UN: Civilian deaths in Afghan war hit record high

[Resigned]

There seems to be an implicit assumption that you believe the true Muslims are terrorists. Your argument is that because terrorists have strong convictions it is natural to consider Islam terrorist religion. The argumentative structure is the same when you take Islam to be a preference for economic equality and degree of faith to be the degree of preference for equality. You readily accept the argumentative structure in one case and (should) reject it in the other.

Do you realize that attempting to make some really odd comparison between economic equality and degree of faith relative to terrorism makes no sense?

[Resigned]

The internecine hatreds that divide the sunni and shia have smoldered for 1,400 years and occasionally combust into raging kill-fests.

While Al Qaeda in Iraq claims “credit” for many of the atrocities, I think it should be pointed out that many Westerners mistakenly view Al Qaeda almost as a state. That's how we're used to thinking about groups of people. Al Qaeda is not a monolithic organ or apparatus, but is rather a philosophy which unites the Muslim ummah--a worldwide nation of believers, not contained within specific borders--under the auspices of Islam, and specifically united by the sacred duty of jihad.

This is a philosophy which, while existing since Islam's inception, was crystallized in modern times in the form of the simple motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur'an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

This attack like many others, I suspect, is indicative of the somewhat new trend of many disparate Islamic terror groups who, while viewing charismatic figures like bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, and al-Zawahiri (interesting that the two former jihad kingpins are no longer breathing), with reverence, are not beholden to them or dependent on them as they plan and carry out terror operations.

Iraq bombings, political crisis raise concerns of renewed civil war

Bombings in Iraq targeted two Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad today. The violence, coming amid a Sunni-Shiite political crisis, threatens to inflame the tensions that led to civil war in 2006-07.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terro...ewed-civil-war

At least 50 people were killed today in two predominantly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad, underlining Iraq's tenuous stability as a political crisis threatens to inflame stark sectarian divisions.
There were at least four explosions across Baghdad. The first attack took place in Sadr City, in northeast Baghdad, and killed at least a dozen people. A half-hour later, another bomb went off nearby, killing one, the Guardian reports. The neighborhood of Kadhamiya, home to an important Shiite shrine, was blasted by a pair of almost simultaneous bombs two hours later. Yesterday there were a series of attacks on the homes of police officers and a member of a Sunni militia with ties to the government.

[Polog]

Do you realize that attempting to make some really odd comparison between economic equality and degree of faith relative to terrorism makes no sense?

Perhaps it is not the most intuitive way to look at things. However, it does show the limitations of your argument. When we apply the same logic to this situation it would imply that pursuing equality is about killing people too. If you accept the reasoning in one you should accept the reasoning of the other. If you want to prove that Islam is murderous, you need to look to the content itself and prove that the natural way of looking at it leads people to murder.

[Resigned]

Perhaps it is not the most intuitive way to look at things. However, it does show the limitations of your argument. When we apply the same logic to this situation it would imply that pursuing equality is about killing people too. If you accept the reasoning in one you should accept the reasoning of the other. If you want to prove that Islam is murderous, you need to look to the content itself and prove that the natural way of looking at it leads people to murder.

If this is an issue you feel so strongly about, you might want to consider donating time for some oversas outreach. You might want to consider discussing this subject with those having a vested interest in degree of faith. Maybe consider approaching a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest and lecture him (or her) regarding his or her considered opinion regarding economic equality and degree of faith. Please do report back to us what you find.


I think your claim to applying logic in connection with economic equality and degree of faith is flawed. I can't accept any reasoning you're suggesting as there is simply no rational nexus connecting one with the other.

Lastly, I have no need or desire to prove that islam is murderous. My comments in this thread were observations and some conclusions regarding causes for the continued mass murder in Iraq, Afghanistan and the violence that has defined so much of islamist history.

[ChicStar]

Many in Islam don't believe the acts are unjust. That's why the acts continue on a near daily basis.



Muslims have no connection with islam?



Clever.



Forget What?



They tell us so.



Prosecuted in a Western court of law. We rarely read of any of the enablers and promoters of islamic terrorism being brought to justice by the islamist governments which support and shelter the terrorists. Is that because the enablers and promoters of islamic terrorism are enabled and promoted by islamist governments? That's a rhetorical question, BTW.



Why are you asking questions that predefine your answer? Why do you think people are paranoid? Is that your paranoia?



How do you know that? Your gods have done evil things.



How do you know that evil is precisely what the gods want?



Confronting islamic terrorism is a noble cause.

You just don't want to even attempt at understanding what the truth is, right?

Fine.

[Polog]

If this is an issue you feel so strongly about, you might want to consider donating time for some oversas outreach. You might want to consider discussing this subject with those having a vested interest in degree of faith. Maybe consider approaching a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest and lecture him (or her) regarding his or her considered opinion regarding economic equality and degree of faith. Please do report back to us what you find.

There is a difference between discussions and trying to persuade someone to do something. They believe with all their heart that they understand the true conception of Islam.

I think your claim to applying logic in connection with economic equality and degree of faith is flawed. I can't accept any reasoning you're suggesting as there is simply no rational nexus connecting one with the other.

You are trying to draw a conclusion and are implicitly relying on reasoning that does not quite work. When you look at my example it appears that the reasoning does not make sense. Anyway, you don't understand. That is fine. I'm used to it.

Lastly, I have no need or desire to prove that islam is murderous. My comments in this thread were observations and some conclusions regarding causes for the continued mass murder in Iraq, Afghanistan and the violence that has defined so much of islamist history.

Pick your poison. Killing is part of human nation. Atheists, Christians, and Jews don't fare that well.

[Resigned]

You just don't want to even attempt at understanding what the truth is, right?

Fine.

Oh my. I just got "fined". Ah, I see. Only you know the truth because you are the repository for all truths.

Honestly, the truth is not that difficult to fathom. You just need a willingness to be honest with yourself and others. One truth is that people are murdered most every day, often en mass, by those who truly believe they are doing the work of their god and his partner. Truth for them is that they will receive carnal rewards in the afterlife. Another truth is that adherents to only one particular politico-religious ideology on the planet actively promote and further that madness. One other truth is that the people who are dead as the result of this madness are certainly dead.

People stumble upon truths most every day. Unfortunately, they dust themselves off and proceed on as though nothing has happened. Don't be an accomplice to those stumblebums.

[Resigned]

There is a difference between discussions and trying to persuade someone to do something. They believe with all their heart that they understand the true conception of Islam.

Yes, I agree. How does anyone define what the "true" islam is.

You are trying to draw a conclusion and are implicitly relying on reasoning that does not quite work. When you look at my example it appears that the reasoning does not make sense. Anyway, you don't understand. That is fine. I'm used to it.

You're mistaking what I've written. I've made no comparisons between economic equality and religious belief because there are no valid comparisons as you have proposed.

If your arguments require convolution to be understandable, one might define your argumentation as weak.

Pick your poison. Killing is part of human nation. Atheists, Christians, and Jews don't fare that well.

It's more complicated than that. And Atheists, Christians and Jews actually do fare better.


The underlying message is that the international community can (at times), have great influence in preventing the excesses of islamist fear societies. The value of the international community is to impose certain penalties on nations that are unable to respect human rights. Sometimes this is formal through sanctions, but more regularly through intangible attacks on political capital.

[Polog]

Yes, I agree. How does anyone define what the "true" islam is.

True Islam is defined by the nature of god. If Allah exists then the true conception of Islam is the conception that is consistent with Allah's existence. If not then there is no true Islam. There are just different versions with varying degrees of being legitimate interpretations of the Quran.

From an individual standpoint we act as though our conceptions of the Quran represent the truth while (hopefully) understanding our limitations to understand the truth. This is the sense in which ChicStar is speaking.

You're mistaking what I've written. I've made no comparisons between economic equality and religious belief because there are no valid comparisons as you have proposed.

What have you written then?

It's more complicated than that. And Atheists, Christians and Jews actually do fare better.

I think more people have died as a result of the Cold War and the Communist movements than have died at the hands of Islam.

[Resigned]

True Islam is defined by the nature of god. If Allah exists then the true conception of Islam is the conception that is consistent with Allah's existence. If not then there is no true Islam. There are just different versions with varying degrees of being legitimate interpretations of the Quran.

So the angry, kafir-hating, brutish interpretation of Islam is as legitimate as any other.

It's a matter of subjective interpretation. The gods have chosen not to step in and referee the match so we're left to make rational choices and to draw conclusions.

From an individual standpoint we act as though our conceptions of the Quran represent the truth while (hopefully) understanding our limitations to understand the truth. This is the sense in which ChicStar is speaking.

So... we're left to understand that you are admitting your perceptions are subjective and that you are limited to using those subjective perceptions when trying to come to an understanding of a supernatural entity that is admittedly beyond your ability to fully perceive.

What have you written then?

What is in my posts in this thread.

I think more people have died as a result of the Cold War and the Communist movements than have died at the hands of Islam.

You would be wrong to think that.

[Polog]

So the angry, kafir-hating, brutish interpretation of Islam is as legitimate as any other.

It's a matter of subjective interpretation. The gods have chosen not to step in and referee the match so we're left to make rational choices and to draw conclusions.

Unless you believe that all interpretations of Islam are equally justified based on reason, these are two different things. Some interpretations will implicitly be better founded based on the Quran, the traditions, and the casual empiricism of worldly events. I would argue that the brutish interpretation lacks philosophical justification, making it a less valid interpretation than the others.

So... we're left to understand that you are admitting your perceptions are subjective and that you are limited to using those subjective perceptions when trying to come to an understanding of a supernatural entity that is admittedly beyond your ability to fully perceive.

Yes. Isn't this true of everybody?

What is in my posts in this thread.

That's what I am trying to figure out...

You would be wrong to think that.

I should have added the qualifier: since World War II. Am I still wrong?

[Resigned]

Unless you believe that all interpretations of Islam are equally justified based on reason, these are two different things. Some interpretations will implicitly be better founded based on the Quran, the traditions, and the casual empiricism of worldly events. I would argue that the brutish interpretation lacks philosophical justification, making it a less valid interpretation than the others.

While I don't believe that any interpretation of islam is correct, It seems odd to suggest that all interpretations of islam would, or could be, correct. I'll also add that appeals to the supernatural tend to limit any appeal to reason you wish to invoke. We can use the process of science to perceive existence, and our reason to interpret or categorize it. If you disagree that reason is the keystone of our perception of existence, then please announce what it is you think is the keystone, and cite support for that claim. I would point out to you that to engage in such an excercise immediately requires you to use your powers of reason, and as such would negate your assertion by the very attempt.

There's nothing at all inappropriate about the brutish label attached to islamic ideology It's time to get honest about this. How many Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. "fanatics" do you hear about committing startling acts of savagery like what occurs with regularity across the islamist world? Seriously! Spurious apologetic moral equivalence notwithstanding, can anyone find any ideology in the world today which compares to this brutish, widespread, and systematic savagery? There is something very, very wrong with offering apologetics for an ideology that has not changed since it came out of the harsh, scorched sands of the Arabian peninsula fourteen hundred years ago.

Dhimmitude and the denigration of the Infidel was (and still is ), the punitive, discriminatory, fascistic infliction of suffering aimed at the non-muslim population. I can provide you with the writings of islamist jurists to define the conditions of dhimmitude if you are unclear about this dynamic of the islamist social order.

Yes. Isn't this true of everybody?

No, it's not. In the realm of reason and rationality, there are standards to meet in connection with furthering claims. It is only the credulous tendency of (for example), islamic apologists to claim that "there are no contradictions" in the koran as some sort of proof of its divine origin. As we know, that is fundamentally a futile effort given the ambiguous and non-scientific nature of the actual texts. But more to the point, why would anyone feel the need to "scientifically prove" the foundational document of muhammud's biography, ie: the koran? Is the truth or falsehood of the koran resting upon what it says about the "7 heavens," or does it rest on what it says about salvation, about reviling the Infidel, and about the relationship between man and god? Further, the truth or falsity of Islam does not depend on what the koran says about meteors and Jinn. It depends on whether Islam itself can pass the much tougher tests of reason and evidence. It does not pass those tests.

That's what I am trying to figure out...

You need to (cybernetically), raise your hand and ask questions.

I should have added the qualifier: since World War II. Am I still wrong?

This is what we call "moving the goal posts".

Why limit your question to only one time frame?

I think more people have died as a result of islam's on-going internecine war of sunni vs. shiai kill-fests in the last decade than have died as the result of the Cold War and the Communist movements.

But, we should give credit where credit is due to the worldwide islamic jihad against humanity.

Al Shabaab car bomber kills 11 in Mogadishu

MOGADISHU — A suicide car bomber killed at least 11 people on Wednesday near a hotel where lawmakers gather in the Somali capital, a sign of the fragile security situation in Mogadishu even after Islamist rebels pulled out last year.

Allahu akbar?

[shaad_lko]

Why did you feel a need to spam the thread with links to silly conspiracy theories?

how do you spam a spam thread?

[ChicStar]

Oh my. I just got "fined". Ah, I see.

*shrugs*

Only you know the truth because you are the repository for all truths.

And I love to share.

Honestly, the truth is not that difficult to fathom. You just need a willingness to be honest with yourself and others.

Correctamundo! *throws confetti*

One truth is that people are murdered most every day, often en mass, by those who truly believe they are doing the work of their god and his partner. Truth for them is that they will receive carnal rewards in the afterlife. Another truth is that adherents to only one particular politico-religious ideology on the planet actively promote and further that madness. One other truth is that the people who are dead as the result of this madness are certainly dead.

You keep missing the forest for the trees. First off, I doubt you'll be ever be honest (as you believe is required) unless you have an open mind free from all stereotypes. That applies to me too.

If you link all of what's happening in the Middle East to Islam's history, alleging that it supports violence and unjust wars, you need to have proper evidence for it (from the texts) or else you're the one stumbling upon "truths". You seem very convinced with your ideas. :/

People stumble upon truths most every day. Unfortunately, they dust themselves off and proceed on as though nothing has happened. Don't be an accomplice to those stumblebums.

Why would I?

While I don't believe that any interpretation of islam is correct,

Now, that's what I call being "stereotypical" or...um..."random".

As we know, that is fundamentally a futile effort given the ambiguous and non-scientific nature of the actual texts. But more to the point, why would anyone feel the need to "scientifically prove" the foundational document of muhammud's biography, ie: the koran? Is the truth or falsehood of the koran resting upon what it says about the "7 heavens," or does it rest on what it says about salvation, about reviling the Infidel, and about the relationship between man and god? Further, the truth or falsity of Islam does not depend on what the koran says about meteors and Jinn. It depends on whether Islam itself can pass the much tougher tests of reason and evidence. It does not pass those tests.

Wow. I commend that. You actually thought of all of this? But, y'know what, don't jump to conclusions..."a futile effort".."it doesn't pass the tests"...doesn't sound wise. You need to see the whole picture, to relate and stuff...

Oh Well.

[Resigned]

how do you spam a spam thread?

Your time could be better spent elsewhere.