You know...some irony

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Christains would do that too, if there werent strict laws in civilized countries.

Well then, do the laws dictate the civilization, or are the laws simply a relfection of what that civilization deems acceptable?

In history, Christian civilizations have been guilty of many of the faults that modern Islam is showing, but most of those faults were addressed and resolved during the reformation and the constant evoltion of the Christian faith.

It is the static nature of Islam that lends itself to increasing violence.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well then, do the laws dictate the civilization, or are the laws simply a relfection of what that civilization deems acceptable?

In history, Christian civilizations have been guilty of many of the faults that modern Islam is showing, but most of those faults were addressed and resolved during the reformation and the constant evoltion of the Christian faith.

It is the static nature of Islam that lends itself to increasing violence.

In history, yes. But recently? How many Christians have recently had largescale terrorist tendancies?

That was my point.


And the laws dictate the civilization. Stricter rules mean more lashing out. However, that also is true for really lenient laws.

The laws that are in effect in specific areas, dictates how that area will act.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

In history, yes. But recently? How many Christians have recently had largescale terrorist tendancies?

That was my point.

Are yousaying that Christains have had largescale terrorist tendencies recently or that they haven't? If you are saying they have, I'd like some examples, and moreover I'd like you to define what you consider to be "terrorism". If you are saying they haven't, then I agree with you.

As for laws dictating a civilization, I couldn't disagree with you more. The civilization writes the laws. They dictate what rules and standards they should live by and what behaviors are punishable. Without the civilization, the laws would not exist.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

In history, yes. But recently? How many Christians have recently had largescale terrorist tendancies?

That was my point.


And the laws dictate the civilization. Stricter rules mean more lashing out. However, that also is true for really lenient laws.

The laws that are in effect in specific areas, dictates how that area will act.

Man...what?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Are yousaying that Christains have had largescale terrorist tendencies recently or that they haven't? If you are saying they have, I'd like some examples, and moreover I'd like you to define what you consider to be "terrorism". If you are saying they haven't, then I agree with you.

As for laws dictating a civilization, I couldn't disagree with you more. The civilization writes the laws. They dictate what rules and standards they should live by and what behaviors are punishable. Without the civilization, the laws would not exist.

I was saying they havent. Sorry.



And I dont agree with the law and civilization thing. Yes, the civilization writes the laws, but thats just a select few who do so. They rest of the populace has to stay in bounds of those rules, thusly, defining who they are.

Laws can be changed in a matter of weeks, but a civilization cant be.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Man...what?

*Makes general bland statemtn as to how Dylflon always makes posts directed at Typhoid in threads like this with no actual intent other than to seemingly attempt to annoy him.*

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

And I dont agree with the law and civilization thing. Yes, the civilization writes the laws, but thats just a select few who do so. They rest of the populace has to stay in bounds of those rules, thusly, defining who they are.

Yes, but in the case of democracy (or democratic republic in our case) civs those select few are chosen by the many to represent them. The rules and laws are constantly changing as well, even in totalitarian regimes. It is a common belief that in order to rule a nation/civilization you must appease the people. This has been shown time and time again with empires like Rome and even the Mongols, who assimilated parts of conquered civs into their own and even would considered conquered civs to be "protectorates", meaning they essentially ran themselves but were a part of Rome.

We can see people rebelling against laws they don't agree with in Europe already. In France, there are No Go Zones. No Go Zones are areas that the police and authorities do not go that are controlled by Mosques and Islamic law. Essenitally France has agreed to allow parts of their population to remove itself from their country and rule themselves because they do not agree with modern democratic/Western rule. (Credit Glenn Beck radio program)

If the people do not agree with a law, no select few can make them adhere to it.

Laws can be changed in a matter of weeks, but a civilization cant be.

Exactly.

[Xantar]

Just to be clear, are we saying that the Middle East states are going to blow up into violent blood baths because they're Islamic or because they're radical? After all, Indonesia and Turkey are doing just fine, and at one time it was the Islamic world that was the most tolerant and diverse civilization on earth.

The problem in Palestine is that the people are under thrall to a corrupt regime (with the possible exception of Mahmoud Abbas) that doesn't care about them. I often think that the worst thing that could happen to Hamas is the destruction of Israel because then the Palestinians would look around and realize that their life still sucks and the Israelis weren't being so bad to them after all.

Not that I think Israel or the Western world is totally blameless either since the process of Israel's creation, while well-intentioned, was pretty flawed as well.

P.S. The Clash of Civilizations by Huntington is a worthwhile read but not a terribly good analysis, in my opinion.

P.P.S. Oh, and those Paris riots from a while ago which burned hundreds of cars? Just to be clear, those were not Islamic riots. In fact, a lot of the rioters there were Jewish. As well as Arab and African. It wasn't a problem of religion. It was a problem of "foreigners" vs. "French."

[Professor S]

To clarify:

I'm not saying that the Islamic states will clash with Western states, I'm saying that Muslims are already in the Western states and here will be intense civil strife bordering on revolution within 10-15 years.

Estimates state that in the very near future Islam will take over Christianity as the majority religion on Western Europe. This is not a good thing.

As for the Paris Riots, they weren't just in Paris. They were in 300+ cities across France and the majority of those rioting were Muslim. Yes, there were other ethnicities and faith's involved, but it was majority Muslim. But thats old news as Cartoons are now causing murder and mass rioting.

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Kurt

As for the Paris Riots, they weren't just in Paris. They were in 300+ cities across France and the majority of those rioting were Muslim. Yes, there were other ethnicities and faith's involved, but it was majority Muslim. But thats old news as Cartoons are now causing murder and mass rioting.

The fact that the majority of rioters were Muslim was a simple reflection of demographics. It so happens that Muslims make up the vast majority of France's immigrant population. But they were not rioting because they wanted more mosques built or anything like that. In interviews, you will see that none of them was saying anything like, "We protest the immorality of French society" or "We are rebelling against this law." Their basic message was pretty simple: "We want to be treated as French citizens." Most of the rioters were the children of immigrants who felt, rightly, that they are as much French citizens as I am an American. And the problem was that French society at large tended to classify its people as "francais" (French) and "etranger" (foreigner). You literally found that kind of language in newspapers. And an etranger had significantly lower access to university education, stable jobs and good housing, other things being equal. To say nothing of almost zero representation in the government and politicians occasionally calling them smelly (literally, some minister talked about the minorities having a smell).

My point is that the violence in response to the Danish cartoons were inspired by religion. The riots in France were not. We Americans, because of our experience, tend to attribute problems to ethnicities and religions like that, but it just doesn't fit in the case of the riots in France. Those had little to do with Islam and more to do with simple acceptance into part of the French identity. And thus, you can't really compare that event with what's been happening in response to some Danish cartoons.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Xantar

The fact that the majority of rioters were Muslim was a simple reflection of demographics. It so happens that Muslims make up the vast majority of France's immigrant population. But they were not rioting because they wanted more mosques built or anything like that. In interviews, you will see that none of them was saying anything like, "We protest the immorality of French society" or "We are rebelling against this law." Their basic message was pretty simple: "We want to be treated as French citizens." Most of the rioters were the children of immigrants who felt, rightly, that they are as much French citizens as I am an American. And the problem was that French society at large tended to classify its people as "francais" (French) and "etranger" (foreigner). You literally found that kind of language in newspapers. And an etranger had significantly lower access to university education, stable jobs and good housing, other things being equal. To say nothing of almost zero representation in the government and politicians occasionally calling them smelly (literally, some minister talked about the minorities having a smell).

My point is that the violence in response to the Danish cartoons were inspired by religion. The riots in France were not. We Americans, because of our experience, tend to attribute problems to ethnicities and religions like that, but it just doesn't fit in the case of the riots in France. Those had little to do with Islam and more to do with simple acceptance into part of the French identity. And thus, you can't really compare that event with what's been happening in response to some Danish cartoons.

The commonality is that Islam reacts to problems with the sword instead of the pen. That is all the comparison I need. The cause of the violence is not my worry, it is the constant falling back to it that worries me and should worry everyone.

Islam, regardless of its pillars or dogma, runs on fear. "Believe in what I do, or let me change your society to accommodate my beliefs/laws (the same in Islam), or I'll burn stuff, blow it up and generally beat you over the head until I get what I want."

Sorry if thats politically incorrect, but Im sick and tired of the constant excuses given for an intolerant religion that is bringing the world to the brink of poltical and social meltdown. Newspapers are scared to death of Islam, as well as nations (ex: France's No Go Zone policy), so Islam is given a free pass by many.

I've had enough. Its time for Islam's religious leaders to step up and take control of their people. The silent tolerance for violence against non-muslims needs to stop and Islam needs to be reformed. NOW.

[Teuthida]

*cough*close*thread*cough*

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

*Makes general bland statemtn as to how Dylflon always makes posts directed at Typhoid in threads like this with no actual intent other than to seemingly attempt to annoy him.*

I really just didn't understand your post.

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The commonality is that Islam reacts to problems with the sword instead of the pen. That is all the comparison I need. The cause of the violence is not my worry, it is the constant falling back to it that worries me and should worry everyone.

So I suppose you think that black people looted New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because black culture is criminal in nature with no respect for the law? It couldn't just be because New Orleans is a majority black city and you probably would have seen the same thing if it had been populated by a bunch of poor white people?

This is the hole in your thinking you seem to be missing here, and your post betrays a vast ignorance of the situation in France to say nothing of lazy thinking. Have you even talked to any French people or any people belonging to the minority ethnic groups there, or are you so arrogant that you think you understand the reasons for the rioting better than the rioters?

If the rioters had all been Asians (let's say), your position would have no standing. And what I'm saying is that in France, it happened to have a bunch of Muslims but it could have been any group. If you take any minority segment of the population and marginalize it (or cause it to feel marginalized), it will erupt into violence at the slightest "provocation." It doesn't have to be a Muslim population. Just take a look at what happened after the Rodney King verdict.

If violence is such an integral part of the culture of Muslims in France, then why did Jews, second generation Portuguese, Albanians and non-Muslim Africans join in rather than stand to the side to demonstrate that "we aren't like them"? You can discount their presence and say that the majority of the rioters were Muslim, but what the variety of ethnicities suggests to me is that violence was not the response of the Islamic community but of the poor. Aren't you the one who thought that we are divided along economic and not racial lines?

If you want to show me that Islam runs on fear and is intolerant and uncompromising, by all means cite the reign of any number of regimes in the Middle East from Palestine to Afghanistan. Tell me about Islamic terrorists in the Philippines or in India. I'm probably not going to argue with you, and I'm open to seeing a pattern of behavior. I fully agree with you that the leadership is corrupt and needs to be reformed one way or another. All I'm saying is that this instance is not an example in support of what you're saying, and it's not because I feel the need to be politically correct. And trying to force it to fit through a tenuous connection helps nothing.

[Professor S]

Xantar, we won't know whether I'm right or wrong until 10-15 years from now. You can sit and say that my opinion is ignorant on the situation in France, but I could go source for source with you any time you'd like, but that would simply be a waste of time and wouldn't change either of our opinions.

The situation in France was created by a socialist economic scheme that has produced a generation on French that need support from their government and are therefore subject to their government's bias's and inability to run their own country. My problem isn't with what caused the riots, but the fact that they happened and that they fit very appropriately into a horrific vision of cultural strife in the future. Strife that will be, IMO, the West vs. "Ismlamofascism" (oh YES, I said it) If you want to dillute the importance of the Muslim influence in those riots, you can, but I'm not biting.

You used the Rodney King riots quite unconvincingly because those riots do not fit into a greater context. My citing of the French riots was specifically used to show a trend. You could not use the Rodney King riots to show a trend because they are a singular incident that were not followed by increasing violence that spread like wildfire across the US.

And why didn't they? Because prominent political and religious figures quickly spoke out against the violence and there was a large rebuking of it by the people at large. That is the difference between Western reaction to violence such as this a Islamic reaction, as was my point.

Half of the entire problem is perception, also. All the West sees is the bad side of Islam. I know there is good Islam and modern thinkers in Islam. My problem is that I think those people also let themselves be ruled by fear of fanatical Islamic factions. If Islam wants to revamp its image and promote a peaceful version of itself, its members must stand up and take control of their belief, and not let the violent minority keep the majority under its thumb. The silent many are as damaging as the violent few, a violent few that appear to be growing in number with each passing day.

On a side not, I'm more than a little offended that you would think so little of me to be simply basing an opinion on ignorance an racsim. By jumping to that conclusion and adding the irrelevant example of the Rodney King riots, it is you that is guilt of lazy thinking. Not me.