This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
commanded US troops into foreign countries in order to kill the native citizens.
You lost me here. I just... no.It is a very, very small percentage of the Muslim population that is involved in all of these things that you claim represents "Many" and "the Majority" of Muslim people. Everything in your arguments is what is flaunted in the media, but it does not represent the vast majority of Muslim people, or even the vast majority of people in there countries where the leadership supports terrorism.
You're incorrect. Open elections in Egypt show that. Very large portions of the population are either violent, or vote for terrorist groups.
As for your question, if we were talking about crimes of Kony, because he is everywhere, more appropriate analogy would be, pointing at some other warlord like Kony, no one cares about. Crimes of Islam are always around, but crimes of Christianity are less "advertised".
The point is that pointing to one muppet to distract from another muppet infuriates me. I don't care which muppet we are talking about. Radical Islam needs to be addressed, not forgiven by bringing up other "muppets".
Post by
Adamsm
Every president of the United States for the past half a century has professed Christianity but almost every one of them commanded US troops into foreign countries in order to kill the native citizens, ignoring the essentially pacifistic nature of the gospels.You can't really say that either Gamer; while it's true they went into war zones(at times in places they shouldn't have been), the army as a whole wasn't hunting down civilians((can't lump the crimes of a few psychos on an entire body)). As for the religious bent of the leader, that doesn't matter that much in regards to how the States run things.
You're incorrect. Open elections in Egypt show that. Very large portions of the population are either violent, or vote for terrorist groups.Of course, that can be swung back to: Vote for said violent group....or watch your family die; or for the fun of it, vote for a puppet for the violent group. You could look at the States where you have a 'choice'; vote for a Demo, vote Rep, or 'throw a vote away on the third party'(Matt Groening openly mocks that a lot in his shows).
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Do you have a link, MyTie? Because I can't find anything about Egyptian opinion polls newer than April of 2011, and it places the percentage of people who have "sympathy" for fundamentalist organizations at about 33%, and says nothing about terrorism specifically.
And also, I'd like you to address the actual numbers reflected in the population chart I listed, about the percentage of Muslims who actually live in these countries (and in Egypt specifically, which as a country represents about 4.9% of the total Muslim population of the world).
EDIT: Some interesting numbers I did find- out of 85 million people in the country, 50 million were eligible to vote in the 2012 elections in Egypt,and voter turnout was about 54% of possible eligible voters. Looking at the parties, it looks like the top party (which is an alliance of about 15 smaller political parties) received 37% of that vote. I can't find much written up on what their campaign platforms were, but I'll keep digging when I have time.
Egypt also only has a 72% literacy rate, per Wikipedia, meaning that it's possible that not everyone eligible to vote could read. I'm wondering how much of an impact that had.
Post by
gamerunknown
You lost me here. I just... no.
You can't really say that either Gamer
Note I said citizens, not civilians.
Here's the
justification
.
Edit: History of
international terrorism
. Read through a few paragraphs, not sure if it's the one where he points out that the ANC were a terrorist organisation, as was Cuba.
Post by
MyTie
Do you have a link, MyTie? Because I can't find anything about Egyptian opinion polls newer than April of 2011, and it places the percentage of people who have "sympathy" for fundamentalist organizations at about 33%, and says nothing about terrorism specifically.
And also, I'd like you to address the actual numbers reflected in the population chart I listed, about the percentage of Muslims who actually live in these countries (and in Egypt specifically, which as a country represents about 4.9% of the total Muslim population of the world).
EDIT: Some interesting numbers I did find- out of 85 million people in the country, 50 million were eligible to vote in the 2012 elections in Egypt,and voter turnout was about 54% of possible eligible voters. Looking at the parties, it looks like the top party (which is an alliance of about 15 smaller political parties) received 37% of that vote. I can't find much written up on what their campaign platforms were, but I'll keep digging when I have time.
So, you say you find 33% supporting fundamentalist organizations, but nothing about terrorism specifically?
Here
is one that explains the democratic legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood (a known terrorist organization) in Egypt, after their free and open elections. The elections were watched by the world, the UN, and media groups.
Here
is a link to a wiki article on the 2006 Palestinian election.
This is not some less than 1% radical minority. This is a democratically electable representative to a large portion of the population. When you say stuff like It is a very, very small percentage of the Muslim population that is involved in all of these things that you claim represents "Many" and "the Majority" of Muslim people.then I have to say, and I don't know how to be more polite than this, I have to say that you are incorrect. By your own admission, in 2011, 33% of people supported fundamentalist organizations. Let's be honest here, not try to cover the issue up. Why would you want to? Be impartial. Look at the data. This is a large portion of the Muslim population in those regions. This is an issue.
Post by
gamerunknown
Even then Gamer; it's still a war and people who raise arms against another(as in straight out, not the war crime stuff), both sides can be seen as defending their own lives. If you are going to condemn everyone with that ideal...
I'm not condemning them, I'm making a claim that they do not follow the Bible they were sworn in on, which condemns not just aggression, but retaliation as well. I don't think the situation can be discussed without reference to international law though, which does condemn the war crime of aggression (unilaterally initiating a war against another country) as well as the acquisition of territories through warfare.
Retaliation is not a war crime. In fact, "legitimate reprisals", where civilians are targeted in response to the other party targeting civilians, are not war crimes. Guess who upholds the stance that targetting civilians is legitimate? It's not one of the countries that voted for "terrorists".
Post by
Patty
Do you have a link, MyTie? Because I can't find anything about Egyptian opinion polls newer than April of 2011, and it places the percentage of people who have "sympathy" for fundamentalist organizations at about 33%, and says nothing about terrorism specifically.
And also, I'd like you to address the actual numbers reflected in the population chart I listed, about the percentage of Muslims who actually live in these countries (and in Egypt specifically, which as a country represents about 4.9% of the total Muslim population of the world).
EDIT: Some interesting numbers I did find- out of 85 million people in the country, 50 million were eligible to vote in the 2012 elections in Egypt,and voter turnout was about 54% of possible eligible voters. Looking at the parties, it looks like the top party (which is an alliance of about 15 smaller political parties) received 37% of that vote. I can't find much written up on what their campaign platforms were, but I'll keep digging when I have time.
So, you say you find 33% supporting fundamentalist organizations, but nothing about terrorism specifically?
Here
is one that explains the democratic legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood (a known terrorist organization) in Egypt, after their free and open elections. The elections were watched by the world, the UN, and media groups.
Here
is a link to a wiki article on the 2006 Palestinian election.
This is not some less than 1% radical minority. This is a democratically electable representative to a large portion of the population. When you say stuff like It is a very, very small percentage of the Muslim population that is involved in all of these things that you claim represents "Many" and "the Majority" of Muslim people.then I have to say, and I don't know how to be more polite than this, I have to say that you are incorrect. By your own admission, in 2011, 33% of people
in one country that only makes up 4.9% of the global Muslim population in the first place (so about 1.5% overall)
supported fundamentalist organizations. Let's be honest here, not try to cover the issue up. Why would you want to? Be impartial. Look at the data. This is a large portion of the Muslim population in those regions. This is an issue.Fixed that for you.
Post by
MyTie
You lost me here. I just... no.
You can't really say that either Gamer
Note I said citizens, not civilians.
Here's the
justification
.
Edit: History of
international terrorism
. Read through a few paragraphs, not sure if it's the one where he points out that the ANC were a terrorist organisation, as was Cuba.
Chomsky? Again? UGH. The very first sentence of that article: If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.Ridiculous.
A little later:Kennedy is easy. The invasion of Cuba was outright aggression. Eisenhower planned it, incidentally, so he was involved in a conspiracy to invade another country, which we can add to his score. After the invasion of Cuba, Kennedy launched a huge terrorist campaign against Cuba, which was very serious. No joke. Bombardment of industrial installations with killing of plenty of people, bombing hotels, sinking fishing boats, sabotage.I can see Kennedy, gazing out his window, pondering how to sink more poor Cuban fishing ships. Equally ridiculous.
Here is why Chomsky believes President Carter should get the noose:As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased.Criminal, I tell ya.
Chomsky is
crazy
. He is a nut. Please please stop trying to use him in debates while I'm around. It's insulting.
Post by
MyTie
Fixed that for you.
Must I cite statistics for each demographic for hundreds of countries around the world? Egypt is a good case study. I stand by using it as a reasonable representative of the Arab League.
Do you have anything more to contribute? Must you make small jabs without presenting anything productive?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Here is why Chomsky believes President Carter should get the noose.
Note, he doesn't justify the death penalty. He just believes that United States appeals for the implementation of international law or critiques of other countries for violations of international law (such as non-proliferation) is hypocritical given their own flouting of it.
Here's a link
(from rand.org!) supporting the notion that anti-Castro Cubans were funded by the US and carried out terrorist actions at sea. Also discusses Palestinian terrorism.
Don't think Chomsky's support for Chavez is related to this discussion.
Post by
Patty
Fixed that for you.
Must I cite statistics for each demographic for hundreds of countries around the world? Egypt is a good case study. I stand by using it as a reasonable representative of the Arab League.
Do you have anything more to contribute? Must you make small jabs without presenting anything productive?
I was actually reiterating what Elhonna's argument was, seeing as you skirted over that part of her post. Furthermore, you have to remember the current context in Egypt. It's only a year after the revolution, and the military elite has pretty much ruled the country for that period. Some might be disillusioned - they rebelled, trusted the main systems to be responsible with ruling the country, and said voters may have been let down by this. Leading to them turning to a more fringe party. This doesn't necessarily mean that they support all of the extremist tendencies that said parties represent. It just means they want to give someone new a go, not entirely uncommon in times of upheaval.
Post by
MyTie
But, they are democratically elected. So, if people want that it is their choice and fundamental party does not mean Islamic terror (like it does not mean that Republican president in USA means returning back to Christian standards e.g. ban on premarital sex), it just means that all other values and option that were given to people are too foreign or obscure, and they picked something that they picked something they understand, religion.
That's my point. The people democratically elected a group that likes to suicide bomb people who don't believe like they do. That means that those beliefs reflect a large portion of the base population. Just because something is voted in, doesn't make it RIGHT. Even the Nazis were elected. That's no reason to allow them to kill people, or excuse their actions as some sort of "choice".Here is why Chomsky believes President Carter should get the noose.
Note, he doesn't justify the death penalty. He just believes that United States appeals for the implementation of international law or critiques of other countries for violations of international law (such as non-proliferation) is hypocritical given their own flouting of it.
Here's a link
(from rand.org!) supporting the notion that anti-Castro Cubans were funded by the US and carried out terrorist actions at sea. Also discusses Palestinian terrorism.
Don't think Chomsky's support for Chavez is related to this discussion.
Chomsky going on about how unfair the US presidents are, and then I bring up his support for Chavez. Somehow, this is irrelevant to you?Edit: On Chomsky complaint: Why not? It is an opinion of respectable man. You don't have to agree with it, but you cannot just take it out like trash.Blah blah blah... respectable doesn't equal not crazy... blah blah blah... he's crazy.
I was actually reiterating what Elhonna's argument was, seeing as you skirted over that part of her post. Furthermore, you have to remember the current context in Egypt. It's only a year after the revolution, and the military elite has pretty much ruled the country for that period. Some might be disillusioned - they rebelled, trusted the main systems to be responsible with ruling the country, and said voters may have been let down by this. Leading to them turning to a more fringe party. This doesn't necessarily mean that they support all of the extremist tendencies that said parties represent. It just means they want to give someone new a go, not entirely uncommon in times of upheaval.
I'm just... at a loss. I'm a little tired of Obama. I'm not going to go vote for the grand dragon of the KKK. It's just not how my mind works. I'm supposing if I suggested that was a good idea, I couldn't defend myself by saying that I don't support all their extreme tendencies, and that I just want to give something new a go, and that my actions really aren't that uncommon.
I'm at a loss, to all of you. So many of you are so hypocritical. Why are you guys trying to mask the scent of Islamic extremism, and how it has permeated so much of the Muslim population? Why cover that up? When I point it out, why tell me I'm wrong? When I present factual evidence that I am not wrong, why distract with a different "muppet". Why keep hiding the man behind the curtain? Why the shurggary? None of you... NONE OF YOU... would stand it if I tried one of the tactics you all are using for something that you disapprove of. How is it that such heinous murderous groups, when democratically elected, are handled with these gloves:they picked something they understand, religion It just means they want to give someone new a goGuess who upholds the stance that targetting civilians is legitimate? It's not one of the countries that voted for "terrorists".
it places the percentage of people who have "sympathy" for fundamentalist organizations at about 33%, and says nothing about terrorism specifically
It is a very, very small percentage of the Muslim population that is involved in all of these thingsThere are psychopaths that are itching to get into power all around the globe.Every president of the United States for the past half a century has professed Christianity but almost every one of them commanded US troops into foreign countries in order to kill the native citizens, ignoring the essentially pacifistic nature of the gospels.The next time someone does something absolutely HEINOUS, I'm going to use these same disingenuous techniques to defend him/her to you all. The next time someone beats a gay person to death, or says that all Muslims should die, or hangs a black person purely for racist reasons, then when you express outrage, I'm going to argue against you by pointing to all the bad things that black people have done in the past, or explain how we can't point fingers because the US government has done bad things to the people who did bad things, or any of these other arguments that can't hold water. Then, right as things blow up in flames, I'm going to quote myself, from this thread, so you can see how hypocritical you all are being. How horrible. Do not distract from murderous terrorist organizations that are supported by large populations for pure religious reasons. People are dying, daily. Every day, someone breaths their last under these regimes. Meanwhile, instead of outrage, gamerunknown quotes Chomsky being critical of Kennedy, and Elhonna and Adamsm try to incorrectly diminish the problem as some sort of fringe tiny sect of people. Why? Stop it. You should be ashamed, truly. If you were honest about this issue, express outrage, like I did with the Christian article that Boron linked. Some things should not be tolerated for the sake of tolerance. Some things should be met with outrage. Islamic brutality, that has hit a tipping point in many parts of the world, should NOT be tolerated, but should be railed against.
Post by
Patty
MyTie, you're
really
strawmanning. My post was based on history (I really don't want to quote examples, as they'll partially Godwin the thread... which I want to avoid, indeed, you pointed out the NSDAP yourself). When you're in the situation that most of the Egyptian electorate is in, you don't think entirely rationally about how the group hate gays/blacks/women/men/jpop. You look at what parties are promising, and if you like the sound of "peace and prosperity, a new start" - you vote for them instead of your usual vote which, you realise, hasn't influenced very much in the past.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, you're
really
strawmanning. My post was based on history (I really don't want to quote examples, as they'll partially Godwin the thread... which I want to avoid). When you're in the situation that most of the Egyptian electorate is in, you don't think entirely rationally about how the group hate gays/blacks/women/men/jpop. You look at what parties are promising, and if you like the sound of "peace and prosperity, a new start" - you vote for them instead of your usual vote which, you realise, hasn't influenced very much in the past.
NO.... ....I.... ....DON'T!111ONE!
That's as simply as I can tell you that you are wrong. Very very wrong. And please, stop excusing this behavior. Would you find it acceptable for me to vote for a member of the KKK for president because he said that "my life would get better". Would that be ok with you?
Post by
MyTie
Let's get a change of pace going!
Here
is a news article about the health benefits of beer! To celebrate that, does anyone wanna go knock back a cold one with me?
Post by
Patty
MyTie, you're
really
strawmanning. My post was based on history (I really don't want to quote examples, as they'll partially Godwin the thread... which I want to avoid). When you're in the situation that most of the Egyptian electorate is in, you don't think entirely rationally about how the group hate gays/blacks/women/men/jpop. You look at what parties are promising, and if you like the sound of "peace and prosperity, a new start" - you vote for them instead of your usual vote which, you realise, hasn't influenced very much in the past.
NO.... ....I.... ....DON'T!111ONE!
That's as simply as I can tell you that you are wrong. Very very wrong. And please, stop excusing this behavior. Would you find it acceptable for me to vote for a member of the KKK for president because he said that "my life would get better". Would that be ok with you?
Please point out where I explicitly
excused
voting for extremist parties. You asked why people vote for extremist parties if it's not because they're hateful people, and we responded with examples of why. That's not called condoning those choices, that's called putting their perspectives forward.
Furthermore, if you've not been in the tumultuous position of voters in 1930s Germany, 1917 Russia or present day Egypt, among other places, it wouldn't be wise to presume what your position would be. It's interesting how many people's outlooks change under situations of severe difficulty.
Post by
MyTie
Furthermore, if you've not been in the tumultuous position of voters in 1930s Germany, 1917 Russia or present day Egypt, among other places, it wouldn't be wise to presume what your position would be. It's interesting how many people's outlooks change under situations of severe difficulty.
I know myself. I know I wouldn't, for instance, eat my son, no matter how hungry I got. I don't care what the situation was, I wouldn't do that. I know that. I also wouldn't vote for the Nazis, vote for Islamic radicals, vote for the KKK, or voluntarily watch a Ben Stiller movie. There are some things that I just wouldn't do. Don't tell me I might in certain situations. I wouldn't. I know that. I don't think that. I know that.
Them voting for these groups (Hamas, Islamic Brotherhood, Nazis, etc) is wrong. It is wrong no matter how you slice it, no matter what their positions are, no matter how the world around them is. There's no other way of looking at it. That's the way it is. It is wrong. I kind of want someone else around here to acknowledge it, instead of explain to me how "normal" it is.
Post by
Patty
Furthermore, if you've not been in the tumultuous position of voters in 1930s Germany, 1917 Russia or present day Egypt, among other places, it wouldn't be wise to presume what your position would be. It's interesting how many people's outlooks change under situations of severe difficulty.
I know myself. I know I wouldn't, for instance, eat my son, no matter how hungry I got. I don't care what the situation was, I wouldn't do that. I know that. I also wouldn't vote for the Nazis, vote for Islamic radicals, vote for the KKK, or voluntarily watch a Ben Stiller movie. There are some things that I just wouldn't do. Don't tell me I might in certain situations. I wouldn't. I know that. I don't think that. I know that.
Them voting for these groups (Hamas, Islamic Brotherhood, Nazis, etc) is wrong. It is wrong no matter how you slice it, no matter what their positions are, no matter how the world around them is. There's no other way of looking at it. That's the way it is. It is wrong. I kind of want someone else around here to acknowledge it, instead of explain to me how "normal" it is.
Surely "normal" is what a significant group of people do at a certain point in time, no? Weren't you trying to convince us only a few posts ago that extremist Islamics are a common practice in Muslim countries?
Furthermore, with hindsight one can see a hell of a lot more about the NSDAP, the KKK, etc. When you're actually in that situation, it's not quite as clear cut. Campaigns don't always have to focus on hate within extremist groups, which I thought you would know. That just wouldn't be wise marketing. Again, I'm not disagreeing that it's wrong to vote for those groups, but I'm trying to give you some perspective to explain why some may flock to those parties - particularly the uneducated who may or may not understand the true nature of those groups. I find it amusing that you ask us to provide perspective on things, and then automatically shoot down everything written because it doesn't adhere to your personal moral code. And I'm done.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Clearly MyTie, I'm disingenuous. I must not believe anything I say- that's why I always try to back it with numbers and facts.
1) Did you take a look at the numbers. 85 million people. 50 million would have been eligible to vote. Only half of those showed up. Only 37% of the people who did show up voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. That's like 12% of the population that actually voted for them. Of that 12%, statistically speaking, about 1/3 can't read. I'm not saying it's not disturbing, but it doesn't correlate to the majority of the people voting for them. Considering that the information that the voter base gets is probably nowhere near as accessible or uncensored as what we get here, it certainly doesn't mean that the voter base is violent.
2) 33% said that they were sympathetic to fundamentalist groups. Not terrorist groups- fundamentalists.
3)Palestine is about 4 million people, out of 1 billion-620 million Muslims worldwide.
So, again, while the specific examples you give are disturbing, they're not the majority of Muslims. I'm not arguing that those people who do support terrorism and extremism aren't a problem- I'm just pointing out that it's nowhere near as large or as large a percentage as you seem to believe it is with general statements about how most Muslims are violent.
And your last example doesn't really work, because in all of those cases we would be holding a person responsible for something that that particular person said or did. You're making statements about what the majority of Muslims are, based on what some of them did. If someone beats a gay man to death, and I take that as an opportunity to say that most Christians would support that, feel free to correct me. If I say that most white people are violent because of said lynching, then tell me I'm wrong because I would be. But don't compare someone condemning a specific person or group of people for something they personally did, with someone using specific examples to form opinions about the majority of a group of people.
I have outrage at people who target innocents for crimes they didn't commit. That includes terrorists. It includes dictators who commit genocide and oppress their people. It includes people who beat people up in alleyways for what religion some angry passer-by thinks they are. It includes children who are shot to death by marines who have subscribed to the "they're all the same" mentality. I'm allowed to be angry about wrongdoing on all sides on the basis that it's wrong and people are suffering.
What I don't believe, however, is that it gives people a pass to exaggerate the facts and make sweeping generalizations that are incorrect and unproductive. If we're fighting a war against terrorists, we're fighting a war against several hundred thousand (maybe even several million) people and we can win. If we're fighting a war against Islam, we're fighting a war against 1.6 billion people- the majority of which live in countries that aren't at war with the US, or on a terror watch list. Many of which are enemies and victims of the same oppressive regimes and terror tactics that we want to eliminate. I just want to remind people what war we're actually fighting, and who the enemies actually are. It's just as ridiculous to make enemies of a billion and a half people "just in case" or based on rhetoric, as it is to ignore a dangerous enemy that is several million strong.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.