What do you believe about Muslims and Islam?

[Heracles 417]

Yes, those are horribly atrocious things. Now what do they have to do with my muslim family members?

Nothing and that is not the argument. The argument was in response to the BS that it's a religion of peace. Its history when interacting with others suggests otherwise. The last decade without-a-doubt proves otherwise.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Heracles

[Peikko 1,575]

Nothing and that is not the argument. The argument was in response to the BS that it's a religion of peace. It's history suggests otherwise. The last decade without-a-doubt proves otherwise.

Again, if you look at history (which you just did) it is NOT the ideology of religion that causes conflict. You keep ignoring the analogy with the crusades. Perhaps that is because you do not know what an analogy is?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People tend to get like that when you kill them for having differing beliefs.

You hate on Americans for slavery and segregation, don't care who or how many were involved - guilty as Pike charges. Then have the nerve to come into this discussion and claim not all do it. Hypocrite.

I thought that you were interested in turning the page as it were, not at all surprising to see that you haven't. If this turns into yet another multi-page slanging match - I think we can see who it was who started it.

No-one has the right to hold an entire group of people accountable for the actions of a few. It is the very essence of bigotry and prejudice.

[Jenn! 918]

Nothing and that is not the argument. The argument was in response to the BS that it's a religion of peace. It's history suggests otherwise. The last decade without-a-doubt proves otherwise.

It most certainly is the argument. take a read back again through the thread. There most certainly is an attempt to hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a few.

And as for your "without a doubt" conclusions, really, what makes you think that it is Islam that is responsible for these historical events? Aren't the people who committed them responsible? Associating them with the religion most definitely implies that there is some relationship between these events and all Muslims today.

[slim 1,525]

that is not the argument. The argument was

I wish I had a dollar for every time you posted that!

For those who don't speak Aussie, I'll translate. "Sh!t. You guys PWND me again so I'll change the subject."

[sara535 15]

Heracles, you do know that the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was overwhelmingly driven by the Orthodex CHRISTIAN serbs and has been defined as a genocide against the Bosnian Muslims, right?

I dont think its a very good example to use in your Muslim/aggressor argument......

[sara535 15]

Good heavens. I do know the history. Heracles brought up the recent conflict there specifically quoted as a Muslim fueled aggression. The United Nations War Crimes Tribunal has also classified it as a genocide against the Muslims.

If we went to dig all the way through history I think we'll find countless examples of pretty much every major religion behaving contrary to the "golden rule". No one has a monopoly on good or bad behaviour.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are right. You just agreed with what I said.

No, I said that is an analogy with the muslim religion, because terrorists do things in the name of being muslim doesn't mean that anything they do is part of the muslim ideology, it isn't - in the same way that there is nothing in christian ideology that warranted the crusades. Do you understand the analogy yet?

[Heracles 417]

It's like someone has been diagnosed with cancer, naturally you will directly target the cancer; which means nearby cells that are linked to the cancel may suffer. You cannot possibly rid the cancer without innocent nearby cells or the host suffering. The equivalent mindset of some on here is that you shouldn't hassle the healthy cells, so the person should just curl up and die. Better yet, the doctors should also focus on their heartburn, just to be fair; all while the cancel is eating away and killing the person.

Well that is your prerogative with your body. For the rest of us, it doesn't work that way; we are going after the cancer and anything that stands in the way. What's sad is that you are effectively saying its okay with someone being a victim - as in being killed, but outraged that a fraction of 1.5 billion innocent Muslims might be hassled. Not killed, but hassled.

Slim of course will claim Cancer is not the cause because the billions of other cells are cancer free.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Heracles

[Peikko 1,575]

It's like someone has been diagnosed with cancer, naturally you will directly target the cancer; which means nearby cells that are linked to the cancel may suffer. You cannot possibly rid the cancer without innocent nearby cells or the host suffering. The equivalent mindset of some on here is that you shouldn't hassle the healthy cells, so the person should just curl up and die. Better yet, the doctors should also focus on their heartburn, just to be fair; all while the cancel is eating away and killing the person.

Well that is your prerogative with your body. For the rest of us, it doesn't work that way; we are going after the cancer and anything that stands in the way. What's sad is that you are effectively saying its okay with someone being a victim - as in being killed, but outraged that a fraction of 1.5 billion innocent Muslims might be hassled. Not killed, but hassled.

Slim of course will claim Cancer is not the cause because the billions of other cells are cancer free.

You can't kill innocent people because there might be guilty ones sprinkled amongst them - that's why even in conflict zones armies try hard not to kill civilians, even when as in Afghanistan telling the difference is difficult.

Similarly you can't make innocent people live by different rules just because they are muslims. You do remember the principal of innocent until proved guilty? You do understand the concept of persecution?

Edited August 23, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Heracles 417]

You can't kill innocent people because there might be guilty ones sprinkled amongst them - that's why even in conflict zones armies try hard not to kill civilians, even when as in Afghanistan telling the difference is difficult.

Similarly you can't make innocent people live by different rules just because they are muslims. You do remember the principal of innocent until proved guilty? You do understand the concept of persecution?

That would be nice if I advocated killing anyone.

It's okay I get it, ending up a victim is simply collateral damage of a free society. Inconveniencing someone with due reason on the other hand, is apparently worse then the holocaust. It's why in your opinion as well as others, ensuring people in the ghetto are not inconvenienced, takes precedence over proactively insuring Americans don't end up victims - as in not dead - in the first place. According to one poster, Cleveland's murder rate for example, is apparently worth the price of freedom.

This is not a witch hunt against Muslims, it's in direct response to the actions of misguided Muslim factions, who want to kill and have killed large volumes of people with differing beliefs.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Heracles

[Peikko 1,575]

That would be nice if I advocated killing anyone.

It's okay I get it, ending up a victim is simply collateral damage of a free society. Inconveniencing someone with due reason on the other hand, is apparently worse then the holocaust. It's why in your opinion as well as others, ensuring people in the ghetto are not inconvenienced, takes precedence over proactively insuring others don't end up victims in the first place. Cleveland's murder rate for example, is worth the price of freedom.

This is not a witch hunt against Muslims, it's in direct response to the actions of misguided Muslim factions, who want to kill large volumes of people with differing beliefs.

Why would it be nice if you advocated killing everyone? I was pointing out that even in extreme situations like war zones innocents are not targeted, indeed people go out of their way to try to protect them.

Reference the mosque, that is exactly what this does amount to, a witch hunt. You want the people who want to build this mosque to pay for the sins of the terrorists and you have the gall to call that a reasonable response to misguided muslims? No BY, you can't persecute people on the basis that terrorists want to kill people they don't agree with..

Edited August 23, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Amby 490]

There's good ones and there's bad ones just like in all religions. The things the "bad" ones do overpower any good stuff that we may hear about them.

[Peikko 1,575]

There's good ones and there's bad ones just like in all religions. The things the "bad" ones do overpower any good stuff that we may hear about them.

True enough, but when it comes to American citizens that practice the muslim religion, why on earth should that be relevant? Muslims in the US are not responsible for disproportionately large volumes of violence, in fact it's probably the reverse so seeing them as dangerous or provocative is persecution.

[^_^ 5,021]

Muslims in the US are not responsible for disproportionately large volumes of violence, in fact it's probably the reverse so seeing them as dangerous or provocative is persecution.

+1