclusively bear the brunt of blame for this war on extremism. Should be blame the government? Or society? Or should we blame the images on TV?

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: I'd say that Ahmadinejad disagrees with you."

And neither of us can 'know' we're right.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:07 AM. Reason : ...]

9/22/2006 10:06:10 AM

Quote :

"I do see Islamaphobia in a lot of comments like your own, however, and I'm fully justified in calling it out for what it is."

It's a FACT that there are Islamic terrorist groups who target the West. Explain how that makes me Islamophobic.

Quote :

"By limiting your comments to crazy Muslims [...] You've already conceded the point, and it's done as far as I'm concerned."

Isn't the topic of discussion the Islamic world?

Conceded what point? That there are crazy Christians? I didn't realize that I had ever denied it.

Quote :

"Pay $700 = Be Saved. Wage Jihad = Eternal Virgins."

I'll give you that both of these are corrupted versions of religion. But there's a large difference between donating money to a televangelist and killing others in the name of Jihad.

Quote :

"I'd say we ought to re-examine why it's the Muslims who almost exclusively bear the brunt of blame for this war on extremism. Should be blame the government? Or society? Or should we blame the images on TV?"

Why don't we blame the people who fly off the handle every single time any slight whatsoever is percieved? I know it's a novel concept, placing blame on the people who actually commit the action vice some vague "Them" like the government, or society, or the media.

9/22/2006 11:46:55 AM

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: It's a FACT that there are Islamic terrorist groups who target the West. Explain how that makes me Islamophobic."

Quote :

"Gamecat: By limiting your comments to crazy Muslims, you failed to condemn the more honest--and less culturally segregated actors--crazy people. Your preference for blaming it on one religious denomination of them was my specific problem."

I'm pointing out that you began your contribution to the debate by calling out a single ideological actor as at fault, without providing grounds for viewing them as the sole bearer of responsibility. In logic, we'd fall the fallacy complex cause.

Islamaphobia. QED.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Isn't the topic of discussion the Islamic world?"

Yes. But that world isn't a single actor whose whims are totally uninspired by the historical and current interventionalist policies of the West.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Conceded what point? That there are crazy Christians? I didn't realize that I had ever denied it."

No, that the two have an inflammatory effect on one another. You can't punctuate fault on one side of this.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: But there's a large difference between donating money to a televangelist and killing others in the name of Jihad."

Tell that to the opium harvesters and traffickers in Afghanistan. I'm sure they think they're just growing crops to make a living...

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Why don't we blame the people who fly off the handle every single time any slight whatsoever is percieved?"

Because people are irrational, whether flying off the handle or attempting to categorize those who do. This has pretty much always been true. That was fundamentally my point. The South Park lyrical paraphrase from Blame Canada, I thought, was a dead giveaway. I wonder if anyone else noticed.

Anyway, I place blame on more than just the people who commit the action. Actions are rarely so simple, and are more often reactions than anything else. Historically, this is usually the case as well. I'd suggest looking at the Muslim world, even Muslim extremists from a reactive standpoint. Same with us.

9/22/2006 12:00:21 PM

Quote :

"I'm pointing out that you began your contribution to the debate by calling out a single ideological actor as at fault, "

Well, I'm going to point out that you are hell-bent on falsely labeling me Islamophobic. This started with you stating that we (the US) is scapegoating Islam for politically expedient reasons. I respond that I was concerned about Islamic extremists before it became politically expedient to do so. To which you have continuously replied "Why not Christians, huh? Oh, it's because you're a xenophobe."

Quote :

"I place blame on more than just the people who commit the action. Actions are rarely so simple, and are more often reactions than anything else."

You are absolutely fucking amazing. The ONLY people who hold blame for an action are the people who commit the action. It does not matter whether your actions are reactionary or not, THE ONLY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS IS YOU.

Quote :

"Tell that to the opium harvesters and traffickers in Afghanistan. I'm sure they think they're just growing crops to make a living..."

I'm sure they do, too. However, money donated to the 700 Club does not find its way into Christian equivalent Jihadist movements.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

9/22/2006 12:38:02 PM

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Well, I'm going to point out that you are hell-bent on falsely labeling me Islamophobic. This started with you stating that we (the US) is scapegoating Islam for politically expedient reasons. I respond that I was concerned about Islamic extremists before it became politically expedient to do so. To which you have continuously replied "Why not Christians, huh? Oh, it's because you're a xenophobe.""

Flatly incorrect. Rereading how this discourse got started is proof enough of that.

Besides, what the hell would xenophobia have to do with any viewpoint biased favorably toward Christianity anyway? Where'd I ever accuse you of being a "xenophobe?"

I began my argument, and continue my argument that any position you take that faults one party and only one party is incomplete, and fails to account for the facts. Referring to the problem solely and explicitly as that of Muslim Extremism, reflects Islamophobia. If you'd like to waste the next few hours finding examples of Islamic organizations behind extremist attacks to buttress a point that is as naive as suggesting Christian or Jewish extremists were solely behind their attacks, go ahead.

But I think your view, that of Islamophobia, is myopic. Fundamentalophobia would be a lot more appropriate.

Want to call it religious extremism? Be my guest. It fundamentally accounts for most parties involved. I'd still make arguments that even that viewpoint has its flaws, but it'd at least better represent the objective facts of the matter.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: The ONLY people who hold blame for an action are the people who commit the action. It does not matter whether your actions are reactionary or not, THE ONLY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS IS YOU."

This view is so cute for how clearly it represents the dichotomies of blame. Let's see you explain these: Who's to blame?

A 9-year old shoots a 6-year old with a handgun for not sharing a toy.

Mobs overrun L.A. after the Rodney King decision destroying property, killing people, and causing fires.

A middle aged man returns home early to find his wife and another man sharing a bed, promptly finds a gun, and shoots them both dead.

A father accidentally kills his son who's lurking in the kitchen in the middle of the night, mistaking him for an intruder.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: However, money donated to the 700 Club does not find its way into Christian equivalent Jihadist movements."

With your assuredness, I suppose this won't be difficult to answer:

Where does the money go?

9/22/2006 1:26:12 PM

Quote :

"that any position you take that faults one party and only one party is incomplete [...] Referring to the problem solely and explicitly as that of Muslim Extremism, reflects Islamophobia."

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT YOU ARROGANT PRICK. AT NO POINT IN TIME HAVE I SAID THAT MUSLIM EXTREMISTS ARE SOLELY TO BLAME FOR VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD. YET YOU INSIST, DESPITE MY STATEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY, ON VIEWING MY FAILURE TO EXPLICITLY BLAME CHRISTIANS AS PROOF OF ISLAMOPHOBIA. MAYBE IF YOU'D STOP ITALICIZING YOUR PROLIX POSTS IN SUCH A CONDESCENDING MANNER YOU'D BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TO BLAME FOR ALL THINGS.

Islamophobia would be a persistent, irrational fear of Muslims, Muslim activity, or Muslim situations that leads to a compelling desire to avoid Muslims. You stated that engendering Islamophobia was politcally expedient because it's "easy to win votes on American anti-intellectual xenophobia." Since you insist that I'm Islamophobic, it's not unreasonable to assume that you believe me to be American, anti-intellectual, and xenophobic. Judging by your patronizing tone, I'd say that my assumption is more likely correct than incorrect.

Quote :

"This view is so cute for how clearly it represents the dichotomies of blame."

Your view is so cute for how you like to diffuse blame by attributing it to society, government, the media, anyone but the people who actually commit the action. The fact that you cite someone else's actions as reasons for your own does not transfer the blame or responsibility to others. By placing the blame on everyone, then no one individual has to feel it. Transferring individual responsibility to group responsibility subjugates the individual to the group which, given your dreams of one-big-happy-global-community-where-we-can-all-talk-everything-out-and-it-will-all-be-fine-and-dandy, is probably the way you want it.

Quote :

"Where does the money go?"

Pat Robertson's pocket. With your assuredness, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong and that the money in fact goes to Christian terrorist groups who incite Muslim violence, so it's really our fault and if I wasn't such an anti-intellectual xenophobe, I'd understand that.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ]

9/22/2006 2:16:43 PM

Oh I get it. With all my condescension I must've somehow missed that in your original post you defined the problem, which you claimed to stumble across before the current administration, was "crazy Muslims" and not "crazy religious fundamentalists." That preference, you're arguing, does not represent an ideological predisposition towards blaming the Muslim faith at all.

I contend fully that it does.

As such, it represents a predisposition to punctuate and communicate blame at the Muslim source for arbitrarily and undisclosed reasons.

Quote :

"THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT YOU ARROGANT PRICK...[etc.]"

AT NO POINT IN TIME have I said that you exclusively faulted Muslim extremists for violence in the world. You've gone beyond my words. And it's fun watching you call me names. I've limited my challenge solely and explicitly to your concern about "crazy Muslims" representing a myopic viewpoint when larger factors are at play, other variables, and complex causes.

You seem to recognize that point is fundamentally correct. But don't seem to recognize that in your words the viewpoint is clearly not evident. Unless it's your past and not present viewpoint, of course. But you've not made any distinctions between what you believed then and what you believe now.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Since you insist that I'm Islamophobic, it's not unreasonable to assume that you believe me to be American, anti-intellectual, and xenophobic. Judging by your patronizing tone, I'd say that my assumption is more likely correct than incorrect."

The fuck it isn't. There is absolutely zero rationality expressed in your presumptions about my views of what you are at all. I haven't even looked at your profile, frankly. I rarely ever do. The only thing you've said that makes any sense here is that I might be more likely to think so than not, but like the odds of death by terrorism and death by car accident, neither is that fucking likely.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Your view is so cute for how you like to diffuse blame by attributing it to society, government, the media, anyone but the people who actually commit the action."

Right, because again, I recognize that the world and it's inhabitants (individually, organizationally, etc) function interdepently among one another. With all your anger and bullshit, you seem to have picked up the belief that I don't fault individuals for things.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: The fact that you cite someone else's actions as reasons for your own does not transfer the blame or responsibility to others."

Oh? Does the fact that transgressions against people happened in the past invalidate their capacity to inflame and otherwise disaffect others?

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: By placing the blame on everyone, then no one individual has to feel it."

Fundamentally false. Do you even read what you say? By placing the blame on everyone, then all individuals have to feel it.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Transferring individual responsibility to group responsibility subjugates the individual to the group which, given your dreams of one-big-happy-global-community-where-we-can-all-talk-everything-out- and-it-will-all-be-fine-and-dandy, is probably the way you want it."

Actually, if you'd open your eyes just slightly, you'd see that it's actually how the world already works. Even individual and group responsibility can be interactive forces. Some individuals within a group obviously have more blame than others. Otherwise, we wouldn't desperately seek some members of terrorist organizations more than others.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: Pat Robertson's pocket. With your assuredness, I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong and that the money in fact goes to Christian terrorist groups who incite Muslim violence, so it's really our fault and if I wasn't such and anti-intellectual xenophobe, I'd understand that."

I'll do no such thing. Instead, I'll just ask you, the only one who's made a positive statement about where the money goes, where does it go from his pocket? After all, as LoneSnark can tell you, money doesn't just go into somebody's pocket.

9/22/2006 2:42:23 PM

Quote :

"There is absolutely zero rationality expressed in your presumptions about my views of what you are at all."

I like your selective quoting. If you'd read what you wrote, you'd see that you said the Islamophobia was an appeal to American anti-intellectual xenophobes. And since you believe that Islamophobia appeals to me...

Quote :

"Fundamentally false. Do you even read what you say? By placing the blame on everyone, then all individuals have to feel it."

Another fine example of selective quoting. I said assigning blame to the group diffuses it--no one individual feels the full blame that they themselves may be esponsible for. Though I'd argue that when a group is assigned blame, individuals within the group do not percieve the blame as belonging to them personally.

Quote :

"But don't seem to recognize that in your words the viewpoint is clearly not evident."

I said was that I was concerned about "crazy Muslims". Certainly to hold that "crazy Muslims" are the the only source of friction would be myopic, and that is not a view that I hold. But you seem to interpret (and continue to interpret) my failure to mention any and all sources/causes/bame holders for the current world situation as an implicit belief that Muslims are the sole source/cause/blame holders of the current world situation. That is an incorrect interpretation of what I believe and what I've stated.

Quote :

"I recognize that the world and it's inhabitants (individually, organizationally, etc) function interdepently among one another. With all your anger and bullshit, you seem to have picked up the belief that I don't fault individuals for things. [...] Does the fact that transgressions against people happened in the past invalidate their capacity to inflame and otherwise disaffect others?"

The world's inhabitants are most definitely interdependent and one's actions can and do influence the actions of others, often in complex ways. However, a reason is not an excuse. Going back to one of your examples:

-The direct reason for the LA riots was the Rodney King verdict. Indirectly, it can be attributed to slavery and segragation. The fact that slavery, segregation and the verdict happened does not excuse or remove blame from rioters who burn, destroy and steal others' property. Nor does it excuse pulling drivers from their vehicles and beating them in the head with bricks.

-Your condescending tone is the reason I called you an arrogant prick. That I find you condescending does not excuse the fact that I did call you an arrogant prick. It was inappropriate and, as an individual, I accept responsibility for my statement. I sincerely apologize.

-American "occupation" of Saudi Arabia and Western Imperialism in the Middle East are reasons for the actions of terrorists. It does not, however, excuse them from blame for flying airplanes into buildings.

I differentiate between reasons, excuses and responsibility for actions. You apparently do not. It does not mean that I fail to understand that Islamic terrorists--and other terrorists--respond to the specific actions of others, including Christians, the Pope, the West, and the US.

9/22/2006 3:36:43 PM

Quote :

"If you'd read what you wrote, you'd see that you said the Islamophobia was an appeal to American anti-intellectual xenophobes. And since you believe that Islamophobia appeals to me..."

What? Try to outline a logical conclusion you can make from what you've begun here. Since I beleive Islamophobia appeals to you...?

1) Ideology X is an appeal to People Y
2) Ideology X appeals or applies to You
3) OMF YOU MUST BE CONTAINED IN THE SET OF PEOPLE Y!!1

Logically false in every way. The fact that I like to read philosophy doesn't make me a liberal arts student. The fact that I don't like the current administration doesn't mean that I find the president stupid.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: I said assigning blame to the group diffuses it--no one individual feels the full blame that they themselves may be esponsible for."

And I said you were fundamentally wrong. It doesn't diffuse blame to no one; it indicts everyone. Whether they perceive it as belonging to them or not.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: That is an incorrect interpretation of what I believe and what I've stated."

And it's not the interpretation I've made. The interpretation I've made is that you myopically defined the problem to one of Muslim crazy people. If you'd said Crazy Fundamentalists, or Crazy Religious people, it'd be far more all-encompassing, and more honestly applicative to the circumstances. If nothing else, what you've concerned yourself with is only one side of the problem, and fundamentally ignores the other side--which you agree affects the outcome.

As such, blame does not rest entirely with those who commit actions.

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: However, a reason is not an excuse."

I agree with this sentiment a million times out of a million. It was ridiculous to suggest that I don't. If you believe I don't grasp this, then I'd argue you ought to reread pretty much anything I've ever posted, because you're flatly incorrect.

I've never once expressed the notion that "occupation" of Saudi Arabia and Western Imperialism forgives the slaughter of innocent people (American, Iraqi, Saudi, whomever). You'll be hard pressed to find a single statement to the contrary.

What I want people to understand is that while others may make excuses out of reasons to justify their actions, it doesn't mean that those reasons were invalid and not worth considering.

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ...]

9/23/2006 10:44:58 AM

Quote :

"Logically false in every way."

PLZ TO READ INDUCTIVE REASONING.

Quote :

"Whether they perceive it as belonging to them or not."

If they don't percieve it, then what's the point of indicting them?

Quote :

"The interpretation I've made is that you myopically defined the problem to one of Muslim crazy people."

To which I've continuously responded that I understand that the problem extends beyond crazy Muslims. Is it not possible to discuss an aspect of a problem while recognizing that it's one of many and that it may be influenced by others?

Quote :

"it doesn't mean that those reasons were invalid and not worth considering."

I've never said that reasons are not worth considering. However, the fact that I may be the reason for someone's actions does not mean that I share fault with that someone.

And allow me to rephrase: American "occupation" of Saudi Arabia and Western Imperialism in the Middle East are reasons for the actions of terrorists. It does not, however, excuse them from mean the US shares the blame for flying airplanes into buildings.

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ]

9/23/2006 11:58:04 AM