WORLD: Fanatical Muslims vs. The Free World

reply to post by Skyfloating


you're so sneaky

:-)

good job

reply to post by Skyfloating


you have no idea where i have or haven't traveled, none.

frankly, i have seen a world that is rich and a world that is poor, the rich are kept in check with financial dependence and the poor are kept in check with guns and drugs.

i haven't, thus far, found a single free country (except maybe Holland). outside of that it's just a question of how restricted you are and how familiar you are with the local rules.

the particularities of religion play no real part in freedom or violence except as an excuse or a justification after the fact and are more a matter of convenience than true belief.


EDIT: and i don't particularly see any merit in you spouting anti-muslim slurry all over the shop, a justification of balance is hardly sufficient.

[edit on 5/1/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

you're so sneaky

:-)

good job

Sorry, did I miss something?

Originally posted by pieman

and i don't particularly see any merit in you spouting anti-muslim slurry all over the shop, a justification of balance is hardly sufficient.

[edit on 5/1/09 by pieman]

Apparently you do not see the incompatibility of certain religious currents with modern society.

My prediction is that there will be a rude awakening sooner or later...as two mentalities and value-systems clash.

reply to post by Cadbury



my opinion I guess - we think differently depending on whether our position is offensive or defensive - it never hurts to change the balance

sometimes pissing people off is more useful than a plea

Originally posted by centurion1211
Someone else on a recent thread here tried to pass off the danger to the world from fanatical muslims by saying that they amounted to only 1% of all muslims. I responded that 1% of the estimated 1.6 billion muslims in the world amounts to a huge army of 16 million fanatical muslims spread around the world where they can without warning wreak terror on the innocents as they seem to love to do.

That seemed like a huge number to me. Even if you seriously discount the number of fanatics, you still end up with millions of them.

Yes apologists would have you beleive there is an inconsequential number of fanatical hate mongers operating under the guise of islam but I suspect the numbers are far more sizable.
According to this report the number of mosques in Britain under hardline control is now about fifty per cent:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by Spiramirabilis



I presented the conditions of Islam in response to the satire by skyfloating, (he is shrewd). So any Muslim that rapes a woman or wife is acting outside his religion.

Just because a serial killer is American, Christian and a teacher, for example, does not mean that Americans, Christians or the teaching professions condone his crimes.

reply to post by masonwatcher

I presented the conditions of Islam in response to the satire by skyfloating, (he is shrewd). So any Muslim that rapes a woman or wife is acting outside his religion. Just because a serial killer is American, Christian and a teacher, for example, does not mean that Americans, Christians or the teaching professions condone his crimes.

even so - I didn't think you were wrong

just a point/counter point sort of thing - I'm definitely a middle way fanatic (as long as we're discussing fanatics)

and, yes - he is

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
my opinion I guess - we think differently depending on whether our position is offensive or defensive - it never hurts to change the balance

I was just pointing out that it seems to me to be more balanced than 80% to 20%, which was his claim.

sometimes pissing people off is more useful than a plea

As a practising Discordian I think I can agree with that. But on the other hand this thread didn't manage to piss me off anywhere near as much as some of the other comments I've read on these boards lately, and I still don't agree with any of them either.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Apparently you do not see the incompatibility of certain religious currents with modern society.

My prediction is that there will be a rude awakening sooner or later...as two mentalities and value-systems clash.

there is a basic incompatibility between any restrictive religious system and modern society, given that the basis of modern western mentalities and value systems have their base in the idea of the secular state and the basic equality of humans.

islam is not particularly unique in this respect and doesn't warrant any special attention.

the sad fact is that modern society itself isn't particularly compatible with modern mentalities and value systems, given the state of the entire world i would have expected that truth to be self evident to any deep thinking individual. the perpetuation of ignorance about a particular religion is hardly progressive.

reply to post by Cadbury

As a practising Discordian I think I can agree with that. But on the other hand this thread didn't manage to piss me off anywhere near as much as some of the other comments I've read on these boards lately, and I still don't agree with any of them either.

Discordian?!!

I had to go look it up - I genuinely like the concept

and - I think not agreeing with any of them is the only true sign of sanity in all this

forget how it's going - it's not going to end well

reply to post by pieman


Ive held the neutral and sideless POV on this issue. Ive held the Muslim/Palestinian and even Hamas POV. Recently Ive been exploring the Israeli POV.

The truth is, that this issue can only be resolved by people who are willing to take in all POVs.

The core cause of all strife and war is the "We are right, they are wrong" game...as exemplified in this thread and many other threads here.

I take on the pro-Israeli POV and this naturally attracts the pro-other-side POV. I doubt most of the pro-other-side-POVs have ever taken in the Israeli POV.

And thats what saddens me.

reply to post by Skyfloating


a point of view is, by definition, restricted in scope.
perhaps you should consider the merits of a comprehensive overview.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
Discordian?!!

I had to go look it up - I genuinely like the concept

Hehe!

I think not agreeing with any of them is the only true sign of sanity in all this

Whereas I agree with this I can't help but feel really sorry for the Palestinians right now, even though I don't necessarily take their side entirely. Hamas shouldn't have killed the Israeli civilians with the rockets (if that's what all this is really about), but this war is just ridiculous now. Believe me, I am trying to stay as neutral as I can.

reply to post by Cadbury


I feel sorry for anyone who didn't ask for war - and that's a lot of people

the OP was right to use the word fanatic - because they force everyone's hand - they rule the world

just reading through some of the threads here - and commentary "out there" - we're not even in the neighborhood and I can sense the fear

this is the wrong battle in the wrong place at the wrong time

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by pieman
the premise of this thread is utter rubbish.

The premise of this thread is that fanatical islam - which is rather widespread among the average joe (or should I say the average mohammed) - is incompatible with our society of relative freedom.

Really now? And how many Muslims or "average mohammeds" have you polled to make statements like that?

Fanatical Islam is not widespread, they just happen to be the ones with the bullhorn and the spotlight shining on them. The majority of Muslims from all parts of this world and all walks of life are extremely tolerant and do not support the extreme values Wahhabism.

Surface colors can be misleading, your painting with such as broad brush has changed the light in which I previously viewed your work.

Using the attack data from www.thereligionofpeace.com I plotted the attacks on a map. The data is from 2001 - Jan 07 (not including 9/11)

At the time I had to learn how to use various mapping systems for my work, so I used the attack data to practice with different software.

You could see them full-sized here: home.comcast.net...

This first map has a dot for each attack and the country is color-coded by the number of deaths. The number in each country is the number of people killed

Originally posted by worldwatcher

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by pieman
the premise of this thread is utter rubbish.

The premise of this thread is that fanatical islam - which is rather widespread among the average joe (or should I say the average mohammed) - is incompatible with our society of relative freedom.

Really now? And how many Muslims or "average mohammeds" have you polled to make statements like that?

Fanatical Islam is not widespread, they just happen to be the ones with the bullhorn and the spotlight shining on them. The majority of Muslims from all parts of this world and all walks of life are extremely tolerant and do not support the extreme values Wahhabism.

Surface colors can be misleading, your painting with such as broad brush has changed the light in which I previously viewed your work.

Wahhabis are everywhere dear. I would stop whitewashing the extent of the sickeness in Islam.

reply to post by VinceP1974


I ask again how many Muslims were polled or asked how they felt? Have you ever been to a Mosque, sat down to eat or just talk with Muslim? Have you spoken to Muslims from other parts of the world and not just watch them on TV? You're all viewing a very one sided view of Islam, same way some of them have a very one sided view of let's says Americans, or Jews, or Hindus. Painting an entire culture and religion and it doesn't matter which one it is with one singular brush is very wrong but it's being done on both sides and it's being done here on ATS with words that people choose to use. We are all guilty of this, example this thread alone should serve that purpose. Yet we know, that if we really knew each other on a personal level, no matter or religion or beliefs we have, we wouldn't and we couldn't kill or hurt each other the way those who instigate this religious war wants us to.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by worldwatcher]

reply to post by worldwatcher


Skyfloating's intent is only apparent upon reading the entire thread from the beginning. I'm actually quite impressed at how it has been skillfully manipulated from the start. If you can come out of this thread without rethinking this issue it would be quite damning. Reading this forces at least me to carefully consider all sides. Perhaps this is Skyfloating's intent?

I've held to the idea that there are no innocents in this conflict. To ascribe guilt to one side is about as disingenuous as a person can be. For instance to blame everything on the Jews and nothing on the radical element of the Muslim Faith is to bury your head in the sand.

Skyfloating simply stated that "Fanatical Muslims" are incompatible with the concept of a democratic society who's government is separate from all religions and who's laws are based on basic human rights. The ideal many of us see as the best future for the world as a whole. That is hardly an indictment of the entire Muslim Faith. It is the same as saying that Zionists are incompatible with peace in the Middle East. It is simply a fact.

We are all prisoners of our personal biases. A Muslim raised living under Sharia Law in Afghanistan for instance may see corporal punishment of their Wife for learning to read as reasonable while a Muslim raised in the US may see his Wife's right to learn to read as a basic human right. Skyfloating was very careful to limit his theory to only the Fanatics in the Muslim Faith.

What I find most interesting about this thread is the way it exposes those who are running on pure emotion without the brain engaged. At no point does the OP attack moderate Muslims but it is assumed by some that they were attacked.