It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Islam: What the West Needs to Know (full documentary)

page: 31
30
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
I you believe IF the US pulls out of all Islamic countries and left them to their own issues.... there would be peace in those countries?

Not a chance. Islam has to have a boogeyman to hate and fight against. Even if it's muslim vs muslim.


Originally posted by wildtimes
If every Westerner pulled out of those strife-ridden war zones today -.... - they'd destroy each other anyway.

Yep. Take a look what the government in Saudi Arabia has to do. It appeases and feeds the croc (wahabbi's) so it will bite them (the Saudi Gov't) last. The only reason Saudi Arabia is in one piece is because the gov't is paying off the muslim factions within it. Ditto Jordan.




posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by logical7
 


I you believe IF the US pulls out of all Islamic countries and left them to their own issues.... there would be peace in those countries?

It seems to me that if there is religious rule, and separate beliefs on the religion, there will still be conflict...


edit on 12-6-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

that would be over simplification but yes it would be a start. I don't think the US would pull out after investing so much effort and lies to get some hold over ME.

Muslims were living good enough even with their differences before US occupation and they can without it.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Muslims were living good enough even with their differences before US occupation and they can without it.

They were?

Seems to me that lots of them were in pretty dire straits. US occupation did not start the feud between Shia and Sunni muslims, nor did it spark Wahabbism. Those are indigenous quarrels inside Islam, from LONG ago.

And sorry, but from all evidence available to us, (have you read "The Kite Runner"?) they can't, with OR without it.
That is why I keep asking you to suggest ways to calm them down and get them all on the same page. You keep denouncing my suggestions as "impossible" -
so.....
your plan is:......
.....
What? Exactly?



edit on 12-6-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





If we have "real" representation of EVERYONE, things might work, but we don't, we never have, and most likely never will.

that was comforting!!!
I want to ask, would you accept it as fate/karma if your country get attacked and ruined just like the countries it(government) ruined?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Exactly. If every Westerner pulled out of those strife-ridden war zones today - EVERY soldier, educator, doctor, nurse, ambassador, ambassador's aides and staffs, ALL of the embassies closed, all the corporations hiring locals, and the UN disbanded altogether.....and those countries were left to their own devices - they'd destroy each other anyway.

thats just a bit less arrogant than saying "they are surviving because we give them aid etc"



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mindlessbrainpower89
reply to post by logical7
 



yes we all know christianity is so peaceful except that the western leaders attacking the muslim countries are actually christians but lets not consider that because they are not doing it because of their beliefs, they are waging a "war on terror"!!
The innocents dying in carpet bombings and drone attacks must thank them for hunting down terrorists and just die with gratitude on their faces knowing that they are just acceptable collateral damages.


Quit it with these moronic generalizations. Be more specific. Yes, I understand there are some unintelligent Christians who just follow everything the media says but, rest the blame on those individuals who do so, not the ENTIRE religion or on an ENTIRE country. Let me say this too. Everyone here is susceptible to what ever their news tells them. Therefore, this is none of anyones fault this argument rages on. The only thing that is contributing to war is misrepresentation, ignorance, mass deception, and the NWO. Oh, and all the secret societies.
edit on 12-6-2013 by mindlessbrainpower89 because: (no reason given)


this was my reply to another poster, maybe you "misintepretated" it as my stand. Its not. Its more of a mock or sarcasm to get the message across as to how generalisation (as you right said) appears moronic!



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
Muslims were living good enough even with their differences before US occupation and they can without it.



Muslim VS Muslim in Bosnia's War

Muslim vs Muslim in the Middle East

The recent declaration of a fatwa (a binding religious decree) by the Sunni Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, against the Shia militant movement, Hezbollah, and Iran as enemies of Islam who are “more infidel than Jews and Christians” is a dangerous turn portending endless war among Muslims on sectarian lines.

Qaradawi’s poisonous rhetoric, which is influencing tens of millions of Sunnis globally via the Qatari television channel, Al Jazeera, is exacerbating the fratricide in Syria, where violence between Sunnis and Shiites is bringing back memories of historic battles and grudges between the two main sects of Islam.


Muslims fighting Muslims (because of religion) in Iraq

Muslims fighting Muslims (because of religion) in Modern London

You Tube - Muslims fighting other Muslims (because of religion) in Syria

Muslims Factions in Masaka Fight (over religion)

Why are Muslims Killing Each Other

Nevertheless, Muslims killing Muslims has amounted to over 10m. In other words, over the past 60 years 90% of the Muslims killed have been killed by their own people this surely is not Islam! Why are Muslim sects so hateful of one another? What right has the Taliban to think that its ideology has t o be accepted by all others? Do they think that just by forcing women to wear black from head to toe is following Islam? Is it the dress or the mind that has to be Islamic? What the Islamic world cannot deny is that it may follow Islam but Muslims are united in hate. As aspect that is making Islam what it is, is its close association to politics which goes hand in hand with the desire for power o f a cult/tribe.


1400 Years of Islamic Aggression

Let us review the Muslim conquest. In 624, Mohammed led a raid for booty and plunder against a Meccan caravan, killing 70 Meccans for mere material gain. Between 630 A.D. and the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims -- on at least one occasion led by Mohammed -- had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and southern Palestine through approximately a dozen separate invasions and bloody conquests. These conquests were in large part "Holy wars," putting the lie to another statement in the U.S. News article that proclaimed the Crusades "The First Holy War," as if the Christians had invented the concept of a holy war. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.....

The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Hey Wildtimes!

I sorta stepped out of this thread, because (as far as I could see) the facts of the thing had been dealt with (and I like facts- they are solid things that can be tested and built upon or be proven to be hollow and meaningless), and all that progressed from then on was bickering and personal back-and-forth. I touched on this in my last post(?) in this thread, but I get the feeling you may have taken offence to my words, and didn't feel like responding to them, so let me restate it more clearly. Again, it seems necessary to point out that none of what I say in this post (or any other here, I suppose) is meant to be taken as personally attacking you or your beliefs or your background. I do not know anything about you except what you've posted here, and I can only really respond to that, and I hope you are able to respond simply to my words here, and not see any hidden accusations or implications on your character or background, because I assure you, there are none, and if perhaps one or two slip in unconsciously, let me assure you they are irrelevant to the whole discussion.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve here?
You started out the thread with your original post, which (as far as I can see from what you have written there) presented a documentary you must've seen, which (in your original post,) you presented as an expert (with a short summary of these experts) evaluation of islam, as well as the conclusions of the documentary, and the ideas and opinions you drew from it on Islam. You ended with a challenge to any and all to debunk what you called a "lucid explanation" of "real islam".

I'd like to think in the following pages, you got your response to that at least. Your experts were shown not to be experts at all, and the documentary was shown to be simply a propaganda piece endemic and exemplary of the larger "us vs them" mentality.

Afterwards, the thread evolved, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just confused as to what it evolved into.

Lets go through a checklist, shall we?


  • You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that no one people are inherently more prone to violence than any other people, right?
  • You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that a vast majority of devout muslims do not hold the views and desires expressed in that video. Right?
  • You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that the vast majority of devout christians or non-muslims in general do not desire the downfall of muslims. Right?
  • I'll go as far as to say that as far as the common people are concerned, the whole "West vs Islam" dichotomy is false, a division drummed up to perpetuate hatred and personal gain. Right?
  • We can also agree, I think that most scriptures and religions can be twisted and distorted as a means of violence, and that many groups throughout history on all sides HAVE, unfortunately done so.
  • Now you may possibly disagree with the previous statements, but I'm sure you'll agree that if the common people of one side (or both sides) DO have such views about the other side, it is more based off self-minded leadership, feeding off people's xenophobia due to politics and greed and desire for power, and certainly not the spiritual (or lack of spiritual) leanings of either side. Right?


Hopefully we all reach some common understanding in these points? Yes? If not, that could be an interesting basis for further discussion on this topic.
If yes, then I'm sure you'll agree that "But these muslims here did this thing!" and "But these christians here caused that thing!" competitions are meaningless. Useless. Heck, they're nothing but divisive.

You say you wants peace and an end to violence. That is very commendable. Most people here probably want peace. I want peace. Everyone wants peace!
Now I'm sad to say, on a large scale, I have absolutely no control over this. You style yourself as a "social worker", but I get the feeling neither do you. We can each do our small part in our daily lives, and hope it builds up. I don't think anyone disagrees that we must all do our part. Yes?
In the real world, I personally put my efforts towards education, as I believe education of youth is the single most important factor in improving our future. It is also one of the slowest working, but, I do what I can.
I'm not calling into question what you do in the real world, I'm sure you put in an equal amount of effort. I'm sure most people who have stopped to think about this do. They may not have jobs dedicated to it, but they each help in their small way.

Now, as far as this specific thread goes, how are you pursuing this goal of peace? Is it even relevant in terms of a small thread in a subsection of an discussion board on the internet? I'd say it could be, if someone learns something new that helps them in real life as well. Should that new thing they learn be "Here is a factoid someone on a forum posted that makes me suspicious of this other group I am not a part of!" or should it be "Hey, these other guys are people to, they have many of the same problems I do, maybe they're a bit more lucky or unlucky than me, perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt".

So I ask again, to you as the original author, even though the thread may have evolved since the original post, what is your desire in this thread? What is its purpose?
edit on 12-6-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


that was comforting!!!
I want to ask, would you accept it as fate/karma if your country get attacked and ruined just like the countries it(government) ruined?

Our country DID get attacked. And I would chalk it up to being a result of greedy Imperialist bully behavior, and revenge.

I'm trying my best to prevent that from happening.
The levelling of world historic sites is appalling. How many beautiful buildings have been demolished by war?
It's stupid, backward, and not surprising, because humanity is violent, selfish, tribal, and aggressive.

Would you accept it as fate/karma if women finally were in charge so we could STOP all the senseless killing and demolition?
Because it's MEN who are the warmongers (and a few weird women like Hillary Clinton, Connie Rice, etc.). And you yourself have STATED that you agree with the person who said "women are considered the 'deluxe model' of humans and men the 'regular'." (or maybe standard, or base model? I'm going off of my elephantine MEMORY of what people say. But sometimes, as we have established, "memory" is not reliable. As evidenced in science and psychology.

Just like the "oral traditions" of ANY religion are very vulnerable to "mistaken memory" and "iinterpretation" and are therefore, suspect. Forever and always. And then you go about "translatiing" and it gets even farther from the original.

If whatever tradition or handed-down oral doctrine or history cannot be verified, it is suspect. And now we're once again back to the beginning of that conversation. It is, in my opinion, reliance on books that have been manipulated, compiled from others some of which were destroyed or lost, and mistranslated that causes all the confusion and violence between and among the Abrahamic faiths.

People arguing about inconsequential "ideas" of something none of us can know is working toward destroying us all just as much as greed.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Would you accept it as fate/karma if women finally were in charge so we could STOP all the senseless killing and demolition?


I dunno .. have you taken a loot at Hillary and her career? She's a pretty 'tuff cookie.
Talented and brilliant for sure ... But as aggressive and untrustworthy as the men ... IMHO.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mindlessbrainpower89
 





Tell me, what is so wrong with being a zionist? I support them. I guess I am wrong too?

why not give them a a few ranches or something somewhere in the US to make their country.
Why displace the local palastinians by violence and brute force to make place for them? Because ONCE UPON A TIME they used to live there as their holy book says?
keeping the same standard,
How about giving US land back to the Indians and moving back to Europe from where your ancestors had come?(i am assuming it, i don't know your race or religion, just making a point)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





Islam has to have a boogeyman to hate and fight against.

almost felt that you were talking about USA.
First the atheist communists when US was more religious and now the extremely religious jihadists! when its more secular.
If first the fight was for God against the Godless wouldn't that make this as the opposite? or both these times God is on the side of USA as the presidents always say at the end of their address to nation?
"God bless America"!!
like the other side are not humans and God's creation!



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





And sorry, but from all evidence available to us, (have you read "The Kite Runner"?) they can't, with OR without it.

i have read it and i don't think you are serious to know world history if you consider a book of fiction as evidence for the situation in Afghanistan!

I suggest you read some topics from this site to know more about islamic history and world history from an islamic perspective. You'l find it educating.
www.historyofislam.com

Afghanistan, Land of Valor, Land
of Sorrow Contributed by Prof. Dr. Nazeer Ahmed, PhD If there was an angel sitting on top the Hindu Kush mountains looking down on Afghanistan, he would shed a tear for each of the last three thousand years and each tear would be an ocean large enough to cause flooding in both the Kabul River and the Amu Darya. Afghanistan is a land of sorrow, invaded time and again over the centuries, ravaged by mighty conquerors and ruthless destroyers. Necessity has made the people of the land valiant warriors, resisting the writ of foreigners. Today, they stand at a point in history when the destructive force of technological warfare unleashed by nations thousands of miles away threatens to overwhelm them and drag Pakistan into the consequent whirlpool.


King Amanullah was a far sighted monarch. He desired to take Afghanistan out of the middle ages and into the modern age. An open admirer of Ataturk, he travelled to Istanbul to observe and learn from the Turkish experience. Ataturk had banned the wearing of the beards and the fez, forbidden women to wear the hijab, discarded the Arabic script and had adopted the Roman script for the Turkish language. Amanullah contemplated similar reforms for Afghanistan. Ataturk advised him against it saying that the experience of
each country was different and what works in one culture may not work in another. Amanullah did introduce a few reforms. He built schools, universities, roads, hospitals and encouraged intellectuals to participate in the modernization of Afghanistan. The noted journalist Mahmud Tarzi was among those who answered the call and started journalism in Kabul. In 1929 King Amanullah was overthrown by a warlord Bacha Saqaw in a coupe which many Afghans suspect was engineered by the British who would not tolerate a modernized Afghanistan next door to a colonized British India. This was a tragedy for Afghanistan from which it never recovered. It took the Afghans away from gradual, sustained reforms towards escalating chaos, alternating between extremist religion and anarchic communism. Bacha was the son of a water carrier. Upon usurping the throne, he took the title of Habibulla Kalakani. He was an illiterate and incompetent man who surrounded himself with similarly illiterate men. He nullified the reforms instituted by Amanullah and installed a
fundamentalist regime.

you may read more if you want.
edit on 12-6-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


What exactly are you hoping to achieve here?

To get the fear out of everyone's heads, the bad taste out of everyone's mouths, uncover the truth, educate myself, and promote the idea of peace.


You started out the thread with your original post, which (as far as I can see from what you have written there) presented a documentary you must've seen, which (in your original post,) you presented as an expert (with a short summary of these experts) evaluation of islam, as well as the conclusions of the documentary, and the ideas and opinions you drew from it on Islam. You ended with a challenge to any and all to debunk what you called a "lucid explanation" of "real islam".

Ho boy. Another who doesn't read my posts enough to "get me."
I found the video on youtube right after I watched andy06's clip of Stacy Doolley. It just popped up on the sidebar of "related" type vids. I clicked it, based on the title, and I watched it. Period. Then I posted it and asked "is this legit?"

I'd like to think in the following pages, you got your response to that at least. Your experts were shown not to be experts at all, and the documentary was shown to be simply a propaganda piece endemic and exemplary of the larger "us vs them" mentality.

Quite so, and I have admitted that openly.
It still does not erase the fact that people are afraid of the "representation" in the film, and ALSO it does not erase the fact that there ARE radical extremist Muslims who think like that.

CONTINUED:



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Afterwards, the thread evolved, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just confused as to what it evolved into.

So am I.

Lets go through a checklist, shall we?
Yeah, sure, let's.

You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that no one people are inherently more prone to violence than any other people, right?
Correct. Right. Yes.

You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that a vast majority of devout muslims do not hold the views and desires expressed in that video. Right?
Yes. Right. Correct.

You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that the vast majority of devout christians or non-muslims in general do not desire the downfall of muslims. Right?
Correct. Yes.

I'll go as far as to say that as far as the common people are concerned, the whole "West vs Islam" dichotomy is false, a division drummed up to perpetuate hatred and personal gain. Right?

Apparently so, yes.

We can also agree, I think that most scriptures and religions can be twisted and distorted as a means of violence, and that many groups throughout history on all sides HAVE, unfortunately done so.
No question about it.
Now you may possibly disagree with the previous statements
I don't, and since you were one of the very first members who responded to a long-ago thread of mine asking for more information about Islam, I had expected you would recall that, and carry on from where we were at the time. But apparently you have forgotten that ANY thread I have made regarding Islam was to ask questions of Muslim members, and I AM STILL DOING THAT.


but I'm sure you'll agree that if the common people of one side (or both sides) DO have such views about the other side, it is more based off self-minded leadership, feeding off people's xenophobia due to politics and greed and desire for power, and certainly not the spiritual (or lack of spiritual) leanings of either side. Right?


CONT>>



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Hopefully we all reach some common understanding in these points? Yes?
That is my goal, and has been from the day I joined, and long long before that.

If yes, then I'm sure you'll agree that "But these muslims here did this thing!" and "But these christians here caused that thing!" competitions are meaningless. Useless. Heck, they're nothing but divisive.

Precisely, and I want it to stop.

You say you wants peace and an end to violence. That is very commendable.

Gee, thanks.

Most people here probably want peace.
Debatable.

I want peace.
Excellent.

Everyone wants peace!

Um.... No. EVERYONE does not want peace. And those who do NOT want peace are the problem. Those who want to bring on "Armageddon" and who labor under the wrong impression that suicide bombing is a way to get to heaven (which in my opinion does not exist, and, if there is an afterlife -- and for now I believe there is - it is about learning and continuing to mature as a soul - NOT about reward or eternal punishment) DO NOT want peace. They want to destroy enough of humanity to "force" the 'second coming' and the stupid 'prophecies.'


Now I'm sad to say, on a large scale, I have absolutely no control over this.
Neither do I.

You style yourself as a "social worker", but I get the feeling neither do you.

No, I don't "style myself" as a Social Worker. I hold a Master's Degree in Social Work, and I know my job, and although here it's for FREE, I do it anyway. MSW. Not self-styled.

We can each do our small part in our daily lives, and hope it builds up. I don't think anyone disagrees that we must all do our part. Yes?
Yes. And I happen to have been trained on a post-graduate level in how to do so.

"Change" must take place on all levels: whether it's two people, a family, a group, a neighborhood, a business, a government, a religion, a town, a city, a state or a country, ALL OF THEM are capable of change with the right techniques applied. I know what those techniques are. I employ them here, whether you like it or not is what's immaterial. I know what I'm doing, and why I'm doing it the way I am.

In the real world, I personally put my efforts towards education, as I believe education of youth is the single most important factor in improving our future. It is also one of the slowest working, but, I do what I can.
I agree with you, and I'm doing what I can as well. I've worked with youth for 20 years.

I'm not calling into question what you do in the real world, I'm sure you put in an equal amount of effort. I'm sure most people who have stopped to think about this do. They may not have jobs dedicated to it, but they each help in their small way.
Yes, they do. Unless they are hell-bent on bombing other people for any reason.


Now, as far as this specific thread goes, how are you pursuing this goal of peace?

By educating myself and allowing other Westerners who have questions to see both sides of the equation and figure out what in the hell is going on around us. By encouraging dialogue, compassion, cultural competency, tolerance, and altruism.

Is it even relevant in terms of a small thread in a subsection of an discussion board on the internet?

A man stood on the beach flinging stranded starfish back into the water one at a time. A passerby asked him, "Why do you bother? It really doesn't matter, there's too many of them." The man answered, as he threw one more starfish back into the water, "It mattered to that one." A public forum is as good a place as any to start.


I'd say it could be, if someone learns something new that helps them in real life as well. Should that new thing they learn be "Here is a factoid someone on a forum posted that makes me suspicious of this other group I am not a part of!" or should it be "Hey, these other guys are people to, they have many of the same problems I do, maybe they're a bit more lucky or unlucky than me, perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt".

I haven't done that. I said, "Here is a video I found that confuses me, and I'd like to know what Muslim ATS members make of it, please. Is it real? Is it sensationalized? RIGHT FROM THE START I doubted its veracity. How was I to know the interviewees were "not experts"? I ran across the video, watched it, and had questions. LIKE MANY OTHERS HERE WHO ACTUALLY WATCHED IT.


What is its purpose?

Education, clearing up of misunderstanding, exposure of misinformation, identification of perpetrators of misinformation, and TRUTH.

Any other questions? I've made myself as clear as I can. If members choose not to pay attention to my verbosity and consistency, I can't help that. All I can do is keeping asking, keep explaining, keep learning, and keep pushing for what I believe in.


edit on 12-6-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 

Dear babloyi,

Fprgive me for butting in on your conversation with wildtimes, but I hope you'll allow it as a slightly different point of view from hers. I'd like to start from the end of your post, though, and work from there.

So I ask again, to you as the original author, even though the thread may have evolved since the original post, what is your desire in this thread? What is its purpose?
What I would like it to accomplish is to reassure non-Muslims that Muslims understand our fears, without dismissing them, and are willing to work meaningfully to address them. Violence comes from fear. Reducing those fears are necessary.

So, how did the posters do? How are you doing?


I'd like to think in the following pages, you got your response to that at least. Your experts were shown not to be experts at all, and the documentary was shown to be simply a propaganda piece endemic and exemplary of the larger "us vs them" mentality.
These things that you claim were "shown" were not shown, but only claimed. The criticism of the OP video was based on everything but the fears and facts expressed.

Babloyi, seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational here. Can't you see that when the OP says "This is a presentation of some of the reasons why we're scared," attacking the men expressing those fears just makes Muslims more frightening? For dozens of pages, despite every effort, the Muslims and their supporters here have failed to address the main issue, the facts that have the West scared, therefore violent.

As a further example of this problem, let me take a quick look at parts of your checklist:

■You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that no one people are inherently more prone to violence than any other people, right?
At birth, you're correct, but after a dozen years of social and religious training, you're statement is no longer true. And, I don't care about terrorist babies. I do care about terrorist teenagers.

But why are you rejecting even looking at facts which might prove you wrong?

If yes, then I'm sure you'll agree that "But these muslims here did this thing!" and "But these christians here caused that thing!" competitions are meaningless. Useless. Heck, they're nothing but divisive.
They are not meaningless. They are facts which shouldn't be just brushed aside as "meaningless." The facts which show Muslims committing a hundred times the terrorist attacks of, say, Catholics.


■You agree and I agree and I'm pretty sure most of us agree that a vast majority of devout muslims do not hold the views and desires expressed in that video. Right?
How do we know that? Do you accept the polls taken of Muslims which don't show that at all?


■We can also agree, I think that most scriptures and religions can be twisted and distorted as a means of violence, and that many groups throughout history on all sides HAVE, unfortunately done so.
But there aren't many that are doing it in this century except the Muslims. Repeating "but you did it, too," doesn't lead to a profitable discussion.


■I'll go as far as to say that as far as the common people are concerned, the whole "West vs Islam" dichotomy is false, a division drummed up to perpetuate hatred and personal gain. Right?
I don't agree that it is false. Islam's teachings are fundamentally opposed to America's Constitutional principles. An Islamic America is impossible. Oh, the name America could be kept, but it wouldn't bear the slightest relationship to the country as it was founded.


You say you wants peace and an end to violence. That is very commendable. Most people here probably want peace. I want peace. Everyone wants peace!
One of our fears, still unaddressed by anyone, is what does the world look like if the Islamic idea of "peace" is in existence a hundred years from now. I suspect Muslims would instantly reject the Western idea of peace.

Does that explain to you why I'm frustrated here? Nobody, absolutely nobody, is saying "Gosh, I can see why Muslims doing X would bother the West. Maybe we should stop doing it, or at least explain and prove why it's harmless. If we were to discuss the problems and possible solutions with the West, maybe we can start a valuable partnership."

What is so &^% hard about that?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


First the atheist communists when US was more religious and now the extremely religious jihadists! when its more secular.

WHOA. Stop. Right there. ATHEIST DOES NOT EQUAL "communist." OMG.

So maybe we have finally identified the "stereotyping" that leads to your confusion.
Your thread regarding 'why should immoral people change?' already covered this topic - and it was CLEARLY pointed out that ATHEISTS have MORALS.

COMMUNISM is something else entirely, and you are WRONG to link them. WRONG.
Show me a video saying that atheists are immoral communists, and I will pick it apart just as you all have done with the vid in the OP.

FOUL! yellow flag on the field.
Shame on you!! Take a time out.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


i have read it and i don't think you are serious to know world history if you consider a book of fiction as evidence for the situation in Afghanistan!

DO YOU NOT REALIZE that important works of fiction are ADDRESSING VERY REAL and CURRENT SOCIAL ISSUES?

The Sunnis and Shias HATE EACH OTHER and have been at odds forever. That novel is about that hatred, written in a story about two people who suffer the consequences of that hatred and bigotry. By a person who knows what the hell they are talking about.
Do not EVEN try to pretend that it's all a lie and a fairy tale! It is based on reality. And REALITY is what we have to deal with. Shame on you again if you dismiss literature as "fiction." Those types of books are FAR more "revealing" of real-world issues than various sets of cross-translated ancient scriptures that have huge holes in them and are out of date.


edit on 12-6-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


If first the fight was for God against the Godless wouldn't that make this as the opposite? or both these times God is on the side of USA as the presidents always say at the end of their address to nation?
"God bless America"!! like the other side are not humans and God's creation!

Wow.
Unbelievable.
They are not saying "God bless ONLY America!" are they? ARE THEY? No, they are not. That statement is completely out of line - no one said "the other side are not humans" - at least NOT FROM HERE.... although there are allegations that some Muslim sects see non-believers as 'less than human.'.....wow.

The only SIDE that your personified "GOD" is on is "the side" of UNIVERSAL charity, compassion, love, tolerance and cooperation.

Okay, I'm done here again for now.
You have really, really crossed the line there, bubba. Wrong on SO MANY LEVELS. And yet you want to think you are a "teacher" of Islam to 'the West'.

You are showing yourself as an ignorant bigot - just as you accuse non-Muslims of being, who are trying to communicate with you.

What
Ever.

I'm out.

Start our own thread. And NOT a childish "rebuttal" to this one.
Start one about who 'God' ought to bless.
:shk:



new topics




 
30
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join