Muslins-a bad people?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

faiznne

Banned
Aug 29, 2004
140
0
0
Well, a lot of Americans are misleaded by the media, the media portrays Muslims as "militant," "freedom-hating people," and "suicidal." It's not a surprise that Americans tend to favor the Israeli Jews over the Arab Muslims. I'm waiting for someone to say, "No one can criticize Israel or the Jews. Anyone that does is anti-Semitic." Judging by the fact that all of our major networks and media conglomerates are owned by American-Jews-- except for two (one of which, Gerald Levin-- a Jewish American-- just retired 2 years ago from AOL Time Warner).

FOX News and Time Warner are the only media comglomerates that are owned by Gentiles. It's not surprising that we would never see any news that is anti-Israeli covered on the front page. And America will continue to be biased in favor of Israel in the Middle East due to the neocons and Evangelical Christians for quite some time.

Source: http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/wra.pdf

And there's also the infamous "Jewish lobby" that influences American foreign policy in favor of the Israelis at the detriment of the Arabs. AIPAC-- American Israel Public Affairs Committee-- the 2nd strongest lobbying group in America, only after the NRA.

AIPAC-Influenced Pro-Israel PAC Contributions
http://www.washington-report.o.../Oct_2004/0410019.html

U.S. Aid to Israel 1948-Present
www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm

The reason Osama Bin LAden and his Muslim groupies hate us so much is cause of messed-up policy in the Middle East. Favoring the Israeli Jews over many Muslims. If I was president I would not go to war with Iraq. I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay


Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078

General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'

But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.

Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?

?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?

For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.

Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
wow you base your opinion on a relgion of 1 billion + people on 2 people?

talk about democracy to the muslim thugs who have kidnapped a woman and are threatening to behead her
 

DeeKnow

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2002
2,470
0
71
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Individual muslims are people, people who have hopes and dreams, interests and fears... They're like anyone else (even if they do break out into a chorus of "ooolooolooloo" when someone dies)

Islam as a culture, however, is sick. And wrong. And the world is a LOT better off without it.

Hey why don't you move your redneck ass outta whatever hick town you live in and realize that maybe YOU are the one that's uneducated and primitive.


Personal attack!! These Mods are certainly asleep.

nah... just means the mods couldn't agree more.... LOL
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sandorski
He made a succinct statement. The reasoning is the same in both situations, the fact they are different situations is totally moot, a Red Herring.
Yes, he made a succinct analogy. However, succinct doesn't imply valid and his analogy was not valid or correct.

A parallel, or equivalent analogy, was exactly as I defined in my reply - a comparison with the Christian religion. Sorry, but criticizing religion, even as gauchely as it was done, is not the same as making a racist comment no matter how you slice and dice it.

I'm not even sure why I have to spell this out for anyone as it should be clearly evident to all.

All analogies by definition are imperfect. If the analogy presents an idea that causes personal discomfort in the form of reflectivity there is a tendency to focus on the imperfect aspects of the analogy and where there is agreement to see the parallels. An analysis of any analogy therefore, I think, needs to examine both the different and the parallel fairly and objectively if it whats to claim "retain a bit of perspective and reason." I would also emphasize that in the broader scope of things as revealed by this thread, an imperfect analogy, compared to the massive bigotry implied in the condemnation of an entire culture, would not be where I would want to direct my fire.

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Christians clapped when abortion clinics were bombed or doctors killed in cold blood? If so, why do we spend so mcuh time hunting down the jerks that do such things? Where is the big push in the Muslim world to bring in bin Laden? Do you see al Jazeera denouncing him as a criminal, or do they make excuses for his sick behavior instead?
Actually, some of our liberal friends make excuses for his behavior too.
Name one, just one. :|

The only American whom I ever heard make excuses for Osama bin Laden was Jerry Falwell, who tried to shift the blame for 9/11 onto pagans, abortionists, feminists [look out, she's on the rag!], lesbians and gays.

Again , Condor, please back up your offensive troll post with a specific name and quote, or recant it.


How many postings have I seen from liberals on this thread that made statements like; We really deserved 911 because of the way we treated the world, we had it coming for years. I've seen (in disgust) those posts in the last week.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Individual muslims are people, people who have hopes and dreams, interests and fears... They're like anyone else (even if they do break out into a chorus of "ooolooolooloo" when someone dies)

Islam as a culture, however, is sick. And wrong. And the world is a LOT better off without it.
Exactly!! It's exactly the same as with those damn Negroes! :roll:

Democrats always try to make Republicans look like racists where the reverse is true. Republicans freed the slaves! How many people of color did Clinton have in his cabinet. Was Albright black? Was Reno black? I think not! Keeping the people of color in a panic is the only way the Democrats can cling to those huge blocks of inner city voters - the very ones they depend on to get into power. Many fortunes have been made by Democrats on the backs of blacks, and they weren't all in plantations! The southern slave owners were Democrats as was the KKK! Why minorities follow blindly, I'll never know.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: dchakrab
From an international point of view, a LOT of nations think the invasion of Iraq is a prime example of Christianity being used as a religious argument for terrorism that transcends borders. Bush used the argument that we were fighting against the Muslim terrorists to slaughter thousands in Iraq, and lose a thousand or so of our own troops in the process. Islamic fundamentalists use the argument that the US is a threat to Islam because of our president, and his recent actions in Iraq.

This war was pre-emptive. If Osama Bin Laden said hey, I'm going to bomb the world trade center, and it'll be a pre-emptive strike, because the US is planning to invade the Islamic world for our oil, would he have been justified?

Based on US actions both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, Islamic fundamentalists have many, many reasons they can point to as supporting this idea of the US being a threat to Islam, and thus justifying what we call a terrorist attack. They don't think they're being terrorists; they think they're fighting to defend their faith, which is under attack. They seem to have a LOT more justification in deeming Bush a terrorist, and a massively successful one, than we ever did in invading Iraq.

-Dave.

Excuse me! Check your facts. "This war was pre-emptive. If Osama Bin Laden said hey, I'm going to bomb the world trade center, and it'll be a pre-emptive strike, because the US is planning to invade the Islamic world for our oil, would he have been justified?" That is exactly what Osama did!



 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Christians clapped when abortion clinics were bombed or doctors killed in cold blood? If so, why do we spend so mcuh time hunting down the jerks that do such things? Where is the big push in the Muslim world to bring in bin Laden? Do you see al Jazeera denouncing him as a criminal, or do they make excuses for his sick behavior instead?
Actually, some of our liberal friends make excuses for his behavior too.
Name one, just one. :|

The only American whom I ever heard make excuses for Osama bin Laden was Jerry Falwell, who tried to shift the blame for 9/11 onto pagans, abortionists, feminists [look out, she's on the rag!], lesbians and gays.

Again , Condor, please back up your offensive troll post with a specific name and quote, or recant it.


Here is one:

Quote

Well, a lot of Americans are misleaded by the media, the media portrays Muslims as "militant," "freedom-hating people," and "suicidal." It's not a surprise that Americans tend to favor the Israeli Jews over the Arab Muslims. I'm waiting for someone to say, "No one can criticize Israel or the Jews. Anyone that does is anti-Semitic." Judging by the fact that all of our major networks and media conglomerates are owned by American-Jews-- except for two (one of which, Gerald Levin-- a Jewish American-- just retired 2 years ago from AOL Time Warner).

FOX News and Time Warner are the only media comglomerates that are owned by Gentiles. It's not surprising that we would never see any news that is anti-Israeli covered on the front page. And America will continue to be biased in favor of Israel in the Middle East due to the neocons and Evangelical Christians for quite some time.

Source: http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/wra.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there's also the infamous "Jewish lobby" that influences American foreign policy in favor of the Israelis at the detriment of the Arabs. AIPAC-- American Israel Public Affairs Committee-- the 2nd strongest lobbying group in America, only after the NRA.

AIPAC-Influenced Pro-Israel PAC Contributions
http://www.washington-report.o.../Oct_2004/0410019.html

U.S. Aid to Israel 1948-Present
www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm

The reason Osama Bin LAden and his Muslim groupies hate us so much is cause of messed-up policy in the Middle East. Favoring the Israeli Jews over many Muslims. If I was president I would not go to war with Iraq. I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'

But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.

Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?

?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?

For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.
End Quote
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: sandorski
He made a succinct statement. The reasoning is the same in both situations, the fact they are different situations is totally moot, a Red Herring.
Yes, he made a succinct analogy. However, succinct doesn't imply valid and his analogy was not valid or correct.

A parallel, or equivalent analogy, was exactly as I defined in my reply - a comparison with the Christian religion. Sorry, but criticizing religion, even as gauchely as it was done, is not the same as making a racist comment no matter how you slice and dice it.

I'm not even sure why I have to spell this out for anyone as it should be clearly evident to all.

All analogies by definition are imperfect. If the analogy presents an idea that causes personal discomfort in the form of reflectivity there is a tendency to focus on the imperfect aspects of the analogy and where there is agreement to see the parallels. An analysis of any analogy therefore, I think, needs to examine both the different and the parallel fairly and objectively if it whats to claim "retain a bit of perspective and reason." I would also emphasize that in the broader scope of things as revealed by this thread, an imperfect analogy, compared to the massive bigotry implied in the condemnation of an entire culture, would not be where I would want to direct my fire.
I will state it very succinctly and validly as well -- Comparing apples to oranges does not a valid analogy make.

Rationalize till you're blue in the face, but criticising Islam (or Christianity) is not the same thing as racism Attempting to equate them through analogy is invalid and is little more than a transparently poor effort to cast aspersions on a forum poster in this particular case.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Individual muslims are people, people who have hopes and dreams, interests and fears... They're like anyone else (even if they do break out into a chorus of "ooolooolooloo" when someone dies)

Islam as a culture, however, is sick. And wrong. And the world is a LOT better off without it.
Exactly!! It's exactly the same as with those damn Negroes! :roll:

Democrats always try to make Republicans look like racists where the reverse is true. Republicans freed the slaves!




Wow, there's a hot steaming load.


Sure, pal...It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.

By that reasoning it was the Republicans who didn't win World War 1.

The Republicans who didn't stop Hitler.

The Republicans who didn't respond to the Pearl Harbor attack.

The Republicans who lost Vietnam.


I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Individual muslims are people, people who have hopes and dreams, interests and fears... They're like anyone else (even if they do break out into a chorus of "ooolooolooloo" when someone dies)

Islam as a culture, however, is sick. And wrong. And the world is a LOT better off without it.
Exactly!! It's exactly the same as with those damn Negroes! :roll:

Democrats always try to make Republicans look like racists where the reverse is true. Republicans freed the slaves!




Wow, there's a hot steaming load.


Sure, pal...It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.

By that reasoning it was the Republicans who didn't win World War 1.

The Republicans who didn't stop Hitler.

The Republicans who didn't respond to the Pearl Harbor attack.

The Republicans who lost Vietnam.


I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point.
You are very correct. To further elaborate the point, let's look at what the Republicans were saying in 1944:

http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/012103.html

August 1st, 1944

After one of the bloodiest months of fighting in Europe, House Republican leaders called for all United States forces to be withdrawn from Europe. ?This is a quagmire,? said one house member. ?There is no evidence whatsoever that Nazi Germany had any connection to the attacks of 12/07 and fighting with Germany is a distraction from our war on Japan. We need to finish the job in the Pacific before getting involved in Europe?s problem and besides, it?s not as if Nazi Germany is an imminent threat to America. They haven?t even been able to conquer Britain. Besides, isn?t this a matter for the League of Nations??

Asked about reports that there were some concentration camps in Europe, another House member replied, ?He [FDR] has never said that this was about liberating the concentration camps in his 12/08 speech. In fact, how could he [FDR] say a word about this when we ally ourselves with dictators such as Josef Stalin and Chang-Kai-Shek??

One Republican Senator opined that, ?FDR has squandered all the good will we built up from WW1 in a few short years and for what? So we can conquer Japan and Germany to acquire cheap radios and German automobiles. It?s about enriching FDR?s Wall-Street buddies?.

On the other hand, some Republican leaders say that this was an attempt by President Roosevelt to distract Americans from the depression. ?He [FDR] has had no success with his domestic agenda, his New Deal isn?t working, and he is trying to deflect attention away from his failure to stack the Supreme Court. So rather than deal with the issues people are really care about right now like the environment and subsidies for the dying buggy whip industry, Roosevelt took what should have been a law enforcement matter to be settled between the State Department and Japan and turned it into another War of 1812!?

Among some of the criticism of FDR?s European policy is the way the Administration is allying itself with resistance leaders. ?I don?t trust either one of them [Charles De Gaulle and Tito].?They have been feeding the so-called allies phony information. If we had a Republican President, we?d have better allies who could shoulder more of the burden instead of this fraudulent coalition that FDR has put together.?

There were reports that Nazi Germany had chemical weapons, but house members scoff at those. ?If Nazi Germany had poison gas, do you think they would have already used it? Roosevelt lied and people died!?

Others criticized the President for the way the operation to Europe came about. Former WW1 military commanders criticized the Invasion of Normandy as ?Reckless?. ?It?s obvious that we barely had enough troops to prepare ourselves for the German counter offensive? one critic said. ?Our jeeps were inadequately design to handle the new German?s panzerfaust anti-tank weapon and we are stretching our troops too thin in both Germany and Japan. I don?t even know what we?re trying to do and I doubt Roosevelt does either. If only we had a plan, we wouldn?t be taking so many casualties.?

A GOP congressman summed it all up by saying ?It was arrogant and reckless for Roosevelt to use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to drag us into a world war and I only hope we can get him out of office so we won?t have to waste anymore of our young men?s lives on this mess he got us into.?
Echos of the past still resound clearly in the present. As Townsend put it though - "The beards have all grown longer overnight."

Note: The piece above is a satire.
 

dchakrab

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
493
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: dchakrab
From an international point of view, a LOT of nations think the invasion of Iraq is a prime example of Christianity being used as a religious argument for terrorism that transcends borders. Bush used the argument that we were fighting against the Muslim terrorists to slaughter thousands in Iraq, and lose a thousand or so of our own troops in the process. Islamic fundamentalists use the argument that the US is a threat to Islam because of our president, and his recent actions in Iraq.

This war was pre-emptive. If Osama Bin Laden said hey, I'm going to bomb the world trade center, and it'll be a pre-emptive strike, because the US is planning to invade the Islamic world for our oil, would he have been justified?

Based on US actions both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, Islamic fundamentalists have many, many reasons they can point to as supporting this idea of the US being a threat to Islam, and thus justifying what we call a terrorist attack. They don't think they're being terrorists; they think they're fighting to defend their faith, which is under attack. They seem to have a LOT more justification in deeming Bush a terrorist, and a massively successful one, than we ever did in invading Iraq.

-Dave.

Excuse me! Check your facts. "This war was pre-emptive. If Osama Bin Laden said hey, I'm going to bomb the world trade center, and it'll be a pre-emptive strike, because the US is planning to invade the Islamic world for our oil, would he have been justified?" That is exactly what Osama did!

Hence my point. If that's exactly what Osama did, was he justified? You haven't answered my question. If Osama Bin Laden used "pre-emptive strike" as an excuse, would you be happy about Sept. 11th...would you support it as much as you support the war in Iraq?

-Dave.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Muslims need to be watched. As there size grows in the US they will bring civil war to the US. Just like they have to europe,asia,africa etc.

Mark my words.
 

theshazman

Golden Member
Apr 11, 2003
1,361
0
71
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Muslims need to be watched. As there size grows in the US they will bring civil war to the US. Just like they have to europe,asia,africa etc.

Mark my words.

Your paranoia is shared by the US govt hence the Patriot Act. BTW, there and their are not the same words.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Individual muslims are people, people who have hopes and dreams, interests and fears... They're like anyone else (even if they do break out into a chorus of "ooolooolooloo" when someone dies)

Islam as a culture, however, is sick. And wrong. And the world is a LOT better off without it.
Exactly!! It's exactly the same as with those damn Negroes! :roll:

Sandorski: He made a succinct statement. The reasoning is the same in both situations, the fact they are different situations is totally moot, a Red Herring.

TLC: Yes, he made a succinct analogy. However, succinct doesn't imply valid and his analogy was not valid or correct.

A parallel, or equivalent analogy, was exactly as I defined in my reply - a comparison with the Christian religion. Sorry, but criticizing religion, even as gauchely as it was done, is not the same as making a racist comment no matter how you slice and dice it.

I'm not even sure why I have to spell this out for anyone as it should be clearly evident to all.


Moonbeam: All analogies by definition are imperfect. If the analogy presents an idea that causes personal discomfort in the form of reflectivity there is a tendency to focus on the imperfect aspects of the analogy and where there is agreement to see the parallels. An analysis of any analogy therefore, I think, needs to examine both the different and the parallel fairly and objectively if it whats to claim "retain a bit of perspective and reason." I would also emphasize that in the broader scope of things as revealed by this thread, an imperfect analogy, compared to the massive bigotry implied in the condemnation of an entire culture, would not be where I would want to direct my fire.


TLC: I will state it very succinctly and validly as well -- Comparing apples to oranges does not a valid analogy make.

Rationalize till you're blue in the face, but criticising Islam (or Christianity) is not the same thing as racism Attempting to equate them through analogy is invalid and is little more than a transparently poor effort to cast aspersions on a forum poster in this particular case.

We will have to ask the Perknose the exact parallels intended by his analogy but this is what I read:

Islam as a culture, however, is sick. And wrong. And the world is a LOT better off without it.[/quote]

Exactly!! It's exactly the same as with those damn Negroes!

I read being culturally Islamic condemns you like having black skin condemned blacks. Both oinions arise out of pure bigotry and ignorance.

If the shoe fits wear it. The analogy certainly does.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Define those Muslim terrorists that you are so afraid of. Exactly who are they, how much support do they have, what are their goals, why are they fighting, what does it take to defeat them (can they be defeated?) etc.

The oldest and most basic tenet in strategy is "know your enemy". Do you truly know your "enemy"?

Fuzzy renditions of "we are Good they are Evil" is not good enough.


 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
Originally posted by: shazman
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Muslims need to be watched. As there size grows in the US they will bring civil war to the US. Just like they have to europe,asia,africa etc.

Mark my words.

Your paranoia is shared by the US govt hence the Patriot Act. BTW, there and their are not the same words.

Better to be safe then sorry, you fool.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: shazman
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Muslims need to be watched. As there size grows in the US they will bring civil war to the US. Just like they have to europe,asia,africa etc.

Mark my words.

Your paranoia is shared by the US govt hence the Patriot Act. BTW, there and their are not the same words.

Better to be safe then sorry, you fool.

Somebody's getting cranky... that or we have another angry fear-addict.