the problem of Muslims

[palerider]

That's because you keep making the same unjust accusations.

They are not unjust if they are true.

You told me in the other thread that you had read "all of" my citations. The one from The Tidings article made it indisputably clear that they neither are consenting nor remaining silent.
Have you managed conveniently to forget you read it, just because it manifests the inaccuracy of your claim ?

Lilly, a few anonymous web sites hardly constitute speaking out. You have no way of even being sure that any of the links you provided to me are indeed owned or operated by muslims. The web sites don't reflect reality, and they are certainly not going to alter the actions of those who are in charge.

 

[palerider]

You are mistaken, as I tried patiently to show you by reminding you of the dhimmitude laws.
You cannot continue to claim that "the Muslims who are in control" want to vanquish anyone who does not worship Allah - your claim is plainly contradicted by dhimmi.

You feel free to make that claim all you like, but every time someone shouts Allahu Akbar just before they kill, the lie is put to that position.

So why not whack them right along with the others - is that still your attitude ?

My attitude is that there are a group of people who want to kill us because we do not worship thier god. They have decreed that this is a fight to the death. I believe them and believe we should do all we can to introduce as many of them to their god as possible, as quickly as possible.

You oughta really consider southside's suggestion about taking the tour.
I myself am convinced that if you were to actually talk to some Muslims, look them in the eye, hear what their perception of this whole thing is ...that you would revisit this position you have manufactured in whatever chaos of polar night.

Lilly, I have talked to muslims, and I have visited the middle east. I don't know any muslims who are terrorists, but then I also don't know any who take to the streets in protest of what the minority are doing. If the object but do nothing (aside from some anonymous safe protest on the internet) of what use are they? Their silence only bolsters the ones who are doing the killing.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

yes, palerider, first of all, i am a history major and i have lived in Middleeast, Israel, and United States for many years. as far as i can see, Muslims committed a lot of atrocities in the past, but so did the Christians and the Jews. I suggest you take off your arrogant american face for a few days and a take tour to the Muslim countries. you should see both sides of a conflict before giving out your opinion

The question isn't who has committed the most atrocities in the past. We're (or at least I'm) talking about the present. The thread is titled "the problem with Muslims" indicating that the opening poster wanted to discuss the problem with current day Muslims. Today, in my estimation, Muslims are the most likely to strap themselves with bombs and walk into a pizze parlor.

 

[usaisthegreatest]

I actually don't mind if we talk about Muslims in the past as well. By the way, I am not against muslims or anything, but I just want to point out that to us Americans, Muslims seem to be more dangerous. Moreover, I do not say for sure that Muslims are more aggressive or violent people. Maybe it is us who did too harm to them, or maybe they are in fact are a violent group of people. I just want to hear what everybody else thinks about this issue.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Lilly, a few anonymous web sites hardly constitute speaking out. You have no way of even being sure that any of the links you provided to me are indeed owned or operated by muslims. The web sites don't reflect reality, and they are certainly not going to alter the actions of those who are in charge.

As you may recall from the article I linked in the thread "Define Conservatism", it was not 'a few anonymous websites' at all.
The symposium was in real time, as the article describes:

These points were stressed by a rabbi, Muslim Imam and Mennonite Christian during a Sept. 14 "Peace Symposium" at Marymount College in Rancho Palos Verdes...

 

[Lilly Marlene]

You feel free to make that claim all you like, but every time someone shouts Allahu Akbar just before they kill, the lie is put to that position.

Simple logic tells us that Muslims do not institute dhimmitude laws for non-Muslims to live by in Muslim nations - and at the same time chafe at the bit to kill every last non-Muslim.
You cannot have it both ways palerider.

Most of the Muslims shouting Allah Akbar and then killing a non-Muslim ...are doing it because of illegitimate involvement in their affairs, which has been the tendency of our government since the late 1940s.

My attitude is that there are a group of people who want to kill us because we do not worship thier god. They have decreed that this is a fight to the death. I believe them and believe we should do all we can to introduce as many of them to their god as possible, as quickly as possible.

I suggest that the US should test the premise on which you base your attitude, before "doing all we can to introduce as many of them to their God as possible" ?

Let's see what happens if we refrain from manipulating their affairs financially or politically, overtly or covertly.

Let's see if they still wish to kill us after a few years of our having exited from out of their business.

Does that sound fair ?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

I actually don't mind if we talk about Muslims in the past as well. By the way, I am not against muslims or anything, but I just want to point out that to us Americans, Muslims seem to be more dangerous. Moreover, I do not say for sure that Muslims are more aggressive or violent people. Maybe it is us who did too harm to them, or maybe they are in fact are a violent group of people. I just want to hear what everybody else thinks about this issue.

usa, there is quite a bit of history there ...one bright line is the Balfour Declaration (I believe the US and Britain have been more or less "of a parcel" in the Muslim mind in many ways and for good reason). That incident of the history has been discussed recently by USMC and myself in the thread titled "US - Israeli Relationship" in this Mideastern section...
in fact here is the last page of that thread, where we discuss the deceit and betrayal involved in that incident; that will show some of the source of the bad blood:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802&page=5

Another bright line was when the US government deposed the rightfully elected ruler of Iran in 1953 and installed more or less a puppet (Reza Pahlavi) who would be agreeable towards US corporate interests. That - and incidents like that - have sparked much ill will.

Muslim extremists are mostly from one sect - the Wahabbhist strain of Islam which is of relatively recent origin.
Other than that it is hyperbole which makes people think all Muslims hate non-Muslims and wish to kill them.

More later hopefully,
Lilly

 

[palerider]

Muslim extremists are mostly from one sect - the Wahabbhist strain of Islam which is of relatively recent origin.
Other than that it is hyperbole which makes people think all Muslims hate non-Muslims and wish to kill them.

More later hopefully,
Lilly

Perhaps you can explain then lilly why jordan, which also didn't exist before the palestinian mandate has not been plagued by the sort of violence Israel has. The only bit of land under contention in jordan is the west bank which they annexed, but Israel occupied in a defensive war.


As to terrorists belonging mostly to one sect, whip out your counting fingers and lets tick off the list.

The sunis, shiites, sufis, kkarijites, wahhabis. ismalis. zadis, fatimids, nizari, alawis, and even the druze have engaged in terrorism. Did I miss anyone? All sects of islam are violent lilly. Perhaps there are those in each sect that don't engage in violence, but all are represented.

 

[southside]

the number of muslims died in the hands of Israel and US military forces is much greater than the number of Israelis and Amerians died in the hands of terrorists. If you look from Muslim perspective, Israel and US are much more violent

 

[palerider]

the number of muslims died in the hands of Israel and US military forces is much greater than the number of Israelis and Amerians died in the hands of terrorists. If you look from Muslim perspective, Israel and US are much more violent

Israelis wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their governments. US soldiers wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their government. Muslims don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians, they use women and children as shields, they go about killing women and children rather than attacking the military. They are terrorists and anyone who apologizes for terrorists is no better than a terrorist themself.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Perhaps you can explain then lilly why jordan, which also didn't exist before the palestinian mandate has not been plagued by the sort of violence Israel has. The only bit of land under contention in jordan is the west bank which they annexed, but Israel occupied in a defensive war.

Yes, there is a reason for that, evident in the history of Transjordan. A few minutes ago in this post I referred you to a link but just now I realized it was the wrong link and I removed it. I must come back to this later as time and computer access permits - please be patient because this week is way crowded.

As to terrorists belonging mostly to one sect, whip out your counting fingers and lets tick off the list.

The sunis, shiites, sufis, kkarijites, wahhabis. ismalis. zadis, fatimids, nizari, alawis, and even the druze have engaged in terrorism. Did I miss anyone? All sects of islam are violent lilly. Perhaps there are those in each sect that don't engage in violence, but all are represented.

A lot of that violence between the Sunnis and Shiites is towards one another.
I am unfamiliar with the others you listed except the Wahhabists. I will have to read about them later and get back to you on that.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Israelis wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their governments. US soldiers wear uniforms and identify themselves as representatives of their government. Muslims don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians, they use women and children as shields, they go about killing women and children rather than attacking the military. They are terrorists and anyone who apologizes for terrorists is no better than a terrorist themself.

As though the wearing of uniforms entitles people to do any vile thing they want to and still be cloaked in honor !!!

The statements you make against Muslims are the broadest generalizations I've heard in some time, palerider.
And it does not advance your case to make pronouncements like that last one, where you menace people with being labeled as "no better than a terrorist themself".

More later - so noisy here now that I keep having to edit and stuff.

Lilly

 

[southside]

They are terrorists and anyone who apologizes for terrorists is no better than a terrorist themself.

first of all, i am not apologizing for the terrorist, but i do feel sympathy for the innocent muslims. wearing a uniform doesn't mean anything, Hitler's army wore uniforms, do yo think they are honerable in killing the jews? and yo better apologize for your language, because this last line is really offensive, and we are having a discussion here, not a dissing on each other

 

[palerider]

first of all, i am not apologizing for the terrorist, but i do feel sympathy for the innocent muslims. wearing a uniform doesn't mean anything, Hitler's army wore uniforms, do yo think they are honerable in killing the jews? and yo better apologize for your language, because this last line is really offensive, and we are having a discussion here, not a dissing on each other

For what it is worth, yes, nazis were more honorable than muslims who go about hiding within a civilian population, and killing women and children in the name of their god. Both were scum, but as scum goes, nazis were a more honorable variety of scum. At least they identified themselves as combatants and didn't use women and children for shields.

And I won't apologize for my language. If it offends, then perhaps you should re-examine your postion. And of course you are apologizing for the terrorists. Attempting to make light of the differences between uniformed combattants and terrorists is just one more example of your apologetics.

 

[palerider]

As though the wearing of uniforms entitles people to do any vile thing they want to and still be cloaked in honor !!!

The statements you make against Muslims are the broadest generalizations I've heard in some time, palerider.
And it does not advance your case to make pronouncements like that last one, where you menace people with being labeled as "no better than a terrorist themself".

More later - so noisy here now that I keep having to edit and stuff.
Lilly

We are in large part known, lilly, by the people we associate with. That includes people whom we apologize for. Muslims who are actively terrorizing nearly every country on earth certainly don't warrant any sort of apology and the "theoretical" silent majority of muslims don't either. Silence implies concent. It is as simple as that. If I see evil happening and do nothing, or say nothing, then I become part of the evil.