Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

[jamil]

I think wealth plays a large part. If I'm in poverty in the US I'm still in relatively good shape. If I'm in poverty in the middle east I'm really in poverty, add a lower education level, constant warfare and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't think it's anything inherent to Americans but is a product of our wealth and stability, something which the middle east hasn't had. (Something I'd also point out makes it fertile ground for Islamic extremism to take root)

Americans have (or maybe had) a sense of individuality, the byproduct of which is respecting the freedom of others. And it used to be that we weren't all that offended by every little thing. Back in the day, if you call a guy an *******, if he gets offended, maybe he just punches you in the nose. I think the America we're becoming will devolve into an America that will see more people willing to harm other people for no good reason.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What would happen if absolute proof were given to ALL human beings all at once that God was real? I am talking the booming voice in the sky and the feeling to the depths of our being that we just knew it was God talking?

Aliens with bullhorns and emotion manipulation technology.

See, that is an example of a ****ed up world view from that region that I don't believe is truly compatible with western civilization until they get that cancerous thinking turned around.
I don't believe you could find 10% of Americans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, etc. who would want to KILL another person over their perceived grievances.
It's just an archaic line of thinking that needs to go away.
Leave all apples and oranges comparisons out of this.
Convince me that terrorist activities are justified in some instances. John Kerry, you have the floor.

Oh, sure you would. We just use technology and other people to do it. Drone strikes knowing they will kill innocents?

You have the luxury of living in a nation with a strong rule of law. If someone does something unjust to you, you have a criminal and civil system to rectify it. When there is no such system, or it's corrupted by dictators, then that option goes away.

Let's say you criticize the Saudi religious police. You get arrested, tried for "insults to Islam" (which plays better than challenging a monarchy, even though you didn't insult a religion but a police state), and sentenced to a draconian punishment. You know the US helps prop up the Saudi government. Yet the US uses "spreading democracy" as part of their justification for the invasion of Iraq. You can't imagine a scenario where that could make you violent? Especially if the narrative you are fed about the US is skewed, half truths and selective reporting in the same way you see Islam being treated here? You don't have the option of rule of law, or real hope of political change via an election. You live in a tyranny that's propped up by a hypocrite as far as the narrative you've been fed goes. Who is the source of most violence in the US? Those who feel they have a place within the system or the disenfranchised and those who feel the system is set against them?

I'm certainly not saying there's an easy answer. We can't simply dicate policy to allies, and we need allies. However when we prop up dictatorial regimes, that has consequences as well. I know I keep harping on this, but simply focusing on the religion is not focusing on the underlying issues at hand.

 

[MisterChester]

Here is the problem for God as I see it. And yes, God does have issues with mankind, or rather free will.

What would happen if absolute proof were given to ALL human beings all at once that God was real? I am talking the booming voice in the sky and the feeling to the depths of our being that we just knew it was God talking?


And then he said Moses bumped his head, he didn't send Jesus, and Mohammad spent too much time in the sun - Zoroaster was the one he revealed the truth to!

How would most Christians react? Would they convert, even knowing that it was God talking? And most of the worlds population would say, "Zoro WHO?"

The problem would be people that presumed then, once they knew the "truth," to force everyone else to follow it - even though God didn't say that!

We'd wind up slaughtering each other by the millions because now we knew the truth, but God didn't tell us what to do with it.

This is why I believe that IF there is a God he cannot give us absolute proof. Look how much damage we do with faith alone! With truth on the fanatics side, there would be war after war. Even then, when only Zoroastrians remained there would be problems: purges! Because anyone that didn't conform to the "right way" of thinking would be purged. This would happen even if God didn't tell us to.

Faith is a dangerous thing. Knowing for a fact? Worse still!

Regards,

Doug

What if God told us himself that the lifetime LTCH was going away? That would be a little problematic

 

[jamil]

Aliens with bullhorns and emotion manipulation technology.



Oh, sure you would. We just use technology and other people to do it. Drone strikes knowing they will kill innocents?

You have the luxury of living in a nation with a strong rule of law. If someone does something unjust to you, you have a criminal and civil system to rectify it. When there is no such system, or it's corrupted by dictators, then that option goes away.

Let's say you criticize the Saudi religious police. You get arrested, tried for "insults to Islam" (which plays better than challenging a monarchy, even though you didn't insult a religion but a police state), and sentenced to a draconian punishment. You know the US helps prop up the Saudi government. Yet the US uses "spreading democracy" as part of their justification for the invasion of Iraq. You can't imagine a scenario where that could make you violent? Especially if the narrative you are fed about the US is skewed, half truths and selective reporting in the same way you see Islam being treated here? You don't have the option of rule of law, or real hope of political change via an election. You live in a tyranny that's propped up by a hypocrite as far as the narrative you've been fed goes. Who is the source of most violence in the US? Those who feel they have a place within the system or the disenfranchised and those who feel the system is set against them?

I'm certainly not saying there's an easy answer. We can't simply dicate policy to allies, and we need allies. However when we prop up dictatorial regimes, that has consequences as well. I know I keep harping on this, but simply focusing on the religion is not focusing on the underlying issues at hand.

"We"? That makes it much more monolithic than it is. It's HE. The dickhead sitting at the desk. I sure didn't authorize those drone strikes. But point taken, if we're talking about the percentage of individuals who would kill someone else, I suppose killing by proxy kinda counts. Probably more than 10% of Americans support the drone strikes. Even if only by default support for the dickhead-in-chief.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

"We"? That makes it much more monolithic than it is. It's HE. The dickhead sitting at the desk. I sure didn't authorize those drone strikes. But point taken, if we're talking about the percentage of individuals who would kill someone else, I suppose killing by proxy kinda counts. Probably more than 10% of Americans support the drone strikes. Even if only by default support for the dickhead-in-chief.

That's what we're talking about in this particular sub-conversation. The quote was ...who would want to kill... not who has killed. We've got lots of folks advocating killing. We just have the luxury of having someone else do it for us.

 

[jamil]

That's what we're talking about in this particular sub-conversation. The quote was ...who would want to kill... not who has killed. We've got lots of folks advocating killing. We just have the luxury of having someone else do it for us.

I agreed with the last part. My only disagreement was "we". I'd rather we didn't kill people who don't need killed.

 

[printcraft]

That's what we're talking about in this particular sub-conversation. The quote was ...who would want to kill... not who has killed. We've got lots of folks advocating killing. We just have the luxury of having someone else do it for us.

Yeah, this is the apple and orange I requested be left out.

I don't want ANY INNOCENT iraqi, syrian, jordanians, egyptians, iranians, palestinians, etc. killed. NONE.
Again, show me that 10% of Americans WANT ANY INNOCENTS killed and I'll kiss your ass on the courthouse square.

 

[T.Lex]

Again, show me that 10% of Americans WANT ANY INNOCENTS killed and I'll kiss your ass on the courthouse square.

Dude, I think it's fair to say that on any given day, 10% of active INGO posters would be happy with innocent Muslims getting killed.

Granted, that may not scale up to the population at large but... it might. (Looking at Trump's numbers.)

 

[printcraft]

Dude, I think it's fair to say that on any given day, 10% of active INGO posters would be happy with innocent Muslims getting killed.

Granted, that may not scale up to the population at large but... it might.

Representative sample is way too low to make that kind of determination.
I certainly don't want that.
OTOH I have no reservations about setting jihadists on fire... or child rapists.....

 

[T.Lex]

Representative sample is way too low to make that kind of determination.
I certainly don't want that.
OTOH I have no reservations about setting jihadists on fire... or child rapists.....

So, comments like "turn the whole place into a glass parking lot" as a legitimate foreign policy decision - would that count?

 

[printcraft]

So, comments like "turn the whole place into a glass parking lot" as a legitimate foreign policy decision - would that count?

Yes, you can find those, probably about 3 normal posters on INGO if you look hard... is that 10% of Americans?
Who is executing pinpoint strikes on jihadist targets compared to who is indiscriminately launching rockets and car bomb in civilian areas?
I'm pretty sure who I believe has the high ground here, I don't see it as equal footing.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, this is the apple and orange I requested be left out.

I don't want ANY INNOCENT iraqi, syrian, jordanians, egyptians, iranians, palestinians, etc. killed. NONE.
Again, show me that 10% of Americans WANT ANY INNOCENTS killed and I'll kiss your ass on the courthouse square.

I'll let someone else be the witness.

So, comments like "turn the whole place into a glass parking lot" as a legitimate foreign policy decision - would that count?

Blowing off steam is one thing. I don't really get the feeling that the people who think their book tells them to kill infidels are just blowing off steam.

 

[Trigger Time]

Dude, I think it's fair to say that on any given day, 10% of active INGO posters would be happy with innocent Muslims getting killed.

Granted, that may not scale up to the population at large but... it might. (Looking at Trump's numbers.)

i don't think there are 10%

I just want them to stay in their corner of the world and not **** with my country. Stay out. I don't want them here because it's not a religion of tolerance. It is violent. No not all practice that aspect but don't tell me Islam is a religion of peace because I'm not buying what your selling.
and I don't feel sorry for someone that's feeling offended for what is being said. Tune out. Don't read the political threads. No one (the majority at least) wants Muslims here invading our communities and forcing woman to be below the men Ect, whether they say it or not. I'm not buying it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah, this is the apple and orange I requested be left out.

I don't want ANY INNOCENT iraqi, syrian, jordanians, egyptians, iranians, palestinians, etc. killed. NONE.
Again, show me that 10% of Americans WANT ANY INNOCENTS killed and I'll kiss your ass on the courthouse square.

I guess it depends on how you define "innocents" doesn't it? Not to get Clinton-esque on you, but once you accept the idea of "collateral damage" and that it's necessary to further your cause, if it's not wanting to kill innocents it's a very close cousin. You can make the "it's necessary" argument...and so will they. Regardless, I don't think the 10% was a hard statistic, just an example, an off the cuff statement.

You're right on some of the issue, don't get me wrong. I just think the focus on what the issue is and how to fix it is off. If you sincerely promote universal human rights such as free speech, access to education, equal rights for women and minorities, etc. and you set up a system with the rule of law, the rest will fall into place over time. It takes time to learn democracy, how to overcome tribal issues, etc. Surely you don't think the US got it right immediately and without mistakes? We founded a democracy that allowed the ownership of other people and plenty of people who weren't represented, which led to quite a bit of strife, after all. We got there, though. We've got a good system here, and again someone ironically Muslims here can easily have more freedom of religion and economic opportunity than you'd find in some Muslim-majority countries. Promoting those values gets us where we want to be, and people DO listen and DO learn. It's just tough to sincerely promote universal human rights while also propping up dictators or pulling down democratically elected governments when it suits you.

No ass kissing, thanks. The bigfoot in a denim hat ear target was gift enough for me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

i don't think there are 10%

I just want them to stay in their corner of the world and not **** with my country. Stay out. I don't want them here because it's not a religion of tolerance. It is violent. No not all practice that aspect but don't tell me Islam is a religion of peace because I'm not buying what your selling.
and I don't feel sorry for someone that's feeling offended for what is being said. Tune out. Don't read the political threads. No one (the majority at least) wants Muslims here invading our communities and forcing woman to be below the men Ect, whether they say it or not. I'm not buying it.

Didn't you once call a shirt a national security issue? You're ready to paint an entire religion with one brush and then claim to be worried about intolerance? I'm not part of "our" community? You're being led by the nose for political reasons, using the same tactics of fear and "us vs them" that extremists use...for the exact same purposes. Power.

 

[Jludo]

So, comments like "turn the whole place into a glass parking lot" as a legitimate foreign policy decision - would that count?

Or Trumps 'You have to go after their families.' comment

 

[Trigger Time]

Didn't you once call a shirt a national security issue? You're ready to paint an entire religion with one brush and then claim to be worried about intolerance? I'm not part of "our" community? You're being led by the nose for political reasons, using the same tactics of fear and "us vs them" that extremists use...for the exact same purposes. Power.

i don't recall the shirt comment. But if I said it I believed it.
So you think my beliefs are bs and I think yours are bs, so we are even.

 

[Libertarian01]

What if God told us himself that the lifetime LTCH was going away? That would be a little problematic

<span style="font-family: arial"><font size="3">[video]https://youtu.be/BKHoMi-U8g4[/video]

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, this is the apple and orange I requested be left out.

I don't want ANY INNOCENT iraqi, syrian, jordanians, egyptians, iranians, palestinians, etc. killed. NONE.
Again, show me that 10% of Americans WANT ANY INNOCENTS killed and I'll kiss your ass on the courthouse square.

Dude, I think it's fair to say that on any given day, 10% of active INGO posters would be happy with innocent Muslims getting killed.

Granted, that may not scale up to the population at large but... it might. (Looking at Trump's numbers.)

One of us misunderstands printcraft's quote. I don't think very many INGOistas would want innocents killed if there was a viable alternative available besides sitting on our hands. I think I'm being realistic when I believe that you can never totally eliminate the killing of innocents in war. And although I acknowledge that in an area where everyday life is totally controlled by extremists you may not have a choice, offering hospitality to people advocating the indiscriminate killing of American's is not without risk to your home and family, which is as it should be.

 

[BugI02]

So, comments like "turn the whole place into a glass parking lot" as a legitimate foreign policy decision - would that count?

Are we talking about Raqqa? The only examples I can think of of successfully stopping suicide attacks forever did require killing ALL the adherents to that particular strategy - and anyone who got in the way. What is the lesson of history in this case? Consider 'caring fatigue'