The Language Wars

[Skeptic]

(Again, I am posting the entire article since the link requires registration):

Words are a cognitive mystery. We use them confidently and quite smoothly to exchange thoughts, yet we are often quite unaware of why we've used one word and not another. And when challenged to define a word we're using, we generally have no option but to reach for a dictionary - but only to find that dictionary definitions rarely capture the nuances of words, their connotations and associations, the very things that lead us to choose one word over another.

The word "insurgent" is a case in point. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent." Quite, but hardly what makes the word so much more effective a tool for the Pentagon spokesperson than "rebel" or "resistance."

Advocates for Israel have fought a long and largely unsuccessful fight on this terrain. The term "peace activist" effortlessly scores a point about who is for peace and who is against it. When a 15-year-old Palestinian boy is shot by the IDF, the word "boy" tends to evoke tender age and innocence (compare "Police arrested several youths for loitering"). The term "Palestinian," by association with "Palestine" - used unchallenged as the time-hallowed name for the Holy Land - sends a clear message as to who are the rightful inhabitants of the land.

Our conventional rules of discourse and debate make it exceedingly difficult to do anything about this. It's no easy thing to halt a TV interview to take issue with the interviewer's choice of words, let alone to persuade an entire public that a particular word is tainted. As the sociologist of speech, Erving Goffman has observed, "In everyday life, it is usually possible for the performer to create intentionally almost any kind of false impression without putting himself in the indefensible position of having told a clear-cut lie."

One stealth technique is collocation - i.e., the use of two words in the same breath so as to effect a semantic contamination. Examples are "the plight of the Palestinians" and "illegal settlements." Another is the use of what the rhetorician Richard Weaver labelled "devil terms" and "God terms" - words that act like automatic moral triggers, such as "oppression," "occupation," and "uprising." The Western media have duly done their best to keep the devil term "terrorist" out of their reporting. Grammar, too, may be subtly suggestive.

Thus in the US, National Public Radio has used the phrase "Israeli-Palestinian violence," which not only asserts that the Israelis are using violence but strongly suggests that the Israelis are the active agent (imagine saying "American-Serbian violence in Kosovo"). The invisible worm has already eaten into the discourse of Israel's own supporters. The terms "settler" and "settlement," for example, should long ago have been jettisoned. While they may have positive connotations in the context of Colonial America or Saxon England, their implications in the Middle East debate are colonialist.

Twenty-three years ago, I wrote to prime minister Menachem Begin suggesting he adopt the term favored by the media when referring to Arab communities: "village" - a word rich with resonances of rootedness and belonging. The critical point here, as any ad agency or communications specialist will attest, is that words do not exist in isolation; they inhabit intricate wordscapes and create the underpinning for powerful sets of values.

OF CRITICAL importance is the battle over territorial names. Words, particularly nouns, have a nasty habit of reifying, meaning that they create their own realities. As discourse analysts have noted, even so objective-sounding a medium as scientific discourse draws some of its persuasiveness from the heavy use of abstract nouns; coin a name and it already seems to exist. For the "West Bank," as the Jordanians, the British, and now the virtually the entire world call it, the battle is over. With some other regions, Israel has fared better. Thanks, no doubt, in part to Anglo-Christian custom, the Negev, the Galilee, Jerusalem, and Hebron are still widely known by recognizably Hebraic names.

Not so Shechem, which Israelis call by a Biblical name but others (including Israel's English language press) by the Arabic name "Nablus" (itself derived from the Roman colony of Flavius Neapolis).

"Temple Mount" may now be in dispute. Thus the Associated Press stated on October 27, 2000, "Israel barred Palestinian men under 35 from praying at the Al- Aksa Mosque compound on Jerusalem's Haram ash-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary, a hill known to Jews as the Temple Mount." Had AP stated "known to Muslims as the Haram ash-Sharif," it would at least have implied equality of title.

Language wars are messy and laborious. They also require skills that are not widely taught. A few rudimentary actions may certainly be taken, such as placing questionable words in "scare quotes" (as if to say "so-called"); avoiding certain devil terms; and reconnoitering more positive alternatives for use.

But this is hardly enough. The times call for an urgent assessment of what we are being subjected to and for a quite new kind of training to deal with it. This training must not be limited to professionals. As in all modern conflicts, the entire community is at risk; it must therefore be familiarized with the propagandists' arts and trained to protect itself.

The stakes, as history has shown, are high. The successes of the Fascist/Marxist language machine in making the Jew vermin and tyranny democracy have been well learned by contemporary adversaries. But the angels can fight back. One may draw encouragement, for example, from the initial success of Western liberalism in combating so much that is prejudiced and discriminatory in our language.

Some of this starts in schools and colleges, where students are now beginning to learn to de-construct TV ads and media politicking. In the words of the doyen of American rhetoricians, Kenneth Burke, "Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is 'meaning' there is persuasion."

[Zero]

Time to nuke the 'holy' land? Yes, I believe so...

[Skeptic]

Nononononono, "Zero", you've got it wrong.

It's OK to nuke the "holy land" only if you make perfectly clear that ONLY applies to jewish religious claims, not to the Arab demands to "free every inch of the holy Arab land of the zionist presence", which, of course, is perfectly legitimate and not at all religious extremism of any kind. Remember: only jewish religious claims to the land can be made fun of, while Palestinian claims of their ancestors being the Jebusite or the Amalekites must be respected as "their traditional belief".

I would add a few more words to this list, though. We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah) as opposed to "extremist" jew (someone who is more on the right politically than, say, Thomas Friedman or Shimon Peres). We all know "devout" is good and "extemist" bad, don't we? "Paranoid" (someone who thinks the Arabs want to kill all the jews just because they repeatedly say so and do their best to achieve this) is also a word that's a bit inaccurate, when describing people with an opinion about the "middle east conflict" (the Arab attempt to butcher the jews).

A few more cliches that could use a revision are "traditional society" (backward, primitive, violent, opressive society), "religion of peace" (religion of holy war), "offends Muslim sensibilities" (promotes freedom of speech/ religion/ women/ choice, all taboo), "cultural imperialism" (the natives prefer freedom to opression all of a sudden), "imposing western values" (toppling a murderous dictator), etc.

After all, the west doesn't want to offend tradition, does it? Sounds like a rude thing to do, like pissing on a Christmas tree. Or "impose western values"--that's like imposing on your hosts. Surely that's not a good idea?

[The Fool]

Sad, Just sad..... You were making some progress for a while "skeptic" Now I see you are reverting to your standard racist rants....

[Zep]

I don't think he is, but it IS leaning one way in his examples. The issue is reasonable, so I hope we aren't seeing a hidden agenda here...

[demon]

Skeptic, you have the most inappropriate name on these forums.
It is just an additional indication of your bigoted look on the world. You make the most ridiculous assertions, posts, and misrepresentations of other forum member`s positions and arguments that it has become risible.

I just can`t work out why Shemp hasn`t run a poll yet on:

1) Should Skeptic keep his name of "Skeptic", or change it because it is entirely inappropriate if one considers the evidence contained in his posts?
I suggest "para-normal-noid"

2)Should Skeptic be made to eat page by page, the Big Book of Logical fallicies that sceptics are meant to be aware of?

3)Should Skeptic devote his time to making a faster than light propulsion system so he can land his sorry ass on Planet X as soon as possible?

4) Planet X

[Cain]

May I suggest "Septic"?

[demon]

"May I suggest "Septic"?"

That`ll work.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by demon
Skeptic, you have the most inappropriate name on these forums.
You are absolutely wrong here, demon. How could you forget Interesting Ian?

Maybe this deserves a poll.

[a_unique_person]

D4

[clk]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(Again, I am posting the entire article since the link requires registration):

Words are a cognitive mystery. We use them confidently and quite smoothly to exchange thoughts, yet we are often quite unaware of why we've used one word and not another. And when challenged to define a word we're using, we generally have no option but to reach for a dictionary - but only to find that dictionary definitions rarely capture the nuances of words, their connotations and associations, the very things that lead us to choose one word over another.

The word "insurgent" is a case in point. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent." Quite, but hardly what makes the word so much more effective a tool for the Pentagon spokesperson than "rebel" or "resistance."

Advocates for Israel have fought a long and largely unsuccessful fight on this terrain. The term "peace activist" effortlessly scores a point about who is for peace and who is against it. When a 15-year-old Palestinian boy is shot by the IDF, the word "boy" tends to evoke tender age and innocence (compare "Police arrested several youths for loitering"). The term "Palestinian," by association with "Palestine" - used unchallenged as the time-hallowed name for the Holy Land - sends a clear message as to who are the rightful inhabitants of the land.

Our conventional rules of discourse and debate make it exceedingly difficult to do anything about this. It's no easy thing to halt a TV interview to take issue with the interviewer's choice of words, let alone to persuade an entire public that a particular word is tainted. As the sociologist of speech, Erving Goffman has observed, "In everyday life, it is usually possible for the performer to create intentionally almost any kind of false impression without putting himself in the indefensible position of having told a clear-cut lie."

One stealth technique is collocation - i.e., the use of two words in the same breath so as to effect a semantic contamination. Examples are "the plight of the Palestinians" and "illegal settlements." Another is the use of what the rhetorician Richard Weaver labelled "devil terms" and "God terms" - words that act like automatic moral triggers, such as "oppression," "occupation," and "uprising." The Western media have duly done their best to keep the devil term "terrorist" out of their reporting. Grammar, too, may be subtly suggestive.

Thus in the US, National Public Radio has used the phrase "Israeli-Palestinian violence," which not only asserts that the Israelis are using violence but strongly suggests that the Israelis are the active agent (imagine saying "American-Serbian violence in Kosovo"). The invisible worm has already eaten into the discourse of Israel's own supporters. The terms "settler" and "settlement," for example, should long ago have been jettisoned. While they may have positive connotations in the context of Colonial America or Saxon England, their implications in the Middle East debate are colonialist.

Twenty-three years ago, I wrote to prime minister Menachem Begin suggesting he adopt the term favored by the media when referring to Arab communities: "village" - a word rich with resonances of rootedness and belonging. The critical point here, as any ad agency or communications specialist will attest, is that words do not exist in isolation; they inhabit intricate wordscapes and create the underpinning for powerful sets of values.

OF CRITICAL importance is the battle over territorial names. Words, particularly nouns, have a nasty habit of reifying, meaning that they create their own realities. As discourse analysts have noted, even so objective-sounding a medium as scientific discourse draws some of its persuasiveness from the heavy use of abstract nouns; coin a name and it already seems to exist. For the "West Bank," as the Jordanians, the British, and now the virtually the entire world call it, the battle is over. With some other regions, Israel has fared better. Thanks, no doubt, in part to Anglo-Christian custom, the Negev, the Galilee, Jerusalem, and Hebron are still widely known by recognizably Hebraic names.

Not so Shechem, which Israelis call by a Biblical name but others (including Israel's English language press) by the Arabic name "Nablus" (itself derived from the Roman colony of Flavius Neapolis).

"Temple Mount" may now be in dispute. Thus the Associated Press stated on October 27, 2000, "Israel barred Palestinian men under 35 from praying at the Al- Aksa Mosque compound on Jerusalem's Haram ash-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary, a hill known to Jews as the Temple Mount." Had AP stated "known to Muslims as the Haram ash-Sharif," it would at least have implied equality of title.

Language wars are messy and laborious. They also require skills that are not widely taught. A few rudimentary actions may certainly be taken, such as placing questionable words in "scare quotes" (as if to say "so-called"); avoiding certain devil terms; and reconnoitering more positive alternatives for use.

But this is hardly enough. The times call for an urgent assessment of what we are being subjected to and for a quite new kind of training to deal with it. This training must not be limited to professionals. As in all modern conflicts, the entire community is at risk; it must therefore be familiarized with the propagandists' arts and trained to protect itself.

The stakes, as history has shown, are high. The successes of the Fascist/Marxist language machine in making the Jew vermin and tyranny democracy have been well learned by contemporary adversaries. But the angels can fight back. One may draw encouragement, for example, from the initial success of Western liberalism in combating so much that is prejudiced and discriminatory in our language.

Some of this starts in schools and colleges, where students are now beginning to learn to de-construct TV ads and media politicking. In the words of the doyen of American rhetoricians, Kenneth Burke, "Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is 'meaning' there is persuasion."

Isn't it against forum rules to post an entire article without citing the source or link?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by clk


Isn't it against forum rules to post an entire article without citing the source or link?

Sorry, forgot to list the source: It's from the jerusalem post, www.jpost.com., and the author is Lewis Glinert, a professor at Darthmouth.

It is usually against forum rules to post an entire article, but in the case of the post, I cannot post the link since it will simply give you a registration screen, and some people might not like to register. Perhaps there should be a ruling from Hal about this, to clarify? So far, he hasn't removed my posts, so I suppose it's OK as far as he's concerned. I might be wrong.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I might be wrong.
Is Jerusalem post actually paying you to be a reposting bot? Are you fighting for the Richard G award?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Nononononono, "Zero", you've got it wrong.

It's OK to nuke the "holy land" only if you make perfectly clear that ONLY applies to jewish religious claims, not to the Arab demands to "free every inch of the holy Arab land of the zionist presence", which, of course, is perfectly legitimate and not at all religious extremism of any kind. Remember: only jewish religious claims to the land can be made fun of, while Palestinian claims of their ancestors being the Jebusite or the Amalekites must be respected as "their traditional belief".

I would add a few more words to this list, though. We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah) as opposed to "extremist" jew (someone who is more on the right politically than, say, Thomas Friedman or Shimon Peres). We all know "devout" is good and "extemist" bad, don't we? "Paranoid" (someone who thinks the Arabs want to kill all the jews just because they repeatedly say so and do their best to achieve this) is also a word that's a bit inaccurate, when describing people with an opinion about the "middle east conflict" (the Arab attempt to butcher the jews).

A few more cliches that could use a revision are "traditional society" (backward, primitive, violent, opressive society), "religion of peace" (religion of holy war), "offends Muslim sensibilities" (promotes freedom of speech/ religion/ women/ choice, all taboo), "cultural imperialism" (the natives prefer freedom to opression all of a sudden), "imposing western values" (toppling a murderous dictator), etc.

After all, the west doesn't want to offend tradition, does it? Sounds like a rude thing to do, like pissing on a Christmas tree. Or "impose western values"--that's like imposing on your hosts. Surely that's not a good idea? Shut up, you f**king baby. Go sit in the middle of the "holy" land when it gets nuked, ok? Or go sit in a church, because those should be next.

I am an equal opportunity antagonist towards mythological beliefs, after all.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Sad, Just sad..... You were making some progress for a while "skeptic" Now I see you are reverting to your standard racist rants....

The comment is about word choices and how they convey meaning above and beyond facts being reported. Once again you choose to ignore the message in favor of slaying the messenger.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mycroft


The comment is about word choices and how they convey meaning above and beyond facts being reported. Once again you choose to ignore the message in favor of slaying the messenger. It goes both ways, which renders any specific case presented as a separate case of bias.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zero
It goes both ways, which renders any specific case presented as a separate case of bias.

Of course it goes both ways. That's why I'm puzzled that anyone would choose to slay the messenger rather than discuss the topic.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


The comment is about word choices and how they convey meaning above and beyond facts being reported. Once again you choose to ignore the message in favor of slaying the messenger.

Fair enough, you like to cut "skeptic" as much slack as possible...

what "message" is skeptic attempting to discuss with statements like these?

We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah)

and

"traditional society" (backward, primitive, violent, opressive society)



Its just more of the same from this loser.... Like you, I would also like to see these issues discussed rationally....But "skeptic" is a one trick pony. Always ensuring the same result with the usual racist garbage in brackets at the end of any statement... Do you think it adds value to discussions?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Of course it goes both ways. That's why I'm puzzled that anyone would choose to slay the messenger rather than discuss the topic. Well, I mean...look at the messenger!!

LOL, anyhoo, what do YOU want to discuss, since you are of that bent?

[Skeptic]

what "message" is skeptic attempting to discuss with statements like these?

We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah)

Well, for the record, I'm basing this conclusion on cases such as the recent one the HOUSTON CHRONICLE, a Texas-based newspaper. You see, a recent murder there is of some interest. According to the paper, a young muslim man broke off a long-standing frienship with a jewish friend when he became (as the paper said) a "devout muslim". A few months later, he invited the unsuspecting jewish man to have a cup of coffee... and once in his apartment, slit his throat from ear to ear, in according to the tenents of his new fate, as he sees them, at least.

Was this reported as a "hate crime"? Of course not. Recieved national attention, like, say the death of Matthew Sheppard by gay-hating thugs or the death of a black man strangled by KKK thugs? Of course not. Was the suspected murderer called a "fanatic", an "extremist", or perhaps a "terrorist"? No, of course not. He was merely called a "devout muslim".

"The Houston Chronicle" is, of course, not the only paper who uses "devout muslim" in this sense, to mean "murderous religious maniac". Most other papers use it as well--for example, when they describe the life story of a suicide bomber who just killed a dozen innocent babies (oops, I'm sorry--a dozen "extremists", as "A Unique Person" called them), the AP story almost invariably states something like "at that time, he became an increasingly devout muslim..."--meaning, "at that time, he became an incrreasingly fanatical robot, dead-set on killing jews...", etc.

Like you, I would also like to see these issues discussed rationally....

No, you don't. You merely shout "RACIST!!!" at everybody that dares to post evidence that you don't like, which, to give another code word definition, usually means "I disagree with you on that." Look at this thread, for instance: did you dicsuss a single point from the article I posted? No, instead you called me a "racist" and declared victory.

Of course, you claim it's because there "is no point of discussing anything with a racist loser like Skeptic".My, isn't THAT convenient, eh, "Fool"? First declare I am a racist loser instead of discussing what I post, and then claim there's no point in discussing what I post because I'm a racist loser...

[Luke T.]

I have often noticed how carefully certain words are chosen by the media to give a certain slant. For instance, Ted Turner's memo about not using the word "foreigners" on CNN.

Or the way Fox news uses "homicide bombers" instead of "suicide bombers."

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I have often noticed how carefully certain words are chosen by the media to give a certain slant. For instance, Ted Turner's memo about not using the word "foreigners" on CNN.

Or the way Fox news uses "homicide bombers" instead of "suicide bombers."

As the article above says, language is important. "Homocide bombers" instead of "Suicide bombers" is correct inasmuch as it clarifies that their main intent is murder, not suicide, which is merely the means. The Japanese in WWII are univesally known as "kamikaze", not as "suicide pilots", for similar reasons, I believe. But I didn't notice CNN doesn't use "foreigners"; why?

[Tony]

Keep up the good work skeptic, we sometimes disagree. But the hate you inspire from the PC nazis, extreme leftists and Muslim religious fanatics helps expose their true agenda and values. Such groups have always been hostile to facts that challenge their dogma.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool

what "message" is skeptic attempting to discuss with statements like these?

We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah)

and

"traditional society" (backward, primitive, violent, opressive society)


In both of these examples he’s showing how media word choices slant the news. In my opinion, describing someone who kills Jews as part of their Muslim faith as a “devout Muslim” is pretty insulting to Muslims who don’t believe their faith justifies murder.

What’s your opinion on that?

[Thanz]

On the copyright issue: I would think that the fact that you need to register to view the article online is an argument AGAINST posting the whole thing here. The Jerusalem Post has clearly put up certain requirements to access their content, and I don't think that you should circumvent them.

On the actual issue: interesting stuff. I find it interesting that the spin put on terms like "devout muslim" by the Jerusalem Post is that it is used to the benefit of muslims. I disagree. When someone describes a homocidal maniac as a "devout muslim" it tends to associate homocidal urges with the religion, and the moreso if one is truly devout. However, if he was described as a "muslim extremist", that tends to separate the idividual from the group: it is not the religion, but rather this wacky guys version of the religion. Saying he was a "devout muslim" paints all muslims with the homocidal maniac brush.

After 9/11, on the West Wing they compared muslim extremists to muslims as the KKK are to Christians, which I thought was an apt description. That separation has been blurred by the media, and many seem believe that all muslims are extremists. The use of the term "devout muslim" instead of "muslim extremist" feeds that perception.

[c0rbin]

From what I understand, this sort of subtle bias which comes out on word choice is nothing new in editorializing--which is the paramount reason to get a wide range of sources on a topic.

In a realm where spin is key, like politics, this can be very effective. Take fore example Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice. Who, other than a murderer or psychopath, would be against life? Therefor, anyone not "Pro-Life" is against life? Another recent example is W Bush claiming to be "for Marriage" in his stance against same-sex marriage.

Therein lies the inherent danger of one voice. I believe Orwell did a good job on this topic in 1984?

[Kodiak]

Ignore the knee-jerk leftists, Skeptic - good thread.

It reminds me of a saying I once heard (where?):

"The only difference between a patriot and an insurrectionist is who, in the end, gets to write the history books..."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by c0rbin
From what I understand, this sort of subtle bias which comes out on word choice is nothing new in editorializing--which is the paramount reason to get a wide range of sources on a topic.

In a realm where spin is key, like politics, this can be very effective. Take fore example Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice. Who, other than a murderer or psychopath, would be against life? Therefor, anyone not "Pro-Life" is against life? Another recent example is W Bush claiming to be "for Marriage" in his stance against same-sex marriage.

Therein lies the inherent danger of one voice. I believe Orwell did a good job on this topic in 1984?

I can't recall the last time I heard a news report refer to anyone as "pro-life." They use "anti-abortion." The people within the anti-abortion movement refer to themselves as pro-life.

I do hear the media use "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion," though.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I can't recall the last time I heard a news report refer to anyone as "pro-life." They use "anti-abortion." The people within the anti-abortion movement refer to themselves as pro-life.

I do hear the media use "pro-choice" and not "pro-abortion," though. Of course they use those phrases, you ninny!! No one is actually happy about abortion, you know. And "pro-life"is a loadedterm as well. "Anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" are probably the least emotionally charged phrases that one can use.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Zero
Of course they use those phrases, you ninny!! No one is actually happy about abortion, you know. And "pro-life"is a loadedterm as well. "Anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" are probably the least emotionally charged phrases that one can use.

Likewise, nobody's really *anti-life*, so far as I know.

[DavidJames]

pro-life and pro-choice suffer from the same problem namely that each is believed to be a politically correct term depending on the bias of the observer.

While anti-abortion correctly describes the views of those who are against abortation, pro-abortion does not (at least to my knowledge). As Zero indicates, I don't know anyone who is happy about abortion or "in favor" of it. I'm open to a new term for the crowd that would prefer the government not dictate the outcome of a pregnancy.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz

After 9/11, on the West Wing they compared muslim extremists to muslims as the KKK are to Christians, which I thought was an apt description. That separation has been blurred by the media, and many seem believe that all muslims are extremists. The use of the term "devout muslim" instead of "muslim extremist" feeds that perception.

That's likely true, but there is one major difference. When the KKK lynches an innocent human being, American Christians do not empty out into the streests en-mass to celebrate the murder.

The "West Wing" put a nice face on it, but here's the reality of the Arab majority in action:
an Italian journalist in Beirut reported:


Trying to find our bearings, my husband and I went into an American-style cafe in the Hamra district, near Rue Verdun, rated as one of the most expensive shopping streets in the world. Here the cognitive dissonance was immediate, and direct. The café's sophisticated clientele was celebrating, laughing, cheering and making jokes, as waiters served hamburgers and Diet Pepsi. Nobody looked shocked, or moved. They were excited, very excited.
An hour later, at a little market near the U.S. Embassy, on the outskirts of Beirut, a thrilled shop assistant showed us, using his hands, how the plane had crashed into the twin towers. He, too, was laughing.

Once back at the house where we were staying, we started scanning the international channels. Soon came reports of Palestinians celebrating. The BBC reporter in Jerusalem said it was only a tiny minority. Astonished, we asked some moderate Arabs if that was the case. "Nonsense," said one, speaking for many. "Ninety percent of the Arab world believes that Americans got what they deserved."

An exaggeration? Rather an understatement. A couple of days later, we headed north to Tripoli, near the Syrian border. On the way, we read that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who donated blood in front of the cameras, was rejecting any suggestion that his people were rejoicing over the terrorist attack. "It was less than 10 children in Jerusalem," he said.


Clipped from
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm)

They may be like the KKK in some respects, but they are not nearly as marginalized.

-z

[Tony]

Originally posted by rikzilla


That's likely true, but there is one major difference. When the KKK lynches an innocent human being, American Christians do not empty out into the streests en-mass to celebrate the murder.

The "West Wing" put a nice face on it, but here's the reality of the Arab majority in action:


Clipped from
Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm)

They may be like the KKK in some respects, but they are not nearly as marginalized.

-z

Didnt you know it was racist to argue with facts? I should report this to the moderators.

[Zero]

Palestinians cheer when America is attacked? What a surprise!! Mentioning it isn't racist, although racists often use facts like this.

Strangely enough, Americans cheered when we attacked Iraq, with little regard (in most circles) for the civilian casualties.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Strangely enough, Americans cheered when we attacked Iraq, with little regard (in most circles) for the civilian casualties.

Evidence? Or is this a weak attempt to draw moral equivalence?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


Evidence? Or is this a weak attempt to draw moral equivalence? Are you saying that Americans didn't cheer? Didn't we have nationwide rallies? Or am I thinking of some other country?

What do you mean by 'moral equivalence'? People all over the world cheer when their percieved enemies are attacked, don't they? Or am I thinking of a different planet?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Zero
Are you saying that Americans didn't cheer? Didn't we have nationwide rallies? Or am I thinking of some other country?

Yep. Rallies organized and funded by Clear Channel Communications. You know, the liberal media. :P

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Are you saying that Americans didn't cheer? Didn't we have nationwide rallies? Or am I thinking of some other country?


Bwahahah, is that what you're talking about? A few pro-america and "support our troops" rallies? Those were to counter the anti-american and pro-saddam rallies sponsored by ANSWER.

But to the point, do you have any evidence Americans celebrated when we attacked Iraq? And no, your perversion of the facts is not evidence.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


Bwahahah, is that what you're talking about? A few pro-america and "support our troops" rallies? Those were to counter the anti-american and pro-saddam rallies sponsored by ANSWER.

But to the point, do you have any evidence Americans celebrated when we attacked Iraq? And no, your perversion of the facts is not evidence. Lets' examine your use of language, shall we? When Americans support the war in Iraq, it is 'pro-america', and people against the war are 'anti-America' and 'pro-Saddam'. Wouldn't more accurate terminology be 'supporting the troops'(which you did say, and is more accurate, since few people support war for war's sake) and 'anti-war protest'?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Lets' examine your use of language, shall we? When Americans support the war in Iraq, it is 'pro-america', and people against the war are 'anti-America' and 'pro-Saddam'.

One good strawman deserves another. Not to different from your perversion of the facts is it?

Now that Ive demonstrated the fallacy in your own thinking, could you offer some evidence of Americans cheering when we attacked Iraq?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Lets' examine your use of language, shall we? When Americans support the war in Iraq, it is 'pro-america', and people against the war are 'anti-America' and 'pro-Saddam'. Wouldn't more accurate terminology be 'supporting the troops'(which you did say, and is more accurate, since few people support war for war's sake) and 'anti-war protest'?

Once again I think this is all in the Language. As it was so thoroughly shown by LukeT, ANSWER is the group that not only sponsors those rallies but pretty much is the reason they happen and I would call ANSWER anti-American. So it wouldn't be too far off to call those rallies anti-American if you only go by the groups that sponsored them and Tony did mention that fact.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


One good strawman deserves another. Not to different from your perversion of the facts is it?

Now that Ive demonstrated the fallacy in your own thinking, could you offer some evidence of American's cheering when we attacked Iraq? I don't see a strawman, or a perversion of facts. We label American cheering as 'pro-American rallies to support the troops', and Palestinian cheering as something else, don't we?

I know you aren't able to see any situation that Rush Limbaugh hasn't programed you for, but try to keep up.:p

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Once again I think this is all in the Language. As it was so thoroughly shown by LukeT, ANSWER is the group that not only sponsors those rallies but pretty much is the reason they happen and I would call ANSWER anti-American. So it wouldn't be too far off to call those rallies anti-American if you only go by the groups that sponsored them and Tony did mention that fact. Is ANSWER the one and only sponsor of every single anti-war protest rally? From what I've seen, there is not a single overarching motivating factor for the peace movement. There were everything from anti-America anarchist groups to veterans who found the specific lead-up to this war to be repugnant, and dozens of other views. It is a mistake and a strawman to lump all Iraq war protesters under the heading 'anti-American', in the same way that calling the supporters of the war 'pro-war'.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see a strawman, or a perversion of facts. We label American cheering as 'pro-American rallies to support the troops', and Palestinian cheering as something else, don't we?


No we don’t. It's an apples and oranges situation. You're just trying to draw moral equivalence?

I know you aren't able to see any situation that Rush Limbaugh hasn't programed you for, but try to keep up.:p


Ummm...I don't listen to Lush Rimjob.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Once again I think this is all in the Language. As it was so thoroughly shown by LukeT, ANSWER is the group that not only sponsors those rallies but pretty much is the reason they happen

Of course, not all these rallies *were* sponsored/organized by ANSWER. Many were organized by United for Peace and Justice and Not In Our Name.

It's a mistake, and a complete rewriting of reality, to assume these rallies wouldn't have happened if not for ANSWER.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


No we don’t. It's an apples and oranges situation. You're just trying to draw moral equivalence?




Ummm...I don't listen to Lush Rimjob. Why exactly is it apples and oranges? Maybe lemons and limes?:p I'm just giving a gut feeling here, but doesn't everyone support 'their side', and denounce the 'other side'. For Palestinians, Israel and America are 'other', right?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon


Of course, not all these rallies *were* sponsored/organized by ANSWER. Many were organized by United for Peace and Justice and Not In Our Name.

It's a mistake, and a complete rewriting of reality, to assume these rallies wouldn't have happened if not for ANSWER.

Of course, however I sincerely doubt the scale would be the anywhere near what it was.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Why exactly is it apples and oranges?

I dunno, maybe it has to do with the facts that 9/11 was an attack by religious fanatics killing innocent people for no rational reason and the Iraq war was a democratic country toppling a brutal and oppressive dictator. The circumstances are completely different; a reasonable person would realize this. But that's the thing, you aren't being reasonable, you're trying to say that palestinians cheering when innocent people are attacked is that same as Americans (allegedly) cheering when a dictator is toppled.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Of course, however I sincerely doubt the scale would be the anywhere near what it was.

The most that NION-organized rallies ever got was several tens of thousands. I think 60,000 was their top number

However, a number of UFPJ-organized rallies did get into the several-hundred-thousand mark. The February 15 demo in New York comes to mind.

The most successful demonstrations number-wise--the ones that got into the half-million range--were the ones that were co-organized by ANSWER, UFPJ, *and* NION. (Getting them to work together sometimes took a major struggle. :mad: )

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


I dunno, maybe it has to do with the facts that 9/11 was an attack by religious fanatics killing innocent people for no rational reason and the Iraq war was a democratic country toppling a brutal and oppressive dictator. The circumstances are completely different; a reasonable person would realize this. But that's the thing, you aren't being reasonable, you're trying to say that palestinians cheering when innocent people are attacked is that same as Americans (allegedly) cheering when a dictator is toppled. Well, that is YOUR perspective, and your spin on it. From your viewpoint, America is completely innocent of any wrongdoing that might ever make other countries count us as an enemy, therefore attacking America is without reason. From the Palestinian viewpoint, America supports Israel in crimes against humanity, and deserves to be attacked.

I don't think either viewpoint is completely lacking in truth, but neither is the whole truth. Those perspectives, however, color the reporting and the language used.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, that is YOUR perspective, and your spin on it.


Umm, no. Those are the facts.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony



Umm, no. Those are the facts. No, they aren't. You have put your interpretation on selected facts, and called them 'the facts'. There is a difference, whioh you should be aware of.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
No, they aren't. You have put your interpretation on selected facts, and called them 'the facts'. There is a difference, whioh you should be aware of.


Then please tell me which are not facts.


9/11 was an attack by religious fanatics--fact.

Innocent people were killed--fact.

For no rational reason--fact.

A democratic country (america) attacked Iraq--fact

And toppled an oppressive and brutal dictator (saddam)--fact.

Are you seriously going to contest these facts?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony



Then please tell me which are not facts. It would be easier to show what ARE facts...I dunno,THERE'S a fact, right there!!;) Ok, seriously, I'll put the facts in bold print, ok?maybe it has to do with the facts that 9/11 was an attack by religious fanatics killing innocent people for no rational reason and the Iraq war was a democratic country toppling(fill in something more accurate, like"a sovereign country) a brutal and oppressive dictator. The circumstances are completely different; a reasonable person would realize this. But that's the thing, you aren't being reasonable, you're trying to say that palestinians cheering when innocent people are attacked is that same as Americans (allegedly) cheering when a dictator is toppled. Everything not in bold print is your interpretation of facts.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, that is YOUR perspective, and your spin on it. From your viewpoint, America is completely innocent of any wrongdoing that might ever make other countries count us as an enemy, therefore attacking America is without reason. From the Palestinian viewpoint, America supports Israel in crimes against humanity, and deserves to be attacked.

I don't think either viewpoint is completely lacking in truth, but neither is the whole truth. Those perspectives, however, color the reporting and the language used.

I completely despise this point of view: "We must have done something wrong that some people want to slam two planes into WTC and kill 3000+ people." I'm sorry, but that's complete BS. The reason why those people attacked us was purely religious; Osama's main problem with US is that it has military forces in Saudi Arabia. Everything else was simply a way for him to get support for his main cause.

You have a wrong conclusion on things, while USA may not be "innocent" the response that was received was completely and utterly unjustifiable.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Everything not in bold print is your interpretation of facts.

I was right all along, you aren't being reasonable.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I completely despise this point of view: "We must have done something wrong that some people want to slam two planes into WTC and kill 3000+ people." I'm sorry, but that's complete BS. The reason why those people attacked us was purely religious; Osama's main problem with US is that it has military forces in Saudi Arabia. Everything else was simply a way for him to get support for his main cause.

You have a wrong conclusion on things, while USA may not be "innocent" the response that was received was completely and utterly unjustifiable. You are welcome to have this opinion, and in fact it does contain elements of truth. However, to claim that any other interpretation is completely irrational is spin. Murdering people in response to percieved harm IS wrong, but that doesn't make the percieved wrong nonexistant, which your last statement seems to accept.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


I was right all along, you aren't being reasonable. That is also your opinion. You really should stop stating opinion as fact, it weakens your position.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
That is also your opinion. You really should stop stating opinion as fact, it weakens your position.

It's a fact. The word "unreasonable" has a definition of which you currently fit. Sorry if you have a hard time accepting reality. You can hide behind the "interpretation" BS as long as you want, but the facts are there, they are irrefutable (if it's my "interpretation", you should be able to demonstrate that, it's odd you haven't) and they speak for themselves.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
You are welcome to have this opinion, and in fact it does contain elements of truth. However, to claim that any other interpretation is completely irrational is spin. Murdering people in response to percieved harm IS wrong, but that doesn't make the percieved wrong nonexistant, which your last statement seems to accept.

That's not what I meant. The point I am trying to make is one action does not justify the other and justification that anyone tries to attach to it is indeed irrational. If USA's response to 9/11 would be to nuke every Muslim nation, that would also be a WRONG, IRRATIONAL response.

[rikzilla]

Sorry Zero,

That's not the same thing. Crashing airliners full of innocent people into buildings full of same are not morally equivalent to an army invading another nation. It's just not the same thing. Of course people will cheer on their nation's soldiers.

You'd have a point if you use an equivalent example. Remember when a US guided missile cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner full of civilians? (that's about as close an example I can find) Well, if Americans had paraded down the street in spontaneous celebration of seeing dead Iranians, then you might have a point.

No. Truth is, most Arabs want to see dead Americans. They also want to see more bombs go off on Israeli buses. Perhaps they feel so powerless that they're willing to take a percieved victory no matter how heinous it is? But the polls all show something like 70% approval of terrorism amongst the Palestinians....I wonder if it's the same in the larger Arab populations?

-z

[Skeptic]

Shut up, you f**king baby.

You got to admire the class and wit...

Go sit in the middle of the "holy" land when it gets nuked, ok?

...and respect for human life, that "zero" displays when someone rubs them the wrong way.

"Zero" already said that one should "nuke the holy land" before in the thread, but, being naive, I presumed he meant "stop using the TERM 'holy land'" (as in "kill the mike" means "cut off the microphone", not to actually kill anybody), and replied accordingly. Apparently I was wrong: he meant it literally. Didn't take too long for the mask to fall off and zero's REAL feelings about the jews to come out, did it?

Of course, now that "zero" realized he was calling for the nuking of israel--twice in the same thread--he adds this:

Or go sit in a church, because those should be next.

This, presumably, is Zero's mantra to protect himself against charges of antisemitism (call for the nuking of israel once or twice, and those paranoid jews get all excited with their bogus charges of "jew hater". Imagine that.) So "Zero" adds "...oh, and, er, christians should be next"--as if wishing to kill the jews with nukes FIRST and THEN genocide Christians somehow makes his position more morally acceptable, or less hateful of jews, instead of simply exposing him as both an antisemite AND a hater of Christians.

"Zero"'s claim of being an "equal opportunity antagonist" of all religions makes sense, doesn't it? After all, if I say "KILL ALL THE *******!" I'm a racist, but, apparently, if I say "KILL ALL THE *******!... and, er, later, the Chinese!", that is being an "equal opportunity" hater, no doubt due to wondefully altruistic reasons, and is not at all racist.

Obvious, isn't it?

So, "Zero" is for justice, equality, non-racism, anti-imperialism, and, inicidentally, by the way, wiping israel of the map with nukes. In other words, Zero is a typical "socialist fighter for international justice" (or whatever the cause du jour is), advocating a world where everybody has the right to life, freedom, and safety... except for the jews, who should be eradicated with nuclear weapons.

I am an equal opportunity antagonist towards mythological beliefs, after all.

Of COURSE you are. It's just that you want the believers in the jewish mythology to be wiped out FIRST (with nukes) and THEN genocide other people, my equal-opportunity, non-racist fighter for humanism.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I completely despise this point of view: "We must have done something wrong that some people want to slam two planes into WTC and kill 3000+ people." I'm sorry, but that's complete BS. The reason why those people attacked us was purely religious; Osama's main problem with US is that it has military forces in Saudi Arabia. Everything else was simply a way for him to get support for his main cause.

You have a wrong conclusion on things, while USA may not be "innocent" the response that was received was completely and utterly unjustifiable.

I know exactly the feeling Grammatron.

Socialist fighters for International Justice like Zero are wonderful at projecting their own viewpoints on to why 9/11 happened.

Never mind their leader, Muhammmad Atta, said explicitly in letters that the reason he was doing it was because there were "infidels" and "kafir" in the holy land "where the prophet received his revelations." (Their were non-Muslim troops i.e. Americans in Saudi Arabia.) Never mind that he told his fellow terrorists on that last day in a written message that they would be with the "celestial virgins" after they were "martyred."

Zero like many of his ilk know the "real" reasons for 9/11. It was something else like desperation at Western cultural impearilism or the plight of Palestinians.

(Mind you that almost all of the hi-jakcers were Saudi, but facts shouldn't get in the way too much.)

[Zero]

*YAWN*

It is like an entire field of strawmen in this thread. Instead of intelligent response, you lash out like frightened children.

Oh well.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That's not what I meant. The point I am trying to make is one action does not justify the other and justification that anyone tries to attach to it is indeed irrational. If USA's response to 9/11 would be to nuke every Muslim nation, that would also be a WRONG, IRRATIONAL response. I don't think you are scanning what I am saying, but you seem rational enough to make a second attempt.

Say, for instance, you steal my wallet, and max out my credit cards. I'm going to be absolutely furious, which is a perfectly rational way to feel, don't you think? The most rational thing for me to do would be to call the cops. On the other hand, if I kill your cat and burn down your house, that is irrational. My point is, there may have been rational reasons for my feelings, even if my response is irrational.

[Zero]

BTW, the 'holy' land is sacred to lots of Christians and Muslims too...I don't think any of them should have it, because they are abunch of spoiled children fighting over dirt. :D

Burning churches is just a fun little fantasy...:p

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't think you are scanning what I am saying, but you seem rational enough to make a second attempt.

Say, for instance, you steal my wallet, and max out my credit cards. I'm going to be absolutely furious, which is a perfectly rational way to feel, don't you think? The most rational thing for me to do would be to call the cops. On the other hand, if I kill your cat and burn down your house, that is irrational. My point is, there may have been rational reasons for my feelings, even if my response is irrational.

Let me give you a more proper analogy based on what you said before.

My friend steals your wallet so your acquaintance who you don't really associate with but kind of has the same ideas as you do get pissed off and kill my cat and burns down my house. That's a super oversimplification of what happened, but it still makes no sense what so ever. I don't know how you could see any sort of rational in it either.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Let me give you a more proper analogy based on what you said before.

My friend steals your wallet so your acquaintance who you don't really associate with but kind of has the same ideas as you do get pissed off and kill my cat and burns down my house. That's a super oversimplification of what happened, but it still makes no sense what so ever. I don't know how you could see any sort of rational in it either. Never mind then, I don't guess we'll get anywhere. :(

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Never mind then, I don't guess we'll get anywhere. :(

I guess not if you are going to continue blaming the victim.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I guess not if you are going to continue blaming the victim. No, it is the fact that you can't or won't think past the surface that is the big issue. Just dismissing everything with 'oh, they're so CRAZY'(even if it is true) doesn't really advance our knowledge, does it. This thread started out being about language, and I think it is important to note how dismissive, oversimplistic language closes doors to more complex thought. We don't have to agree with the ideas of terrorists in order to study them in greater detail than 'they are all crazy'.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
No, it is the fact that you can't or won't think past the surface that is the big issue. Just dismissing everything with 'oh, they're so CRAZY'(even if it is true) doesn't really advance our knowledge, does it. This thread started out being about language, and I think it is important to note how dismissive, oversimplistic language closes doors to more complex thought. We don't have to agree with the ideas of terrorists in order to study them in greater detail than 'they are all crazy'.

At what point do you stop the study, though? It seems to me people are happy to this ad infinitum as long as they don't think of the "so called" simple answer. Sometimes there is really nothing deeper than terrorist attacked us in deplorable and unjustifiable matter, nothing more.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


At what point do you stop the study, though? It seems to me people are happy to this ad infinitum as long as they don't think of the "so called" simple answer. Sometimes there is really nothing deeper than terrorist attacked us in deplorable and unjustifiable matter, nothing more. Yeah, but that answer doesn't really get you anywhere, does it?

[Skeptic]

Yeah, but that answer doesn't really get you anywhere, does it?

True.

But it has the advantage of being the truth.

Alas, merely being true and accurate is meaningless to people like you, who are much more concerned to "get somewhere" with elaborate conspiracy theories about the "real causes" of terror that blames the victim.

P.S.

In the news today, there was a story of a man who was arrested for beating up his wife. The paper claimed he is a violent, cruel man, but that answer is "simplistic" and "doesn't get you anywhere".

I much prefer to believe that there are deeper, "real reasons" for his anger, which are "in reality" his wife's fault. Why, I have a long list of spousal duties, from cleaning the house to sex, that she did not commit! Surely, that's the "real reason"! It's all her fault!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zero
Say, for instance, you steal my wallet, and max out my credit cards. I'm going to be absolutely furious, which is a perfectly rational way to feel, don't you think? The most rational thing for me to do would be to call the cops. On the other hand, if I kill your cat and burn down your house, that is irrational. My point is, there may have been rational reasons for my feelings, even if my response is irrational.

Say, for instance, a man is jealous. His wife is faithful, but he gets angry when she makes friends with a male coworker. When she gets home and they are alone, he beats her up.

What do you need to study? You can look at statistics of women who cheat on their husbands, and you may come to the conclusion that his fear has a foundation in reality. You can counsel the woman on how to avoid even the appearance of unfaithfulness so she wont get beat up in the future. These approaches validate the brutality, and place blame on the victim.

It’s the response you have to deal with. If a man wants to kill your cat and burn down your house, you need to stop him. If a man wants to beat up his wife, for whatever reason, you need to protect the wife. Figuring out why he wants to do it (rational or not) can come later, after you deal with the crisis.

Every criminal believes their actions are justified. Embezzlers believe it’s okay to steal from companies that have millions of dollars, child-molesters believe children want to have sex or it doesn’t really harm them, murderers believe their victims deserved to die or that their deaths were justified by the killers needs.

Figuring out why people want to murder, beat their wives, burn down houses, molest children or steal money may be useful in the distant future to find new and better ways of dealing with these problems, but in the short-term it is enough to know that these things are wrong and they need to be stopped.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Zero
No, it is the fact that you can't or won't think past the surface that is the big issue. Just dismissing everything with 'oh, they're so CRAZY'(even if it is true) doesn't really advance our knowledge, does it. This thread started out being about language, and I think it is important to note how dismissive, oversimplistic language closes doors to more complex thought. We don't have to agree with the ideas of terrorists in order to study them in greater detail than 'they are all crazy'.

Getting the language right is the first step towards education. The second is to speak the truth, and teach the truth. The Palestinians have legitimate greviences,...but they have chosen to redress them by a barbaric means. Their culture is steeped in martyr (death) worship. They deify suicidal terrorists. If we suddenly started deifying and worshipping serial killers our society would break down in very similar ways.

-z

[Zero]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Getting the language right is the first step towards education. The second is to speak the truth, and teach the truth. The Palestinians have legitimate greviences,...but they have chosen to redress them by a barbaric means. Their culture is steeped in martyr (death) worship. They deify suicidal terrorists. If we suddenly started deifying and worshipping serial killers our society would break down in very similar ways.

-z Agreed...but don't we work on the legitimate grievances, simply because they are wrongs that need to be righted? Saying things like "They are all just madmen who act without reason" seems to suggest that there ARE no grievances. This attitude also seems to lead to a 'get tough' approach, which doesn't work in the long run, because it tends to create more grievances, without addressing the original ones.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Zero
Agreed...but don't we work on the legitimate grievances, simply because they are wrongs that need to be righted? Saying things like "They are all just madmen who act without reason" seems to suggest that there ARE no grievances. This attitude also seems to lead to a 'get tough' approach, which doesn't work in the long run, because it tends to create more grievances, without addressing the original ones.

Well, the "get tough attitude" is a reaction. The Israeli wall is a reaction. When people are trying to kill you, you will react. If the Jews learned any lesson at all from the Holocaust it's that you don't stand still whilst people go about the nasty work of killing you.

Now perhaps, if the grievances could be addressed in a civilised manner....then we'd be getting somewhere. But what do you do when your very existence is the grievance? Over and over again I've seen leading the list of Palestinian grievances that the existence of even one Jew on even one foot of Arab land is intolerable.

Until the Palestinians moderate their demands, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.

-z

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yeah, but that answer doesn't really get you anywhere, does it?

True.

But it has the advantage of being the truth.

Alas, merely being true and accurate is meaningless to people like you, who are much more concerned to "get somewhere" with elaborate conspiracy theories about the "real causes" of terror that blames the victim.

P.S.

In the news today, there was a story of a man who was arrested for beating up his wife. The paper claimed he is a violent, cruel man, but that answer is "simplistic" and "doesn't get you anywhere".

I much prefer to believe that there are deeper, "real reasons" for his anger, which are "in reality" his wife's fault. Why, I have a long list of spousal duties, from cleaning the house to sex, that she did not commit! Surely, that's the "real reason"! It's all her fault! See what I mean about strawmen? You don't know me, but because I disagree with you on any point, you start into some sort of fantasy. You use catch-phrases like 'blame the victim'...memorized phrases like this allow people to avoid thinking, you know. ;)

[Zero]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well, the "get tough attitude" is a reaction. The Israeli wall is a reaction. When people are trying to kill you, you will react. If the Jews learned any lesson at all from the Holocaust it's that you don't stand still whilst people go about the nasty work of killing you.

Now perhaps, if the grievances could be addressed in a civilised manner....then we'd be getting somewhere. But what do you do when your very existence is the grievance? Over and over again I've seen leading the list of Palestinian grievances that the existence of even one Jew on even one foot of Arab land is intolerable.

Until the Palestinians moderate their demands, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.

-z No, I understand that the first reaction is to fight back, and it is often necessary( I backed the war in Afghanistan, for instance). But, long term it cannot be the ONLY reaction, you know?
For instance, if you gave Palestinians some much-needed infrastructure, and maybe some cash for turning in terrorists, they would have stuff worth living for, and worth opposing terrorism for. Right now, Israel is building a wall that is separating Palestinians from their own farms. That's not going to make them LESS hated, is it?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I understand that the first reaction is to fight back, and it is often necessary( I backed the war in Afghanistan, for instance). But, long term it cannot be the ONLY reaction, you know?
For instance, if you gave Palestinians some much-needed infrastructure, and maybe some cash for turning in terrorists, they would have stuff worth living for, and worth opposing terrorism for. Right now, Israel is building a wall that is separating Palestinians from their own farms. That's not going to make them LESS hated, is it?

That won't work. Palestinian state gets millions upon millions of dollars a year specifically for building their country. They spend in on propaganda campaigns against Israel and better life for Yasser. All they really need to do is start being a country and act like one, until then it's just a land of anarchy where anything goes. I'm almost of opinion that the leaderships hold back on being a country because it's easier to appear like a victim when you have no "real" country to call home. Once they get it, it'll be harder to get supporters.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I understand that the first reaction is to fight back, and it is often necessary( I backed the war in Afghanistan, for instance). But, long term it cannot be the ONLY reaction, you know?
For instance, if you gave Palestinians some much-needed infrastructure, and maybe some cash for turning in terrorists, they would have stuff worth living for, and worth opposing terrorism for. Right now, Israel is building a wall that is separating Palestinians from their own farms. That's not going to make them LESS hated, is it?

How much do you suppose it would cost to make it worth risking this (http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=944&PHPSESSID=b9e75b28d194a918661694ce03e83d7c)

Eighty-six Palestinians have now been lynched or summarily executed by militants for collaborating with Israeli security forces since the start of the intifada three years ago, including the two men killed yesterday.

Fact is Zero, that this is going to go on forever. Literally. The wall is looking like the most humane way to manage the conflict for now.

-z

[Zero]

Originally posted by rikzilla


How much do you suppose it would cost to make it worth risking this (http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=944&PHPSESSID=b9e75b28d194a918661694ce03e83d7c)



Fact is Zero, that this is going to go on forever. Literally. The wall is looking like the most humane way to manage the conflict for now.

-z Maybe, maybe not...

I used to have a whole strategy worked out, starting with using Jerusalem as a nuclear dumping ground(with the idea of removing that area from contention for EVERYONE ). The next phase of my plan was tofly over the Middle East dropping ice water and porn, on the grounds that being constantly hot and sexually frustrated can't be good for one's attitude. Then, I figured we provide every Palestinian with a TV, a satellite dish, AC and some neat home furnishing. Religious fervor seems to diminish when you have more stuff, and life is much better than death.

I know it is irrational, but that is my dream!:D

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah)...

I wonder what happens when we substitute the words Catholic/Jesus for Muslim/Allah? (or Buddhist or Shintoist or Protestant or Sikh or Anglican or African American or Southern Baptist or white or disabled or etc).

Oh dear.

Words are indeed such messy things.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RikzillaFact is Zero, that this is going to go on forever. Literally.

Is that literally as in 'I can foretell the future' or literally as in literally. Do we have a budding Yuri Geller on our hands?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I wonder what happens when we substitute the words Catholic/Jesus for Muslim/Allah? (or Buddhist or Shintoist or Protestant or Sikh or Anglican or African American or Southern Baptist or white or disabled or etc).


You would get strange looks as people tried to figure out which modern Catholics you think are likely to kill someone in the name of their religion.

Funny we don’t have that problem with Muslims.

[Skeptic]

I wonder what happens when we substitute the words Catholic/Jesus for Muslim/Allah?

Well, when that happens--when a christian kills someone out of religious devotion--it is called a "hate crimes" (if the KKK or the "Aryan Nations", for instance, do it), or "insanity" (as in the case of the woman who killed her children to save them from hell).

But when it's a Muslim killing an infidel, that's generally understood to be part of the requirement of his newfound decotion to Islam. Why else would the fact that someone became a "devout muslim" be offered routinely as an EXPLANATION of why they committed an atrocious act of terror?

[Gem]

Why else would the fact that someone became a "devout muslim" be offered routinely as an EXPLANATION of why they committed an atrocious act of terror?

It is? By whom? I don't think that it counts if it comes from Saudi Clerics.

Also, speaking of selection of words, does anyone remember Sharon actually saying "occupation?" (To which he regreted later, withdrawing his statement)

Or this one:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040202/wl_mideast_afp/mideast_040202213751

"It is my intention to carry out an evacuation -- sorry, a relocation -- of settlements...

Makes you wonder...

Gem

[Skeptic]

It is? By whom?

By the media. Check out any AP story about a suicide bomber, and you'll find somewhere a sentence like "at the time, he was becoming a devout muslim..." as part of the story about what led the man in question to blow up babies.

[Gem]

at the time, he was becoming a devout muslim

Yes, they DO become devout muslims. Devout Muslims don't all become suicide bombers, nor does the majority of them.

"Why else would the fact that someone became a "devout muslim" be offered routinely as an EXPLANATION of why they committed an atrocious act of terror?"

And you haven't shown that's it an explanation, just that what they are.

Gem

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


You would get strange looks as people tried to figure out which modern Catholics you think are likely to kill someone in the name of their religion.

Funny we don’t have that problem with Muslims.

The modern catolic church has no problems at with spreading lies about condoms and outlawing birth control. Many women will die because of this.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I wonder what happens when we substitute the words Catholic/Jesus for Muslim/Allah?

Well, when that happens--when a christian kills someone out of religious devotion--it is called a "hate crimes" (if the KKK or the "Aryan Nations", for instance, do it), or "insanity" (as in the case of the woman who killed her children to save them from hell).

But when it's a Muslim killing an infidel, that's generally understood to be part of the requirement of his newfound decotion to Islam. Why else would the fact that someone became a "devout muslim" be offered routinely as an EXPLANATION of why they committed an atrocious act of terror?

Once again, say it often enough and it will become true? Can you offer some examples of where being a "devout muslim" is used as an explanation of why somene commits an act of terror? If they are "routine" it should not be a problem for you.

Is it possible that you are confusing the reason why someone hates someone.... If someone was to cut loose with a gun at a Nazi rally and the newspapers reported the gunman was a devout Jew is it possible they may be indicating this as probable reasons for the person despising Nazis? Rather than indicating that judaism advocates mass killings, or being a devout Jew = being a killer?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


You would get strange looks as people tried to figure out which modern Catholics you think are likely to kill someone in the name of their religion.

Funny we don’t have that problem with Muslims.
I honestly think you are mixing cause and effect here... There have been plenty of times throughout history where people have killed in the name of thier religion....what has that got to do with the religion.... When Catholics were killing pople in the name of god was it because they were catholics? The religion is the same so why are they not killing today? Come on Mycroft....gods are used to justify all sorts of rubbish by all sorts of people, some say god tells them to kill, some say god tells them to take land and drive off the occupants, some say god tells them to help the sick.....Its all to do with the people, thier current attitudes and circumstances.

Some fish are cod.
If you are a fish you do not have to be a cod.....
This principle applies to more than just fish.....

[Skeptic]

Yes, they DO become devout muslims. Devout Muslims don't all become suicide bombers, nor does the majority of them.

But that's not the point! My point is that when a muslim become a religious fanatic and then a terrorist, it is described as "devotion"--misguided, presumably, but still a positive thing on the whole, while if a jew or christian go down that same road, or even do things far less loathsome, they are instantly described as "extremists" or "racists", etc. There is a double standard here.

And you haven't shown that's it an explanation, just that what they are.

For goodness' sake. In a news article, you mention what you think is relevant to the event, what explains it. You don't just write a history of the guy that includes irrelevant details. When they say "devout muslim", it's there for a reason--namely, that it contributed to the suicidal fervor, which, of course, it did.

[Skeptic]

The modern catolic church has no problems at with spreading lies about condoms and outlawing birth control. Many women will die because of this.

Yes, obviously, "lying about condoms" and "blowing yourself up in a bus full of babies" are COMPLETELY morally equivalent.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
When Catholics were killing pople in the name of god was it because they were catholics?

Yes. Catholocism of three hundred years ago was an ugly thing.


Originally posted by The Fool The religion is the same so why are they not killing today?

Because the religion is not the same, the Inquisition is over.

[Gem]

My point is that when a muslim become a religious fanatic and then a terrorist, it is described as "devotion"--misguided, presumably, but still a positive thing on the whole, while if a jew or christian go down that same road, or even do things far less loathsome, they are instantly described as "extremists" or "racists", etc. There is a double standard here.

The parents point out that their son was a "devout muslim" was a good thing. We both agree that this in itself is not wrong, right?

When a jew or christian does a similar act, and is also devout, you say he is labeled racist and extremist. When A muslim does the same act (or blows himself up), he is not labeled as an extremist? His parents sure don't label him that way, but can you really say that suicide bombers are not painted as extremists?

Gem

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Is it possible that you are confusing the reason why someone hates someone.... If someone was to cut loose with a gun at a Nazi rally and the newspapers reported the gunman was a devout Jew is it possible they may be indicating this as probable reasons for the person despising Nazis? Rather than indicating that judaism advocates mass killings, or being a devout Jew = being a killer?

I have to point this out...if we apply your analogy of this hypothetical Jew, you still have the paper saying that being a Muslim itself is sufficient reason to hate Jews to the point of murder.

Is that really what you want to argue? I don't think Islam is that hateful, and I’m a little uncomfortable with you’re suggesting that it is.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The modern catolic church has no problems at with spreading lies about condoms and outlawing birth control. Many women will die because of this.

Yes, obviously, "lying about condoms" and "blowing yourself up in a bus full of babies" are COMPLETELY morally equivalent. I don't think moral equivalence is the point here.

[Zero]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Is that literally as in 'I can foretell the future' or literally as in literally. Do we have a budding Yuri Geller on our hands? Is this like when someone says "I laughed so hard I LITERALLY crapped my pants...no, not ACTUALLY crapped my pants, LITERALLY!!"

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Yes. Catholocism of three hundred years ago was an ugly thing.

Or people who did ugly things 300 years ago rationalised it with the bible, Did they use a different bible? No, Bibles are like that...you name the activity and you can find something in there to draw support from. Does this mean that the Bible advocated the crimes of the inquisition then, but does not now? The bits of the bible that were used are still there.....Its the individual people Mycroft....Not the religion.

Lets imagine that Palestinians are christian rather than muslim Do you believe that terrorism would not be committed by Palestinian terrorists today simply because they are Christians? Look at the atrocities of the Christian militias in Lebanon... Christian martyrs go straight to heaven too. Christians who put innocent villagers to the sword during the crusades were regarded as heroes of thier faith, using the same biblical justifications you can read in the same books today.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have plenty of stuff provided by thier gods to justify just about anything If you are willing to see what you want to see.

[/B]

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Or people who did ugly things 300 years ago rationalised it with the bible, Did they use a different bible? No, Bibles are like that...you name the activity and you can find something in there to draw support from. Does this mean that the Bible advocated the crimes of the inquisition then, but does not now? The bits of the bible that were used are still there.....Its the individual people Mycroft....Not the religion.

What are you arguing? Do you think I’m anti-religion? I’m not.

Yes, Catholics use the same bible today as they did three hundred years ago. The difference is that as a group, Catholics (and western civilization) has rejected the violence and oppression that once characterized it.

Religion both shapes and reflects the values of the people who practice it. If your religious leader teaches that murder and torture is acceptable or even required, chances are that will have an influence on you. At the same time, if the society as a whole rejects these values, religious leaders will rise that reflect these different values.

Yes, evil is always perpetuated by individuals, but it’s the acceptance and support of the society that controls the extent that the evil is perpetuated. The Inquisition didn’t stop because the individual inquisitors decided to stop, it stopped because society got tired of watching people burn to death. The Inquisition lasted some 600 years.

Originally posted by The Fool
Lets imagine that Palestinians are christian rather than muslim Do you believe that terrorism would not be committed by Palestinian terrorists today simply because they are Christians? Look at the atrocities of the Christian militias in Lebanon... Christian martyrs go straight to heaven too. Christians who put innocent villagers to the sword during the crusades were regarded as heroes of thier faith, using the same biblical justifications you can read in the same books today.

I’ll briefly point out that Christian martyrs are people who are killed for their faith. This is different from the Muslim shaheed who kills for their faith. Now if the press could get into the habit of using the Arabic word instead of translating it into the not-so-correct English word, we might be a little less understanding of terrorism.

We don’t need to change the religion of the Palestinian-Arabs to make this point. The majority of Muslims world wide do not practice or condone suicide-murder. It would be easier if we had a different name for these different brands of Islam, or if the majority of moderate Muslims made a greater effort to condemn the murderous violent Islam that inspires people to want to fly airplanes into buildings, blow themselves up in Moroccan grocery stores, and knock on the gates of heaven with Jewish skulls.

Originally posted by The Fool
Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have plenty of stuff provided by thier gods to justify just about anything If you are willing to see what you want to see.
As I said, religion both shapes and reflects the values of the people that practice it. My religion reminds me to do good deeds, give to charity, be honest, and occasionally volunteer at an AIDS-hospice. I would probably do these things without the influence of my religion, but being together with other like-minded people reinforces these values and encourages me to do them more.

If my religion encouraged people to torture and murder heretics in order to save their souls and it was the only religion around and non-members were likely to become the heretics to be tortured, it would be very difficult to oppose this barbaric behavior.

I agree that it is the interpretation of the religion and not the religion itself that is the problem, but it’s far too simplistic to say that evil behavior is only a reflection of the individual who does it when it is also supported by the religion and the society.

[ceo_esq]

Let's bear in mind that the number of people killed under the Spanish Inquisition (the Inquisition with the greatest reputation for cruelty, albeit the one under the most secular control) during a period of more than three hundred years - probably not many more than 5,000 victims - is in the same ballpark as the number of people killed in one day by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.

[Skeptic]

Or people who did ugly things 300 years ago rationalised it with the bible, Did they use a different bible? No, Bibles are like that...you name the activity and you can find something in there to draw support from.

The problem is, Christians stopped justifying mass murder by the bible ca. 500 years ago, while some Muslims still justify mass murder based on the Koran today.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Or people who did ugly things 300 years ago rationalised it with the bible, Did they use a different bible? No, Bibles are like that...you name the activity and you can find something in there to draw support from.

The problem is, Christians stopped justifying mass murder by the bible ca. 500 years ago, while some Muslims still justify mass murder based on the Koran today.

Skeptic....
you said "some muslims" congratulations and well done....

[The Fool]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Let's bear in mind that the number of people killed under the Spanish Inquisition (the Inquisition with the greatest reputation for cruelty, albeit the one under the most secular control) during a period of more than three hundred years - probably not many more than 5,000 victims - is in the same ballpark as the number of people killed in one day by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.
And both are dwarfed by one nights firebombing of german civilians.... The point I was trying to make is that Islam as a religion is no more likely to produce terrorists than any other religion. When people point to islamic writings and say they promote terrorism, its no different from Christianity or Judaism... If people want to rationalise any sort of murderous behavior towards people of other religions they can find it without too much searching.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
You would get strange looks as people tried to figure out which modern Catholics you think are likely to kill someone in the name of their religion.

Funny we don’t have that problem with Muslims

Correction - funny you and those of your particular ilk don't have that problem with Muslims.

Are you agreeing therefore with Skeptics sectarian equivalence that all devout Muslims are murderous religious nuts for Allah?

To put it another way - can you be both a devout Muslim and not a religious nut for Allah?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
Well, when that happens--when a christian kills someone out of religious devotion--it is called a "hate crimes" (if the KKK or the "Aryan Nations", for instance, do it), or "insanity" (as in the case of the woman who killed her children to save them from hell).

But when it's a Muslim killing an infidel, that's generally understood to be part of the requirement of his newfound decotion to Islam. Why else would the fact that someone became a "devout muslim" be offered routinely as an EXPLANATION of why they committed an atrocious act of terror?

Can I just point out that there is a class of Muslims who are devout in their religion and who are not murderous religious nuts for Allah. Therefore there is no equivalence between those who are devout Muslims and those who are murderous religious nuts for Allah as you suggested when you stated

We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah)... Therefore your equivalence is false.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Correction - funny you and those of your particular ilk don't have that problem with Muslims.

Are you agreeing therefore with Skeptics sectarian equivalence that all devout Muslims are murderous religious nuts for Allah?

To put it another way - can you be both a devout Muslim and not a religious nut for Allah?

I think you need to work on your reading skills. The issue has been discussed at length, your conclusions about mine and Skeptics oninions on Islam are wrong, if you need clarification on that all you need to do is read through this thread.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Zero
Is this like when someone says "I laughed so hard I LITERALLY crapped my pants...no, not ACTUALLY crapped my pants, LITERALLY!!"
That would literally make it an untruth wouldn't it? Unless of course he or she actually crapped in their pants. Words are such messy things to get right - literally.

[E.J.Armstrong]

[I]originally posted by Mycroft[/]

I think you need to work on your reading skills. The issue has been discussed at length, your conclusions about mine and Skeptics oninions on Islam are wrong, if you need clarification on that all you need to do is read through this thread.

Oh dear.

I made a simple comment on the statement you made. Perhaps you could point to one single factual inaccuracy with that comment?

I also asked a simple couple of questions about your own statements.

Perhaps you might actually have an answer to those simple questions or perhaps you might point to where you answered my questions before?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Perhaps you might actually have an answer to those simple questions or perhaps you might point to where you answered my questions before?

And save you the effort of scrolling ten posts up? I'm sorry, if you can't exert that much effort on your own, I don't see how you would be helped by my doing it for you.

My past experiance with you shows me that answering the same question over and over again doesn't increase your understanding. If you misunderstand, go back and read it again.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by The Fool
And both are dwarfed by one nights firebombing of german civilians.... The point I was trying to make is that Islam as a religion is no more likely to produce terrorists than any other religion. When people point to islamic writings and say they promote terrorism, its no different from Christianity or Judaism... If people want to rationalise any sort of murderous behavior towards people of other religions they can find it without too much searching. Given the presently observed facts, however, is it reasonable to venture that at least one of the following propositions is true:

1. generally speaking, the sort of person predisposed (entirely apart from the influence of his religion) to rationalise the sort of murderous behavior we are considering - or at least to favor a religious rationale for such behavior - is, coincidentally, somewhat more likely to be an adherent of Islam than of another religion;

or

2. Islamic beliefs are, in practice, somewhat more likely to inspire such behavior than the beliefs of other major religions (whether expressly or, perhaps, merely by reason of an unfortunate but distinct susceptibility to subjective interpretations of this sort).

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
And save you the effort of scrolling ten posts up? I'm sorry, if you can't exert that much effort on your own, I don't see how you would be helped by my doing it for you.

My past experiance with you shows me that answering the same question over and over again doesn't increase your understanding. If you misunderstand, go back and read it again..

I am so sorry to have had the temerity to try to discuss things on a discussion board. I note that once again you take the time to post but not to answer the question.

For your information you did not mention the phrase 'devout Muslims' anywhere in the post referred to. That was the subject of my question. I guess I'll just have to chalk that up as yet another simple question you won't answer.

When you are ready to engage in discussion do let me know.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Given the presently observed facts, however, is it reasonable to venture that at least one of the following propositions is true:

1. generally speaking, the sort of person predisposed (entirely apart from the influence of his religion) to rationalise the sort of murderous behavior we are considering - or at least to favor a religious rationale for such behavior - is, coincidentally, somewhat more likely to be an adherent of Islam than of another religion;

or

2. Islamic beliefs are, in practice, somewhat more likely to inspire such behavior than the beliefs of other major religions (whether expressly or, perhaps, merely by reason of an unfortunate but distinct susceptibility to subjective interpretations of this sort).
hmmmm, so you must believe that the major world religions take it in turns to be the religion most likely to produce terrorists? When the terrorist bombers in the middle east were Jewish was that Judaisms turn to be the religion most likely to produce terrorists?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The problem is, Christians stopped justifying mass murder by the bible ca. 500 years ago, while some Muslims still justify mass murder based on the Koran today.

Take the age of a religion, divide it by 100, and you get an uncanny picture which, while perhaps not entirely accurate, is nevertheless amusing.

Christianity, depending on the branch, has either had a couple of years of college and has started to mellow out or didn't get to go to college and so pick fights with the college boys.

Islam is still an early adolescent and so sees things in absolute terms, thinks death is romantic, and spends a lot of time dreaming about virgins.

Judaism sits in its living room reading too many Tom Clancy novels but occasionally goes out and runs people over in its Cadillac.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
The modern catolic church has no problems at with spreading lies about condoms and outlawing birth control. Many women will die because of this.

But nowhere does Catholic canon law occupy a position comparable to that of the Sharia in many Islamic countries, and FYI the countries with the lowest fertilty rates in the world are Spain and Italy. (www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1088/MR1088.chap3.pdf)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by epepke


Take the age of a religion, divide it by 100, and you get an uncanny picture which, while perhaps not entirely accurate, is nevertheless amusing.

Christianity, depending on the branch, has either had a couple of years of college and has started to mellow out or didn't get to go to college and so pick fights with the college boys.

Islam is still an early adolescent and so sees things in absolute terms, thinks death is romantic, and spends a lot of time dreaming about virgins.

Judaism sits in its living room reading too many Tom Clancy novels but occasionally goes out and runs people over in its Cadillac.

My God, I think you've got it!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
For your information you did not mention the phrase 'devout Muslims' anywhere in the post referred to. That was the subject of my question. I guess I'll just have to chalk that up as yet another simple question you won't answer.


So it's not that you were too lazy to scroll ten posts up, it's that you were too lazy to read the post and instead relied on a computer search to find the relevant phrase?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
So it's not that you were too lazy to scroll ten posts up, it's that you were too lazy to read the post and instead relied on a computer search to find the relevant phrase?

Shall I take that as a 'no comment' then?

My most humble apologies. I realise now that I have had the effrontery to try to engage in discussion on, of all place, a discussion board. I recognise that I have been put in my place and will never dare to darken the door of your browser again.

Not.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by epepke


Take the age of a religion, divide it by 100, and you get an uncanny picture which, while perhaps not entirely accurate, is nevertheless amusing.



Or note that this is the year 1424 in the Islamic calendar.

Roll on the enlightenment:D .

N.B. The islamic year is based on lunar months and is thus shorter than our year. Their year 1 started on our July 16 in 622AD.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by The Fool

hmmmm, so you must believe that the major world religions take it in turns to be the religion most likely to produce terrorists? When the terrorist bombers in the middle east were Jewish was that Judaisms turn to be the religion most likely to produce terrorists? You answered a question with another question. At any rate, though, while few major religions have entirely escaped being used as a justification for terrorism, it seems to me that where we are confronted, in the aggregate, with a statistically remarkable correspondence between (a) incidences of murderous behavior directed at innocents and rationalized by reference to religious dictates, and (b) a particular religious affiliation on the part of the perpetrators, then one of my earlier propositions must be true: essentially, either (1) the correspondence is coincidental or attributable to nonreligious factors, or (2) the correspondence is attributable to some property (whether express or latent, and whether or not intended) that inheres in the religion in question. It seems to me that given the (frankly limited) extent of Jewish atrocities of the sort we are discussing, Judaism is not the most promising candidate in this regard. I could be wrong, however, so feel free to state your case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


But nowhere does Catholic canon law occupy a position comparable to that of the Sharia in many Islamic countries, and FYI the countries with the lowest fertilty rates in the world are Spain and Italy. (www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1088/MR1088.chap3.pdf)

That wasn't the point I was making. I did not claim that the Catholic Church was as bad as extremist Muslim nations in it's treatment of women, just that it is not a paragon of virtue. The Popes decrees will cost the lives of many women in childbirth, and ensure that poor families will have too many children to care for properly. The example of Italy is just a case I have stated before, that over time, the modernisation of religions means that people adapt their mystical beliefs to rational life. This appears to be true for all the major religions. For example, the Muslims of Bosnia.

I am not a fan of any extemist doctrines of any faith that cause oppresion and death. I just don't see why the Muslim faith should be singled out.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic I would add a few more words to this list, though. We could start with "devout" Muslim (murderous religious nut for Allah) as opposed to "extremist" jew (someone who is more on the right politically than, say, Thomas Friedman or Shimon Peres). We all know "devout" is good and "extemist" bad, don't we? "Paranoid" (someone who thinks the Arabs want to kill all the jews just because they repeatedly say so and do their best to achieve this) is also a word that's a bit inaccurate, when describing people with an opinion about the "middle east conflict" (the Arab attempt to butcher the jews).


In another thread, someone posted a couple of stories about some British citizens who went to Israel and became suicide-bombers. I thought the following quotes would be relevant to this thread:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/02/wbomb02.xml
Omar Kahn Sharif was a Muslim British citizen who traveled to Israel and tried to blow himself up in an Israeli restaurant. He fled after his explosive failed to go off.
Sharif, 27, who is married with two children, was a pupil at Foremarke Hall, the prep school for Repton, before attending a state school in Derby. He became a devout Muslim while living in London, where he attended university, and returned to Derby five years ago following the death of his mother.

In another article that mentions the same event:

More puzzling than the logistics of the attack is what drove two well-educated young men raised in quiet English suburbs to suicide and carnage. The news of the crime certainly stunned the men's relatives and neighbors. Sharif, whose father was a successful Derby businessman, grew up in a comfortable house, and enjoyed football and skateboarding like any British teenager. He went to university in London but dropped out. When he returned to Derby he was married to a woman who always wore a burqa. He had become devout and exchanged his Western clothes for robes.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901030512-449450,00.html

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



I am not a fan of any extemist doctrines of any faith that cause oppresion and death. I just don't see why the Muslim faith should be singled out.

Well, I can certainly agree with most of what you say. But I personally would not be bothered if a "devout" Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, or Jew moved in next door....but I think a guy with a burkha-clad wife and an admiration for, and aspiration to be, a "shaheed" would indeed bother me greatly.

But then again I'm just a bigot I guess? :rolleyes:

-z

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That wasn't the point I was making. I did not claim that the Catholic Church was as bad as extremist Muslim nations in it's treatment of women, just that it is not a paragon of virtue. The Popes decrees will cost the lives of many women in childbirth, and ensure that poor families will have too many children to care for properly. The example of Italy is just a case I have stated before, that over time, the modernisation of religions means that people adapt their mystical beliefs to rational life. This appears to be true for all the major religions. For example, the Muslims of Bosnia.

I am not a fan of any extemist doctrines of any faith that cause oppresion and death. I just don't see why the Muslim faith should be singled out.

Arn't you ever embarassed by the intelectual back-flips you have to do to equate Catholic prohibitions against birth control to the Islamic docterine of shaheed?

Certainly it can be argued that the Popes decrees will cost the lives of many women in childbirth, and ensure that poor families will have too many children to care for properly, and if you want to advocate change of those policies, that's all very well and good, but it's absurd to say that it compares to people being urged to go out and kill others.