The Ground Zero Mosque, a diversion

[heliochrome85]

I don't think my point was that we're at war with Islam per se, but that the media makes us believe we are. Thus painting all Muslims in a bad light.

agreed.

the reality is that stories about Moderate muslims speaking up, doesnt sell papers.

[WDRacing]

Edited for clarity, to show what I'm responding to:

But it's fundamentally true. Without Islam, there would be no Jihad. With no Jihad we'd have no war. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Islam twisted by some and used as an excuse for Holy War. How is that not a connection?

That Islam is the recruiting tool and the justification does not mean that it's the source of the trouble. There would be no room for extremists to recruit against the West if there was no contact with the West. There would be no room for extremists to use Islam to justify their actions if there weren't some perceived offenses.

Osama bin Laden didn't plan attacks on the United States because he was Muslim. He didn't declare a jihad against the US because that's what he's commanded to do. He declared a jihad against the US primarily because of our interactions with Israel and our presence in Saudi Arabia. The "jihad" is being employed as a tool. It's a means, not an end.

Had it been any other religion, or even a region devoid of religion, we'd see the same strife. Religion is just what's being used here as grease for the gears, but it doesn't have to be what's used.

That's all your opinion. Islam and Jihad are tools? In that context everything and everyone is a tool and nothing and no one is accountable. There is a direct and measurable link between the war on terror and Islam/Muslims. It doesn't matter what you color it as, it's still there. I'm inferring there is a link and you described the link for me. You're just not seeing it from my POV, which is fine btw. If you don't agree with me then we simply disagree. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Again, the point was the media is a major player in brainwashing the Gen Pop. When you mix the media with the fact that we've been at war over in the Middle East since 1991 you get a population that is going to have issues with all things Muslim. Muslims follow Islam, so the two will be tied together indefinitely. Just because you may not view it that way doesn't mean thousands of others don't.

The "War on Terror" wages on, often reads the "War on Islam" wages on, depending on what you read and watch. It's all POV.

I don't think my point was that we're at war with Islam per se, but that the media makes us believe we are. Thus painting all Muslims in a bad light.

agreed.

the reality is that stories about Moderate muslims speaking up, doesnt sell papers.

If the media aired Moderates speaking out, that may cause others to follow. Can't have that now can we. You ever notice that when the media interviews people at a protest they always put the person on the air that has the most F'd up view of the situation? I never ever listen to "live interviews"...

[wingFeather]

I see right through the noisy Muslim arguments here. If this was a Christian church being proposed, I doubt any of you would defend it so passionately.

[WDRacing]

Are you asking if I would defend a Christian church? If so the answer is no, I would say just put that damn thing somewhere else. Or what are we talking about?

[IBCoupe]

That's all your opinion. Islam and Jihad are tools? In that context everything and everyone is a tool and nothing and no one is accountable.

Actually, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that people are doing things for real reasons, not because their religions command them to. In the same way as people embrace the 9/11 banner to unite against a community center that they just don't like (as evidenced by the countless mosques receiving resistance hundreds of miles away from Ground Zero), they can embrace religion as a unifying tool to act on ulterior motives.

Your theory would have a situation where the solution is to have people convert; if Islam is the problem and we make them all Jewish, there's no more problem, right?

Are there people out there who embrace Islam that want to see the rest of the world either Muslim or dead? Yes. But that they exist does not speak to their prominence (there are similar instances in every other major religious (and non-religious) group on the planet) or their influence.

Osama bin Laden stated his reasons for calling a jihad. That's not my opinion, that's a recollection of facts. He uses jihad and Islam as a tool to organize and influence. I know Islam isn't the controlling factor because there are literally millions of Muslims who aren't flying planes into skyscrapers or plotting our destruction.

There is a direct and measurable link between the war on terror and Islam/Muslims. It doesn't matter what you color it as, it's still there. I'm inferring there is a link and you described the link for me. You're just not seeing it from my POV, which is fine btw. If you don't agree with me then we simply disagree. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

You have identified coincidence, not causation. You haven't illustrated a direct link, despite what you think. There are Muslims, and there are terrorists. Most (not all: Hutaree come to mind) of those terrorists identify as Muslims. There may be causation, there may be correlation, or there may just be random chance. But you haven't demonstrated either.

Again, the point was the media is a major player in brainwashing the Gen Pop. When you mix the media with the fact that we've been at war over in the Middle East since 1991 you get a population that is going to have issues with all things Muslim. Muslims follow Islam, so the two will be tied together indefinitely. Just because you may not view it that way doesn't mean thousands of others don't.

And just because they view it that way doesn't mean it's right. Let's think these things through logically.

[WDRacing]

Dude, you're so far off from what I was saying it's pointless to continue. I'm not sure where you got that last post from, but it's so far away from anything that I was thinking it's shocking.

Please don't ask me to explain things anymore. Lets just assume we're not communicating well in this particular thread

[IBCoupe]

Well, okay... but just so you know, I got what you were saying from the portions of your post that I quoted and inserted into my response.

[WDRacing]

Well, okay... but just so you know, I got what you were saying from the portions of your post that I quoted and inserted into my response.

Yeah ya didn't

[IBCoupe]

That's a joke, right? It's hard to tell, sometimes.

[WDRacing]

Nope, not joking.

[IBCoupe]

I still can't tell.

Are you saying that I didn't actually respond to what the quotes say?

[WDRacing]

Not sure how I can clarify any more...

Yeah you responded. What does that have to do with understanding what I was trying to get across? You might THINK you understand. But what you say speaks so loudly I can't hear you.

[IBCoupe]

Yes or No:
Are the quotes of you unaddressed by what I wrote after them?

I realize that you wrote things other than what I quoted you as. There were portions of your post I didn't feel were worth response; I responded to what I wished. Did you have an intended meaning to the words I quoted that does not logically lend itself to the kind of response I gave?

If you need to, go back and reread the two posts in question (yours and mine); I have already done so, and I don't see the disconnect between what I quoted and what I wrote.

[WDRacing]

Dude, talking things out with you has gotten boring. After the things you wrote I no longer wish to talk to you on this subject because I find you incapable of seeing any point other then your own. That make it easier for you?

[IBCoupe]

Dude, you only needed to write one word. If you're tired of conversing with me, you've got a funny way of showing it.

I'm asking you about your position; I don't quite see how you came to the conclusion that I'm incapable of seeing anyone's position but my own. Given the care with which I dissect your arguments point by point (which, I imagine, can get to be frustrating, and so your hostility could be understandable), that assertion seems untenable. Did you ever stop to think that maybe I'm perfectly capable of seeing other viewpoints, but that you're just not terribly convincing?

From where I'm sitting, it just looks like you're trying to avoid admitting you were wrong on the most marginal of issues: whether I interpreted a selection of your words correctly.

[szh]

I don't think my point was that we're at war with Islam per se, but that the media makes us believe we are. Thus painting all Muslims in a bad light.

agreed.

the reality is that stories about Moderate muslims speaking up, doesnt sell papers.

Exactly right.

I recall having posted links here to such web sites before, and (a) it appears to have been forgotten by people who frequent this forum and (b), the media NEVER covers those stories.

Sensationalism sells. Truth does not. Unfortunately.

Z

[WDRacing]

Blah blah blah, I can't stand not having the last word.

[szh]

Until the Muslim community stands up and rids the world of these extremists, the world's view of Muslims is pretty much not going to be positive, shocker right.

I wish it was that easy. But it is not so simple.

Many of those countries simply do not have the internal resources to fight extremists and terrorists. And this is not just an "solve the extremists" issue ... look a criminal elements in Mexico for a simple example - the recent horrific slayings of people (with probably active participation by "law-enforcement" person there) demonstrates just how easy it is for "extremists" of any kind to find fertile ground anywhere without the ability of the government to do anything about it.

In addition, when a large segment of those populations are illiterate (not just in the reading and writing sense), it is too easy for a few vocal and charismatic people to influence and direct large masses of people into extreme positions that are not warranted.

And, finally, we should look in the mirror hard before we and condemn others. What never gets reported in the news is that the US has a bad habit of interfering in other countries in ways that usually lead to a back-lash over there.

A simple example: the still-ongoing US drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan have netted a few Al-Qaeda leaders (I remember hearing that one US estimate has it at less than 20) ... but do you know how many innocent men, women and children (who had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism) have died as a result? The numbers are staggeringly high - now becoming comparable with the number of people who died in 9/11, by the way!

Yet, this rarely gets reported in the news here, although, not surprisingly, it gets a lot of attention in the news over there - the US drone attacks are considered "US government sponsored terrorism"! So, even mild moderate folks get riled up and vocal and become the "anti-American Muslims" that we then excoriate here.

Vicious cycle ... which can, unfortunately, only lead to further violence. On both sides.

Z

[WDRacing]

I understand 100% Z. I didn't mean to imply that it was as simple as making a choice. The media on both sides does a great job at perpetuating the hate.

I'm all for pulling out and rendering assistance via financial aid. To me, the war on terror isn't something that can be won. The very fact that we're over there perpetuates the hate right along with the media.

I believe we could defend the Nation from here. If the extremists didn't have us bombing everywhere they'd have a lot harder time painting us in a negative light. Yes they'd have the past, but everyone has a past. If we can't get over it we're just F'd in the long run.

[stebo0728]

A simple example: the still-ongoing US drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan have netted a few Al-Qaeda leaders (I remember hearing that one US estimate has it at less than 20) ... but do you know how many innocent men, women and children (who had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or terrorism) have died as a result? The numbers are staggeringly high - now becoming comparable with the number of people who died in 9/11, by the way!

Does this consider the practice of using human shielding? Maybe this does or does not justify the death of the individuals, but it should be noted that barbaric tactics such as this are used to make our actions look more reprehensible. This folks maybe be radical but they are by no means stupid or disconnected from psychological warfare tactics.

The only nugget I could really pull out of WD's rant was that it seems that the radicals tend to go unchallenged by the moderates. Perhaps this is played down by the media, perhaps its not. We've discussed here whether or not moderates should even be required to challenge the radicals, and that discussion seems to spin as well, but any faction that seeks to coexist with other factions will ultimately HAVE to confront its radical segments and dispose of them, otherwise any hopes if societal integration will be lost. Have other religions had radical segments? Sure! But they all face the same lesson, perhaps not on an individual level, but the moderate segments on the whole always have a burden to confront and execute some character assassination of its radical segments. Until muslims, Islam, however you want to title them, learn this lesson, they will continue to receive a less than approachable reception among the majorities of other moderate factions.

[AZhitman]

I'm all for pulling out and rendering assistance via financial aid.

I'm all for pulling out and keeping our damn money.

We can't save everyone, and we're spending money rebuilding Iraq (WHY?) that we've BORROWED from China. WTF.

Let China rebuild Iraq. Hell, let Saudi Arabia rebuild Iraq. You think they give a damn about a fellow middle eastern nation? HELL NO. These countries go turncoat on us (and each other) on a whim. Look at Pakistan.

Come home. Defend the borders. Only allow people into the country that have something to contribute. Cease all foreign aid.

Harsh? Maybe. But before you judge, you 20-somethings should really consider the economic climate you'll be retiring in.

[WDRacing]

The only nugget I could really pull out of WD's rant was that it seems that the radicals tend to go unchallenged by the moderates.

I think my OP was more along the lines of expressing why people feel the way they do and also that they have the RIGHT to feel however they want, to include protesting etc. Just because the Constitution declares something doesn't mean people don't have the right to disagree with it.

The extremist vs moderate thing was only to show how futile it is to think Christians and Muslims will ever truly get along. Then again, they don't have to. It's all about individual freedom in my book. The non-extremist Muslims will never be able to stop the truly wacko among their religion. Nor should it be their responsibility to. There are plenty of sick nutcase Christians out there, not my job to stop them either.

We all don't HAVE to get along. I can dislike someone and live right next to them just fine. Hell I'll run into their house if it's on fire and there are kids inside. But the next day I don't have to drink beers with the dude I don't like.

However, the nut bags out there don't live life along those terms. So rather then protest etc, they burn s*** down or blow s*** up. Yes all of the protesters will be painted as Muslim haters and supporters of the burning. Truth is, it's those same wacko's that wear explosive vests and plant IED's that burn down Mosque's. Just on the flip side of the coin. Certainly we can't blame ALL of the Muslim community right? Apply that same line of thought to the people that don't want a Mosque near Ground Zero. They're just people expressing there own freedoms, doesn't mean their all haters and extremists.

[WDRacing]

I'm all for pulling out and rendering assistance via financial aid.

I'm all for pulling out and keeping our damn money.

I've already accepted that won't happen home skillet. I'm just sayin I'd easily support funding SOME of their rebuilding if it meant bringing home the boys. I'm all for not giving away borrowed money brosef. It's like getting a credit card and then buying s*** for other people. At least if it's MY debt I can play with the stuff I bought.

[stebo0728]

My idea of moderates combating radicals within a faction is not intended as a physical conflict, but more of an idealogical battle. Make it known that you are moderate, separate yourself from the radicals PUBLICLY and then just live your life. If confronted by another faction as to your thoughts about the radicals, then be forthcoming with your disdain for their actions, of if you remain silent or dodge the issue, then understand that you are perpetuating the stereotype that you may or may not be included in.

[heliochrome85]

My idea of moderates combating radicals within a faction is not intended as a physical conflict, but more of an idealogical battle. Make it known that you are moderate, separate yourself from the radicals PUBLICLY and then just live your life. If confronted by another faction as to your thoughts about the radicals, then be forthcoming with your disdain for their actions, of if you remain silent or dodge the issue, then understand that you are perpetuating the stereotype that you may or may not be included in.

it isnt easy or possible to argue with crazy. just like i cant expect you to rein in the people who believe its their divine right to shoot up an abortion clinic. no well amount of well reasoned debate will ever change their minds.

[AZhitman]

I often wonder, though, is there implied assent in private (safe) situations (or when it'd be uncomfortable to dissent)?

For example: I've seen friends make misogynistic comments. They KNOW not to do this around me, because, all kidding aside, I'm VERY protective. I'll call them out in front of their friends, question their manhood and point out the idiocy of their ways.

So, three Muslims walk into a bar. If talk turns to radical discussion, even in passing, do the thoughts of the "reasonable" (and well-dressed ) head prevail?

[WDRacing]

My idea of moderates combating radicals within a faction is not intended as a physical conflict, but more of an idealogical battle. Make it known that you are moderate, separate yourself from the radicals PUBLICLY and then just live your life. If confronted by another faction as to your thoughts about the radicals, then be forthcoming with your disdain for their actions, of if you remain silent or dodge the issue, then understand that you are perpetuating the stereotype that you may or may not be included in.

it isnt easy or possible to argue with crazy. just like i cant expect you to rein in the people who believe its their divine right to shoot up an abortion clinic. no well amount of well reasoned debate will ever change their minds.

That and it isn't your responsibility to reign in wacko's, regardless of whether you can or not. Which brings to light the scale of something like this. There isn't any black and white, it's ALL a shade of gray. One can denounce anything, but to outwardly make a difference you're going to become an activist. Which isn't easy, believe me. I like to think I'm an activist sometimes, but I'm a poser.

It's all about personal choices and personal freedoms. No matter what, there will always be nutbags out there committing random acts of violence using whatever means necessary to achieve their "end".

What we can change is how everyone views everything. What are we exposed to. Why are we allowing ourselves to be manipulated? The "West" isn't the enemy and neither is Islam. But that doesn't mean we aren't at war with Muslims and Islam just the same. Perception is everything, and right now everything we read and watch says tan people from the desert are the enemy. Over there, same thing, flip the coin.

[heliochrome85]

I often wonder, though, is there implied assent in private (safe) situations (or when it'd be uncomfortable to dissent)?

For example: I've seen friends make misogynistic comments. They KNOW not to do this around me, because, all kidding aside, I'm VERY protective. I'll call them out in front of their friends, question their manhood and point out the idiocy of their ways.

So, three Muslims walk into a bar. If talk turns to radical discussion, even in passing, do the thoughts of the "reasonable" (and well-dressed ) head prevail?

i have never been in a situation where i have been able to turn someone's opinion in that sort of context. ive been in that sitautation, and in my experience, they just get upset, and go quiet. they dont debate because their argument is an emotional one, not one of reason and so its pointless to continue.

[IBCoupe]

My idea of moderates combating radicals within a faction is not intended as a physical conflict, but more of an idealogical battle. Make it known that you are moderate, separate yourself from the radicals PUBLICLY and then just live your life. If confronted by another faction as to your thoughts about the radicals, then be forthcoming with your disdain for their actions, of if you remain silent or dodge the issue, then understand that you are perpetuating the stereotype that you may or may not be included in.

I was just listening to an interview about this yesterday. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the battle that's ongoing isn't between moderates and radicals, it's between the far right and the extreme far right. Osama bin Laden represented the latter in Saudi Arabia (where he's from, remember), and the Saudi royalty, backed by the US, represent the former. As it was phrased in the interview, it's a battle between those who "refuse to let women drive" (the Saudi royalty) and those who "refuse to let women leave the house" (bin Laden).

What they went on to say is that the battle isn't on an ideological level - it's on a physical level. The Saudi government is cracking down physically on radical elements, but not doing much to combat the actual ideological elements of the movement.

[AZhitman]

Exactly.

They're not educating the women or giving them the keys to the car.

(Euphemisms for "doing the things to change the hearts and minds of their countrymen").