I've been Thinking

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are a lot of Muslims who are not fanatical and who are mainly concerned with the simple things of life, like with their families and putting food on the table, etc. Many of them probably don't realize the full extent to which the Koran tells Muslims to fight and subdue the infidels, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was always curious as to how much the average Muslim actually knew of their own faith. Thankfully we have our own Koranic expert here to educate us. I never did hear where you learned Arabic and studied the Koran, MMMMMM. Which institute of higher learning was that, anyway?

The hubris of some here at 2+2 knows no bounds.

[ QUOTE ]
Islam, taken literally and fundamentally, is diametrically opposed to our own values of free speech and equality; to governance by human consensus; and to anything that does not fit the mold of Islamic religious thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto Christianity. Pretty irrelevant point, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
If all laws and customs come directly from God, what need is there for human modifications, or for other ideologies? There really is no middle ground, ideologically speaking, between such a world view and our way of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, the West has joined together and formed a consensus about what constitutes our way of thinking. Quite amazing. I must have missed it in my constant trolling here on 2+2, but apparently the West is of one mind now? Truly astounding. Thanks for the update. I'll note this one down, as it would seem to invalidate all of this 'deliberation' and 'debate' that's been going on in the West the past few centuries.

At the least, I'll certainly have to let Dr. Falwell and Pat Robertson know that pluralism now rules the day in the West.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the fanatical or fundamentalist elements have the literal terxt of the Koran on their side. As Ibn Warraq put it, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate".

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be moderate Christians, but Christianity itself is not moderate.

[ QUOTE ]
I have suggested that perhaps we might need a 10 or 15 million man army to actually take over the Middle East and re-mold it along the lines of a Germany or Japan. If the crazy Islamists keep attacking Europe and Australia, perhaps those citizens will get fed up with it enough to decide to do it along with us. Between all of NATO and ourselves, if we were to mobilize and prepared enough, we could likely do it and maintain it for long enough to accomplish serious overhaul reform, though the time needed for reform would be decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

You libertarians are a funny bunch, let me tell 'ya.

[ QUOTE ]
If France or other European were to suffer an attack or two on the magnitude of 9/11, for instance, you can bet that their general popular opinion would harden significantly against the Islamists. So in one sense, the Islamists might eventually prove to be their own worst enemies. If they keep attacking most everyone, sooner or later most everyone will be against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, as 9/11 has certainly made American public opinion toward fighting abroad quite hardened indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
All in all a very complex and difficult scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have quite a grasp of it all, though. It can't be that complex.

[Exsubmariner]

Pusuit of Freedom - Defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness being defined by the individual and the pursuit thereof give equal protection provided it does not infringe on the rights of others to pursue their brand of happiness.

Is that sufficient nonsense?

Now, I can understand your point about the dangerous road. I agree it is a dangerous road. I can see why someone would be loathe to travel that road, knowing that human history is litered with corpses created by those who have. But, this may be a necessary road, one that is forced on us.

The danger is that if we do not take it, we may be incapable of action in the face of a threat to our very existance.

X

[Exsubmariner]

Your post has no normativity. Please adhere to the normativity standards for posting.

Thank you.

X

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post has no normativity. Please adhere to the normativity standards for posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously my post doesn't have normativity. Do you see why a lack of normativity makes claims like "I would kill to preserve someone elses property" meaningless?

[Exsubmariner]

If you were looting my neighbors house, I promise that concept would have meaning for you.

[Roybert]

Nice use of the ePenis.

[MMMMMM]

DVaut1,

Instead of ad hominem-styled sarcasm, why don't you do some serious reading or research of your own--such as I have done over the last 5 years or so?

Over the last 30 years, I have held a serious interest in comparative religions--and even in my teens and early twenties I read over 40 books on (and of) Buddhism and Taoism--plus some Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism.

More recently, and especially after the attacks on 9/11, I turned my attention to trying to understand the ideological basis for Islam, and its political effects. This involved a great deal of reading about such matters over a period spanning perhaps 5 or 6 years. You might try doing the same--reading and research--instead of merely throwing barbs and employing sarcasm. You might even end up actually learning something.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were looting my neighbors house, I promise that concept would have meaning for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then your maxim isn't:

"I would kill to preserve my neighbors property";

it's actually:

"I would kill to preserve my neighbors property, if and only if, X was true" (X being whatever circumstances you would need to kill)

Obviously the first claim ("I would kill to preserve my neighbors property") is pretty silly and not accurate.

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

Think of it this way:

My axiom: "I would kill anyone who comes within 15 feet of my wife"

...when I actually meant "I would kill anyone who comes within 15 feet of my wife with a gun pointed at her".

See why the first claim isn't particularly accurate?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1,

Instead of ad hominem-styled sarcasm, why don't you do some serious reading or research of your own--such as I have done over the last 5 years or so?

Over the last 30 years, I have held a serious interest in comparative religions--and even in my teens and early twenties I read over 40 books on (and of) Buddhism and Taoism--plus some Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism.

More recently, and especially after the attacks on 9/11, I turned my attention to trying to understand the ideological basis for Islam, and its political effects. This involved a great deal of reading about such matters over a period spanning perhaps 5 or 6 years. You might try doing the same--reading and research--instead of merely throwing barbs and employing sarcasm. You might even end up actually learning something.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few things:

1) Another typical tactic of yours. Claim I'm using ad hominem attacks (which I am), claiming it's somehow in poor taste, then using your own ad hominem attacks to close out the post "You might try doing the same--reading and research--instead of merely throwing barbs and employing sarcasm. You might even end up actually learning something."

Typical hypocrisy I've come to expect, and it's what makes your moral and ethical lecturing about everyone else's 'poor' behavior here complete [censored]. Take this piece of wisdom to heart: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

(Understand that I don't really have a problem with ad hominem attacks - they're all in good fun. I have a problem with your inane and incessant lecturing about decorum and behavior, which might have more credibility coming from others, but loses much credibility coming from you).

2) Everyone here has read books, I'm sure; lots and lots of books, I'd imagine. Such arrogance to assume others don't read. I probably read 5-10 books a month, at least. So do you, I'd imagine. So do most people who enjoy reading. Not a particularly extrodinary quality.

3) I'm dead serious (no sarcasm) when I say that many Muslims think you cannot truly understand the Koran until
you've studied it for years, in it's original Arabic. Have you done that? If not, where do you come off claiming that Muslims 'don't understand what the Koran really says', when many would claim you don't know what the Koran really says. How could you, if you've never read it the way it was intended to be read? Seems like incredible hubris of the most terrible nature to claim that Muslims don't know what the Koran says. Have you preformed a study to discover such things? Perhaps if you had some clout as an expert, I would accept what you say with more than a grain of salt; but merely because you've 'read' does not make you an expert. Everybody reads. Not everyone's an expert. Put differently, I've read much of the 2+2 library, but I'm not David Sklansky, nor am I a world-class poker player.

So when I see your constant posts about the 'true' nature of Islam, I have to laugh a little bit. It borders on comical (like most posts here, including my own, I'm sure, that come with an undeserved auroa of expertise; it's fun to play serious academic on 2+2. But prattling on about the ignorance of others seems a tad delusional and hypocritical, no? You seem to do it quite often. I have to only wonder how you find the gall to do it. I know you think I target you especially, but you seem to be one of the few people that has his head so far up his ass that you've got yourself convinced you're a leading academic, and that 2+2 is like an academic quarterly - note to your ego: you're not, and it's not. You may already know this, but sometimes I'm not so sure).

4) I'm interested in what kind of research you've produced. Have you produced any articles for an academic journal somewhere? Perhaps something in a law review? Have you made contributions to your local universities social research branch?

Or, by saying you've done 'research', did you merely mean 'you've read'. Like I said, everyone reads. It's not a particularly unique quality, and merely being well-read doesn't mold you into an expert, nor does it give your opinion any level of authority.

But if you have submitted work to, let's say, a peer-reviewed journal, and said work got published - please, by all means, post a link or a reference. I think it would do much to lend you some credibility.

[MMMMMM]

Whatever, DVaut1. Have a good life.