Abaddon....thanks for the post. You once again stated much more clearly than I could have, my own similar views. Thanks!!!
**Steve, here is a study done by PBS.**, no this was actually an interview with one man not a study.
**The problem with Islam is that it teaches its followers to think of themselves as superior to everyone else and to impose their religion everywhere, even though some moslem clerics try to play this down.
And this is different from Christianity HOW ?!?!
**You assume that because we don't agree with your assessment of the situation, we must have an overly simplistic (ie uneducated and stupid) view of it, and you, who is more intelligent and insightful, must correct our simple minded view.
It's not so much that I think you are stupid....it's more that I think you are unable to understand the obvious. LOL - just teasing!
Where have I called you or any poster on this thread stupid ?!? EvilForce is always sarcastic...but I haven't meant to be demeaning to you in any way....so please tell me where I've erred. But complex issues many times have complex answers and simplistic, naive view on them isn't of any benefit. Alot of times the media's attention on 10 second sound bytes do a great disservice to an issue. For crying out loud the McPaper (USA Today) is the largest distribution newspaper in the US. In-depth TV, magazines, and newspapers are in the minority. People want a simple, quick answer. Guess what? There isn't always a quick, glib answer.
**By the way, why is this such a big deal for you to start this thread?
It was a study that was just completed. I read about it. Made me think about what I've read and studied before and thought the board might like to see it. Does every thread need to pass some sort of predetermined checklist? Likewise I might ask why this thread was a big deal for you to post a reply on?
**I haven't pigeon hole'd them as stupid, but they are religious fanatics. And they do hate our Western way of life. I don't think anyone but the most ignorant mouth-breathing dunderhead thinks about this conflict in the simplistic terms you describe.
So they aren't stupid they're hate filled fanatics. My bad, wrong pigeon hole. But you've illustrated a sentiment I've heard over and over again. Hence my interest in posting this thread to start with.
Muslim Madrassas Not As Dangerous to the West as Implied
by EvilForce 28 Replies latest members politics
-
EvilForce
-
EscapedLifer1
EF,
Where have I called you or any poster on this thread stupid ?!? EvilForce is always sarcastic...but I haven't meant to be demeaning to you in any way....so please tell me where I've erred.
I'm sorry, the "You" in my sentence that you are responding to should have been like the WT's plural "YOU". At that point I wasn't talking about you personally, but about "left" leaning folks in general that I have had similar discussions with. I apologize for not making my point more clear! So don't worry, you didn't err at all.
It was a study that was just completed. I read about it. Made me think about what I've read and studied before and thought the board might like to see it. Does every thread need to pass some sort of predetermined checklist? Likewise I might ask why this thread was a big deal for you to post a reply on?
No, posts don't have to pass a test! What I was wondering when asking that question was why this issue of madrassas NOT being as dangerous as the Administration, or the Right, or the Media, or whoever, said they were - why this was a significant issue for you. Maybe I haven't been keeping up with the news as thoroughly as you, but I didn't know anyone was attacking the madrassas or blaming them for the terrorists to a large degree.
But you've illustrated a sentiment I've heard over and over again. Hence my interest in posting this thread to start with.
Exactly what sentiment is that? And do you agree or disagree with it?
Brandon
-
Midget-Sasquatch
I have to agree with Abaddon, religion is more of a rallying cry than the main inciter of terrorism. The frustration and angst of the typical terrorist are more a result of the state of the society they grew up in (cultural). And what makes these terrorists take action are what they perceive as injustices and attacks on them from the west. One has to admit that quite a bit of their grievances about Western exploitation are legitimate.
Wahabbi islam, pervasive in saudi funded madrassas, is intolerant and extreme though. While most of the 9/11 terrorists were from families rich enough to not have to send them to madrassas, I do believe they were firm believers of that sect. So rather than madrassas, one would expect that a better place to garner recruits would be at the mosque.
-
Abaddon
Evil, Sasquatch, what I can't figure out is why more people aren't cogniscent of these facts.
I really don't think one has to have a stunning level of intellect to comprehend it. It is not rocket science. All it is is a willingnness to look into issues and challange preconceptions.
I know that is a difficult thing, but we (mostly) did JUST THAT in getting out of a fricking cult.
I am afraid once I found one institution was not what I had made it out to be, I assume (and frequantly validate by research) other institutions may not be what I thought they were. In the past eight years or so I've oncreasingly realised poltics is all to frequently a floorshow put on to entertain the masses; bread and circuses, or the 'mushroom model' as I like to call it.
Keep people in the dark and feed them shit.
But you do not have to be Einstein to lift the curtain on politics, just like you don;t have to be extra smart to lift the curtain on the 'Oz' of the JW's. You do have to have the inclination to do it though, and a willingness to change your opinion if you find something different 'behind the curtain' to what you've alwasy assumed/been told is there.
I think often ONE major change in worldview is quiet enough for many people - and that's understandable. It's easy to see how people would cling to comforting political ideologies and turn their eyes from anything that might make these opinions untenable. Lord knows we clung to ideologies and dabbled in dissonace before.
But whether it's a good idea to do this is a horse of a different colour (hell, got to keep those Wizard of Oz references coming).
Of course, I might be wrong. It's just an opinion. If anyone has an 'America is a Christian nation enforcing peace and justice around the world with integrity against the jealous Islamic fanatics who threaten world peace' opinion, or some such, it would be interesting to see what supporting facts they could bring to the table.
But the cold facts of the matter are we, as in US and Europe, get more money back from the developing world than we give in aid, even if most of the loans were made to one form or another of undemocratic government that in many cases never used the money for the good of the people of the country - but left the country with the debt.
It is equally true that the futile and wasteful support of uneconomic industries through the impostiton of tariffs or trade restrictions robs money from the pocket of every citizen whose taxes go to supporting that industry AND often mean that developing countries are artifically prevented from earning decent profits on trade as they are under-cut by subsidised Western indistries or barred from competing with them. Which ends up in them needing aid as OUR tarde restrictions or internal subsidises reduces the profit they could make.
A more rational world would be one where 3rd world debt is reviewed; better to fogive debt and slash aid requirements, eh? Of course the debt repayments mostly go to business, and the aid is normally paid for out of tax, so whose benefit is the status quo? Big business, quelle suprise! Not yo or I or anyone in the developing world.
Equally fair trade, including the impostion on 'same standards' legislation where a company out-sourcing would have to duplicate conditions for workers in developing countries to match those of the workers thet are replacing and obey the labour and safety laws of the company's home country rather than Dogfuckistan (where emplyment legilation concentrate on the size of stick you are legally allowed to beat staff with), and the aboliton of un-natural and wastefull subsidies and unfair and damaging restirctions and tariiffs would benefot a lot of private individuals - the only losers would be, again, oh dear, big business.
Think about it next time you buy coffee. Unless you are buying free or fair trade coffee, the producers were paid a reletive pitance for the coffee and the supply chain make the real money. More money in Western businesses pockets and lots of poor coffee growers who will need more aid, which WE, the people, pay for. Isn't it smarter just to make sure the distribution of profit is more equitable?
-
jula71
Well, the whole point of the thread is lost. The problem is you guys can not think outside of a group collective mentality. EF’s main point was that Madrassas are blown out of proportion. Which I disagree with, so it got changed into I think all Muslims are evil basically, thus the group mentality. Some are, and most of these follow the Wahabbi form of Islam, which is taught in these schools. And guys, it is no different from extreme forms of Christianity. Extreme forms that wish to do harm to others have to be dealt with, and sometimes that requires force. This whole idea of, just leave them alone, will not work with any group that fundamentally believes that all non-members should be put to death.
-
Midget-Sasquatch
EF’s main point was that Madrassas are blown out of proportion. Which I disagree with, so it got changed into I think all Muslims are evil basically, thus the group mentality. Some are, and most of these follow the Wahabbi form of Islam, which is taught in these schools. And guys, it is no different from extreme forms of Christianity. Extreme forms that wish to do harm to others have to be dealt with, and sometimes that requires force.
I think we're making the following distinction (at least I am): Madrassas are strictly religious schools. Yes, they do nurture intolerance and fanaticism and the terrorists buy into that ideology. But the madrassas, themselves, don't provide the training and skills required by terrorists to carry out operations and attacks. Recruiters also desire a higher calibre of operative, which more often than not received their education from universities and not the madrassas. So a more effective neutralization point would be to target the recruiters and their training bases.
I'm not discounting the role of religious fanaticism. Thats why alot of good candidates for radicalization are found at mosques. But the angst, humiliation, and alienation that drives alot of terrorists are not religious issues. They can hold up the banner of religion to justify their actions, but alot of their goals are still clearly about politics, resources, and power.
-
Abaddon
Jula, your immediate reaction concerning the Beltway sniper was to make him out to be a Islamic terrorist.
Either you were mistaken, which is fine, or you knew he wasn't but tried to make out he was. If you don't want to clear up which one it is, fine. Personally I think you made a mistake. I don't think you hate all Muslims, I think you were talking through your hat.
-
jula71
Ok...my bad. He wasn’t an Islamic terrorist. Even though he is an ardent member of the Nation of Islam?
And you are right I don’t hate all Muslims. In fact I had the honor of going to a Muslim wedding a couple years ago. It was a college friend of my wife’s. The girl and her family are from Afghanistan and fled here when the Taliban took power. What’s interesting is both them and the Taliban are Muslim but have very different ideas. So in retrospect to say the Beltway sniper was, in his eyes, Muslim, would in fact be accurate. The Nation of Islam claim to indeed be Muslim or as their name denotes, Islamic. To come back and say real Muslims don’t consider the Nation of Islam to be Muslim really doesn’t matter. Same as most Christians don’t believe the dub’s to be Christian, but dub’s truly believe they are. Same thing.
-
Abaddon
Lordy, people call themselves ALL sorts of things and it doesn't always mean diddly.
A black-hating white-seperatist member of Christian Identity will call themselves Christian just as a white-hating black-hating seperatist member of the Nation of Islam will call themselves Muslim.
The vast majority of both Muslims and Christians would both repudiate any racist as a member of their religion.
What those nasty racist scum-bags call themselves signifies nothing other than their personal internalised justification. I'm no Christian but I know judging a tree by its fruits is a good idea.