9/11

[mimartin]

He was being sarcastic @ thejman217

 

No use spelling it out. I'm pretty sure if he had read any of my post beyond those two lines he could have easily figure out that I was sarcastic.

 

@thejman217 what does it show when you only read two lines and make a judgement? Isn't that the samething you're accusing me of?

[The Doctor]

"I'm not saying you're close minded. But you're close minded."

[thejman217]

"I'm not saying you're close minded. But you're close minded."

 

Man, my analogy of things is really terrible.

 

Hahaha. I laughed pretty hard when you restated my poor choice word order. XD

 

I meant that he's not close minded.

 

However, the second part of my statement when I used second person, it was not directed at mimartin.

 

@minartin: Crap, I sound like a hypocrite don't I? I took the time to read your whole post, but (shame on me) even though I am a senior in high school taking all honors and AP classes, I still had trouble detecting what you where trying to say.

 

For me, it is difficult to detect sarcasm on the Internet unless one puts an emoticon or applies the use of emphasis.

 

EDIT

Sorry if I p*ssed anyone off. I didn't mean to sound like I am contradicting myself and being a hypocrite.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

More like all of the above...You put 5 Americans an any room and you get 25 different opinions on any subject.

 

Why is this a bad thing? Surely the point of importance would be whether they were wiling or not to cause harm to each other based on those opinions?

 

 

Much like the drug war, we will never win the war on terrorism because we refuse to examine the underlining cause.

 

As far as I can tell, the reason there is a war on drugs, is because people are willing to fight for drugs when they're opposed; which in turn comes from the appeal of drugs, which is that they alter natural brain chemistry to produce naturally desirable effects. Basically, human neuroanatomy, combined with the fact that there are such things as hard drugs.

 

What do you think is the reason for the war on terrorism?

 

It appears to me to be an issue of morality. The extremists were acting on according to a morality derived from a religion whose holy texts define the destruction of people not part of that religion, as righteous.

 

The retaliation from the victims of the violence (eg. the countries of the West), comes from a sense of victimization, and from a drive for justice derived from a morality which defines the destruction of people in the name of religion, to be reprehensible. (a morality derived from multiple factors, but is mostly a reflection of the people of those countries.)

 

Hence the 'war'.

 

It is slightly personal for me as well. I am a Muslim, although most cannot tell right away because I am Caucasian.

 

You seem like a reasonable, upstanding fellow, so let me ask you this:

 

I have Muslim friends. Good friends, too. They are polite, friendly, and good fun to be around. They know I'm a Christian; I know they're Muslims. We go to each others places for meals, and when they come to mine, my family makes sure that we only serve Halal meat. We're considerate of each other in those regards.

 

Now, the Koran has in it, many verses that:

1. Call for the destruction of nonbelievers

2. Place believers who actively fight, above those that 'sit at home'

3. Forbid believers to take Jews and Christians as friends

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

9:5 Kill the nonbelievers wherever you find them.

 

9:7-9 Don’t make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.

 

8:12 I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

 

2:216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

 

4:95 Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward

 

2:65-66 Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers.

 

5:51 O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

 

5:80 You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.

 

9:29 Fight against Christians and Jews until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

This is a genuine question, and I mean no sarcasm or antagonism by it in any way:

 

Are these verses not applicable to Muslims today? Are they out of context? Have they been nullified by some later revelation?

How can my friends justify their actions with these and other verses in the Koran?

Or are they cherry-picking or simply ignoring those parts (as is a common practice among Christians)? Or knowingly defying the verses?

[Lynk Former]

IIT we remember the victims of 9/11 and the heroic efforts of the people who tried to save them by debating political views...

[thejman217]

@JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan: Those verses are certaintly applicable to the terrorists today obviously, but for the majority of the Islamic population worldwide, I don't think it applies to them a significant amount.

 

Sure, the Koran states that one must not befriend a Muslim. However, I myself am not a strict Muslim, and neither are my parents. I pray twice a day, once in the morning and once before i go to bed, but not five times a day. Almost all of my friends are Christians, atheists, or Hindus.

 

I don't think today's Muslims are straight up defying the verses of the Koran, because it would be highly impractical to meet (and reproduce) with only other Muslims. We would have eventually died out if we only reproduced with other people from our religion. I think they are just ignoring the verses, because it is morally wrong to kill people from other religions. (some may view ignoring these specific verses as sin)

 

@LynkFormer: not political views, but religious views.

[mimartin]

Why is this a bad thing?

Who said it was bad?

 

Was just saying the country is divided and it is really difficult to build a consensus on any issue when we can't get even agree with ourselves on the best course of action. Opinions are not bad, but in a Republic it is really difficult not to have a consensus when working together and compromise is consider a weakness by our own vocal extremist.

 

 

As far as I can tell, the reason there is a war on drugs, is because people are willing to fight for drugs when they're opposed; which in turn comes from the appeal of drugs, which is that they alter natural brain chemistry to produce naturally desirable effects. Basically, human neuroanatomy, combined with the fact that there are such things as hard drugs.

And we are treating that right? No, we are not. We are just throwing money at housing these people in prison.

 

 

What do you think is the reason for the war on terrorism?

we were attacked. That is the reason we are at war, but that does not explain why someone would think it is in their best interest to die killing westerners.

 

It appears to me to be an issue of morality. The extremists were acting on according to a morality derived from a religion whose holy texts define the destruction of people not part of that religion, as righteous.

It is people using religious text to convince people murder is justified. Someone could use the same religious text to convince the acceptable that it was wrong. You could use the bible to do the same thing the Koran is not the only book that can be interrupted and used to convince people to believe what they want to believe. So the question is still the same what makes people acceptable to such suggestions?

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

@JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan: Those verses are certaintly applicable to the terrorists today obviously, but for the majority of the Islamic population worldwide, I don't think it applies to them a significant amount.

 

Sure, the Koran states that one must not befriend a Muslim. However, I myself am not a strict Muslim, and neither are my parents. I pray twice a day, once in the morning and once before i go to bed, but not five times a day. Almost all of my friends are Christians, atheists, or Hindus.

 

I don't think today's Muslims are straight up defying the verses of the Koran, because it would be highly impractical to meet (and reproduce) with only other Muslims. We would have eventually died out if we only reproduced with other people from our religion. I think they are just ignoring the verses, because it is morally wrong to kill people from other religions. (some may view ignoring these specific verses as sin)

 

 

So most Muslims don't derive their morality from the Koran? Got it.

 

 

And we are treating that right? No, we are not. We are just throwing money at housing these people in prison.

So you consider the US's method of going about the 'war on terror' to be wrong, like it's methods in the war on drugs. What I want to know is what you think should be done differently.

 

It is people using religious text to convince people murder is justified. Someone could use the same religious text to convince the acceptable that it was wrong. You could use the bible to do the same thing the Koran is not the only book that can be interrupted and used to convince people to believe what they want to believe. So the question is still the same what makes people acceptable to such suggestions?

 

Forgive me, but I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

 

I'll just say what I said previously: When it comes to religion (most, anyway), you don't base your morality on society, or create your own. You're supposed to base it on your understanding of the religion. A reason some people would consider the suggestion of murder as acceptable, is if they think their religion sanctions it. (There are obviously a multitude of other reasons, and this one isn't relatively common in our societies, but it's the most relevant one to the topic at hand.)

[Tommycat]

@mim Are we going to play the semantics game again? REALLY? You put words in my mouth, then I asked about your position(requesting clarification if you will). and suddenly I'm accusing you of being commie/pinko/liberal/whatever?

 

I don't think we need to know more than they are zealots. They listen to certain clerics, who tell them what they want to hear about why their world is bad compared to the greedy west who blah blah... We know their reasoning. It's the same reason the TEA partiers exist. It's the same reason the OWS exists. People telling them just enough of a truth to get them riled up and willing to lash out. We don't need more information than that.

[mimartin]

commie/pinko/liberal/whatever?

humor... Not Kavars was trying humor at my own expense. Sorry.

 

 

Again, I don't care about a terrorist, I don't care about making them happy. There is no helping or making them happy that will change anything. I would like to know how to PREVENT FUTURE GENERATIONS FROM BECOMING TERRORIST.

 

No clue what would do that, but just say teaching people to critically think would cut down on the problem in the future. It would be cheaper and less destructive to help these countries build schools than to keep sending our money and our soldiers over there. NOT SAYING THAT IS THE ANSWER, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT TAKEN THE TIME TO KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, just using it as a example.

 

So you consider the US's method of going about the 'war on terror' to be wrong, like it's methods in the war on drugs. What I want to know is what you think should be done differently.

Yes, we are doing it wrong... We are using the military to fight a war on terrorism, when this is more a police action than a military action. When you have boots on the ground and soldiers in your country, it is a military invasion no matter the reason. When you violate your on Constitution it makes you look like hypercritics not beacons of freedom. I could care less what the terrorist think about us, but I do care about how we look to rest world and more important to me, I care about how we look to ourselves.

 

You can say they are over reacting, well I can’t speaking for the rest of the US, put if a foreign country would come into Texas to liberate us, we would consider them the enemy too.

Forgive me, but I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

Agreeing, just saying the Koran does not have the monopoly on it. People use the Bible to manipulate just as easily.

[thejman217]

If you think about it, maybe these terrorists just had a bad upbringing. (for example maybe their parents informed them of their radical/terrorist views and their children sought to carry it out.) Many serial killers today are serial killers because they were raised wrong.

 

I don't think any of these "terrorists" used ideas of their own and/or had some sort of religious "epiphany".

 

I hope no one views my statement as if I am defending them. I'm not. I hate terrorists myself.

[Tommycat]

humor... Not Kavars was trying humor at my own expense. Sorry.

 

 

Again, I don't care about a terrorist, I don't care about making them happy. There is no helping or making them happy that will change anything. I would like to know how to PREVENT FUTURE GENERATIONS FROM BECOMING TERRORIST.

 

Gotcha, Sorry, this is why I waited a whole day avoiding the topic. I didn't really want to get into a political argument.

 

The only way to prevent future terrorists is the same way you would prevent future racists. You would have to remove children from their parents, teach them tolerance and love from the start, and never let them know what it was like before, and have them believe that is what it is like for everyone... Essentially you cannot completely prevent it. Remove troops from the areas the terrorists tell us to, and they claim victory and they use it to get other things they want. Retaliate with brute force and you get people who sympathize with the (now) martyrs. Teach them... How exactly? Forcibly take over their school system?

 

Agreeing, just saying the Koran does not have the monopoly on it. People use the Bible to manipulate just as easily.

And Christians have their own brands of terrorists.

[mimartin]

Like I said, I don't know the answer, the teaching them to critically think was just an example, not the answer.

 

However, no I would be against someone taking over our schools, so I would be against us taking over another country's schools. Also considering how well our school work here, us taking them over may only make things worse. However, I do think lack of education and lack of jobs does add to the problems, but is not the only cause or the magic pill.

[Tommycat]

Like I said, I don't know the answer, the teaching them to critically think was just an example, not the answer.

 

However, no I would be against someone taking over our schools, so I would be against us taking over another country's schools. Also considering how well our school work here, us taking them over may only make things worse. However, I do think lack of education and lack of jobs does add to the problems, but is not the only cause or the magic pill.

 

I think it's probably more the lack of jobs than anything. Even when uneducated people have jobs and are able to make ends meet, they tend to be less likely to want to change that situation.

[mimartin]

Again this is not kavars so this is a joke, but it did pop into my head while reading Tommycat post. Just instead of food, change it to jobs.

 

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

Sam Kinison should have given up comedy as became the President of the World.

[Tommycat]

I loved Sam Kinison. Shame he couldn't have died old fat and of some weird venereal disease.

[Totenkopf]

More like all of the above...You put 5 Americans in any room and you get 25 different opinions on any subject.

 

Samara'd have approved.

 

Sam was freakin' hilarious.

 

As to the whole susceptability to killing others, I agree that for most of us it might be a matter of education/environment, but there's also genetics to consider. Some people (as individuals, not groups) are just more predisposed toward violence. You could spend your life teaching people to love one another, but the right set of circumstances can reduce us to savages. When you start wedding things like ideologies (secular or theological) with ambitions and ignorance, you get a volatile explosive mix.

 

Re the whole west vs islam issue and terrorism in general, it mostly seems to be a case of asymetrical warfare. Most, if not all, radical muslims know that they cannot defeat the US (or Russia, Europe, PRC, etc..) on the field of battle and must find other ways to defeat their sworn enemies. This is part of the reason I don't buy framing the "war on terror" as a law enforcement issue. I'd also guess that a lot of westerners in general, and Americans specifically, might be less suspicious of muslims if they fought harder (or even at all in many cases) to control the radicals amonst them. No doubt that many muslims might say they'd be less antagonistic toward the west if it weren't so meddlesome in their backyards.

[Q]

@LynkFormer: not political views, but religious views.

There's a difference?

[thejman217]

There's a difference?

 

Are you being sarcastic?

[Q]

Not at all.

[thejman217]

Political view=politics

 

Religious view=religion

[Q]

They're one and the same.

 

Politics=religion.

 

LOL@both.

[LDR]

They're one and the same.

 

Politics=religion.

 

LOL@both.

 

Government and religion are intertwined.

 

Just look at the views of the Republican Party.

[Q]

The Democrats are no better; their BS is just more of a secular nature.

[Totenkopf]

Just look at the views of the Republican Party.

 

 

Actully that's an oversimplification. Both parties in America are composed of mostly religious people. The dems take from the "feed, clothe, etc... the poor" and the republicans favor things like traditional marriage and anti-abortion stances.

 

While I wouldn't go quite as far as Q in making religion and politics one as one in the same, both share many similiarities (any/all sides having set ideas and the conviction that they are right) and often use many of the same tactics to advance their causes.