Muslim speaking out!

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
LOL Let's take a step back for a second because I think we're having a misunderstanding here. I'm not trying to convert you to anything & it's completely up to you how you see Islam. If you accept us, then great. If you don't, that's great too. Neither outcome will change my path or my love of my religion, and it seems like my words wouldn't change your opinion anyway, right?

No I know you're not. I was still trying to argue the point that regardless of the fact you're a normal, decent person, there are many in the exact same religion, following the exact same book, but use violence and murder as a means of propagating Allah's "good word".

I was simply pointing out that the fearmongering doesn't match the reality. The assertion that 7%, 15-25%, or even 1% of Muslims being extremists simply doesn't match with the number of attacks & threats of attacks.

But recorded attacks and threats are not directly related to the number of radical islamists. You could have 100million muslims in the world who believe I and every other non-muslim should BE muslim, follow Sharia Law and live under a caliphate but haven't (thankfully) attacked anyone. Just because they haven't actually performed violence doesn't mean they aren't radical.

And I would argue that the fearmongering does match the reality. If any of these numbers are correct we keep batting about, we're still looking at almost 100million people who maintain a view that the rest of us non-believers MUST believe.

Umm, I'm confused about something. You're afraid of people who may think you must be Muslim, but won't do anything about it? As in, "people who maintain a view that the rest of us non-believers MUST believe" but won't do anything if you don't believe?

Should I also be afraid of people who think people from different ethnic groups MUST date "their own kind", but won't actually do anything about it? That literally just sounds like being afraid of a difference of opinion.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Umm, I'm confused about something. You're afraid of people who may think you must be Muslim, but won't do anything about it? As in, "people who maintain a view that the rest of us non-believers MUST believe" but won't do anything if you don't believe?

Let's clear one thing up - I'm not afraid of them in any way. I despise them and their belief structure which infringes upon my freedom of existing in a fashion that does not hurt anyone. And while I do not believe in Islam or any religion for that matter, I do not want to end the lives of those who do. THAT is the key difference I am making and what I dislike about radicals of Islam or any religion for that matter.

Should I also be afraid of people who think people from different ethnic groups MUST date "their own kind", but won't actually do anything about it? That literally just sounds like being afraid of a difference of opinion.

Why are you bringing ethnicity into this? This has nothing to do with one's race or colour of their skin. We're talking about religion and I do not see the two being related.

And again, I don't care if you or anyone else believes in something different to me - that's who we are and what we're all entitled to.

What I *do* care about (and dislike) are those whose beliefs infringe upon my or any one else's freedom of thinking, or advocate harm to those that do not follow their prescriptive life choice. According to what these religious people say, if I do not choose Islam, I am a heretic and deserve death. If I did choose Islam and decided it wasn't for me, there is only one choice for apostasy -- death.

How is that a belief system of peace??

So let's do a little test. Let's take a large representative sample of people (say 20,000+) in an overwhelmingly Muslim country, then let's put them in a totally random, non-religious, public setting. Let's make this environment a neutral to happy/upbeat environment.

Then let's ask them (in a manner of speaking) what they think about ISIS and terrorism.

What do you think we'll get?

Well, here's your answer....



Using the kindest terms I can conjure, this is at very least disrespectful and shameful behavior. These people were not conditioned in advance, they were not whipped up into an ideological frenzy; this was their natural and automatic response.

Now tell me, is this what you would characterize as "outrage" from the Muslim masses over terrorism???? Even if you ignore the chants, just the whistling and cat calling alone during the moment of silence is intentionally disrespectful and rude beyond description! Further, do you see mortified or angry looks on the faces of the officials and the crowd in response to this outburst? Nope.

Yeah, seems pretty clear to me where these people's sentiments lie as it relates to terrorism.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Are the ones whistling and catcalling moderates, during a planned moment of silence ?

I am going to say on a scale of 1 to 10, a "1" being a western moderate Muslim that speaks out against all violence and Sharia law literally risking their own lives against violence from radical Muslims to a "10" a radical Muslim who is ready and willing right now to commit a jihad suicide bombing killing innocent civilian women and children in a non-military zone.

I call those people in that stadium doing that a "7" and they are part of the problem not the solution.
And they represent the bulk of Islam right now, and its a real shame.
If people don't think the sevens give the tens power and support you don't understand what is happening in the world.
That video speaks to that more than any words anybody will type in this thread.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There's simply no way to argue this video, there's just no way to defend the behavior / actions of the people in this video as reasonable given the circumstances. And the icing on the cake is the expressions on the faces of the players themselves. They seem to be the only ones who realize the gravity and magnitude of what is taking place on a national stage (worldwide even).

If the Muslim community worldwide were truly serious about eradicating extremist behavior from their culture then what should have happened (in this instance) is: officials should have halted the match and called out the behavior as a (national) disgrace from which no subsequent enjoyment should be allowed to follow. Instead the behavior was ignored and the game allowed to proceed.

What makes this particularly egregious in my opinion is the fact that this match took place very shortly after, if not the day after, the tragic events in France.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Agreed.

And now whats that I hear from the other side, oh just crickets.

We cannot go the fascist route and round up every Muslim in the name of security as some neocons are suggesting; this is exactly what the elites want, public support for liberty destroying measures against one group that can then be applied to ALL groups.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Have you seriously not seen other incidences of soccer hooliganism? In the worse cases, people are even killed in riots & beatings. And even in "moderate" cases of soccer hooliganism, people might make monkey chants or throw bananas at the Africans on the opposing teams; have gang fights with fans of rival clubs, etc. Why the double standard? ALL soccer hooliganism is bad, which is why there are numerous documentaries & public campaigns calling attention to it.

Actually, I've gotten bored with this lol. I'd rather spend my time & thoughts debating people on the merits of socialism, the importance of communities being self-sufficient, and different plans for colonizing the universe. Things that will actually help humankind advance. Instead, sometimes I feel like I've stumbled into a neo-Nazi meeting, with the repeated calls in threads for forced internment of Muslims (internment camps); forced deportations of Muslims (a literal part of ethnic cleansing); special ID tags for all Muslims (like the Star of David tags the Jews were forced to wear); special databases for all Muslims (and candidates Trump who can't distinguish them from the Nazi's databases for Jews); nuking Muslim majority lands with no regards for civilian casualties (the Islamophobe version of "The Final Solution"?), etc.

I think I'll kindly withdraw from conversations like this, at least for the foreseeable future. If there are threads on ATS about the things I like talking about (like what I mentioned above), I'll join in the conversation. Plus there are plenty of other rational people here who can explain things better than I can, and probably with more patience than me.

Kap, you have my respect. Keep up the efforts.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's always silence on this response...ALWAYS!!! Why????

Because it's unrealistic

They must be eradicated, because a culture of fear is good for none of mankind. None.

Perfect - just perfect

How many people have we killed because of our culture and out of fear?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Please do enlighten me; why is it unrealistic? Every other religion / society in the free world does it! Why not Islam?

Perfect - just perfect

How many people have we killed because of our culture and out of fear?

Surely you can't be serious! Terrorism has NO place in ANY society!

What, we should just let terrorists go free because Christians participated in the Crusades 500 years ago???? C'mon! That's just a crock of...ummm...sympathetic / apologetic rhetoric.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Start rounding up terrorists from within the ranks of Islam, brand them for what they are...and EXECUTE them!

Because terrorists are obvious? Round them up - like when they're hanging out at the mall having a soda on their break?

Any due process involved in your thinking? Round them up - brand them, kill them...

I'll ask again - put a little thought into it: How many people have we killed because of our culture and out of fear?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

with the repeated calls in threads for forced internment of Muslims (internment camps); forced deportations of Muslims (a literal part of ethnic cleansing); special ID tags for all Muslims (like the Star of David tags the Jews were forced to wear); special databases for all Muslims (and candidates Trump who can't distinguish them from the Nazi's databases for Jews); nuking Muslim majority lands with no regards for civilian casualties (the Islamophobe version of "The Final Solution"?), etc.

All completely unnecessary, nor am I even suggesting any such thing, that is a hyperbolic over reaction type post.

Since you Godwined the post I will carny it on, was every German a Nazi during WW2, no, but enough supported Hitler that it enabled him to carry out his agenda with devastating results. Those that opposed him were few enough that they could be put into concentration camps, not for their ethnicity, but for their ideology. History teaches us radical ideology most be opposed fiercely lest it engulf large segments of the population, and it needs enough people to do it to stop it. And that is not happening with Islam right now, they can't self regulate themselves.

We can't introduce draconian measures like you say because that is too slippery of a slope and too broad a net.
The solution is for moderate Muslims to be fierce about promoting peace and non-violence and expose ANY to the authorities they see traveling towards radical chaotic behavior. If they can't control their own, sadly there may come a time where the governments and people of this world will have had enough, and when they do religion will feel their wrath, and not just Islam.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Start rounding up terrorists from within the ranks of Islam, brand them for what they are...and EXECUTE them!

Because terrorists are obvious? Round them up - like when they're hanging out at the mall having a soda on their break?

Not exactly, but there are fairly simple ways to start rooting them out systematically...if people are actually serious about doing it. Many of them will indeed be quite obvious to find. Those are the easy ones. The easy ones can be found with simple policing for them (which is rarely done, or done with any serious / intended results, in many Islamic countries). Set up a force with the specific mission of locating terrorists. See some dude slinking around in the shadows at night with an AK-47 who runs when asked to stop...arrest him. Question him/her and detain him if he answers unsatisfactorily.

Any due process involved in your thinking? Round them up - brand them, kill them...

Even though I suspect you won't read this...

Absolutely, the same due process used in all the rest of the western world. First, start with the countries known to harbor / breed terrorism, not the moderate Muslim countries. Countries like Afghanistan, Syria and the like. If said countries refuse to embark on such measures than the surrounding (Islamic and other) countries should impose a 100% closing of all travel to / from these countries. Absolute isolation, without exception. The penalties must be severe and painful for non-participation. No refugees, no trade, no fly zones, no immigration...complete isolation.

Note: if the UN is ever going to be worth anything, anything at all, (right now their value is less than zero) they would do well to lead this charge in the world community and stop the bureaucratic nonsense about things like global warming and the like.

For the countries who do elect to participate in a meaningful way, here's the way the process should work...

Again, start with the easy targets; suspicious characters. I've spent many years in Muslim countries myself, suspicious characters are not that hard to find. Develop a series of questions (with decision matrices for each answer); questions like:

1. Are you affiliated with the IS, AQ or any other organization who sponsor terrorism?
If 'yes', detain them for further questioning and likely arrest. If 'no', go to question #2. (Note: refusal to answer any question is cause for detainment for further investigation).

2. Is anyone you know, any family member, any friend or acquaintance, affiliated with IS, AQ or any other organizations who sponsor terrorism?

If 'yes', go to question #3. If 'no', go to question #4.

3. Who is this person or persons, how do you know them and what relation, if any, are they to you? Where can this person / persons be located?

If refuse to answer, detain for further questioning. If answered, evaluate answer for reasonability (i.e. "John Doe", "Some dude I saw one time" and "I don't know" ain't gonna cut it). If answer is reasonable, verify identity of individual and get follow up contact info for future, then release.

4. Who is your employer? By what means do you support/feed/clothe you and your family? Where (geographically) do you work?

This question requires some careful consideration and handling. Evasion or refusal to answer, detain for further questioning. Honest (reasonable/verifiable) answer, but illegal activity equals release. (Note: two things here; this message will get out, people talk. And second, it drives home the message the effort is looking only for terrorists and nothing else. This message will also get out).

That's it. Again, the effort must be conducted by the country itself, not some outside force, and strictly focused on terrorism so as not to be viewed as some larger totalitarian effort.

Members who were detained for further investigation under any of the questions (above) would be subjected to further more comprehensive questioning (no, not torture, but questioning). Repeated refusal to cooperate results in prolonged detainment for obvious reasons. Questionable cooperation would result in refocused questions to collect detailed data on the persons background and whereabouts, release and further monitoring in the future. Guilt admissions under further questioning would be detained and tried if adequate evidence.

So, it's not unreasonable, it's not illegal; it sends a message to the community what citizens are welcome and which ones are not. It also sends another message; it sends the message that the countries and societies who are willing to embark on such programs are serious about actually doing something about the evil of terror. And lastly, people must understand that terror strikes fear in not only the enemy, but amongst the people who harbor them. Efforts like these send a message of security to the community that the real effort is rooting out the people who make them afraid.

I'll ask again - put a little thought into it: How many people have we killed because of our culture and out of fear?

And so I will say again;...

"What, we should just let terrorists go free because Christians participated in the Crusades 500 years ago???? C'mon! That's just a crock of...ummm...sympathetic / apologetic rhetoric."

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And so I will say again;...

"What, we should just let terrorists go free because Christians participated in the Crusades 500 years ago???? C'mon! That's just a crock of...ummm...sympathetic / apologetic rhetoric."

I understand that you're very impressed by what you've said

I think human rights are more important than abandoning reason in favor of feeding our fears and prejudices

You sound like a man with a plan

This thread was a real decent attempt at a genuine conversation - about other things

I'm going to follow Enlightenedservant's lead and bow out -

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk



This thread was a real decent attempt at a genuine conversation - about other things

No, the OP asked a question; 'What more can we do?'

I have attempted to answer this question in a reasonable way.

I'm going to follow Enlightenedservant's lead and bow out -

More like, you're going to "cut and run" because you realize you don't have a credible rejoinder.

In the meantime (according to your logic) we should all just continue to let terrorism happen because, God knows...we've already hurt too many people's feelings, right?

But, whatever...

a reply to: Kapusta
You have my blessing and keep on educating people otherwise.
Terrorism is a threat to everyone, not synonimous to certain religions or background.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

More like, you're going to "cut and run" because you realize you don't have a credible rejoinder.

Then enjoy your victory

I'm sure we'll meet again in an uglier thread that doesn't mean as much to me

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

There is no victory to enjoy. In the absence of action...we all lose. Hence my posts on this thread.

Like you, this means something to me; it means something to all of us.

Lastly, I don't look forward to disagreements or 'uglier' threads, but I do call a spade a spade. Equally, I don't come here looking to spar with people, it's just not my intent. If someone asks a question, and I believe I can offer a constructive solution, I will attempt to answer it. I'm sorry if this answer may be uncomfortable, sometimes the real answers are that way. So, for my part, I won't look forward to meeting again in an uglier thread. Frankly, I personally hope it is a thread where we are both in hearty agreement, I honestly do. That said, I take a pretty dim view (i.e. zero tolerance) of terrorism, murderers and thieves, and I endeavor to make that posture as clear as possible.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That said, I take a pretty dim view (i.e. zero tolerance) of terrorism, murderers and thieves, and I endeavor to make that posture as clear as possible.

As do I

If you read the OP - you would understand what I'm about and why this thread is not a round them up and execute them thread

See you out there