(October 2, 2010 at 9:07 pm)Existentialist Wrote: There wasn't long standing hatred between Sunni and Shia pre-US invasion.

OK, whatever, you just go on believing that, then. Islam is the religion of peace, love and warm fuzzies. Whatever.

I'm curious as to what you thought 9/11 was, if not an act of Islamic terrorism. Please tell me you're at least not a Truther.

(October 2, 2010 at 8:56 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

Quote:(even if we accept, which I don't, that 9/11 was an example of "Islamic terrorism")

What was that an example of?

Al Qaeda terrorism. Haven't you been paying attention?

---

(October 2, 2010 at 9:15 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(October 2, 2010 at 9:07 pm)Existentialist Wrote: There wasn't long standing hatred between Sunni and Shia pre-US invasion.

OK, whatever, you just go on believing that, then. Islam is the religion of peace, love and warm fuzzies. Whatever.

Alternatively, you could produce some evidence that

Quote:There's a long standing hatred between these two groups, a hatred kept in check only by the brutality of Saddam.

Or did you just invent that to fit your argument?

(October 2, 2010 at 9:16 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Al Qaeda terrorism. Haven't you been paying attention?

OK, good, you're not a Truther.

I already can guess you're going to insist that the Islamic faith of the hijackers and their terrorist organization has nothing to do with the acts of terror, that they would have done the same if they'd been Jians, Buddhists or atheists, right?

Quote:Alternatively, you could produce some evidence that

No, I'm done here. You're a far left apologist for Islamic violence who will continue to insist that Islam is a religion of peace, all the violence is economic or political and no amount of evidence will convince you. Further discussion with you is pointless. I'm just going to say, you just go on believing that.

(October 2, 2010 at 9:30 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

Quote:Alternatively, you could produce some evidence

No, I'm done here. You're a far left apologist for Islamic violence who will continue to insist that Islam is a religion of peace, all the violence is economic or political and no amount of evidence will convince you. Further discussion with you is pointless. I'm just going to say, you just go on believing that.

Crikey.

This may not mean a damned thing but.....


I spent approx. three years working in Iraq. March 2004-Nov. 2006.
I had the opportunity to chat with many many many many everyday Iraqi citizens. The majority were Shia. Religion was not a taboo subject and many were happy to openly discuss their beliefs. Shia and Sunnis both. There were lots of commonality between the two with few differences not unlike the many denominations of christianity.

I never witnessed, nor did any of these Iraqis display or allude to, some 'long standing deep hatred'.
Yeah, some seemed 'hateful' towards the other, but IMO no different than you get those errant 'hateful' people towards different denominations or beliefs. (Minimalist anyone?)

I worked with these many many many Iraqis for extended periods of time in our shops and in the field. Some leave, quit, get fired, whatever and some would come take there place. So they were not just 'passing through' 5 minute conversations. These were extended discussions on many subjects over many days/weeks/months, and in the case of who I called Major Mohameed, the entire three year period. He was the most memorable of course. He was a Major in the Iraqi Army for over 21 years. He showed me the building and actual office he had. He was with me and my crew when we went to replace the air conditioning unit in that building and he saw his old office was now a bunk for a bunch of U.S. Grunts. We had an extended discussion about atheism and theism, the merits of each one and such. But I degress.........

Point is I believe I got to know many of these folks quite well and I didn't get any indication the country was at war with itself. All of them seemed to genuinely welcome their new U.S. Overlords.

Very few were Saddam supporters and would openly say Saddam was not all that bad. Very few, but they said it. That is one of the reasons they welcomed us, they could say it if they pleased. They had no freedom of speech before we 'invaded' (Or liberated. Depends on who you ask. I asked the Iraqis, most called it a liberation.) but it was an officially secular country so their secular laws is what kept the fanatics in check not unlike how our laws keep the "rabid dog caged and muzzled".

I was shocked to see a person I respect post a video about Islam taking over the world by population growth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKkY5EpVpY

My stance on terrorism is that Islam does actually condone violence in the forms it takes where other religions don't, although I agree with existentialist that terrorism is actually politically driven and not primarily religious in origin. Islam is hijacked to that end, highlighting the differences between cultures.

(October 3, 2010 at 2:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: My stance on terrorism is that Islam does actually condone violence in the forms it takes where other religions don't

How do you get to that conclusion? I know we will probably disagree on this, but my view is that living human beings are wholly responsible for the ideas they adopt, indeed that ideas about how humans should act can only be invented by living people, although they might seem to be applied in retrospect to ancient texts because they seem to fit the pattern of the words. So who are the living spokespeople for "islam" who condone violence, where other religions don't?

If you look at standard Islamic doctrine you will see that Allah condones it. Islam speaks of imposed restrictions: You shall not impose on their belief or a Muslim is empowered to use lethal force. Allah is not like God.. he gets to be evil and unjust.

I agree every human being is responsible for the ideas that they adopt, and the vast majority of Muslims choose to be influenced by modern society in their interpretation of their faith.

Some clerics however regard the original interpretation as sacrosanct, and modernists with their soft interpretations don't oppose them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BRYGQUwE-M

So when did "standard islamic doctrine" form? Roughly, to the nearest hundred years? And does this constitute "islam". Do "some clerics" constiitute "islam"? Does "islam" consist of metaphorical ideas in somebody's head, or their actions? I know many muslim people who aren't ever violent to anybody - are they being unislamic?

Standard Islamic doctrine was there from the start I think. Yes it constitutes Islam. Because no clerics condemn it it is universally condoned. Islam is belief then subordination to law. The vast majority of Muslims are non violent, they just don't condemn it, when it comes down to the nitty gritty. they will condemn it in public.