It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Muslims - Moderate or fanatical in disguise?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:12 AM

Personally, I have never been to a mosque that encourages suicide bombings or attacks on American civillians. I have however been to several mosques that at the end of the prayer service holds a prayer "to our brethrens who are fighting against the enemies of Islam in Palestine, Iraq and Chechnya (Bosnia too when there was war going on there)". That's different, I'm sure you would agree. But in all honesty I have never been to a sermon where they encourage suicide bombings. That is not to say there aren't any. Maybe just not in this country.

I have also heard several sermons where they explain how wrong suicide bombings and targetting civillians are, from a religious aspect and by extension an ethical aspect. Don't get me wrong, when they speak out against the American government, they are quite vocal about it.

The biggest beef seems to be America's support of Israel and it's turning of a blind eye against pretty much all Israeli atrocities. They're not so vocal about the suicide bombers however. But they do mention it's wrong -- that those are not muslims. I can't say for mosques outside of my country though.

I can say with a 100% certainty that muslims everywhere are NOT jealous of American freedoms or prosperity. Some are concerned about the sins commited due to some of those freedoms, but jealous of freedom? Please, that doesn't make sense at all. They're angry at your government's actions. It's that simple.

I'm sure there can be peace between Islam and the West. No doubt about it. Take my country for example, Malaysia. We're a muslim country. But we have strong ties with the U.S.

Now why is this?

It's simple, you trade with us fairly (as fair as can reasonably be expected, there are some issues, but nothing big, and that's for another topic) and you have never interfered (not overtly anyways) with us. Just good trade that makes both our countries prosper.

So I suppose if your government stops interfering in the middle-east, support Israel within reasonable limits and conduct fair trade with the middle-eastern nations, there can be peace. It may take a while, no doubt. Maybe even a generation or two. It took Malaysians at least a generation to forget Japanese atrocities during WWII.

It's not impossible, it just needs quite a bit of effort and time.

[edit - grammar]

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Beachcoma]

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:35 AM
In fairness to history...
We are very close to Japan now, and consider them to be strong allies...
We nuked them, and they commited the worst sneak attack on the USA in History...

and all it took was a new administration of Japan...

Would the Middle east be just as changed, if the corrupt monarchies of Saudi Arabia didn't have the influence on American Middle east policy that they do? And if the support of Israel was truly limited by the Israels honoring the "plan of palestinian independance"
Sorry for the run on...

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:56 AM
That's true about Japan, but you should not forget, it has been quite a while since that event, perhaps a generation or two? Also, it was also the Japs who did the first strike, America just did an embargo.

Change in the middle east could work under the stipulations you have listed, but I think it might take a longer period than in Japan's case due to the long history of America's unfair interference in the region and also the anti-West indoctrination they've had.

As I have I said, it won't be easy. And it wouldn't happen overnight.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Beachcoma
you've given a knee-jerk response

I told the truth. No knee-jerk response.
I posted the absolute truth.

How many countries have America invaded in the middle-east now?

We went into Kuwait, liberated it, and gave it back to the Kuwaities.

We went into Afghanistan, liberated it, and are giving it to the Afghanies
MINUS the terrorists who attacked America.

We went into Iraq and have liberated it from Saddam. We cut off his
payments to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. We cut off
his illegal oil supply going into Syria and Jordan. We cut off his stealing
of billions from the Iraqis in the Oil for Food program. And we
Americans can't wait for the day that the idiot insurgents get it through
their thick heads that the only reason we are still stuck there is because
of THEM.

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The US may have stopped Saddam from stealing money
but now they're doing it! Same with rape and torture!
Yes, Americans are now raping and torturing Iraqis.

Oh really? Post some credible links that will show how
America is now stealing the billions that Saddam was.
Post some credible links to show that we are mass
murdering 100's of thousands of Iraqis, that we are
mass raping them as well. Throw in the olympians
too why don't ya' ... I suppose we have been torturing
the olympians that don't play well enough, just like
Uday did, huh?

We had a few National Guardsmen who behaved badly
and took pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners of war. They
were punished. Got anything substantial??

On second thought, don't bother. I won't be back.
This 'discussion' is useless.

When will she realize that the man doesn't care about her
and the best thing for her to do is leave him?

When we liberated Iraq the Iraqis were very happy and they
were UNHAPPY with those who didn't help in the liberation.
They said so.

The world screams that we don't do anything, and then when
we do it screams that we shouldn't. Well frankly, I've had it
with all of them. We can't cut and run, or the place will turn
into the killing fields just like Vietnam did. As far as I'm concerned
the next time someone in the world needs help, they can just
stew in their own misery. The next time a muslim nation needs
help, the rest of their 'religion of peace' neighbors can help
(fat chance with that). I am of the opinion that they all should
be left to themselves ... they can blow each other to bits ...
I no longer care.


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:02 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh really? Post some credible links...

There are no links for what you ask for. And I'm not claiming what you said. I will not post links for something you made up.

I'm only claiming that BushCo is stealing money, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in this war, and American soldiers have tortured, raped and murdered Iraqis.

I didn't claim anything about 'mass-murder' or 'mass-rape'.

We had a few National Guardsmen who behaved badly
and took pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners of war.

'Behaved badly'? Jesus Christ!

I've sent you a U2U with with a link. Don't look at it if you want to continue to think of it as a few National Guardsmen who stripped some prisoners and behaved badly.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
We went into Kuwait, liberated it, and gave it back to the Kuwaities.

We went into Afghanistan, liberated it, and are giving it to the Afghanies
MINUS the terrorists who attacked America.

We went into Iraq and have liberated it from Saddam. [...]

Look, you can believe whatever you want. It can be the truth, it can be the twisted version of the truth... whatever. But you must understand, that what you believe to be true and what I believe to be true simply doesn't matter here.

What matters is what the people from those countries and the neighbouring countries think of it. What matters is what people whose family members are unfortunate enough to become "collateral damage" believe to be the truth. What you see as a liberation they may see it as an invasion. What you see as an intervention they may see it as interference and meddling.

You've got to start realizing that other people from other regions may have a different view or outlook of things than those from your region. Personally, my take on those three countries you mentioned:

Kuwait - Alright, you helped them. But you also knew Saddam was gonna invade, you gave it a green light. So in hindsight it looks less like a liberation and more like chess playing with Kuwait as the pawn.

Afghanistan - Sweet, you got rid of the Taliban. I don't like them either, overzealous religious nuts, the lot of them. But then you set bounty hunters to look for Taliban/al-Qaeda without any specific instructions, just go look for terrorist.

"Who are the terrorist?"
"It don't matter, just look for terrorist."
"So any person can be a terrorist, it doesn't matter?"
"Yes, it doesn't matter."
"Sweet, that guy is a terrorist, where's my money?"

Sigh... you got it right at first, then you effed it up.

Iraq - Don't get me started here.

Now this is just what I think. What the people there think could be a lot different. It could even be worse. I can't say, I can only say what I think and what most of the people in my country think.. yeah, I think it's safe to say that.

Just remember, whatever you and I may think of the situation, what matters is what the people in those affected areas think of it. We can sit all day speculating, but actions speak louder than words. And the fact that there was opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there still continue to be opposition speaks volumes of what the people think.

An insurgency cannot last without local support. I know this for certain. Malaysia had a communist insurgency. It took three years to get rid of that, in the end it died out because it lost it's local support.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:57 AM
Moderates or fanatics in disguise?

I think the question is, "Are all Muslims Jihadists?"
After all, war was declared on America by the enemy, and the enemy leader is a Jihadist Neo-Wahabist, a Salafist. The attacks have been by these people. Al Qaeda, the international Jihadist organization that is attaking us wherever we are, including our own home turf.

Regional Jiahdists, such as Hamas, Jif, Hezbollah, attack the kuffar who refuse their offer of peace, which is to submit to either their religion or their rule as Al Qaeda, but they do it intheir regions, not on an international level.

The Jihadists have three basic goals:
1) Liberate all Muslim lands from non-Muslim powers. This means all land that has ever been under Islamic rule (Look out Spain, France, Israel, etc.).

2) Unify all Muslim countries within one border, starting with the Arabic region, thereby removing all artificial and dividing boundaries.

3) Reestablish the caliphate. Of course, with one of theirs as the Caliph. Osama, maybe?

Does this mean that all Muslims are Jihadists? Of course not. Are all Christians missionaries? Nope. the only time I've been out of country to spread anything it was to spread the notion to the Soviets that they weren't going to spread their belief across Europe.

While the Jihadists have something in common with the Muslim world, not every Muslim has the Jihadist desire in common with the Jihadists.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in