J
jack_hawkins
Guest
no, some of the “generalisations” you posted were totally false!
- Status
J
jam070406
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
J
jack_hawkins
Guest
good point well made jam - this is one generalisation which is worthy of mentioning
something 25 out of 28 conflicts in the world today involve Muslims versus another culture
something 25 out of 28 conflicts in the world today involve Muslims versus another culture
A
Allweather
Guest
What strikes me is that this current culture war against Islam seems to have started up just since the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Oh sure, it was always there, but it was low-grade, and mostly involved Israel’s situation, plus a few tiny hot spots here and there. I’m wondering if there is a connection between the collapse of world communism, its disappearance as our Primary Enemy, and the upsurge in enemy status of world Islam…
Are we already in the Orwellian set-up where it is necessary to have a perpetual enemy?
J
jack_hawkins
Guest
well certainly Islam is the current opponent of capitalism, but I don’t think that is the result of manipulation
Islam is allied with the left anyway, look at the alliance between China and Islamists
both Communism and Islamism are totalitarian and bleak, with allegiance to Mother Russia/Mohammed and opposition to “the West” dominating everything else
Pope JP II helped bring down Communism
will the Supreme Pontiff now or in the future have to take on Islam?
Islam is allied with the left anyway, look at the alliance between China and Islamists
both Communism and Islamism are totalitarian and bleak, with allegiance to Mother Russia/Mohammed and opposition to “the West” dominating everything else
Pope JP II helped bring down Communism
will the Supreme Pontiff now or in the future have to take on Islam?
V
Vaclav
Guest
The Soviets generally held nationalism and regional conflicts in check as best they could. What they could not was rarely reported beyond the borders of the Soviet Union and that particular region.
Nationalism and Islamist militancy were two serious factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union. That became evident quickly after the collapse was made final. Recall how quickly the Yugoslav Wars began to take place and Serbia and Slovenia quickly began to fight.
Not long after Serbia and Croatia began to fight in what was a horribly bloody affair filled with nasty atrocities on both sides. Not long after that, Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia fought and the war became more well known around the world.
Nationalist conflicts were not limited to that region. The Caucusus erupted in violence in Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia. Tajikistan fought a five year civil war. Moldova and Transnistria fought. Chechnya erupted into war.
There is no great prophecy fulfillment or Orwellian secrets to behold. The fact was that the Soviet Union held together a disparate group of nationalities and when it collapsed, a number of these fell into power vacuums that struggled for control. Many of the conflicts existed beforehand, but the USSR exerted enough force to keep the pot from boiling over, so to speak.
Communism was by no means a friend of Militant Islam, they were very opposing ideologies and of course fought one another in Afghanistan.
Interestingly, the militants of Islam are the far right wing of that faith. They abhor secular government and the liberal democratic traditions of the west (including socialism). They tend to see their cause as very much a “puritanical” effort.
Nationalism and Islamist militancy were two serious factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union. That became evident quickly after the collapse was made final. Recall how quickly the Yugoslav Wars began to take place and Serbia and Slovenia quickly began to fight.
Not long after Serbia and Croatia began to fight in what was a horribly bloody affair filled with nasty atrocities on both sides. Not long after that, Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia fought and the war became more well known around the world.
Nationalist conflicts were not limited to that region. The Caucusus erupted in violence in Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia. Tajikistan fought a five year civil war. Moldova and Transnistria fought. Chechnya erupted into war.
There is no great prophecy fulfillment or Orwellian secrets to behold. The fact was that the Soviet Union held together a disparate group of nationalities and when it collapsed, a number of these fell into power vacuums that struggled for control. Many of the conflicts existed beforehand, but the USSR exerted enough force to keep the pot from boiling over, so to speak.
Communism was by no means a friend of Militant Islam, they were very opposing ideologies and of course fought one another in Afghanistan.
Interestingly, the militants of Islam are the far right wing of that faith. They abhor secular government and the liberal democratic traditions of the west (including socialism). They tend to see their cause as very much a “puritanical” effort.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Hey! why I do not care for labels . . . .
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Dear Kitty Chan,
Are you generalizing about labels?
I think you have disrespected labels by limiting them to only soup cans. What about other cans? Cans of spam also need labels. What about bottles? Bottles also need labels?
I think you’re one of those anti-label types.
Please re-consider.
XXX
Rodrigo
Are you generalizing about labels?
I think you have disrespected labels by limiting them to only soup cans. What about other cans? Cans of spam also need labels. What about bottles? Bottles also need labels?
I think you’re one of those anti-label types.
Please re-consider.
XXX
Rodrigo
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Oh I encourage labels for soup cans, they truly belong there. Spam, spam, spam, spam what can I say? At least its still a can.
Although Im not sure about bottles . . . They tend to sometimes be more revealing and not hide behind labels, If they could be clear about it they would probably leave the labels to the cans too.
Besides labels are itchy . . .
Although Im not sure about bottles . . . They tend to sometimes be more revealing and not hide behind labels, If they could be clear about it they would probably leave the labels to the cans too.
Besides labels are itchy . . .
M
Montalban
Guest
Yes, I understand this concern for an enemy that is always there. From Nineteen Eighty-Four we have a perpetual enemy.
However Islam was always our enemy, but Europe was in the ascendency over it between 1600s-1900s
M
Montalban
Guest
Labels serve to help us communicate. If we want to talk about “Islam” it helps to know that Islam has a set of values that makes it come under one label.
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Since its coming up I best explain.
Labels are ok for initial communications or conversation starters. But people being generally lazy tend to rely on them and never seek anything beyond the label.
That way when the “label” is stated, the assumption is done, the catagory made and the mind is closed.
Thats why they only belong on soup cans not humans.
(and spam, I will allow that)
As for Islam, when the radicals do whatever, the “common” man doesnt say anything because they do not consider the radical to be part of them so they dont feel a need to condem them. I understand each group actually doesnt even recognise the other group as being part of a whole.
Where catholics will accept protestants or vice versa and I think jewish would accept gentiles, from what I can see there is none of that in Islam. Other than convert or else.
So if Im correct in these thoughts then I can see a thread running through christians and jews. And not through any other religions or belief systems. At this moment all others are accept or else or just go away at least.
Just a thoughts on why things may be as they are. not excusing. But considering the source explains why it is. Does that make sense?
R
Rodrigo_Bivar
Guest
Kitty Chan wrote:
As for Islam, when the radicals do whatever, the “common” man doesnt say anything because they do not consider the radical to be part of them so they dont feel a need to condem them. I understand each group actually doesnt even recognise the other group as being part of a whole.
Who are these ‘radicals’?
Who are these ‘common men’?
Aren’t they labels?
How do you know what you said is true? I think you’re generalizing. Please provide the evidence to support your contention.
Rodrigo Bivar aka el Cid
As for Islam, when the radicals do whatever, the “common” man doesnt say anything because they do not consider the radical to be part of them so they dont feel a need to condem them. I understand each group actually doesnt even recognise the other group as being part of a whole.
Who are these ‘radicals’?
Who are these ‘common men’?
Aren’t they labels?
How do you know what you said is true? I think you’re generalizing. Please provide the evidence to support your contention.
Rodrigo Bivar aka el Cid
M
Montalban
Guest
Labels are okay for post-initial communications too. If you do a detailed study of Islam you’ll still be looking at what constitutes Islam. You may come to believe that the term* Islam* encompasses more than what you at first believed, but the label will still encompass all that is that you know to be Islam. That’s the thing about langauge. Terms have to have meaning. We’re dealing here with the meaning of something, and you think that after a while there’s no meaning.
That’s false. As noted above, when I learnt more about Islam, I didn’t change the label for what I knew, but still knew it to be Islam.
Are you saying that as you grew up you had to keep coming up with new names for your dad, because you knew and understood him better/differently than you did as a child?
Yet we both have no problem knowing what it is we’re talking about
And now you’re using labels such as ‘radical’ etc. For them to be radicals you still must have a conception of what it means to be Moslem, and deem these people to be different from that label:shrug:
M
Montalban
Guest
Exactly! Kitty Chan’s got a label for what it is to be a normative state of being a Moslem, and deems some to be different from the norm - they are the radical form of the norm.
This is what’s wrong with post-modernisitc deconstruction of language
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
sigh one trys to be “delicate” so not to offend and possibly gather actual discussion.
radicals those who strap bombs to themselves and go into public places or steal planes to blow up even more people who do not believe in their system.
common man a average muslim going to a average mosque.
In this case they are labels. Im Not saying labels are bad, just only good for starting points and in what I said about labels only applies to individuals I thought that was clear, I tried to be.
How do I know those statements to be true please remember I qualified it by stateing I understand each group actually doesnt even recognise the other group as being part of a whole.
I forgot to put down that these statements were spoken by a muslim who converted to christianity on a radio program if you really need to know who I could look it up. I had recorded it on my xm and if its not erased it could be there.
If its true, I cant be sure for him it is and there is a logic to what he said (I have heard it from several other muslims in other conversations but cant remember exactly where) It bottled down to sects there is no sects with muslims like christians.
Where baptist will say something about catholics. Muslims wont say something about another group because they dont even consider them part of them anyway so why say something. This is why they are silent because they dont operate like christians. So we cant expect them in the area of their religion to act as we think they should.
However as part of the human race they are free to denounce radicals and some have done that. Not to the numbers that would make the non muslims happy but we have to acknowledge they have done it.
Now is that clearer??
K
Kitty_Chan
Guest
Also just to make sure we have it straight on my labels theory
Originally Posted by Vaclav
To a degree, certainly. It is a convenience for discussion.
Yet, it stops being logical when we uses it to claim that:
See how useless generalisations can become? ***
then I answered
*Hey! why I do not care for labels . . . . *
labels can be overused thats all. there is no hidden agendas.
Originally Posted by Vaclav
To a degree, certainly. It is a convenience for discussion.
Yet, it stops being logical when we uses it to claim that:
See how useless generalisations can become? ***
then I answered
*Hey! why I do not care for labels . . . . *
labels can be overused thats all. there is no hidden agendas.
M
Montalban
Guest
You’ve just done it again! You’ve offered labels. You deem a particular model/definition of Islam to be normative - and the ‘radicals’ an abhorration
AND that’s false. One can have a more in depth discussion about the merits of Islam to show that your label is wrong, but you just think that that’s labelling!
Which bits of the Koran are being breached by blowing people up?
Well you saying this convinces me.
What baptists are saying Catholics aren’t Christian because they’re going around blowing people up?
The crux of your argument is you accept that they’re radicals. If you want, I can go into discussion about where you’re wrong, but I think you don’t want to. It’s easier to condemn people with the truth as scaremongers, haters, etc. (which are labels), and conclude that the people doing the killing are radicals
S
Sixtus
Guest
I am a tad concerned about the nebulous and hysteric concerns of Islam. There is good and bad in all religions. Christianity too has its fanatics who would kill in the name of Christ.
I hear little talk of the moderates. Why does everyone assume that all of Islam is fanatical?
I know of a Catholic who got a job in an Irish Shipyard. He spent the first half of the day escorted around being shown where all the fire extinguishers were etc etc. Then in the afternoon, he was given his task of work. It was only in the last hour of the day that he was allowed to work on his own.
At the end of the day, he was called into the foreman’s office and sacked. He asked why he had been sacked. He was taken around the plant again and he counted no fewer than 72 individual anti-British offensive signs that he was alleged to have painted on walls lockers equipment etc over a 2 mile sqare zone. He was alleged to have done all this in 1-hour!
Now commonsense must prevail, he may have had time to do one of them but it was estimated by his union rep that it would have taken him over a week to have done them all!
Can you see the moral? This was Christian v Christian.
Never mind a reasoned response to Islam, is it possible to form a reasoned response to Christianity
S
Sixtus
Guest
The point I am making is that we only see the world through rose tinted spectacles. It is very hard to introspect.
We would do well to self-reflect and look at what sort of signals we send out in addition to the one’s that we receive.
The only way that fanatics will ever be beaten is to appeal to the common-sense of moderates. Sooner or later, we will have to enter dialogue. Rather it was sooner rather than later. Every day lost is a victory for exremism. We learned the lessons from Northern Ireland that ultimately when all the killing is done, we still have to sit and talk.
Why not talk as prevention rather than cure.
We would do well to self-reflect and look at what sort of signals we send out in addition to the one’s that we receive.
The only way that fanatics will ever be beaten is to appeal to the common-sense of moderates. Sooner or later, we will have to enter dialogue. Rather it was sooner rather than later. Every day lost is a victory for exremism. We learned the lessons from Northern Ireland that ultimately when all the killing is done, we still have to sit and talk.
Why not talk as prevention rather than cure.
- Status