How can we deal with the Muslim overreactions? page 3

214 posts

Flag Post

One way to start dealing with “Muslim overreactions” is to realize that this isn’t so much a religious issue as it is a political one.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

One way to start dealing with “Muslim overreactions” is to realize that this isn’t so much a religious issue as it is a political one.

agreed. islam is just a vehicle for protest. the rioters didn’t attack the embassy to kill christians, they attacked the embassy because it represents america. The extremists do hate america, mostly because the US is the country largely responsible for propping up the tyrannical regimes that have oppressed them for decades (though not so much in Libya).

 
Flag Post
Erm… this wasn’t done in the name of religion….

Ah, right, because the actions of al-Qaeda represent all of Islam. Are you honestly implying such travesty?

I changed the title to better reflect what I meant for this thread.

Your title is still symptomatic of Islamophobia. The title suggests all Muslims overreact, and not a select few—the latter of which is the reality. I’d appreciate if you left the title as it is (or previously was), since your generalisation is the epitome of conservative American media today.

 
Flag Post
Ah, right, because the actions of al-Qaeda represent all of Islam. Are you honestly implying such travesty?

No, I’m really not. 9/11 was done in the name of Allah. OKC was not done in the name of God. There’s your difference.

 
Flag Post

Actually OKC was done in revenge for the federal raids on cults like the waco siege on the branch davidians and ruby ridge.

So it was in fact religiously motivated, as well as politically of course. It’s just not an example of christian fanaticism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Ah, right, because the actions of al-Qaeda represent all of Islam. Are you honestly implying such travesty?

No, I’m really not. 9/11 was done in the name of Allah. OKC was not done in the name of God. There’s your difference.

The message sent to us by al-Qaeda on 9/11 was “Stop policing the the world!” not “Our god can beat up your god!”

These people want to be left alone. Whether or not they should be is the question.

They do seem a little dangerous.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:
Originally posted by issendorf:
Ah, right, because the actions of al-Qaeda represent all of Islam. Are you honestly implying such travesty?

No, I’m really not. 9/11 was done in the name of Allah. OKC was not done in the name of God. There’s your difference.

The message sent to us by al-Qaeda of 9/11 was “Stop policing the the world!” not “Our god can beat up your god!”
These people want to be left alone. Whether or not they should be is the question.
I’m not so sure. They do seem a little dangerous.

If you keep bombing them and invading the land, al-Qaeda will keep existing and bombing. Attack al-Qaeda → al-Qaeda attacks USA or citizens. It is a continuous circle of which the solution is not the stay in their nation’s land.
Originally posted by issendorf:
Ah, right, because the actions of al-Qaeda represent all of Islam. Are you honestly implying such travesty?

No, I’m really not. 9/11 was done in the name of Allah. OKC was not done in the name of God. There’s your difference.

Your argument is still bogus and fallacious. A GROUP did something in the name of (a) God, THEREFORE their whole religion is radical as this group is representative of them all. You lack coherent logic and your arguments are flawed.

You claiming such an argument does not apply is using fallacies such as No True Scotsman and The Texas Sharpshooter, etc. You need to read up on such resources in order to be able to make coherent, logical arguments—which currently you fail to make since you are essentially suggesting Christian radicals do not commit violence in the name of God. Such a claim is bogus: Spanish Inquisition, Nazism, persecution of Jews in the early middle ages in Europe, lynching blacks (“God doesn’t believe you’re pure” ideology of the 19th and 20th century), Crusades, etc. There are so many areas where the arguments you use to justify your Islamophobia can be used against Christianity, yet you ignore them for your convenience.

Nearly all religions have had people who’ve done bad things in their name. The very fact that one of the ten commandments is to not take God’s name in vain is proof of this applying to Christianity. “God” doesn’t want you to justify your actions in his name. Why would this be a commandment if, according to you, Christians do not commit violence in the name of God?

 
Flag Post
The message sent to us by al-Qaeda of 9/11 was “Stop policing the the world!” not “Our god can beat up your god!”

I never said they attacked us because we are a Christian nation. I said they killed in the name of Allah to justify their actions. The suicide bombers were told (allegedly anyway, it’s hard to know for sure from them since, well..) that there would be a plethora of virgins awaiting them in paradise.

They do seem a little dangerous.

Kurt Westergaard would agree.

 
Flag Post

Nearly all religions have had people who’ve done bad things in their name. – “God” doesn’t want you to justify your actions in his name. – JaumeBG

AMEN!

 
Flag Post

I doubt there’s too many suicide bombers who get hooked by the ‘72 virgin’ nonsense. hezbollah, for example, tends to seek out young guys with families they can’t support, with the promise of paying off their debts. they still get plenty of religious and anti-us indoctrination to get them voluntarily signing on, but a good chunk of it is pure business. There’s a reason the 9/11 attacks were mostly committed by nobodies rather than the higher-ups in AQ…they knew the score.

 
Flag Post

Lets get to the core of this – why do many Muslims seem to go insane with rage when anyone dares to even speak about the Prophet Mohammed?

And more importantly, why do the peaceful Muslims always do nothing to defend Islam and inform the world that a bunch of radicals are the cause of the problem?

Why are the images of the protests from dozens of countries blanketing the Television, not just in the USA? ( its worldwide )

And when we have leaders of Muslim countries doing things like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/23/world/meast/pakistan-film-bounty/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

And this:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/world/meast/iran-ahmadinejad-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Are we supposed to think it is just a “small group of extremists” behind this?
Pakistan was harboring Usama Bin Laden for heavens sake and lying to the Allies.

 
Flag Post

I love how you are unable to reply to our arguments. Instead, you repeat the premise of this thread wording each question slightly differently. Your questions in your latest post have been answered. Now reply to the arguments put up against you. Are you unable to do so?

 
Flag Post

pakistan has been crawling with radicals for decades, we just assumed musharref was keeping them in check.

Ahmadinejad is a showboater. He has no say on foreign engagement, so he’s reduced to being the court jester for the clerics and world media. Bad as the ayotollahs are, it’s a good thing they’re so conservative. It means they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons against israel unless they knew beyond certainty that they were screwed anyway. They’re more interested in vying with the Saudis for regional control – that’s likely the main reason they decided to set up a nuclear program in the first place.

I don’t have the patience to look for sources, but there’s easily dozens of high-level muslim clerics throughout Canada, US, and the EU who’ve spoken out against religious violence and signed petitions and fat’was demanding an end to overblown reactions like the riots. They’ve been active since 9/11, you just haven’t paid attention.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I love how you are unable to reply to our arguments. Instead, you repeat the premise of this thread wording each question slightly differently. Your questions in your latest post have been answered. Now reply to the arguments put up against you. Are you unable to do so?

I plan to reply to all arguments. I am glad you are so eager to see them!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by QuabbinHiker:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I love how you are unable to reply to our arguments. Instead, you repeat the premise of this thread wording each question slightly differently. Your questions in your latest post have been answered. Now reply to the arguments put up against you. Are you unable to do so?

I plan to reply to all arguments. I am glad you are so eager to see them!

Do you have an answer? You seem very quick to throw an entire people in front of the bus.

God sent Jonah to preach salvation to the Ninevites, but Jonah refused because he did not want to see them saved. Jonah took a ship in the opposite direction, and a horrible storm ensued. All aboard drew lots to determine who brought this curse upon them. Jonah admitted to running from God and had them throw him overboard. The storm stopped.

In the Sea he was swallowed by a great fish. Still he did not repent. For three days he stewed against the Lord’s command and finally yielded. So he ends up at Nineveh and calls everyone to turn away from wickedness or perish.

Then Jonah, hating the Ninevites from the beginning, sits on a hill overlooking the city, waiting for it’s destruction. God provides a vine to shade Jonah in his vigil. Then God provides a worm which kills the vine. Jonah is pissed off and sad that his vine died.

But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

But the Lord said, “You care so much about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. And should I not care about the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people?”

 
Flag Post

parables are so tricksy.

 
Flag Post
If you keep bombing them and invading the land, al-Qaeda will keep existing and bombing. Attack al-Qaeda → al-Qaeda attacks USA or citizens. It is a continuous circle of which the solution is not the stay in their nation’s land.

Al-Qaeda will continue to attack the United States whether we attack them or not. It seems like attacking makes more sense than doing nothing.

A GROUP did something in the name of (a) God, THEREFORE their whole religion is radical as this group is representative of them all. You lack coherent logic and your arguments are flawed.

I never said that, so…. good one? I’ve said radical Muslims attacked us on 9/11. Is that incorrect?

You need to read up on such resources in order to be able to make coherent, logical arguments

Because you are the beacon of coherent, logical arguments…

There are so many areas where the arguments you use to justify your Islamophobia can be used against Christianity, yet you ignore them for your convenience.

Yes, all conservatives are Islamaphobes, to go with us being xenophobes, homophobes, and haters of women. Any other segment of the population we fear/hate?

Nearly all religions have had people who’ve done bad things in their name. The very fact that one of the ten commandments is to not take God’s name in vain is proof of this applying to Christianity. “God” doesn’t want you to justify your actions in his name. Why would this be a commandment if, according to you, Christians do not commit violence in the name of God?

Alright, here we go, for what feels like the 20th time:

Not. All. Muslims. Are. Terrorists.
Al-Qaeda. Attack. In. The. Name. Of. Allah.
Al-Qaeda. Are. Radical. Muslims.
Because. Al-Qaeda. Are. Radical. Muslims. Does. Not. Mean. All. Muslims. Want. To. Kill. Americans.
But. To. Ignore. That. Radical. Islam. Is. A. Primary. Motive. For. Al-Qaeda. Is. Foolish.

There, I went nice and slow for you. Al-Qaeda is perverting Islam, just as Fred Phelps perverts Christianity. The difference is, is Islamic nations (like Iran) look to kill people who mock Muhammad or aid sects who pervert a religion (see: Afghanistan). The Federal government neither a) looks to kill Fred Phelps or b) endorses the Westboro Baptist church, which makes sane Christians such as myself look bad.

Furthermore, the problem is compounded by the fact that rationale Muslims in the Middle East can’t really speak out against Al-Qaeda and other radicals because if they do, they’ll have a bullet in their head.

 
Flag Post

uh…actually, MOST of the muslim governments HATE AQ.

See, originally AQ’s beef was with Saudi Arabia. For being too conservative, amusingly. And then once they got ejected from SA, they left the arab peninsula and went into other countries that were too pig-ignorant to understand how dangerous they were, like Afghanistan and the Sudan. And while they were in those countries, they realized the major problem was that the most conservative islamic regimes, like SA, or the Emirates, Egypt, etc, were being propped up by the US. So they switched targets and started attacking the US.

The point being that pretty much every country on the Arab Peninsula would love to see AQ and its subsidiaries hunted down and exterminated. They know that if (and more likely, when) the US gives up, AQ will start targeting them again. One reason they’re not more vocal about it is that a big chunk of their populations (not so much in the Emirates) hates the US, mainly for supporting Israel. So they can’t do much except sit around and hope that the US will eliminate them.

Oh, and Iran really has nothing to do with muslims rioting in the streets OR with AQ. They hate AQ because of the sunni/shi’a thing. Iran makes a lot of noise internationally with the nuke thing and ahmadinejad, but they’re leery of rampant chaos, unless it’s against Israel which they’re cool with. That’s why they support Hezbollah, which is also the reason Lebanon would be OK with seeing these radicals dealt with. The only countries that really support radical terrorism are a few north african regimes and Pakistan, and, well, we didn’t find out about the latter until recently.

So on the whole most of the islamic governments really don’t have much to do with radical terrorism at all, at least the kind that attacks the US or allies. It’s all coming from within these states, but not directed by them.

And, I can’t put my finger on sources at the moment, but there’s plenty of muslim intellectuals living in the middle east who vocally despise radical terrorism. The whole idea that they’d be hunted down for speaking their mind is just kind of funny…bashing AQ isn’t like bashing muhammed. it’s not like a big secret in Egypt that AQ is batshit insane – and they’ve got guys in their government who share the same theology, they just don’t think blowing stuff up accomplishes anything. The areas where you’d get in trouble for dissing AQ are the same places you wouldn’t find ‘rational’ muslims – the poorer rural areas where they recruit most of their followers.

 
Flag Post
uh…actually, MOST of the muslim governments HATE AQ.

It was an either/or statement. I didn’t say all Muslim nations aid radical sects. It seems pretty clear that both Pakistan and Afghanistan have, and I would imagine others have, at least to an extent.

Oh, and Iran really has nothing to do with muslims rioting in the streets OR with AQ.

I didn’t say that. I mentioned Iran for, lack of a better term, going apeshit when Muhammad is mocked.

So on the whole most of the islamic governments really don’t have much to do with radical terrorism at all, at least the kind that attacks the US or allies. It’s all coming from within these states, but not directed by them.

I never said… oh what’s the point. They are non-government entities, so obviously they aren’t part of the islamic governments. But, to say that the Islamic governments are activly preventing said organizations is a bit of a joke.

The whole idea that they’d be hunted down for speaking their mind is just kind of funny…bashing AQ isn’t like bashing muhammed.

It’s ironic then that criticizing a peaceful religion leads to death threats while criticizing Al-Qaeda leads to the reaction of, “Meh.”

 
Flag Post

I see now why many posters find you rather irritating to debate anything with. Perhaps you should re-read my post. None of your rebuttals were on-target with what i said.

 
Flag Post

Firebombing?

 
Flag Post

With three steps that also interlace, but I’ll place down the base strucute.

1. Seek peace
2. Warn
3. Take ANY action necessary

but then again, i’m not good at making choices :(

 
Flag Post

The people involved in those incidents are not over reacting to anything. Quite simply, they hate western civilization, and hate anyone who doesn’t have the same religion as them. So, they kill. They attack and kill. They find some shitty video or cartoon, and they blame the cartoon, but that’s just an excuse. They blame others for their actions. They are just awful violent people. It’s that simple.

How to deal with them? Kill them to prevent them from gaining political control and attacking more people, or holding their own citizens hostage, such as what Hamas does.

 
Flag Post

So if someone is a problem for you you simply say: “Kill him?”

And you call them awful people…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

So if someone is a problem for you you simply say: “Kill him?”

And you call them awful people…

No. I said take what action is necessary. Right choice for right job.
You must have misread my post.

I said – try and reort to seeking peace and prosperity, but be prepared to fight if you have to.

Construct and defend and seek to help others.