Why do people not like Muslims?

[GePap]

on a few things said:

Violence today my Muslim extremists is light compared to most historical violence. Some people compare Muslim extremism to Facism-both in form of ideology and threat worlwide. In under 20 years facists and the wars they started killed at least 60 million people at a time 2.5 billion people lived.

IN the 25 years since the Ismaic Revolution in Iran, all the wars in which we could say Islamic militancy has a potent role combined have killed under 5 million people and today we have 6 billion, with what is going on in Sudan far and away the main one, the Iraq-Iran war being number 2, and Algeria coming third. Notice that none of these three involved "the west" in any significant way, and for the most part "the west" ignored them, as long as they did not trample on their mayor interests, which is why the middle one got so much play, since Iraq and Iran were messing around the richest sources of oil in the world.

So no, Muslim militancy HAS NOT been distinctly bloody-not for mankind's history.

One has to wonder as well, if there is an inherent problem with Islam, why is it that all this muslim militancy really seems to get started in 1979? I remember a cover story on Newsweek from 1979 trying to explain to Americans what the hell Islam was because for most of them it was a mystery-back then it was all socialist vs freedom (even the Israeli-Arab struggle came in those terms). The fact is that muslim militancy is new, as a political force in the world, starting from 1979 on. And if we start picking off variables as to why this violence has occured, the Q'Uran is a poor one, it having being a constant since at least 1000AD.

Modern Islamist militancy is drivben by the wrenching socio-economic changes ocuring in the Arab world, much like intense violence in Latin America in the 70s and 80's was driven by changes there. That that violence extends to the West has everything to do with connections based on national insterests the West has in Muslim lands that it did not have to the same extent in the Americas, and that it does not have today in Africa, which has been in the same period a far more brutal place, even if we label Sudan an "Islamic War" and not "African"

[GePap]

One Edit: I forget Afghanistan, which probably killed 2-3 million, going up there with Sudan. Though we could always label it a Cold War war until 1989.

[Az]

Modern Islamist militancy is drivben by the wrenching socio-economic changes ocuring in the Arab world, much like intense violence in Latin America in the 70s and 80's was driven by changes there. That that violence extends to the West has everything to do with connections based on national insterests the West has in Muslim lands that it did not have to the same extent in the Americas, and that it does not have today in Africa, which has been in the same period a far more brutal place, even if we label Sudan an "Islamic War" and not "African"

just say "It's america's fault", and get it over with.

[Sandman]

GePap is right, as always.

[Whaleboy]

Why not? Both of those were completely sure in the rightness of their values. More sure than the muslims are, actually. It took a breakdown of that spirit, to mold them into the successful societies they are today.

In Japan, they were practically starving and dissatisfied with the war, and in Germany, denazification was officially over by 1946! I'm afraid that some massive effort of popular demoralising is a work of fiction.

So, basically, you're allowing for millions to suffer, just because you don't think it's" your call"?

Wrong. As a consequence of my views, I advocate liberty but I advocate pacifism above that. It's not a case of "letting people suffer". If I had a switch in my hand that would magically turn Islamic societies into the West, I would probably do it (unlike the time travelling situation) but in real life, it's not that simple, and so as a result of the complexity of the situation, it's best we stop becoming so self-absorbed in our own morality in my view.

Yes, like the Japanese with electronics, and a free society. Or the Europeans with Mathematics, and the Chinese with comm.. waaait, that one doesn't help my argument.

Ignore the Japanese . Europe had mathematics long before we got it from the Arabs, but we're talking about profound ideas here, not acute, alien political matters.

Seriously, A pov which would be acceptable to me is "look, sure I'd like them to be all kind, and respecting of freedoms, and such, but I have no idea how to do this, and the forceful solutions won't work". I'd argue with you about this, but at least I'll have an understanding of that pov. Your, pov, however, is enraging because it leaves millions to suffer, just because you think it's anti-ethical to interfere.

Complete strawman. You're familiar with the Mill Limit so I'll use that terminology (though I can apply that argument, its not necessary but I'll use terminology that I know I've explained before). One can influence and passively inhibit, but not actively inhibit. What I am allowing in terms of our way of dealing with Islam is everything short of war, where war is the imposition of one will upon another.

One would think that a libertarian's claim that it's not necessary to help a person in dire trouble is disgusting, but you're claiming that one MUST NOT Help, which is unthinkable, really.

I agree. Unfortunately for your strawman, it's not my claim.

The secular world needs to come up with a replacement for religion.

Nationalism . That's far worse...

GePap:

just say "It's america's fault", and get it over with.

I suspect that if you persist with your simplistic strawmen, you won't get very far .

[Az]

In Japan, they were practically starving and dissatisfied with the war, and in Germany, denazification was officially over by 1946! I'm afraid that some massive effort of popular demoralising is a work of fiction.

Perhaps you ignored a nuke, and a total war killing millions of civilians? Not to say that I support that, mind you, but I say that it's possible.

Wrong. As a consequence of my views, I advocate liberty but I advocate pacifism above that. It's not a case of "letting people suffer". If I had a switch in my hand that would magically turn Islamic societies into the West, I would probably do it (unlike the time travelling situation) but in real life, it's not that simple, and so as a result of the complexity of the situation, it's best we stop becoming so self-absorbed in our own morality in my view.

You're apparently not decided on the issue. So if you could, would you do it? thus you believe that the west IS superior. Now that you've admitted that, and that you realize that there is a problem, you choose to ignore it, and say that we must judge others?

I agree. Unfortunately for your strawman, it's not my claim.

Yet it is. Or it isn't. I am not sure what is your claim at this point, you claim one thing, and then the other.

Nationalism . That's far worse...

How is it worse? Please, I wait for you to defend religion.

I suspect that if you persist with your simplistic strawmen, you won't get very far

That would be true if that would be my actual argument.

[Pax]

European union divided over invoking God's name in charter

BY CONSTANT BRAND

Associated Press


BRUSSELS, Belgium - The debate over a constitution for the European Union has hit a tough hurdle: Should the charter invoke the name of God?

Some conservative EU officials want the EU's first constitution to mention God by name and define European values as including "those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty."

[Spiffor]

It's not news. The Poles are particularly annoying in this matter. But since it is a major nono for France (the whole French political class agrees on opposing the implementation of God), it won't happen. France cannot possibly accept a constitution that mentions God.

[Pax]

1. The change in Germany and Japan was caused by several complicated factors that involved far more to demoralizing cultures and rebuilding them in ones image.

2. There had to be a decrease in the level of racism on both sides of the fence. No more superior races. No more Huns or Japs.

3. The idea of demoralizing the loser had to be scrapped. No more humiliating Versialles Treaty. The U.S. had to agree to not only provide security for Japan but guarantee them access to the resources that were one of the main causes of the conflict.

4. Equality of the sexes and races if has been achieved occurred fairly recently. Minorities in America were only able to vote in the 60's. Women and minorities are still discriminated against. Women are still restricted in certain jobs they are allowed to perform in the U.S. There are instances of discrimination in France, Spain, U.K. and the U.S. It's a fact that lynchings still occur in the U.S. Being a minority in the U.S. can get you killed.

5. On this site it was reported that certain local governments had tried to pass laws to prevent gays from moving into their counties. Gays in other western countries suffer discrimination and ostracism as well. Being homosexual in the U.S. can get you killed.

6. Our high tech weapons have caused flesh to be burned from innocent children's bones. We(the west) are the inventors of chemical and biological warfare. We were the first to use them. The first to use nuclear weapons as well.

7. I fail to see how attacking an enemy with a helicopter gunship is okay and using a suicide bomber is not.

At any rate, the only way to bring peace between the east and west is not to kill all the enemy but to take away the desire to be enemies.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It's not news. The Poles are particularly annoying in this matter. But since it is a major nono for France (the whole French political class agrees on opposing the implementation of God), it won't happen. France cannot possibly accept a constitution that mentions God.

I know it's not news. I'm just pointing out the fact that
religous fundamentalism is not limited to the U.S. or Middle East.

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps you ignored a nuke, and a total war killing millions of civilians? Not to say that I support that, mind you, but I say that it's possible.

Needless to say, that is a non-starter. If you support such an action, then I doubt we're going to have a particularly constructive debate.

You're apparently not decided on the issue. So if you could, would you do it? thus you believe that the west IS superior. Now that you've admitted that, and that you realize that there is a problem, you choose to ignore it, and say that we must judge others?

Personally speaking, I don't know if my attempt at objectivity in this matter, or my subjectivity (that you may say is neglected) would win through. Either way, that is irrelevant to my argument. Nowhere did I say or indicate (if i indicated it was an error on my part) that I consider the West superior, even for myself. I merely prefer it. Does one consider mint ice cream superior to vanilla? That is the same kind of decision, if with somewhat less magnitude. You speak using the terms of "problem", "good", "bad", "ok", "not ok" etc. I maintain that is not useful. As hard as that is, if we are to judge another culture objectively, we cannot approach it with our own subjective morality. That's good for us of course, but we can't go round treating our own arbitrary cogitations as gospel.

Yet it is. Or it isn't. I am not sure what is your claim at this point, you claim one thing, and then the other.

Your strawman held that I claimed that we must not help them. That is woefully in error. I am saying that we can help, according to our own morality, but our actions can only go so far and cannot force outselves upon them. The confusion is yours .

How is it worse? Please, I wait for you to defend religion.

Semitic God is held to be absolute, eternal, good, immortal, infinite and whatnot. Can even a nationalist say the same about their nation? The semitic religions have a (mostly) coherent moral code going for them. I don't like it myself but it does seem to work in the sociological sense. A nation has self-interest, megalomania, militarism and a tendency towards self-destruction. See where I'm going with this? Now I'm at the atheist end of agnostic so I suspect we'd sympathise in that regard, but if you asked me what I thought did more harm, a belief in God or a belief in ones nation, I have to say the latter. I find it much more satisfying, easy and productive to discuss matters with religious people (Christians, Jews and Muslims) than nationalists who call me an "ivory tower intellectual" and the like whenever I say something that threatens their narrow-minded view.

That would be true if that would be my actual argument.

You strawman'd GePap by implying that he was saying it was all America's fault. Both my opinion and interpretation of his post (I cannot speak for him of course) is that it is largely America's doing, not it's fault. Fault implies direct responsibility, guilt based upon intent. America is only guilty by consequence, its intent was a harmless desire for world domination (cough), not the humiliation of Islam.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Our actions are superior to theirs in that they direct all their power against civilians

The US has deliberatlely targeted civilians in the past.

So has everyone else. We're talking about the current situation, not history.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Are you sure? If you take military action, you may see as justified others will not concur, and we of all people should understand that. For example, Palestinians will see suicide bombers as freedom fighters wereas you and I see them as murderers. We may see an action as peacekeeping, another will see it as imperialism, and we are no more correct that they are. The person behind the gun is going to have a different opinion to the person in front of it.

You can be a freedom fighter and a murderer at the same time - murder is a legal term, freedom fighter is a meaningless value-loaded one, that depends more on goals than methods. A terrorist is defined by methods. I'm not saying the goal is better, but rather the means are.

Different context to a libertarian society, so principles of libertarianism are not neutral when we are dealing with a society that does not operate on the same premises we do. Your best bet is to view it as something of a house of cards. Picture our society as one cell, Islam as another. No matter how libertarian or relativist one cell is, forcing that upon another on the same level is not a relativist act. That means one should use the cell resting on both, what I call a "pseudo-objective", which says "to each society, his own".

Why the heck should we view relativism wrt societies?!

Anyways, I hold to the version of relativism that states that all moral statements are subjective; I just happen to be of the opinion that a more liberal society allows for a greater number of different moralities to coexist. I don't think it is objectively better.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Emotive terms. If there's a civilian massacre somewhere, I won't be happy about it, and I'll mourn the loss of human life, and be resolved that I wouldn't do such a thing myself but I won't go galovanting around claiming I have a right to stop them.

Because that's your personal morality. For most of us, to stand by and watch while something like that happens is evil in itself. Since you don't want to compell other people to follow a morality, why are you trying to do so to us? Sure, try and convince us if you want, but please don't vote; you would forcing your opinion on us.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
What's scary is that this describes the religous right in United States, to which part of the Republican party panders to.

There are such things as differences in degree, I believe you know...