Fitna: Controversial Film On Islam

[texaspackerbacker]

Paper clips? What are you trying to say?

It's religion in the sense that they are using the Koran and the Muslim religion as justification for genocide against Israel and a fate about as extreme for us Christians. It would also be religion if I or some Christian clerics claimed the Bible required us to kill Muslims or if some post-Biblical Christian edict by clerics required that. No argument there, right? And yes, I suppose if you dig deep enough, you could find a few examples of that on our side too.

The difference, however, is with Muslims, a large enough minority believe that sort of thing to put words into action fairly extensively ...... and an even bigger percentage--IMO, a large majority of Muslims--believe that sort of thing to the extent that they approve of the acts of terrorism and barbarism.

[Kiwon]

Paper clips? What are you trying to say?

Religion really has very little to do with the problem.

Can't know the line-up without a program, TBP. Just follow the thread.

[texaspackerbacker]

Give this poor lazy person a break and enlighten me about the paper clips.

I went back to the beginning of P. 1 of the thread and didn't find any reference to them.

I did find a couple of really good posts, though. I really like Iron Mike's about paving it over all the way to Baghdad and using their oil for our cheap gas.

There's too many liberals in political power and the media to have any hope for that sort of thing, though.

[Kiwon]

Relax, TBP.

It's the weekend.

Watch some basketball. Tennessee-LSU is on now. Peace be upon you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But that doesn't matter to HH because in 1218 a knight from Wales went postal (before there was a postal service) on some visiting Muslim traders. It's justifiable payback now. You know, a cosmic ying-yang.

you are either really stupid, or deliberately misinterpreting what I've said in order to create a straw man.

I guess B, but who knows, most of your posts are cartoonish.

can't have an intellegent conversation about a complex topic if the gradation of your thinking only goes down to being for or against Jesus, for or against terrorists.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I do think that picture of Muslims all over the world, including here in America is a lot more believable than the thing you said about how more Muslims like America in Iran than anyplace else. Where did you get that idea, anyway?

I have read a lot about Iran. There are a large number of Iranians who were educated in the U.S., many Iranians travelled to the U.S. prior to Khomeini. The "Death to America" Iranians hated the U.S. for the CIA's role in overturning their democracy back in the 1950's, and the Shah grew very unpopular. But they have developed a love-hate relationship with American culture.

America has the highest favorability ratings in Iran, among all the countries of the mideast and near east. Some speculate it's because we have been completely out of their country for 30 years, they can't blame us for their problems, and the Mullahs have been real shitheads. They are highly educated, bristle at the stifling control of the clerics. America is still, ironically, a shining star among many Iranian people.

Iran does NOT have a completely authoritarian government. Power is dispersed across a theocracy/oligarchy, and they go through phases of liberalization. Ahmdehnajad (sp) doesn't have much power. The fact that power is dispersed makes them slightly less dangerous.

Iran is a PERFECT candidate to transition to Democracy. This is not North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

It's clear that IRan is going to hugely influence Iraq, which became more obvious with the government's recent victory in Basra, as you call it. (Not sure how many more victories al-Malaki can withstand!) I don't see it as a fatal problem, altho I have no crystral ball. I think/hope we will be working in a postive way with Iran someday.

[texaspackerbacker]

To some extent, I agree with you, Harlan. I've been saying for a long time the best way to deal with Iran--which is Bush's way--is to try to influence and enable the opposition there which tends to favor western culture over Muslim extremism, while leaving on the table the prospect of bombing the crap out of them if they get closer to having nukes. However, I really don't see those potential "good guys" as having much real chance to take over. Furthermore, I do see Ahmedinijad as having a lot of power mainly because he is likeminded with Khamenei and the other religious leaders.

We really need the old carrot and stick approach here, the carrot being held out for the young intellectuals you described. What I'm pretty sure is going to happen is that they are going to be prevented from grabbing the carrot, so sooner or later, we will be smacking Iran with that proverbial stick.

Unlike a lot of what we have discussed in this thread, the Iran aspect is not completely religious, as the potential is there for the relatively sane and civilized Muslims to take over. I just don't think it will happen, though. And it is not acceptable to have nukes in the hands of the current Iranian regime.

Now that I think about it, though, they probably will be feeling Israel's stick before we get around to it--which make no mistake about it, would be a good thing.

[Kiwon]

But that doesn't matter to HH because in 1218 a knight from Wales went postal (before there was a postal service) on some visiting Muslim traders. It's justifiable payback now. You know, a cosmic ying-yang.

you are either really stupid, or deliberately misinterpreting what I've said in order to create a straw man.

I guess B, but who knows, most of your posts are cartoonish.

can't have an intellegent conversation about a complex topic if the gradation of your thinking only goes down to being for or against Jesus, for or against terrorists.

Intelligent conversation? Several of your posts are you talking to yourself.

Time and time again, whatever issue, you promote this moral equivalence argument that descends into the absurd. Absolute right and wrong doesn’t exist in your world and you get frustrated when others don’t struggle with the same tortured logic and morals that you embraced.

You’re like the guy in group therapy that gets angry when everyone else isn’t as messed up as he is. Somehow it just isn’t fair to you and you are going to make sure that everyone knows about it.

Here’s a rule of thumb: If you don’t know what you’re talking about then don’t act like you do.

You know that a Fitna-type movie demonstrating that Christianity is a threat to the world CANNOT be made…. but you insist that it can. Not for any logical reasons, but simply because right and wrong don’t exist for you. Everyone or everything has to be equally bad or equally good. That’s the only way it’s fair, right?

It’s nonsense and you know it.

This isn’t an “intelligent conversation.” It’s you looking for validation that your warped morals are justified. Well, you’re 0 for 1,000 here.

You are not stupid, I know that, but the philosophy that you’ve chosen to embrace certainly is.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You know that a Fitna-type movie demonstrating that Christianity is a threat to the world CANNOT be made…. but you insist that it can. Not for any logical reasons, but simply because right and wrong don’t exist for you.

You seem intent on arguing against a straw man. I never said that Christians in today's world are acting as violently as Muslims, quite the opposite.

I made the point that a documentary could be made of violent Christian activity. You have jumped on this (obviously true) statement and made a straw man equating the behavior of today's Christians and Muslims.

Not sure there is much point in repeating my main point, since you have no interest in hearing it, but one more time: Violence is NOT inherent in Islamic theology, as promoted by that ignorant, hateful documentary. It's true that Islamic scripture is used to justify violence, but the scripture is just being used as a tool, as can be done with the ancient scripture of other religions.

Historically, Christianity has been far more violent, warlike, and aggressive than Islam. That's a fact, Jack. I point this out not to make some "moral equivalency argument" about the behavior of Muslims today versus Christians of the past, that's an argument YOU brought in. I point it out to support MY thesis, that violent eras occur among many religious groups, and are not necessarily a product of theology. The violence is not about religion, religion is used as a motivating and justifying tool to achieve goals, usually power and control.

[hoosier]

Historically, Christianity has been far more violent, warlike, and aggressive than Islam. That's a fact, Jack. I point this out not to make some "moral equivalency argument" about the behavior of Muslims today versus Christians of the past, that's an argument YOU brought in. I point it out to support MY thesis, that violent eras occur among many religious groups, and are not necessarily a product of theology. The violence is not about religion, religion is used as a motivating and justifying tool to achieve goals, usually power and control.

You mean just because someone claims they're acting for religious reasons doesn't mean religion alone explains their actions? No, say it ain't so!

[texaspackerbacker]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

THAT is the bottom line here.

[Iron Mike]

Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

[MJZiggy]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

THAT is the bottom line here.

Well, except China...

[Freak Out]

Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

2nd.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Milosovic. These are not Muslims. The chinese brutalizing Tibet are not Muslims. These are relatively recent events.

What in the name of Jehosaphat are you talking about?

For the sake of discussion, lets accept your ridiculous proposition that past barbarism is reflective of nothing, just the way of the world. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisiton, but perhaps they should have.

Finish your thought, and please be specific. We agree that part of the muslim world in our era is violent, why do you suppose that is so?