Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hawaiian
DaveTheRave makes no distinction, he said kill all the Muslims and kill all the Arabs in two different threads.
|
I must've missed where he said "kill all Arabs" then. And yeah, I didn't realize that you were only referring to Davetherave, but "kill all Muslims" isn't something I agree with either, anyways.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Hawaiian
And not all Muslims are the same. Some Muslims are obviously more violent than others. Your inability to observe this obvious fact (which is why you will never be an intelligence analyst) leads to the most bizarre conclusions I have ever seen.
|
Wtf are you talking about? Not all Muslims are the same... No shit? Where the fuck did you get the idea that I disagree with that? They probably have a disproportionately large number of Muslims working as core collectors and NCS linguists in the intelligence community. I have no problems with Muslims, idiot, I have a problem with their religion. I have no problem with moderate Muslims, like you wife supposedly. I just have a personal belief that at it's very core the religion incites or is more prone to inciting violence and barbarism than others, so in the long run it would be nice to either phase it out or reform it (and by reform it, I mean changing the scripture). What I am saying is, Islam will always have a disproportionately large amount of extremists compared to other religions and it is NOT because of our "foreign policy". Sure you can be a Muslim and a completely tolerant and otherwise rational human being, but the religion itsself will always have psychological flaw within it which spawns intolerance and hatred. And this isn't even speaking of the Muslims who reside in the Middle East or South East Asia, where the extremists or their supporters are not a "fringe minority" as you'd like them to be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Hawaiian
Kinda like it would be complete idiocy to suggest that all people of a certain religion are the same right?
|
I am not DavetheRave and I never suggested anything of the sort. HV =/= DavetheRave. Mmmk? =/=, as in "Not Equal", "not related to", "has no relation to", aka "not the same person".
Here is my position: we ought to continue an interventionist policy, military or not in the Middle East. We shouldn't just "ignore them" and not meddle within their affairs. We should have the long term goal of making sure that Europe , India and Russia remain as secular societies, while the Muslim world sheds its intolerance and hatred and transitions (With the help of our intervention despite an occasional "blowback" here and there) into modern secular societies. And don't even try to fucking bring up Iraq to me. I don't give a shit about Iraq, I am opposed to that war and its a completely wasteful approach to take towards the Middle East. Same goes for the Medicare part D, the 700 billion dollar bailout, the retarded auto bailout given out by Bush and various other spending programs. I'd like a true fiscal conservative in office, but not a fucking out of touch loon like Ron Paul who wants to scrap our intelligence services (which every other modern country in the world has), stop all military aid to Israel, and pursue a policy of non-intervention. I'd rather have a Reagan type of figure except with the ridiculous conservative stances on social issues and without the ridiculous spending on programs like SDI, which caused our overall spending to INCREASE even though spending was cut in nearly all other aspects. However, what I am saying is, we aren't making sufficient progress right now, and if my predictions are right and European countries and India do indeed begin turning into Islamic states and Shariah becomes common place, the tensions between the Western Culture and Islam will escalate, and the western world is likely to be pushed into a corner, where we will have no choice but to resort to mass genocide if we are to ensure the survival of secular societies.
Look at Albania for example. 75% of the population is Muslim. Not a single burqua in sight, and there are very few barbaric laws and it's a secular society. Now... does this mean "ISlam reformed" or does it mean the country was built up in a way where certain Islamic tenets are not adhered to by it's government. Now lets take a look at Turkey. Excluding their treatment of the Kurds (you'd never hear Knightwolf bitch and moan about Turkey's treatment of Kurds or the genocide going on in Darfur or the ethnic cleansing and terrorization by Muslims against Christians in Indonesia), they are a pretty tolerant society. Now, you may go off right now going "HAH! Told you! Islam can be reformed!".
Well the problem with that statement is that you're not making any fucking sense. "Islam", the religion itsself isn't what got "reformed". This even fails to notice the very large disapproval amongst the Muslim populace of a secular democracy within Turkey, where radical religious groups have vast amounts of support from the general populace and constantly threaten to overthrow the current gov't. If it weren't for the military to watch over Atatürks "legacy", Turkey would have Sharia. You know who gives a large chunk of aid to Turkey's military? We do! If we took up your friend Ron Paul's approach and stopped providing military aid to different parts of the Muslim world, where currently more or less pro western governments are in control, you'd see Taliban style shitholes in every one of those countries, and the world's oil producing states like Saudi Arabia would be controlled by Al-Qaeda type organizations. Saudi Arabia is a shithole right now anyways, but we're dependent on them at the moment, so lets not resort to isolationism or invasions on the Arabian peninsula, mmk? Yes, I know that you keep pointing out that Saudi Arabia is the #1 sponsor of terrorism in the world and whatnot, and how we are "hypocrites"... but your proposed approaches to the issue are fucking retarded.
So yes Muslims (at least in the US), probably most of them can be friendly, tolerant people (with exception of a few topics, most of which I have issues with Christians too on). It depends upon how much they adhere to Islam. The Muslims that I know in the US not only celebrate Christmas as a day to get together, eat and exchange gifts, and they even wish people a "Merry Christmas". Now, this isn't an example of Islam "reforming" it's an example of people using their common sense to disregard and shed some of the barbaric traits of their own religion.
You want proof?
With accordance to Islam, greeting the Kuffar on Christmas and other holidays of theirs is haraam by concensus of
Ibn al-Qayyim He said in Ahkaam Akl al-Dhimmah:
"Congratulating the kuffaar on the rituals that belong only to them is haraam by consensus, as is congratulating them on their festivals and fasts by saying ‘A happy festival to you’ or ‘May you enjoy your festival,’ and so on. If the one who says this has been saved from kufr, it is still forbidden. It is like congratulating someone for prostrating to the cross, or even worse than that. It is as great a sin as congratulating someone for drinking wine, or murdering someone, or having illicit sexual relations, and so on. Many of those who have no respect for their religion fall into this error; they do not realize the offensiveness of their actions. Whoever congratulates a person for his disobedience or bid’ah or kufr exposes himself to the wrath and anger of Allaah."
(Haraam in arabic means "forbidden").
Congratulating the kuffar on their religion festivals is forbidden as described by Ibn Al-Qayyim because it implies that one approves of the religious festivals of the kafir even if they don't accept those festivals for themselves. However the Quran dictates that the Muslims should not accept the rituals of the kuffar or congratulate anyone for them because that goes against what Allah wishes:
{Quran Al-Zumar 39:7}
"If you disbelieve, then verily, Allaah is not in need of you, He likes not disbelief for His slaves. And if you are grateful (by being believers), He is pleased therewith for you. . ."
{Al-Maaidah 5:3}
". . . This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion . . ."
Furthermore the Prophet said:
"Whoever imitates a people is one of them." So basically Muslims are forbidden to imitate the kuffaar by having parties on such occasions, or exchanging gifts, or giving out sweets or food, or taking time off work.
Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyah said: "Imitating them in some of their festivals implies that one is pleased with their false beliefs and practices, and gives them the hope that they may have the opportunity to humiliate and mislead the weak."
As you can see, Muslims who do this are sinners (and many would be severly punished for this if they were living in Middle Eastern countries), whether he does it out of politeness or to be friendly, or was just too shy to avoid it, or any other reason.
So you see, DE? Islam hasn't reformed, all of these rules are still in place, just that people (some of them, I'd say about 30% try to be perfect, highly devoted to their religion, and are as a result, barbaric monsters), choose not to adhere to core tenets of their own religion!
Same goes for the NUMEROUS calls to violence by the Quran and Hadiths and by the prophet Muhammad himself and his inprovoked acts of violence against many of the settlements he conquered. Islam itsself doesnt't bring anything useful to the table which wasn't already there, however it brings an awful awful lot of misery once someone becomes strictly devoted to it.
I already taught you before about the revivalist movement within the Muslim world and I demonstrated numerous times with numerous examples how it is gaining strength worldwide. This revivalist movement aims to get rid of the "Mushriks" and the tolerant secularists within the faith. It will not go away, because it is hard coded into the Islamic religious texts. So eventually, someone's going to have to make it go away, and my prediction is that this will be accomplished through horrific warfare when there is no other options left (And RP's defeatism was never and never will be an option) before the end of this century.
Linear Mode
