Pentagon Briefing: Terrorists Are "Rational Actors" Following Their Holy Book

Originally posted by DJMessiah
If you look at other topics made by topic creator, you will see they are all made to give a negative view of Islam. I have seen people question him about it, and his reply is "It's not me you need to convince, it's the extremists."

I think it's highly revealing of your character when you proclaim me as providing the "negative view" of Islam but make no mention of the effect "extremists" and riotous Muslims have on the views of Islam.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
If you look at other topics made by topic creator, you will see they are all made to give a negative view of Islam. I have seen people question him about it, and his reply is "It's not me you need to convince, it's the extremists."

I found it EXTREMLY Disturbing, that such CRAPPY "News" taken from WorldNUTdaily and the all around famous Jihadwatch.org made it to the ATSNN. Now this is a serious situation for ATS and we can clearly see where this is going...

Now THAT is SCARY...

Deny Ignorance my ASS!

I wonder where the Moderators are...?



[edit on 3/10/06 by Souljah]

I think you guys are definitely taking the OP out of context as much as some extreme splinter factions of Islam may be taking the Quran out of context.

I think all the OP is trying to say is HOW it could be possible. Thats something that anyone who has half a brain would do. To understand why something happens, you need to break down all of the possibilities dont you?

Also, with respect to his reference to some muslims dancing in the streets , particularly in Paterson, NJ... this is true, I'm sure the reference for it happening can be dug up, however since I live about 10 minutes from there, I also was right there to see it happening, and it made local news like crazy. I know there were some other places where this was going on, but this in particular struck a chord with me because it's so localized to me.

If Islam is so tolerant, perhaps you should open your minds and first ATTEMPT to see what and why the OP started this thread. Not at ANY point in any of his/her posts did I get the feeling as though he were anti-islamic...the FACT of the matter may well be that he/she COULD WELL BE anti-islamic, however, you certainly cant glean that from his/her posts in here.

have a great day!


AB1

Originally posted by grover
Your failing is that you do not make the distinction between (A) Good, and decent Muslims and the terrorists...

I acknowledge here, as I have in other threads, that there are good and descent Muslims who deliberately follow only the "good" teachings of Islam. But this thread is not about them; is it? It's about how Muslims who follow the strict fundamentalist teachings are in fact "rational actors" who have chosen to follow a different teaching than perhaps you have.

Originally posted by grover
"When was the last time you heard of moderates taking to the street about anything."

I'm not suggesting that moderates should "take to the streets". In fact; I don't believe that would be very effective. I do believe moderates need to go to those mosques where fundamentalism is taught and confront those directly who espouse this ideology; as an example of what they can do.

Originally posted by grover
That statement could very well be applied to this country and its religious and political isues as well....

They have the Taliban (among others ) we have the Christian Reconstructionists (among others) no difference...

The fundamental difference is that western Christians live under Constitutional law while groups, like the Taliban, live under Islamic law; making Islam not only a religion, but a political/social system as well, like fascism or communism. This is what makes it very dangerous. Christianity will never become the "law of the land" because we live under the Constitution. I don't have to worry about being burned at the stake. Non-Muslims, especially Christians, live under extreme oppression in countries ruled by Islamic law. There are already several threads about this topic.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Souljah
I found it EXTREMLY Disturbing, that such CRAPPY "News" taken from WorldNUTdaily and the all around famous Jihadwatch.org made it to the ATSNN. Now this is a serious situation for ATS and we can clearly see where this is going...

Now THAT is SCARY...

Deny Ignorance my ASS!

I wonder where the Moderators are...?

[edit on 3/10/06 by Souljah]

The funny thing is Soujah all I've ever seen you do is point fingers at things you disagree with and use words like "crappy" and mock them. I have bever seen you effectivelly argue against their legitimacy.

Do you believe I should take YOUR silly word over the words of a man (Robert Spencer) who has spent a significant part of his life (20+ years) studying islam and who is recognized by mainstream media as an expert that he is frequently invited on programs to give his opinions?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Do you believe I should take YOUR silly word over the words of a man (Robert Spencer) who has spent a significant part of his life (20+ years) studying islam and who is recognized by mainstream media as an expert that he is frequently invited on programs to give his opinions?

Oh Yeah, let's belive the Doctor of ISLAMOPHOBIA.

That will sure help us to Deny Ignorance!

Robert Spencer

Khaleel Mohammed, Louay M. Safi and Carl Ernst assert that Spencer's scholarship and interpretations of Islam are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias - that he lacks genuine understanding and; that 'he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity'. For example, critics have objected to what they see as Spencer's method of taking some Muslim interpretations and then using them to characterize all Muslims or what he implies is the real Islam; cf. for example Mark LeVine. They object to what they view as Spencer's method in taking a radical position (on apostasy, women, etc) and then attibute that position to all of Islam, rather than situating it within ongoing discussions. Carl Ernst in objecting to Spencer's having been invited to speak at the Uiversity of North Carolina argued that Spencer's works are not published by university presses and indeed do not pass the review of blind refereed evaluation practiced by university presses. Rather 'the publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice.'

I mean - how can you Not trust this man?

He sure is a Reliable source for Information about Islamic Religion.

With books like;

The Truth About Muhammad: The Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion

Or;

Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West

Or;

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith

Soooooooooooo much about Denying Ignorance towards and entire Religion.

Who's Behind this EXPERT?

"Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer"

The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam. I make these remarks because Spencer was invited to speak at UNC-Chapel Hill in the spring of 2004; I shared these observations with UNC students at the time to indicate that his views have no basis in scholarship (he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity).

And WE are supposed to Belive this Doctor of IslamoPhobia?

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!



[edit on 3/10/06 by Souljah]

Souljah;

All you're doing is spouting the same words as CAIR and other Islamapologists!! Robert Spencer backs his opinions with facts from Islamic texts. This is why he is invited to give his opinion. You, on the other hand, provide a reference from Wikipedia (yea--that's an accurate source) and the opinion of one professor.

The term "Islamophobe" is a tired expression that means nothing; for it implies that people shouldn't question Islam. It seems you believe people should just accept it with impunity; which you seem very willing to do. I will ask the hard questions (as does Robert Spencer) and you should take notice that niether DJ or grover have laid blame on those so-called extremists for anything. They instead choose to point their fingers at me when I have done nothing except point out what some Muslims do and how they justify their actions.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The term "Islamophobe" is a tired expression that means nothing; for it implies that people shouldn't question Islam.

You dear Sir, are a perfect definition of an ISLAMPHOBE:

Islamophobia

Islamophobia is defined as the phenomenon of a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims which manifests itself in general negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping (and particularly being vilified in the media).

And your Dear Doctor is manipulating the opinion of Millions with his complete and utter ignorance towards and entire Religion.

Tell me - you have any Muslim Friends?

Been to any Muslim Countries?

Let's discuss the topic, not each other.

Originally posted by Souljah
Tell me - you have any Muslim Friends?

Had. A very close friend since high school (Palestinian) who decided to stop being my friend when I questioned whether the Israel-Palestinian issues were about their differences in religion verses land. This happened after the 911 attacks. It seems he'd rather stop being my friend than discuss this important issue!! And; he was "moderate"!!!

Originally posted by Souljah
Been to any Muslim Countries?

Yes.

There's nothing like being forced to listen to that screaming and bellowing over loud speakers five times a day. Of course, it is their country. If that's what they want then so be it!! I don't care to go back and I certainly don't want it in the US!

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by intrepid
Let's discuss the topic, not each other.

I know it was a small post but I hope everyone got the point.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There's nothing like being forced to listen to that screaming and bellowing over loud speakers five times a day.

And being forced to listen Ringing bells every 15 minutes is allright?



[edit on 3/10/06 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by grover

That statement could very well be applied to this country and its religious and political isues as well....

They have the Taliban (among others ) we have the Christian Reconstructionists (among others) no difference...

The fundamental difference is that western Christians live under Constitutional law while groups, like the Taliban, live under Islamic law; making Islam not only a religion, but a political/social system as well, like fascism or communism. This is what makes it very dangerous. Christianity will never become the "law of the land" because we live under the Constitution. I don't have to worry about being burned at the stake. Non-Muslims, especially Christians, live under extreme oppression in countries ruled by Islamic law. There are already several threads about this topic.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

It is the very nature of Islam that the body politic and the faithful are one....thats what Muhammad set up, not unlike what prevailed in almost 100% of the world at the time...the big difference is (if you had even paid any attention to my earlier posts on Islamic history) the spiritual fate of one is intimately tied up with how well the other lives up to the teachings. By comparing it to fascism you (and the Bushies) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no clear understanding of what you criticize. Fascism and communism (as it has been practiced) are monolithic totalarian states run by a single party....there is not nor has there ever been such a system under Islam, nor could there be...Islam is just as complex and varied as Christianity or any other of the great religions.

Further derailing this thread will garner warns.

I hope that is PERFECTLY clear.

Originally posted by grover
...the spiritual fate of one is intimately tied up with how well the other lives up to the teachings.

So; if someone fails in his ability "to live up to the teachings" that has a deliterious affect on the "fate" of another? Why?

Originally posted by grover
Fascism and communism (as it has been practiced) are monolithic totalarian states run by a single party....there is not nor has there ever been such a system under Islam, nor could there be...Islam is just as complex and varied as Christianity or any other of the great religions.

Islamic countries that follow Sharia are monotheistic states run by [Islam]. The comparison to Fascism and Communism is accurate.

It seems you are defending the actions of fundamentalist Muslims and Taliban-Wahabi style of governments.

What is so wrong with this Pentagon report?

Islam is by its very nature community oriented...if you had read my previous threads earlier you would have understood this....When it is said in the Quran, speaking of the community of the faithful...i.e. Muslims...that there is no salvation outside of Islam...what is being said is a repudiation of monastism.... being a monk and being a Muslim are mutually exclusive. Muhammad was trying to address gross social inequities when he placed an emphsis on community...after all one of the pillars of Islam is the giving of alms and one of the fundamentalist complaints is about the huge disparity of wealth evident in the oil rich states between the shieks and royal families and the rest of society. Such extreme disparity goes against Islamic ideals.

Shriah law is not monolithic...there are many different versions and interpations of it.

I am not defending extremists or terrorists or fundamentalist states. Anyone who has come to know me or has read my posts here should be able to see how absurd a notion that is.

I am trying to point out inaccuracies and intolerances that lead to misunderstandings about religions, in this case Islam, in threads such as this. If you were painting broad generalities about fundamentalist Christianity I would attempt to set the record straight about them as well and I am no more fond of them as I am of fundamentalisms of any ilk, including Islamic ones.

I have spent years, decades actually trying to understand religion, myth, art, symbolism and depth psychology, what I call the nut or essence of humanity and I deplore sloppy reasoning about such things. Religion above and beyond the notion of a afterlife or the like speaks even more profoundly about our place in the cosmos...how we fit in the web of life as it were. And for the Muslim, that is found as part of a community, and if that community is in tune with God's teachings, then they prosper....in Islam there can be no seperation because Islam is practiced within the context of community. That is the very nature of their faith and if you cannot understand that without bias, then you might as well give up because nothing else within Islam will make sense to you either. In Christianity, the emphisis is on the individual who must work out their salvation on their own. And, while it is up to the individual believer to work out their own faith in Islam as well, again it is as part of something, a community, or the body of believers, not by himself, one on one with God.

My objection in reports such as this one is the simpllistic approach. Like you sum they see a monolithic system there where there is none. Yes there are extremists and yes they are following the Quran as they interpert it, but it is only their interpertion, not a monolithic version that all of Islam subscribes to.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by grover]

The problem with your statement:

Originally posted by grover
...the spiritual fate of one is intimately tied up with how well the other lives up to the teachings.

is that a Muslim's "spiritual fate" is dependent upon another keeping true to his faith and therefore cannot accept un-Islamic behavior in another. The natural response then is the expectation for others to completely submit to Islam because your "spiritual fate" is dependent on that. Don't you see the falacy in that? The notion that one's spirituality is dependent on another is very dangerous!

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There's nothing like being forced to listen to that screaming and bellowing over loud speakers five times a day.

And being forced to listen Ringing bells every 15 minutes is allright?

[edit on 3/10/06 by Souljah]

By ringing bells I assume you mean church bells. I can tell you in my neighbrhood I don't hear church bells. And I expect that if you hear bells ringing in your neighborhood every 15 minutes it seems to me you have a legitimate complaint and probably can get them to stop ringing those bells through legal means without too much trouble. However, anyone trying to legally stop the obnoxious music playing over the loudspeakers in a arab country would likely be arrested and charged with blasphemy.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by grover
My objection in reports such as this one is the simpllistic approach. Like you sum they see a monolithic system there where there is none. Yes there are extremists and yes they are following the Quran as they interpert it, but it is only their interpertion, not a monolithic version that all of Islam subscribes to.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by grover]

I appreciate your responses grover. The problem is that their interpretation of Islam is the fastest growing ideology today of all religions. There is a grass-roots effort to teach young children this "extreme" or literal form of Islam. This Pentagon report is the first official acknowledgement that there is an aspect of Islam whereby people are following this fundamental ideology. Up until now, the notion of "tiny minority of extremists" has been tossed around as if it's an insignificant fact--which it's not.

Would you mind answering the questions on the previous page that put to DJMessiah?