An Example of Why We Must Destroy Muslim Extremists!

reply to post by grapesofraft


Containment of extremists would be the best method to go around this problem. But one must be very careful of how this takes place. for example, the extremists who would have to be contained would be the ones with the bombs attached to their bodies, or the ones who are willing to kill you just for criticizing their religion. One has to be careful to make the difference between a really angry muslim who might make threats, and one who will actually commit a crime.

In addition, those who are contained (in other words imprisoned) must not be tortured. Doing so would send mixed signals; in other words it would appear that one is not approving of people terrorizing others, yet one is terrorizing them in closed doors. treating the extremists as human beings instead of sending them to death camps or torturing them would probably make the extremists think about the way they treated others, and they may even question their own lifestyle.

In addition, I don't see a problem with Muslims going to other countries, but if they are extremists who are going to other countries to spread their criminal propaganda, then it would become mandatory to keep them in check.

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by grapesofraft

 

If you mean that, then we should just get rid of all religions correct? I gladly agree.

Christians are just as bad as muslims. No better, no worse.

We shouldnt get rid of all religions. Most Muslims and Christians are reasonable people who do no harm to their fellow citizens. I am talking about eradicating the extremists who try to keep people living in the Dark Ages and deny education and other rights to women-among the many other ridiculous things they believe and enforce.

Originally posted by grapesofraft

My problem is not with Arabs or with Muslims. My problem is with any group of people that would try to hold back a whole society based on their crazy belief system.

Haredim, the ultra Ultra-Orthodox Jews fighting the state
Extremist Ultra-Orthodox Jews have been rioting for three days after social services took a woman's child away from her for alleged starvation...
...The hospital he is being treated in, however, deny the claims, saying that his ill-health is a result of malnutrition, and that his mother has a psychiatric disorder called Munchausen-by-proxy - which entails abusing someone in order to generate sympathy.
The people behind these riots are extreme Ultra-Orthodox Jews, so they're really a very small minority. These people live in another world. Their customs are based on 18th century Eastern Europe. They speak Yiddish, not Hebrew. They live in Jerusalem for religious reasons but they don't believe in Israel - it's a secular state. They don't accept the law. Any attempt from the civil police to intervene in their affairs - like this one - they see as an attack on their society. observers.france24.com...

Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. (born November 13, 1929) is an American pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), an independent Baptist church based in Topeka, Kansas...He is known for the slogans that he and his ministry use against people he deems sinful, including "God Hates Fags", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "America Is Doomed" and "Priests Rape Boys." He claims that God will punish homosexuals as well as various public figures such as Bill O'Reilly, Coretta Scott King, Ronald Reagan, Howard Dean, and anyone else whom his church considers "fag-enablers". en.wikipedia.org...

Unless you acknowledge the fact that nutters exist in every faith, and extremism in general is an illness...sorry, your personal extremism just makes you one of the gang.

Try to unload that anti-Muslim bias...you'll be a happier person.

reply to post by grapesofraft


Well how about the christians who attempt to influence what people can see/hear/read?

Imposing their moral belief system on the unwilling masses is no better than preventing others from getting an education.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I already said earlier that we should rid the world of any extreme group of people that want to be in charge of a country and force everyone to live under their extreme views of any religion. So I guess we are in agreement.

reply to post by TheAftermath


Some Christians running around bitching and complaining or burning some books does not equate to what the Taliban has done. Now if those book burners want to try to take over a country and burn all the books then they should be dealt with.

A Christian burning a book only keeps them from reading it. It doesnt keep anyone from going out and buying one.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by grapesofraft


Thank you Grapes. Respect. Yes, I think it can be talked out, or said better, I don't think anihlation by mob is a sensible way to combat cultural/religious ideals that we disagree with.

yes, I agree with the premise of your OP in that I think those that wish to kill the teacher for doing his job are less-than-human.

When a people attacks another with deadly force over ideals -- even ideals that cause the loss of human life -- they are repeating the same errors of human history. These ideas are repellant to you and I, but they aren't going to be solved by killing people -- that just reinforces the sanctity of the ideas. Like you, sometimes I wish I could do something NOW for oppressed people. It's part of how we grow as a species. If we survive, we will have to learn to not kill each other, and that applies to the "extremists" as much as anybody.

short answer: We can't FORCE a change of mind -- our ideals belong to us -- all we can do is defend them on our own ground, and hope to influence others. Of course, they hope the same.

reply to post by argentus


I agree with you that in a perfect world we could sit around and take a 100 years to try to convince them that they are wrong, but in the real world we must do whatever is necessary to keep them from getting control of even one more city, state, or country.

Originally posted by grapesofraft
So if we want to let people live their lives without being beaten down by a bunch of lunatics then we should do whatever is necessary to remove them from power and to keep them from getting more power.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by grapesofraft]

Are those "lunatics" interfering with your day to day life?

Remove them from power? Might I inquire how you suggest to do that? The extremist you are referring to are stemmed by old tribal laws which Afghani women have fought for centuries for the right to a proper education. Anything that happen in Afghanistan ain't all Taliban related.

reply to post by grapesofraft


This isnt just about burning a book.

This is about the christian effect on media as a whole.

If they dont want to see nipples on tv, they dont change the channel, they instead prevent others from seeing it.

If they dont like hearing certain words on the radio, they dont find another station to listen to, they want to impose their beliefs on the masses.

If they dont like a certain book, they dont simply burn a copy of it, instead they call for said book to be banned from public libraries.

Religion is all the same. Its about control.

reply to post by TheAftermath


The difference is that they have no power to really do anything other than to threaten to stop supporting or to picket the TV channel or book maker or library. So the fault lies more with the leaders of those organizations to grow some testicles and tell them to go to hell.

reply to post by grapesofraft

I agree with you that in a perfect world we could sit around and take a 100 years to try to convince them that they are wrong, but in the real world we must do whatever is necessary to keep them from getting control of even one more city, state, or country.

If you're talking about the U.S., then current laws need to be enforced, nothing more. If you are suggesting (and I don't think you are, but...) invasion of yet another country for the purpose of an alleged liberation, then I think you've crossed into a territory that is suspiciously ....... extremist in it's own right.

I think it's important to remember that our socialogical, cultural, religious ideals are just as precious and imbedded to us as others are to them. Can we really say with absolute rightness that we or anyone else has to right to dictate our ideals to others under penalty of death?

reply to post by grapesofraft


You're neglecting the power of christians in positions of power.

Hows GWB sound and his stand against potentially life saving stem cell research based on "moral grounds"?

reply to post by miss_silver


I suggest to remove them from power by negotiation and if that doesnt work by making war with them until they either give in or die.

I agree it is not only the Taliban, but also the Afghan tribal leaders who also have an extreme view of the Koran and how it should influence society. Thus making them all EXTREME MUSLIMS.

reply to post by grapesofraft


You support eliminating extreme christians too right?

Or does the religious hypocrisy rear its ugly head again?

reply to post by TheAftermath


O cmon now that is one item. It is not like GWB started saying all women should wear sackcloth and not have sex on their periods because the Bible says so.

Being against stem cell research could be based on moral grounds other than Christianity. It could just be that you value the sanctity of a childs life and dont want to encourage abortions because it is one way to get stem cells. Not that I am against stem cell research.

reply to post by TheAftermath


Yes, if extreme christians start taking over a country and decide the people under their rule should all live like the Amish or some similar nonsense then I say get rid of them.

I've done a bit of research on Sharia Law, Grapes, but I can't say that I truly understand it as it resonates to the people themselves. I also can't say with any certainty that the sources I read aren't biased against it.

for what it's worth, I would not choose to live under such rule, IF my understanding of it is even 50% correct.

I DO like the idea of an eye for an eye, though. That's a sense of justice and fairness.

I am vehemently opposed to women of society being treated as property. Again, I'm not 100% positve of my interpretation. I don't believe that gamblers, fornicators, adulterers should be killed (or whipped). I don't believe in persecuting and certainly not in killing homosexuals. Of course, the last one isn't owned by Muslim extremists alone.

edit to add the (or whipped)

[edit on 30/7/09 by argentus]

reply to post by grapesofraft


Why wait until they take over a country?

Do you wait for cancer to spread throughout your entire body before you start killing cancer cells?

No. You kill it at the first sign of trouble.

reply to post by TheAftermath


Well if you want to start gunning down Christians who burn books or picket TV stations then have at it. Just be ready to face the legal consequences.