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
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
Comments
-
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.
No Im reflecting the polling data on the matter. You can form your own opinion on anecdotal evidence, or your hopes and wishes or astrology for all I care. When I have a strong opinion on something, however, I like it to be as based in factual evidence as it can be. That the data available makes people who are aware of it so open to being called a 'bigot' etc reflects nothing but the extreme nature of the problem in (with?) Islam at the moment.
The fact that it is the only 'argument' put forward in this thread and in broader discussions in the media with people of a certain political disposition and with moderate Muslims only reflects the ignorance, etenral victim complex and complete lack of honesty that has become part of that problem.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,347 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36465
I find the deaths associated with the US Embassy incident sad, regardless of what may be thought of US foreign policy, or the competing political and religious interests in Libya. So much more could have been accomplished by peaceful attempts at resolution between competing interests rather than through acts of violence.
This generalisation in the OP is problematic, in that it assumes "Islam" is practiced today uniformly by all its millions of believers. On the contrary, there is considerable diversity in terms of practice, as well as what implications those diverse practices may have on public policies, human behaviours, etc.Brussels Sprout wrote: »When is Islam going to emerge from Medieval times?
Without increasing the likelihood of committing a similar error by attempting to oversimplify and summarize all those differences here, may we consider one case that challenges this notion of those who practice Islam as being "Medieval?" In doing this, I would still exercise caution when attempting to label all the citizens of UAE (United Arab Emirates) as being uniform in the practice of Islam, because they too are quite diverse between tribes** in that nation (See Arabian Sands by Wilfred Thesiger, 1985, to touch upon the great differences between tribes in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula).
The UAE 2030 Plan is quite remarkable in terms of its implications for not only the UAE and the Middle East, but also for world finance, manufacturing, environment, university education, travel, entertainment, etc. Unlike our politicians that made many promises during the last election, as well as those promises now being made across the pond by US presidential candidates before their November elections, the 2030 Plan is actually being physically constructed, and implemented in public policies and practices. They are doing it, not just making promises that are often forgotten after an election. And if they may stumble a bit when implementing the Plan, at least they are trying to affect change for their citizens that appear to be more 21st Century than “Medieval” in a nation that is only 40 years old.
Just from an anecdotal fun standpoint, if you saw the last "Mission Impossible" film, then you will remember Tom Cruise (or his stuntmen) playing on the world's tallest building located in Dubai. And for those of more risqué tastes, perhaps you watched the last "Sex and the City" movie, it too filmed in Dubai. As a point for diversity in today's Islam influenced public policies and practices, I cannot imagine MI being filmed in neighboring Saudi Arabia; and "Sex and the City" being produced there would be beyond belief.
I am no champion of organized religion, no matter what form it takes. Theocracies scare me. Furthermore, the UAE is no “Best of all possible worlds,” nor is any nation or culture on this planet. It too has its areas for significant improvements (e.g., the serious UAE citizen vs foreign contractor problems), but I would not classify those shortcomings as "Medieval.”
**Note: If the reference to “tribes” makes the UAE seem primitive, substitute “clan.”0 -
-
-
Sure you did. I think I missed it, could you repost for old times sake?
It's here, as you doubtless know.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830416&postcount=1870 -
'Medieval' is sadly an excellent description of the nearly every Muslim state, despite the diversity within Islam itself. One could easily list off a bunch of countries with laws and punishments that would fit far better states 800 years ago than it does to any idea of a modern one.
The UAE are tiny nations with a huge minority (there it goes again) of foreign nationals. They are not the typical of the Muslim world. I cant be bothered finding yet another poll right now but my recollection is that support for extremism is still surprisingly high in the small Gulf states.
If what it requires for Islam to operate effectivly is massive oil wealth per head of population (plus other factors, Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of extremism) then there is little hope that they will ever excise the problems in their community and will remain firmly in what at least amounts to a medieval mentality. Building tall buildings is hardly not what people mean by modernity in regard to their actions.0 -
It's here, as you doubtless know.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830416&postcount=187
Oh yes your response to an imaginary argument. Apparantly someone said Muslims are the only religion to ever have a riot, and thats what you believe the argument has been. Id suggest you read the last few pages a little more carefully.
Or...We can all go home! Its fine, their actually is no problems in Islam, ignore those polls everyone - sometimes Hindus riot to.
Piss poor. Really.
Stop being so dishonest, if you have no argument dont bother posting.0 -
No Im reflecting the polling data on the matter. You can form your own opinion on anecdotal evidence, or your hopes and wishes or astrology for all I care. When I have a strong opinion on something, however, I like it to be as based in factual evidence as it can be. That the data available makes people who are aware of it so open to being called a 'bigot' etc reflects nothing but the extreme nature of the problem in (with?) Islam at the moment.
The fact that it is the only 'argument' put forward in this thread and in broader discussions in the media with people of a certain political disposition and with moderate Muslims only reflects the ignorance, etenral victim complex and complete lack of honesty that has become part of that problem.
As has been stated before, polls are unreliable to an hysterical extent. Especially ones that include numerous countries and regions in relatively small and unrepresentative numbers. There is little tradition of political pluralism in most Islamic countries and so the polling institutions are similarly unsophisticated in such countries. When it comes to foreign agents polling in Islamic countries, the results should be studied with extreme caution as such enterprises are often completely out of their depth in alien countries. Have you ever considered the polls as anything beyond their face value? The very questions asked would determin the validity of a poll. The most famous example is a couple of years ago when the Sun ran a poll which subsequently claimed almost 100% support for the reinstitution of the death penalty! Of course, the questions were just awful, and designed to get the 'correct answer'. (Such as, 'would you prefer to see a convicted paedophile given a holiday home in Spain for their crime or face the death penalty?' - I've made that up by the way, but its the kind of thing a critical mind should watch out for) Indeed, the idea that you can correctly gauge the mindset of an entire religion from this polling data you prize so much is indicative of an absurd naivety when it comes to the reliability of these methods. Lies, damn lies and statistics, and all that.0 -
Oh yes your response to an imaginary argument. Apparantly someone said Muslims are the only religion to ever have a riot, and thats what you believe the argument has been. Id suggest you read the last few pages a little more carefully.
Or...We can all go home! Its fine, their actually is no problems in Islam, ignore those polls everyone - sometimes Hindus riot to.
Piss poor. Really.
Stop being so dishonest, if you have no argument dont bother posting.
I fear you have a tenuous grasp of Indian politics if you think that Hindu nationalists are not every bit as militant as any Islamic fundamentalist group. But whatever.0 -
As has been stated before, polls are unreliable to an hysterical extent. Especially ones that include numerous countries and regions in relatively small and unrepresentative numbers. There is little tradition of political pluralism in most Islamic countries and so the polling institutions are similarly unsophisticated in such countries. When it comes to foreign agents polling in Islamic countries, the results should be studied with extreme caution as such enterprises are often completely out of their depth in alien countries. Have you ever considered the polls as anything beyond their face value? The very questions asked would determin the validity of a poll. The most famous example is a couple of years ago when the Sun ran a poll which subsequently claimed almost 100% support for the reinstitution of the death penalty! Of course, the questions were just awful, and designed to get the 'correct answer'. (Such as, 'would you prefer to see a convicted paedophile given a holiday home in Spain for their crime or face the death penalty?' - I've made that up by the way, but its the kind of thing a critical mind should watch out for) Indeed, the idea that you can correctly gauge the mindset of an entire religion from this polling data you prize so much is indicative of an absurd naivety when it comes to the reliability of these methods. Lies, damn lies and statistics, and all that.
Political and social science wouldnt agree with you but hey you can have your own opinion.
Individual polls can surely be very flawed so if you want to pick apart each of those I posted you can. I wouldnt bother though because there are numerous others that say the same thing.
Im curious though, given you seem sure Im wrong you must have a far better method of gauging the opinion of a large group of people. What is this method and where are the results you are using?0 -
Advertisement
-
I fear you have a tenuous grasp of Indian politics if you think that Hindu nationalists are not every bit as militant as any Islamic fundamentalist group. But whatever.
Evidence please, just out of curiosity.
Any fundamentalist group, you really want to stand by that? Im not familiar with any Hindu groups that declared it was the fundamental responsibility of every Hindu to kill every member, man woman and child, of a particular natinonality. Regardless that hardly addresses any point I made, if you could direct me to where I said anything like there are no religions that have groups as militant as some of those in Islam Id appreciate it if you showed me.0 -
Libya: Islamist militia bases stormed in Benghazi
Looks like the groups that killed the Ambassador, have pissed off the average Libyan, and there attack has now backfired on them. I can only imagine that the average Libyan are sick of armed groups killing people.0 -
Hindu groups that declared it was the fundamental responsibility of every Hindu to kill every member, man woman and child, of a particular natinonality.
Can you please state how many Muslims as a proportion of all muslims believe it is their 'fundamental responsibility of every Muslim to kill every memeber, man woman and child, of a particular nationality'. Thanks.
Because right now you seem to be scaring yourself with some pretty ignorant perceptions of the muslim world. Fear and ignorance, the two always go well together.0 -
Can you please state how many Muslims as a proportion of all muslims believe it is their 'fundamental responsibility of every Muslim to kill every memeber, man woman and child, of a particular nationality'. Thanks.
Because right now you seem to be scaring yourself with some pretty ignorant perceptions of the muslim world. Fear and ignorance, the two always go well together.
Christ, thats not what I said at all. You claimed there were more radical Hindu groups. I described Al Qaedas declared modus operandi and am waiting for your example of a Hindu group that is similarly 'militant'.
Keep in mind it wasnt even what I said to begin with so your just following your first ill judged comment (or misreading of my post) with another.
Yet another (attempt at) a red herring. And a straw man come to think of it. Id like to see one post on this thing that doesnt have an extreme logical fallacy.0 -
Christ, thats not what I said at all. You claimed there were more radical Hindu groups. I described Al Qaedas declared modus operandi and am waiting for your example of a Hindu group that is similarly 'militant'.
Keep in mind it wasnt even what I said to begin with so your just following your first ill judged comment (or misreading of my post) with another.
Yet another (attempt at) a red herring. And a straw man come to think of it. Id like to see one post on this thing that doesnt have an extreme logical fallacy.
There are Hindu groups in India that routinely attack Muslims. There are Hindu gangs in India that attack Islamic shantytowns. Islamic/Hindu violence was always endemic in India, before and after partition. I apologise if you haven't heard about what is commonly known about in that part of the world. I apologise it doesn't conform to your lazy, internet assembled prejudices. I'm not here to give you an education, the evidence stands on its own merits.0 -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/22/libyan-protesters-militia-benghazi
Good to see the people of Libya standing up to the extremists instead of protesting over some stupid film.0 -
Christ, thats not what I said at all. You claimed there were more radical Hindu groups. I described Al Qaedas declared modus operandi and am waiting for your example of a Hindu group that is similarly 'militant'.
Keep in mind it wasnt even what I said to begin with so your just following your first ill judged comment (or misreading of my post) with another.
Yet another (attempt at) a red herring. And a straw man come to think of it. Id like to see one post on this thing that doesnt have an extreme logical fallacy.
It strikes me as telling that every time you make a blanket statement and are called out on it, you then do an about face.Apparantly someone said Muslims are the only religion to ever have a riot.............
Yes, you did.0 -
It strikes me as telling that every time you make a blanket statement and are called out on it, you then do an about face.
You honestly dont see how what denerick accused me of saying and what I said are two completly different things? Wow. Your inability to even approach being able to contrusct an argument starts making much more sense.
I have a feeling however you are just being deliberatly dishonest, your becoming frustrated with your inability to actually engage in an argument so are desperate. Its fine, I get it. Maybe if you just try harder?Yes, you did.
Wrong again, 'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries?' is now "Muslims are the only group to portest"? You honestly dont see the difference? I didnt even use the word protest for christ sake, if the 'reaction' is only mere protests to you you are even more deluded than I had given you credit for.0 -
You honestly dont see how what denerick accused me of saying and what I said are two completly different things? .......
No, no I'm not.
"Any fundamentalist group, you really want to stand by that? Im not familiar with any Hindu groups that declared it was the fundamental responsibility of every Hindu to kill every member, man woman and child, of a particular natinonality. "0 -
Advertisement
-
There are Hindu groups in India that routinely attack Muslims. There are Hindu gangs in India that attack Islamic shantytowns. Islamic/Hindu violence was always endemic in India, before and after partition. I apologise if you haven't heard about what is commonly known about in that part of the world. I apologise it doesn't conform to your lazy, internet assembled prejudices. I'm not here to give you an education, the evidence stands on its own merits.
Missunderstanding yet again. Im begining to think its deliberate :rolleyes:
I did not say there were no radical Hindu's, I said I doubted there were any as radical as al Qaeda in ideology. Given your inability to even address that, even though it was an entire red herring constructed by you alone, its pretty clear you dont even have an argument to make and are just clutching at straws.
Actually, given that I have shown that my position on where the Muslim community now stand in relation to extremism has been backed up by mutliple pieces of evidence and yours is uninformed by anything that you have shown you are quiet clearly the one with the prejudice - ie an unfounded belief about a given community.
So tell me, what is it exactly that is prejudiced, Im curious?
This is getting sad, all that keeps happening is you make very clear errors in comprehension, get it pointed out, but run with it anyway because its far easier than actually building a real argument.
And we continue to prove my point about any discussion of fundmanetalist Islam and its relation to the broader Muslim community being shut down as quickly as possible by hysterical hand ringing and repeated attacks on the person that dares bring it up' character.0 -
No, no I'm not.
"Any fundamentalist group, you really want to stand by that? Im not familiar with any Hindu groups that declared it was the fundamental responsibility of every Hindu to kill every member, man woman and child, of a particular natinonality. "
Uh hu. I was asking was there any fundamentalist Hindu group that has that extreme a position, he implyed there were plenty. It was a direct response to a direct question (which had little to do with anything to begin with). You honestly can't see that? Wow.
Al Qaeda called upon all Muslims to join with them in murder, I didnt even imply that all Muslims therefore supported the position. Merely stating exactly how extreme al Qaeda is, and therefore how unlikely it is that a Hindu group reaches that level, which is high even for militant Islamic groups.0 -
I did not say there were no radical Hindu's, I said I doubted there were any as radical as al Qaeda in ideology. Given your inability to even address that, even though it was an entire red herring constructed by you alone, its pretty clear you dont even have an argument to make and are just clutching at straws.
Al Qaeda is an historical phenomenon, its radicalism has more to do with politics than religion. Its significance drastically overstated by ignorant western fantasies (Read Jason Burke's book about the same) You can't compare chalk and cheese. The reality is that there are radical Hindu groups, just like there are radical racist groups in the west or radical Christian groups in Africa (Not a wise thing being gay in places like Uganda) We can go around in circles all you like, the reality is that your are attempting to blow out of all proportion the significance of these radical Islamic fundamentalist groups. Relatively little attention has been paid to the anti-fundamentalist marches across the muslim world in reaction to the excesses of recent days, I would wager that is a more representative sample of Islamic opinion (The crowds were certainly larger - the riot in Cairo more resembled a local sporting incident than an occasion justifying worldwide attention)Actually, given that I have shown that my position on where the Muslim community now stand in relation to extremism has been backed up by mutliple pieces of evidence and yours is uninformed by anything that you have shown you are quiet clearly the one with the prejudice - ie an unfounded belief about a given community.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'm personally familiar with many people from the middle east, both Christian and Muslim, and rarely am I painted as dystopian a picture as the radical right would let me believe (And indeed, the western media) These polls you cling to so desperately are evidence of a sort, but they need to be examined on an individual basis first, and then as a collective. Their polling samples need to be rigorously examined and they questions they use need to be checked for their validity and or their loaded character. All these things would provide a more clear answer, but the reality is that no poll can accurately gauge the feelings and political positions of tens of millions of peoples scattered through many countries. The attempt to homogenise an inhomogeneous group is fraught with danger, yet many still like to view this myriad of cultures through a simplistic lense via which their pre-existing prejudices can be confirmed. This is the central point of all this, and you are attempting to justify an inherently unjustifiable position.And we continue to prove my point about any discussion of fundmanetalist Islam and its relation to the broader Muslim community being shut down as quickly as possible by hysterical hand ringing and repeated attacks on the person that dares bring it up' character.
Discuss all you like. Nobody is stopping you from having a discussion. Show me even one occasion in which somebody in the opposing camp has called in the mods to 'trample your free speech'. But when you make bad arguments you should expect to be called on it, and not indulge in a whiny routine in which you attempted, rather humorously, to paint yourself as a victim.0 -
The world has over 1.7 Billion muslims, that's around 24% of the earth's population. Even if 1% of those were to be considered, labeled, deemed extreme there would be 17 million of them. Have we seen 17 million people rioting, rampaging through the world to destroy and kill everything that moves and breathes differently than them???
No.
When a figure between 100 - 15,000 lunatics take to the streets showing violent and extreme actions (which has nothing to do with the faith, if you do read about it) some people finds it easy to add the 1.7 billion to the lunatics under one happy category!
Therefore IMHO to generally state that Islam, muslims and Middle Eastern (There are christians over there as well, you know!) people are violent and extreme is a clear indication that such statement is derived from ignorance. Which, IMO makes them the exact same as the rioting lunatics!
One can label the English, Argentineans, and Italians (just to name a few) as being violent nations simply by the actions of their football fans/ hooligans ... When considering the silliness of the issue that they're fighting over.0 -
The world has over 1.7 Billion muslims, that's around 24% of the earth's population. Even if 1% of those were to be considered, labeled, deemed extreme there would be 17 million of them. Have we seen 17 million people rioting, rampaging through the world to destroy and kill everything that moves and breathes differently than them???
No.
When a figure between 100 - 15,000 lunatics take to the streets showing violent and extreme actions (which has nothing to do with the faith, if you do read about it) some people finds it easy to add the 1.7 billion to the lunatics under one happy category!
Therefore IMHO to generally state that Islam, muslims and Middle Eastern (There are christians over there as well, you know!) people are violent and extreme is a clear indication that such statement is derived from ignorance. Which, IMO makes them the exact same as the rioting lunatics!
One can label the English, Argentineans, and Italians (just to name a few) as being violent nations simply by the actions of their football fans/ hooligans ... When considering the silliness of the issue that they're fighting over.
Yet another straw man.
No one ever said all of them are violent are wish to kill people, my opinion merely reflects the polls that state a large percentage (thought not a majority) sympathise with those that do kill, for example the 25% of British Muslims who said they believed the 7/7 attack was justified. That does not mean anywhere near that number would actually do something themselves, it merely means they do no disagree with the reasons and methods wholeheartedly. You can have any opinion you want, but without any evidence it is only that - an opinion.0 -
Al Qaeda is an historical phenomenon, its radicalism has more to do with politics than religion. Its significance drastically overstated by ignorant western fantasies (Read Jason Burke's book about the same) You can't compare chalk and cheese. The reality is that there are radical Hindu groups, just like there are radical racist groups in the west or radical Christian groups in Africa (Not a wise thing being gay in places like Uganda) We can go around in circles all you like, the reality is that your are attempting to blow out of all proportion the significance of these radical Islamic fundamentalist groups. Relatively little attention has been paid to the anti-fundamentalist marches across the muslim world in reaction to the excesses of recent days, I would wager that is a more representative sample of Islamic opinion (The crowds were certainly larger - the riot in Cairo more resembled a local sporting incident than an occasion justifying worldwide attention)
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'm personally familiar with many people from the middle east, both Christian and Muslim, and rarely am I painted as dystopian a picture as the radical right would let me believe (And indeed, the western media) These polls you cling to so desperately are evidence of a sort, but they need to be examined on an individual basis first, and then as a collective. Their polling samples need to be rigorously examined and they questions they use need to be checked for their validity and or their loaded character. All these things would provide a more clear answer, but the reality is that no poll can accurately gauge the feelings and political positions of tens of millions of peoples scattered through many countries. The attempt to homogenise an inhomogeneous group is fraught with danger, yet many still like to view this myriad of cultures through a simplistic lense via which their pre-existing prejudices can be confirmed. This is the central point of all this, and you are attempting to justify an inherently unjustifiable position.
Discuss all you like. Nobody is stopping you from having a discussion. Show me even one occasion in which somebody in the opposing camp has called in the mods to 'trample your free speech'. But when you make bad arguments you should expect to be called on it, and not indulge in a whiny routine in which you attempted, rather humorously, to paint yourself as a victim.
I really coudnt be bothered talking anymore, clearly there is no one that wishes to debate - merely toss out unsubstantiated claims and make numerous ' I cant believe you said that!' posts about things that were never said, which has happened three times now without even an acknowledgment of the mistake.
If an argument is weak it is customary to actually point out why. All you and Nodin have done so far is depseratly tried to attack my character. The only post that actually dealt with the topic was to attempt to dismiss all polling as nonsense. Which, oh the irony, is absolute nonsense itself.
There is many ways to attempt to shut down debate on a subject - it does not require someone to actively attack free speech. It is enough that anyone who dares bring up and point out the results of polls is attacked as a bigot.
I never made any claims about anyone personally - I really dont care what religion people choose to subscribe to - my argument was purely sociological. And the strain of violent Islam and its surprising level of support it has amoungst Muslims is as much of a sociological fact as something can be at this point in time, regardless of what you think about the many polls on the matter. Nothing you or Nodin have said has even come close to changing that.
If you had come up with a valid counter argument, supported by polling and data rather than your assumptions I would have no problem recognising it. But you havent, in your rush to prove I have some vendetta against Muslims you both completly forgot to actually deal with the data and analasys put forward in any substantive way. Instead if you read back on your posts all you will see is numerous false claims about what I said and unsupported opinions.
I have no problems with Muslims, or anyone on a personal level because of their religious beliefs. I daresay the vast majority of those that said they agreed with the killing of civilians are perfectly nice in other regards, and wouldnt dream of actively participating in violent Jihad. My worry is purely concerning the worrying strain of Muslim public opinion that is sympathetic to those that do - and everything we know shows that it is far from a tiny minority that has these feelings,whatever the reasons are.
I completly agree- polling data can be tailored to mean anything that the pollers want ti to show in general. Dismissing what amounts to dozens purely on the basis of their results, however, is entirely self serving and has no validity whatsoever and, I think, very indicative that the position of the person is far from objective.
I couldnt be bothered posting again unless I see something that actually pretains to the argument - it really is very annoying to be purposfully misunderstood time and again.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement