News Are Civilian Casualties Ever Justifiable in Conflict Scenarios?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complex issue of civilian casualties in warfare, particularly whether they can ever be deemed acceptable. Participants explore various hypothetical scenarios involving civilians acting as shields for combatants, providing support, or being caught in conflict zones. There is a strong sentiment that civilian casualties should never be acceptable, regardless of circumstances, emphasizing the moral imperative to protect non-combatants. Some argue that the rules of war exist to prevent harm to civilians, while others contend that the realities of conflict often complicate this ideal. The conversation also touches on the historical context of warfare, the evolution of military tactics, and the ethical implications of collateral damage. Participants express frustration over the lack of focus on practical solutions to prevent civilian harm and the need for a more nuanced discussion about the responsibilities of civilians in conflict zones. Overall, the thread highlights the tension between moral principles and the harsh realities of war, with a call for deeper engagement on how to address these dilemmas effectively.
  • #51
Outcast, its fine to discuss religion (it wouldn't be the first time here), but you generalize it a bit. Passages that promote violence are also in the bible, its all a matter of interpretation. The problem as i see it is that Islam today offers no counter arguments to extremist interpretations of for example, that passage. Most moderate muslims (well over a billion) don't follow the books tho, they follow the culture and have never read the Quran or hadiths. But because theyre moderate, they can also said to be weak by scholars or extremists who take scriptures literally and even be condemned.
I read somewhere about Salman Rushdie who was condemned and sentenced to death in fatwas by islamic scholars all over the world. A muslim who investigates the origins of Islam is sentenced to death a hundred times, and Osama has not a single fatwa against him. Muslims really do have the power to cut off this extremism, but right now there is just no base for counter arguments in the religion and unless they reform, this thing is just going to grow and grow imvho...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
studentx said:
Outcast, its fine to discuss religion (it wouldn't be the first time here), but you generalize it a bit. Passages that promote violence are also in the bible, its all a matter of interpretation. The problem as i see it is that Islam today offers no counter arguments to extremist interpretations of for example, that passage. Most moderate muslims (well over a billion) don't follow the books tho, they follow the culture and have never read the Quran or hadiths. But because theyre moderate, they can also said to be weak by scholars or extremists who take scriptures literally and even be condemned.
I read somewhere about Salman Rushdie who was condemned and sentenced to death in fatwas by islamic scholars all over the world. A muslim who investigates the origins of Islam is sentenced to death a hundred times, and Osama has not a single fatwa against him. Muslims really do have the power to cut off this extremism, but right now there is just no base for counter arguments in the religion and unless they reform, this thing is just going to grow and grow imvho...
What I bolded is the problem. All arguments must be based on the The Qur'an. The The Qur'an does not teach peace, love or forgiveness. Go to Prophet of Doom and look at their material. They have a free Ebook if you are interested.
 
  • #53
Here is an Iranian website
http://www.sumka.org/islamic_paradise_e.htm
The Islamic society of Compassion, Culture, Education, Security, Freedom, Equality, Health, Happiness, Comfort, Women & Children Rights as Promised!
Not pretty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Those are anti islamic hate sites. You should know better where to get unbiased information
 
  • #55
studentx said:
Those are anti islamic hate sites. You should know better where to get unbiased information
You mean I should use sites like these?
CBS News
Aljazeera
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

You mean I should not read articles like
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1095566007581&p=1006688055060
Calif. DOE forcing Islam on children[/URL]
Despising Islam?
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9776&catcode=11

Go to Google News and do a search on Islam, again it is not pretty. I don't believe that there any unbiased websites. Islam is either the religion of peace and Christianity is the religion of hate or Islam is the religion of hate and Christianity is the religion of peace. There is no middle ground. The question a person has to answer for themselves is, which side are they own?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Outcast said:
Islam is either the religion of peace and Christianity is the religion of hate or Islam is the religion of hate and Christianity is the religion of peace. There is no middle ground.

Why not...
I see you talking about Islam as if you want to wage a giant war against muslims. Could you post something constructive about the problem and your view on solving it.
 
  • #57
studentx said:
Why not...
I see you talking about Islam as if you want to wage a giant war against muslims. Could you post something constructive about the problem and your view on solving it.
We are alreadey at war with Islam, in case you haven't noticed. The problem is Christianity and Western Civilization is slowly being over ran by Islam. 1) Recognize the problem, 2) Recognize that Islam is not a religion of peace as President Bush stated. 3) Stop immigration from Islamic countries. 4) Begin deporting Muslims back to their native country, that are not U.S. citizens 4) Stop teaching Islam in public schools. 5)Stop giving special privileges to Islam here in the United States. 6) Take back US property that was seized by Islamic nations.
Calif. DOE forcing Islam on children
How Judges Rip Up Faith
What's wrong with "ACROSS THE CENTURIES" Houghton Mifflin Social Studies Textbook 7th grade 21st Century Edition, nationwide
'Europe Will Be Islamic by the End of the Century'
A Seat at the Table: Islam Makes Inroads in Education
Wakeup Non-Muslims!
Just for starters
 
  • #58
We are alreadey at war with Islam, in case you haven't noticed.

I haven't.

As you mentioned , the first step is to "Recognize the problem". Follow your own advice: argue there is a problem before you move onto the next step.
 
  • #59
Hurkyl said:
Many of the threads here boil down to an argument over what constitutes an acceptable civilian casualty rather than discuss the issue from which the thread arose, so I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the topic that people are really discussing.

It doesn't matter. Enemy civilian casualties per se should never be a hindrance when applying force.
 
  • #60
Hurkyl said:
I haven't.

As you mentioned , the first step is to "Recognize the problem". Follow your own advice: argue there is a problem before you move onto the next step.

I agree. Outcast your analysis of the problem is flawed and i think you arent looking for a peaceful solution.
 
  • #61
Hurkyl said:
I haven't.

As you mentioned , the first step is to "Recognize the problem". Follow your own advice: argue there is a problem before you move onto the next step.
Does this indicate a problem between Islam and the Western World?

Two powerful and aggressive religions that both believe they have the divine truth cannot coexist.

The Battle of the Yarmuk took place between the Arabs and the Byzantine Empire in 636. This was the first clash between Islam and the Western world. The Byzantine army was defeated and Syria and the Middle East, which had formerly been Judo-Christian was lost to Islam. The next Christian state to fall to Islam was Egypt in 642. The Islamic conquest continued across North Africa In 711 the Berber Tarik invaded and rapidly conquered Visigothic Spain. The Moslems invasion of Western Europe was stopped in France at the Battle of Tours in 732. In 1453 the Ottomans defeat the Byzantine Empire and continue expanding into the Balkans. In 1492 Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, ended Muslim rule in Spain.

The Ottoman Empire failed to keep up technologically with its European rivals, especially Russia. It suffered a huge naval loss at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. After its defeat at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the Ottoman Empire began a long period of decline. After the great defeat of the Ottomans at Vienna, Prince Eugene of Savoy lead Austrian forces to further victories. By 1699, the whole of Hungary had been conquered from the Ottomans by the Austrians. The decline culminated in the defeat of the empire by the Allies in World War I. of the Ottoman Empire[url

Between 636 and 1683 there was over a thousand years of aggression by Islam against Christianity and the Western World. Why did it end? Did Islam renounce the sword? Did it go thru a reformation, a renaissance ? Did a new prophet arise with a message of peace? No, Islamic conquests of Europe ended because Islam had not changed. It had over time become a primitive backward culture that was unable to compete in the modern world.

Beginning in the late 1960's Islam renewed its attack on the Western World. Again the question to be asked is what had changed in Islam? Had Islam undergone an industrial or technological revolution that would allow it to compete with the Western World? No, Islam was still the same primitive religion that first attacked the Western World in 636. What had changed can be summed up in one word, money. Money from the oil fields began to flow into the Middle East and North Africa. In the mid 1960's Islam nation began again their raids on the West with the nationalization of oil fields and refineries. Islam now had the money to purchase the weapons they could not produce and to finance a renewed assault on the West.

The first modern attack on the a Western nation, was a dismal failure, when tiny Israel single handily defeated the entire modern Islam world. The combined might of Egypt, Jordan, Syria along with their supporters Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria was not enough to defeat one small Western Nation. The lesson of the inferiority of the Islamic fighters in open combat, despite overwhelming superiority in men and equipment, was not lost on Islamic militants. From that point on Islamic militants began to use terror as one of their weapons against the Western world.

The first attack against the United States in the renewed war came at about 12:15 am on June 5, 1968, when Sirhan Sirhan shot presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy for his pro-Israel stance..

Another weapon that the Islamic world had in its arsenal to use against the United States was the 1965 Immigration Act. This Act, sponsored by Democrats, allowed Muslims throughout the world to pour into the United States in numbers that were never before possible.
The Muslim population in America is estimated to be between 8 to 10 million. American Muslims represent about 3.7% of the total population and about 9.4% of the total voting public http://www.ijtihad.org/Muslimvote2004.htm
You and I would vote for a candidate, because we felt that he had the best interest of our country at heart. The Muslims will vote for a candidate that they feel has the best interest of Islam at heart, even to the determent of this country.

On 9-11 the cries of “Allahu Akbar” rang out over an open mike as a hijackers struggled for control of an airplane. This was the same battle cry that Muhammad had taught his followers to scream almost 1400 years ago. You may not think we are at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with us as it has been for almost 1400 years, whether you agree with me or not.

In 1938 Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement as an appeasement to the Nazis and have his infamous “Peace in our Time” speech. On September 17, 2001, President Bush gave his “Islam is peace” speech as an appeasement to Muslims.

In 1936 Mein Kampf" was published. No one took the writings of a failed revolutionist sitting in jail seriously. Six years and 55 million lives later, they did. The Qur’an is Muhammad’s Mein Kampf. If we fail to take his writings seriously, then WWII will pale in comparison to what our children and grandchildren will face,

Mein Kampf was an influential text among the Arab Ba’ath Party activists. An Arabic edition of Mein Kampf has been published by Bisan publishers in Lebanon. It ranks on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs.
Why don’t the moderate Muslims speak out against the “terrorist that have hijacked their religion?” They can’t, because they cannot defend their position using the Qur’an or other holy Islamic books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
Outcast said:
Why don’t the moderate Muslims speak out against the “terrorist that have hijacked their religion?” They can’t, because they cannot defend their position using the Qur’an or other holy Islamic books.

Well at least this makes sense. Before you were saying to deport all muslims, but at least now you acknowledge that the majority of muslims is peaceful and against terror, not because theyre muslims but because theyre humans like the rest of us.
 
  • #63
Outcast said:
You and I would vote for a candidate, because we felt that he had the best interest of our country at heart. The Muslims will vote for a candidate that they feel has the best interest of Islam at heart, even to the determent of this country.
I don't buy that any more than I buy the argument against JFK (at the time) that he would act in the interest of the Vatican. American muslims, by and large, are Americans first and foremost (otherwise, they wouldn't choose to live here). In fact, a great many are more patriotic than the average American because they have seen how 'the other side' lives and know how much better they have it. They can't be compared to muslims in the middle east.
 
  • #64
The references Outcast uses are just plain wrong to paint all Muslims with the same brush. These views don't even describe Saddam Hussein.

They do reflect the views of some Muslim groups, al-Quaida being one of them. In fact, the extreme fundamentalist viewpoint of al-Quaida is one reason why a strong, close relationship between Iraq and al-Quaida would be a surprise (That wouldn't rule out a temporary relationship out of mutual convenience, just make one more difficult. According to the 9/11 report, the al-Quaida did try to ally itself with Iraq when al-Quaida was newer and weaker - Iraq rejected them, most likely because at that point, al-Quaida was more capable of causing problems for Iraq than the US. Later, Iraq did try to reach an alliance with a stronger al-Quaida, but was rejected - most likely because al-Quaida felt it had passed the point where it felt it had to ally itself with a secular type government that it philosophically opposed).

Your fundamentalist groups do feel there should be no separation between their religion and their government. In the view of al-Quaida, the governments of countries such as Iraq (pre-war secular dictatorship) and other secular Arab governments need to be replaced by a clerical government, such as the Taliban ran in Afghanistan or the Ayatollahs try to run in Iran.

This is the type of government al-Quaida wants to see in Iraq now that an opportunity has presented itself. It's also the type of government it wants to see in Chechnya, another war al-Quaida has supported. If the reference is strictly limited to the current war we're fighting in Iraq, Outcast's posts aren't totally out of line, since they do reflect a large percentage of the people that we're currently fighting. But it is totally wrong to paint this as a war against all Muslims.
 
  • #65
studentx said:
Well at least this makes sense. Before you were saying to deport all muslims, but at least now you acknowledge that the majority of muslims is peaceful and against terror, not because theyre muslims but because theyre humans like the rest of us.
No, I said none of those things.
4) Begin deporting Muslims back to their native country, that are not U.S. citizens
Not all Muslims, just the non US citizens.
I never said the majority of Muslims are peaceful and against terror. I never used the word majority.
(moderate) muslims is peaceful and against terror, not because theyre muslims but because theyre humans like the rest of us
Yes, I agree with your statement. Those Muslims that are opposed to the bombings, beheadings and shootings, do so as humans. They cannot be opposed to the bombings, beheadings and shootings, as Muslims, because that would be heresy.

Christians on the other hand decry Jonestown, Waco and the abortion clinic bombings, not only as humans, but as Christians as well. Those events violated the teaching of Christ. Bombings, beheadings and shootings do not violate the teachings of Muhammad.
 
  • #66
Your reasoning seems to be split into two parts: historical and theological.

I don't think your historical argument holds any water: it has happened quite a few times that someone has managed to organize a society then that society conquers its neighbors. You could probably argue that the Arabs would not organized without Islam, but you'll be hard pressed to show that the subsequent conquests were any more ideological than, say, the Mongol Hordes or the Roman Empire.

Your religous argument is nonexistant: while you've stated multiple times your interpretation of Islam, you've given no arguments to back it up.


Furthermore, I don't see how your (alledged) contrast with Christianity bears any relevance to your claim.
 
  • #67
BobG said:
The references Outcast uses are just plain wrong to paint all Muslims with the same brush. These views don't even describe Saddam Hussein.

They do reflect the views of some Muslim groups, al-Quaida being one of them. In fact, the extreme fundamentalist viewpoint of al-Quaida is one reason why a strong, close relationship between Iraq and al-Quaida would be a surprise (That wouldn't rule out a temporary relationship out of mutual convenience, just make one more difficult. According to the 9/11 report, the al-Quaida did try to ally itself with Iraq when al-Quaida was newer and weaker - Iraq rejected them, most likely because at that point, al-Quaida was more capable of causing problems for Iraq than the US. Later, Iraq did try to reach an alliance with a stronger al-Quaida, but was rejected - most likely because al-Quaida felt it had passed the point where it felt it had to ally itself with a secular type government that it philosophically opposed).

Your fundamentalist groups do feel there should be no separation between their religion and their government.
In the view of al-Quaida, the governments of countries such as Iraq (pre-war secular dictatorship) and other secular Arab governments need to be replaced by a clerical government, such as the Taliban ran in Afghanistan or the Ayatollahs try to run in Iran.

This is the type of government al-Quaida wants to see in Iraq now that an opportunity has presented itself. It's also the type of government it wants to see in Chechnya, another war al-Quaida has supported. If the reference is strictly limited to the current war we're fighting in Iraq, Outcast's posts aren't totally out of line, since they do reflect a large percentage of the people that we're currently fighting. But it is totally wrong to paint this as a war against all Muslims.
The references Outcast uses are just plain wrong to paint all Muslims with the same brush.
Which references are wrong? If this had been a term paper, I would have footnoted everything.

These views don't even describe Saddam Hussein.
How is that? True, he did not learn the lesson from the Six Day War, The Yon Kipper War or Gulf War I, Saddam, though a secular leader, is the product of an Islamic society. He was educated at the Cairo University in law. His Ba’ath Party was influenced by Mein Kampf. There is a lot of similarities between Hitler and Muhammad and between the Koran and Mein Kampf.

Your fundamentalist groups do feel there should be no separation between their religion and their government.
It is not the fundamentalist group, but the Koran that calls for Muslims to live in an Islamic state. http://www.islamic-state.org/fard/obligation1.shtml

And what are the duties of a Muslim living here in America or some other Western country under our form of government?
http://www.islamic-state.org/west/
The Prophet said, "Man mata laysa fi uniqihi bay'ah mata maytan Jahilliya" "Whosoever dies without a bay'ah on their neck dies the death of Jahilliya (ignorance)" So it is Fard for all Muslims whether young or old, male or female to work to re-establish the Khilafah (Islamic State) so that we can give the bay'ah to the Khalifah and not die in a state of sinfulness. And this Fard cannot be achieved only by an individual working by himself. Rather this Fard requires a group to establish it.
to work to re-establish the Khilafah (Islamic State) = to overthrow the existing government. This is not radial Islam, but Islam.

You keep talking about al-Quaida, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. They seems to have become Presidents Bush's whipping boys for his reelection. Just take a look at this list and see what the Western World is up against. Para-Military Groups Notice how may of these are Islamic and what their mission is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
russ_watters said:
I don't buy that any more than I buy the argument against JFK (at the time) that he would act in the interest of the Vatican. American muslims, by and large, are Americans first and foremost (otherwise, they wouldn't choose to live here). In fact, a great many are more patriotic than the average American because they have seen how 'the other side' lives and know how much better they have it. They can't be compared to muslims in the middle east.
Patriotics like Johnny Walker Lynn? or FBI Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz? or Spc. Ryan G. Anderson? or Sgt. Asan Akbar of the 326th Engineer Battalion or Muslim Chaplain James Yee or American Muslims that refused to fight in the Gulf War? The Japanese Americans were more loyal to this country in WWII, even after the way we treated them. If the Muslims here are good loyal Americans then they are heretics.

They can't be compared to muslims in the middle east
Why not? Didn't most of the come from North Africa, The Middle East and Central Asia? What about the 19 hijackers? Weren't they good American Muslims up until 9-11?

Also would you please look at my previous post to BobG so I won't have to post it again. The part at the bottom about " And what are the duties of a Muslim living here in America or some other Western country under our form of government? "
 
  • #69
Now your comparing Mohammed to Hitler! Is there no end to your bias?
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Smurf said:
Now your comparing Muhammed to Hitler! Is there no end to your bias?
Have you ever read their biographies?
 
  • #71
Careful Outcast, you don't want to wind up like Salman Rushdie, with the Muslim population vowing to kill you. (Cat Stevens' role in the threats has mysteriously been forgotten.)
 
  • #72
JohnDubYa said:
Careful Outcast, you don't want to wind up like Salman Rushdie, with the Muslim population vowing to kill you. (Cat Stevens' role in the threats has mysteriously been forgotten.)
They got more to worry about than just me. More people are beginning to wake up to the threat that Islam poses.
 
  • #73
Smurf said:
Now your comparing Muhammed to Hitler! Is there no end to your bias?
Here is a nice little bedtime story about the religion of peace. The author is drawing a comparison between the actions of the German Nazis and the Islamic Turks.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/armromgen.htm
In the course of the First World War two thirds of Turkey's 2,100,000 Armenians were killed. Of the remainder, many were exiled, and the rest lived in fear.

A connection between the Armenian massacres of the First World War, and the policies pursued in the Second, has been alluded to be some scholars. The Armenian Genocide demonstrated that it was not difficult to implement such policies in time of war, and that the long-term repercussions were manageable. According to the Archives of the Nuremberg Proceedings, Hitler, at a meeting of SS units at Obersalzberg, on August 22, 1939, at which he instructed them "to kill, without pity, men, women and children" in their march against Poland, commented that such activities would have no long term repercussions. Who, he said, "remembers now the massacres of the Armenians?" (Staub, p.187, and 309)

Although the term genocide is at times used rather loosely, there is generally broad agreement among scholars that Gypsies and Jews during the period of Third Reich hegemony in Europe during the Second World War, and the Armenians of Turkey during the First, were all targeted for “destruction, in whole or in part”. In tracing the origins and implementation of these policies it is, as I sought to demonstrate, necessary to inquire into the nature of the structural relations that obtained between the perpetrators and victims of genocide, as it is the matrix of these relations that helps to explain why such policies emerged and particular groups were selected as victims.

And what would the god of Islam say about all of this?

Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an 9:111 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Ishaq:324 “Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must not have rivals.”

Qur’an 9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”

Ishaq:300 “I am fighting in Allah’s service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah’s war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good.”

Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.”

Ishaq:588 “When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

I think the god of Islam would have been pleased with the way the Turks carried out his commandments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
Lets make this fun! :biggrin:

Bible Quotes:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. (Luke 19:26-27)
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)

http://www.islam101.com had this to say:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate some verses from the Holy Quran for their own goals.
But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.
:cool: This guy's smart.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Now some Koran Quotes :biggrin: :biggrin: !

"God commands justice, the doing of the good, and liberality to kith and kin. He
forbids all shameful deeds, injustice and rebellion. Thus does he instruct you, that you may receive admonition." 16:90
"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of male and female, and made you
into nations and tribes, that he may know and cooperate with one another." 49:13
2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Smurf said:
Lets make this fun! :biggrin:

Bible Quotes:


http://www.islam101.com had this to say:

:cool: This guy's smart.
Yes those things are in the Bible, but we are not talking about Christianity or Judaism. We are talking Islam. I understand for your need to change the subject.
 
  • #77
And the rest of my post?
tsk tsk, your avoiding the subject again :shy:

The bible quotes were to back up my argument, nothing more.
 
  • #78
I invoke Godwin's law. Outcast loses!
 
  • #79
Smurf said:
And the rest of my post?
tsk tsk, your avoiding the subject again :shy:

The bible quotes were to back up my argument, nothing more.
And what argument was that?
 
  • #80
I believe I said this:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate some verses from the Holy Quran for their own goals.
But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.
And then gave some compassionate, peaceful quotes from the Koran.
 
  • #81
Smurf said:
And the rest of my post?
tsk tsk, your avoiding the subject again :shy:

The bible quotes were to back up my argument, nothing more.
Tell me how those few quotes indicate there is not problem between Islam and the Western World? How does those few quotes refute 1400 years of history?

Also Godwin's law does not apply, because the comparison between Hitler and Muhammad is quite valid and not used as an insult.
 
  • #82
1400 years, let's see that'd be... since 604 AD.
Allow me to examine this time period in detail and I'll get back to you on it.

The proof that there is not problem between islam and the western world is all the Islamists living IN the western world, quite peacefully.
 
  • #83
Smurf said:
I believe I said this:

And then gave some compassionate, peaceful quotes from the Koran.
http://www.islam101.com had this to say:
Quote:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate some verses from the Holy Quran for their own goals.
But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.

If http://www.islam101.com had this to say:, then how can it be your arugment?
 
  • #84
Because that IS my argument. the first 2 lines:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted.
There is nothing extremist or violent about the Quran. Thats bad translation, propoganda, whatever you want to call it. A few terrorists who managed to manipulate a few sections from it does not make it evil.\

And what are you trying to get at about the 1400 years of history? That Islam hates christians? hates the west? or is just inherently violent?
 
  • #85
Smurf said:
1400 years, let's see that'd be... since 604 AD.
Allow me to examine this time period in detail and I'll get back to you on it.

The proof that there is not problem between islam and the western world is all the Islamists living IN the western world, quite peacefully.
Yes, why don't you get back to me when you have some valid arguments. Next time do a little better than just a cut and paste from a website.
 
  • #86
Outcast said:
Next time do a little better than just a cut and paste from a website.

As someone just standing by reading to learn, I find this statement to be absurd. When I look through your posts I don't see references... just a few quotes from holy scriptures (which he did as well) and whole lot of website links...

Making childish, snide remarks about cut and pasting from webistes would be at least minimally acceptable if you hadn't done the same yourself.
 
  • #87
Locrian said:
As someone just standing by reading to learn, I find this statement to be absurd. When I look through your posts I don't see references... just a few quotes from holy scriptures (which he did as well) and whole lot of website links...

Making childish, snide remarks about cut and pasting from webistes would be at least minimally acceptable if you hadn't done the same yourself.
I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I stated my arguments, I posted material to support my arguments and referenced the material I posted. I thought there would be some serious discussion, but I was wrong.

Perhaps you should learn to read first, then read to learn.
 
  • #88
Outcast said:
I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Well, that could certainly be true, though I don't see it as that complicated a post. You chide him for doing the same thing you did - post links to net sources. Is it any surprise you came back with the time honored "learn to read" response? For years this has been the knee-jerk of choice for those backed into a corner, and I suppose there is no reason to break tradition here.

No amount of insulting me will make your comment towards him any less petty and invalid.
 
  • #89
Hurkyl said:
I invoke Godwin's law. Outcast loses!
It's been proven: Any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
 
  • #90
Sadly Outcast, you're just illustrating the problem rather than describing it. Religious works cannot be taken literally without regard to the age that they were written, the intended audience of the work, or without the benefit of an overall understanding of the intent of the entire book. Furthermore, you are taking verses out of context for the purpose of proping up your misconceptions.

This is the same problem that moderate Christians have with many conservatives. They think that the literal meaning for a 20th century western person is the same as for a Middle Eastern person living in the time the passage was written. This is not the case, and it must be understood that way in order to gain any true insight from the passage.

The Muslims have the same type of problem with extremists. They take verses out of context, read them literally disregarding any understanding of different meaning to a person from the time it was written and apply them to their twisted view of the religion.

Thank you for your illustration of this process in action.
 
  • #91
I am just amazed at how blind people are. Nothing I said about history or currents events means anything.

So what you all are saying is that there is no problem between the Western World and Islam?
 
  • #92
Outcast said:
So what you all are saying is that there is no problem between the Western World and Islam?
There are other problems that you have not mentioned that are more difficult to overcome. For instance, Islam is a community religion for many of its followers. If one follower in the community starts to follow western culture and this leads to a negative effect, it is thought to effect the entire community and not just the offender. This is what makes US presence there such a problem even for the non-extremists.

Please understand that this is a basic explanation of my understanding of one of the problems.
 
  • #93
So it is ok with you folks that we a dual standard of law, one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims?
Muslim women who fled the strict Islamic laws in their home countries to live in a more liberal environment in Canada may now face a similar regime in Ontario, where a Muslim civil court for family disputes is being considered under the arbitration act.
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=34084 So it is ok for Islamic women in Canada and soon to be the US to become second class citizens? It must be ok since there is no problem with Islam and Islamic law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Artman said:
There are other problems that you have not mentioned that are more difficult to overcome. For instance, Islam is a community religion for many of its followers. If one follower in the community starts to follow western culture and this leads to a negative effect, it is thought to effect the entire community and not just the offender. This is what makes US presence there such a problem even for the non-extremists.

Please understand that this is a basic explanation of my understanding of one of the problems.
I am it total agree with your statement. That also applies when Muslims move to the Western World, their community moves with them so to speak, right?
 
Last edited:
  • #95
I agree there's a problem with Islam and the problem is that it allows extremism to spread. I just disagree that its not a majority of muslims who want to kill westerners, and that "most iraqis" wouldn't use WMD on westerners if they could.
 
  • #96
Outcast said:
That also applies when Muslims move to the Western World, their community moves with them so to speak, right?
Yes. This is somewhat true, but our society is built from differing cultures.

I think my main point is that the majority of Muslims don't hate us, but view us in a way that is similar to a divorcing couple splitting up for irreconcilable differences. We don't hate each other, but we know we can't live together. I guess the ones who come over here view it as "staying together for the children" (better living conditions and more opportunities, outweighing the cultural problems).
 
  • #97
Outcast said:
That also applies when Muslims move to the Western World, their community moves with them so to speak, right?
I tend to think that they move to the West because they no longer fit with their community.
 
  • #98
It's been proven: Any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

I know. :frown: But I do it anyways because it makes a good lead-in for my typical next comment:


Outcast said:
Also Godwin's law does not apply, because the comparison between Hitler and Muhammad is quite valid

You entirely miss the point of Godwin's law. Whether or not the comparison with Hitler or Nazis is valid, it is logically irrelevant to the issue at hand; the only purpose such a comparison serves is its emotional appeal. Since it is so obvious, it can be safely taken as a clear sign you don't have any logical argument to make in its place.

With that in mind...

Outcast said:
Nothing I said about history or currents events means anything.

Then why did you say it? Stick to your point, don't go off on all these tangents.


So what you all are saying is that there is no problem between the Western World and Islam?

No, I am saying that I have no compelling reason to believe there is a problem with Islam and the western world.
 
  • #99
What I'd like to see is what exactly in the last 1400 years makes outcast believe that there is a problem.
 
  • #100
Artman said:
Yes. This is somewhat true, but our society is built from differing cultures.

I think my main point is that the majority of Muslims don't hate us, but view us in a way that is similar to a divorcing couple splitting up for irreconcilable differences. We don't hate each other, but we know we can't live together. I guess the ones who come over here view it as "staying together for the children" (better living conditions and more opportunities, outweighing the cultural problems).
Perhaps a good example would be like Nazi (again) Germany in WWII. Though we were at war, there was not strong underlying current of hate on either side. Nazi ca be divided into four groups. 1) Those that truly believed the propaganda. 2) Those that supported it for social or economical advantages. 3) Those that supported it out of fear of death or prison and 4) Those that were brainwashed: Hitler's Youth. Hitler's Youth was by far the most dangerous of Germany's soliders, even the regular German solider was afraid of them, because of their fantasm. I believe the same four groups exist in Islam. It is the fourth group of Muslims that is so dangerous to the Western World.
 
Back
Top