Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[eppie]

Not really. You can exclude the deranged, because their psychosis obscures their reason.

And believing that a guy comes back from the dead instead is healthy reasoning. Finally the difference between thinking you are Napoleon, and believing in miracles, horoscopes and hand reading is not so big.

[Jester]

Not really. You can exclude the deranged, because their psychosis obscures their reason.

Okay. Let's pick someone who might be extreme, but obviously isn't just a certified wacko: Erik Prince. Does he get to be in the club? Or do you have some handy argument to exclude him too?

-Jester

[eppie]

Okay. Let's pick someone who might be extreme, but obviously isn't just a certified wacko: Erik Prince. Does he get to be in the club? Or do you have some handy argument to exclude him too?

-Jester

The more christian they are the more they like the army.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The question was what percentage of Muslims condone terrorism.

Then again, how many americans were really happy that Iraq was bombed. Or how many cheered when McCain made his bomb-Iran speech.

How many hounds does it take to make a good fox hunt? You might think that this is off topic, but so are both of your questions because the question was what percentage of Muslims condone terrorism.

Of course you can point at the difference between terrorism in the 9/11 way or bombing by armies in the Iraq/Afghanistan or Beirut, but for the victims that makes very little difference

I can point to the difference between the quarter system and the semester system. You might think that this is off topic, but so is your example because the question was what percentage of Muslims condone terrorism.

It is easy to cheer when an 'enemy' gets hurt, even though you personally don't even know them.

This is the closest to addressing the topic you come in this post. Two things: why do Muslims consider Americans their enemy? You do realize that, in this only pertinent point, you are supporting my opinion?

The point that I am making is that the number of people that you saw cheering at a certain event are not a good argument here. It is a well known fact that being attacked or having enemies is the way to increase religious extremism. If that is GW Bush who attacks Iraq because God tells him to, or Bin Laden that attacks the US because Allah tells him to doesnot make a difference.

The number of Muslims cheering an act of terrorism is not a good argument in a discussion of what percentage of Muslims condone terrorism? Please, you are more intelligent than that.

It would appear that the only purpose of your post was to bash the USA. Congratulations, you've successfully moved down the moron ladder. You spend weeks making intelligent posts, earning respect and credibility, then you go and post crap like this. I just don't understand -- are you two people or do you just take advantage of the relaxed drug laws?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Okay. Let's pick someone who might be extreme, but obviously isn't just a certified wacko: Erik Prince. Does he get to be in the club? Or do you have some handy argument to exclude him too?

He certainly is in the Republican club. Giving money seems to be his major contribution to Christianity.

[eppie]

Hi,

The question was what percentage of Muslims condone terrorism.

--Pete

Yes but the question should be seen in context. The question ''what percentage of Muslims condone terrorism'' was not the topic of this thread and cannot be seen as an alone standing one.

The context was that someone (don't remember who) found that muslims were 'worse' than christians because they would be more extremist/violent or whatever.

So your reply to me is nitpicking (you have to admit :) ).

To accuse me of USA bashing is just plain childish.
You can do better; you have showed you can.
(taken from forum member Pete)

[Zenda]

The number of Muslims cheering an act of terrorism is not a good argument in a discussion of what percentage of Muslims condone terrorism?

Maybe it is, but that's not what Eppie said.

"The point that I am making is that the number of people that YOU SAW cheering at a certain event are not a good argument here."

Furthermore, your conclusion seems to be based on what you REMEMBER TO HAVE SEEN ON TV 8 years ago. Is that scientific?

Well, what I can remember (and wiki seems to agree with me) is that there were only sightings of people cheering in a few places in Palestine. Somehow, that doesn't seem like a good representation for the entire Islam world. Also, it appears to be unsure that the people seen celebrating were actually celebrating the act of terrorism.

[kandrathe]

Maybe it is, but that's not what Eppie said.

"The point that I am making is that the number of people that YOU SAW cheering at a certain event are not a good argument here."

Furthermore, your conclusion seems to be based on what you REMEMBER TO HAVE SEEN ON TV 8 years ago. Is that scientific?

Well, what I can remember (and wiki seems to agree with me) is that there were only sightings of people cheering in a few places in Palestine. Somehow, that doesn't seem like a good representation for the entire Islam world. Also, it appears to be unsure that the people seen celebrating were actually celebrating the act of terrorism.

Here is a reputable research organizations longitudinal study.<blockquote>"The polling also finds that in most majority-Muslim countries surveyed, support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence in defense of Islam has declined significantly. In Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia, 15% or fewer now say such actions are justifiable. In Pakistan, only one-in-four now take that view (25%), a sharp drop from 41% in March 2004. In Lebanon, 39% now regard acts of terrorism as often or sometimes justified, again a sharp drop from the 73% who shared that view in 2002. A notable exception to this trend is Jordan, where a majority (57%) now says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defense of Islam.

When it comes to suicide bombings in Iraq, however, Muslims in the surveyed countries are divided. Nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56% in Morocco, say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. However, substantial majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia take the opposite view.--Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics</blockquote>I think the global use of about 10% of Muslims supporting terror tactics is well below the threshold of error.

[Zenda]

I think the global use of about 10% of Muslims supporting terror tactics is well below the threshold of error.

That's very nice for you, but is there any particular reason you are using this as a reply to my post, instead of Thecla's? I was merely remarking on Pete's approach, not disputing any numbers.

As the data you present indicates, numbers like this vary from time to time. It's an emotional question, so you shouldn't expect rational answers, ofcourse. For example, it took just one American to be captured by pirates, and people suggested bombarding the population of Somalia so they would become afraid of supporting pirates, right here on this forum.

[Jester]

He certainly is in the Republican club. Giving money seems to be his major contribution to Christianity.

... Erik Prince is certainly much more than a philanthropist. Much, much more.

-Jester

Afterthought: On a somewhat related note, how about these guys? As Jesus said in Matthew 26:52, "Return your sword to its place, and instead use this awesome rifle with a scope blessed by yours truly."

[--Pete]

Hi,

The context was that someone (don't remember who) found that muslims were 'worse' than christians because they would be more extremist/violent or whatever.

I just ran the back buttons on the thread to where this topic showed up. It leads back to this post. I find no trace in that post, or in the thread following that post to yours where anyone made any comparisons between Christians and Muslims. If you think otherwise, please post a link, or give the post number. Otherwise, consider yourself down another rung.

--Pete

[Thecla]

I think the global use of about 10% of Muslims supporting terror tactics is well below the threshold of error.

Well I have to agree those are high figures, and support your claim. But then again, I'd ask what they really mean. Here, for example, are the results of a poll by the World Public Opinion Organization from Dec 2006 that's been mentioned in this context comparing Iranian/American attitudes

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf...n_Jan07_rpt.pdf

One of the questions was: "Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are…justified?"


The response from the Iranian sample was

Often: 3%
Sometimes: 8%
Rarely: 11%
Never: 80%

(Not quite sure why they don't add up to 100% but...)
The response from the US sample was

Often: 5%
Sometimes: 19%
Rarely: 46%
Never: 27%

Do you conclude that 24% of US adults support terrorism (or 70% if you want to be hard core about your definitions)? Of course when it came to whether Palestinians were sometimes justified in attacking Israeli civilians, it was 53% yes in Iran and 13% yes in the US.

Still, I suspect, to give another example, when the provisional IRA was setting off bombs in English pubs, (and the British counter terrorism forces were doing their own spot of torture and false imprisonment) there was probably quite a bit of support for IRA actions in the US, not to mention plenty of Irish Americans who provided "material support for terrorism," though I couldn't dig up any figures --- I guess back in the 1970's and 1980's we were still in the information dark ages.;)

So, it might well be true that 25% (or perhaps more likely 75%) of the human race is quite happy to go out and kill their civilian neighbors or distant strangers, especially if they have another religion, culture, or there are serious political conflicts. But don't I think that making sweeping assumptions about Muslims and terrorism is the way timprove things.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But don't I think that making sweeping assumptions about Muslims and terrorism is the way timprove things.

I don't understand what your point is. kandrathe's statement in this post was "In the same way, I don't have a problem with many Muslims. I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety that condone terrorist violence. Of that 90%, there are many that have a similar view about human rights that you or I might." That does not sound like a condemnation of the Muslims, but rather a simple statement of fact. Given the actual numbers thrown around in this thread since then, it even seems to be a generous statement.

It is true that we Americans may be as or even more bloodthirsty. It is true that conflicts within Christianity can be, and often have been, violent and terrible. However, none of that is pertinent. kandrathe's statement is simple, it can be paraphrased "Most Muslims are decent people." To take offense at that statement because it does not say "*All* Muslims are decent people." is a knee jerk reaction probably caused by an overdeveloped sense of political correctness. To read into that statement any form of disrespect for Muslims or comparison of Muslims to any other group is just plain ignorant. Ignorant of logic, ignorant of meanings, ignorant of argument.

There are a lot of things in this thread to discuss, a lot of interesting sub-topics. To pick an argument for something that was neither said nor implied is unnecessary.

--Pete

[eppie]

To take offense at that statement because it does not say "*All* Muslims are decent people." is a knee jerk reaction probably caused by an overdeveloped sense of political correctness. To read into that statement any form of disrespect for Muslims or comparison of Muslims to any other group is just plain ignorant. Ignorant of logic, ignorant of meanings, ignorant of argument.

--Pete

If that is how you want to read parts of this thread that is fine, but if somebody makes a statement like 'an x percentage of this group supports y' than that is not just a statement.
What I think and also Thecla does so is this is just a sum up of fuzzy numbers, that indeed can also be done for another group than muslims.
I have no affinity whatsoever with muslims, if you know me a bit I have some pretty serious issues with religion. The reason why I would (just as Richard Dawkins) maybe focus more on christianity is because that is what I know from my country, and that is what the 'religion in charge is'. Point being, blaming this on things as an overdeveloped sense of political correctness is again just silly and childish.
You keep nitpicking and (on purpose?) try not to understand the context/background of the topic (my opinion).

You must agree that a statement on the percentage of terrorism supporting muslims (I don't know who knows are can known the exact number) is not the same as a statement that oranges contain more vitamin c than apples. The statement in the first place was in previous international discussions on all the big news networks in europe and the US also used by war mongers to prove a point. You know this, I know this and the person that wrote it in this thread (was that kanrdrathe....sorry I have no time to check all the posts in this long thread) knows this. So if you keep saying it was just a statement with no other intentions than posting a fact, you can technically not be proven wrong, but let's not make fun of eachother here.



We are getting in a discussion much like the one held in Holland at the moment about a report about our involvement and support of the Iraq war. Our (christian democrat) prime minister has been lying his *** off, but that is OK if you belong to his political party. Finally the debate in parliament didnot deal with why he lied to us, but about literally disecting sentences and party politics....something that makes me feel very sick.

[--Pete]

Hi,

....sorry I have no time to check all the posts in this long thread)

All you needed to do is click the link I gave you. No time to get your facts straight but plenty of time to write incorrect and inflammatory posts. You are almost down to the bottom of that ladder, and slipping fast.

--Pete

[Thecla]

I don't understand what your point is.

To be honest, I'm getting a bit fuzzy on that my self.

That said, I felt that kandrathe was making a lot of over-genralizations. Now I don't have a problem with him saying things about the Danes: they're a horrible nation of Ludfisk-eaters, only slight less despicable than the Norwegians. But I do think, especially in the current world situation and the need for tolerant societies with a plurality of different beliefs, that one has to be very careful about about sterotyping whole religious groups.

I took kandrathe's original point to be that Christians were more tolerant than Muslims because they didn't respond to a newspaper editorial comparing Obama with Jesus by shooting the writer. Whether or not that's the case, he certainly appeared to be comparing Muslims unfavorably with Christians. On the other hand, he appeared to be a lot more defensive about any shortcomings shown by Christians and discounted that they meant anything about true Christianity.

In that context, his statement that "I don't have a problem with many Muslims. I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety that condone terrorist violence." sounds a lot more like an implication that Muslims are more inclined to terrorism than non-Muslims --- which is certainly how I took it --- than "Most Muslims are so gosh-darn nice," which is how you appear to have read it. And the idea that Islam and Muslims are intrinsically more violent than Christianity and Christians, say, is indeed a very wide-spread view, whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's what kandrathe meant.

To interpret my objection to his statement as coming merely from the fact that it suggested *some* Muslims (like *some* Christians, and *some* Athiests) are not decent people, is a knee jerk reaction probably caused by an inability to understanding opposing views. To read into my statement any form of political correctness is just plain ignorant. Ignorant of logic, ignorant of meanings, ignorant of argument.;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

That said, I felt that kandrathe was making a lot of over-genralizations.

I agree completely.

Now I don't have a problem with him saying things about the Danes: they're a horrible nation of Ludfisk-eaters, only slight less despicable than the Norwegians.

You wouldn't happen to be a Swede by any chance? :whistling:

But I do think, especially in the current world situation and the need for tolerant societies with a plurality of different beliefs, that one has to be very careful about about sterotyping whole religious groups.

Again, I agree.

I took kandrathe's original point to be that Christians were more tolerant than Muslims . . .

I thought the original post was pointless. Whatever. Had you responded to that post, I would have agreed with you.

On the other hand, he appeared to be a lot more defensive about any shortcomings shown by Christians and discounted that they meant anything about true Christianity.

Yes.

In that context, his statement that "I don't have a problem with many Muslims. I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety that condone terrorist violence." sounds a lot more like an implication that Muslims are more inclined to terrorism than non-Muslims --- which is certainly how I took it --- than "Most Muslims are so gosh-darn nice," which is how you appear to have read it.

Within the context of where the thread had gone, your interpretation is illogical. By that point, the discussion had turned to the value of religion and whether it was a positive or negative influence on society. kandrathe's point was that he felt that Islam was, overall, a positive influence in spite of its bad reputation in the West. Taken together with the paragraph immediately before, what he is saying is that he, too, has a problem with extremists, but not with the religion they claim to profess. And that extremists represent only a small part of the population. Indeed, by saying "I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety" rather than 'I'd say about 10% are the radical variety' he appears to be focusing on the positive, not the negative.

And the idea that Islam and Muslims are intrinsically more violent than Christianity and Christians, say, is indeed a very wide-spread view, whether or not it's true, and whether or not it's what kandrathe meant.

Yes. But so what?

To interpret my objection to his statement as coming merely from the fact that it suggested *some* Muslims (like *some* Christians, and *some* Athiests) are not decent people, is a knee jerk reaction probably caused by an inability to understanding opposing views. To read into my statement any form of political correctness is just plain ignorant. Ignorant of logic, ignorant of meanings, ignorant of argument.;)

Cute. May I refer you to one of my favorite plays, Cyrano de Bergerac. Specifically the scene where the Viscount attempts to insult Cyrano:

THE VISCOUNT:
No one? But wait!
I'll treat him to. . .one of my quips!. . .See here!. . .
(He goes up to Cyrano, who is watching him, and with a conceited air):
Sir, your nose is. . .hmm. . .it is. . .very big!

CYRANO (gravely):
Very!

THE VISCOUNT (laughing):
Ha!

CYRANO (imperturbably):
Is that all?. . .

THE VISCOUNT:
What do you mean?

CYRANO:
Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short!
You might have said at least a hundred things
By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . .
Aggressive: 'Sir, if I had such a nose
I'd amputate it!' Friendly: 'When you sup
It must annoy you, dipping in your cup;
You need a drinking-bowl of special shape!'
Descriptive: ''Tis a rock!. . .a peak!. . .a cape!
--A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!'
Curious: 'How serves that oblong capsular?
For scissor-sheath? Or pot to hold your ink?'
Gracious: 'You love the little birds, I think?
I see you've managed with a fond research
To find their tiny claws a roomy perch!'
Truculent: 'When you smoke your pipe. . .suppose
That the tobacco-smoke spouts from your nose--
Do not the neighbors, as the fumes rise higher,
Cry terror-struck: "The chimney is afire"?'
Considerate: 'Take care,. . .your head bowed low
By such a weight. . .lest head o'er heels you go!'
Tender: 'Pray get a small umbrella made,
Lest its bright color in the sun should fade!'
Pedantic: 'That beast Aristophanes
Names Hippocamelelephantoles
Must have possessed just such a solid lump
Of flesh and bone, beneath his forehead's bump!'
Cavalier: 'The last fashion, friend, that hook?
To hang your hat on? 'Tis a useful crook!'
Emphatic: 'No wind, O majestic nose,
Can give THEE cold!--save when the mistral blows!'
Dramatic: 'When it bleeds, what a Red Sea!'
Admiring: 'Sign for a perfumery!'
Lyric: 'Is this a conch?. . .a Triton you?'
Simple: 'When is the monument on view?'
Rustic: 'That thing a nose? Marry-come-up!
'Tis a dwarf pumpkin, or a prize turnip!'
Military: 'Point against cavalry!'
Practical: 'Put it in a lottery!
Assuredly 'twould be the biggest prize!'
Or. . .parodying Pyramus' sighs. . .
'Behold the nose that mars the harmony
Of its master's phiz! blushing its treachery!'
--Such, my dear sir, is what you might have said,
Had you of wit or letters the least jot:
But, O most lamentable man!--of wit
You never had an atom, and of letters
You have three letters only!--they spell Ass!
And--had you had the necessary wit,
To serve me all the pleasantries I quote
Before this noble audience. . .e'en so,
You would not have been let to utter one--
Nay, not the half or quarter of such jest!
I take them from myself all in good part,
But not from any other man that breathes!

Please do ignore the last 12 lines, for I mean no insult. But do take the lesson, for a witty comeback is best when it is fresh. Recycled wit is but half wit. :P

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Well I have to agree those are high figures, and support your claim.

Phrasing the question is important. Would you ever support or condone any bombing that kills civilians? This is quite different than driving your car bomb into a crowded market place, or to a gathering at the mosque to intentionally turn the crowd into human hamburger.

It does highlight one difference though. At the height of WWII, when the allies justified the fire bombing of Dresden, they were engaged in "Total War". In the current conflict, if this is where the terrorists are, then we are oblivious to it and still are treating it as a criminal act, or as minor regional police actions.

[kandrathe]

... Erik Prince is certainly much more than a philanthropist. Much, much more.

-Jester

Afterthought: On a somewhat related note, how about these guys? As Jesus said in Matthew 26:52, "Return your sword to its place, and instead use this awesome rifle with a scope blessed by yours truly."

That is a difficult question, and goes to one deep question about morality. Would we condemn the brewer of beer, or distiller of spirits, or the manufacturer of guns or gun sights? They can be used for reasonable, temperate acts as well as intemperate or immoral ones. If a soldier kills a terrorist and prevents them from driving a car bomb into a crowd of women and children, is that moral or immoral? Can a soldier be moral at all? Can a bombardier be moral?

As for the government buying gun sights with Bible verses stamped in an unnoticed place... It's a non-issue. The government bought the gun sights because they met the specs and price for the contract. I'd guess if people are offended by the little letters they can file them off, right? Or, if it offends the government procurers then they can amend the contract, or refuse to buy the product. I'd vote for giving soldiers the best product, regardless of who made it, including Muslims who might imprint verses from the Koran. Perhaps... "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216), "Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-), or "If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-) But... From what I've heard, ironically, they are actually verses of peace.

The government buys many products with religious codes on them. We've probably discussed this before, but people have the freedom to express their religious speech and I'd say even government speech is protected as long as it does not "establish" a preferred religion. Does the government have any restrictions on buying products from Muslims, Jews, or Christians? Does the government buy copies of the Bible, copies of the Koran, copies of the Torah for governmental use?

"The scripture references were begun more than 20 years ago by Trijicon's founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who died in a 2003 plane crash in Alabama." Pentagon: Bible-verse gunsights don't violate rules

Ever seen any of these on a product?

[Thecla]

You wouldn't happen to be a Swede by any chance?

A Swede? You're suggesting I might be a Swede?? Don't even get me started on that scrofulous, potato-eating, gangsta-faking, pustulent excuse of a Scandanavian nation.

Cute.

Well you took that a bit better than I thought you might.;)

__________________________________________________

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!