- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 24,373
- Reaction score
- 14,953
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
This does not apply to France. The majority of Muslims in France are French born. Most of them second generation. They're the grandsons and grand-daughters of that first wave of immigrants and they are largely secular and integrated. They consider themselves French above all else.
The newly arrived immigrants who are reluctant to assimilate are going to find out soon enough that this sort of thing simply does not fly in France. If the ridiculous controversy over full veils proves anything, it's that France is unwilling to give even an inch when it comes to defining what being French is supposed to mean.
And you continue to play the semantics game. Fine, since I actually read your entire post before deciding to reply to it, I will also play your little game:OK, The US was hoping for an invasion. But in fact it was Carter and Brzezinski, not "the US". And while I said "Americans" what is really the difference? It was the Carter administration, and you should be specific as to who you are talking about here. Why not call it the Carter Administration? Using terms like "The US" or "Americans" suggests that all Americans support a particular government policy when that is certainly not the case.
Why do you say 'Muslims' and not 'some Muslims', or even 'terrorists' (since many other Muslims don't even consider these transgressors to be Muslims)? You are lumping less than 0.001% of Islam's adherents with the rest of its 1.5 billion followers and then proceeding to generalize about them. Quite hypocritical.All this is important because you now have Muslims trying to kill Americans,(ie citizens of the US) and many other innocent people, because of something the Carter Administration may have done. These are not overly intelligent people so when you say "The US committed evil" that justifies further hatred against Americans, not those who were actually responsible.
Again you do the same thing you accuse me of doing. I wasn't aware all Muslims have committed atrocities and attempt to justify them.Its just as easy to condemn all Muslims for the atrocities they've committed, and continue to justify, but we don't do that. We don't murder innocent Muslims, or at least we try our best not to. Instead we are trying to bring them into the modern world through greater educational opportunities, etc.
How far can mistakes go before some type of action must occur? Japan made a mistake, and we destroyed thousands of innocent people in a matter of seconds. Funny how Japan hit a military target, while the Truman administration chose an industrial city where many citizens live and work.We recognize that some government leaders will make mistakes and we shouldn't continue to murder Innocent people as a result. particularly 30 years after the fact.
I could say the same for you.And as far as "semantics" are concerned, words have meanings and the English language has many to choose from. Certainly enough that you can be more exact in who you are trying to put the blame on for any real or imagined wrongdoings.
And, by the way, I wouldn't''t believe everything Brzezinski says. The man. like Carter, was totally out of his depth.
"It's not up to you or me to decide how to interpret someone else's faith"
Why not? If the consequences of any "faith" brings harm to others that it is not only a right but a duty to raise questions. I'd rather people rely on knowledge than 'faith' any time. Anyone potting faith over reason becomes more than a little dangerous.
Why do you say 'Muslims' and not 'some Muslims', or even 'terrorists' (since many other Muslims don't even consider these transgressors to be Muslims)? You are lumping less than 0.001% of Islam's adherents with the rest of its 1.5 billion followers and then proceeding to generalize about them. Quite hypocritical.
.
The word you are looking for is "fewer", not "less", but your math is wildly erroneous. 0.001% is equivalent to one out of 100,000. With a little over a billion Muslims in the world, that would equate to only 10,000.
There are certainly more than 10,000 actual Muslim terrorists in the world. If you wish to talk about Muslims who support terrorism, however, the number runs into the hundreds of millions. Heck, just among the Palestinians, there are a couple of million, and support for Osama Bin Laden runs 28% in Jordan, 54% in Nigeria, 23% in Egypt, 18% in Pakistan and 25% in supposedly moderate Indonesia.
So what? There are 2.5 millions of Americans in jail and nearly 8 millions have been jailed at some point in their life, so I can say "Americans are criminals"?
The point that you so obviously missed is that if there are 2.5 million Americans in jail, claiming the actual number is 25 would be quite dishonest.
The point you missed is there is a very small proportion of Muslims who are actual terrorist, claiming that muslims in general are terrorists is quite dishonest.
And it's funny you talk about Palestine or Nigeria but bot about US' great and faithful ally Saudi Arabia (you know, almost every 911 hijacker was saudi arabian, yet I've not heard about Ryiad being bombed by B52's)
The word you are looking for is "fewer", not "less", but your math is wildly erroneous. 0.001% is equivalent to one out of 100,000. With a little over a billion Muslims in the world, that would equate to only 10,000.
There are certainly more than 10,000 actual Muslim terrorists in the world. If you wish to talk about Muslims who support terrorism, however, the number runs into the hundreds of millions. Heck, just among the Palestinians, there are a couple of million, and support for Osama Bin Laden runs 28% in Jordan, 54% in Nigeria, 23% in Egypt, 18% in Pakistan and 25% in supposedly moderate Indonesia.
bub said:
And it's funny you talk about Palestine or Nigeria but bot about US' great and faithful ally Saudi Arabia (you know, almost every 911 hijacker was saudi arabian, yet I've not heard about Ryiad being bombed by B52's)
You added this after I responded, but are you somehow under the impression I am the United States of America?
I don't support the Saudis, and I'm sure were there some opinion polls conducted scientifically to determine the percentage of Saudis who support terrorism it would be significant and I would denounce such.
mbig said:bub said:Muslims and Arabs live under absolute and despotic government COLOR="COMMUNIST RED"]
SUPPORTED BY AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE WE NEEDED THEIR OIL AND DIDNT WANT THEM TO TURN TO COMMUNISM[/COLR]
How Sickening, Trite, and Boring.
The old "Blame the USA".
The fact is we ...and the EU, and EVERYONE else... Have to buy oil fom those who have it.
(or invade them and turn them into democracies. Ooops! the STUPID/Hypocrite Left will/DID blame the USA for THAT too.)
And even cooperate to some degree to avoid OPEC country sanctions/anger.
In Places like Sudan, the West/USA/Canad/EU DIVESTED and wouldn't buy a drop of Oil.
The AMORAL Chinese gladly bought those distressed assets and continue to do so throughout the Planet.
(as well as Hack every nation, and Censor the internet for it's own people)
Another Sickening piece of crap/Numb Chimpsky post. GARBAGE. TIRED GARBAGE.
Why not Blame the Guilty parties.. the Arabs themselves who just don't Spread the Wealth enough.
Oh no. Not that!...
And you continue to play the semantics game. Fine, since I actually read your entire post before deciding to reply to it, I will also play your little game:
Why do you say 'Muslims' and not 'some Muslims', or even 'terrorists' (since many other Muslims don't even consider these transgressors to be Muslims)? You are lumping less than 0.001% of Islam's adherents with the rest of its 1.5 billion followers and then proceeding to generalize about them. Quite hypocritical.
Again you do the same thing you accuse me of doing. I wasn't aware all Muslims have committed atrocities and attempt to justify them.
How far can mistakes go before some type of action must occur? Japan made a mistake, and we destroyed thousands of innocent people in a matter of seconds. Funny how Japan hit a military target, while the Truman administration chose an industrial city where many citizens live and work.
I could say the same for you.
You can raise all the questions you like. That is your right. What you can't do is pretend that you understand their cultural religious practices better than they do. Why do some Jewish women shave their heads when they get married and some don't? Are those who do more or less Jewish than those who don't? Who am I to tell? I'm not Jewish. See how it works?
I don't need my rights explained to me, Arcana.
Where did I claim that I knew anyone's cultural practices better than anyone? Please use quotes. If you don't understand what I've said we can go over it again.
"Why do some Jewish women shave their heads when they get married and some don't?"
I have no idea. Best you should ask them.
"Are those who do more or less Jewish than those who don't? Who am I to tell? I'm not Jewish. See how it works?"
Yes, I do. Some Jewish women shave their heads when they get married and some don't. Fascinating.
Were you not the one who kept telling me that the burka is not a religious garment? Must have been another Grant.
All I'm saying is that the way other people decide to interpret their faith is up to them and not anyone else.
I'll go ask the ultra-Orthodox Jewish women why they shave their heads as soon as you go ask the ultra-conservative Muslim women why they wear a burka. :2wave:[/QUOTE
Arcana, I've asked you to please use quotes in your responses to me.
The burka is not a religious garment. Who told you that it was?
As you mentioned previously, though unnecessarily, I can coment on the way people interpret their faith. And until you come up with a reason why I can't, I'll continue to comment.
Yes, please ask Jewish women why they shave their heads and then send me their responeses.
G
It's a reasonable point. Why ban the Burka and not ban head shaving. Neither practice is purely religious and both apply to women, imposed by men. The point with the Burka ban is that it is a manifestation of the anti-Islamic rhetoric of the moment. Portray Islam as a mysogynist faith and ignore the mysogyny within all the other religious traditions.
I hate to see women forced into burkas. I also hate the head shaving of orthodox judaism, the male-only prejudice of catholicism and protestantism, the trading of brides in Hinduism and various other faiths.
Andalublue, where is this anti-Islamic rhetoric you're referring to?
Are you aware of the anti Western rhetoric coming out of the Muslim community? How do they compare with each other?
Perhaps you can offer up some anti-Islamic quotes from Western leaders and I'll offer up anti Western quotes from Islamic leaders and see how they compare.
With pleasure.
U.S Attorney General John Ashcroft - "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you"
Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi - "We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilisation, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries".
British Secretary of State for Wale, Peter Hain - "Islam is now a much bigger factor than racial tension... Muslim immigrants can be very isolationist in their own behaviour and their own customs."
Now, can you provide some of those anti-Western quotes coming from mainstream Western Islamic leaders? I don't want to hear from the nutters because I could quote you a hundred anti-Islamic quotes from the extremist Christians, atheists and right-wing Western demagogues.
I don't want to hear from the nutters because I could quote you a hundred anti-Islamic quotes from the extremist Christians, atheists and right-wing Western demagogues.
But the Islamist nutters are the guys strapping satchels to their waists and blowing up people, or trying get their fingers on nukes and such, or just basically seeking to make minced meat out of Western Civilization and values. So what they say is kind of important. John Ashcroft? Who cares?He's history.
And there is little to dispute in what these three said either, Ahlevah.
There is only the lack of political correctness.
If you rule in the Islamic nutters then you have to rule in the anti-Islamic ones too...
"Islam's growth is the greatest threat of this century and we need to interact more on how we (the United States and the European Union) will protect traditional Christian and Jewish (territory)” "The Koran is a fascist book and should be outlawed." - Geert Wilders.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - Ann Coulter
"Islam is a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination." - Pat Robertson
All three of these are self-proclaimed Christians, what does this tell you about THAT faith? (Irony warning!)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?