US Ambassador to Libya killed by mob

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

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.

Denerick

SamHarris wrote: »

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.

Suff

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.

SamHarris

Suff wrote: »

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.

SamHarris

Denerick wrote: »

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.