Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. No pun intended, I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm smiling because I missed this! Completely! (Maybe my subconscious kicked in. Not the first time the damned thing's done something to embarrass me.)

Re: Kudos, but
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ooops! Blunder.

[/ QUOTE ]


At the risk of appearing to be seeking your total approval...

I am absolutely against "street justice." But given a choice, I'd go with a cop's experience and knowledge before the average jury panel member. Just my personal experience.

Re: Kudos, but
 

The power of the jury is not in the intelligence or ability of a single member. It is the group dynamic that leads to good decision making. A single person (cop or other wise) brings his prejudices to the decision, the group dynamic attenuates the individual prejudices.

Cyrus was right in his "blunder" assessment -- IMO.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't forget that Muslims aren't the only religious group to commit atrocities in the name of their religion in the past or in the present.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course, but the point is that the FOUNDER of the religion committed great slaughter in the name of the religion, and on multiple occasions.

Re: Kudos, but
 

[ QUOTE ]
The power of the jury is not in the intelligence or ability of a single member. It is the group dynamic that leads to good decision making. A single person (cop or other wise) brings his prejudices to the decision, the group dynamic attenuates the individual prejudices.

Cyrus was right in his "blunder" assessment -- IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


Believe me, I understand synergy and group dynamics. And I wasn't trying to get Cyrus's (or yours, now) approval. I stand by my post. We seem to disagree, but that's not a rarity.

Ideally, the group will make the good/right decision. In real life, an extremely powerful personality can sometimes sway the group.

Yes, everyone brings a certain amount of prejudices/life experiences into any group. Given enough time, those will usually come out in some form. And the group will take that into consideration when making their decision. That's the process of juries. That's one of the reasons deliberations can last so long.

In passing... Twelve Angry Men is an outstanding movie about jury deliberations. There's another (I can't remember the title) based on a John Grisham book about someone manipulating a jury.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will let nickyG -- far more articulate than I -- discuss the Koranic interpretation.

I will say that quoting scripture out of context is foolhardy at best.

[/ QUOTE ] \

Uh-huh. And naturally, you will ignore the point that the actions and words of Mohammed (Peace be upon Him!) provide a better illustration of what the Koran really means, than do the various pronouncements or opinions of imams or mullahs.

The Last Prophet slew many people, led many battles, acquired much plunder through military conquest against unbelievers. Therefore it obviously makes the most sense to take the warlike passages of the Koran literally, as the example of Mohammed shows.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

Nicky, I don't have the three-fold translations handy (although I did post a link and examples in another thread perhaps a couple weeks ago or so; those are translations by three Islamic scholars who are also Muslims; I'd recommend that for comparative purposes. And the verse I posted above was from another source; I wish I'd had the three-fold translations available instead when I posted).

What do you think about the general point, though, Nicky: that the warlike verses in the Koran are likely best taken literally as per the example of Mohammed himself? Jihad and fighting the unbelievers for him was a very active thing and he made much war on the unbelievers; led a great many military campaigns against them. Who should know what the Koran means better than Mohammed himself? Should not his example count a great deal?

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
His words and opinions are not worth my time, except to defend his right to say what ever he wants. His actions have been scrutinized and pass muster (at least that of the jury).

[/ QUOTE ]

One can condemn his words, yet still respect his right to say them. Just as you probably condemn the words of David Duke and the KKK, yet still respect their right to say them.

That is precisely what the American Muslim community should be doing with al-Arian, given his pro-terror pronouncements.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

But part of the point is that those verses don't make much sense outside of their context. Also that the translators are Muslim does not mean we have to accept their translations; different Muslims make different translations. The Saudis supported the propogation of new translations that took deliberately aggressive and arguably distortive lines for example; I don;t know if the ones you refer to are amongst them. It is ironically notable that extremist Muslims often use the same arguments, translations and interpretations as extremist anti-Muslims. So I don't accept the premise of your question that they are necessarily warlike; at least not ion an expansionist sense. Also there is an argument to be made that it is good that the Quran establishes rules of war, in that it forbids excesses that might otherwise occur.

I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead." Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky, I'm sorry, but I didn't have time to address at length any of the specific points you raised. Also, I think I raised the example of Mohammed's actions in this thread before your response.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mohammed led over 20 military campaigns and participated in over 60. He promised and allowed his warriors spoils from the conquests.

Also, Mophammed is just not "another king" or "another example." He is the founder of the religion. Now, if Jesus himself had gone on war-party raids and led military campaigns against unbelievers, I'd say you would have a legitimate parallel example.

The point I was trying to make (to ACPlayer) is that Mohammed might be considered the ultimate authority on Islam, seeing as he was the founder of the entire religion and is considered the Final Prophet. Mohammed's real-life example is that of making many wars against unbelievers. This at least should make one think it more likely than not that the belligerent interpretations of the Koranic passages dealing with fighting infidels, are also most likely the correct interpretations.

I'll return to your post and try to address some of the specific points you raised at a later time (when I have the time and energy to do some web-searching for multiple comparative translations--I've found such things to be time-consuming in the past, and I'm afraid I don't save links for this stuff).

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

Nicky, what I get from your take on those verses is that you're saying they don't necessarily mean the most aggressive or belligerent interpretation. Well, I agree with you on that--which is why I suggested that we look to the life of the Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon Him!} to see in what vein the Messenger himself took or employed those verses. And looking at his long history of aggressive war against the infidels, it appears not to difficult to make a good guess as to how Mohammed (Peace be upon Him!) himself interpreted the Koran.

As to your other point, that some passages are addressed to the Prophet: Muslims are generally instructed to emulate the Prophet (and this actually is something of a parallel with Christianity, as Christians are instructed to emulate Jesus).

Here is one link you may find of interest, as it contains four English translations and the Arabic pronunciations of the Koran as well: http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/009.qmt.html This is from an Islamic website.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead."

[/ QUOTE ]

POTD

Of course, you've misquoted and mischaracterized M; he didn't cite those verses for any particular reason -- apparently he agrees it's a rather pointless exercise to debate anything in the Koran (which is, of course, quite a departure from the "just read the Koran" exhortations that he loves to toss about). Clearly reading and discussing Koranic verses is not all what he wants (gee, I'd have never guessed) -- as he's been (until now) unable to do much but cite the same 5 things over and over: yadda yadda Ibn Warraq moderate Muslims no moderate Islam...blah blah here look at this link on Jihad watch...etc. etc. here are the same 4 Koranic verses that prove Islam is undeniably violent and oppressive...

You must turn your attention away from that, and have a debate about Mohammed's life. Should you become too uppity and un-submissive during that discussion, you will then be directed to chase the next red herring(s), at which point M will eventually give up and claim either "I'll come back to your points later" or "you're just not listening."

Should you disagree altogether too forcefully, you may be fortunate enough to have some threats of moderator intervention thrown your way.

Just wanted to give you an FYI nicky, in case you didn't already know where this was going.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since a vast majority of Muslims (99% +) are not engaged in terrorism, or acts of terrorism, this is a fantastic point. I couldn't agree more. Glad we're on the same side of this now.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you've misquoted and mischaracterized M; he didn't cite those verses for any particular reason -- apparently he agrees it's a rather pointless exercise to debate anything in the Koran (which is, of course, quite a departure from the "just read the Koran" exhortations that he loves to toss about). Clearly reading and discussing Koranic verses is not all what he wants (gee, I'd have never guessed) -- as he's been (until now) unable to do much but cite the same 5 things over and over: yadda yadda Ibn Warraq moderate Muslims no moderate Islam...blah blah here look at this link on Jihad watch...etc. etc. here are the same 4 Koranic verses that prove Islam is undeniably violent and oppressive...

You must turn your attention away from that, and have a debate about Mohammed's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, DVaut1, you have not been following this thread, else you would know that I had raised the example of Mohammed's life in this thread BEFORE Nicky ever entered the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Should you become too uppity and un-submissive during that discussion, you will then be directed to chase the next red herring(s), at which point M will eventually give up and claim either "I'll come back to your points later" or "you're just not listening."

Should you disagree altogether too forcefully, you may be fortunate enough to have some threats of moderator intervention thrown your way.

Just wanted to give you an FYI nicky, in case you didn't already know where this was going.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, DVaut1: you jump into this thread, get the context wrong, then needlessly proceed to ankle-bite and roundly attack me via sarcasm. Are you possibly this miserable in everyday life, too?

Perhaps we will meet someday, and I will be curious to find out if you are as miserable and deliberately antagonistic in everyday life, as you are on the internet. Somehow, I doubt you are or would be. So, what gives, and why not chill out just a bit?

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

And since a vast majority of Muslims (99% +) are not engaged in terrorism, or acts of terrorism, this is a fantastic point. I couldn't agree more. Glad we're on the same side of this now.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

Your 99%+ figure is deceiving, at best. Just because they aren't engaged in terrorism or acts of terrorism (redundant) doesn't mean anything. I would venture to guess that the amount who support terrorism is significantly more than >1%. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be going on.

Who danced in the streets on 9/11? I saw those pictures of the Palestinians.

Who holds soccer tournaments with teams named after suicide bombers? The Saudis.

I could go on, but I hope you understand how personal non-involvement with terrorist acts does not make one anti-terrorism.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, DVaut1, you have not been following this thread, else you would know that I had raised the example of Mohammed's life in this thread BEFORE Nicky ever entered the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that you offer absolutely no answer as to why you blantantly contradict yourself (i.e., "READ THE KORAN" vs. "ignore the Koran, look at Mohammed's life") -- I'll just assume you're more or less incapable of realizing your own incoherence and we can leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
So, DVaut1: you jump into this thread,

[/ QUOTE ]

I 'jumped' into this thread? Did I need to be invited? Perhaps I'm confused about the nature of this board.

But okay. Fair enough. Next time anyone is involved in posting, and you enter your first post anywhere into the 'middle' of the thread, we'll just label you as 'jumping' into the thread, as you are clearly an uninvited interloper -- as accusing someone of 'jumping' into the thread clearly implies some level of thread ownership.

So just do me a favor, in the future, and in the interest of etiquette -- label which threads are 'yours' and who is allowed post in them; I would just hate to 'jump in needlessly' again.

[ QUOTE ]
get the context wrong,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I got the context wrong. How exactly did I get the context wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
then needlessly proceed to ankle-bite and roundly attack me via sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it was needless.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you possibly this miserable in everyday life, too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly feel very content in life -- so no, I'm not very miserable in 'everyday' life.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we will meet someday, and I will be curious to find out if you are as miserable and deliberately antagonistic in everyday life, as you are on the internet. Somehow, I doubt you are or would be. So, what gives, and why not chill out just a bit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's review using two hypothetical characters: Our first character spends his time advocating the possible carpet bombing of the entire Middle East and believes we're on the verge (or perhaps entrenched in) World War III -- and clearly spends much of his free time concerned about the beliefs and actions of Muslims in a way that borders on pathological.

Meanwhile, the other character says "Let's excerise some caution here, and not be so hasty to condemn others. There are lots of complicated issues to resolve here, and they can't simply be reasoned away using inane explanations about the 'inherent nature' of a religion that is practiced and adhered to by a billion people in perhaps almost as many different ways."

Now, following our review: which one of these characters is leading a tortured and miserable life? Perhaps (and most likely) it's neither. But if one of them were, and we were forced to take wagers on it, where would your money go?

I know where my money is going, and it's not even close.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

I like how you spliced that allegedly and the admitted together to make like he admitted to something that he didn't. That's a nice little piece of work right there.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

Most terrorists are muslim? Look up the stats for terrorism in the U.S.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most terrorists are muslim? Look up the stats for terrorism in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen:

Don't deliberately mischaracterize what I said. I didn't say that most terrorism in the United States has been committed by Muslims - I said most terrorists are Muslim. So instead of challenging what I didn't say, why don't you respond to what I actually said?

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

Why do you think most terrorists are muslisms? I would think that terrorists are the ones commiting terrorism.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think most terrorists are muslisms? I would think that terrorists are the ones commiting terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see by this nonsensical response that you're just pumping your post count so that when you spam posters with RB offers, people think that you're a poster with some history.

Going for that third *?

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The jury system works well, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, OJ is proof that all the undereducated jurors who otherwise would be sitting at home watching soaps, are so very capable of logically judging the facts of any case and rendering a true verdict.

This is in fact just an indictment of the jury system.

[/ QUOTE ]

the legal system is no different to any other part of the free market, simply put, the more money one has the greater chance he has of getting away with murder, or child abuse or anything else.

Mack

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

What is nonsensical about my post? Why do you think most terrorists are muslims?

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is nonsensical about my post? Why do you think most terrorists are muslims?

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well.

Let's follow our conversation.

I say that while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim, without reference to any geographical restrictions.

You reply that I should look at terrorism that has been committed in the United States, entirely overlooking the fact that I did not, in any way, restrict my statement to the U.S.

I tell you to respond to my actual statement.

You say that most terrorists are not Muslim, but in fact, are terrorists.

Your statement is nonsensical because it actually seeks to ignore reality by removing a relevant characteristic from the equation without explaining why it should be removed from consideration.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please do provide empirical evidence here. Remember to include all historical instances of terrorism as well.

Forgive me, but I did actually "laugh out loud" when I read what you wrote here. But I'll be anxiously awaiting the results of your inquiry nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 99%+ figure is deceiving, at best. Just because they aren't engaged in terrorism or acts of terrorism (redundant) doesn't mean anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean ANYTHING?!?!?!?

[ QUOTE ]
I would venture to guess that the amount who support terrorism is significantly more than >1%. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by 'support'?

That is the distinction I'm making between "terrorism" and "acts of terrorism". Let's include 'funding' and other direct assistance of terrorism as constituting 'acts of terrorism' -- or, at least, let's call it actions that we would legitimately call criminal. Just for simplicity's sake -- as I'm not claiming 'acts of terrorism' is necessarily the best way to describe the various direct support mechanisms that could aid terrorism.

Let's exclude 'sympathize with terrorists' or 'agrees with their ends' or even 'agrees with their means'. Surely you can make a distinction between merely sympathizing with terrorism, and with participating in terrorism itself -- or more succinctly, you can make a distinction between thoughts and actions, correct?

Now, how many Muslims would you guess are engaged in acts of terrorism? -- keeping in mind that no statistics exist which are even close to accurate -- but ALSO keeping in mind that, as there are 1 billion estimated Muslims in the world, TEN MILLION of those Muslims would have to be engaging in terrorism to equal 1% of the world's Muslims -- and lastly, of course, keeping in mind that 'engaging' in terrorism implies some kind of action, and not merely thought or sympathy.

Clearly you mean something by 'support', but I'm just not sure what. I'm all ears as to how you propose we define 'support' of terrorism.

If we're talking about Bluff's OP, I don't have anything relevant to add on whether or not we should condemn Muslim groups cheering the acquittal of a terrorist sympathizer. It's a legitimate debate to have, and I think it's more than valid to debate the condemnation of those who support terrorism, etc. But it's a debate I'm not concerned with here.

But getting back to the point at hand: when BluffTHIS says lets "look at Muslims and how they interpret it (it=Koran) and act on it" -- let's do just what Bluff asks we do.

We can probably say, with great confidence, that 99% + of Muslims have not participated in terrorism in any kind of significant way.

So, using Bluff's standard, by looking at the actions of Muslims, I think we're forced to conclude that there's nothing inherent about Islam or the Koran that would lead us to claim it's intrinsically belligerent or violent.

-------------------

On side note, let's take apart your argument that if 'support' weren't significantly greater than '1%', 'terrorism' wouldn't be happening.

How many Americans support the neo-Nazis like Timothy McVeigh? Did the Oklahoma City Bombings 'still go on'?

[ QUOTE ]
Who danced in the streets on 9/11? I saw those pictures of the Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say, for instance, you're correct: Palestinians dance in the streets after hearing of 9/11. What exactly are the implications here?

Nuke em'? Outlaw dancing?

Was there some political reason why Palestinians may have been dancing? Or is it only because they're Muslim?

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on, but I hope you understand how personal non-involvement with terrorist acts does not make one anti-terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay -- again, was not Bluff's claim that we should look at actions ? Most Muslims aren't terrorists. So I think I've got my answer, if we're using Bluff's standard.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

You say x (terrorists are muslims).
I reply y (in america, most terrorists are not muslims).

This is clearly pertinent to the conversation.

So, prove your statement. What information leads you to believe that most terrorists are muslims?

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please do provide empirical evidence here. Remember to include all historical instances of terrorism as well.

Forgive me, but I did actually "laugh out loud" when I read what you wrote here. But I'll be anxiously awaiting the results of your inquiry nonetheless

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well. I can't prove that Islamic terorism has intentionally killed more innocent people than any other group, but I'd be hard pressed to disbelieve it, and I'd suspect most educated common-sense people would as well.

Perhaps you can come up with a list demonstrating that a group other than Islamists have intentionally (and successfully) targeted more civilians for death in the last twenty five years:

9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings, over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on Hotels in Amman, Jordan. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved,
7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground, 53 dead killed by four suicide bombers.
4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people.
11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda)
16 May 2004- Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Slafaia Jihadia.
12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured.
24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured
7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured
March 9, 2002 - Café suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured
March 3, 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured
February 26, 2002 - Train of Hindu pilgrims bombed in Gujarat, India; 59 dead
11 September 2001 - 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.
7 August 1998 - Embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya. 225 dead. 4000+ injured
25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
26 February 1993 - First World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed.
18 April 1983 - Embassy in Lebanon bombed. 63 killed.

Source: Wikipedia

Most followers of current events will notice that a only a small number of suicide bombings in Israel are listed here.

I would also like to add that my putting "LOL" in my original post was unnecessary and rude. My apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 99%+ figure is deceiving, at best. Just because they aren't engaged in terrorism or acts of terrorism (redundant) doesn't mean anything.

That doesn't mean ANYTHING?!?!?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, perhaps I shouldn't have said it meant nothing. I'd prefer that they be passive supporters than active human bombs.

[ QUOTE ]
I would venture to guess that the amount who support terrorism is significantly more than >1%. Otherwise, it wouldn't still be going on.

What do you mean by 'support'?

That is the distinction I'm making between "terrorism" and "acts of terrorism". Let's include 'funding' and other direct assistance of terrorism as constituting 'acts of terrorism' -- or, at least, let's call it actions that we would legitimately call criminal. Just for simplicity's sake -- as I'm not claiming 'acts of terrorism' is necessarily the best way to describe the various direct support mechanisms that could aid terrorism.

Let's exclude 'sympathize with terrorists' or 'agrees with their ends' or even 'agrees with their means'. Surely you can make a distinction between merely sympathizing with terrorism, and with participating in terrorism itself -- or more succinctly, you can make a distinction between thoughts and actions, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is a distinction, but I think that you place far too much reliance on it. Do you really think that there would be such a significant amount of terrorism in the Middle East if there was no support for it?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, how many Muslims would you guess are engaged in acts of terrorism? -- keeping in mind that no statistics exist which are even close to accurate -- but ALSO keeping in mind that, as there are 1 billion estimated Muslims in the world, TEN MILLION of those Muslims would have to be engaging in terrorism to equal 1% of the world's Muslims -- and lastly, of course, keeping in mind that 'engaging' in terrorism implies some kind of action, and not merely thought or sympathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I know why you included this. I acknowledged in my post that less than 1% of Muslims were actively involved in terrorism. Where you and I differ is the role that those cheering them on and encouraging them play.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you mean something by 'support', but I'm just not sure what. I'm all ears as to how you propose we define 'support' of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I defined this above. When there are people cheering you in the streets, encouraging the hatred that leads to terrorism and condoning the acts/means of the terrorists, that's what I mean by support. I think we agree that financial support isn't support of terrorism, rather, it is terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
If we're talking about Bluff's OP, I don't have anything relevant to add on whether or not we should condemn Muslim groups cheering the acquittal of a terrorist sympathizer. It's a legitimate debate to have, and I think it's more than valid to debate the condemnation of those who support terrorism, etc. But it's a debate I'm not concerned with here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of this.

[ QUOTE ]
But getting back to the point at hand: when BluffTHIS says lets "look at Muslims and how they interpret it (it=Koran) and act on it" -- let's do just what Bluff asks we do.

We can probably say, with great confidence, that 99% + of Muslims have not participated in terrorism in any kind of significant way.

So, using Bluff's standard, by looking at the actions of Muslims, I think we're forced to conclude that there's nothing inherent about Islam or the Koran that would lead us to claim it's intrinsically belligerent or violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

What we can do is look at the type of things that people have done in its name, which can be said for any major religion.

-------------------

[ QUOTE ]
On side note, let's take apart your argument that if 'support' weren't significantly greater than '1%', 'terrorism' wouldn't be happening.

How many Americans support the neo-Nazis like Timothy McVeigh? Did the Oklahoma City Bombings 'still go on'?

[/ QUOTE ]

It did. Does it occur with the alarming frequency at which incidents of Islamic terrorism occur? No.


[ QUOTE ]
Who danced in the streets on 9/11? I saw those pictures of the Palestinians.

Let's say, for instance, you're correct: Palestinians dance in the streets after hearing of 9/11. What exactly are the implications here?

Nuke em'? Outlaw dancing?

Was there some political reason why Palestinians may have been dancing? Or is it only because they're Muslim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not say that I EVER advocated nuclear warfare. I do think the fact that they're Muslim plays a significant role in the way we look at this. I didn't notice any Tibetian monks or Eastern Orthodox Russians doing it - the fact that it was constrained to one religious group, in my opinion, says something.

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on, but I hope you understand how personal non-involvement with terrorist acts does not make one anti-terrorism.

Okay -- again, was not Bluff's claim that we should look at actions ? Most Muslims aren't terrorists. So I think I've got my answer, if we're using Bluff's standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the fact that Palestinians were dancing in the streets on 9/11 after the worst terrorist attack in US history, which was perpetrated by their fellow Muslims in the name of Islam, does not constitute an "action?"

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
You say x (terrorists are muslims).
I reply y (in america, most terrorists are not muslims).

This is clearly pertinent to the conversation.

So, prove your statement. What information leads you to believe that most terrorists are muslims?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the above post, part 1.

On another note, I find it tremendously ironic that you accused MMMMMM of trying to make it look like another poster said something he didn't actually say, and you blatantly do the same thing to me:

[ QUOTE ]
You say x (terrorists are muslims)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. I never implied that all terrorists are Muslim.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to add that my putting "LOL" in my original post was unnecessary and rude. My apologies.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it was unnecessary nor rude, and there's no need to apologize. I personally enjoy the banter.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

I see you have no desire to actually debate the topic, so I will stop attempting to do so.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see by this nonsensical response that you're just pumping your post count so that when you spam posters with RB offers, people think that you're a poster with some history.

[/ QUOTE ]


Now that puts an interesting spin on the lady's posts.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

DVaut1, you first "jumped into" this thread in your prior post at 12:08 PM, *with no apparent purpose other than to lash out at me, and contributed therein nothing of substance to the discussion in progress*. Granted, you're welcome to "jump into" any thread you see fit, but when you do you should usually start by addressing the specific issue under discussion. Instead, you launched into a lengthy and sarcastic assault, while contributing nothing to the discussion of the issues under contention.

Moreover, you STILL haven't addressed the central point in this sub-thread, which I first made in this in response to ACPlayer, that Mohammed's life example (and his words in the hadiths) could help shed some light on which interpretations of the Koran are most likely to be correct. After all, if the very FOUNDER of a religion views the sacred texts in a certain manner, and follows through in his own real life example, that really ought to carry some serious weight, oughtn't it?

Finally, you seem to have a strange and recurring obsession with attacking me as a matter of general course. Well, you are now IGNORED.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]

I like how you spliced that allegedly and the admitted together to make like he admitted to something that he didn't. That's a nice little piece of work right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no, the "allegedly" refers to his having tried to send it--not to his having written it, nor its content. As you can see, he admitted to having written it.

"Al-Arian also admitted that he wrote a letter—which he allegedly attempted to send, but could not do so successfully—to a Kuwaiti legislator urging him to support the families of suicide bombers in order to provide “support of the jihad effort in Palestine so that [suicide] operations such as these can continue.” He wrote the letter just weeks after President Clinton had signed an executive order banning financial and material support of PIJ. Again, this is only known because the government introduced it as evidence during trial."

Also:

"At the 1990 ICP conference, Al-Arian addressed the crowd of 200 people in St. Louis called for “true armed jihad against the enemy in Israel.”"

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

The following points you make are correct:

1. In the last 25 years many of the terrorist incidents have muslim perps.
2. There is widespread tacit support of terrorists in parts of the middle east
3. There is at least some anti-american sentiment in the middle east, including dancing on the streets.

However, to conclude that this means that Islam is to blame is fallacious. I offer the following observations:

1. When, historically, certain groups have used Christianity to justify their activities does not indict Christianity. On offer is the Spanish Queen's expelling of non-chritians -- see history of sephardim; the anti-semitism of many european countries; the activities of Hindu extremists in India etc.
2. The majority of the incidents you cited are from groups in the middle east. You ignore the millions of Muslims living elsewhere in the world. Perhaps the reason has to do with middle east socio-political dynamics and not Islam. At a minimum that is very fertile line to explore for the real reasons.

I suggest that the real reasons for terrorist activities lie in the economic-political environment of the middle east and in Islam. Their support for the terrorist is similar to the support we gave our government in its internment of the Japanese in WW2 and the support we gave as a knee jerk reaction to the misadventures in Iraq (both supported position have not stood the test of time -- or logic).

Lastly, Islam has been around since about 700 AD. The terrorist activities have been around for 25 years (at least the ones attributed to Islam). The same people have been praying, avoiding Pork and following the words of the Koran for all this time -- and now are terrorists because of the Koran. What happened to the believers for the earlier centuries?

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. In the last 25 years many of the terrorist incidents have muslim perps.
2. There is widespread tacit support of terrorists in parts of the middle east
3. There is at least some anti-american sentiment in the middle east, including dancing on the streets.

However, to conclude that this means that Islam is to blame is fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fallacious it would be to conclude it is 100% to blame, yes. I have never claimed that, and I don't think the poster is claiming that now. Also, note too that it would be fallacious to conclude that Islam must therefore be *not* even partially to blame.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, Islam has been around since about 700 AD. The terrorist activities have been around for 25 years (at least the ones attributed to Islam). The same people have been praying, avoiding Pork and following the words of the Koran for all this time -- and now are terrorists because of the Koran. What happened to the believers for the earlier centuries?

[/ QUOTE ]

You almost make it sound as if Islam always lived in peace with all its neighbors, until the last few decades (well, the suicide bombers pretty much are new, but Islamic violent conquest and oppression of non-believers has a long history). Why don't you try Googling: History of Jihad?

Here is one of the first articles that came up:

(excerpt)"The Koran invites Muslims to give their lives in exchange for assurances of paradise.

The Hadith (accounts of Muhammad’s actions and personal statements) elaborate on the Koran, providing specific injunctions about treaties, pay, booty, prisoners, tactics, and much else. Muslim jurisprudents then wove these precepts into a body of law.

Muhammad’s conquests: During his years in power, the prophet engaged in an average of nine military campaigns a year, or one every 5-6 weeks; thus did jihad help define Islam from its very dawn. Conquering and humiliating non-Muslims was a main feature of the prophet’s jihad."(end excerpt)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=18231

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
nicky, the point was already made to you by both MMMMMM and myself in that other thread, that it is not important how you wish to interpret the Quran in the most favorable light to avoid the plain meaning of its words, but how Moslems interpret and act on it. You seem to intentionally be refusing to make this distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it that all of you apologizers for Islam don't get the point above that I posted earlier? How ironic it is that liberal westerners feel such a politically correct need to put a positive light on Moslem motivations and actions regarding terrorism, when Moslems themselves do not. My OP in this thread and the excerpt giving those reactions of American Moslem groups shows that clearly.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see you have no desire to actually debate the topic, so I will stop attempting to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Look at the extensive response I wrote prior to your posting of this statement. Your failure to respond to anything I've said says something about YOUR desire to debate this topic. I've answered each of your questions. Your lack of returning the courtesy is telling.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

Well, sure you can partially blame Islam. Just as you can partially blame those who wear little checkered towels on their head. Just because there is a correlation does not mean there is blame. If there is cause it is in the socio-political dynamic in this region.

I do not make it sound like Islam has lived in peace with its neighbours. That may be a conclusion you draw. We are specifically discussing terrorism and not peaceful coexistence. Islamic countries in the middle east were in the past 500 years just as likely to fight with each other as with outsiders. That has nothing to do with Islam, but has to do with the ability of these tribes to eke out an existence in that area -- again it is economic, not religious.

To take one example from the glorious days of Islamic domination. In India until Aurangzeb (who was a despot and is considered anti-Islamic by many) the muslim rulers ruled in a relatively benign manner -- even letting the Hindus (who are not of the book and do not believe in one god) practice their religion. When the economic conditions of the rulers declined their despotism increased.

Historically, Islam is no more or less violent than other societies. We can look into our own backyard (the subjugation of the American Indians) for a violent conflict fostered by economic conditions with a veneer of religious connotations.

Further, I suggest reading history, rather than propoganda.

Re: Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism
 

Altogether, not a bad post, ACPlayer.

One point however should be noted: there is no correlation worldwide between economic conditions and terrorism, and many very poor countries or societies do not turn to terrorism.

I will grant that in the case of the Middle-East there is also a whole stew of problems and troubled traditions, so I'm not saying that Islam is the only cause of terrorism or other problems. However, some years ago, I posted a study done which found no worldwide correlation between economic conditions and terrorism--and this study was done by a rather neutral group, though I forget whether it was Human Rights Watch, or a Doctors' group, or perhaps even the U.N. At any rate, that part of the equation can be thrown out--many of the very poorest regions in the world do not turn to terrorism. Just some food for thought.