Are Civilian Casualties Ever Justifiable in Conflict Scenarios?

[Outcast]

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?

 

[Artman]

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.

 

[Outcast]

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.

 

[Outcast]

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?

 

[studentx]

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.

 

[Artman]

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).

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's been proven: Any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

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

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...

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.

 

[Smurf]

What I'd like to see is what exactly in the last 1400 years makes outcast believe that there is a problem.

 

[Outcast]

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.

 

[Outcast]

I tend to think that they move to the West because they no longer fit with their community.

That may be true, along with wanting jobs and a better life. The problem arises when what the tried to leave behinds follows them. For example, in the article I posted
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=34084 it says

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.

“Someone like me who was forced to leave her home country, exactly because of the re-Islamicization in our country,” said Haideh Moghissi, a sociologist at York University who came to Canada from Iran 20 years ago.

Moghissi has been interviewing migrant Muslim women in Canada for an academic project involving diaspora, Islam and gender, and says she discovered “a lot of resentment” towards the proposed Islam-based (Sharia) court.

“They have been brought to this country through the sponsorship of their husbands. They are dependent on (them) for various reasons and they simply don't have a say that the men have in cases like this. They can be pressured into arbitration,” she said.

As I posted to Artman about the four different groups, Islamic women appear to fall into the third group, they are being forced to accept strict Islamic beliefs by groups one.

Group one is also responsible for creating group four.

 

[Outcast]

What I'd like to see is what exactly in the last 1400 years makes outcast believe that there is a problem.

Smurf, if I were a serial killer or rapist, I would love to have you in the jury. If you can ignore almost 1400 years of warfare between the Western World and Islam, then you could easily ignore anything in a person's past history.

 

[Outcast]

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


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

I said it because I was using history to support my position. Then I came to realize that history doesn't mean anything on here. I was sticking to my point. " Islam and Christianity have had a problem with each other". The problem has existed for almost 1400 years.

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, if I were a serial killer or rapist, I would love to have you in the jury. If you can ignore almost 1400 years of warfare between the Western World and Islam, then you could easily ignore anything in a person's past history.

Ok, but what events specifically make you think that islam has been at war more than the west has been at war with them selves?
And what makes you think that we and them (aside from you) still hold grudges?

 

[Outcast]

Ok, but what events specifically make you think that islam has been at war more than the west has been at war with them selves?
And what makes you think that we and them (aside from you) still hold grudges?

We are not talking about the wars between Europeans, we are talking about the war between Islam and the Western World.

Events? Pick one starting with The Battle of the Yarmuk in 636 up until the present. When has Islam and the West not been at war during the last 1368 years?

http://www.citizensoldier.org/hateus.html The bottom line is that Muslims hate the West because the Koran tells Muslims that the West rejects Islam, and consequently is evil.

The Koran is confirmed to be true in the minds of Muslims by our own desire to throw out God's rules.

There are 14 reason given for that quote.

Grudges? Ever hear of Bosnia, Kosovc or the Spanish Reconquista?

 

[Smurf]

What the HELL are you talking about!?

I've had enough of this. I thought you were done with your Quran quoting, I thought you were accually going to clarify when Islam has been at war with "The West". Hell I thought you were going to clarify what part of "The West" has been at war with Islam for so long and why you think they are still "our" enemy today.

I believe its already been ascertained that there are many translations of the Quran that contradict each other. I believe I've pointed out you need to use them in their proper context. I believe its already been determined that many muslims havn't even read the Quran, they're beliefs are based on their familly traditions or whatnot.

Yes, I've heard of Bosnia and Kosovo, no I don't know what happened there.

And what the hell does the Spanish Reconquista have to do with TODAY? In that time christian kingdoms were fighting amongst themselves just as much as with the muslims, and yes, they allied with Muslim kingdoms as well, and orthodox kingdoms, and some even had deals with the 'barbarians' and pagans of the era.

 

[studentx]

Yep, the more you study Islam the less you understand moderate Muslims and the more you understand extremists.

 

[Smurf]

I think that's an accurate statement.

 

[Outcast]

I've had enough of this. I thought you were done with your Quran quoting, I thought you were accually going to clarify when Islam has been at war with "The West". Hell I thought you were going to clarify what part of "The West" has been at war with Islam for so long and why you think they are still "our" enemy today.

I believe its already been ascertained that there are many translations of the Quran that contradict each other. I believe I've pointed out you need to use them in their proper context. I believe its already been determined that many muslims havn't even read the Quran, they're beliefs are based on their familly traditions or whatnot.

Yes, I've heard of Bosnia and Kosovo, no I don't know what happened there.

And what the hell does the Spanish Reconquista have to do with TODAY? In that time christian kingdoms were fighting amongst themselves just as much as with the muslims, and yes, they allied with Muslim kingdoms as well, and orthodox kingdoms, and some even had deals with the 'barbarians' and pagans of the era.

Again, from a earlier posting of mine on this thread.

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.

By the numbers

1) The Battle of the Yarmuk took place between the Arabs and the Byzantine Empire in 636. Do you understand that sentence?

2) This was the first clash between Islam and the Western world. Understand that?

3) The Byzantine army was defeated and Syria and the Middle East, which had formerly been Judo-Christian was lost to Islam. Now is that so hard to understand?

Do you understand that the Middle East was once part of the Western world for 700 years? It was the first part of the Western World to be attacked by the Muslims in 636 AD

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, allow me to start with something simple: what would it even mean for Islam to be at war with the Western World? Do you simply mean "A country whose predominant religion is Islam had a battle with a European or American country"?

 

[Smurf]

I'm very sorry outcast but I don't think like you, and I can't read your mind. Therefor I don't know where your coming from so your going to have to show me your logic behind this. As far as I can see "The West" (which I'm speculating means christians in Europe + North America, since you refused to clarify) has been at war with itself just as much as with any Islam nations, and as I recall the Islams have had plenty of bickering amongst themselves, and its not unheard of for an Islam nations and a Christian nation to sign an alliance.

Yes I am very familiar with the battle of Yarmuk, but as You said before... IT HAPPENED 1400 YEARS AGO. you know we prosecuted jews and pagans 1400 years ago, had witch hunts and thought the world was flat too. Things change. What does Yarmuk have to do with Today.

 

[studentx]

Outcast the worst thing you can do is admit to a war with Islam. This is exactly what extremists believe in, that the west is trying to destroy Islam and admitting this will just breed more extremism. Insulting Mohammed is also counter productive, its the root of their religion and even the most moderate muslims will be disgusted by this.

 

[Smurf]

Hell, I'm disgusted by it and I'm not muslim.

 

[Outcast]

Well, allow me to start with something simple: what would it even mean for Islam to be at war with the Western World? Do you simply mean "A country whose predominant religion is Islam had a battle with a European or American country"?

No, not just a battle, but almost a thousand years of battles in an attempt to conquer and convert Europe to Islam. War in the conventional sense of battlefields ended in the 1700s due to the technological inferiority of Islam. Today Islam still wages war against the West other than open warfare on the battlefield.

 

[Hurkyl]

So if there were only 999 years of battles, it would not be considered a "War between Islam and the Western World"? I suspect you did not mean to put the time frame into the definition...


So "War between Islam and the Western World", you mean an attempt, by a nation whose redominant religion is Islam, to conquer or convert a region of Europe through force?

 

[Outcast]

I'm very sorry outcast but I don't think like you, and I can't read your mind. Therefor I don't know where your coming from so your going to have to show me your logic behind this. As far as I can see "The West" (which I'm speculating means christians in Europe + North America, since you refused to clarify) has been at war with itself just as much as with any Islam nations, and as I recall the Islams have had plenty of bickering amongst themselves, and its not unheard of for an Islam nations and a Christian nation to sign an alliance.

Yes I am very familiar with the battle of Yarmuk, but as You said before... IT HAPPENED 1400 YEARS AGO. you know we prosecuted jews and pagans 1400 years ago, had witch hunts and thought the world was flat too. Things change. What does Yarmuk have to do with Today.

Ok if you are familiar with the Battle of Yarmuk, then why did you ask

I thought you were accually going to clarify when Islam has been at war with "The West".

I had also posted that answer earlier.

I'm am sorry that it was unclear to you as what I meant by the Western World and I didn't realize that you were asking for clarification.

Yes, every country has been at war with someone at sometime over something. And even the worst of enemies will sign alliances when it is in there interest. England signed an appeasement pact with Nazi German, Nazi signed a pact with the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union and the United States fought on the same side in WWII. During WWII Islam supported Nazi German.

you know we prosecuted jews and pagans 1400 years ago, had witch hunts and thought the world was flat too. Things change

Not all things Islam has not changed.

What does Yarmuk have to do with Today.

It was where and when the conquest of the West and its conversion to Islam started. It was the start of a pattern that is unchanged even today.

 

[Outcast]

So if there were only 999 years of battles, it would not be considered a "War between Islam and the Western World"? I suspect you did not mean to put the time frame into the definition...


So "War between Islam and the Western World", you mean an attempt, by a nation whose redominant religion is Islam, to conquer or convert a region of Europe through force?

Yes

Remember I said, "War in the conventional sense of battlefields ended in the 1700s." That means the war is now being fought off the battlefields in an unconventional manner. The goal of is Islam is still the same as it was 1400 years ago, to convert the world to Islam.

 

[Outcast]

Outcast the worst thing you can do is admit to a war with Islam. This is exactly what extremists believe in, that the west is trying to destroy Islam and admitting this will just breed more extremism. Insulting Mohammed is also counter productive, its the root of their religion and even the most moderate muslims will be disgusted by this.

It is Islam that is trying to destroy the West not the other way around. Did we try to install a Christian government in Afghanistan or Iraq the way the Muslims installed Islamic governmets in countries they conquered? Have we outlawed Islam the way Saudi Arabia has outlawed Christianity or even discriminated against it the way every Muslim country discriminates against Christianity?

Insulting Mohammed is also counter productive,

So telling the truth about Mohammed is insulting? You can quote anything from the New Testament or what the early church fathers wrote about Christ and I don't know of too many Christian would be insulted. If I quote from the the Qur'an, and the inspired Sunnah collections of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, al-Tabari's History, and Bukhari's and Muslim's Hadith. then Muslims are insulted?

 

[Outcast]

Hell, I'm disgusted by it and I'm not muslim.

Yes, Muhammad was a very disgusting person.

 

[Outcast]

This is just one example how Islam wages war against the West.
Storm over Italy crucifix ruling

A controversy has erupted in Italy over a court ruling ordering a state kindergarten to remove crucifixes from its classrooms.

A judge in the central town of L'Aquila upheld a complaint by an Italian Muslim leader, Adel Smith.