Is anyone else fed up with Muslims complaining all the time?

quote:

---

Reply to me when you begin to fully utilize your cognitive ability.
Do you know who that is?

​

Mindless abusers of the Socratic method (they don't even know what that is)....

​

Why do you do what you do?

---

How sad.A teaching opportunity missed.So much wisdom you could have imparted to Brian.Please, O wise MOO, we, your feeble intellectual lessers, implore you to cast upon our unworthy ears some shreds of your luminous and sage erudition.We crave your uplifting enlightenment!

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

I was just giving riverrat a case of where someone, or some group, was using atheism to justify a war. did their justification have to make sense? no, just that there is a group who uses atheism as an excuse to push things. I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm not supporting them. Rat just wanted a case of atheism being used a justification for war. chill out, man, chill out (I know you're a girl, but how else do you phrase that?)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Schraf, Of course it can be judged by us. Either they are right to say that their religion is under attack, or not. And they aren't. Nevertheless, the reason for invasion/action was not to attack Islam, the same goes for all the other examples. Muslims have no business saying that the reasons for action were to attack Islam, it's a lie. Good, because the claim that Islam is under attack is simply false. I only care about what they can legitimately claim, everything else is in the bin. It's unsubstantiated propaganda.MarkEdited by mark24, : spelling

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I understand your explanation for why your media might be focusing on these stories, but then it supports my own reasoning for why they are not legitimate news stories. In fact I'll go further and call them irresponsible news stories.Obviously any and all events can be considered news. But unless it is a really slow news day, journalists and editors should be making decisions that accurately broadcast the nature of an event. That is set it into a context of local and world events as it stands to actually effect people's lives. Perhaps this is my own definition but that's what I'd call "legitimate news", as opposed to things like why a large percentage of people are upset with the latest American Idol contestant.In a similar vein, a relatively small number of people acting violently because of overreaction to a comment (by a guy in a dress as you put it) is simply not news. Your own complaints seem to back up that this isn't really news. Just as these people are not effected by what the pope says, you are not really effected by these people. But the media outlets have decided to feed on desires for such pictures.What's more it is irresponsible because they do not give equal coverage to the Islamic groups which are making statements against these actions, or demonstrating in peaceful ways. The cartoon fiasco was a great example. The vast majority either did not really care or demonstrated in very peaceful ways, and went on to criticize riots. But that was largely ignored by the media to focus on the relatively few scenes of rioting.And it is still more irresponsible because it actually empowers the radicals to do more. It shows that that is what gets noticed by media. If you are sick of hearing about it, maybe you should ask your media outlets to change focus to rational Islamic figures and activities. While anything is possible, I have my doubts. Call me crazy but I feel a guy that converts and 6 months later tries to kill people in the name of that religion likely had some screws loose before converting. Yes, a number of Xians felt 9/11 was a good thing. Essentially a sign from God, or punishment from God. That is not to mention a number of Israeli Jews who while not praising certainly emoted schadenfreud over the tragedy.It was somewhat of a scandal, when people noted that essentially put them on the same said as the terrorists, but did not end such idiocy. Robertson even went on to recommend that homegrown terrorists detonate a nuclear device (or some other bomb) at the state department.Perhaps it is your isolation from US media, but if you think Muslims crab about things too much, you have yet to experience evangelicals (though one would think you'd have gotten a taste here). I've "covered" or lived through book burnings, abortion clinic protests, movie protests, and lifestyle convention protests. I'd add nazi/kkk demonstrations but I realize that is not wholly religious in nature. Some of those I mentioned involved direct threats to people's lives. They go on whining all the time and have whole channels (radio and tv) dedicated to such crabbing.AbE: Not sure if you caught this link to a movie about Jesus Camp, but it gives a good taste of the Xian army that's building. I should also note, though I have seen one single muslim upset in amsterdam over the sex around where I live, Xian demonstrations are pretty frequent, and when I lived back in Chicago the only people screaming on street corners about how we're all going to hell were Xians.Edited by holmes, : link'n'moreEdited by holmes, : single

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of it that way, and I don't think I disagree with the analysis. It is more "normal" to stick with tradition (i.e. indoctrination). I guess I'd rather call it rebellious, or freethinking, but uhm, you have a point.Thankfully I was not forced into the indoctrination you apparently were exposed to, but I knew many many who had gone through such things. I grew up and went to school in a highly evangelical area. Heheheh... me and my gf have a running theory that I suffer from a disorder/compulsion which forces me to explain things three times. Believe it or not some of those posts you see are "trimmed". But I'll try to cut a little wider in the future.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's all well and good and indeed I see the point you are trying to make, but it seems like you are talking past schraf. And more importantly it appears your point is lopsided.On the one hand we have a small % of muslims getting riled up over something stupid, likely the result of a mistaken impression about their position in the world. They do a little bit of damage and then boil up again when they feel needled again.On the other hand you have a large % of the US who believed and still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or AQ or WMDs, all of which were lies (or in any case the same level of errancy of those muslims). They did not simply burn some effigies, they burnt down tens of thousands or real live innocent people, and plunged the region into further problems.On that same other hand you have a large % of Israelis who believe God granted them (as a religious group) control over a chunk of real estate such that they get to kick around anyone who is not Jewish. And while one can say they are equal opportunity bigots, the fact is that the people who are not allowed to return to their lands (the lands they actually owned) are Muslim, while Jews are allowed to take those lands and enjoy a "right of return" because of God's promise above. A much bigger lie I should say.That is not to mention the rather nontheoretical issue of what Israel and the US just did to Lebanon, using a continuing lie that militants within its borders posed an existential threat to Israel. Effigies were not burned, real live people were.So on the one hand you have a few radical leaders and a small % of extremist/ignorant muslims engaging in small level riots which don't amount to anything but noise over one set of lies, and on the other hand you have genuine mainstream populations and their elected leaders engaging in real devastation of innocent people over the same kinds of lies (if not more outrageous).I just don't see the point in getting all concerned about the former, I do about the latter, especially as it lends some credibility to the "lie" the former group holds. How about President Bush's claims that our civilization is under attack? How about the claims of evangelical Xians that there is a culture war going on and they are the target for elimination? I assume you'd agree that's also propaganda, but aren't those accepted and acted on by mainstream populations here much more so than the propganda you are criticizing?Edited by holmes, : typosEdited by holmes, : mo'

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Hmmm. The common denominator is the "messenger" of news to the populace. Maybe the old adage is wrong. Maybe we should shoot the messenger.
Whether it's the news media, an intelligence-gathering organization, or whatever, the people get riled up over what they hear from the messenger they perceive as telling them the truth.The one exception here in your example might be the messenger to the Jewish people. I would not advocate shooting Him! OK, I am also not advocating shooting you for your other statements.Disclaimer: OK, for those not familiar with sarcasm, I am NOT really advocating shooting anyone.However, it raises the issue of what policy really will work when the messenger has an agenda of their own to spin things no matter what you do. In particular, if we fight, we rile them up. If we appease them, we embolden them. I think this is evident in the recent boldness of Chavez and Ahmadinejad. They are confident that America is not wanting to fight, and that the UN (or at least Russia and China) will be on their side against the superpower.

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

Heheheh... who is "we" and who is "them"? Notice it cuts both ways. When they fight they rile us up, when they appease they embolden us.Heck, we are currently advancing a policy that allows only Israel to own nuclear power/weapons in the region... as if they are stable? So we demand the region appease Israel. Fight that and we get riled up, appease and Israel gains ground. Chavez is Islamic? Just kidding. I am unsure though what is wrong with foreign leaders being strong supporters for their own agendas at the UN. Its not like the US isn't. In fact the US is the largest user of its unilateral veto power to advance its interests over world consensus.While I'm not a big fan of either of the above leaders I don't see anything necessarily threatening to a superpower like the US. The original point of the UN was to aid smaller countries from being overrun by larger powers, it seems a bit strange to criticize the UN when it manages to achieve that from time to time.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Holmes, I'm not sure it's necessarily that small a percentage, but you seem to agree with the gist of my point. The rest of your post wasn't relevent to the point I made in response to Schraf.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

If what you are saying is that there is no possible way, given the reasons I have stated, that some Moslems might come to the somewhat paranoid conclusion that Islam is under attack, then I guess we have nothing more to talk about.

Schraf, I'm not saying that, & can't see how you possibly came to that conclusion. I'm stating that they have erroneously come to that conclusion.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I wonder how we can explain to them how they are in error? Oh, wait, I have an idea! Let's print a bunch of cartoons showing how silly they all are!Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

quote:

---

I'm stating that they have erroneously come to that conclusion.

---

I'm not sure that they would be erronious in their assesment of Israel's motivations.But anyway, I should have said more clearly (and I now realize that I wasn't clear) that I think that Muslims are somewhat justified in thinking that their religion is under attack.It seems to me that you do not.

Again you seem to be talking past schraf on this. It appears that she agrees that it is erroneous, the point is that it may be reasonable (aka understandable) that they have drawn that erroneous conclusion.Sort of like understanding that scientists long ago may very well have come up with a terracentric model of the universe by misreading evidence they had. It was totally erroneous but given their position, reasonable.In my earlier post I was trying to show the flipside. It is not reasonable for people in the US and Israel to be holding on to equally mistaken beliefs, and in their case are acting on those erroneous beliefs in a way that does more damage, real damage, which really does create an atmosphere for muslims to reasonably believe they are being persecuted.Its a vicious cycle, but we do have the vantage point difference and resources such that our error does not make sense.I might also raise the question what the practical difference is if they erroneously believe it is their religion which is the target, instead of it being their geopolitical or general social group?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

hehe