In Jerusalem portugaling Muslim bastards attacked my far flung Jewish brethren with axes and rifles while they were praying. Someone dare try and tell me now that Israelis aren't using measured force against them. Also the reason given for the attack was something to do with Orthodox Jews going to Temple Mount. portugal man, if they even knew anything about Judaism they'd know that we aren't even supposed to go there. Hell I could never go to anything other than the lowest reaches of it because I'm not ethnically Jewish.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/synagogue-murders-binyamin-netanyahu-despicable-murderers
The acts those people committed were despicable, but the actions of a few are not the blame of everyone in a particular area. The Israeli forces don't seem to care about whether they bomb UN schools or cause huge amounts of civilian deaths in their pursuit of wiping out an insurgent group. Both sides have committed atrocities, but I disagree with your definition of measured force.
The tensions regarding Temple Mount are because right wing Israeli groups have been advocating that jews should be allowed to pray within the confines of the Mosque there and this has been used by Palestinian terrorist groups to stir trouble despite the Israeli government's insistence that they are not going to change the current laws regarding this.
I'm still perfectly willing to say that Israel has and will almost certainly continue to use excessive force against Hamas and the Gaza Strip (although by the way neither one are directly involved in this incident.) The appropriate response to this would be to investigate the connections of these men to various groups, to attempt to persuade prominent Palestinians to denounce this sort of attack (which the Palestinian PM guy who's name I have entirely 100% forgotten has done btw) to generally tighten security (if its possible) and to appeal for calm. I believe the Israeli government has done all of this (well actually I have no idea about the last one but I hope so) but unfortunately its also decided to retaliate by destroying the perpetrators home's and increase their aggressive settlement of the West Bank which is blindingly stupid, unless of course they actually want to fuel tension.
Edit:
Eh think I got confused with the settlements and the resumption of destroying homes of perpetrators.
Also why did you feel the need to use the term "portugaling Muslims" and why do you describe the victims as your brethren?
@Penty, Because I'm Jewish.
Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries, Israel itself is tiny in comparison. If they didn't put on a regular display of how much better they are, they'd get attacks all the time and it would cost more lives and, unlikely as it may be, perpetual attacks may even wear them down to the point where they concede territory.
The act of a handful of men is no justification for continuous shelling and airstrikes on an entire city. Yes, there is a terrorist group. No, killing civilians is not how to deal with said problem. Yes, making an example of a terrorist group to show what happens to those who commit terror act is justified. No, killing indiscriminately is not justified.
Quote from: Pentagathus on November 19, 2014, 02:02:31 PM
Also why did you feel the need to use the term "portugaling Muslims"
While I'll assume this is used as an adjective to describe the
individual perpetrators and not the
entire religion, I would kindly ask that in future such sentiments are made clearer and look less like you are blaming an entire group rather than some individuals belonging to a group. For example the addition of the word "some" may have helped a bit here, and also appending an "extremists" would make things clearer.
Yeah that was the point I did not make by asking that question but should have done.
Quote from: Colossus on November 19, 2014, 08:07:21 PM
Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries, Israel itself is tiny in comparison. If they didn't put on a regular display of how much better they are, they'd get attacks all the time and it would cost more lives and, unlikely as it may be, perpetual attacks may even wear them down to the point where they concede territory.
This is the worst argument I have ever heard for Israel's use of military force. Jordan is very chummy with the US and nato, Egypt is not in any position to attack Israel and clearly neither is Lebanon or Syria. And even if this wasn't the case, bombing the portugal out of a largely civilian area is not a display of any serious military capability.
Nope, take it as me blaming the entire religion and the majority of the people in it.
If they only left Israel the hell alone there would be no need for it, Israel is defending itself. So yeah, I hope they continue to bomb the armadillo out of Hamas, drive arabs out of Jerusalem and generally continue defending us against the growing Islamic threat.
I'm sorry, but the entire religion is not at fault for this, nor are the majority of people in it. The perpetrators of terrorism are extremists and do not represent the views or values of the religion. I'm afraid that anybody who thinks that violence is a direct result of Islam as a religion are mistaken, as the true cause is the few who take the teachings the wrong way. In fact, most of the things cited as reasons for terrorism are never mentioned in the Qu'ran itself, but in several surrounding texts. Yes, there are many problematic verses, but that is true of most holy books, seeing as they were written millennia ago. To reiterate: the religion is not at fault, the extremists are. While your statement might not be hate speech or racism per se, I still believe it to be prejudiced and discriminatory.
Secondly, why should Arabs be driven out of Jerusalem?
Thirdly, what growing Islamic threat?!
What Islamic threat? Serious? ISIL, Hamas, anywhere there is Islam as a majority religion there seems to be assholes blowing armadillo up, decapitating journalists or attacking a war weary Jewish state. You'd rather Israel lost the fight and we had another Islamic state? What the portugal? What the hell does everyone have against Jews?
I don't see a "growing Islamic threat", I see several groups of extremists misled by false "prophets" who the rest of the religion have actually
distanced themselves from.
Quote from: Colossus on November 19, 2014, 10:31:08 PM
You'd rather Israel lost the fight and we had another Islamic state? What the portugal? What the hell does everyone have against Jews?
I would rather Israel stay in stability. However your argument here is a strawman. I asked "what growing Islamic threat?" and now apparently I am anti-semitic‽ I fail to see the connecting logic here. I think that Israel is justified to use force against
the groups who actually attacked them, but flattening an entire city and killing innocent civilians? Nope.
You're blind to it then. You don't see how much worse each of these groups have become year on year? Whatever.
How can Israel stay in stability, whatever that means, when they are constantly threatened by Muslims? How do you not see that *everywhere* it's the portugaling Muslims causing trouble. Is there fighting between christians and jews? Nope. Janes and Buddhists? Nope. Taoists and Confucians? No. It's all of these people against the portugaling Muslims because they are the single largest portugaling problem we have in the 21st century.
Quote from: Colossus on November 20, 2014, 08:26:03 AM
You're blind to it then. You don't see how much worse each of these groups have become year on year? Whatever.
How can Israel stay in stability, whatever that means, when they are constantly threatened by Muslims? How do you not see that *everywhere* it's the portugaling Muslims causing trouble. Is there fighting between christians and jews? Nope. Janes and Buddhists? Nope. Taoists and Confucians? No. It's all of these people against the portugaling Muslims because they are the single largest portugaling problem we have in the 21st century.
Who is we in this context?
Are you under the impression that Islam is only a majority religion within the middle east? Because malaysia, indonesia, guinea, brunei...
I'm presuming you were implying hyperbole but if you think there are no ethnic or religious conflicts not involving muslims today then you're either a complete and utter moron or you're being seriously obtuse.
Quote from: Pentagathus on November 20, 2014, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Colossus on November 20, 2014, 08:26:03 AM
You're blind to it then. You don't see how much worse each of these groups have become year on year? Whatever.
How can Israel stay in stability, whatever that means, when they are constantly threatened by Muslims? How do you not see that *everywhere* it's the portugaling Muslims causing trouble. Is there fighting between christians and jews? Nope. Janes and Buddhists? Nope. Taoists and Confucians? No. It's all of these people against the portugaling Muslims because they are the single largest portugaling problem we have in the 21st century.
Who is we in this context?
Are you under the impression that Islam is only a majority religion within the middle east? Because malaysia, indonesia, guinea, brunei...
I'm presuming you were implying hyperbole but if you think there are no ethnic or religious conflicts not involving muslims today then you're either a complete and utter moron or you're being seriously obtuse.
It can be whoever doesn't see it. Nobody in particular. No what I'm saying is that each of those religions have fought in bloody conflict with them and still do. Other ethnic and religious conflicts go on, sure. Africa is a prime example of an entire continent divided by tons of tiny (and not so) conflicts arising from different ethnicity etc. However, more conflicts arise, more bloody conflicts and more zealots from Muslims. There are just too many reasons to hate the extremists and I'm portugaling tired of trying to differentiate between the peaceful ones and the violent ones. Usually it's too damn late before you know which ones are nice and which are going to go portugaling apearmadillo and cut someones damn head off So, yeah, portugal them all.
Well thats pathetic. Unfortunately for you Muslims make up at least 20% of the world's population so portugaling them all may be rather difficult.
So wait, you're saying that because of the action of perhaps a few thousand people, you are going to instantly hate billions? Can you not instantly see what is wrong with that statement?
It is unfortunate, you're right penty. Actually it's even more irrational than that guys, because of the *growing* (and this is where I have a problem, they seem to be trending among the muslim population) number of people from (mostly) a single sect of a single religion I am going to hate them all. Until they prove nice. Don't assume I'm going to be mean to their face, or that I'm in any way violent towards them (or anyone else), I'm just going to adopt a more 'hate until proven cool' than 'I'm just cool with everybody, live and let live' attitude.
Quote from: Colossus on November 21, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Don't assume I'm in any way violent towards them
And yet you've been using your views regarding muslims (which you admit to being "unfortunate" at least) to condone Israel's use of force against civilian areas.
Honestly if you actually lived in Israel or otherwise faced any real threat from Islamic extremists I could understand your stance and would agree that its "unfortunate". But you don't face any real threat from extremists, it doesn't matter whether you can easily distinguish between violent extremists and otherwise because you're incredibly unlikely to be a victim of them. Unless you've actually got real reason to personally fear Islamic extremists (and no, news reports of a few isolated incidents or conflicts half a world away don't qualify) then I'd suggest you have a think on what the real root cause of your attitude is.
Thread title edited to reflect topic.
That works, I couldn't think of a good one. :P
I couldn't find how. :P
I'm not *personally* violent towards them (as opposed to regular, non-military Muslims who have been violent in this and other cases). I disagree, news reports from halfway around the world count as far as I'm concerned, I'm sympathetic to my fellow man. I'm not thinking of myself at all, I don't expect to be attacked even by a string of bad luck and circumstance. I am thinking of victims of attacks here and abroad. Families of people who have suffered atrocities by Muslim hands. Are you then not wary of ISIL etc? Do these guys not bother you just because they're far away? I doubt that. I think I get what you mean, I can take the chance on all Muslims I meet here because 99.9% of them are going to be awesome. However my argument is one of semi-logical hops, once enough bad role models have made a name for themselves under one demographic, surely it stands to reason there are more and will be more, given the influence these role models hold (Jihadi John, Abu Hamza etc). Perhaps more than you think, hell, perhaps even more than *I* think.
Quote from: Colossus on November 21, 2014, 09:30:13 PM
my argument is one of semi-logical hops, once enough bad role models have made a name for themselves under one demographic, surely it stands to reason there are more and will be more, given the influence these role models hold (Jihadi John, Abu Hamza etc). Perhaps more than you think, hell, perhaps even more than *I* think.
No, sorry but there is very little logic, if any in the argument you have now presented. You claim that you hate all muslims until they individually prove themselves to unworthy of you hatred, despite the fact you admit that the majority of muslims are undeserving of hatred, purely due to the fact that a small proportion of muslims are violent extremists. If you are going to apply this view logically then you would have to apply it to each major division of humanity which would then result in you hating every human being until they individually prove themselves unworthy of your hatred. Which would be a pretty horrendous way to live I feel.
I don't get your point in the last part there at all. Are you trying to argue that a large proportion of Muslims are extremists? Because its pretty clear the majority are not violent, if they were then the world would be a much more violent place.
I am concerned about IS and other such groups, however since I don't need to be personally concerned about Islamic extremism I can very easily be reasonably objective with this concern. As such I don't have any excuse to be prejudiced towards Muslims based on the actions of extremists.
Also going back to one of your previous points that Muslims are more commonly involved in conflicts than any other religion, well no armadillo, Islam is the largest and most diverse religion in the world. It is to be expected that its followers are more likely to be involved in conflict by this alone, not to mention the fact that Islam is the predominant religion within poorer countries (where you tend to expect less social development and a greater chance of conflict) whereas for example judaism is much smaller and much less diverse. Israel is the world's only jewish state which makes it much more difficult for judaism to come into serious conflict with christianity considering it has no majority christian countries as neighbours. If (very much hypothetically) judaism managed to replace islam as the dominant religion within the middle east (or northern africa especially) then I would expect to see much more conflict between jews and christians as there are quite a lot of christians with extremist views in these areas too.
The logic is basic and fear driven: where there is one there will be more. I've already said it's irrational by the way. I am however rationally arguing that there are more 'role models' now than we've seen before which *could* (although I believe will more than likely) lead to further extremism. That part isn't an illogical or an extreme view, surely?
QuoteAlso going back to one of your previous points that Muslims are more commonly involved in conflicts than any other religion, well no armadillo, Islam is the largest and most diverse religion in the world.
So because there are more of them, it's just normal for there to be more violence, what about in places where they aren't a majority, say, the UK? There are many more non-Muslims here than Muslims, however most of the terrorist type violence is perpetrated by them. Gang wars/bar fights aren't relevant, they're against each other: the 7th July 2005 attack, the killing of Lee Rigby and so forth were against the country. Just sayin' it really is more likely that one of them is to blame than any other demographic.
Would Jews and Christians fight if given the chance? I doubt it. Israel is a developed, moderately free country (Muslim countries aren't, obviously), any country that was Jewish would be getting support and infrastructure from them. Jews would have no reason to fight Christians unless they provoked them, at which point I'd be all hating on Christians.
Quote from: Colossus on November 22, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
The logic is basic and fear driven: where there is one there will be more. I've already said it's irrational by the way. I am however rationally arguing that there are more 'role models' now than we've seen before which *could* (although I believe will more than likely) lead to further extremism. That part isn't an illogical or an extreme view, surely?
"Where there is one there will be more" is entirely illogical, it simply doesn't follow and it would again lead to you hating every large division of humanity if it were. But I get your point, it just seems a very weak one. There may appear to be a growing number of "role models" (whoever these are) to you but its a pretty unreliable view if you're just basing it on the emergence of such figures within the mainstream media. Unless you fear that leading to further extremism means leading to a majority population of extremists then its still illogical to hate the majority of muslims based on the actions of the minority, regardless of whether that minority is increasing.
I just can't understand how you'd come to these views unless you actually want to hate a faceless group of people or are looking for someone to blame.
Quote from: Colossus on November 22, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
So because there are more of them, it's just normal for there to be more violence, what about in places where they aren't a majority, say, the UK? There are many more non-Muslims here than Muslims, however most of the terrorist type violence is perpetrated by them. Gang wars/bar fights aren't relevant, they're against each other: the 7th July 2005 attack, the killing of Lee Rigby and so forth were against the country. Just sayin' it really is more likely that one of them is to blame than any other demographic.
Would Jews and Christians fight if given the chance? I doubt it. Israel is a developed, moderately free country (Muslim countries aren't, obviously), any country that was Jewish would be getting support and infrastructure from them. Jews would have no reason to fight Christians unless they provoked them, at which point I'd be all hating on Christians.
I'm dealing with this separately since its not particularly relevant to my main point. I was trying to dispute the idea that Islam is an inherently violent religion, which to be fair you haven't actually claimed anyway. My point was that since Islam is most widely spread its going to have an increased likelihood of being involved in cultural clashes, which then can become religious clashes or at least lead to the perception of Islam being involved in violence. As to Christians fighting Jews I meant in the very much hypothetical situation where large jewish populations would come into contact with extremist christianity such as you see in parts of africa. Furthermore, extremist christianity is only likely to receive financial backing from western societies where its much more risky if they fund militant groups, thus making such aid much less likely. Islamic extremists on the other hand tend to be funded by ridiculously rich bastards in Saudi because they know they can get away with it.
Wow, there's a lot of hate in this thread. I personally can't see how you could exhibit hate towards a whole religion and group of people wherein the majority are completely innocent. If I told you I was a muslim would you hate me? I just think that this sort of hate is what drives religious conflicts, both sides hate each other because it's so easy to group people in to 'muslims' or 'jews' that you don't have to deal with the fact that its often just a few nutters on each side portugaling everything up for everyone else whilst everyone else is just trying to get by.
As a weird dichotomy, I don't believe Islam or any other religion is violent by nature. I do believe some peoples are more violent but that isn't by nature, more by necessity. Israel arguably has the best and most violent special forces in the world but is Judaism responsible for this? I'd say necessity, or at least perceived necessity on their part if you don't believe it's actually necessary. Practices that go on in Islam such as ritual combat I just think are differences between cultures and are not violent in the sense that they mean to cause conflict but are thought of as a resolution. Basically, we've left dueling behind and they haven't. I don't know which of us was right, I for one would like to see Cameron and Milliband draw pistols at dawn. :P
*Also, innocence is hugely up for debate. Are the people of these Muslim countries actually doing anything to permanently remove threats like ISIL? Have the Muslim community here called for Abu Hamza to be deported/jailed, are our young Muslims here who know of extremists doing anything to stop them? Not a lot of them. Am I innocent? Using hate speech towards a group of people I don't even know. I don't think I am. I'll freely admit to being a bastard but I am also doing/saying what I think is right and for the benefit of the people I care about. Path to damnation paved with good intentions etc. If you think that people are innocent until they actually do something horrific, I'd argue that's too late to be worrying about innocence.
*This is said with the assumption that you're not using legal innocence of crimes as opposed to whether someone is 'good' or not. If the former is the case then sure, the vast majority are innocent.
As to how I come to my views Penty: I'm irrationally wary of Muslims. Fear turns to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffe...wait that was star wars... But you get the point. But I also do believe that there are more extremists year on year. Which is why I don't just dismiss this as paranoia.
We're going to just agree to disagree on use of force by Israel though I think. I call it justified because of all I've said before, you don't. Which is fine, I can't say there is a definitive right/wrong answer. I'm open to being wrong but I don't think I am. If Israel gets destroyed I'll get to say I told you so but I'll find no solace in that. If Hamas dies out because of casualties sustained from Israel, you'll be right and I'll feel bad that I supported them. There are no 'winners' in this, I'm just hoping my far flung brethren survive and find a time of peace.
@Tom, No I wouldn't hate you if I found out you were Muslim, you seem decent so even if you were, I'd be cool with you. Also it's not particularly a religious war. The perpetrators just happen to be Muslim, if they were Chinese instead, I'd be all hating the Chinese. I care more because they're trying to take out the only Jewish country but they're attacking all over the world, to me this looks like these groups actually want a completely Islamic world and unless they're put down hard, won't stop trying.
As another aside I also respect my enemy. They are the people that most of all are fighting blood and thunder for their beliefs, how could one not respect that? Obviously I think they're misguided and evil but they'd say that of me. (This time just talking about the fighters and extremists, not civvies).
An interesting question would be: would I be okay with Britain fighting all Muslims everywhere on principle? Regrettably I can't find an answer yet. If I was okay with that, I can see that would be really, really bad. Personal views are obviously different from political views, it's not hard to see that that would be terrible for the country.
Quote from: Colossus on November 23, 2014, 03:47:56 AM
As to how I come to my views Penty: I'm irrationally wary of Muslims. Fear turns to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffe...wait that was star wars... But you get the point. But I also do believe that there are more extremists year on year. Which is why I don't just dismiss this as paranoia.
We're going to just agree to disagree on use of force by Israel though I think. I call it justified because of all I've said before, you don't. Which is fine, I can't say there is a definitive right/wrong answer. I'm open to being wrong but I don't think I am. If Israel gets destroyed I'll get to say I told you so but I'll find no solace in that. If Hamas dies out because of casualties sustained from Israel, you'll be right and I'll feel bad that I supported them. There are no 'winners' in this, I'm just hoping my far flung brethren survive and find a time of peace.
Yeah I expect we will, tbh its not something I'd usually debate anyway since its a very complex topic of which I'm largely ignorant. I'd like to point out though that I do not support Hamas at all, if Israel wiped them out I'd be pleased with that result, my problem is that Israel's recent attacks against them often cause very high civilian casualties which is bad for the obvious reasons but also just increases hatred against Israel and support for Hamas.
CBA to quote properly but "Are the people of these Muslim countries actually doing anything to permanently remove threats like ISIL?" well yeah they are, have you not seen news of Sunni tribesmen being massacred for fighting against IS? Not seen the news of predominantly Sunni muslim Kurds fighting against IS? The Iraqi government is largely relying on Shia militia in their own battles, but there's obviously a strong element of sectarian hatred involved in that.
Edit:
Also could you give some examples of ritual combat being practised within Islam? Because I have literally never heard of that.
The Kurds want to create Kurdistan like they have been for pretty much forever. The Shi'a Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran are against this because it'll encroach on their lands. The Kurds are generally moderate which is why they're getting support from USA and very begrudgingly under pressure from Europe and USA, the Turks as well. Basically they're being used as a buffer. They're fighting ISIL who obviously want a mega-state of Islam and a separate Kurdistan is not part of their plans, so Kurds get massacred. Are they better than ISIL, well yeah but I wouldn't count on them staying that way if they get their own country, although I'd love to be proven wrong there.
It's fair enough what you're saying but as I alluded to before, it's near impossible to tell who is a civilian and who is Hamas militant. Bombing schools is not cool obviously and I don't think that Israeli intel actually had any reason to believe that they were Hamas bases, that seems far-fetched at best. However....War is war, in Israels position I'd also be reluctant to leave any of them alive because of the nature of the fighters. They're guerrilla, they hide among the populous and if they aren't all defeated, there's a good chance that they'll be back.
You've heard about the 'honor killings' that go on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing_of_Samaira_Nazir. Unless I've misunderstood, these had a slightly more reputable tradition as ways to sort out serious disagreements, and are still used both as a way to kill your family members that annoy you and to take revenge on the neighbour that never returned your camel. This is the other half https://rhizomatick.wordpress.com/tag/muslim-fundamentalism/ although I can't find a link between the two after looking for it, so I may have misunderstood the links but both things do still exist and are practiced.
I was listening to a radio programme on it possibly four/five months ago on R4 with guest speaker from Iraq iirc. In the Bible, Deuteronomy has passages on honor killing as well but as far as I'm aware it's not still practiced by Jews/Christians to any real extent. I don't have any particular view on it from the perspective of a Muslim in an area where this is expected, obviously as a westerner I find it barbaric but blaming the people for it I think isn't quite sufficient because it's just the norm, I think it's the fault of the society and culture they live in as well as the individual perpetrators (they don't get off free, they still have a semblance of choice).
This is a thing I think I'm pretty well read on, I have copies of the Quran, The Torah separate (first third of Jewish Bible, also called the books of Moses), The Jewish Bible complete, and the Christian one.
EDIT: Also an edit to my last post, I was tired when I wrote it. I said 'if they wipe out hamas' I meant if they wipe out the people of Gaza.
Quote from: Colossus on November 23, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
They're fighting ISIL who obviously want a mega-state of Islam and a separate Kurdistan is not part of their plans, so Kurds get massacred. Are they better than ISIL, well yeah but I wouldn't count on them staying that way if they get their own country, although I'd love to be proven wrong there.
What have you based this on? Purely the fact that they're largely Islamic? You've already said that Kurds are generally moderate so why do you think this would change if a Kurdistan achieved full independence?
Also I expect the Kurds (at least those within Iraq) could have furthered their goal of gaining full independence much more easily by pursuing either an official or unofficial policy of largely ignoring IS. Obviously I can't speak for IS but although they're batarmadillo crazy to me I'd expect them to ignore the Kurds in this situation and concentrate on fighting Shia muslims. They have already stated that Shia muslims are their highest priority at the moment.
Are you denying that groups of Muslims (even those of the same sect as IS) are currently fighting against IS because they reject the ideology of IS? Sunni tribesmen have been risking their own lives and their families' security by battling IS in support of a government they generally don't trust despite the (well earned) brutal and savage reputation of their enemy. And yet you seem to think they are no better than IS.
As to honour killings, I wasn't asking about that. I was asking (mainly out of curiosity) about ritual combat, which you haven't given any examples of. The link you posted is an argument presenting someones personal view on the Israeli-Hamas conflicts in which this conflict is described as a form of symbolic duelling. Thats not showing any evidence that ritual combat is part of any Islamic culture.
Quote from: Colossus on November 23, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
EDIT: Also an edit to my last post, I was tired when I wrote it. I said 'if they wipe out hamas' I meant if they wipe out the people of Gaza.
Makes much more sense.
I've based it on pure speculation. Is there anything else to make a guess either way on? Not especially. People/countries are usually moderate before slipping into un-moderateness. No, they've been trying to get a Kurdistan through the 'proper channels' forever. The Iraqi government has no interest of giving them anything. They're probably going to (rightfully, by the way) ask Europe for some land from those countries mentioned to make their own country. I think it'll go up for debate and be a major global decision in the next 10 years. Again, pure speculation.
No, not denying that. Anyone fighting ISIL is by default better than ISIL. I can't say they will be in 20/30/40 years time though. Which doesn't really mean anything to be honest as nobody will be the same in that time, however Islamic nations have the predisposition of being especially hostile.
Yeah I really should have read it before, was the first thing that came up and seemed ok at a brief glance. I can only find similar things actually. I'm starting to think I'm wrong about what I heard. I don't know though, I distinctly remember hearing it.
Quote from: Colossus on November 23, 2014, 03:47:56 AM
@Tom, No I wouldn't hate you if I found out you were Muslim, you seem decent so even if you were, I'd be cool with you. Also it's not particularly a religious war. The perpetrators just happen to be Muslim, if they were Chinese instead, I'd be all hating the Chinese. I care more because they're trying to take out the only Jewish country but they're attacking all over the world, to me this looks like these groups actually want a completely Islamic world and unless they're put down hard, won't stop trying.
I'm not really qualified to comment on the subject matter but I think the hating of an entire religious or ethnic group due to the atrocities perpetrated by the few is quite concerning. I just feel that hating an entire group is relegating the majority which are probably just like you and me to the level of the few nutters.
Quote from: Colossus on November 23, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
I've based it on pure speculation. Is there anything else to make a guess either way on? Not especially. People/countries are usually moderate before slipping into un-moderateness. No, they've been trying to get a Kurdistan through the 'proper channels' forever. The Iraqi government has no interest of giving them anything. They're probably going to (rightfully, by the way) ask Europe for some land from those countries mentioned to make their own country. I think it'll go up for debate and be a major global decision in the next 10 years. Again, pure speculation.
No, not denying that. Anyone fighting ISIL is by default better than ISIL. I can't say they will be in 20/30/40 years time though. Which doesn't really mean anything to be honest as nobody will be the same in that time, however Islamic nations have the predisposition of being especially hostile.
No, people are usually moderate and then usually stay moderate. There's no reason to assume the Kurdish people would become radicalised following independence and it seems rather unlikely. Yeah the Iraqi government doesn't want Iraqi Kurdistan to secede, and yet Iraqi kurds are still supporting said government in the fight against IS. If they had let IS destabilise Iraq further it would have given less legitimacy to the Iraqi government and hence improved the chances of Kurdish secession. Yet they are fighting IS because they are opposed to such extremism, which really doesn't support the view that they themselves would turn to extremism.
No, Islamic nations are not predisposed to be hostile. Nations with a recent history of sectarian violence and serious political instability are predisposed to be regions where conflict and extremism may be relatively common yes, but that description is very distinct from Islam. Again, look at the rest of the Islamic world.
@Penty, What I meant by the moderate thing was that there are those two options: stay moderate or not. There is a chance, however small, that they will choose 'not'. In case this wasn't clear I am in favour of them getting their own country. They're fighing IS because IS is trying to wipe them out. They're in the same situation as Israel, however they lack the means to defend themselves and they lack their own country to defend. I don't think it's really anything to do with being opposed to IS, which yeah, they say they are which proves only that they say they are. If they didn't, they wouldn't be getting any support from the west and IS would probably succeed in killing the vast majority of Kurds. This is just my cynical view on it though. They could also really be against IS and would be fighting them even if they had the option to be neutral and had nothing to gain from it. Saying definitively either way is further speculation though.
Islamic powers throughout history have been hostile (rightfully or wrongfully so) to anyone not of Islam. I'm not blaming the Islamic faith for that, I blame the people that want an excuse for a fight. Today, sure there are peaceful Islamic nations but they're the ones that are more westernised
@Tom. Yeah I've said like 3 times it's irrational. But they're also not exactly few. Not the majority by any means but it's thousands rather than like a few hundred.
Quote from: Colossus on November 24, 2014, 12:12:01 PM
Islamic powers throughout history have been hostile (rightfully or wrongfully so) to anyone not of Islam. I'm not blaming the Islamic faith for that, I blame the people that want an excuse for a fight. Today, sure there are peaceful Islamic nations but they're the ones that are more westernised
Source please.
Quote from: Colossus on November 24, 2014, 12:12:01 PMBut they're also not exactly few. Not the majority by any means but it's thousands rather than like a few hundred.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, even if there are
hundreds of thousands extremist Muslims out there committing atrocities and so on, that is 1 person in every 10000. If its thousands, then its 1 in a million.
Whichever way you want to slice it, it's more than a few. How many western terrorists are there comparative to population? I would say a few. Compare that with the Muslim population and 'a few' doesn't really cut it. Muslims are still the most likely people to be trying to kill you (after family members) than any other. I don't get how this is even debatable.
@Othko: Really? Ottoman Empire, Moors invading Iberia in 711 and subsequent Reconquista, Umayyad Caliphate. Also bear in mind I said rightly or wrongly. You may or may not argue that each of these were justified hostility but each of these killed at least large parts of the non muslim populations of the places they passed through if not almost all of them.
Muslim societies have actually been historically
more tolerant than western ones. For most of history the caliphates actually allowed westerners and non-Muslims to live in their cities with nothing more than a tax, whereas western society would prosecute non-Christians.
Quote from: BBCIslamic Spain was a multi-cultural mix of the people of three great monotheistic religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
Although Christians and Jews lived under restrictions, for much of the time the three groups managed to get along together, and to some extent, to benefit from the presence of each other.
It brought a degree of civilisation to Europe that matched the heights of the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml)
Quote from: wikipediaAfter the initial conquests, the caliphate often exercised a degree of religious tolerance towards non-Ismaili sects as well as towards Jews, Maltese Christians, and Egyptian Coptic Christians
On the Fatimid Caliphate. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimid_Caliphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimid_Caliphate)
Quote from: religioustolerance.com"If anyone harms (others), God will harm him, and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him." Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1625.
"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians...and (all) who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." The Qur'an, 2:62
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm)
As you can see, not only does the Qur'an preach tolerance, but for much of history this teaching was actually followed. Let us contrast now with western society, who extradited all none catholics, burned many, many people at the stake for "witchcraft" and were generally very intolerant to anybody else.
Note, I am not saying that Muslim societies are tolerant for todays standards, but certainly for the time there was a level of tolerance that just wasn't in the West - people accepted other religions and were generally non-violent towards one another. Also I accept that the quality of some sources may be less than respectful, but the general consensus is that there are valid sources pointing out the tolerance.
Your evidence is less compelling. You cite the Ottoman empire, when you live in a western country who had an empire which spanned about a quarter of the world and was very intolerant of other societies. Thus violence from empires and kingdoms in conquering is not exactly evidence is it? By your logic, you should hate all westerners looking at what we did to the globe. Citing invasions and conquests is not valid evidence for your point, as
almost everyone at the time was the same.So, I ask again. Source please.
First off: I didn't say whether anyone else was or wasn't. Western society being tolerant or otherwise historically is not important
The bit you're quoting from the moorish iberia page was later on, not during the conquest. Furthermore if you read the Life for a non-muslim bit on that page, you can clearly see it wasn't exactly a great place to be.
QuoteThe ruling Islamic forces were made up of different nationalities, and many of the forces were converts with uncertain motivation, so the establishment of a coherent Muslim state was not easy.
A lot of people converted either by force, in fear or to get out of the social gutter. The penalty for leaving Islam was death.
Look here http://explorethemed.com/reconquista.asp if you want more information on the Reconquista I mentioned. As an aside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba this is a stronger argument as to how tolerant of other faiths Moorish Iberia was. The Christians there had to force their own executions to be martyred.
That wasn't the point though, the point I was making there was that Umayyad guys slaughtered pretty much all the sort of people who used to be Visigoths.
The Fatmid dynasty was a good thing for the Islamic world, yes. I didn't say each and every one of them was evil incarnate.
Your third source is frankly ridiculous though. From a site called religioustolerance.org. If I get a link from thequranpreachesevil.org I'm guessing that wouldn't count as evidence that the quran is intolerant?
I have read at least half the Quran and like every holy book it's hugely contradictory. It does say in it that all other religions are false and that those worshiping them are perverted transgressors (punishment is eternal torment under the eyes of Allah). It preaches both tolerance and hatred, it's the people that read it make up their minds which bits are the most important and which bits to follow. Some are going to say tolerance is the main message and all that, others are going to say that fighting against the enemies of Allah (all-non muslims) is the most important. So, it's like all religions tbh.
Othko you're shifting this argument waaay off track but here you go. Whether or not westerners were better or worse at having an empire is a completely separate discussion. You asked for examples of Muslims killing the peoples they conquered if they didn't convert, and I gave you some. Why would you think I would be talking about anything other than invasions? The sources are all naturally going to be wars from kingdoms and empires. Everyone was at the time.... So? I'm saying they did, not everyone else didn't. Why would I be hating westerners when my entire overall point was that Muslims are more likely to be the ones causing various violent bullarmadillo around the world than anyone else? I don't get how this has even become a debate, it's just true. The argument has deviated so far from the original point it's become ridiculous.
My point is that Muslims were no worse than the rest of the world at the time, and were actually better in terms of tolerance than most others. I didn't ask for examples of Muslim conquests being violent I asked for evidence to back up your point, which seemed to be that Muslims were historically
more violent than other groups. Thus showing that Western society was also violent at the time is a valid criticism of what seemed to be your point earlier. If your point is not that Muslims were historically more violent than others at the time, but just violent, then
all groups continuing from that era should also get a share of the self-admitted irrational hatred you insist on attempting to rationalise.
The article on Moorish Iberia was to show that religious tolerance was further advanced in that region in comparison to everywhere else at the time: around the 8th and 9th centuries elsewhere anybody non-Christian had
no citizenship, which even second-class citizenship is better than. Thus it was advanced in comparison to the rest of Europe at the time, not modern day Britain, which I would never claim it to be.
Again, atrocities committed are no evidence that Muslims are historically particularly violent, as to argue that would be to argue that everyone is particularly violent.
Quote from: ColossusI didn't say each and every one of them was evil incarnate.
You're right, you said you will assume all Muslims are evil incarnate until proven otherwise, which is just as backwards.
I did point out that my sources were poor, although on closer inspection it seems that the questioned source does have some background of legitimacy. This can be judged from the page detailing the site's goals.
I am not shifting the conversation off track, you explicitly stated that Muslims were violent historically, in order to justify your belief that they will be particularly violent today. I asked for a source which would show that Muslims were particularly violent in the past in order to justify this statement, as I believe we live in a reasonably peaceful society, and that pretty much all the planet progressed with us into this. Essentially I wanted evidence of your implication that Muslims have deep-seated violent tendencies which are not shared by the rest of us. You are yet to show this. I assumed you would be talking about something other than invasions as this would be necessary as evidence to back up your point, as the rest of the world committed atrocities during invasions, and they progressed to being more peaceful. I suppose you could have a belief that all people just want to fight in the manner you suggested, but if that's the case why specify Muslims in particular? You could have just said "people", which is a statement which is far more reasonable.
I said hostile, not violent. You're reading into what I'm saying what you want to. Hostile does not necessarily mean violent. I only called the modern day ones violent. Christians fought each other over land, money, power etc. Muslims, as penty said, have more sectarian hostility.
No you're not getting it at all. Forget the history thing, it was my mistake to mention it, it wasn't necessary, we'll disagree on what constitutes hostility and who was worse than who, I'm sure we can each list sources until the end of time.The rationalising is for why Muslims are more likely to commit violence *now* than any other demographic. This just started by me deciding not to patronise by saying 'I like Muslims but the extremists are terrible' when it just isn't true for me. I don't think you're going to argue me out of this way of thinking. You're getting all het up on an opinion. Who cares if I hate muslims? Why does that even matter to you? It shouldn't, it's completely inconsequential other than to note my bias. The link I posted first demonstrates one of my only points in this whole thing: Israel are using justified force against Hamas. The other point was this: Muslims are more likely to kill you than any other demographic today. That point is worthless, which I've already said, because it's just obvious as nobody else is actively trying to kill us at the moment.
For the sake of my currently slightly wibbly brainspace I'm keeping off debating, but in terms of my brief historian's input:
QuoteChristians fought each other over land, money, power etc. Muslims, as penty said, have more sectarian hostility.
I'd disagree with this, or at least I'd like to clarify it - sectarianism has been a very major problem in Christianity, and was a major influence on warfare approximately up the thirty years' war in Europe - and for longer in the Americas. After that the increased power of centralised states kinda put a damper on things - one tends to get major religious wars in periods when there are a large number of sub-state-level actors able to use force independently, and that hasn't been seen in Western Europe for some time (and where it has been seen in the Americas there often has been a sectarian element to violence). I think land, money, and power drive most wars in the Islamic world as well to be honest - groups like the Taliban, Al-Quaida, the Islamic State, etc, are really a relatively modern phenomenon.
Ok, I'm done
*Puts helmet back on and flees*