Support the Civilized Man

[Doc Savage Fan]

This led to a famous beheading that people use to point out that Muslims are all savages.

More false equivalency. You're on a roll today!

 

[Orignal Earl]

More false equivalency. You're on a roll today!

It's all a secret code us LIBS use.
Folk like you always are just going to get confused

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's all a secret code us LIBS use.
Folk like you always are just going to get confused

Yes, I admit that liberals confuse me at times. In that light, I'm especially confused by your comment "folk like you". Please elaborate.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Yes, I admit that liberals confuse me at times. In that light, I'm especially confused by your comment "folk like you". Please elaborate.

Hypocrites

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hypocrites

How so? And why are you being so cryptic? It's no wonder I'm confused!

 

[Orignal Earl]

How so? And why are you being so cryptic? It's no wonder I'm confused!

The ad is calling Muslims savages.
HR brought up Auschwitz, and stated we do not act like that.
I posted a well know example of how we can act like savages too
You say that my post is a false equivalency
I said your a hypocrite.

 

[tommo123]

or in short, we're all savages and there is nothing but the pretence of "the decent man".

as far as israel and iran go, let them go to war. i just (as a brit) don't want anything to do with it. both sides deserve what they do to each other at this point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The ad is calling Muslims savages.
HR brought up Auschwitz, and stated we do not act like that.
I posted a well know example of how we can act like savages too
You say that my post is a false equivalency
I said your a hypocrite.

So...let me see if I got this straight. In your opinion, I'm a hypocrite because I believe your comparison of Auschwitz and Abu Ghraib are false equivalencies. Interesting.

It's estimated that between 1 to 3 million innocents were exterminated at Auschwitz at the hands of the German government. One person died at Abu Ghraib with the direct/indirect involvement of 11 soldiers who acted autonomously. This person who died was connected to a bombing that killed 12 people.

I believe your comparison is completely ridiculous. And...as to your conclusion that I'm being a hypocrite for disagreeing with your false equivalency...well...to be polite, I think that says much more about you than me.

BTW...the ad isn't calling Muslims savages...it's calling jihadists savages. But somehow this "small detail" escapes you. Isn't that odd?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The ad is calling Muslims savages.
HR brought up Auschwitz, and stated we do not act like that.
I posted a well know example of how we can act like savages too
You say that my post is a false equivalency
I said your a hypocrite.

Are you sure thats what I said? I was responding to Moonbeam with whom I correspond in private and I was noting his comment and while what he said is right as far a it goes I commented further along those lines using an example known to all.

My question to you is twofold. Did I say we don't act wrongly, and reading my posts do you think I approve of how that prisoner was treated?

What is you considered opinion?

 

[Orignal Earl]

So...let me see if I got this straight. In your opinion, I'm a hypocrite because I believe your comparison of Auschwitz and Abu Ghraib are false equivalencies. Interesting.

It's estimated that between 1 to 3 million innocents were exterminated at Auschwitz at the hands of the German government. One person died at Abu Ghraib with the direct/indirect involvement of 11 solders who acted autonomously.

I believe your comparison is completely ridiculous. And...as to your conclusion that I'm being a hypocrite for disagreeing with your false equivalency...well...to be polite, I think that says more about you than me.

BTW...the ad isn't calling Muslims savages...it's calling jihadists savages.

Funny how you skipped over so many posts and said mine was the false equivalence
What does Auschwitz and a terrorist have in common?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Are you sure thats what I said? I was responding to Moonbeam with whom I correspond in private and I was noting his comment and while what he said is right as far a it goes I commented further along those lines using an example known to all.

My question to you is twofold. Did I say we don't act wrongly, and reading my posts do you think I approve of how that prisoner was treated?

What is you considered opinion?

When you said "But we do not act it" , yes I took that as we do not act as savages
No I do not think you approve of how that prisoner and all the others were treated

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Funny how you skipped over so many posts and said mine was the false equivalence
What does Auschwitz and a terrorist have in common?

Do you feel like I'm picking on you?

Anyway, you called me a hypocrite...please elaborate on my alleged hypocrisy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When you said "But we do not act it" , yes I took that as we do not act as savages
No I do not think you approve of how that prisoner and all the others were treated

For clarification then I'll rephrase.

We may all be the same but we do not act that way. "We" are humanity in general, not "we" from the US.

Make more sense?

 

[Orignal Earl]

I was also pointing out how that indecent led to a couple of beheadings.
Which the JhiadWatchers use to blanket all Muslim people with.
Also Doc, if your not familar with JhiadWatch they push that there is no difference between Muslims and terrorists
The whole misuse of the word Jihad is a crock

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I was also pointing out how that indecent led to a couple of beheadings.
Which the JhiadWatchers use to blanket all Muslim people with.
Also Doc, if your not familar with JhiadWatch they push that there is no difference between Muslims and terrorists
The whole misuse of the word Jihad is a crock

Where does JihadWatch state that there is no difference between Muslims and jihadists?

I'll ask you again, you called me a hypocrite...please elaborate on my alleged hypocrisy.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Do you feel like I'm picking on you?

Anyway, you called me a hypocrite...please elaborate on my alleged hypocrisy.

lol
No, I don't feel you are picking on me?
I can't even begin to imagine why you would think that

I thought I explained the hypocrite thing.
Someone who can overlook things that Americans have done, but has no problem seeing evil elsewhere

 

[Orignal Earl]

Where does JihadWatch state that there is no difference between Muslims and jihadists?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/recommended-books-to-understand-jihad-dhimmitude.html

It all goes back to the misuse of the word jihad
You are doing it too

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol
No, I don't feel you are picking on me?
I can't even begin to imagine why you would think that

I thought I explained the hypocrite thing.
Someone who can overlook things that Americans have done, but has no problem seeing evil elsewhere

Where have I overlooked "things that Americans have done"? And how is this in any way relevant?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims

I don't think jihadist is even a real word

You say Jihadist, I think, well he must mean terrorist
Like when Incor says radical Muslim he means those who won't eat bacon, but I think he's talking about terrorists

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/recommended-books-to-understand-jihad-dhimmitude.html

It all goes back to the misuse of the word jihad
You are doing it too

Just how are we misusing the word 'jihad'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

An accurate interpretation of the concept of Jihad is provided by the BBC about how Muslims describe three different types of struggles:[7]

• A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
• The struggle to build a good Muslim society
• Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war".[8][9] Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous.[10] Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[11][12]

Warfare (Jihad bil Saif)

Further information: Mujahideen, Jihadism, and Jihad fi sabil Allah
Within classical Islamic jurisprudence—the development of which is to be dated into the first few centuries after the prophets death[30]—jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may consist in wars against unbelievers, apostates, rebels, highway robbers and dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam.[31] The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[32][33] In later centuries, especially in the course of the colonization of large parts of the Muslim world, emphasis has been put on non-militant aspects of the jihad. Today, some Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defense as well as the defense of religious freedom as legitimate.[34]

Whether the Quran sanctions defensive warfare only or commands an all out war against non-Muslims depends on the interpretation of the relevant passages.[35] This is because it does not explicitly state the aims of the war Muslims are obliged to wage; the passages concerning jihad rather aim at promoting fighters for the Islamic cause and do not discuss military ethics.[36]

In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length. Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[37] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[33] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[38]

 

[Orignal Earl]

Just how are we misusing the word 'jihad'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

An accurate interpretation of the concept of Jihad is provided by the BBC about how Muslims describe three different types of struggles:[7]

• A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
• The struggle to build a good Muslim society
• Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

In western societies the term jihad is often translated by non-Muslims as "holy war".[8][9] Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous.[10] Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[11][12]

Warfare (Jihad bil Saif)

Further information: Mujahideen, Jihadism, and Jihad fi sabil Allah
Within classical Islamic jurisprudence—the development of which is to be dated into the first few centuries after the prophets death[30]—jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may consist in wars against unbelievers, apostates, rebels, highway robbers and dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam.[31] The primary aim of jihad as warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[32][33] In later centuries, especially in the course of the colonization of large parts of the Muslim world, emphasis has been put on non-militant aspects of the jihad. Today, some Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defense as well as the defense of religious freedom as legitimate.[34]

Whether the Quran sanctions defensive warfare only or commands an all out war against non-Muslims depends on the interpretation of the relevant passages.[35] This is because it does not explicitly state the aims of the war Muslims are obliged to wage; the passages concerning jihad rather aim at promoting fighters for the Islamic cause and do not discuss military ethics.[36]

In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length. Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[37] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[33] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[38]

Right
So a terrorist is not following jihad

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm done playing semantics games with you. Are you going to apologize for your hypocrite comment or not?

 

[Moonbeam]

or in short, we're all savages and there is nothing but the pretence of "the decent man".

as far as israel and iran go, let them go to war. i just (as a brit) don't want anything to do with it. both sides deserve what they do to each other at this point.

No we are both savages and decent people. We have a high morality for our in group and a potential escalating capacity to form in groups among our own team which becomes thereby divided within threatening the larger team. The decent man sees that we are all human beings and subjugates his animal nature to that realization and that realization is growing world wide. The world today is less violent than it has ever been. We are progressing. We are thus cursed from within by our evolutionary history. We need to apply reason to govern a half of our animal nature. We need to sublimate team fanaticism to the sports arena and elsewhere than dividing up the human race into the good guys and the monsters because the only monster is the one who divides by demonizing others.

PS, I think jihad is this very struggle of the higher man with the savage within.

 

[Orignal Earl]

No we are both savages and decent people. We have a high morality for our in group and a potential escalating capacity to form in groups among our own team which becomes thereby divided within threatening the larger team. The decent man sees that we are all human beings and subjugates his animal nature to that realization and that realization is growing world wide. The world today is less violent than it has ever been. We are progressing. We are thus cursed from within by our evolutionary history. We need to apply reason to govern a half of our animal nature. We need to sublimate team fanaticism to the sports arena and elsewhere than dividing up the human race into the good guys and the monsters because the only monster is the one who divides by demonizing others.

PS, I think jihad is this very struggle of the higher man with the savage within.

I'm done playing semantics games with you. Are you going to apologize for your hypocrite comment or not?

I apologize.

 

[cybrsage]

I think people here are ignoring the context of the actions. When the US soldiers did their vile acts, the vast majority of Americans condemned their actions. When Militant Islamists perform their vile acts, we see either happy agreement or silence on the issue. The lack of outrage against the vile acts is why so many paint them all with the same brush.

Some of it is because the people in the region of the Middle East are not safe to express their disgust with the militant islamists - though hopefully that is changing (referencing the Libyan event).