Muslim outrage?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

That's 13% of the Muslims surveyed in the UK. THAT'S scarey. How about the one elsewhere?
http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2004/march/79639.htm
"Nearly half of those interviewed said suicide bombings against Israelis and, in Iraq, against Americans and other Westerners are justified."
So how about the rest of 'them" world wide?
I can't find any other surveys worthwhile.

[MKSheppard]

Anyone think we'd be best off by invoking the spirit of the man in
my avatar and launching his war plans, dropping hundreds of devices
in a few days?

[Joe]

snip

That doesn't matter; if it's a religion of peace, it shouldn't have dozens of passages indicating otherwise in its holy book, even if there is contradicting material elsewhere.

[The Third Man]

snip

I imagine the bloke in your avatar appears in that Big One alternative history?

Y'know, I really think the mindset of those 13% of UK Muslims is remarkably similar to you own. They are predominantly young males like youself and are very, very angry (for one of the reasons, see all the BNP-related threads hereabouts) and have latched onto the bits in the Koran where Allah violently fucks people over; similarly you seem very angry for whatever reasons you have, and have latched onto the violent bits in an equally fictitious alt history work.

[Plekhanov]

There are some interesting and IMHO somewhat alarming numbers to look at here at the Scotsman, that flesh out your "tiny" and "vast majority"

Two highlights are:
Of UK muslims, 13% said attacks on the US by AQ are justified
73% were opposed to terrorist strikes on the US

I don't subscribe to the idea that "Islam is the problem", as, like most religions, it can be interpreted to suit the opinions of the individual. I would say that many Muslims are - for a variety of reasons - angry, and that they therefore latch onto the more violent interpretations.

13% support for AQ attacks upon the US is surprise and worryingly high I’d agree that a lot of this can be put down to anger at the way things have been going since 9.11. I suspect if the same 500 people were asked the same question in August 2001 there would have been a much lower level of support.

It’s a minor nitpick but Hamza called for suicide attacks within the UK

"Although it is good it is not as good as you do in your own door. You don't have to travel thousands and thousands of miles to become a shaheed - you can be shaheed right on your own doorstep. May Allah open our eyes for what's good for us - so we don't waste our Muslim blood far away."

I’d hope and expect that rather less that 13% of British Muslims would agree with that.

[MKSheppard]

similarly you seem very angry for whatever reasons you have, and have latched onto the violent bits in an equally fictitious alt history work.

You know, they've been waging war on us since 1979, killing untold numbers of people in suicide bombings, various nastyness, etc, and
they have imans all over the Islamic world preaching for the
destruction of the infidel west, blah blah, and Arab oil money is
promoting islamic schools all over the west where they preach
nothing but the Koran. Science? Whats that? Who cares as long
as you can recite the Koran by heart?, Oh yes, and graduates
of those schools are violently anti-west.

Cruel as it may sound, it's in humanity's best interest to remove the
virulent cancer of Islam before it spreads any further and kills more
people. If they want to live in the 11th Century, fine. But don't
try to drag us back there against our will.

[The Third Man]

13% support for AQ attacks upon the US is surprise and worryingly high I’d agree that a lot of this can be put down to anger at the way things have been going since 9.11.

Well this is all very tied up with the BNP stuff in the other thread isn't it?

While the climate post 9/11 certainly has not helped matters, I would point out that the Burnley riots which (arguably) marked the start of the current bout of BNP council-infestation and so on happened before 9/11, so some of that anger must come from somewhere else. Much like the violent bits in the Koran, I suspect AQ and Bin Laden have become a focus for already angry, disaffected Muslims (mainly, I would suggest, the young male demographic)

[The Third Man]

Cruel as it may sound, it's in humanity's best interest to remove the
virulent cancer of Islam before it spreads any further and kills more
people.

Are you sure you aren't confusing cause and effect? Indeed, lots of Muslims around the globe are going with the militant interpretations, but they could as easily have picked the kinder,gentler interpretations as their guiding philosophy (as selectively quoted by ArmorPierce) if they so desired. There must be underlying reasons why they choose the way they do, and this is what you should be addressing, blaming it all on "evil Islam" is too simplistic.

[Tzeentch]

Because they consider dogs unclean. Seriously, there's a long post
somewhere that illustrates how backward and fanatic islam was
to other religions in the 1800s

The problem with Islam is that they were so happy at being in the lead (technologically and culturally) during the 11th century that they decided to stay there.

I've heard it explained sociologically.

In the west, the growing middle class gained enough money and support to take power from the church and the nobility.

In the arab world, the clerics and kings crushed the emerging middle class, and so they've never fully escaped their version of the Dark Ages.

If we were still ruled by kings and priests, we would be much the same.

[phongn]

I imagine the bloke in your avatar appears in that Big One alternative history?

Yes, that's Curtis LeMay. He is also a real-life figure

[Gil Hamilton]

That doesn't matter; if it's a religion of peace, it shouldn't have dozens of passages indicating otherwise in its holy book, even if there is contradicting material elsewhere.

You can make the same exact criticism of most major religions. I could post a bunch of bible quotes advocating the same and more.

The difference is socio-economical, not religious. Much of Christianity lives in Western Nations where they aren't much for the barbaric acts of violence, but take Africa. In countries like Zaire (or what ever the hell they are calling it now), you get practicing Catholics who are, suprise!, barbaric shitheads who hack up children with machetes and rape little girls. In fact, I'm willing to put down 50 dollars american that those UN Uruguayan soldiers who were raping those girls in the other thread would tell you straight up that they are Roman Catholics (as is much of Uruguay). Also, keep in mind that ole Robert Mugabe is as Roman Catholic as well. Does this make Catholicism a religion of hacked up tribeschildren and raped little girls? No, it's that the Catholics in question come from shithole "nations".

[Joe]

Socio-economics has got nothing to do with it - somebody has to fund terrorism, and it isn't poor Muslims, and many of the 9/11 hijackers were educated Saudi and Egyptian brats from well-to-do families. It's all about culture, and religion is a major part of culture. The Tibetans are as oppressed and poor as anyone and they're the most pacifistic people on Earth; they do not celebrate death and hatred the way fundamentalist Islamic (the fastest growing type of Islam, IIRC) culture does.

Furthermore, does the fact that Zairans (sp?) are shitheads stem from their strong religious faith or does it stem from the fact that they're just shitheads? Do they appeal to the Bible and Jesus Christ to justify their atrocities the way radical Muslims appeal to the Koran and Allah to justify theirs?

[Gil Hamilton]

Socio-economics has got nothing to do with it - somebody has to fund terrorism, and it isn't poor Muslims, and many of the 9/11 hijackers were educated Saudi and Egyptian brats from well-to-do families. It's all about culture, and religion is a major part of culture. The Tibetans are as oppressed and poor as anyone and they're the most pacifistic people on Earth; they do not celebrate death and hatred the way fundamentalist Islamic (the fastest growing type of Islam, IIRC) culture does.

Furthermore, does the fact that Zairans (sp?) are shitheads stem from their strong religious faith or does it stem from the fact that they're just shitheads? Do they appeal to the Bible and Jesus Christ to justify their atrocities the way radical Muslims appeal to the Koran and Allah to justify theirs?

Note the bolded part of your own statement and apply it to your first paragraph. You'll notice that those well-to-do brats may well just be shitheads, but they are shitheads who aren't willing to die for the cause or risk their cash. The people who are the ones who strap bombs to their chests are the ones who have very little, are dirt poor and easy to manipulate. The problem there is socio-economic, as most problems in the world boil down to in the end. Besides, did you miss the "socio" in "socio-economic"? Where do you think culture fits?

All that aside, if Islam was fundamentally the problem, where are all the terrorist attacks by America's 6-8 million Muslims? They believe in the Koran just as much as any Muslim, but they don't strap bombs to their chest and die for the cause or attempt jihad and for the most part love America. If Islam is the fundamental root, we should be seeing the same stuff here that we see in the Middle East. Yet there is none. Take a wild guess why.

[Joe]

Note the bolded part of your own statement and apply it to your first paragraph. You'll notice that those well-to-do brats may well just be shitheads, but they are shitheads who aren't willing to die for the cause or risk their cash.

As I pointed out there have been many well-to-do people willing to die for the cause - the 9/11 hijackers included, and some of the Palestinian suicide bombers have had a relatively decent standard of living (for Palestinians, anyway), also. And the fact that the rich Muslims who fund terrorism aren't personally self-detonating in pizza parlors, bus stops, and foreign embassies doesn't matter; they're still rich people who aren't in the socioeconomic class that you claim is connected to terrorism, and they wish death and destruction upon nonbelievers all the same, and they facilitate it. The lower class terrorists are just less intelligent than the rich ones, and therefore more willing to sacrifice their life.

The people who are the ones who strap bombs to their chests are the ones who have very little, are dirt poor and easy to manipulate. The problem there is socio-economic, as most problems in the world boil down to in the end. Besides, did you miss the "socio" in "socio-economic"? Where do you think culture fits?

I believe socioeconomics is more related to the economic condition of a people and how that affects them specifically, not religion. And anyway, there are poor peoples all around the world, many of them even poorer than Arab Muslims, who are not violent and hateful. Being violent and hateful is not necessarily a symptom of being poor and oppressed.

All that aside, if Islam was fundamentally the problem, where are all the terrorist attacks by America's 6-8 million Muslims? They believe in the Koran just as much as any Muslim, but they don't strap bombs to their chest and die for the cause or attempt jihad and for the most part love America. If Islam is the fundamental root, we should be seeing the same stuff here that we see in the Middle East. Yet there is none. Take a wild guess why.

Simple; like mainstream Western Christians, they have adopted humanist, enlightened moral principles into their ethical code and do not practice the I-explode-for-Allah religion in its unfiltered, inherently hateful and destructive form that the fundies practice it in.

And you still haven't answered my question; is the barbaric nature of the Zairans directly related to their religion as it is with the fundamentalist Muslims, or not?

[Durandal]

<snip>

Maybe you should take a look at the laundry list of quotes under the "Cruelty" section.

[Darth Wong]

Cruel as it may sound, it's in humanity's best interest to remove the virulent cancer of Islam before it spreads any further and kills more people. If they want to live in the 11th Century, fine. But don't try to drag us back there against our will.

It would be in humanity's best interest to have no monotheistic religions at all, since monotheistic religions have an innate tendency towards intolerance. But that's not likely anytime soon.

[Plekhanov]

Cruel as it may sound, it's in humanity's best interest to remove the virulent cancer of Islam before it spreads any further and kills more
people. If they want to live in the 11th Century, fine. But don't try to drag us back there against our will.

Damn right it’s better to bomb humanity back to the stone age (with it’s idealistic state of primitive communism and so forth) than let our selves be dragged back to the 11th Century.

[Joe]

Don't forget Hinduism, it is in many ways as bad as the major monotheistic religions.

[Darth Wong]

Don't forget Hinduism, it is in many ways as bad as the major monotheistic religions.

True, but other polytheistic religions lack these characteristics, which is why I distinguished monotheistic religions as a group which generally exhibits a tendency towards intolerance.

[ArmorPierce]

<snip>

Maybe you should take a look at the laundry list of quotes under the "Cruelty" section.

I'm not saying that Islam is any better than Christianity, I'm just saying that it isn't any worse than it.

[Howedar]

Don't forget Hinduism, it is in many ways as bad as the major monotheistic religions.

True, but other polytheistic religions lack these characteristics, which is why I distinguished monotheistic religions as a group which generally exhibits a tendency towards intolerance.

I might go so far as to say that humans in general are intolerant by nature, and this usually reflects itself in any given belief system, be it monotheistic, polytheistic, Democrat, purple, or anything else.

[Guardsman Bass]

Don't forget Hinduism, it is in many ways as bad as the major monotheistic religions.

True, but other polytheistic religions lack these characteristics, which is why I distinguished monotheistic religions as a group which generally exhibits a tendency towards intolerance.

I might go so far as to say that humans in general are intolerant by nature, and this usually reflects itself in any given belief system, be it monotheistic, polytheistic, Democrat, purple, or anything else.

Maybe, except that the Roman Empire was remarkably tolerant to other religions- with a certain limit, of course. By contrast, look at the empires founded by its successor states(aka Spain, France, etc), who were all HIGHLY monotheistic, were mercilessly brutal to the peoples they conquered, and they trampled their religions. I think its because the "one god" provides a more effective rallying point for tribalism(aka slaughtering those that are "them", not "us"), than multiple, capricious deities, who can remove their favors at will, and whose main lesson is that humans should never place themselves about the Gods, no matter how reproachable the Gods are.

Plus, of course, it doesn't help that most of the monotheistic religions that arrived are mostly very "chosen people"ish.

[PainRack]

If Islam is the problem==========


Why are there 1 billion Muslims, and 10 thousand terrorists?