Extremely strong argument

very intresting and quite inspiring,a strong lady that talks a lot of sense

I found her aguments for the most part typical of an Athestist (which she more or less says she is). Some of it is true, some of it isn't (mainly the part where she is lumping troubles all solely on the Muslim faith). There is also the typical blinkered aspect of seeing Muslims as the extremist states, when it is pretty diverse.

Good to see that it was on AJ tv. Kind of dispels that media there is biased, although without a better translation she could of been on the ME version of the O'Reilly factor. :v:

Oh and I also got the impression she was reading it off a script.

zomg- this is because I'm a woman, isn't it? :V

I suppose my opinion on it is that all cultures have pretty crap aspects in general.

Hmm, shes quite impressive when she gets into full flow isnt she? I think though she fell into a trap when she agreed with the interviewer that she associated the west with modern freedom and the muslim world with backwardness. She might actually think that, but a majority of muslims would turn off right about there. There is a clash between the modern and the backward, but it is Arab/Islamic society itself as much as anything - i.e. the seeming paradox of religious police in Indonesia raiding discos to arrest young Muslims out having a good time. How can society accomdate the right to so blatantly and forcefully enforce religious beliefs on others and the concept of individual human rights?

Mind you she fought brilliantly out of the interviewers "clash of civillisations" question ( I cant see myself thinking that fast on the spot), but like I said most muslims wouldnt be listening by that stage because shes already told them theyre backward.

She clearly has extremely strong views. Its sign of some hope that she was able to express them to (if not in) the Arab world, if only via video link. It makes you wonder how close Arab/Islamic society is to a tipping point in either direction ( i.e. how many people in Saudia Arabia believe women shouldnt have to wear the burka, but are afraid to speak out even though they might be the majority?)

Oh and I also got the impression she was reading it off a script.

True, I was impressed by how well she launched into her speech. Only stumbled once, though perhaps she simply was angry as hell and was simply not thinking about how to couch her views in bland non offensive terms. The jumping straight into the trap of assigning backwardness to Muslims is an indication she was engaging her mouth before her brain. I cant see her doing that if she was reading off a script.

She's very naieve if she honestly believes the West is the great liberator and defender of basic human rights.

Im reminded why I liked Orwells quote so much I used it as my sig. Because theres *some* flaws with Western societies, its no better than any other society. If you want to be *really* cynical, the West *is* the great liberator and defender of human rights. What that says for the rest of the world is depressing.

certainly America doesn't live up to it's own hype, but America isn't the only country in this supposed region that's called "The West" is it?

And its not the only country to hype itself up either. Hence the barely restrained smirk which every US reporter carried when covering the recent riots in France.

OT - That website is hilarious btw. Theres an add for Democratic Dates? I know American society is polarised but political inbreeding is taking it a bit far isnt it?

You mean you have never seen the Republican one?

I hope their kids grow up to be hardline Democrats/Republicans as (in)appropriate. It will be the only way theyll be able to rebel.

On topic again, I was curious about this woman and did a little digging. The NYT carries a piece on her (sign up required, 20 seconds spent) and its explains where her anger comes from.

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

Shabadu wrote:

...it is my opinion that the poorest and least entiltled members of western society are generally referred to as 'scum' or 'white trash' by a large portion of the percieved 'middle classes', as opposed to some Muslim countries, where people seem to still have a much greater sense of community, brotherhood and family.

I'm sure such attitudes exist in every country to varying degrees. Even in Soviet Russia the people with govt. jobs, party bigwigs etc certainly regarded themselves as a cut above your average "comrade".

As for the brotherhood/family thing - this can be taken a bit too far for people's own good at times (nepotism and corruption). But we know all about that in Ireland.

Shabadu wrote:

I also completely disagree with the capital punishment employed by some of these countries, but let us not forget all the 'western' countries that torture and employ capital punishment.

Only two developed-world countries execute, and only a few use torture or 'inhuman treatment' (banned in the EU and Israel, more common elsewhere; sleep deprivation and such).

When it comes down to day-to-day survival of families, here in 'the west' 2 people pretty much have to work full time to support a family, a mortgatge and a home. Our basic human right of having and maintaining a family is being gradually eroded.

Just to live, they don't. The issue is with consumerism, rather than anything else.

Wow- I'd love for you to point out to me where I said that America= the West. I said it tried to be the proponent of free speech, which it does, consistently.

Well, when it suits it.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah, except for Japan.

Death penalty, increasing slide back to nationalism, treatment of women in practice, treatment of gay people, treatment of immigrants... Hardly the perfect society, really.

Sand wrote:

OT - That website is hilarious btw. Theres an add for Democratic Dates? I know American society is polarised but political inbreeding is taking it a bit far isnt it?

Oh, it gets worse; there are websites for 'which nationalist' (Nazi/KKK) dating and such, too!

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah, it's true. You know they've got a dating forum on stromfront? If I wasn't so turned on by the idea of sleeping with a woman dressed in a nazi uniform, I'd be shocked! :eek:

Ah, dating for the braindead. See above.

And, of course, when it comes down to it, the west is the closest the world has to a 'Great liberator', when it feels like it.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

What's typical of an Atheist?

It is rare that you will find an Atheist who doesn't blame religon for everything that has happened since the dawn of time. Of couse some of that is correct but tends to draw away from other factors of a situation. Not everything revolves around religon.

What she's really pointing out is that Islam is wrong for thinking there's some sort of real human difference between Muslims & Non-Muslims & it's acceptable to act on this supposed difference.

Come again? and how does that differ from any other religon?

Any chance you could elaborate on the relevence of that point to the rest of your argument?

Easy. a lot of people (appears you too) see Islam as "Iran" or "afganistan" or "taliban", etc. All you can see is the extremism. However the majority of Muslims are not extremists, nor do they display or actively encourge the stuff that the *west* take offense at.

There are around 15 or so muslims in the department I work (of about 60 or so people). Of that you would be hard pressed to point out half of that group in a line up, add to that only about 3-4 of them pray daily in work.

There are varying levels of Muslims in much the same way there are varying levels of Catholics in our society. One may claim to be more correct (eg. No condoms, no sex outside marriage, no abortion) doesn't mean that everyone who sees themselves as such shares the same traits.

On behalf of every registered boards.ie member I wish to thank you for pointing that out.

Not sure what you are on about.

Wibbs wrote:

No other religion, even in extremis, instructs believers to subdue, enslave or kill non believers.

I disagree. Quite a few religons do, it is just that civilisation in these areas has progressed beyond the parts of thier doctrine and we happily dance over those bits as if they don't exist.

The issue with some parts of the middle east are still in the middle ages when it comes to human rights.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Pointing out irrelevent faults in your critics

So you are "the media", you need to stop taking things personally.

when you so rarely answer the questions I want you to answer.

I've said it before, you must of missed it. Despite what you believe I don't live my life to read every post you write (goes for everyone else). If there is something you require an answer from me so quickly for you can use the PM function of boards.

So why take their ignorance out on me?

Again you need to learn to stop taking things personally.

Why would you get so defensive? How can you expect people to take a faith seriously if it's members are paranoid everyone's out to get them?

I am not a Muslim.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

she made some very valid points, but it looked like she was beating the whole of islam with the same stick, when infact they are quite different

Very true, but I have a feeling the translation we're getting isn't perfect, she doesn't seem ignorant enough to talk about Islam way its coming across.

I honestly believe she's just talking about Islam in the countries where people get killed in riots over cartoons & women get stoned as a punishment for being raped. Someone with her education would have met plenty of friendly non extremist Muslims in college. Just doesn't add up

so religious whackos are out there, doesnt mean they are all religious whackos. its like saying all blacks are thieves when we know thats clearly a load of bull, and as i said she was very good and she made some great points, i also feel sorry for what happened to her, but a little too anti-muslim and pro-westy for my liking

Interesting you see Islam and the West as being mutually exclusive...

She attacked fundamentalists, she was clearly angry and I think she slipped into a verbal trap (she accepted the fundamentalist/anti-western defintion of Islam as being in opposition to the west, but then - so did you). She was a Muslim, I think we can safely assume she can differentiate between average Muslims and fundamentalist whackos as easily as we differentiate between average Christians and fundamentalist whackos. Who knows though, maybe someone should send her a letter explaining that not all muslims are fundamentalist as an FYI. Its not well known after all.

and it isnt very fair to be honest seeing as america is giving israel all this hightech weaponry, and what do palestine have? rocks? some fertiliser bombs. do you blame the poor ****ers for going and blowing themselves up? im sure your sarcastic remarks show how much you feel about people getting killed for no reason, even when isrealis killed an american peace protestor by running over her with a bulldozer, and the man driving the dozer wasnt charged, oh but i suppose she was a terrorist too, what with her exploding banner and all.

A) Im well aware of the ins and outs of the Israel-Palestine bore-a-thon. Do you know why Israel is in the West Bank? Its because they were attacked 3 times by all their neighbours who pledged to drive them into the sea and the Israelis won every single time.

The only thing to be thankful for in that cluster **** of a place is that its the Israelis that have the military advantage, as they display *some* restraint. The last time a regime that preached hatred of Jews like Hamas does had access to tanks, bombers, poison gas and death camps tens of millions died.

C) Seeing as youre so understanding on why Palestinians blow up resteraunts full of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters then Im sure youll be equally as understanding of the Israeli response when they bomb some Hamas office or shoot some Palestinian militant as revenge? After all - how can you blame the poor Israelis? Werent they provoked?

Oh and Im fully in support of Palestinian statehood. I just wont cheerlead for suicide bombers blowing up resteraunts. I leave that to the "right on" arts student brigade, standing shoulder to shoulder with Hamas.

Very very patronising, & the idea that we just dislike God is so laughable.

Yeah, yeah. Im sure its a deep mystery of many subtle strands of which we can never claim full knowledge. You know what, I dont believe in God. I dont think its miraculous that life exists on a planet that is suitable for life to exist on. It might be a miracle if we were living on a wholly unsuitable world like Venus, but otherwise nothing worth inventing a God over. Do the people of Venus think some God built Venus for them? Nope - because theyre not around to worry about it so its a moot point.

I also dont believe in Santa. Its nice for kids, and the world would be a duller, less interesting place if kids didnt believe in Santa. Much as Santa is nice for kids, religion and its associated certainties in an uncertain world is nice for some people. If people need religion to establish certainties like "Thou shalt not kill" then Im all for it. Certainly, moral absolutism is less damaging in the long run than moral relativism.

What bores me about the Irish school of atheism for is that its actually a hatred of the Catholic Church and its Irish institutions. It accepts God exists, it just hates him and his Church. Every time I see a declaration of atheism followed up by a bitter attack on the Catholic Church, God, and a demonisation of religion in history I roll my eyes. Its the anti-establishment establishment view.

Thats even before you have the hilarious concept of some civillisation founder laying down the laws of a new society trying to ban religion - Moses and the Ten Commandments? Its not for nothing that its been said if God didnt exist wed have to invent him.

im not talking about what she knows im talking about what it sounded like, you ever heard of the verb to insinuate? you know it sounded like she was insinuating something, you know while saddam was in power the employment rate for men and women was nearly 50/50?

I thought that she was pretty blatant in her message - that the Middle East needs to embrace "modern" values and reject the the fundamentalist message of retreat to some long ago utopia. Perhaps too blatant as she didnt spare her listeners feelings.

israel is in the west bank because they started colonising it. even though the palestinians didnt agree with it, they asked them nicely to leave,

3 wars is your version of asking nicely?

Either way the West Bank was siezed in 1967 from Jordan (Not Palestine interestingly enough) as a result of Israels victory in the 6 Day War when the Jordanians began shelling (with US artillery btw) Jeruselam on June 5th, bombing other Israeli towns with British supplied aircraft. Israel issued several warnings through the US and the UN to Jordan, Israel accepted a UN ceasefire proposal that Jordan rejected, finally Israel destroyed the Jordanian airforce, and then conquered East Jeruselam and the West Bank between the 6th and the 8th.

The Israelis are in the West Bank because they defeated the Jordanians/Palestinians in a war the Jordanians sought. End of story.

B)ok so your comparing freedom fighters to hitler..... hehehehe you wouldnt have said that about the IRA 100 years ago, after being occupied for how many years? infact arent we celebrating the 1916 rising? by the IRA because they were trying to free themselves.....

Freedom fighters is just a much devalued phrase. Hamas policy is to seek the extinction of Israel and the murder all Jews. If youre comftable with supporting that, fair enough. If you think thats a freedom fighter, Id hate to see your idea of a terrorist. No wait, let me guess, the US :rolleyes: ...As for 1916 etc, youre talking to the wrong person. I completely oppose the glorification of 1916 and its idealogy of violent militants being superiour to elected politicians.

I take it though you accept that if Hamas had military superiority over Israel wed be looking at Belsen Mark 2 being built over the ruins of Tel Aviv?

C)your nieve to think that israel just attacks hamas headquarters, or "militants" israel are killing innocent people too, theyre just as bad

Naive? Youre calling Hamas freedom fighters and singing the praises of suicide bombers who target resteraunts? The Israelis at least make an effort to target militants. Hence why Israeli casualties are of all genders, ages, and social backgrounds (any dead Israeli will do for a Palestinian), whilst Palestinian casualties are overwhelmingly young and male (implying targeting of the young angry men who form the militant membership).

Either way, my point stands. You might say Hamas is "just as good" as Israel, or Israel is "just as bad" as Hamas so Id take it youll be similarly supportive of the Israelis blowing up a Palestinian resteraunt in revenge? After all - they were provoked. You know, to be consistent, to demonstrate your position on the conflict is principled, not simply a result of media brainwashing?

they do this all the time, and because were sitting on the otherside of the fence we dont hear it, just as we dont hear most of what goes on in iraq.

Well, some people have enough trouble with the history of the conflict, let alone trying to keep up with current events...Either way, the narrative of the conflict in Irish reports is "Its terrible about those suicide bombings, but the Israelis deserve it". Which at least is slightly more moderate than your own views.

Got to say, Id admire your willingness to ignore where youre shown to be wrong and rush into some emotive diversion that usually starts "Oh yeah, well if you think Israels so great, then what-about-....."

you not think that before the war started they did ask israel to stop doing what they were doing?

No I think that they, along with all the other neighbouring Arab nations rejected the UN partition of the British mandate in the 1940s (Israel accepted despite 80% of the territory granted to them being desert) because they thought they could wipe out Israel. They were wrong. Badly wrong.

so your saying if someone comes into your house, and tries to take your belongings and then tries to kill your sister with a gun, and you had a chance to stop the criminal with a gun youd just let her die? then brother? mother? wife?

But thats not what is happening. Suicide bombers are not lurking in their home waiting for the IDF to call to torment them and then detonating killing themselves and their tormentors. They avoid the IDF, leave the West Bank, enter Israel, seek soft civillian targets and murder them indiscriminantly. Thats not self defence, thats terrorism. Plain and simple. If the Palestinians were engaging the IDF and fighting them, Id have absolutely no problem with them. When they decide to murder families out having a meal I will not support that. If you want to, thats your call.

You cant ( with any credibility at least) accept suicide bombings as fine, but be appalled by the Israeli policy of demolishing the homes of suicide bombers families. Both are punishing people other than those who harmed you.

you may have this idealistic view of "oh yes people are nice and people listen to reason" but your living in a dream world, id love to say oh yes, if we all stop fighting then they will, when the horrible fact is they wont.

Actually I support the construction of the Israelis security wall on the grounds that the conflict is nihilistic at this stage. There is no prospect of peaceful resolution so the best that can be hoped for is a stalemate.

Id imagine your plan would be to tell the Israelis to withdraw from the West Bank and magically the Palestinians wouldnt simply start bombarding Israel proper from the vacated positions? Like theyve done in Gaza? Because after all, you fervently believe the Palestinians are only engaged in self defence...

i love the way the word terrorism is thrown around so easily, war is fcuking terror no matter what side your on.

I agree, I hate the way its bandied about and used interchangeably with freedom fighting. Terrorism is a deliberate, premeditated policy of attacking civillians. Palestinian suicide bombings are very definitly terrorism.

oh yeah and if you think im some IRA head who thinks that war is the only way, im not im english and proud of it, i know war isnt the only way but when your faced with war, what do you do? do you just sit there and let your people be trodden on and their land taken? or do you fight?

So youre English. So what? Does that make your argument stupider or smarter? If some Provo goes over and murders your family as revenge for an unhappy childhood in Belfast, will you be saying "Well, lets face it, us Brits had it coming. And its easier to kill my defenceless family than it is to fight a British soldier so I cant argue with their decision to murder them. Id have murdered my family too in their shoes." Would you support Warrington? Was that 12 year old child a valid target for the Provos because they felt wronged in Northern Ireland? No wait, run away from that question. Ignore it, dont answer it. Go on and ask me "what - about...."

Just because someone believes in something so fervently that theyre willing to murder anyone and anybody for it doesnt mean theyre right.