Jafar needs to watch this all the way through

[Gaffer]

It covers his favorite excuse "context".

[jafar00]

I'll let Jamal Badawi answer for me since you wouldn't listen to me anyway.



BTW it was hard to watch the guy in your video. Such self important arrogance. Yet he comes out looking like a fool at the end.

[tailfins]

I'm still willing to give Muslims enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume the terrorists are to Islam what the Jehovah's Witnesses, Boston Church of Christ or Warren Jeffs are to Christianity.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'll let Jamal Badawi answer for me since you wouldn't listen to me anyway.



BTW it was hard to watch the guy in your video. Such self important arrogance. Yet he comes out looking like a fool at the end.

So the perfect Koran has mistakes in it that were written for a specific place and time. How can that be? Is Allah unable to give a book of guidance that can be for all time, all people, all places as is the Christian bible, the word of God? Jafar a thing is not perfect if its mistakes can be shown to be so greatly and widely --"misinterpreted by the majority of its followers. I thought that both Allah and the Koran were supposed to be perfect? --Tyr

[Gaffer]

Well jafar, truth is hard to watch when you have been fed constant lies. But he does go into the context argument very throughly. He even covers the differences between ME muslims and western muslims like yourself. It's a well thought out and researched presentation, and the best you can do is say he looks like a fool at the end.

This guy just likes to hold up your perfect book and peek through the holes in it. Like where the sun sets.

[Drummond]

I'm still willing to give Muslims enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume the terrorists are to Islam what the Jehovah's Witnesses, Boston Church of Christ or Warren Jeffs are to Christianity.

... which begs the question, doesn't it, Tailfins .. just what would it take for you to change your mind on that ?

Seems to me that no matter how many attacks happen, no matter how many terrorist groups spring up, no matter what their involvement in Nation State business (think of what WAS the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of Egypt, for example, or Hamas's current domination of Gaza .. Hamas being an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and very obviously a TERRORIST organisation !!!) ... you'll still say that, no matter how great the percentage of Muslims connected directly or indirectly to terrorism .... NOTHING need change a view such as yours.

No matter that they ALL, regardless of how many countries in the world are involved, profess to a man (or woman) to be representative of, or loyal to, Islam ... you will deny all that they claim, or do, as being Islamic.

How many MILLIONS of Muslims will it take to persuade you you're wrong in your stance ? THEY have all got it wrong, but YOU have got it right ??

[jimnyc]

It covers his favorite excuse "context".

All lies. No real muslims in there. It's not in arabic and translated wrong. It's all about the context you speak of, but can't place it in context, like only muslims can. Oh, and it's from a hate site!

[tailfins]

... which begs the question, doesn't it, Tailfins .. just what would it take for you to change your mind on that ?

Seems to me that no matter how many attacks happen, no matter how many terrorist groups spring up, no matter what their involvement in Nation State business (think of what WAS the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of Egypt, for example, or Hamas's current domination of Gaza .. Hamas being an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and very obviously a TERRORIST organisation !!!) ... you'll still say that, no matter how great the percentage of Muslims connected directly or indirectly to terrorism .... NOTHING need change a view such as yours.

No matter that they ALL, regardless of how many countries in the world are involved, profess to a man (or woman) to be representative of, or loyal to, Islam ... you will deny all that they claim, or do, as being Islamic.

How many MILLIONS of Muslims will it take to persuade you you're wrong in your stance ? THEY have all got it wrong, but YOU have got it right ??

A thorough military and intelligence analysis showing a feasible plan for victory and rendering inoperable the terrorists. It's the emotionalism than annoys me. Just fix the problem by any means necessary. It's not necessary to decide if anyone deserves to die. People die in wars, some of them don't deserve to, that's just a fact of war. I have no reservations about killing to win a war. If some of the deaths happen to be Muslim, that's what war is. Armchair hate does not win wars.

[Abbey Marie]

Armchair propaganda can and often does win people to your side, though.

[Kathianne]

Armchair propaganda can and often does win people to your side, though.

Indeed. There have been literally tens or more than a hundred topics brought up here and elsewhere, that perhaps didn't make an immediate impression with what was said. Months, even years later, I see something else and because of an 'awareness' read and find out more. That has happened more than a few times with stuff Rev has posted, something a year or more later before I hunt down that first thread.

[Drummond]

A thorough military and intelligence analysis showing a feasible plan for victory and rendering inoperable the terrorists. It's the emotionalism than annoys me. Just fix the problem by any means necessary. It's not necessary to decide if anyone deserves to die. People die in wars, some of them don't deserve to, that's just a fact of war. I have no reservations about killing to win a war. If some of the deaths happen to be Muslim, that's what war is. Armchair hate does not win wars.

But what if a part of the intelligence analysis calls for an understanding of your enemy, so that you not only understand its nature, but its likely tactics ?

Understanding what drives your enemy is surely a necessary part of the task .. ?

[tailfins]

But what if a part of the intelligence analysis calls for an understanding of your enemy, so that you not only understand its nature, but its likely tactics ?

Understanding what drives your enemy is surely a necessary part of the task .. ?

We're not making any progress. Terrorism is no less of a risk now than five years ago. The TSA is no closer to being dismantled. Treating Abdul the Database Analyst down the hall like crap will not win the war, using atomic weapons on Tehran will. Advocating less than nuclear weapons is ineffective chest thumping and dog barking. When I see real petitions and effective plans to use nuclear weapons to win, I will know people are serious.

[Drummond]

We're not making any progress. Terrorism is no less of a risk now than five years ago. The TSA is no closer to being dismantled. Treating Abdul the Database Analyst down the hall like crap will not win the war, using atomic weapons on Tehran will. Advocating less than nuclear weapons is ineffective chest thumping and dog barking. When I see real petitions and effective plans to use nuclear weapons to win, I will know people are serious.

Nuclear weapons have their place, possibly their part to play against terrorism. I absolutely don't rule that out.

But it's not the complete picture, either. There are other ways to fight.

Cyber-war comes to mind. Consider this: if you make a real effort to know your enemy, say in the sense of tracking down his websites .. &/or knowing who'll willingly fund him, or facilitate his online activities .. then, without dropping a bomb and risking the deaths of thousands of innocents, a cyber-attack could be launched.

Didn't I read something about a virus attack that did damage to the Iranian nuclear program ?

In the UK, one of our TV channels has produced a programme based on a study of the effect of a successful cyber attack aimed at our power stations. I think it has yet to be screened, but I've read that the conclusion was that the UK would know total anarchy inside of a week.

Our GCHQ people successfully attacked an Al Qaeda site some time ago, and substituted bomb-making instructions for a recipe on making cupcakes. Food poisoning notwithstanding, I wonder how many lives they saved by doing that ? Not to mention the effect on morale from the sheer ridicule those connected to the site must've suffered.

And I think breaking the enemy's morale is important. I say - know your enemy. And use that knowledge against him .. not just with brute force, but efficiently as well.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm still willing to give Muslims enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume the terrorists are to Islam what the Jehovah's Witnesses, Boston Church of Christ or Warren Jeffs are to Christianity.

Don't forget the Westboro Baptist Church guys who desecrated the funerals of dead soldiers. Then you have the Mormon communes where polygamy is practiced and abused as hell. We're not exactly swimming in a clean river ourselves.

[DragonStryk72]

I think it comes down to a divide within Islam, one that they aren't yet aware has formed. With so many muslims now being born, living, and building families in more affluent and educated areas, a schism has formed, somewhat akin to how, in the 1500-1600s, we got a lot of factioning in Christianity as the religion spread out. You had the Catholics, working out of the Vatican, but there were even splits within that structure (The Spanish Inquisition operated independently as was not a well-liked faction. Basically, the Church had to put up with the Inquisition because they couldn't afford another Church of England.). then there were the Calvinists, Lutherans, and whatnot, with each group proudly thumping their chest and proclaiming that they were the one true church.

Well, Islam is going through that period now, and yeah, it gets ugly. There's a good chance it'll get uglier, too. So now, the reformation Muslims are looking on the Orthodox Muslims and going, "They really don't understand the word of the prophet." And the same is true in reverse.

I'm willing to bet good money that Jafar would be seen as a traitor to his religion in Middle Eastern countries, as not understanding the word of Allah. He meanwhile, clearly believes the same of them. Both can be telling the truth, but still be wrong.

Now, the difference in the Middle East is that resources are much more scarce than they were in Europe at the time, so you have a harder people, who are used to fighting for survival in a desert land. In Europe's time, they had abundant farmland, and ample natural resources for trade. We still got ugly.

Then there's the US, who tends to sort of swoop in and do things, good or bad. When we help out a country like Kuwait, or Israel, it looks like we're playing favorites.... and we are, which increases resentment. Then of course, we have to get serious, and we quickly prove that the pride they had in their forces was naive on a grand scale (Iraq, Afghanistan), and thus resentment is increased. Then we help out the countries we just beat to hell and gone, and for some, it gives them thoughts that we aren't so bad. Others however, especially those who lost people close to them, become resentful of the aid, feeling that they are being forced to smile in the face of their loved one's killer.

Yeah, it sucks, and there's no easy answer to it, but long game, the extremists are going away. They're a relic of past times, and as the Muslim countries become more technologically advanced, and their people become more educated as some Muslim from affluent countries return to affect change, their numbers will continue to fall.