Why do people not like Muslims?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I just want to pinpoint that the US has been involved in troubles all around the world.

What's your point? The police are involved in virtually all crimes, too

The US sparks trouble all across the world.

Trouble manages to spark itself most of the time.

And the Americans will find excuses, will be as self-righteous when they defend these actions, as the average Muslim defending the suicide bombers.

There's a slight difference between peacekeeping in Kosovo and blowing yourself up in a crowded resteraunt.

You can only imagine the clash when two such big(oted) egoes meet. That's what we are having now. And no offense, Lord Merciless, but you are exactly as bigoted as the average terrorist-supporter. You just support the exactions of the other side.

How are we "bigoted"? The vast majority of people don't "hate" Muslims, they just think a lot of them are a problem (which is true). Moreover, support for US military actions isn't comparable to support for damage directly inflicted upon civilians.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Yes. If you're asking me whether I support terrorism, I say that as a pacifist I'll be the first to protest against it. If you asked whether I support the subjugation of women, homosexuals, liberals, intellectuals etc, I say no. I just don't think that I, or anyone else, is so necesarily correct in their views as to force it upon others as "more correct".

You aren't forcing your views on a person by preventing others from forcing their views on that person.

You forget that subjugation of women necessarily includes a coerced partner.

On the other hand, I see a hell of a lot of good stuff in Muslim culture, not to mention the degree to which many of the advances in the West have been directly due to Islam.

Not due to Islam, to Muslims. Big difference.

Plus, these were Muslims who lived centuries ago.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
There's a slight difference between peacekeeping in Kosovo and blowing yourself up in a crowded resteraunt.

Where is the difference between blowing up a hospital and blowing up a restaurant? Ah yes, one is "colateral damage", so it must be OK.

I should have been a BenLadenite, and I should explain you that there is nothing personal about killing Americans, they are merely "colateral damage" in the grand scheme of things.

[Sandman]

Why do people not like Muslims?

People are cretins who need an 'other' to bounce their own identities off.

There are scores of conflicts going on around the world which don't involve any Muslims whatsoever. But if a war involves Muslims, it's certain to get more media attention.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Where is the difference between blowing up a hospital and blowing up a restaurant? Ah yes, one is "colateral damage", so it must be OK.

Rather, they intended to blow up the resteraunt, we did not intend to blow up the hospital.

Our actions are superior to theirs in that they direct all their power against civilians, and if they had our power they would be carpet-bombing American cities, but we deliberately try to AVOID killing civilians.

I should have been a BenLadenite, and I should explain you that there is nothing personal about killing Americans, they are merely "colateral damage" in the grand scheme of things.

Except that it would be false, because you are deliberately targetting them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich

I should have been a BenLadenite, and I should explain you that there is nothing personal about killing Americans, they are merely "colateral damage" in the grand scheme of things.

Except that it would be false, because you are deliberately targetting them.

I'm sure most mainstream BenLadenites don't wish the utter extermination of the American people. They just wanted to scare the Americans into stop meddling in the affairs of the Arab world, while getting publicity for their own group doing so.

You don't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. The death of these people was instrumental to their aims, nothing personal.

[Cyclotron]

If you want to use the technical meaning of fundamentalism, which is the interpretation of every word of a religious text as literal truth, then all Muslims are in fact fundamentalists, where say, Christians are not. This is not a loaded statement value-wise, I'm just saying that many Christians do not take the Bible as literal truth, but because the Koran is believed to be straight from God, it is interpreted literally. Thus, all Muslims are fundamentalists. Whether all Muslims are extremists is entirely another matter; I would have to say absolutely not.

[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.

--

As just about the only Muslim on the board (I don't know what Ramo was raised as) I will say that the Islamophobia is troubling. I ask how Christianity looked at 1400, because that is how old Islam is. I seem to remember something called the Dark Ages with all the learning of Rome and Greece preserved in the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain.

[Fake Boris]

Honestly Imran I think Islam is worse right now than even what Christianty has been. Religion is probably not the cause (any religion can become subject to reappropriation), but even in the Middle Ages Christians had safe-thought havens in Universities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Honestly Imran I think Islam is worse right now than even what Christianty has been.

Studying a great amount of history during the 'Dark Ages', I'd have to disagree with that sentiment. The difference is that technology is being applied to these 'backward' views.

even in the Middle Ages Christians had safe-thought havens in Universities.

Ask Galileo or those branded 'heretics'.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I ask how Christianity looked at 1400, because that is how old Islam is. I seem to remember something called the Dark Ages with all the learning of Rome and Greece preserved in the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain.

And I find it quite sad that the religion/civilization has been hijacked to such an extent that OBL can attract a large following.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Studying a great amount of history during the 'Dark Ages', I'd have to disagree with that sentiment. The difference is that technology is being applied to these 'backward' views.

What?

Ask Galileo or those branded 'heretics'.

Galileo didn't have the backing of any religious organizations. The same thing could have happened to Thomas of Aquinus hadn't he been a Dominican.

Besides, the 'Golden Age' of the Inquisition, IIRC, was during the Renaissance (15th to 17th century), and not the so-called 'Dark Ages'.

The problem is that conditions varied within Christianty just like they do within actual Islam. I prefer to suspend my judgment for now, the comparison is just too hard to make. But in essence as you pointed out they are probably similar.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I find it quite sad that the religion/civilization has been hijacked to such an extent that OBL can attract a large following.

May I point to the 30 Years War?

What?

It is no worse than Christianity back then, only they have more technology so are able to be more repressive. In certain pockets, the Church couldn't reach because of the space between people.

Galileo didn't have the backing of any religious organizations.

Isn't that the point? What about Luther? He was a monk and was only saved by political authorities. What about those monks who were burned at the stake?

the 'Golden Age' of the Inquisition, IIRC, was during the Renaissance (15th to 17th century), and not the so-called 'Dark Ages'.

Heretics didn't exist before the Inquisition? Are you being serious?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is no worse than Christianity back then, only they have more technology so are able to be more repressive. In certain pockets, the Church couldn't reach because of the space between people.

Yes.

Isn't that the point? What about Luther? He was a monk and was only saved by political authorities. What about those monks who were burned at the stake?

Oh well, count in any powerful organization, whatever their nature. As for monk burning, I never heard of it as a frequent occurence.

Heretics didn't exist before the Inquisition? Are you being serious?

Of course there were clashes between intellectuals and the Church. I was only pointing out that the period ranging from the 8th century to the 14th probably wasn't worse than the Renaissance, contrary to popular belief. For instance, the Church was surprisingly tolerant to Aristotle when he reached the Latin West.

My point was only to question the idea of a 'dark age'.

[Dis]

I have nothing against muslims.

I have a mosque accross the street from where I live. Doesn't bother me the least bit. More power to them.

But I don't care for the middle east very much. But that's more of a political reason, nothing personal. I just don't care about their religious politics.