Muslim peace conference condems terrorism

[NoC_T]

I believe it's more the shadow of Sharia Law that arouses such powerful contention in the mindset of the westerner, rather than any numerical relation. Being so completely and irrevocably incompatible with what westerners generally hold as being inviolable, any concept of Islam without Sharia seems to some to be only deception, despite foregone experience of generations of fully integrated muslim communities. The one tends to suggest the other, if only as forerunner. Media coverage of what we consider to be deplorable excess hardly bolsters Islam's credibility.

The most fundamental difference between western liberal democratic societies and Islamic ones, is the element of theocracy. The former playing host to religion only, with the latter fully embracing it as integral and directive.

In that light, culture clash is foregone.

 

[Rough Rider]

Read Bin Laden's words for yourself.

I'm not going to do it for you.

I couldn't possibly care less what Bin Laden had to say. I'm talking about the phoney narrative Americans are constantly being subjected to by "fair and balanced" types like Rick Santorum.

 

[Gardener]

I couldn't possibly care less what Bin Laden had to say.

So you prefer to remain ignorant. Choosing ignorance is your own decision.

I'm talking about the phoney narrative Americans are constantly being subjected to by "fair and balanced" types like Rick Santorum.

So you will react against something simple minded by choosing something else that is simple minded. That'll sure show 'em!

 

[Ben K.]

I couldn't possibly care less what Bin Laden had to say. I'm talking about the phoney narrative Americans are constantly being subjected to by "fair and balanced" types like Rick Santorum.

You would have to be familiar with what Bin Laden and his ilk say to declare that the narrative others declare in response to them is phoney. It may be simplistic to say they hate you for your freedom, but one can be sufficiently explanatory to say they hate you for your secular freedom. Their "intellectuals" that is, the reasons for them gaining any sort of following may deserve a more complicated explanation.

 

[Gardener]

You would have to be familiar with what Bin Laden and his ilk say to declare that the narrative others declare in response to them is phoney. It may be simplistic to say they hate you for your freedom, but one can be sufficiently explanatory to say they hate you for your secular freedom. Their "intellectuals" that is, the reasons for them gaining any sort of following may deserve a more complicated explanation.

People who view situations in terms of mutually exclusive dichotomies just cannot imagine that two different things can both be true. They have to simplify the equation down to a case where Paul is right and Santorum is wrong or visa versa and they lack the intellectual curiosity necessary to look much beyond that.

Even understanding what they write by reasons for attacking us does not even begin to address why they do so from a psychological perspecive, either.

 

[Rough Rider]

You would have to be familiar with what Bin Laden and his ilk say to declare that the narrative others declare in response to them is phoney. It may be simplistic to say they hate you for your freedom, but one can be sufficiently explanatory to say they hate you for your secular freedom. Their "intellectuals" that is, the reasons for them gaining any sort of following may deserve a more complicated explanation.

I'm familiar with Bin Laden's extremely tedious, long winded manifestos. I guess it's just unfortunate that many of our own leaders and representatives are so prone to unwittingly do Bin Laden's work for him. The whole great historical clash of cultures scenario, a contrived perception promoted by "fair and balanced" types like Rick Santorum, plays as well with people susceptible to Muslim extremist ideas as it does with FOX News viewers.

 

[Grant]

If I remember correctly he developed a hatred for the US after he had received torture in jail.

Even though he was in an Egyptian jail run by fellow Muslims?

He had actually started hating Americans when he noticed the men's bad haircuts and that "the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs—and she shows all this and does not hide it". That must have caused him a lot of restless nights. In fact he was known for "his introvertedness, isolation, depression and concern. In appearance, he was "pale with sleepy eyes." We can see why he preferred the full burka.

Torture delivered by people who had been trained by the CIA.

Let's see your evidence, Taqiyya

It should also be remembered that his ideas on violence were not accepted by the Muslim Brotherhood, though they were by those who went on to develop the radical and horrible concepts of those we speak of as Al Qaeda.

The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

They don't sound like a particularly friendly and open group.

It should even more be remembered that this is not the way of thinking of most Muslims.

Right. Most Muslims are not terrorists.

When let loose from Afghanistan they hoped to be having a ball turning countries over to their way of thinking – a way of thinking which had become so perverted that a Muslim who even believed in democracy had clearly fallen so far down they should be murdered.

Yes, we've seen a lot of that, particularly in Iraq.

So, that is that. At around the same time for similar reasons the neo con's, who I understand in Canada and the US are now the best funded academics began to have similar ideas to Qutb. As the best funded, these ideas are the ideas which have been coming out and polluting the consciousness of ordinary people, often in subtle ways that they do not notice. Apart from the fact that they in general were not religious themselves, their way is not so different. They too saw the role that religion could have in keeping the people under control. Hence they managed to encourage the religious right in the US to give up their previous position of staying out of politics.

You know nothing of Canada or the US. Perhaps if you spoke in specifics rather than generalities, and omitted terms like "neo-con" your submissions would make more sense.

 

[Grant]

Sexual inadequacy and racism - always a happy couple.

That great philosopher/king Clint Eastwood said it best.

"The less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudices".

 

[Grant]

I couldn't possibly care less what Bin Laden had to say. I'm talking about the phoney narrative Americans are constantly being subjected to by "fair and balanced" types like Rick Santorum.

Americans such as yourself?

 

[Rough Rider]

Americans such as yourself?

Good guess genius; you're pretty smart for a Canadian.

 

[Rough Rider]

Actually most Muslims in the United States are getting along quite well. It seems the Christian influence is doing them a world of good.

You mean the secular humanist influence.

 

[alexa]

No, his views on the West were formed, if by any foreign policy at all, by that of the British in Egypt. He certainly was displeased by America's backing of an Israeli state but prior to visiting he viewed them as the best example of what the West had to offer. As a rather sexually repressed (and certainly confused) guy, and viewing himself as a philosophical genius that no one else realised, he was frustrated by what he perceived to be a shallow and liberal American culture.

I was responding to you speaking about how his early experience of the US had affected him and your belief that this was the reason for 9/11. I was not talking about his views on foreign policy, I was talking about the formation of his violent views and these were the result of being tortured in prison. Torture which was part of the training the CIA provided to Egypt when they gained freedom from the UK.

I'm really not interested in his sexual problems. The point I was making was that his view of American society was shared by the people who became the neo-con's. They may have had some variation in the motivations for this but the fact is both are scared of liberal values.

Before torture Q simply believed that Western ways were bad because they led to selfishness and isolation. Unsurprisingly the torture effected him and indeed many others who went on to become 'al Qaeda' badly. The torture led him to believe that Western values which could do such things were barbarous. He decided that because of this barbarism it was acceptable to kill leaders as they had become so corrupted by Western values, they were no longer Muslims. He had not yet sunk to the point of believing that civilians could be killed.

He returned to a Muslim Brotherhood that was already carrying out terrorist activities so he certainly had no problem with violence by the time he was tortured.

Qutb had not been part of the Muslim Brotherhood until after he returned from the States. While some have claimed they had been involved in terrorism while trying to get rid of the British, even if true, that was over by then. They have always officially opposed violence as a way to achieve their goals.

These are minor points and more deemed to a thread on himself somewhere else.

You seem to have ignored the more relevant parts of my post. I assume you agree with them

 

[Rough Rider]

People who view situations in terms of mutually exclusive dichotomies just cannot imagine that two different things can both be true. They have to simplify the equation down to a case where Paul is right and Santorum is wrong or visa versa and they lack the intellectual curiosity necessary to look much beyond that.

Even understanding what they write by reasons for attacking us does not even begin to address why they do so from a psychological perspecive, either.

Always funny to watch pseudo-intellectuals rationalize phoney equivalencies with obviously diversionary non-sense. Your posts are a real tribute to the ascendency of form over substance; an unfortunate trend of our times.

 

[Ben K.]

I was responding to you speaking about how his early experience of the US had affected him and your belief that this was the reason for 9/11. I was not talking about his views on foreign policy, I was talking about the formation of his violent views and these were the result of being tortured in prison. Torture which was part of the training the CIA provided to Egypt when they gained freedom from the UK.

I'm really not interested in his sexual problems. The point I was making was that his view of American society was shared by the people who became the neo-con's. They may have had some variation in the motivations for this but the fact is both are scared of liberal values.

Before torture Q simply believed that Western ways were bad because they led to selfishness and isolation. Unsurprisingly the torture effected him and indeed many others who went on to become 'al Qaeda' badly. The torture led him to believe that Western values which could do such things were barbarous. He decided that because of this barbarism it was acceptable to kill leaders as they had become so corrupted by Western values, they were no longer Muslims. He had not yet sunk to the point of believing that civilians could be killed.

And I suggest you become interested in their sex lives, the true mad men of history from Hitler to Mao had serious sexual dysfunctionality. It's probably the most potent influence of a mans behaviour around.


Qutb had not been part of the Muslim Brotherhood until after he returned from the States. While some have claimed they had been involved in terrorism while trying to get rid of the British, even if true, that was over by then. They have always officially opposed violence as a way to achieve their goals.

These are minor points and more deemed to a thread on himself somewhere else.

You seem to have ignored the more relevant parts of my post. I assume you agree with them

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt only opposed violence in the 70s, long after Qutb's time. My point is he joined a violent organisation after his experience in the States, an organisation that was involved in bombings and assassination attempts against both the monarchist and Nasser governments. This indulgence in terrorism was before his torture.

I didn't respond to the comparison with the evolution of neo-cons because I'm not sure how it's relevant to the evolution of violent pan-Islamism and thus off topic. It may paint some nice symmetrical picture of history, where the two enemies are really mirrors of each other, but I'm not really convined. Neo-conservatism began as a Troskyite opposition to the Soviet Union, and was allied with the Left, but when the left disavowed foreign interventionism during the Vietnam War, they looked to the right wing as reliable militarists. Their adoption of cultural values of the right as opposed to the left in the 60s was driven by their main ideological motive, spreading democracy and defeating communism by all means, and they found that the social right more amenable to these goals than the social left.

And you should pay attention to their sex lives. From Mao to Hitler, sexual dysfunction and frustation with the social order seems to be heavily correlated.

 

[Grant]

You mean the secular humanist influence.

Do I?

What do the secular humanists believe?

 

[Grant]

Good guess genius; you're pretty smart for a Canadian.

So you're also a victim of 'the phoney narrative Americans are constantly being subjected to by "fair and balanced" types like Rick Santorum'.

But you were okay before Rick Santorum came along, huh?

 

[Djoop]

Do I?

What do the secular humanists believe?

It's a philosophy that embraces human reason, ethics, justice, and the search for human fulfillment. It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rough Rider]

So you're also a victim of 'the phoney narrative Americans are constantly being subjected to by "fair and balanced" types like Rick Santorum'.

But you were okay before Rick Santorum came along, huh?

No, Santorum is just one of the more recent and obvious symptoms of an ongoing condition.

 

[Rough Rider]

Do I?

What do the secular humanists believe?

Christianity doesn't make them good Americans. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll has a much greater influence in breaking down cultural and religious barriers in this country.

 

[Grant]

It's a philosophy that embraces human reason, ethics, justice, and the search for human fulfillment. It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks DJoop. Iactually knew the Wiki definition but was looking for a more personal observation.

It seems to me that every philosophical or political movement of any substance needs a springboard, a base on which to build a belief system, and Secular Humanism lacks that.
It has the basic Christian Golden Rule but after that it tends to run out of ideas. It Does not have the Bible, The Talmud or the Koran, or similar well founded and established. teachings.

Until there are some real ideas that can be taught, discussed and debated it will continue to be similar to Esperanto, not a bad idea but never really catching on either.

 

[Grant]

Christianity doesn't make them good Americans. has a much greater influence in breaking down cultural and religious barriers in this country.

lSex, drugs, and rock and roll have been American mainstream for decades. Haight-Ashbury proved unsustainable.
[h=1][/h]

 

[Rough Rider]

They've all been American mainstream for decades.

These days it takes about a generation for immigrants to loose most of their cultural identity. I know plenty of so called Muslims, they never pray, they never attend Mosque, they drink like fish, they live like most Americans.

 

[Djoop]

Thanks DJoop. Iactually knew the Wiki definition but was looking for a more personal observation.

It seems to me that every philosophical or political movement of any substance needs a springboard, a base on which to build a belief system, and Secular Humanism lacks that.
It has the basic Christian Golden Rule but after that it tends to run out of ideas. It Does not have the Bible, The Talmud or the Koran, or similar well founded and established. teachings.

Until there are some real ideas that can be taught, discussed and debated it will continue to be similar to Esperanto, not a bad idea but never really catching on either.

The golden rule came from Confucius! It's not the only thing christians copied, considering the amount of virgin births before Christs.

I strongly disagree with your notion about the lack of substance, especially considering the 'substance' it has to compete with. The most importance difference is the lack of dogma, aka the word of God. As a secular humanist, there's no excuse, I always have to develop my knowledge, it's not static. Morality also changes, just read the bible and see how much they've changed in 2000 years. There's simply nothing that beats secular humanism with regard to morality. That's its strenght, its laws apply always and everywhere.

 

[Gardener]

Always funny to watch pseudo-intellectuals rationalize phoney equivalencies with obviously diversionary non-sense. Your posts are a real tribute to the ascendency of form over substance; an unfortunate trend of our times.

....and I always enjoy watching the simple minded grapple with that which is obviously beyond their grasp, so I imagine we both benefit.

 

[Rough Rider]

....and I always enjoy watching the simple minded grapple with that which is obviously beyond their grasp, so I imagine we both benefit.

I'm loosing money today. I bet someone that you couldn't possibly be more of a pompous donkey than you were already. Boy, was I wrong. You're even dumber than you think I think you are.