God bless America; morn for those lost in this horrific tragedy; pray for those who lost loved ones in the tragedy; and show your support for this great Nation by raising a Flag on you car, your home, and everywhere in between. Those soulless cowards will pay for their evil acts and their shame will be eternal -- just as we have not forgotten Nazism and its cancer on the conscience of the world, nor shall we forgot the events of September 11, 2001.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
God Bless America
- Thread starter Stryker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
die
Those bastards needs to pay!!!!.. Yes I agree screw those fundametlist bastards. I cannot believe this happened I am still shocked. It just puts the whole windows vs. Mac arguing back and forth thing in perspective.
Those bastards needs to pay!!!!.. Yes I agree screw those fundametlist bastards. I cannot believe this happened I am still shocked. It just puts the whole windows vs. Mac arguing back and forth thing in perspective.
um, careful there...
This is not the work of *all* Islamic Fundamentalists or even a majority...it's the work of a small minority sect -- and even that remains to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Let's not let our anger get the better of us by sending us into genocidal hatred.
This is not the work of *all* Islamic Fundamentalists or even a majority...it's the work of a small minority sect -- and even that remains to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Let's not let our anger get the better of us by sending us into genocidal hatred.
well said john123
also, it's important to note that: "an eye for eye only makes the whole world blind".
my deepest condolences to those in new york who have lost their families and loved ones.
let us all hope and pray that love, peace, and good-will, shall triumph over the evil of such aggression.
also, it's important to note that: "an eye for eye only makes the whole world blind".
my deepest condolences to those in new york who have lost their families and loved ones.
let us all hope and pray that love, peace, and good-will, shall triumph over the evil of such aggression.
Islamic Fundamentalists
John, what are you talking about? I am not talking about the Islamic faith as a whole (which, by the way, is STILL antisemetic!!), I am talking about the FUNDAMENTALIST movement. And that IS what the movement is. What do you mean "majority" and "minority"? That's like saying not all Nazis are evil (as opposed to saying not all Germans are). Nazis ARE prejudice and evil and so ARE these people (heck, it's even codified in their Koran to destroy Israel!!)
John, what are you talking about? I am not talking about the Islamic faith as a whole (which, by the way, is STILL antisemetic!!), I am talking about the FUNDAMENTALIST movement. And that IS what the movement is. What do you mean "majority" and "minority"? That's like saying not all Nazis are evil (as opposed to saying not all Germans are). Nazis ARE prejudice and evil and so ARE these people (heck, it's even codified in their Koran to destroy Israel!!)
Weird
I was just wondering if anyone also notice this...PLease check it out and tell me what you guys think..Watch the CNN footage and keep an eye out on the smoke at around 27 seconds..I have included links. Tell me what you think. At first I thought the image was photoshoped and then I actually went to cnn.com and check the footage it seems really errie. I looks like a face of the devil in the smoke.
http://staff.tribalwar.com/rayn/images/wtfisthat.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.asx
I was just wondering if anyone also notice this...PLease check it out and tell me what you guys think..Watch the CNN footage and keep an eye out on the smoke at around 27 seconds..I have included links. Tell me what you think. At first I thought the image was photoshoped and then I actually went to cnn.com and check the footage it seems really errie. I looks like a face of the devil in the smoke.
http://staff.tribalwar.com/rayn/images/wtfisthat.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.asx
agree
I agree with both John123 and Stryker on this one.
It is not ISLAM which is behind this. But Stryker you are right, it is codified in the Quoran that the jewish community must be destroyed. THESE terrorists have taken the ISLAM AND USED IT AS THEIR motive. They are using it as an excuse. THEY MUST HAVE SAID , "in the name of Allah". But I am sure that Allah would have not advocated this. THESE PEOPLE ARE FUNDAMENTALISTS and DO NOT HARBOR THE FIRST HUMAN INSTINCT, namely self preservation. As they believe that after they die, they go to some higher place. As John said this is not the work of ALL islamic fundamentalists. BUT THIS SMALL MINORITY HAS CAUSED MASS DESTRUCTION AND GENOCIDE IN NEW YORK!!! IF it is NOT possible to pinpoint this Minority (i.e Bin Laden and his henchmen) I am CONFIDENT THAT THE US and Co. (i.e the rest of the civilized world) will stand united and attack the proponents and those who harbor these terrorists. (i.e AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, TALIBAN, PALESTINIANS)
I agree with both John123 and Stryker on this one.
It is not ISLAM which is behind this. But Stryker you are right, it is codified in the Quoran that the jewish community must be destroyed. THESE terrorists have taken the ISLAM AND USED IT AS THEIR motive. They are using it as an excuse. THEY MUST HAVE SAID , "in the name of Allah". But I am sure that Allah would have not advocated this. THESE PEOPLE ARE FUNDAMENTALISTS and DO NOT HARBOR THE FIRST HUMAN INSTINCT, namely self preservation. As they believe that after they die, they go to some higher place. As John said this is not the work of ALL islamic fundamentalists. BUT THIS SMALL MINORITY HAS CAUSED MASS DESTRUCTION AND GENOCIDE IN NEW YORK!!! IF it is NOT possible to pinpoint this Minority (i.e Bin Laden and his henchmen) I am CONFIDENT THAT THE US and Co. (i.e the rest of the civilized world) will stand united and attack the proponents and those who harbor these terrorists. (i.e AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, TALIBAN, PALESTINIANS)
I was shocked...
I was shocked on Tuesday as I watched events unfold. I felt stunned and amazed. Most of all, however, I was worried - deeply worried that friends and colleagues in New York and Washington were alive.
What shocks me equally though is a response that strikes me as all too typical. Hasn't anybody learned anything?
Comments like: "THOSE EVIL BASTARDS WHO DID THIS WILL PAY!", "Death to Islamic Fundamentalists!" and "Those bastards needs [sic] to pay!!!!" (the author of that last quote, in particular, might want to check their grammar) are pointless.
It is precisely this type of knee-jerk, gung ho attitude that lies at the root of many of the world's problems today. It's easy to jump to conclusions - too easy - and those often predictable conclusions are all too often proved wrong. I seem to recall a similar conclusion with regards to the Oklahoma bombing... and how wrong did that prove to be.
Slow down. Grieve yes, but leave the repercussions till later and when the time for repercussions arrives, let them be measured.
I was shocked on Tuesday as I watched events unfold. I felt stunned and amazed. Most of all, however, I was worried - deeply worried that friends and colleagues in New York and Washington were alive.
What shocks me equally though is a response that strikes me as all too typical. Hasn't anybody learned anything?
Comments like: "THOSE EVIL BASTARDS WHO DID THIS WILL PAY!", "Death to Islamic Fundamentalists!" and "Those bastards needs [sic] to pay!!!!" (the author of that last quote, in particular, might want to check their grammar) are pointless.
It is precisely this type of knee-jerk, gung ho attitude that lies at the root of many of the world's problems today. It's easy to jump to conclusions - too easy - and those often predictable conclusions are all too often proved wrong. I seem to recall a similar conclusion with regards to the Oklahoma bombing... and how wrong did that prove to be.
Slow down. Grieve yes, but leave the repercussions till later and when the time for repercussions arrives, let them be measured.
An interesting, well put article...
For all those quick to jump to conclusions, and worse suggest quick-fix remedies (often involving further widespread killing) - the following article published in The Guardian (a reputable British newspaper) is well worth reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551036,00.html
For all those quick to jump to conclusions, and worse suggest quick-fix remedies (often involving further widespread killing) - the following article published in The Guardian (a reputable British newspaper) is well worth reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551036,00.html
No one is jumping to conclusions. Secondly, your article link does not work. Must be some trouble with my browser though.
I have a very strong feeling that Flight 175 that crashed into South tower of the WTC, (i.e the second attack) was not highjacked from Boston. The first flight to attack, Flight 11 was high jacked and turned very abruptly towards new york. However, Flight 175 which took off from the same airport took a head on route right from take off. THIS could mean that the plane's pilots were part of the plan or the plane was hijacked EXTREMELY early during or before takeoff.
I have a very strong feeling that Flight 175 that crashed into South tower of the WTC, (i.e the second attack) was not highjacked from Boston. The first flight to attack, Flight 11 was high jacked and turned very abruptly towards new york. However, Flight 175 which took off from the same airport took a head on route right from take off. THIS could mean that the plane's pilots were part of the plan or the plane was hijacked EXTREMELY early during or before takeoff.
No Stryker...
There are different sects of Islamic fundamentalism -- it isn't all one gigantic "big movement." Comparisons to Nazi Germany are ill-founded...we must be careful to recognize that this is the work of a relatively small group of individuals, depsite a pervading anti-American sentiment on the global scene.
There are different sects of Islamic fundamentalism -- it isn't all one gigantic "big movement." Comparisons to Nazi Germany are ill-founded...we must be careful to recognize that this is the work of a relatively small group of individuals, depsite a pervading anti-American sentiment on the global scene.
No John124
No, John, while I absolutely appreciate your comments -- and believe that, yes, the acts of a few do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority -- this is NOT one of those occasions. Again, I am not referring to the Islamic faith as a whole, I am referring to the Islamic Fundamentalist movement which believes that it is God's mandate to rule over non-Muslams and to DESTROY Israel ... it is in their Quoran (their Bible)!!!
No, John, while I absolutely appreciate your comments -- and believe that, yes, the acts of a few do not necessarily reflect the views of the majority -- this is NOT one of those occasions. Again, I am not referring to the Islamic faith as a whole, I am referring to the Islamic Fundamentalist movement which believes that it is God's mandate to rule over non-Muslams and to DESTROY Israel ... it is in their Quoran (their Bible)!!!
Re: No John124
Chirstan "Fundamentalists" have some of those view that you are talking about as well. While not all Chirstan "Fundamentalists" do, many feel that way. They dont advertise it and they dont specificy say they will rule.. they just feel that all none christans are worthless.
Now that I have probably pissed some people off. I would like to make the point that I think John was making... it is dangerous to define "fundamentalist" We should not attack some book or even the interpretation of that book. We should be attacking the people that are responcibale. And we need to know who they really are. Don't get me wrong... I am all for sever biblical in scope, punnishment.
-evildead
Chirstan "Fundamentalists" have some of those view that you are talking about as well. While not all Chirstan "Fundamentalists" do, many feel that way. They dont advertise it and they dont specificy say they will rule.. they just feel that all none christans are worthless.
Now that I have probably pissed some people off. I would like to make the point that I think John was making... it is dangerous to define "fundamentalist" We should not attack some book or even the interpretation of that book. We should be attacking the people that are responcibale. And we need to know who they really are. Don't get me wrong... I am all for sever biblical in scope, punnishment.
-evildead
Re: No John124
Look, unless you have a degree in History or Political Science with a specialization in Middle Eastern affairs, you simply don't have the authority to make such broad sweeping generalizations. Simmer down and talk to an expert before you spout off.
Look, unless you have a degree in History or Political Science with a specialization in Middle Eastern affairs, you simply don't have the authority to make such broad sweeping generalizations. Simmer down and talk to an expert before you spout off.
History
Before you start unsulting people with comments like "spout off", perhaps you should make sure that YOU have the qualifications that you demand for others. For one, I did receive a B.A. in Political Science and History and took several Arab-Israeli Conflict courses. While I do not claim that this makes me any kind of expert on Islamic issues (which I did not focus on), I did not raise this supposed requirement to engage in free speech, YOU DID. So, do me a favor and give the thread a rest. Are YOU an Expert in Islamic Fundamentalism? If not, then you are in no better a position than I -- in other words, whatever stereotypes and unsupported beliefs that you claim I have, you share as well. So, nuff said.
Before you start unsulting people with comments like "spout off", perhaps you should make sure that YOU have the qualifications that you demand for others. For one, I did receive a B.A. in Political Science and History and took several Arab-Israeli Conflict courses. While I do not claim that this makes me any kind of expert on Islamic issues (which I did not focus on), I did not raise this supposed requirement to engage in free speech, YOU DID. So, do me a favor and give the thread a rest. Are YOU an Expert in Islamic Fundamentalism? If not, then you are in no better a position than I -- in other words, whatever stereotypes and unsupported beliefs that you claim I have, you share as well. So, nuff said.
Fundamentalists
By the way, I DO agree with evildead's point that even Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalists share extreme views that the more moderates do not -- hence, their label as "fundamentalists, "orthodox", and/or "extremists." Obviously the majority of people in any religion do not share the extreme views of the fringe. The difference, to me, is that while Orthodox Jews, Christians, Buddists, etc. may disavow non-Orthodox people as not truely Jewish, Christian, etc. (i.e., if your mother is not Jewish then you are not; if you do not keep the Sabbath then you are not truly Christian or Jewish), they do not presently purposely engage in a holy war AGAINST CIVILIANS. While some may argue that, in deed, innocent civilians have unfortunately been caught in the cross-fire on many occasion, the innocent are not purposely sought out like they were on Tuesday by the Terrorists. (And I'm not talking about things that may have been done five hundred years ago, I am talking about today in modern society -- we have evolved, haven't we??) So, I'd like to wrap up this back and forth by simply saying that my original point was simply that those Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS who carried out, contributed, supported, and/or celebrated (didn't you see the Palestinians dancing in the street on TV??) in the horrific attacks in NY and D.C. are cowards and shame their religion. I NEVER said that all Muslims were evil, etc. I have only been referring to the extreme element known as Fundamentalists. So, if you (john123) do not agree with any of the foregoing then let's just agree to disagree. No point in having additional rounds...
By the way, I DO agree with evildead's point that even Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalists share extreme views that the more moderates do not -- hence, their label as "fundamentalists, "orthodox", and/or "extremists." Obviously the majority of people in any religion do not share the extreme views of the fringe. The difference, to me, is that while Orthodox Jews, Christians, Buddists, etc. may disavow non-Orthodox people as not truely Jewish, Christian, etc. (i.e., if your mother is not Jewish then you are not; if you do not keep the Sabbath then you are not truly Christian or Jewish), they do not presently purposely engage in a holy war AGAINST CIVILIANS. While some may argue that, in deed, innocent civilians have unfortunately been caught in the cross-fire on many occasion, the innocent are not purposely sought out like they were on Tuesday by the Terrorists. (And I'm not talking about things that may have been done five hundred years ago, I am talking about today in modern society -- we have evolved, haven't we??) So, I'd like to wrap up this back and forth by simply saying that my original point was simply that those Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS who carried out, contributed, supported, and/or celebrated (didn't you see the Palestinians dancing in the street on TV??) in the horrific attacks in NY and D.C. are cowards and shame their religion. I NEVER said that all Muslims were evil, etc. I have only been referring to the extreme element known as Fundamentalists. So, if you (john123) do not agree with any of the foregoing then let's just agree to disagree. No point in having additional rounds...
LA Times Article
And just to show that I'm not completely talking out of my a$$, here is a Los Angeles Times Article written just the other day:
"Islam Must Challenge Its Dark Doctrines
By YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI
(Yossi Klein Halevi's latest book is "At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden")
In the emerging debate over how extensively to define the enemy facing the West we need to avoid both wishful thinking and hysteria.
The minimalists who insist that the enemy is only a small band of fanatics around Osama bin Laden severely underestimate the penetration of extremist doctrine within much of mainstream Islam, especially in the Arab world. But those who invoke a war of civilizationsa conflict between Western democracy and international Islamrisk widening the circle of enmity to large parts of the Islamic world that have so far been immune to the appeal of jihad, or holy war.
Far from being regarded as fringe lunatics, the terrorists who struck against U.S. civilian and military targets are widely regarded as heroes within the Arab world. Religious edicts have been issued in Arab countries endorsing the attack, and thousands danced in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza. That pathological response isn't just the result of anger at perceived injustice, but of years of hate indoctrination in mosques and from state-controlled media. Indeed, only in the Arab world is Holocaust denial a mainstream notion.
Islamic doctrine easily lends itself to extremist cooptation. Islam divides the world into two regions: Dar al Harb, or the house of war, containing all territories ruled by non-Muslims, and Dar al Islam, or the house of Islam, which is destined to dominate the former. In a world groping toward planetary interconnectedness, this Islamic doctrinewhich justifies the madness of holy warmust be challenged by Muslims themselves.
Humanistic Muslims need to face the lethal consequences of their theology toward non-Muslims. Apologetics about the nobility of Islam aren't good enough anymore. Just as much of Christianity has confronted its anti-Jewish theology, and many Jews are struggling to uproot the exclusivist strain within Judaism, tolerant Muslims can no longer afford to defend Islam's more problematic concepts.
We are all heirs to complex religious traditions; the obligation of believers is to preserve the beauty of their faith while transforming its negative residues.
Those who try to shift the blame for the latest terrorist atrocities on U.S. support for Israel miss several key points. The Arab war against Israel isn't over occupation but the right of a Jewish state to exist. Last year, at Camp David, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from almost all the territories and to share Jerusalem with the Palestiniansand the Temple Mount with Islam.
More broadly, the terrorist's holy war isn't aimed ultimately at Israel but the West. Muslim nations are among the the most vociferous in ideologically opposing globalizationnot just its excesses but also its blessings, like a free media and a sense of shared responsibility for international stability.
Indeed, perhaps Israel's greatest offense to Arab sensibilities is its very Westerness, proof for many Muslims of its supposed colonialist essence. Western standards of human rightswhich Arab propagandists routinely use to excoriate Israelare almost unknown within the Muslim world.
Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy. For many Muslims, the doctrines of holy war and of Dar al Islam are irrelevant to their faith, and have in effect been allowed to lapse. Sufis, or Muslim mystics, go further, transforming holy war into a spiritual doctrine, a battle against one's own imperfections.
Demonizing one of the world's great faiths is an affront against all religions.
The terrorists want nothing more than to widen this war to include the whole Islamic world. And those in the Arab worldespecially Yasser Arafatwho actively nurture the culture of terrorism yet pretend to condemn it hope to avoid the West's judgment. Neither should be allowed to dictate the U.S. response to terrorism.
___
Yossi Klein Halevi's latest book is "At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land" (William Morrow, 2001)."
And just to show that I'm not completely talking out of my a$$, here is a Los Angeles Times Article written just the other day:
"Islam Must Challenge Its Dark Doctrines
By YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI
(Yossi Klein Halevi's latest book is "At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden")
In the emerging debate over how extensively to define the enemy facing the West we need to avoid both wishful thinking and hysteria.
The minimalists who insist that the enemy is only a small band of fanatics around Osama bin Laden severely underestimate the penetration of extremist doctrine within much of mainstream Islam, especially in the Arab world. But those who invoke a war of civilizationsa conflict between Western democracy and international Islamrisk widening the circle of enmity to large parts of the Islamic world that have so far been immune to the appeal of jihad, or holy war.
Far from being regarded as fringe lunatics, the terrorists who struck against U.S. civilian and military targets are widely regarded as heroes within the Arab world. Religious edicts have been issued in Arab countries endorsing the attack, and thousands danced in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza. That pathological response isn't just the result of anger at perceived injustice, but of years of hate indoctrination in mosques and from state-controlled media. Indeed, only in the Arab world is Holocaust denial a mainstream notion.
Islamic doctrine easily lends itself to extremist cooptation. Islam divides the world into two regions: Dar al Harb, or the house of war, containing all territories ruled by non-Muslims, and Dar al Islam, or the house of Islam, which is destined to dominate the former. In a world groping toward planetary interconnectedness, this Islamic doctrinewhich justifies the madness of holy warmust be challenged by Muslims themselves.
Humanistic Muslims need to face the lethal consequences of their theology toward non-Muslims. Apologetics about the nobility of Islam aren't good enough anymore. Just as much of Christianity has confronted its anti-Jewish theology, and many Jews are struggling to uproot the exclusivist strain within Judaism, tolerant Muslims can no longer afford to defend Islam's more problematic concepts.
We are all heirs to complex religious traditions; the obligation of believers is to preserve the beauty of their faith while transforming its negative residues.
Those who try to shift the blame for the latest terrorist atrocities on U.S. support for Israel miss several key points. The Arab war against Israel isn't over occupation but the right of a Jewish state to exist. Last year, at Camp David, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from almost all the territories and to share Jerusalem with the Palestiniansand the Temple Mount with Islam.
More broadly, the terrorist's holy war isn't aimed ultimately at Israel but the West. Muslim nations are among the the most vociferous in ideologically opposing globalizationnot just its excesses but also its blessings, like a free media and a sense of shared responsibility for international stability.
Indeed, perhaps Israel's greatest offense to Arab sensibilities is its very Westerness, proof for many Muslims of its supposed colonialist essence. Western standards of human rightswhich Arab propagandists routinely use to excoriate Israelare almost unknown within the Muslim world.
Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy. For many Muslims, the doctrines of holy war and of Dar al Islam are irrelevant to their faith, and have in effect been allowed to lapse. Sufis, or Muslim mystics, go further, transforming holy war into a spiritual doctrine, a battle against one's own imperfections.
Demonizing one of the world's great faiths is an affront against all religions.
The terrorists want nothing more than to widen this war to include the whole Islamic world. And those in the Arab worldespecially Yasser Arafatwho actively nurture the culture of terrorism yet pretend to condemn it hope to avoid the West's judgment. Neither should be allowed to dictate the U.S. response to terrorism.
___
Yossi Klein Halevi's latest book is "At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land" (William Morrow, 2001)."
...
Styker posted:
<<Death to Islamic Fundamentalists! You are a cancer in the heart of the world, a symbol of shame and cowardess. There is NO honor in killing the innocent!!!
>>
You requested the death of an entire rather large population segment. That's fairly heinous and requires some serious justification.
Even your LA Times article, much of which I question (and yes, I do have the credentials to do so, thanks to a nice Ivy League education), acknowledges that even conceding that there was some larger support for the attacks, not all Islamic Fundamentalists share those sentiments. In fact, to quote a line from the article, "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy."
Second, you said the following:
<< Are YOU an Expert in Islamic Fundamentalism? If not, then you are in no better a position than I -- in other words, whatever stereotypes and unsupported beliefs that you claim I have, you share as well. So, nuff said.>>
Let's dissect this comment. If a person isn't an expert on the subject, they have to share your stereotypes? That's preposterous. In fact, it doesn't even take a degree in rocket science (or sociology or psychology or anything else for that matter) to realize that stereotypes can be quite dangerous and often gloss over some very important details in the big picture.
Anyway, you have twice suggested that we not have "additional rounds," so if that's how you feel, let's just leave the subject at that.
Styker posted:
<<Death to Islamic Fundamentalists! You are a cancer in the heart of the world, a symbol of shame and cowardess. There is NO honor in killing the innocent!!!
>>
You requested the death of an entire rather large population segment. That's fairly heinous and requires some serious justification.
Even your LA Times article, much of which I question (and yes, I do have the credentials to do so, thanks to a nice Ivy League education), acknowledges that even conceding that there was some larger support for the attacks, not all Islamic Fundamentalists share those sentiments. In fact, to quote a line from the article, "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy."
Second, you said the following:
<< Are YOU an Expert in Islamic Fundamentalism? If not, then you are in no better a position than I -- in other words, whatever stereotypes and unsupported beliefs that you claim I have, you share as well. So, nuff said.>>
Let's dissect this comment. If a person isn't an expert on the subject, they have to share your stereotypes? That's preposterous. In fact, it doesn't even take a degree in rocket science (or sociology or psychology or anything else for that matter) to realize that stereotypes can be quite dangerous and often gloss over some very important details in the big picture.
Anyway, you have twice suggested that we not have "additional rounds," so if that's how you feel, let's just leave the subject at that.
Whatever
Whatever, John, you're still not getting the point -- AND I wasn't saying that you had to share MY stereotypes, just that you have YOUR OWN too (but, of course, I'm sure you're perfect). And, again, the Fundamentalist segment is NOT(!!) the "entire ... large population", it is the FRINGE element (the extreme minority). READ YOUR OWN QUOTE: "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy." I WAS NEVER REFERING TO THE ENTIRE ISLAM RELIGION, I WAS ALWAYS ONLY EXPRESSLY REFERING TO THE FRINGE FUNDAMENTALIST SEGEMENT. But of course, you still don't get it. Duh. (By the way, your "Ivy League" education still didn't answer your OWN Q about whether you were an Expert on Middle Eastern policy (which we both know you are not). But, of course, I'm sure that you don't ever hold your own powers of critique upon your self. And I LOVE how you say that simply because you went to a snuty Eastern school you can dismiss an entire news artictle. Great retort.
Whatever, John, you're still not getting the point -- AND I wasn't saying that you had to share MY stereotypes, just that you have YOUR OWN too (but, of course, I'm sure you're perfect). And, again, the Fundamentalist segment is NOT(!!) the "entire ... large population", it is the FRINGE element (the extreme minority). READ YOUR OWN QUOTE: "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy." I WAS NEVER REFERING TO THE ENTIRE ISLAM RELIGION, I WAS ALWAYS ONLY EXPRESSLY REFERING TO THE FRINGE FUNDAMENTALIST SEGEMENT. But of course, you still don't get it. Duh. (By the way, your "Ivy League" education still didn't answer your OWN Q about whether you were an Expert on Middle Eastern policy (which we both know you are not). But, of course, I'm sure that you don't ever hold your own powers of critique upon your self. And I LOVE how you say that simply because you went to a snuty Eastern school you can dismiss an entire news artictle. Great retort.
Yeah
Yeah..i mean, ISLAM tells to destroy Isreal. But I dont want to make any value judgements on wether that makes it a bad religion. HOWEVER, It is quite clear that out of all the religions, there must be something in ISLAM, that has driven these people to FUNDAMENTALISM, and then lead to the loss of the need for self preservation and mad FANATISICM and TERRORISM. It is true that the amount of people doing this is a minority but by NO MEANS are the people CAPABLE (i.e almost every islamic fundamentalist) of doing such an act in the future, a minority. Hence, the question, Who to bomb, which cell to destroy so that the whole VAST network breaks down.
Yeah..i mean, ISLAM tells to destroy Isreal. But I dont want to make any value judgements on wether that makes it a bad religion. HOWEVER, It is quite clear that out of all the religions, there must be something in ISLAM, that has driven these people to FUNDAMENTALISM, and then lead to the loss of the need for self preservation and mad FANATISICM and TERRORISM. It is true that the amount of people doing this is a minority but by NO MEANS are the people CAPABLE (i.e almost every islamic fundamentalist) of doing such an act in the future, a minority. Hence, the question, Who to bomb, which cell to destroy so that the whole VAST network breaks down.
(sigh)
Somehow, I knew you wouldn't heed your own advice and leave things where they were. Instead, you replied with a series of snotty arguments....
Funny -- I wasn't aware that I had to go line-by-line with your response, answering every query in order, never omitting a one. Since that's what you seem to want, I'll structure this post accordingly.
1) <<AND I wasn't saying that you had to share MY stereotypes, just that you have YOUR OWN too>>
No, that doesn't follow logically. There is a sizeable segment of the population that prides itself on political correctness, which thrives on both polite rhetoric and an obsession with not generalizing or stereotyping. If I see an Arab American, I don't jump to any stereotypes about his religion or politics. It's basically just the right thing to do.
2) <<READ YOUR OWN QUOTE: "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy.">>
That's a quote out of your LA Times article. In fact, I said that, too. Looks like you're the one in serious need of reading skills.
3) <<I WAS ALWAYS ONLY EXPRESSLY REFERING TO THE FRINGE FUNDAMENTALIST SEGEMENT>>
And I'm still contending that the fundamentalists (a) are not all fringe and (b) do not all advocate attacks on American civilians (and here I am making a distinction between American civilians and Israeli civilians).
4) No, I don't have a PhD on the subject -- just a number of intelligent professors in college and a number of friends right now in both academia and the U.S. foreign policy apparatus.
5) << And I LOVE how you say that simply because you went to a snuty Eastern school you can dismiss an entire news artictle>>
I never used the word "dismiss" or the word "reject." I said that I question much of it. This is again an issue with your reading skills.
In the end, the sad truth, Stryker, is that you want very badly to cast blame. You're so seething with hate and anger that if society has already created a name for a group that might have members who are directly involved, you'll persecute that whole group of individuals, regardless of their culpability. That is, in fact, the very (lack of) logic which led the German people, who saw Jewish economic fortunes in stark contrast to their own, to support the genocidal actions of the Nazis. Personally, I had hoped that America, which prides itself on being the land of the free, was above inflicting a Holocaust of its own.
Somehow, I knew you wouldn't heed your own advice and leave things where they were. Instead, you replied with a series of snotty arguments....
Funny -- I wasn't aware that I had to go line-by-line with your response, answering every query in order, never omitting a one. Since that's what you seem to want, I'll structure this post accordingly.
1) <<AND I wasn't saying that you had to share MY stereotypes, just that you have YOUR OWN too>>
No, that doesn't follow logically. There is a sizeable segment of the population that prides itself on political correctness, which thrives on both polite rhetoric and an obsession with not generalizing or stereotyping. If I see an Arab American, I don't jump to any stereotypes about his religion or politics. It's basically just the right thing to do.
2) <<READ YOUR OWN QUOTE: "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy.">>
That's a quote out of your LA Times article. In fact, I said that, too. Looks like you're the one in serious need of reading skills.
3) <<I WAS ALWAYS ONLY EXPRESSLY REFERING TO THE FRINGE FUNDAMENTALIST SEGEMENT>>
And I'm still contending that the fundamentalists (a) are not all fringe and (b) do not all advocate attacks on American civilians (and here I am making a distinction between American civilians and Israeli civilians).
4) No, I don't have a PhD on the subject -- just a number of intelligent professors in college and a number of friends right now in both academia and the U.S. foreign policy apparatus.
5) << And I LOVE how you say that simply because you went to a snuty Eastern school you can dismiss an entire news artictle>>
I never used the word "dismiss" or the word "reject." I said that I question much of it. This is again an issue with your reading skills.
In the end, the sad truth, Stryker, is that you want very badly to cast blame. You're so seething with hate and anger that if society has already created a name for a group that might have members who are directly involved, you'll persecute that whole group of individuals, regardless of their culpability. That is, in fact, the very (lack of) logic which led the German people, who saw Jewish economic fortunes in stark contrast to their own, to support the genocidal actions of the Nazis. Personally, I had hoped that America, which prides itself on being the land of the free, was above inflicting a Holocaust of its own.
Pot calling kettle black!
blah blah blah...
I don't see you letting this thing rest either my friend -- you didn't HAVE TO respond, so don't act like it's all me.
And as for your arguments, I am only going to reply to one.... AGAIN, you keep missing a ver simple point, so read this slowly:
I Was **NEVER** talking about Islam as a whole; I was referring to the fringe element of Islamic Fundamentalists. Then you misapply a quote from an article as if it contradicts me. Which it did NOT. Again, that quote was referring to ISLAM as a WHOLE, not the fringe element only.
You said:
"2) <<READ YOUR OWN QUOTE: "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy.">>
That's a quote out of your LA Times article. In fact, I said that, too. Looks like you're the one in serious need of reading skills.
But again, I had only requoted you to show you that your own quote applied to the WHOLE of Islam not to the Fundamentalist segment that I WAS REFERRING TO.
In short, it is YOU who need to learn to read. Pathetic. You keep point your finger at me but should really turn it on yourself. And as far as my "anger", of course I am angry, I lost friends. Did you???!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then shut up!
blah blah blah...
I don't see you letting this thing rest either my friend -- you didn't HAVE TO respond, so don't act like it's all me.
And as for your arguments, I am only going to reply to one.... AGAIN, you keep missing a ver simple point, so read this slowly:
I Was **NEVER** talking about Islam as a whole; I was referring to the fringe element of Islamic Fundamentalists. Then you misapply a quote from an article as if it contradicts me. Which it did NOT. Again, that quote was referring to ISLAM as a WHOLE, not the fringe element only.
You said:
"2) <<READ YOUR OWN QUOTE: "Still, it would be disastrous to declare Islam itself the enemy.">>
That's a quote out of your LA Times article. In fact, I said that, too. Looks like you're the one in serious need of reading skills.
But again, I had only requoted you to show you that your own quote applied to the WHOLE of Islam not to the Fundamentalist segment that I WAS REFERRING TO.
In short, it is YOU who need to learn to read. Pathetic. You keep point your finger at me but should really turn it on yourself. And as far as my "anger", of course I am angry, I lost friends. Did you???!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then shut up!