Osama bin Laden

Nuff said.

"I make a distinction between race and religion/ideology. Replace the word Muslim with Nazi and does it seem so implausible?"

Would he be wondering if she was caucasian? One of the women I was talking about wasn't even Islamic, she was just an Indian who wears a traditional head covering (no idea what that is called). She was just smart enough to realize that:

dark skin + head covering = Muslim

and

Muslim = terrorist to a lot of people. Sure, the main racism kicks in in the first part, but do you think that Rightwinger, when he wonders what he describes wondering, does he walk up and ask if they are Muslim?

This is a reference to the statement in question this blog

"You hate me, Baker...because I dare to question the motives of a people you, in your vast wisdom, have chosen simply to accept. I resist your supposed logic...your wisdom; I don't just go ahead and accept them simply on the basis of your word, your reasoning. I see what I see, and I don't like it. That pisses you off. The face of Islam you choose to accept is the nice, happy, smiling face of the Westernized women at the bus stop. That's okay....but don't deride me for opting for the hundreds of thousand of chanting, fist-pumping, angry faces I've seen over the years on the news, in violent, flag-burning mobs. While you're chatting with these women, do you wonder what might be going on, or being built, in their husband's basement workshops? Perhaps preached or discussed, in hushed tone, in their mosques? I do. I'm not a dupe. Equivalency and relativism like yours are sapping our will as a people, Baker; it makes us question ourselves and our reasons and actions, and theirs, in a time when there's no room for it. See, I don't blindly trust on the basis of PC and diversity, the way you do. If that makes me a hater....so be it. Feel sorry for me if you like. I don't care. At least no one can compare me to Chamberlain."

Or another of his statements:

"From a post I left on another thread: ~~~You know; that's another reason to look down on this particular division of Islam. I, as a Christian, try to live a decent, loving and peaceful life that will get me to Heaven so I can live forever with Jesus, the Son of God. These Muslim want to kill, maim and die so they can go to their heaven and prong chicks (I'd hope) for all eternity. What high goals. Shows you how repressive and controlling their faith is.~~~ Don't tell me Islam is noble and peaceful. It's a cancer."

Can you really defend that kind of thing, Brad? I think better of you, but then I once thought better of Rightwinger.

The face of Islam you choose to accept is the nice, happy, smiling face of the Westernized women at the bus stop. That's okay....but don't deride me for opting for the hundreds of thousand of chanting, fist-pumping, angry faces I've seen over the years on the news, in violent, flag-burning mobs.

Oh my...
The "news" shows you what they want you to see...

When you step that far beyond Bush, O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, who do you find yourself standing out there with? Do you want to be out there in the same group with them? I sure wouldn't.

See Reply #21

Can you really defend that kind of thing, Brad? I think better of you, but then I once thought better of Rightwinger.

 

(regarding quotes from RightWinger)

I'm not here to defend anybody.  I am simply saying that I don't equate Islam to a race. I don't care what color someone is or what nationality someone is. But I do care, to a certain extent, what their ideology is.

Look at the reaction some people here have to "neocons" or "right wingers" or whatever. You'd think they'd been running around crashing planes into buildings.

I don't lose sleep over Islam or Bush or Nancy Pelosi. People vastly over-estimate the effects these things can have on our daily lives.

People toss nutty rhetoric all the time.  In this very thread you have one guy claiming the US is the greatest threat to world peace. I see a lot of that. But they're not serious about it because they don't do anything about it.

Where you and I disagree is that I do think Islam is different from other religions. I think it's also an ideology. But that disagreement doesn't dominate my correspondence with you. I may have different opinions than you on other issues as well but there's caring about an issue and caring about it.

Besides, I'm confident that time is on my side. I think it's only a matter of time before an Islamic movement does something that results in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and at that point, our intellectual discussions on the nature of Islam will seem quaint.

Really the major threat to world peace is close-mindedness, ignorance and arrogance. This exists right across the globe spanning multiple cultures, races and religions. This cultivates everything else including fear and hatred.

As a Christian I've endured much more hatred,insensitivity and judgement from many of our various sects. We have our share of extremists but, have done a better job of keeping them contained.

I do agree with Brad that it is a matter of time before a faction of Islam is responsible for something horrific. When or if this happens do we then blame all children of Islam? No, just as we don't blame all Christians for the the atrocities resulting because a few disturbed people.

Where you and I disagree is that I do think Islam is different from other religions. I think it's also an ideology. But that disagreement doesn't dominate my correspondence with you. I may have different opinions than you on other issues as well but there's caring about an issue and caring about it.

Very true, and mainly it is because I don't see anything knee-jerk coming from you. I can't easily sit down and predict what you'll think about something. Others, well, their opinions are based on a jingoistic self image, and not observations of reality.

I don't for a minute think that when you meet with Muslims you wonder what they are building in their basement, nor do I think you'd call their religion a cancer. That luxury is reserved for people who can marginalize themselves and still function in day to day life. You couldn't and do what you do.

Besides, I'm confident that time is on my side. I think it's only a matter of time before an Islamic movement does something that results in the murder of hundreds of thousands of people and at that point, our intellectual discussions on the nature of Islam will seem quaint.

No doubt, but I don't think it will validate your concerns about Islam.

We've had more than 100 years or so for American Islam to spontaneously flare into violence. Without influence, and apparently direct contact from these festering parts of the world there's no ideological violence from Muslims. We've had Christian racist militias in America for ages, armed to the teeth and periodically causing a mess. Nothing has prevented Muslims from doing the same.

When I see an American version of Hamas, or Hezbollah, or even an Islamic version of Waco spontaneously appear here, maybe I'll be more inclined to share your suspicions about Islam. Right now there's little reason why we haven't, other than the fact that they don't tend that way. God knows every other flavor of nut has tried.

In this very thread you have one guy claiming the US is the greatest threat to world peace. I see a lot of that. But they're not serious about it because they don't do anything about it

They don't?

The ones who are not "doing anything about it" are obviously just "seeing it" not being affected by it. The fanatics amongst the ones who have been and still are being affected by it (that is Muslims and Arabs in particular)are the subject of this thread. and you think "they are not doing anything about it"?

that is very close to "Bring it on".

And we still wonder why we are percieved that way i.e. threat to world peace?

The Muslim fanatics and the Empire-Building Neocons have set themselves up on a collision course. One would expect the latter to be rational and wise. unfortunately this is not the case which confirms a statement Tom Friedman of the NY Times made during the run up to the Iraqi war: "Mr. Ben Laden, meet Mr. Rumsefeld , he is even crazier than you are".

Oh come now, ThinkAloud.

If I think <country X> is the biggest threat to world peace then assuming I live in a democratic country, I, and others like me, lobby our governments to DO something.

Where are the calls for embargos, trade sanctions, heck, military action? Where is the widespread movement in country X to do something tangible about the "greatest threat in the world"?

I prefer to assume that those people are just using strong rhetoric to drive home a point. Because the alternative is that they're cowards. And I don't think they are cowards. I just think that, like many people, they're being melodramatic.

No doubt, but I don't think it will validate your concerns about Islam. We've had more than 100 years or so for American Islam to spontaneously flare into violence. Without influence, and apparently direct contact from these festering parts of the world there's no ideological violence from Muslims. We've had Christian racist militias in America for ages, armed to the teeth and periodically causing a mess. Nothing has prevented Muslims from doing the same. When I see an American version of Hamas, or Hezbollah, or even an Islamic version of Waco spontaneously appear here, maybe I'll be more inclined to share your suspicions about Islam. Right now there's little reason why we haven't, other than the fact that they don't tend that way. God knows every other flavor of nut has tried.

I think we're talking past each other.  There have been violent religions movements in Christianity as well. I don't think Christianity is as easily taken as a political doctrine as the Koran is, but it's happened. The difference is that the crazy Christians out there are not just few in number but have low capability.

By contrast, the crazy Islamic sect is pretty large.  Remember the whole survey thing where in many Islamic countries up to half the people saw cases where murdering innocent civilians was justified to "defend Islam"?  What causes that?

If I randomly meet a Muslim on the street I don't think twice about them. Because I"m a math kind of guy.  Most people are good people.  But when looking at the world, as a whole, I think there is something wrong with Islam as it is practiced in many places because, for whatever reason, it seems to breed more than its share of people who want to commit horrific violence in its name.

When "peace loving" muslims...if there is such a thing...stand up and aggressively/publicly/vocally denounce terrorism and the terrorist killing in the name of their religion...then people just might listen to what they have to say. Otherwise they will just get tossed into the pot with all the others.

"Your actions speak so loudly, that I cannot hear what you say"

Where are the calls for embargos, trade sanctions, heck, military action? Where is the widespread movement in country X to do something tangible about the "greatest threat in the world"?

I think we getting somewhere Draginol. It is exactly because of this fact you pointed out, that the fanatics got desperate and resorted to terrorism. I and many others mentioned before that terrorism is an act of desperation, stupid act but usually that is what desperate actions are.

If the world at large acted, not necessarily militarily but at least in a way to check the superpower's excesses, those fanatics would have been more rational.

And I don't think they are cowards

you are very kind, but i think it is also natural. who would go to fight for others' rights draginol? specially if that "Other" is on the other side of the tracks. you see what i mean? France and Germany objected to USA invasion of Iraq, they did that strongly and they were laughed at by us. even our congress changed the name of the french fries. you think it is fair to ask them to go to war or even start a serious diplomatic confrontation with the USA on behalf of the Arabs and Muslims? that is very moraly idealistic. They are not melodramatic but they are not suicidal either. They will act as you said if it was THEIR problem, but for others?

WE, the superower, didnt even do what was very logical and actually more humane before the Egyptian/Israeli war of 1973. Here is what Haikal(Exec.Editor of Alahram, Egypt's semiofficial News Paper)said about a meeting between Sadat and Kessinger in the fall of 1971 : Sadat pleaded to resolve the conflict through negotation but he said Egypt will never cede even "One Inch" of her land to anyone even if the price is total destruction. but he was prepared to accept reasonable Israeli demands. At that point Israel was soooo arogant that they ignored all international pressure to be reasonable and that included pressure from the USA and its "Jewish" super Diplomat. I said "Jewish" because Israel must have known that Dr. Kissinger will never suggest something that is not in the interest of Israel. But did they listen? no way. Kissenger came back to Sadat and said the following: "Mr. President, things are not going to move unless there are movement on the ground"

Now you understand? The mighty USA, the one who is the sole supporter of Israel and the one Israel will never refuse a REAL demand didnt even make that demand on behalf of Egypt. It plainly told the Egyptian President, nothing will happen unless you show some guts and fight for your land that you refuse to cede one inch from it. When Egypt did, and Israel realized that it is not that"invincible" after all, Camp David became possible.

Even the USA, are not willing to just pressure Israel unless the "other" show some guts !!! and you blame the world for not going to war with the USA for the Arabs?

"But when looking at the world, as a whole, I think there is something wrong with Islam as it is practiced in many places because, for whatever reason, it seems to breed more than its share of people who want to commit horrific violence in its name."

I'd have to disagree, because if you look at everyone else there, they resort to horrific violence, too. No one for a minute believes that Hussein and his flunkies were devout Muslims, or the Syrian rulers, etc., yet, look at what they were capable of. Look at how the secular folks in the middle east and central Asia get the "job" done.

They've been lopping off heads, etc., with or without Islam. It only makes sense that they'd twist Islam toward their social and political brutality. Islam extends all over the world, but it only becomes violent when the social and political sensibilities of the Middle East are carried with it.

But I agree that we are talking past each other. I think functionally there's no difference between you and I on this subject, it's just a matter of expectation. In a brutal place, Christianity becomes brutal, too. People will twist religion into whatever validates them, warts and all.

"If the insinuation here is that Rightwinger has 'marginalized' himself, I'd have to disagree. His opinions on the matter are shared by many, you see them every day right here on JU, Baker, and you've been having the exact same argument with every single one of them."

To lesser degrees, sure. Go poll average Americans and ask them if they think Islam is a "cancer" or if they wonder whether the cab driver is building bombs in his workshop. How many do you think feel strongly enough to admit it out loud, much less broadcast it to the world on their blog?

Nope, Rightwinger's opinions are marginal at best. Sure, people are drawn toward them, everyone has twinges of them, but few allow themselves to be ruled by them.