DrizzleMan wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
Muslim bashing, like any form of religious bigotry, is stupid. I might not agree with a religion's teachings, but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.
Oh, but are they true believers, in that case?
Those who follow the spirit of the law are truer believers than those who follow only the letter.
OK, I think the spirit of what you just wrote is that those follow only by the letter are the true believers.
_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
I do not that we shall "nuke", that's utterly nonsense, but, I also do not accept that their world view is any way in pair with the world view developed out of Antiquity, recovered and reinstated in Renaissance and the Enlightenment; a world view which made more progress for the god of humanity than all religions together,
We can't afford to be tolerant to any kind of intolerance - No Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom!
And if the Hajis and Jihadists come to bomb the underground and kill a thousand the next time they try it, what do you propose?
It is not really a danger: The IRA was (is?) a much more deadly danger and I am quite certain that other fouls are also around. We had to live with a certain amount of such danger.
I think the policy Sir Francis Walsingham imposed to fight those with police and intelligence on the one side and to insulate those on the political side is still the best one. Each person they kill make their goals more unlikely.
ruveyn wrote:
Since there is no litmus test for "reasonableness" there is no ready way to distinguish a Muslim who is willing to kill and die for Allah, from a Muslim who has a decent respect for the lives and property of kaffirs.
If the UK would use such a idea in the fight with the IRA Chicago with its Irish population, of which some openly supported the IRA, would be the victim of British nuclear bomb a long time ago; or perhaps just Dublin.
ruveyn wrote:
At the very least, Muslims should be deported from Britain.
Also: Britain has with such questions longer experience. Catholics were tolerated, even long after the Bull "Regnans in Excelsis" of Pope Pius V 1570, insofar they accepted the Queen's supremacy. The change of this policy, provoked partly by Catholics - partly to please more radical Protestant lead finally to Gun Powder Plot. "Remember , remember the fifth of November" has much more teachings than the most realize.
I don't see a point in repeating the harmful accepts of late Elizabethan and early Stuart politics, especially without the need which was in this time well to argue.
ruveyn wrote:
Deporting the lot has the virtue of simplicity and directness even if it lacks the virtue of justice.
This would destroy the west in its very foundations more than any idiot, of which believe system ever, could do. We German have here our experiences and moved back to older and better pattern.
ruveyn wrote:
One of my favorite quotes from the Babylonian Talmud.
What about Emperor Ferdinant I: "Fiat iustitia aut pereat mundus" - Justice had to be done, otherwise the world will decay.
(often wrongly quoted "Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus" - Let there be justice, though the world perish)
Dussel wrote:
I think the policy Sir Francis Walsingham imposed to fight those with police and intelligence on the one side and to insulate those on the political side is still the best one. Each person they kill make their goals more unlikely.
Sir Francis never had to deal with people who die with the expectation of banging 72 dark eyed whatevers for the rest of eternity and never get tired.
ruveyn
Dussel wrote:
It is not really a danger: The IRA was (is?) a much more deadly danger and I am quite certain that other fouls are also around. We had to live with a certain amount of such danger.
I am sure that is exactly what the poor sods aboard the underground trains thought before Islamic explosives tore their bodies apart.
ruveyn
Henriksson wrote:
b9 wrote:
on islam the door i-slam.
(just a word play and not an opinion)
(just a word play and not an opinion)
I wonder if muslims like müsli?
if they are robbed of that final "m", then it will become an interminable theme to add to their grievances that are never ending.
here is just a sound play:
dogs, when they yap and bite should be "muzzled"
so i would say to the controller of a group of yapping snapping dogs "muzzle 'em!! !"
is that what should be said to muslims? no. it is just a word play and they are just as alive as anyone else.
ruveyn wrote:
DrizzleMan wrote:
Muslim bashing, like any form of religious bigotry, is stupid. I might not agree with a religion's teachings, but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.
I love it. Objecting to a bunch of male bonded religious crazies hijacking a commercial airline flight and crashing the plane into a tall building is bigotry. Yup, I guess I am a bigot. I am also a 9/11 Patriot. On 9/10/2001 I did not think of Islam much one way or the other. On 9/12/2001 I wanted to expunge Islam from the face of the Earth.
ruveyn
Suicide is also abhorrent in Islam.
The vast majority of muslims are moderates in their views, who don't twist the teachings of the Qu'ran to justify their violence.
And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you do realise, don't you, that none of the hijackers were either Iraqi or Afghan? So what was the justification for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan?
American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
How would you feel, Ruveyn, if I said I thought that Judaism ought to be expunged off the face of the earth because of the actions of a small minority of Jews, killing women and children in Gaza? (Even the IDF soldiers have recently admitted shooting women and children with white flags.) Such views would quite rightly be viewed as anti-Semitic. So why do you think it's acceptable to blame the very vast majority of law abiding, moderate Muslims for the actions of a very small number of extremists? I don't blame *all* Jewish people for the actions of a small number of misguided individuals who are extreme in their views and actions. So why do you see fit to blame people like me for the criminal and murderous actions of others, over whom I have no control?
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
I do not that we shall "nuke", that's utterly nonsense, but, I also do not accept that their world view is any way in pair with the world view developed out of Antiquity, recovered and reinstated in Renaissance and the Enlightenment; a world view which made more progress for the god of humanity than all religions together,
We can't afford to be tolerant to any kind of intolerance - No Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom!
And if the Hajis and Jihadists come to bomb the underground and kill a thousand the next time they try it, what do you propose?
To my recollection, no one suggested going and bombing the sh!t out of Dublin as revenge, or attacking New York and Chicago, as revenge for Irish-American support and funding for the IRA.
Such a reaction would have been ridiculous, attacking innocent civilians to punish them for the misdeeds of others.
What I would propose is not to be so bloodythirsty and demanding an eye for an eye, or ten thousand eyes for an eye. When the perpetrators of such atrocities kill themselves in the course of their acts, they can't be brought to justice, there is no neat solution. All the authorities can do is try to find their co-conspirators, people who funded or enabled the attacks and bring them to justice.
ruveyn wrote:
Since there is no litmus test for "reasonableness" there is no ready way to distinguish a Muslim who is willing to kill and die for Allah, from a Muslim who has a decent respect for the lives and property of kaffirs.
So you recommend holding all muslims to account, for the actions of a very small minority? This is absolute nonsense.On an individual level, this would be like a serial killer being on the run but identified by DNA, and so haven't caught the perpetrator, so you send his brother to the electric chair, because there's no way of telling whether the serial killer's brother is similarly homicidally-minded.
If you sincerely believe that it's justified to blame all Muslims for the actions of an extremist minority, then you're just as bad as those extremists who blame all Jews for the actions of an extremist minority, or those who blame all Americans for the actions of the neocon hawks whose answer to everything is violence. You can score a victory over violence with more violence - you just perpetuate the tit-for-tat cycle.
ruveyn wrote:
At the very least, Muslims should be deported from Britain. They are a troublesome lot, are they not?
Deporting the lot has the virtue of simplicity and directness even if it lacks the virtue of justice.
Once deported they can be conveniently deposited on a "killing ground". Even if they are not killed their, at least they are out of your hair.
So where do you suggest I should be deported to, then? I'm British, was born in Britain, my family were/are English. I do agree that people who are originally from other countries negate any right they might have to asylum if they preach hate speech and call for the killing of others in their host country, and that they should be deported back from whence they came. As for people who come from the same country, if they are a danger to others, or are inciting violence, then they should be prosecuted and punished.Deporting the lot has the virtue of simplicity and directness even if it lacks the virtue of justice.
Once deported they can be conveniently deposited on a "killing ground". Even if they are not killed their, at least they are out of your hair.
ruveyn wrote:
One of my favorite quotes from the Babylonian Talmud.
Sanhedrin 72a -Eem yavoah l'hargetcha, haskeem l'hargo. Translation: If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first.
Good advice from the Jewish survival manual.
ruveyn
A pre-emptive strike is an attack.
Sanhedrin 72a -Eem yavoah l'hargetcha, haskeem l'hargo. Translation: If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first.
Good advice from the Jewish survival manual.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
I(often wrongly quoted "Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus" - Let there be justice, though the world perish)
The version I heard wsa: Let justice be done, even though the skies fall"
ruveyn
That is a correct translation of "Fiat iustitia, ruat caelum."
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
I think the policy Sir Francis Walsingham imposed to fight those with police and intelligence on the one side and to insulate those on the political side is still the best one. Each person they kill make their goals more unlikely.
Sir Francis never had to deal with people who die with the expectation of banging 72 dark eyed whatevers for the rest of eternity and never get tired.
Sir Francis had to deal with people which believed that killing protestant, an especially Elizabeth I and her councillors, would provide a direct ticket into heaven. Really not a big difference at all.
Henriksson wrote:
DrizzleMan wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Quote:
Muslim bashing, like any form of religious bigotry, is stupid. I might not agree with a religion's teachings, but its followers are fine by me as long as they don't take a fundamentalist view, and don't force their opinions on others.
Oh, but are they true believers, in that case?
Those who follow the spirit of the law are truer believers than those who follow only the letter.
OK, I think the spirit of what you just wrote is that those follow only by the letter are the true believers.
But the spirit of what you just wrote is sarcasm
_________________
The plural of platypus.
EnglishLulu wrote:
To my recollection, no one suggested going and bombing the sh!t out of Dublin as revenge, or attacking New York and Chicago, as revenge for Irish-American support and funding for the IRA.
Such a reaction would have been ridiculous, attacking innocent civilians to punish them for the misdeeds of others.
What I would propose is not to be so bloodythirsty and demanding an eye for an eye, or ten thousand eyes for an eye. When the perpetrators of such atrocities kill themselves in the course of their acts, they can't be brought to justice, there is no neat solution. All the authorities can do is try to find their co-conspirators, people who funded or enabled the attacks and bring them to justice.
Such a reaction would have been ridiculous, attacking innocent civilians to punish them for the misdeeds of others.
What I would propose is not to be so bloodythirsty and demanding an eye for an eye, or ten thousand eyes for an eye. When the perpetrators of such atrocities kill themselves in the course of their acts, they can't be brought to justice, there is no neat solution. All the authorities can do is try to find their co-conspirators, people who funded or enabled the attacks and bring them to justice.
This is the problem I have with this term "War on Terror". In policing and within the justice system it is not allowed to punish or to kill innocent people. In war it is within some limits allowed. If someone is arrested within the law enforcement context there is a need to prove a case against him, which finally will end either in a trail or in the release of this person. In the context of war you can arrest a person without such a procedure and keep him until the war is ended.
Pulling the fight against terror out of the realm of the law enforcement and putting it into the area of war does provide the government with rights more suited to an dictator than an civilised state.
There is also the other problem: In a war in the sense of International Law there are ways to determinate when the war ended formally (a peace treaty is the most prominent one, but not the only one). All this methods are based on the fact that there are governments able to speak and handle in binding and authorative way. Such an institution does not exist for "terror".
ruveyn wrote:
Dussel wrote:
It is not really a danger: The IRA was (is?) a much more deadly danger and I am quite certain that other fouls are also around. We had to live with a certain amount of such danger.
I am sure that is exactly what the poor sods aboard the underground trains thought before Islamic explosives tore their bodies apart.
We had just recently the killing of some soldiers. The death toll of the IRA is by magnitude higher.