Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

US Ambassador to Libya killed by mob

1235

Comments

  • #202
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Nodin wrote: »
    But it isn't.

    Well it kind of is. You've given some of the reasons yourself just on the previous page
    Nodin wrote: »
    .....Hindus are not remotely present in the west in the same numbers, nor is there the same spread, generally, as Islam.

    Islam is larger and more widespread than the others and has a growing presence in the largely securlarised, mostly liberal 'West'

    This demand of yours for 'uniqueness' as a prerequisite for the problems to be debated is as stubborn as to say you won't discuss the problem of child abuse in the catholic church because it's not 'unique' - child abuse being more common within the family for one.


  • #203
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    JustinDee wrote: »
    You're done. Just park it. We get it. You don't dig Muslims. Quit the pigeon-holing and check people's posting history before you make an even bigger trail of rubbish on these forums.

    In fairness JustinDee I really don't think that's the point he is making, nor do I interpret it from his posts (not that I've been following this thread so haven't read all Sams posts)


  • #204
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Sure, I mean just the other day Buddists went on a rampage over Kung Fu Panda.
    Yes. I was using the example often trotted out by others. So you believe other religions, at this time, have the same propensity towards violence, all around the globe? Please, dont keep it to yourself.

    Amazing how you won't address the evidence given.
    lamintations wrote:
    Islam is larger and more widespread than the others and has a growing presence in the largely securlarised, mostly liberal 'West'.

    ....I do believe I said as much.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80831987&postcount=190
    lamintations wrote:
    This demand of yours for 'uniqueness' as a prerequisite for the problems to be debated .


    No, thats no demand of mine. The claim was made that "Muslims" were "the only group to react in this way". Such claims of exceptionalism are completely unfounded.

    Following the examples of hindu extremism (and I didn't include caste violence or much intercommunal violence) the reply was "people persume that the violence within Islam is proven to be not a special case because they can point to an incidence where, say, a Christian killed an abortion doctor." Thats being obtuse and intellectually dishonest.


  • #205
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,882 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Nodin wrote: »
    .....Hindus are not remotely present in the west in the same numbers, nor is there the same spread, generally, as Islam.

    I wasn't aware that we were supposed to only care if some group "killed anyone in the West".



    The BJP is the second largest party in India.
    So, you're talking about a local problem with Hindu extremism. You accept that there is no global history of Hindu terrorism, as there is with Islamic jihad.

    You cannot find any evidence of Hindus engaged in a worldwide orgy of violence and threats to "behead those who insult Hinduism" or extremists like Anjem Hinduhury warning that he's going to raise the black flag of the Hindu god over the White House and the Tower of London.

    You have zero evidence that mainstream Hinduism has the same tendancy for anti-Semitism, homophobia, and the aggressive world view of Salafism and Wahabbism.

    You have zero evidence that India (as a whole) is a theo-fascist hellhole, and that its leaders and business elites are spending vast sums of money promoting the most virulent form of extremism throughout the world the way Saudi Arabia does, with Islamic education, training of Imams in Saudi universities, and subsidised reference books that SA does in the U.K.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    I've already pointed out the plethora of insulting videos and speeches about Jews and Christians and where they can be found
    Yes, and where is the worldwide orgy of violence and threats arising from each?


  • #206
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    When the British were ruling India there were countless attacks by freedom fighters on British soldiers and officers in the fight for freedom. Today these would be labelled as terrorists. If they had the means to I'm sure they would have struck at british interests around the world.

    The IRA for example did launch attacks in Britain.

    Islamic terrorism is a direct result of Western warmongering for greed. Warmongering and exploitation that has been going on for decades now. Including but not limited to selling arms to dictators and helping to keep them in power and then invading and deposing them when they are no longer useful.

    I'm not saying terrorism is justifiable. But to say that the cause of terrorism is some kind of inherent or exclusive Islamic problem is naieve and short sighted.


  • #207
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    SeanW wrote: »
    Yes, and where is the worldwide orgy of violence and threats arising from each?
    I've already made that point, so relax.

    My reply to earlier poster was that they cannot credibly lump all Muslims into one stereotype as they can't with your own religious demograph or mine.


  • #208
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Islamic terrorism is a direct result of Western warmongering for greed.

    Can't believe people buy into this stuff


  • #209
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Islamic terrorism is a direct result of Western warmongering for greed. Warmongering and exploitation that has been going on for decades now. Including but not limited to selling arms to dictators and helping to keep them in power and then invading and deposing them when they are no longer useful.

    I'm not saying terrorism is justifiable. But to say that the cause of terrorism is some kind of inherent or exclusive Islamic problem is naieve and short sighted.
    Extremism is certainly pro-agendaic but your claim is far too simplistic to take as de facto, not forgetting myopic.
    It comes in various guises which are not exclusive to any one section of society or a particular type of government or government practice. Causes become hijacked by various factions as they have done.

    This so-called "warmongering" you mention is a little tilted. There are other sides involved that are not aligned to whom you nail as the guilty party. All mentioned in various threads on Middle East or global conflict issues. I point out that the USSR, for example, were just as culpable in the shaping of the post-war Middle East as the main constituent of that 'other' bloc. The remnants of this bloc v bloc cold war still remain with these alliances still affecting outcomes.

    These protests are organised at ground level by pro-agendaic groups. The insult over this silly video with the vast majority of Muslims amongst us, if any, is as contained as anyone would wish it to be. If it wasn't, there'd be chaos on the streets and more people would be murdered. As it happens, this apocalyptic showdown doesn't get to happen.
    Everyone has a right to protest and can be upset. Some hijack these causes though to suit agendae. Not everyone. Not the majority. Just some. And the 'causes' can be anything from protests against globalisation to the Love Ulster parade.


  • #210
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    JustinDee wrote: »
    I've already made that point, so relax.

    My reply to earlier poster was that they cannot credibly lump all Muslims into one stereotype as they can't with your own religious demograph or mine.

    Yes, but at the same time don't become blind to the wider picture.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    JustinDee wrote: »
    My reply to earlier poster was that they cannot credibly lump all Muslims into one stereotype as they can't with your own religious demograph or mine.

    In the grand scheme of things being discussed, so what? A poster could stereotype all muslims all day but the biggest offense to Islam is the killing in the name of. Not the insults, not the generalisations. And in terms of Kantian universality, I'd prefer a world of stereotyping bigots than a world of murdering fundamentalists.

    Some British regarded all Irish people as terrorists. While that annoyed me it paled in comparison to the acts of the IRA who were busy at work getting Irish people that name, killing in my name and under the banner of republicanism.

    Not all Muslims are the same. The vast majority of 1.6 odd billion are peaceful. Fundamentalism wasn't invented by and isnt limited to Islam. Nevertheless the thread is about Islamic fundamentalism as that's what is causing the recent violence and deaths.


  • #212
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Laminations wrote: »
    Fundamentalism wasn't invented by and isnt limited to Islam. Nevertheless the thread is about Islamic fundamentalism as that's what is causing the recent violence and deaths.

    And it is microcosmic in comparison with its own demography. Thats the reason you will get these replies. There is scaremongering about Muslims with limp attempts to justify stereotyping that shouldn't go unanswered. I couldn't give two stuffs about Islam. Really couldn't. It doesn't threaten me. I do take issue with unjustified pigeon-holing however and linking decent everyday folk with the extremist fringe orchestrating said protests. The video is the last on their mind.


  • #213
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SeanW wrote: »
    So, you're talking (..........)does in the U.K.

    So now you're attempting to shift the goal posts from 'only muslims react that way' to a question of geographical location.


  • #214
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Palestinians are on or around the top of this alleged hierarchy of the muslim world (of which your perception seems to limit itself to the Middle East), are they?
    How do you think they sit in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt? Top of the ladder? Indonesia or Malaysia?
    I think if you look outside these anecdotes, you'll find things very different.

    Considering only 20% of Muslims are Arabs, probably not very high


  • #215
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    JustinDee wrote: »
    And it is microcosmic in comparison with its own demography. Thats the reason you will get these replies.

    But you've chosen to engage with posters who make these generalisations rather than engage in the debate. The microcosmic 'relative' number is a point to do with stereotyping while the larger 'absolute' number or 'relative to other demographs' is of concern in the debate on Islamic fundamentalism. This isn't about other fundamentalists or Muslims in general. Well maybe it is the latter for some posters but don't let that derail the thread.

    As for being a microcosm, it's a point worthy of note but so are RIRA (a microcosm of Irish demograph 0.0001%), should we not discuss them? Should we instead focus on the few posters who say in a thread on RIRA violence have made generalisations about all republicans (of which I consider myself one) or should we take as a given that the violent murdering of the topic of the thread sets them apart from other republicans or Irish in general. Should we start comparing them to ETA or the PLO? Afterall RIRA aren't unique in their violent terrorism so what's so special? Should we make a trite point if someone wants to discuss RIRA in a thread (and not the PLO) that they only care about murders in Ireland?

    Islamic fundamentalism has a wider reach, greater incidence and greater ramifications for the West. That makes it worthy of a discussion. It doesn't matter that it's relatively few Muslims, it doesn't matter that there are other fundamentalists. Yes reject stereotypes but don't turn the thread into you feeling you need to 'defend' 1.6 billion Muslims. The vast majority of people can tell the difference.


  • #216
    Mervyn Crawford
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭Mervyn Crawford


    Ref Laminations comment:

    Islamic fundamentalism is not an issue for 'the West'; but for the whole world.
    Indeed the impact of Islamic right-wing religious activism is felt by far most strongly in countries with majority nominal Muslim populations.
    .......... Consecutive US administrations backed Mubarak for three decades before he was
    toppled by the working class last February. Since the fall of Mubarak, the Obama
    administration has relied on the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood
    (MB) to suppress the working class and defend its strategic and economic
    interests in the region. It has established close ties to Mursi, a US-trained
    scientist and member of the MB, and supported his constitutional coup on August
    12, in which he took over the former army junta’s dictatorial powers.

    American capital also supports Mursi’s policies. Significantly, the US
    embassy protests broke out just as the largest US business delegation to travel
    to Egypt since the 1980s was visiting. One of the leaders of the delegation
    praised the Brotherhood’s economic program: “We got a clear message that Egypt
    is open for business. The delegation will leave impressed with the progress
    achieved so far.”

    The Islamists are intensifying the pro-business, anti-working class policies
    of Mubarak. Last month Cairo officially requested a $4.8 billion loan from the
    International Monetary Fund, vowing to further liberalize the economy. On
    September 9 the new Egyptian prime minister announced plans to cut the budget
    deficit and subsidies.

    Fearing he will lose popular support over his anti-working class policies and
    his ties to US imperialism, however, Mursi was initially reluctant to crack down
    on protests at the US embassy. Protesters were able to climb on the embassy’s
    walls and bring down the American flag.

    After speaking to Obama, however, Mursi closely followed his instructions
    from Washington. He unleashed his security forces against protesters, and the
    Brotherhood called off planned mass protests against the anti-Islam film. Mursi
    said Obama had told him that it was necessary to put in place “legal measures
    which will discourage those seeking to damage relations” between the US and
    Egypt.

    Now Mursi is preparing to expand the embassy crackdown against the entire
    working class. In the last week, a series of strikes has been sweeping Egypt.
    Both Mursi and the Obama administration want to prevent a renewed revolutionary
    upsurge of Egyptian workers and youth.

    On Monday a leading member of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the
    political arm of the Brotherhood, made clear that the Islamists regard strikes
    as a crime. Commenting on an on-going strike by public transport workers in
    Cairo, Sabry Amer told Ahram Online that “when workers of a vital
    service such as public transport decide to stop working, this is treason to the
    country.”

    On the same day, security forces disbanded a peaceful sit-in by students at
    the Nile University in Cairo and another sit-in by teachers in front of the
    cabinet.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=80840677


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Laminations wrote: »
    But you've chosen to engage with posters who make these generalisations rather than engage in the debate . . . etc . . . etc
    I have contributed to the so-called debate, so kindly ease off on the self-appointed modding and quit guessing on my motivations, reasoning or allegedly taking sides. Already have commented on the extreme overreactions, the comparison when Judaism or Christianity is subject of similar insulting lies, and have voiced my opinion that there are elements orchestrating and capitalising upon this stupid effing video, just as the alleged anti-globalisation protests or anti-austerity protests seen in Europe and elsewhere.

    Nor am I prohibiting anyone talking about any tenet of discussion. As said, if you adhere to stereotypes, don't be surprised if you get pulled up on it, especially given some of the alleged 'evidence' presented here.

    I'm not Muslim myself. I'm not even of a Christian background and couldn't a flying tart for Islam but I do take exception to pro-agendaic bar-stool expertise flung out by anonymous monikers on the internet. In my opinion, scaremongering and rousing should be viewed following a step back, instead of jumping in head-first with preconceptions and presumptions on relevant subject matter.

    Maybe its just me, I dunno. I'm fairly confident it isn't. If that was the case, then that would be a worry, in my own opinion.

    If you don't agree with my insistance that manners and respect should prevail all else, then so be it. Carry on regardless but don't waste time lecturing posters you might disagree with. We'll live.


  • #218
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    I'm not making any point on manners or respect. I'm saying 'uniqueness' or 'size' of the violence in relation to the demograph doesn't minimise the problem. White supremacism is relatively small compared to the demograph, it doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue. Suggesting Islamic fundamentalism is a serious issue is not scaremongering. And you really shouldn't criticise others for lecturing when your replies read like a 'telling off' to a bold child.

    There are a number of posters who are now just challenging a stereotype that is not being made in any real numbers. One poster makes an overly general comment and the thread turns into a Islam defenders campaign. I've never seen a thread discuss issues with Islamic fundamentalism or broader issues with Islam on these boards that hasn't been turned into a train wreck with criticisms being repackaged and rejected as 'anti-Islam' or 'Islamaphobia'.


  • #219
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Laminations wrote: »
    I'm not making any point on manners or respect. I'm saying 'uniqueness' or 'size' of the violence in relation to the demograph doesn't minimise the problem. White supremacism is relatively small compared to the demograph, it doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue. Suggesting Islamic fundamentalism is a serious issue is not scaremongering. And you really shouldn't criticise others for lecturing when your replies read like a 'telling off' to a bold child.

    There are a number of posters who are now just challenging a stereotype that is not being made in any real numbers. One poster makes an overly general comment and the thread turns into a Islam defenders campaign. I've never seen a thread discuss issues with Islamic fundamentalism or broader issues with Islam on these boards that hasn't been turned into a train wreck with criticisms being repackaged and rejected as 'anti-Islam' or 'Islamaphobia'.
    It has never been and "Islam defenders" thread. If you want to bring broader issues into then fine. If you read a reply that you disagree with, I'd suggest you give others the right to credible reply that you wish for yourself.
    If I see someone sweeping a broad brush across an entire demograph in post, of course I'm going to opine on it because I find it unrealistic and that it tends to be pro-agendaic. I don't use the terms you italicise in quote above, nor am I an abject and ill-informed pigeon-holer.
    I actually agreed with what bothers you about the protagonists in these stupid and hijacked protests. I lost a very good friend and teammate in the Kuta bombings myself and witnessed some pretty disgusting acts in Indonesia during the late 90s, never mind the hoo-hah that went on in Israel during the first intifada.

    Look, just ignore my posts. You obviously disagree with me on stereotyping and pot-stirring as you seem to label my posts as some form of derailment. I honestly don't give stuff and life's too short for this repetition.


  • #220
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    I don't want to ignore you posts. I happen to think that you make many a valid point. I get it, stereotyping annoys you, probably what set me off is that comments like the following annoy me.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    You're done. Just park it. We get it. You don't dig Muslims. Quit the pigeon-holing and check people's posting history before you make an even bigger trail of rubbish on these forums.

    Aside from it being an overly agressive shout-down, the bit in bold is a smearing comment and unjustified inference from the small sample of posts you have of his opinion.

    Again I don't want to ignore you, we're having a discussion. The point I'm making is that stereotyping, manners or respect is not the 'most important aspect here' as Denerick had suggested. It is people abusing religion from murderous outrage.


  • #221
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Laminations wrote: »
    I don't want to ignore you posts. I happen to think that you make many a valid point. I get it, stereotyping annoys you, probably what set me off is that comments like the following annoy me.

    Aside from it being an overly agressive shout-down, the bit in bold is a smearing comment and unjustified inference from the small sample of posts you have of his opinion.
    Report it then. I'm a big boy and can take a talk-down if need be.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Some more news on this via Glenn Greenwald from the Guardian:

    Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruths

    One thing to note, is the following link from this article:
    Report: Never an Anti-American Protest in Benghazi, Only a Planned Attack

    CBS reports this morning that witnesses are saying "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident."

    So the Obama admin is now saying it was a planned terrorist attack, and we now see reports that there was never a protest at all, just a planned terrorist attack.

    Its rather amazing how this whole thing was apparently reported so completely wrongly. So, now we find out that there wasn't even a protest, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. I have to wonder how the media screwed up so badly.


  • #223
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    wes wrote: »
    Some more news on this via Gleen Greenwald from the Guardian:

    Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruths

    One thing to note, is the following link from this article:

    So the Obama admin is now saying it was a planned terrorist attack, and we now see reports that there was never a protest at all, just a planned terrorist attack.

    Its rather amazing how this whole thing was apparently reported so completely wrongly. So, now we find out that there wasn't even a protest, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. I have to wonder how the media screwed up so badly.
    You'd be surprised if there was co-ordination involved and was a case of faux-outrage being hijacked for other reasons?
    Interesting . . .


  • #224
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    You'd be surprised if there was co-ordination involved and was a case of faux-outrage being hijacked for other reasons?
    Interesting . . .

    I am not too sure what happened exactly. There was definetly an pre-planned terrorist attack. Now, whether was a protest or not seems to be in question, at least according to CBS. It may very well been the case of the attackers pretending to be protesters to get in close, and then launching an attack or something like that, but considering the conflicting information, its very hard to tell, and that is just speculation on my part.

    Basically, we have gone from a mob attacking the consulate angry over the film, to a pre-planned terrorist attack that may very well have had nothing to do with the film at all. Now, those are the 2 extremes of what may have happened, but its rather stunning, how many different version of events we are seeing.


  • #225
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    wes wrote: »

    Its rather amazing how this whole thing was apparently reported so completely wrongly. So, now we find out that there wasn't even a protest, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. I have to wonder how the media screwed up so badly.

    It's not so much wrong, as "developments". The opening reports linked it directly to a protest, then as more facts came through it seem to be more in tune with a protest inspired attack, and now it seems pretty clear it was a well planned attack using the protest as cover. A dozen or so Libyans were also killed or wounded in the exchange.

    30+ people have died so far in the "protests", most of which appear to have been planned.


  • #226
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Enough with this arrogant bilge.
    I don't need a specially seeded poll to tell me what I experience myself, no more than I need a weighted poll from any think-tank to try and convince me the Irish are good drivers and the roads are safe.
    Five years in Israel, seven in Australia, five in Norway, one in Malaysia, two in Greece amongst other regions over the years has educated me enough to avoid lumping every sod I might disagree with into the one barrel, like Irish are avid roman catholics who eat fish on fridays and support the Provos. Moral relativism about how effwads around the world are prodded into reacting in extremis over a daft youTube video doesn't excuse some of the sectarian actions of your own.

    Actions of my own? Who the hell do you think I am, and what exactly are the actions that are so very 'sectarian' in your opinion?

    Given the subject of the thread it is pretty sad that the only response you have to someone pointing out that Islam has some major issues at the moment is crying about 'sectarianism'.

    An excellent illustration of how people attempt to shut down any discussion on the subject by making claims about others character. It demonstrates nothing but your own inability to defend your position.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Its not anecdotal "evidence" I'm posting. Just an opinion. This is an internet forum. Not a courtroom. Anonymous monikers like yourself can stir the pot and retroactively dig up anything that suits them via a search engine all you like. Just don't expect not to get pulled up on it from time to time.

    Yes, and your opinion is based on anecdotal evidence. If you believe someone should not point this out then you really need to brush up on your debating skills.

    Lets try this - someone here claims all the Muslims they have met are extremists and violent, you have a poll that proves it is not true. Their response to this poll is that it is created by people trying to prove Islam is not dangerous, they give no evidence for this other than that the poll proves them wrong. You see the stupidity in this? Good. Now look back at your own posts.

    JustinDee wrote: »
    You're done. Just park it. We get it. You don't dig Muslims. Quit the pigeon-holing and check people's posting history before you make an even bigger trail of rubbish on these forums.

    Wow, you get pretty angry when people point out that your opinion is not as informed as it should be.

    I never said anything about individual Muslims.

    Its a discussion forum, if you dont like people having different opinions than you then leave.



    Its interesting that you say I leave a trail of rubbish but are completly unable to aruge your point without getting furious and resorting to CTs to try and explain away polls that prove my position is based in more reality than your own.

    You believe Islam does not have an issue. We get it. Your done. ;)


  • #227
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Nodin wrote: »
    Amazing how you won't address the evidence given.

    Nothing amazing about it - I ignore it because it was a defence of an accusation never made. No one ever claimed Islam is the only religion who's adherents resort to violence or protest violently about trivial things.


  • #228
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Actions of my own? Who the hell do you think I am, and what exactly are the actions that are so very 'sectarian' in your opinion?
    Your own demograph.
    SamHarris wrote: »
    Given the subject of the thread it is pretty sad that the only response you have to someone pointing out that Islam has some major issues at the moment is crying about 'sectarianism'
    Sectarianism is another form of fundamentalism.
    SamHarris wrote: »
    An excellent illustration of how people attempt to shut down any discussion on the subject by making claims about others character. It demonstrates nothing but your own inability to defend your position
    I don't care about your character. You're a moniker on the internet. I don't know you from Adamski and most certainly vice versa.
    SamHarris wrote: »
    Yes, and your opinion is based on anecdotal evidence. If you believe someone should not point this out then you really need to brush up on your debating skills
    This is a chat and comment forum. Not a debating hall. I think you'll find that "anecdotal evidence" tends to be from experience when true.
    SamHarris wrote: »
    Wow, you get pretty angry when people point out that your opinion is not as informed as it should be
    I don't get angry on an internet forum. No need to, especially when the amateur psycho-analysis makes an appearance.
    SamHarris wrote: »
    Its interesting that you say I leave a trail of rubbish but are completly unable to aruge your point without getting furious and resorting to CTs to try and explain away polls that prove my position is based in more reality than your own
    Conspiracy theories?? I know how a poll is commissioned, formulated and run, thats all. Waving them about as empirical evidence is surely weaker? (don't bother answering. we'll be here all flipping week).
    SamHarris wrote: »
    You believe Islam does not have an issue. We get it. Your done. ;)
    Where did I even say that??

    I'm sure your hot seat over it all trumps the opinions of any old duffer insolent enough to disagree with you. Go on, 'Sam', chuck another poll or op-ed piece to fling a point across.


  • #229
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Your own demograph.


    Oh so now you know my demograph! Please, what is it?

    I thought your position was that people should not be tarred by the actions of a few that hold some of their positions? Or is it the case that only holds true when you deem it necassary? Way to advertise your own hypocrisy, J.

    JustinDee wrote: »
    Sectarianism is another form of fundamentalism.


    Hardly.

    If you believe criticising a particular ideology makes you 'sectarian' you should really pick up a dictionary.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    I don't care about your character. You're a moniker on the internet. I don't know you from Adamski and most certainly vice versa.

    Wow. And yet you know my demographic? Try not to contradict yourself in a short post.

    JustinDee wrote: »
    This is a chat and comment forum. Not a debating hall. I think you'll find that "anecdotal evidence" tends to be from experience when true.

    Sure. Anecdotal evidence that contradicts polls and research is still worth ****.

    What? No, I think you'll find 'anecdotal evidence' is entirelly self serving and when its right is only right by pure chance.

    JustinDee wrote: »
    Conspiracy theories?? I know how a poll is commissioned, formulated and run, thats all. Waving them about as empirical evidence is surely weaker? (don't bother answering. we'll be here all flipping week).

    And your opinion is the poll was designed to portray Muslims in a certain light. That is a CT.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Where did I even say that??

    Merely following your lead in creating a caricature of your argument and telling you to leave. Try and keep up. :rolleyes:
    JustinDee wrote: »
    I'm sure your hot seat over it all trumps the opinions of any old duffer insolent enough to disagree with you. Go on, 'Sam', chuck another poll or op-ed piece to fling a point across.

    Try not to take your inferiority complex out on me.

    That a poll from one of the most respected polling agencies in the world 'trumps' your opinion should not shock you.


    Couldn't be bothered posting another, Im sure 'they' got to them as well.


  • #230
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    'Sam', your demograph, which isn't really that difficult to ascertain, doesn't describe your character or even that you subscribe to any particular trait within it. No need to be so touchy.

    Don't mistake me for some bleeding heart or conspiracist either. I don't trust polls, particularly from think-tanks of whatever persuasion and I tend not to trust any subjective bandying about of selective findings, even if they suited my viewpoint.

    This doesn't make me feel "inferior" to you or even superior. I just disagree with your posts. Again, opinion being the operative term here.


  • #231
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Nothing amazing about it - I ignore it because it was a defence of an accusation never made. No one ever claimed Islam is the only religion who's adherents resort to violence or protest violently about trivial things.

    Actually they - or, to be precise you - did

    "'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, "
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186

    ...hence me going on about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,351 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    MOD WARNING:
    Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and not each other. Posters that get "too personal" violate our charter and may be carded.


  • #233
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Nodin wrote: »
    Actually they - or, to be precise you - did

    "'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, "
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186

    ...hence me going on about it.

    Typical :rolleyes:

    Nice bit of 'selective quoting' - "'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries".

    The level of violence, its widespread geographical nature, the fact that this is far from the only time this type of reaction has taken place, the intensity and length of the protests are all important in differentiating it from other religious outbursts.

    Like Ive said a dozen times it is a minority that actually carries out violent acts, supported by a much larger minority that mirrors their opinion but do not seem to act on them in the same fashion.

    Its telling that the only defence people now have to the claims made against Islam are strawmen and misrepresentation.

    This particular wave of violence is not why I (and many others) have made the judgment that there is something fundamentaly wrong with particular strains of Islam. This is not some abberation - it is emblamatic of a much larger problem that has been stewing for years.


  • #234
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    JustinDee wrote: »
    'Sam', your demograph, which isn't really that difficult to ascertain, doesn't describe your character or even that you subscribe to any particular trait within it. No need to be so touchy.

    The demograph that means I have carried out 'sectarian acts' doesnt describe my character? Trust me, I dont care at all. Just pointing out your inability to develop a point without contradicting youself.

    Im curious, what is this 'demograph' anyway? The one that believes there are issues within Islam that need to be discussed? So anyone that has been conscious at any time in the last 20 years?

    You havent had an argument to begin with, you just got unnecassarily angry and embarrassed yourself. Its fine, just drop it.

    If anyone is so convinced criticising Islam is tantamount to a personal attack on every Muslim they really shouldn't come onto a forum.


  • #235
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Typical :rolleyes:

    Nice bit of 'selective quoting' - "'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries".
    .

    Nothing selective about it. Your meaning rings clear.
    Maybe, and in a thread I dont mind generalisations being pointed out as such. But if you read for example al Jazeera or al Arabiya (english versions) they are similiarly devoted to dealing with 'why are Muslims portrayed so negativly' and never 'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries?'.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186


  • #236
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    The thread seems to be diverging into the question of whether the feelings and vehemence expressed in these protests is intrinsic to Islam, or whether it is only a microcosm of a very large and complicated set of different sects and cultures.

    Funny really cuz elsewhere the debate elsewhere is free speech VS sensitivity.

    These protests are clearly pretty crazy. Sure, they are coloured somewhat by complicated views in these countries concerning the West and US foreign policy in particular. However, we must look at the bottom line and again it is a case of an absolutely meaningless issue being used as a virtual casus belli among the mobs involved. Mobs, mind you, not governments or even groups ('cept Taliban).


  • #237
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Nodin wrote: »
    Nothing selective about it. Your meaning rings clear.


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186

    Well then you read it wrong, or I was unclear. it was a flippant comment made about how it is being reported in media that caters to having an Arab/ muslim view point. They are actually very similiar to your own arguments - evasive and entirelly dedicated to focusing on issues that are not the real problem. Again - anyone who points out a problem with Islam are instantly picked through to try and find evidence of their bigotry, the issue of Islam itself is left completly undiscussed.

    Terms like 'rascism' are used by people like Fisk, trying desperatly to attach the taboo rightly attached to blaming issues on race and attempting to use it to create a barrier around what is an ideology, a set of ideas, something that is entirelly open to be derided or criticed, that can have extreme effects both positive and negative. The sad part is they are effective - if it were a political movement or an 'unprotected' religion such as sceintology that had the same effects throughout the world (on womens rights, free speech and security) there would be unending entirelly valid criticisms.

    Your not going to convince me I meant something else in my own comment. Its a strawman, drop it.

    Cant believe the same things are being said page 16 in a thread about an ambassador being murdered :rolleyes: We get it. Every Muslim is not a killer/psycho. Move on.


    What media outlets do you believe are reporting on the violence from within the Muslim community unfairly?

    Do you believe there is not a fundamental problem in Islam at this moment? Do you believe it is being discussed in the manner in which it should be?

    You seem to believe there are other relgions that cause the same issues over such a wide geographical area and in many different nations. Which religions are these?


    I'm sure its very irritating for Muslims to have their religion discussed as if it is not a message sent by god. But too bad for them really. The effects are too widely seen, too common and too extreme for it to be ignored on the grounds that it hurts their feelings.

    Very clearly every poll and research done into the matter shows it is not a small problem caused by a tiny minority but instead ideas that have enromous pull throughout the world.


  • #238
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    These protests are clearly pretty crazy. Sure, they are coloured somewhat by complicated views in these countries concerning the West and US foreign policy in particular. However, we must look at the bottom line and again it is a case of an absolutely meaningless issue being used as a virtual casus belli among the mobs involved. Mobs, mind you, not governments or even groups ('cept Taliban).

    I dont buy the theory that the protests have more to do with US policy than it does with the movie. The protestors are pretty unequivocal, and the reaction to the Danish cartoons shows the lie to the theory.

    I wouldnt be surprised if there is not enormous frustration that is created by the relative position of Muslim states in the world in comparrison to the West, but given the same groups intransigence to things like the Syrian slaughter taking place right now it is purely bad speculation that brings about the idea it is about Western abuses.


  • #239
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Well then you read it wrong, or I was unclear. it was a flippant comment made about how it is being reported in media that caters to having an Arab/ muslim view point. They are actually very similiar to your own arguments - evasive and entirelly dedicated to focusing on issues that are not the real problem. Again - anyone who points out a problem with Islam are instantly picked through to try and find evidence of their bigotry, the issue of Islam itself is left completly undiscussed.....................

    I'd suggest that - in the kindest light - it was a 'freudian slip'.


  • #240
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'd suggest that - in the kindest light - it was a 'freudian slip'.

    Very clearly an attempt to poison the well when no valid counter arguments are available.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Very clearly an attempt to poison the well when no valid counter arguments are available.

    I made the counter-arguments earlier. You ignored them.


  • #242
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Nodin wrote: »
    I made the counter-arguments earlier. You ignored them.

    No, you ignored my response. :rolleyes: once again, it was an excellent response to an argument that was never made.

    Really it couldnt have been put out more clearly two or three posts ago. Its not a matter of you and people like you not seeing the problems its that you do not want to engage with it. Its sad really, and that it is happening on the macro scale is part of the reason things like this continue to happen.


  • #243
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    No, you ignored my response. :rolleyes: once again, it was an excellent response to an argument that was never made.

    Really it couldnt have been put out more clearly two or three posts ago. Its not a matter of you and people like you not seeing the problems its that you do not want to engage with it. Its sad really, and that it is happening on the macro scale is part of the reason things like this continue to happen.

    It would appear to be more to do with bigotry and the attempt to intellectualise it.


  • #244
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292112314438851.html

    The type of reaction that should follow any mad act carried out in the name of Islam. As soon as alot of people start reacting like this the militants and fundamentalists will be forced more to the edges of society - and hopefully start losing the large support they have amoungst a minority of Muslims.


  • #245
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    SamHarris wrote: »
    and hopefully start losing the large support they have amoungst a minority of Muslims.

    The 'large' support they have amongst a 'minority' of Muslims. Has to be the most strategically chosen words I've ever read on boards.ie. Could be read as a paradox, a contradiction, an intense desire to 'appear' moderate, I don't know. But its slippery.


  • #246
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    Nodin wrote: »
    It would appear to be more to do with bigotry and the attempt to intellectualise it.

    You're so busy always searching for the bigot in people that you miss the bigger picture.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Denerick wrote: »
    The 'large' support they have amongst a 'minority' of Muslims. Has to be the most strategically chosen words I've ever read on boards.ie. Could be read as a paradox, a contradiction, an intense desire to 'appear' moderate, I don't know. But its slippery.

    :rolleyes: Christ sake, or its you not understanding the terms. A large minority of 100% is around 30-40%. If you havent heard the phrase before you surely know little to nothing about demographics or groups and really shouldnt be on this thread.

    Given the reaction every time anyone does not add 'a minority' of Muslims its hardly a surprise people have to use terms that appear convoluted.

    There is no 'appearing' moderate towards people of your political disposition if I criticise the wrong religion/ political group. I couldnt really care less if you think Im a bigot, given how innaffective everybody has been in actually dealing with what I said rather than just desperatly trying to claim its mere 'biggotry'.

    You all rather nicely prove my point about the attempts of those that sympathise with particular groups to shut down any dialogue on matters pertaining to them.


  • #248
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Denerick wrote: »
    The 'large' support they have amongst a 'minority' of Muslims. Has to be the most strategically chosen words I've ever read on boards.ie. Could be read as a paradox, a contradiction, an intense desire to 'appear' moderate, I don't know. But its slippery.

    I definitely agree.
    Christ sake, or its you not understanding the terms. A large minority of 100% is around 30-40%.

    Excuse me if I misunderstood you here, or if I appear pedantic, but are you suggesting that 30-40% of Muslims support extremists?


  • #249
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Nodin wrote: »
    It would appear to be more to do with bigotry and the attempt to intellectualise it.

    And yet still no actual argument! What a surprise.


  • #250
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    SamHarris wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Christ sake, or its you not understanding the terms. A large minority of 100% is around 30-40%. If you havent heard the phrase before you surely know little to nothing about demographics or groups and really shouldnt be on this thread.

    What you don't seem to get is that there is very few reliable methods of gauging the level of support for Islamic fundamentalism in majority Muslim countries. So when you say a 'large minority' or 'large support amongst a minority' you seem to be grasping a little too desperately for my liking.

    No-one is directly suggesting you are a bigot. But from what I've read on this thread (And the various right wing crank sites on the internet), the level of argument has been perilously weak, usually resorting to crass generalisations and unprovable allegations.


  • #251
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »

    Excuse me if I misunderstood you here, or if I appear pedantic, but are you suggesting that 30-40% of Muslims support extremists?

    Yes, are you saying you have never even looked at the many polls on the issue? Can't say Im too surprised again. I really dont care if someone disagrees with me or implies I am a bigot, but at least try and not be so ignorant when you do.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1893879.html 1 in 4 British Muslims supported 7/7.

    In some countries in 2003 (a poll I just grabbed because it was the first to come up) support for Osama Bin Ladin was around 60%
    If anything I could use stronger language and still be right.
    http://www.pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/

    In the other poll I posted (imagine, Im still the only person so far actually using evidence for my opinion, despite much fluttering of hands and accusations of bigotry) the average support for suicide bombing in Muslim countries is around 40%.

    Support for specifically targeting civilians goes as low (heh) as 16% and as high as 60% http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world

    People here portray a very high level of ignorance about a subject they clearly have strong opinions on. Am I the only one that likes to inform myself before posting something or, far more importantly, developing an opinion on a subject?

    To many people feel comfortable 'guessing' that support for terrorism must be less than 1% or what have you, then arguing vehemently against people who criticise Islam. If you are looking for a clearer picture of a religion with an extremism problem, you wont find one.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement