Few days back I posted on Isis brutality and similarities to brutal tactics of islamist invaders of India. Some self proclaimed seculars responded by implying that Islam is not responsible for these activities.

Why can't we put the responsibility on Islam?

1. Islam is the religion of allmost all major brutal terrorist groups in the world? Isis, al queida, laskar, I'm, Isi, Pakistan army, Taliban, chechanya, Philippines, middle east, Mali, Algeria, Libya etc etc are all Islamic groups. They far outnumber leftist groups around the world.

2. There is widespread support for these groups among Islamic populations. Note this support goes down only when intense international pressure is applied.that implies the data is no longer reflective of real people's feelings or these people are just getting educated about the true nature of terrorist groups.

3. This is not merely a question of religious discourse. These Islamic groups action disrupt world economic process. The entire world is paying a very unproductive tax to support io huge security set up in Airports and transportations in all major countries.

https://such.forumotion.com/t26059-saudis-must-stop-exporting-extremism

-> This might help you educate yourself about Islam a bit. Also, do you wonder how do these terrorists get hold of military weapons and seem well trained?

truthbetold wrote:Few days back I posted on Isis brutality and similarities to brutal tactics of islamist invaders of India. Some self proclaimed seculars responded by implying that Islam is not responsible for these activities.

Why can't we put the responsibility on Islam?

1. Islam is the religion of allmost all major brutal terrorist groups in the world? Isis, al queida,  laskar,  I'm, Isi, Pakistan army,  Taliban, chechanya, Philippines, middle east,  Mali,  Algeria,  Libya etc etc are all Islamic groups. They far outnumber leftist groups around the world.

2. There is widespread support for these groups among Islamic populations. Note this support goes down only when intense international pressure is applied.that implies the data is no longer reflective of real people's feelings or these people are just getting educated about the true nature of terrorist groups.

3. This is not merely a question of religious discourse. These Islamic groups action disrupt world economic process. The entire world is paying a very unproductive tax to support io huge security set up in Airports and transportations in all major countries.

most of the hostilities and the economic misery and disruptions experienced by large populations of the world in the last 150 years have been caused by:

1. western countries fighting one another in the two world wars and other wars, including that in viet nam;

2. colonial rule by the west;

3. western nations enslaving people on the basis of skin colour and the perceived inferiority of dark-skinned peoples;

4. germany's attempt to eliminate jews from the face of the earth;

5. the western "solution" to the "problem" of settling european jews outside europe, in particular, in palestine;

6. the invasion of other countries by the west, in the modern era, to force their values on other peoples who are not ready for them;

7. the cold war, and the diversion of economic activity to the building of large, destructive arsenals with no economic benefit;

8. communist excesses like those of mao and stalin.

muslims had little or no role in any of these events, although they understandably reacted to some of them.

michelle2 wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Few days back I posted on Isis brutality and similarities to brutal tactics of islamist invaders of India. Some self proclaimed seculars responded by implying that Islam is not responsible for these activities.

Why can't we put the responsibility on Islam?

1. Islam is the religion of allmost all major brutal terrorist groups in the world? Isis, al queida,  laskar,  I'm, Isi, Pakistan army,  Taliban, chechanya, Philippines, middle east,  Mali,  Algeria,  Libya etc etc are all Islamic groups. They far outnumber leftist groups around the world.

2. There is widespread support for these groups among Islamic populations. Note this support goes down only when intense international pressure is applied.that implies the data is no longer reflective of real people's feelings or these people are just getting educated about the true nature of terrorist groups.

3. This is not merely a question of religious discourse. These Islamic groups action disrupt world economic process. The entire world is paying a very unproductive tax to support io huge security set up in Airports and transportations in all major countries.

most of the hostilities and the economic misery and disruptions experienced by large populations of the world in the last 150 years have been caused by:

1. western countries fighting one another in the two world wars and other wars, including that in viet nam;

2. colonial rule by the west;

3. western nations enslaving people on the basis of skin colour and the perceived inferiority of dark-skinned peoples;

4. germany's attempt to eliminate jews from the face of the earth;

5. the western "solution" to the "problem" of settling european jews outside europe, in particular, in palestine;

6. the invasion of other countries by the west, in the modern era, to force their values on other peoples who are not ready for them;

7. the cold war, and the diversion of economic activity to the building of large, destructive arsenals with no economic benefit;

8. communist excesses like those of mao and stalin.

muslims had little or no role in any of these events, although they understandably reacted to some of them.

The above are valid....but not enough....dont forget Genghis Khan, Moors, Ottomons, Barbarians, and Moguls. If these guys had had good ocean crossing ability, they would have extended their barbarianism worldwide....not just to India, Europe and North Afrida.

michelle2 wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Few days back I posted on Isis brutality and similarities to brutal tactics of islamist invaders of India. Some self proclaimed seculars responded by implying that Islam is not responsible for these activities.

Why can't we put the responsibility on Islam?

1. Islam is the religion of allmost all major brutal terrorist groups in the world? Isis, al queida,  laskar,  I'm, Isi, Pakistan army,  Taliban, chechanya, Philippines, middle east,  Mali,  Algeria,  Libya etc etc are all Islamic groups. They far outnumber leftist groups around the world.

2. There is widespread support for these groups among Islamic populations. Note this support goes down only when intense international pressure is applied.that implies the data is no longer reflective of real people's feelings or these people are just getting educated about the true nature of terrorist groups.

3. This is not merely a question of religious discourse. These Islamic groups action disrupt world economic process. The entire world is paying a very unproductive tax to support io huge security set up in Airports and transportations in all major countries.

most of the hostilities and the economic misery and disruptions experienced by large populations of the world in the last 150 years have been caused by:

1. western countries fighting one another in the two world wars and other wars, including that in viet nam;

2. colonial rule by the west;

3. western nations enslaving people on the basis of skin colour and the perceived inferiority of dark-skinned peoples;

4. germany's attempt to eliminate jews from the face of the earth;

5. the western "solution" to the "problem" of settling european jews outside europe, in particular, in palestine;

6. the invasion of other countries by the west, in the modern era, to force their values on other peoples who are not ready for them;

7. the cold war, and the diversion of economic activity to the building of large, destructive arsenals with no economic benefit;

8. communist excesses like those of mao and stalin.

muslims had little or no role in any of these events, although they understandably reacted to some of them.

Interesting points. However, behavior patterns don't develop overnight. Strong societal "views" (based mostly on dogma) led to crusades, jihad, etc. Entire cultures were wiped out (native cultures in the new world, for example) because of them. Totalitarian thinking (DickTater-ship of proletariat; power runs through the barrel of the gun, burning in eternal hell, 72 in heaven for pieceful work on earth, etc.) got incorporated and successive generations followed, modified and put it into practice. :-)

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Interesting points. However, behavior patterns don't develop overnight. Strong societal "views" (based mostly on dogma) led to crusades, jihad, etc. Entire cultures were wiped out (native cultures in the new world, for example) because of them. Totalitarian thinking (DickTater-ship of proletariat; power runs through the barrel of the gun, burning in eternal hell, 72 in heaven for pieceful work on earth, etc.) got incorporated and successive generations followed, modified and put it into practice. :-)

Completely agreed. Modiji should a grow a pair (not that there is any use) and levy highest tax on the NRI (residing in gulf countries) deposits made back home in order to discourage them from going to those nasty countries and from importing Salafi/Wahhabi type terrorism to India.

confuzzled dude wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t26059-saudis-must-stop-exporting-extremism

-> This might help you educate yourself about Islam a bit. Also, do you wonder how do these terrorists get hold of military weapons and seem well trained?

Is this a Joke? Today any ideology is available in the internet, so the faith of Islam is SO weak that it does not guide people to differentiate right and wrong ?

The root cause is that, Political islamist and Jihadist doctrine is fused with the faith in their so called Holy Books (Hadith/Qran).

Why any person has to believe in Islamist/Jihadist world view that includes Racist and Islamic Supremacist aspects, to believe in their god is NOT explained any where. Faith in Allah is distinct from the Islamist world view where Humanity is classified into three sections (Muslims, people of the book and Kafirs) and contemptuous treatment of latter two in various forms are specified. 

Most eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism etc..) are interpreted to belong to Kafirs. Because of this mix, ordinary Muslims think that, believing in this classification and other Political Islamist beliefs (Apostasy and aggressive proselytization by sword/incentives etc.. ) and Jihadist beliefs (like those of ISIS)  is also essential to the faith in their god. This is ONE of the reasons, secular Muslims (there are many) are NOT able to take on the Political Islamists found in India and Jihadists like ISIS/LeT found in Iraq/Pakistan etc..

This is one of the reason, why we do NOT see mass protests on what ISIS does in the name of Islam. This has to be fought at the level of Islamic doctrine and Muslims have to take the lead on it.  But instead of fighting the  Poltical Islamist/Jihadist doctrine of such folks in periodicals like Siyasat, folks are busy inventing strange non-sensical arguments to mainstream periodicals to contain the natural outrage that the world has on seeing the acts by Jihadists like ISIS/LeT and Political Islamists in Pakistan/Bangladesh and parts of India.  If Muslims come out in strength and say faith in Islam does NOT need Political Islam and their tents of demeaning  certain classes of humans, or Jihad , then the problem can be contained.

Muslims have to believe that, they can be a monotheist believing in Allah, and still NOT hold other folks atheists/Polytheists in contempt. Muslims in secular countries quickly veer around to this view point and live happily.  Muslims in Political Islamist countries , even if they believe in the above view point, are NOT able to counter the Jihadist /Political Islamist doctrine fused with the faith on Allah in their religious books. Muslims in secular countries are NOT able to take on a small minority among them who hold the Jihadist /political islamist world view, again because these views are fused with the faith in their holy scriptures. This is the root cause. 

An article to prove that sub-continental Muslims have ideologies which hold Political Islamist view points. No wonder PakistanBbangladesh/Maldives has completed ethnic cleansing of Non-muslims, and there are folks like LeT who's only aim is to ensure Political Islamist rule all over India, NOT unlike those like ISIS.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/28012011-barelvis-and-deobandhis-%E2%80%9Cbirds-of-the-same-feather%E2%80%9D/

Excerpts
The myth of tolerance among the Barelvis was exposed long ago when Ahmad Reza Barelvi, the founder of this sect and his supporters did not participate in non-co-operation movement against the British on the plea that it was led by a Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi. Pronouncing a fatwa he not only denounced the Deobandis as Kafirs and condemned them for accepting the leadership of a Hindu leader during freedom movement but also criticised those Muslims who joined hands with Kafirs (non-believers) even if it was for attaining Islamic objectives. His fatwa warned the Muslims neither to attend to the ailing non-Muslims nor to participate in their funerals. 

michelle2 wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Few days back I posted on Isis brutality and similarities to brutal tactics of islamist invaders of India. Some self proclaimed seculars responded by implying that Islam is not responsible for these activities.

Why can't we put the responsibility on Islam?

1. Islam is the religion of allmost all major brutal terrorist groups in the world? Isis, al queida,  laskar,  I'm, Isi, Pakistan army,  Taliban, chechanya, Philippines, middle east,  Mali,  Algeria,  Libya etc etc are all Islamic groups. They far outnumber leftist groups around the world.

2. There is widespread support for these groups among Islamic populations. Note this support goes down only when intense international pressure is applied.that implies the data is no longer reflective of real people's feelings or these people are just getting educated about the true nature of terrorist groups.

3. This is not merely a question of religious discourse. These Islamic groups action disrupt world economic process. The entire world is paying a very unproductive tax to support io huge security set up in Airports and transportations in all major countries.

most of the hostilities and the economic misery and disruptions experienced by large populations of the world in the last 150 years have been caused by:

1. western countries fighting one another in the two world wars and other wars, including that in viet nam;

2. colonial rule by the west;

3. western nations enslaving people on the basis of skin colour and the perceived inferiority of dark-skinned peoples;

4. germany's attempt to eliminate jews from the face of the earth;

5. the western "solution" to the "problem" of settling european jews outside europe, in particular, in palestine;

6. the invasion of other countries by the west, in the modern era, to force their values on other peoples who are not ready for them;

7. the cold war, and the diversion of economic activity to the building of large, destructive arsenals with no economic benefit;

8. communist excesses like those of mao and stalin.

muslims had little or no role in any of these events, although they understandably reacted to some of them.

Your arguments are fallacious on two counts.

Even if we ONLY consider last 150 years, large disruptions/ethnic cleansing caused by, Caliphate inspired Moplah riots in Kerala, Anti-Hindu riots in J&K, Invasion of J&K, and Pre-partition riots and subsequent ethnic cleansing of Hindus/Sikhs, had nothing to do with Colonial powers. These were due to the Political Islamist doctrine and associated bigotry among Muslim leadership.

Bengal Famine was probably the world's biggest in recent history, caused by Colonial Rule. These folks who were predominantly Hindus, did not react by rampaging around the world, blaming other religions for it. There are some folks (most recent to join is Popeji) who claim lack of opportunities swells the ranks of folks like ISIS.  In Kalahandi, Orissa, people died due to starvation. However, they did not embark on violent acts on folks of other religions, blaming them for that. Farmers commit suicides in India, because they are not able to repay money. They do not indulge in slaughter before committing suicide. 


Anger can come due to various reasons, but turning on other religions, and blaming them for their own ills seem to be  unique to these Jihadists/ and those who practice Political Islam. Somewhere folks have to know the distinction between right and wrong, and their religion should guide them towards that. If Islam cannot guide people on what is basically right versus wrong, it needs to seriously introspect. 

Michelle2/swapna/flimflam,

The world is a big place. You listed some major players in major events of the past 200 years. However if you take each terrorist incident of today and trace to its root cause, you will find the so called western origin theory becoming weaker and weaker.

India and Pakistan got liberated in 1947. The birth Bangladesh has no consequential western role. The awaking league atrocities on minorities in Bangladesh cannot be blamed on west. Islamic thinking has major contribution there.

Now the numerous Pakistani terrorist groups born in the last 20 years were more from Islamic jihad influence than colonial past.

Michelle2/swapna/flimflam,

The world is a big place. You listed some major players in major events of the past 200 years. However if you take each terrorist incident of today and trace to its root cause, you will find the so called western origin theory becoming weaker and weaker.

India and Pakistan got liberated in 1947. The birth Bangladesh has no consequential western role. The awaking league atrocities on minorities in Bangladesh cannot be blamed on west. Islamic thinking has major contribution there.

Now the numerous Pakistani terrorist groups born in the last 20 years were more from Islamic jihad influence than colonial past.

rawemotions wrote:
Is this a Joke? Today any ideology is available in the internet, so the faith of Islam is SO weak that it does not guide people to differentiate right and wrong ?

OKAY how is this going to help them without funding and armaments? If it was that easy then there are enough nutcases in every religion why aren't they able to take advantage of internet/social media to promote their views/hatred?

rawemotions wrote:
The root cause is that, Political islamist and Jihadist doctrine is fused with the faith in their so called Holy Books (Hadith/Qran).

This is one of the reason, why we do NOT see mass protests on what ISIS does in the name of Islam. This has to be fought at the level of Islamic doctrine and Muslims have to take the lead on it.

OKAY If moderate muslims hands are tied because of religion or due to lack of guts what's stopping you from starting mass protests? You seem to be very worried that ISIS style political Islam will wipeout Hinduism completely, why don't you CAGs start a movement to save Hinduism.

Cont. post.

 Islamic cultural stagnation is the basic cause of islamic population's inability to deal with required transition into modern world.  Who is perpetuating this stagnation? The monarchs ,  mullahs, religious beneficiaries (madarasas),  and local leaders of various regional power centers in islamic world.  It is this group that wants to retain the current islamic thought process.

Is this monolithic? No. Even the most organized marxist theory was never a single interpretation. This was true even in the days of Marx himself. So for an idea created in desert in 7th century, it would be impossible to remain monolithic. Local beneficiaries of islam will adjust locally to keep it the ruling philosophy. If saudi sunni monarch theory is different from iranian mullah theocracy, it should not be confused with democratic discussion. It is just a power play within islamic ranks.

Islam is a obscurantist thought process that will inspire conflict with modern world.

The stakeholders in islamic beneficiary world see democracy and capitalism as taking away their power and their control and even future livelihood.  So they create various versions of jihad and use external events as excuses to use brutal suppression to retain control. Islam religious opium keeps the middle class and poor classes in control through blind belief. 

Poverty and happenings around the world generate some activism inside islamic world. But that is snuffed out early by extreme brutality of the rulers.  Even when it succeeds like in Egypt , it is captured by muslim brotherhood(an obscurantist group) and later trounced by military coup.  So Egypt is now back safely in the hands of saudi friends. 

If one is a serious student of history, then islam at this point is an impediment to progress. ISIS is an off shoot of islamic thought stagnation. 

truthbetold wrote:Cont. post.

 Islamic cultural stagnation is the basic cause of islamic population's inability to deal with required transition into modern world.  Who is perpetuating this stagnation? The monarchs ,  mullahs, religious beneficiaries (madarasas),  and local leaders of various regional power centers in islamic world.  It is this group that wants to retain the current islamic thought process.

Is this monolithic? No. Even the most organized marxist theory was never a single interpretation. This was true even in the days of Marx himself. So for an idea created in desert in 7th century, it would be impossible to remain monolithic. Local beneficiaries of islam will adjust locally to keep it the ruling philosophy. If saudi sunni monarch theory is different from iranian mullah theocracy, it should not be confused with democratic discussion. It is just a power play within islamic ranks.

Islam is a obscurantist thought process that will inspire conflict with modern world.

The stakeholders in islamic beneficiary world see democracy and capitalism as taking away their power and their control and even future livelihood.  So they create various versions of jihad and use external events as excuses to use brutal suppression to retain control. Islam religious opium keeps the middle class and poor classes in control through blind belief. 

Poverty and happenings around the world generate some activism inside islamic world. But that is snuffed out early by extreme brutality of the rulers.  Even when it succeeds like in Egypt , it is captured by muslim brotherhood(an obscurantist group) and later trounced by military coup.  So Egypt is now back safely in the hands of saudi friends. 

If one is a serious student of history, then islam at this point is an impediment to progress. ISIS is an off shoot of islamic thought stagnation. 

>>>>The bolded sections above pretty much capture the gist of the problem. The catch-22 here is that any meaningful reform can take only when fresh air is allowed in, but the fresh air cannot come in because the system is closed. In the meantime, we have strange rationalizations about the religion being perfect, other people are always at fault, these are misunderstood hapless souls etc. to explain away the stances. There is a naïve segment in the West that buys into all this, simply because it cannot wrap its head around the fact that this level of obscurantism can exist anywhere in the 21st century. The show goes on.. ISIS is not the first product and it won't be the last.

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cont. post.

 Islamic cultural stagnation is the basic cause of islamic population's inability to deal with required transition into modern world.  Who is perpetuating this stagnation? The monarchs ,  mullahs, religious beneficiaries (madarasas),  and local leaders of various regional power centers in islamic world.  It is this group that wants to retain the current islamic thought process.

Is this monolithic? No. Even the most organized marxist theory was never a single interpretation. This was true even in the days of Marx himself. So for an idea created in desert in 7th century, it would be impossible to remain monolithic. Local beneficiaries of islam will adjust locally to keep it the ruling philosophy. If saudi sunni monarch theory is different from iranian mullah theocracy, it should not be confused with democratic discussion. It is just a power play within islamic ranks.

Islam is a obscurantist thought process that will inspire conflict with modern world.

The stakeholders in islamic beneficiary world see democracy and capitalism as taking away their power and their control and even future livelihood.  So they create various versions of jihad and use external events as excuses to use brutal suppression to retain control. Islam religious opium keeps the middle class and poor classes in control through blind belief. 

Poverty and happenings around the world generate some activism inside islamic world. But that is snuffed out early by extreme brutality of the rulers.  Even when it succeeds like in Egypt , it is captured by muslim brotherhood(an obscurantist group) and later trounced by military coup.  So Egypt is now back safely in the hands of saudi friends. 

If one is a serious student of history, then islam at this point is an impediment to progress. ISIS is an off shoot of islamic thought stagnation. 

>>>>The bolded sections above pretty much capture the gist of the problem. The catch-22 here is that any meaningful reform can take only when fresh air is allowed in, but the fresh air cannot come in because the system is closed. In the meantime, we have strange rationalizations about the religion being perfect, other people are always at fault, these are misunderstood hapless souls etc. to explain away the stances. There is a naïve segment in the West that buys into all this, simply because it cannot wrap its head around the fact that this level of obscurantism can exist anywhere in the 21st century. The show goes on.. ISIS is not the first product and it won't be the last.

So what percentage of 1.5 billion muslims are of obscurantist thought process, 5%, 50% or is it 100%? And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own. If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics.

confuzzled dude wrote:
So what percentage of 1.5 billion muslims are of obscurantist thought process, 5%, 50% or is it 100%? And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own. If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics.

Excuses eloquently put forward by a typical iSlamo-apologist.

It is not the others who are not willing to live with muslims - case in point, they are accepted as immigrants in ALL countries un the world.

It is the muslims who dont want to live with non-muslims in their own land (they dont allow any non-muslim to immigrate or settle down) or wherever they emigrate (look at all the problems they have with locals).

So preach to the 1%, 5%, 10% or 50% the muslims to live and let live.... Go to the Paki board and preach them...and see how many posts you survive there... and please show me some poster like you there supporting hindus to the extent you do.

This reminds of me a story something similar to this.

---

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0006952/quotes

The Rabbi: [interrupting] My father used to say: "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle." 
----
(I read some similar story in a different tone).
It is like if someone calls you an ass, you can ignore him move on; If another person calls you an ass, you have to check your foot/foot print to see whether you are really an ass or not;  If more than a few / quite a few people call you an ass, may be you deserve it.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cont. post.

 Islamic cultural stagnation is the basic cause of islamic population's inability to deal with required transition into modern world.  Who is perpetuating this stagnation? The monarchs ,  mullahs, religious beneficiaries (madarasas),  and local leaders of various regional power centers in islamic world.  It is this group that wants to retain the current islamic thought process.

Is this monolithic? No. Even the most organized marxist theory was never a single interpretation. This was true even in the days of Marx himself. So for an idea created in desert in 7th century, it would be impossible to remain monolithic. Local beneficiaries of islam will adjust locally to keep it the ruling philosophy. If saudi sunni monarch theory is different from iranian mullah theocracy, it should not be confused with democratic discussion. It is just a power play within islamic ranks.

Islam is a obscurantist thought process that will inspire conflict with modern world.

The stakeholders in islamic beneficiary world see democracy and capitalism as taking away their power and their control and even future livelihood.  So they create various versions of jihad and use external events as excuses to use brutal suppression to retain control. Islam religious opium keeps the middle class and poor classes in control through blind belief. 

Poverty and happenings around the world generate some activism inside islamic world. But that is snuffed out early by extreme brutality of the rulers.  Even when it succeeds like in Egypt , it is captured by muslim brotherhood(an obscurantist group) and later trounced by military coup.  So Egypt is now back safely in the hands of saudi friends. 

If one is a serious student of history, then islam at this point is an impediment to progress. ISIS is an off shoot of islamic thought stagnation. 

>>>>The bolded sections above pretty much capture the gist of the problem. The catch-22 here is that any meaningful reform can take only when fresh air is allowed in, but the fresh air cannot come in because the system is closed. In the meantime, we have strange rationalizations about the religion being perfect, other people are always at fault, these are misunderstood hapless souls etc. to explain away the stances. There is a naïve segment in the West that buys into all this, simply because it cannot wrap its head around the fact that this level of obscurantism can exist anywhere in the 21st century. The show goes on.. ISIS is not the first product and it won't be the last.

So what percentage of 1.5 billion muslims are of obscurantist thought process, 5%, 50% or is it 100%? And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own. If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics.

CD: "And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own"

My response: Leaving aside all our personal biases, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You live in the west and are by no means a biased fan of it, based on your posts. If you had to pick between America, a more-or-less capitalist, democratic society and Saudi Arabia (or Egypt or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran), which would you pick as the better society? Let's use objective standards like freedom of speech, religion, expression, personal liberty etc., presumably none of which you consider to be bad.



CD:If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics

My response: We are discussing hypotheticals again, but I will play this for a tad bit. Hindu civilization is 3,000 years old, give or take a millennium. Has anyone been able to impose the idea that only Krishna/ Rama/ Steve is the only god and others are infidels at any point and pull it off? As to your assertion that the West (that eternal villain) had something to down with the politics in the middle east, are you asserting that the Arabs were a pluralistic people accepting of all religions before the petrodollars? One more point about people's fate being dictated by circumstances: remember the aussie love jihadists? Were they shaped by the environment (Melbourne, Sydney etc) or were they acting out their crazy ideology?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cont. post.

 Islamic cultural stagnation is the basic cause of islamic population's inability to deal with required transition into modern world.  Who is perpetuating this stagnation? The monarchs ,  mullahs, religious beneficiaries (madarasas),  and local leaders of various regional power centers in islamic world.  It is this group that wants to retain the current islamic thought process.

Is this monolithic? No. Even the most organized marxist theory was never a single interpretation. This was true even in the days of Marx himself. So for an idea created in desert in 7th century, it would be impossible to remain monolithic. Local beneficiaries of islam will adjust locally to keep it the ruling philosophy. If saudi sunni monarch theory is different from iranian mullah theocracy, it should not be confused with democratic discussion. It is just a power play within islamic ranks.

Islam is a obscurantist thought process that will inspire conflict with modern world.

The stakeholders in islamic beneficiary world see democracy and capitalism as taking away their power and their control and even future livelihood.  So they create various versions of jihad and use external events as excuses to use brutal suppression to retain control. Islam religious opium keeps the middle class and poor classes in control through blind belief. 

Poverty and happenings around the world generate some activism inside islamic world. But that is snuffed out early by extreme brutality of the rulers.  Even when it succeeds like in Egypt , it is captured by muslim brotherhood(an obscurantist group) and later trounced by military coup.  So Egypt is now back safely in the hands of saudi friends. 

If one is a serious student of history, then islam at this point is an impediment to progress. ISIS is an off shoot of islamic thought stagnation. 

>>>>The bolded sections above pretty much capture the gist of the problem. The catch-22 here is that any meaningful reform can take only when fresh air is allowed in, but the fresh air cannot come in because the system is closed. In the meantime, we have strange rationalizations about the religion being perfect, other people are always at fault, these are misunderstood hapless souls etc. to explain away the stances. There is a naïve segment in the West that buys into all this, simply because it cannot wrap its head around the fact that this level of obscurantism can exist anywhere in the 21st century. The show goes on.. ISIS is not the first product and it won't be the last.

So what percentage of 1.5 billion muslims are of obscurantist thought process, 5%, 50% or is it 100%? And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own. If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics.

CD: "And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own"

My response: Leaving aside all our personal biases, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You live in the west and are by no means a biased fan of it, based on your posts. If you had to pick between America, a more-or-less capitalist, democratic society and Saudi Arabia (or Egypt or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran), which would you pick as the better society? Let's use objective standards like freedom of speech, religion, expression, personal liberty etc., presumably none of which you consider to be bad.



CD:If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics

My response: We are discussing hypotheticals again, but I will play this for a tad bit. Hindu civilization is 3,000 years old, give or take a millennium. Has anyone been able to impose the idea that only Krishna/ Rama/ Steve is the only god and others are infidels at any point and pull it off? As to your assertion that the West (that eternal villain) had something to down with the politics in the middle east, are you asserting that the Arabs were a pluralistic people accepting of all religions before the petrodollars? One more point about people's fate being dictated by circumstances: remember the aussie love jihadists? Were they shaped by the environment (Melbourne, Sydney etc) or were they acting out their crazy ideology?

Forgot to add:

The point that you made about only a small percentage of the people being affected doesn't really address the issue. It is a non sequitur, in fact. If there is a virus that breaks out frequently, we don't refrain from trying to find the root cause or addressing it because the virus affects only a small portion of the population. The idea is to check the spreading of the virus.

P.S> My point is not that Hindu societies (or Buddhist or Christian societies) are without blemish. That would be absurd. The point is that they are not shutting down or cannot effectively shut down opposition even within their fold.

CD

What % are obscurantists?

Do you know?  Thought so.  You know very well such countries do not allow any sensible metrics being developed.  So we will never find out. So here is my answer. The obscurantists are large enough % that they do not allow any new ideas to develop. If some new flower blooms in some forgotten corner, it will be snuffed out as soon as it gets publicity. Obscuratism is definitely the leading philosophy of all ruling classes and mullahs and influential sections of most islamic societies. 

Are democracy and capitalism better than theocracy and obscurantism?.  It does not require a Nobel prize scientist to answer this question. The experiences of different countries around the globe show which system's are progressive. In any case,  the question is not that muslims have to embrace western style democracy such as british parlamentarian system or US presidential system. Question simply is that islamic countries have failed to provide representative govt for its people even in 21st century.  The fountainhead of islam religion is in middle east and that is where the people are in worst condition.

Norway , alaska have lot of petro dollars. But neither went nut religiously. Saudi and qatar and other petro dollars are used not only to buy off their own country people but fund radical islam idealogy across the globe. Christians in norway did not do that. Nor did material rich south american countries.  

Cd,

Your comment about gulf petro dollars and hinduism is totally meaningless.  This comes from your illogical idea all religions are same. That is a dumb idea and quite unscientific.  while all religions have common flaws, not all religious cultures are the same. islam never developed a good mechanism for discussing and resolving issues of serious nature. Christianity struggled with inner conflicts. But over centuries,  it found ways to resolve conflicts through democratic means (debate, reasoning, democratic vote, negotiations and compromise).  Those traits helped western world succeed in establishing democracy and progress peacefully.  

Hinduism is full of conflicts but it also a tradition of discussion.  But they were not in power in the last 200 years till indian independence.  Since then they showed a collective ability to run a democracy.  

Religions are man made.  so some of them are more fallible than others.  Some of them are better or worse than others.  They are not all the same.  The current world proves islam is a retrogressive force and must change. 

Please feel free to throw more questions.  But start applying critical thinking beyond political correctness.

Kris wrote:
CD: "And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own"

My response: Leaving aside all our personal biases, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You live in the west and are by no means a biased fan of it, based on your posts. If you had to pick between America, a more-or-less capitalist, democratic society and Saudi Arabia (or Egypt or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran), which would you pick as the better society? Let's use objective standards like freedom of speech, religion, expression, personal liberty etc., presumably none of which you consider to be bad.

My point is just because we consider all those conditions are good (we're born, raised and live in that world so that set up is normal & great for us) doesn't mean that is the gold standard for every part of the world. A muslim friend of mine once described democracy as a process where 100 fools get together to elect a fool (among them) to lead them.

Kris wrote:
CD:If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics

My response: As to your assertion that the West (that eternal villain) had something to down with the politics in the middle east, are you asserting that the Arabs were a pluralistic people accepting of all religions before the petrodollars? One more point about people's fate being dictated by circumstances: remember the aussie love jihadists? Were they shaped by the environment (Melbourne, Sydney etc) or were they acting out their crazy ideology?

You can't have it both ways, on one hand we make many trifling concessions to west's unnecessary intervention(s) as a part of normal geopolitics on the other hand suggest, all flavors of Islam uniformly promulgate extremism and the entire Islamic word is intolerant of others and full of crazy ideologies; there is no such thing as fringe element(s) when it comes to Islam and conveniently forget that majority of causalities of ISIS are muslims. What was the reason for the unrest in Syria, do you think things would've gotten out of control in Syria without the dirty politics played by Israel & US. Who trained those extremists to man heavy weaponry, who provided arms to them? Did you see the video that I posted a couple of weeks ago where the members of free syrian army clearly stated that they got training, arms and vehicles in Qatar, at US-led training mission; some of them jumped to join ISIS and contributed to this chaos. USA might have done all of this with noble intentions but their calculations and read of the situation was totally off, as a consequence we're as much responsible for current mess as Islam & Islamists are. As for your comment on Arabs being pluralistic people, are you saying that they are no Arab Christians?

CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

to modify what TBT wrote-- islamic terrorism enabled by the saudis and their supporters in the west is largely responsible for the state of things. an ideology alone cannot create death and destruction. it needs in addition to personnel, a well financed operation and arms. let's look at who is supplying this to the terrorists.

truthbetold wrote:CD

What % are obscurantists?

Do you know?  Thought so.  You know very well such countries do not allow any sensible metrics being developed.  So we will never find out. So here is my answer. The obscurantists are large enough % that they do not allow any new ideas to develop. If some new flower blooms in some forgotten corner, it will be snuffed out as soon as it gets publicity. Obscuratism is definitely the leading philosophy of all ruling classes and mullahs and influential sections of most islamic societies. 

Are democracy and capitalism better than theocracy and obscurantism?.  It does not require a Nobel prize scientist to answer this question. The experiences of different countries around the globe show which system's are progressive. In any case,  the question is not that muslims have to embrace western style democracy such as british parlamentarian system or US presidential system. Question simply is that islamic countries have failed to provide representative govt for its people even in 21st century.  The fountainhead of islam religion is in middle east and that is where the people are in worst condition.

Norway , alaska have lot of petro dollars. But neither went nut religiously. Saudi and qatar and other petro dollars are used not only to buy off their own country people but fund radical islam idealogy across the globe. Christians in norway did not do that. Nor did material rich south american countries.  

FYI one in four ISIS recruits are supposedly from the west; so much for blaming islamic countries.

truthbetold wrote:
Cd,

Your comment about gulf petro dollars and hinduism is totally meaningless.  This comes from your illogical idea all religions are same. That is a dumb idea and quite unscientific.  while all religions have common flaws, not all religious cultures are the same. islam never developed a good mechanism for discussing and resolving issues of serious nature. Christianity struggled with inner conflicts. But over centuries,  it found ways to resolve conflicts through democratic means (debate, reasoning, democratic vote, negotiations and compromise).  Those traits helped western world succeed in establishing democracy and progress peacefully.  

Hinduism is full of conflicts but it also a tradition of discussion.  But they were not in power in the last 200 years till indian independence.  Since then they showed a collective ability to run a democracy.  

Religions are man made.  so some of them are more fallible than others.  Some of them are better or worse than others.  They are not all the same.  The current world proves islam is a retrogressive force and must change. 

Please feel free to throw more questions.  But start applying critical thinking beyond political correctness.

How do you think Hinduism was spread to far east, with pure love? no power or money involved?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

OIL.

CD

What has hinduism's faults got to do with islam? 

If your defense is all religions are the same, I already answered it.  Go read it.

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

OIL.

i know the answer. but it's a hypocritical answer. is the willingness of the US to give up cheap oil greater than the willingness of the terror regimes to forsake modernity and progress in favor of a lifestyle more fit for medieval times?

CD

"FYI one in four ISIS recruits are supposedly from the west; so much for blaming islamic countries."


This reminds me of the hindu fundamentalist triumphantly pointing that "Reddy christians do not marry SC christians".  


What they fail to recognize is that this is not a reflection on christian religion but a testament to how deep caste philosophy is dug in indian/hindu mind.  It may take generations to overcome such deep seated prejudices. 


Similarly, if throngs of western educated citizens of europe go to join ISIS , it is not a reflection on european soceity, it is more an indictment of deep rooted islamic malaise. 

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:to modify what TBT wrote-- islamic terrorism enabled by the saudis and their supporters in the west is largely responsible for the state of things. an ideology alone cannot create death and destruction. it needs in addition to personnel, a well financed operation and arms. let's look at who is supplying this to the terrorists.

max

Different terrorist groups have different methods. in today's world arms are everywhere.  Terrorists get money from their financiers and through their own activities (search for mosul bank if you did not read it already).

truthbetold wrote:CD

What has hinduism's faults got to do with islam? 

Nothing.

truthbetold wrote:
If your defense is all religions are the same, I already answered it.  Go read it.

Okay I will take my statement about the influence of petrodollars on Hinduism back but you do see that RSS types have already ratcheted up their noise on Hindutva, Hindu etc., Imagine if they get financial support in addition to the power.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
CD: "And who are you and me to say that democracy & capitalism are the [only] signs of progress and everyone in the world should adhere to regardless of their culture, ideas; You guys are just replaying a western view without independent thinking of your own"

My response: Leaving aside all our personal biases, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You live in the west and are by no means a biased fan of it, based on your posts. If you had to pick between America, a more-or-less capitalist, democratic society and Saudi Arabia (or Egypt or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran), which would you pick as the better society? Let's use objective standards like freedom of speech, religion, expression, personal liberty etc., presumably none of which you consider to be bad.

My point is just because we consider all those conditions are good (we're born, raised and live in that world so that set up is normal & great for us) doesn't mean that is the gold standard for every part of the world. A muslim friend of mine once described democracy as a process where 100 fools get together to elect a fool (among them) to lead them.

Kris wrote:
CD:If Hinduism was practiced in the gulf countries I've no doubt in my mind that it would have met similar fate with petrodollars and RSS types calling shots on Hindu philosophies and west playing its crooked politics

My response: As to your assertion that the West (that eternal villain) had something to down with the politics in the middle east, are you asserting that the Arabs were a pluralistic people accepting of all religions before the petrodollars? One more point about people's fate being dictated by circumstances: remember the aussie love jihadists? Were they shaped by the environment (Melbourne, Sydney etc) or were they acting out their crazy ideology?

You can't have it both ways, on one hand we make many trifling concessions to west's unnecessary intervention(s) as a part of normal geopolitics on the other hand suggest, all flavors of Islam uniformly promulgate extremism and the entire Islamic word is intolerant of others and full of crazy ideologies; there is no such thing as fringe element(s) when it comes to Islam and conveniently forget that majority of causalities of ISIS are muslims. What was the reason for the unrest in Syria, do you think things would've gotten out of control in Syria without the dirty politics played by Israel & US. Who trained those extremists to man heavy weaponry, who provided arms to them? Did you see the video that I posted a couple of weeks ago where the members of free syrian army clearly stated that they got training, arms and vehicles in Qatar, at US-led training mission; some of them jumped to join ISIS and contributed to this chaos. USA might have done all of this with noble intentions but their calculations and read of the situation was totally off, as a consequence we're as much responsible for current mess as Islam & Islamists are. As for your comment on Arabs being pluralistic people, are you saying that they are no Arab Christians?

CD:

My point is just because we consider all those conditions are good (we're born, raised and live in that world so that set up is normal & great for us) doesn't mean that is the gold standard for every part of the world. A muslim friend of mine once described democracy as a process where 100 fools get together to elect a fool (among them) to lead them.

My response: It is not absolute and a one-size fits all proposition, but it certainly beats misogyny, racial and religious supremacist thinking and a 'black and white' world-view. Notice I specifically picked these criteria for a specific reason i.e. the West too has had these issues but has shown a remarkable ability to evolve away from them and continues to. This is the benefit of an open society, which the Islamic societies do not have. Your friend's description of democracy makes for a funny quip, but it is demonstrably false if you take the long view. The West has been democratic for  maybe a couple of hundred years to varying degrees. They didn't get to spearhead progress on the knowledge front or the economic front on the back of a foolish governance model.

CD:

You can't have it both ways, on one hand we make many trifling concessions to west's unnecessary intervention(s) as a part of normal geopolitics on the other hand suggest, all flavors of Islam uniformly promulgate extremism and the entire Islamic word is intolerant of others and full of crazy ideologies

My response: For the last time no. This is a red herring that seems to be used as a ploy to not discuss the crux of the problem. What I am saying is and what the world is worried about is there are enough of the nutcases to cause damage, considering there is no meaningful opposition. The moderates get wiped out for all essential purposes. That being the case, it is pointless to keep harping on their meager existence.

CD:

majority of causalities of ISIS are muslims. What was the reason for the unrest in Syria, do you think things would've gotten out of control in Syria without the dirty politics played by Israel & US. Who trained those extremists to man heavy weaponry, who provided arms to them?

My response: Yes. Realpolitik of the West is a given. No question, but Syrian dictatorships and their opposition are no paragons of virtue. Besides, this is not the only geographic area where the US has been involved and it is not as though people are not opposing US involvement in various theaters for self-serving reasons (the opposition coming substantially from US citizens and the press). The US has been involved in Australia and NZ  in the past for instance. Did you see anyone beheading anyone or committing genocide?


CD:

USA might have done all of this with noble intentions but their calculations and read of the situation was totally off, as a consequence we're as much responsible for current mess as Islam & Islamists are. As for your comment on Arabs being pluralistic people, are you saying that they are no Arab Christians?

My response: The problem is this: the mayhem in the middle east will continue with or without the US. I am in favor of the US not getting involved in every conflict there for this very reason. With regard to your presumable proof of Arab open-mindedness due to the presence of Arab Christians, you may want to check with them as to how they fare. You can start with the Copts in Egypt.   

last i checked the aussies and NZs are not sponsoring wahabbism.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

>>Oil and American realpolitik. No one has ever argued that the US (and by extension, the West) does not have ulterior motives. The point I am trying to address here is that with or without the US involvement, there is no stopping the middle east from going to pot, due to a cultural handicap in the area of self-questioning.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:last i checked the aussies and NZs are not sponsoring wahabbism.

>>>Precisely, because this 'black and white' myopic world-view is not in their cultural makeup. Ergo, it is not the US intervention that is driving the barbaric behavior in the ME, but rather the local culture.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

 US is at present still engaged in business with Russiadespite ukraine.    US does business with pakistan despite it playing both sides of the game.US and most world countries does business with each other because of mutual interdependence. Every grievance is not likely to lead to a permanent or temporary halt to trade.  US and saudi's talked to each other regularly and discuss their difference, they have not reached a point of break-off.  

The islamic terrorism problem is not a problem that can be solved in a meeting or by an agreement.  It takes many years, many agreements, and many social upheavals. Some of the changes are likely to be more momentous than the fall of communism. But most of changes will be silent and unseen and unnoticed.  It happens with many of these countries changing from within.

Secular mistake is to assume that the change was forced to make USA or west happy. No. the change is required, demanded and is likely to be won by those hard suppressed muslim masses. (similar to Egypt but with better end results.). The change in islamic world is not to please hindu fundamentalists but for the sake of women of that part of the world.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

What has hinduism's faults got to do with islam? 

Nothing.

truthbetold wrote:
If your defense is all religions are the same, I already answered it.  Go read it.

Okay I will take my statement about the influence of petrodollars on Hinduism back but you do see that RSS types have already ratcheted up their noise on Hindutva, Hindu etc., Imagine if they get financial support in addition to the power.

Last I checked Indian GDP is in trillions.  More than any gulf state.  RSS got all the money it can ever need. What do you think  rss can or will do with the money?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

OIL.

i know the answer. but it's a hypocritical answer. is the willingness of the US to give up cheap oil greater than the willingness of the terror regimes to forsake modernity and progress in favor of a lifestyle more fit for medieval times?

So you really think if Israel were not there and US had not supported, the muslims and all these terror groups would have behaved like Jain monks ? Thats what you seem to imply.

Face it... only the absolute blind will not see the widespread terrorism by a single religion and the link between their actions and their book. They have been involved in such barbaric acts either through criminals, terrorists or emperors and kings time immemorial. A few intellectuals might come across as all liberal and magnanimous and Gandhian in overlooking the universal behavior of these religionists - some through swords, some more through bombs, most others through peaceful means like love jihad. the bottomline is all these are geared towards one universal goal as dictated by koran. I have some ultra liberal muslim friends - a female even came to temple with me (yeah.. I stayed with in their house for 2 days). They were what we all will call non-religious pro-indian muslims. but...but when her son was dating a iyer girl, I asked her how it would work. She said.."oh..there should be no problem....her parents dont mind her converting"..I asked her why not let her be a hindu or let her son convert.., and her answer "but our religion does not allow that." When i pointed to her about her almost zero religiosity in her house, her answer was "that is different".

So you see... no matter what the means and methods are...the goal is the same. Christians harvest souls and so do muslims - in a dubious way.

Hey let them amend their koran and allow their women to convert and strike out the jihadi verses, and level the playing field...and everything will be fine in this world.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

>>Oil and American realpolitik. No one has ever argued that the US (and by extension, the West) does not have ulterior motives. The point I am trying to address here is that with or without the US involvement, there is no stopping the middle east from going to pot, due to a cultural handicap in the area of self-questioning.

the question i have though is why people like yourself who expend so much energy railing against a poisonous ideology (political islam), that you have no control over, spend so little of it demanding that the governments you vote for disengage themselves from supplying the oxygen. this is something well within your control. if having $3.50 /gal is so important, then i am afraid it's hard to take your pronouncements about islamic terrorism seriously.  when saddam was in control of things, there was no ISIS.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

>>Oil and American realpolitik. No one has ever argued that the US (and by extension, the West) does not have ulterior motives. The point I am trying to address here is that with or without the US involvement, there is no stopping the middle east from going to pot, due to a cultural handicap in the area of self-questioning.

the question i have though is why people like yourself who expend so much energy railing against a poisonous ideology (political islam), that you have no control over, spend so little of it demanding that the governments you vote for disengage themselves from supplying the oxygen. this is something well within your control. if having $3.50 /gal is so important, then i am afraid it's hard to take your pronouncements about islamic terrorism seriously.  when saddam was in control of things, there was no ISIS.

The problem with some is that they believe that the west is causing all the problems that islam is ailing with. Do you think once US stops all business transactions with the saudis and totally ignores the middle east, the islam ideology will vanish from the face of earth forever and there will be no islamic terrorism? Far from it! Get to the root of the problem, which is the ideology that is in the book and fanatical adherence to the book of the ones following it.

What makes you think the the ones railing against political islam haven't demanded that the US govt disengage themselves from the middle east? Why do you think Bush was voted out and Obama brought in, not once but twice? I am sure everyone here voted for Obama. At least i did it two times.

i have never said that the basic poisonous ideology is caused by the west's engagement with the middle east. so we can toss that aside since nobody has said that. but it is one of the major enablers.

in crude and blunt terms -- they've been killing themselves for many millennia, but it is certainly the US's engagement with them that has caused the spillover into american interests. my desire for disengaging is not very different from many hardcore libertarians, the GOP's on again off again friends.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i have never said that the basic poisonous ideology is caused by the west's engagement with the middle east. so we can toss that aside since nobody has said that. but it is one of the major enablers.

I never said you said that the basic poisonous ideology is caused by the west's engagement with the middle east. That poisonous ideology is in 'the book' and ppl's adherence to the book blindly is what is causing the problems. Ppl have to acknowledge that fact bravely. That is the cause for all the terrorism, not the west's engagement in the middle east, as some of you want to believe.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in crude and blunt terms -- they've been killing themselves for many millennia, but it is certainly the US's engagement with them that has caused the spillover into american interests. my desire for disengaging is not very different from many hardcore libertarians, the GOP's on again off again friends.

No one wants America to engage in the middle east rut. I don't want my tax money and the lives of our precious soldiers be wasted in the never ending problems of the middle east. Oil interests aside, america may be forced to engage itself as the poison doesn't stay within the middle east, but spreads and affects the whole world.

it's funny to read someone tut tuts at crassness of the west in wanting oil but would like to wash their hands off genocide that's killed millions of innocents. compassion of the liberals knows no bounds indeed. he would've said the same during ww2

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

What % are obscurantists?

Do you know?  Thought so.  You know very well such countries do not allow any sensible metrics being developed.  So we will never find out. So here is my answer. The obscurantists are large enough % that they do not allow any new ideas to develop. If some new flower blooms in some forgotten corner, it will be snuffed out as soon as it gets publicity. Obscuratism is definitely the leading philosophy of all ruling classes and mullahs and influential sections of most islamic societies. 

Are democracy and capitalism better than theocracy and obscurantism?.  It does not require a Nobel prize scientist to answer this question. The experiences of different countries around the globe show which system's are progressive. In any case,  the question is not that muslims have to embrace western style democracy such as british parlamentarian system or US presidential system. Question simply is that islamic countries have failed to provide representative govt for its people even in 21st century.  The fountainhead of islam religion is in middle east and that is where the people are in worst condition.

Norway , alaska have lot of petro dollars. But neither went nut religiously. Saudi and qatar and other petro dollars are used not only to buy off their own country people but fund radical islam idealogy across the globe. Christians in norway did not do that. Nor did material rich south american countries.  

FYI one in four ISIS recruits are supposedly from the west; so much for blaming islamic countries.

truthbetold wrote:
Cd,

Your comment about gulf petro dollars and hinduism is totally meaningless.  This comes from your illogical idea all religions are same. That is a dumb idea and quite unscientific.  while all religions have common flaws, not all religious cultures are the same. islam never developed a good mechanism for discussing and resolving issues of serious nature. Christianity struggled with inner conflicts. But over centuries,  it found ways to resolve conflicts through democratic means (debate, reasoning, democratic vote, negotiations and compromise).  Those traits helped western world succeed in establishing democracy and progress peacefully.  

Hinduism is full of conflicts but it also a tradition of discussion.  But they were not in power in the last 200 years till indian independence.  Since then they showed a collective ability to run a democracy.  

Religions are man made.  so some of them are more fallible than others.  Some of them are better or worse than others.  They are not all the same.  The current world proves islam is a retrogressive force and must change. 

Please feel free to throw more questions.  But start applying critical thinking beyond political correctness.

How do you think Hinduism was spread to far east, with pure love? no power or money involved?

the beauty of such responses are there is no right answer. mulla reddy must patent such beautiful logic

Propagandhi711 wrote:it's funny to read someone tut tuts at crassness of the west in wanting oil but would like to wash their hands off genocide that's killed millions of innocents. compassion of the liberals knows no bounds indeed. he would've said the same during ww2

what made the allied powers engage with hitler wasn't compassion for the jews but his territorial ambitions. he murdered and maimed millions before anyone took notice. is it possible for you to engage in any debate without resorting to your tired old liberals v conservative labels? not all the world's problems are neatly packaged into american political labels.

truthbetold wrote:
Last I checked Indian GDP is in trillions.  More than any gulf state.  RSS got all the money it can ever need. What do you think  rss can or will do with the money?

Bwahaha...yet another archival-worthy gem from the master of inanity.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD's basic point needs addressing if the folks on the other side care about not coming off as hypocrites and want to be viewed as clear eyed folks (I think kris in particular prides himself as belonging to this category). why does the west in general and the US in particular prop up, support and continue to do business with states like saudi arabia that sponsor and breed wahabbism? any further discussion on islamic terrorism will require a clear eyed acknowledgment of the american role in enabling it.

>>Oil and American realpolitik. No one has ever argued that the US (and by extension, the West) does not have ulterior motives. The point I am trying to address here is that with or without the US involvement, there is no stopping the middle east from going to pot, due to a cultural handicap in the area of self-questioning.

the question i have though is why people like yourself who expend so much energy railing against a poisonous ideology (political islam), that you have no control over, spend so little of it demanding that the governments you vote for disengage themselves from supplying the oxygen. this is something well within your control. if having $3.50 /gal is so important, then i am afraid it's hard to take your pronouncements about islamic terrorism seriously.  when saddam was in control of things, there was no ISIS.

>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

2) my opposition to Islamic terrorism is  purely on the basis of how it affects America or the west

- it is a more fundamental dislike than that; otherwise, I wouldn't be "railing" against Islamic doings in India or Bali or Algeria or Mughal atrocities when America did not exist. My interactions with CD here have to do with the whitewashing of Islamic history. My comments about the West in that context pertain to the naivete of the West in buying off on a narrative that rings very hollow or duplicitous outright.

Kris wrote:
>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

this is the essence of my problem with your line of argumentation. engagement with the saudis is written off as a runaway train and as "realpolitik" as you've been so cleverly dodging. if you cannot get a movement against this going or even have the willingness to join existing movements against this by appealing to administration after democratically elected administration in your country (note: sorry about that usage bw), what chance do you have cajoling practitioners of an ideology in which you have had no say, and whose leaders you did not elect, who live in faraway places, into changing their ways?

ideology is a nebulous beast. it's hard to stop and control especially when it is not of your doing. what can we as citizens of free countries do to cut off the oxygen that supplies the tools of this ideology?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>There are a couple of flaws in your premise:

1) that I support the dependence on Saudi oil--

in reality, this engagement is a runaway train which has taken a life of its own.

this is the essence of my problem with your line of argumentation. engagement with the saudis is written off as a runaway train and as "realpolitik" as you've been so cleverly dodging.  if you cannot get a movement against this going or even have the willingness to join existing movements against this by appealing to administration after democratically elected administration in your country (note: sorry about that usage bw), what chance do you have cajoling practitioners of an ideology in which you have had no say, and whose leaders you did not elect, who live in faraway places, into changing their ways?

>>>>My mission is not to change the Saudis think. I am not sure what I am dodging. American realpolitik is a reality, but it is not as though absent that, the Wahabis and other fundamentalist Islamic movements or Saudi Arabia will become enlightened. My responses to CD (and/or maybe you) is that the ideological problems of those cultures are independent of American involvement.