educated and open minded muslims

by Propagandhi711 Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:56 pm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/10/a-lot-of-pakistanis-hate-their-nobel-winner.html

by Propagandhi711 Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:58 pm

Dissing its Nobel laureates is a bit of a tradition in Pakistan, too. Before Malala, in 1979, Dr. Abdus Salam won the Nobel Prize for Physics. He, too, is a pariah in Pakistan, rarely acknowledged and never claimed as the “pride” of the nation. His crime? He was an Ahmadi, a minority Muslim sect that Pakistan has declared un-Islamic and against which it discriminates horribly. Like Malala he, too, was in exile when he won the prize.

The tendency to see plots and enemies behind every tree is a common trait of the English-speaking Pakistani middle class, which is overwhelmingly conservative, nationalistic, and suspicious of the West. Non-Muslims, foreigners, anyone embraced by the United States (such as Malala), and even minority religious sects in Pakistan are all seen as agents of foreign powers.

by Propagandhi711 Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:04 pm

I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up

by Kris Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:24 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up

>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.

by nevada Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:51 pm

Malala is a far more deserving candidate than Obama, who had not even completed a year in office when he got the prize out of the blue.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:21 am

Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.

How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

by Kris Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:19 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?

by southindian Sun Oct 12, 2014 6:18 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?

This is where I disagree with Malala.

Education helps in comparing right from wrong, but when doctors, engineers, lawyers, graduates among M-team faithfuls become fanatic without logical reasoning, education fails.

I'm sure CD is educated, but a perfect example that education does not help in reasoning when an educated person's mind gets clouded through religion.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:31 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?

How many of your muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers have been among them folks that you're alluding to?

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:35 pm

southindian wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?
This is where I disagree with Malala.

Education helps in comparing right from wrong, but when doctors, engineers, lawyers, graduates among M-team faithfuls become fanatic without logical reasoning, education fails.

I'm sure CD is educated, but a perfect example that education does not help in reasoning when an educated person's mind gets clouded through religion.

Has your education failed you? It looks like it else you wouldn't be supporting Modijisus blindly.

by southindian Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:17 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
southindian wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?
This is where I disagree with Malala.

Education helps in comparing right from wrong, but when doctors, engineers, lawyers, graduates among M-team faithfuls become fanatic without logical reasoning, education fails.

I'm sure CD is educated, but a perfect example that education does not help in reasoning when an educated person's mind gets clouded through religion.
Has your education failed you? It looks like it else you wouldn't be supporting Modijisus blindly.

I DO NOT support Modi.

I support Modi's actions, his statements as Prime Minister of India.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:21 pm

southindian wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
southindian wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?
This is where I disagree with Malala.

Education helps in comparing right from wrong, but when doctors, engineers, lawyers, graduates among M-team faithfuls become fanatic without logical reasoning, education fails.

I'm sure CD is educated, but a perfect example that education does not help in reasoning when an educated person's mind gets clouded through religion.
Has your education failed you? It looks like it else you wouldn't be supporting Modijisus blindly.
I DO NOT support Modi.

I support Modi's actions, his statements as Prime Minister of India.

You mean actions/allegations such as loveJihad, which you had openly supported.

by southindian Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:29 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
southindian wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
southindian wrote:
Kris wrote:

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?
This is where I disagree with Malala.

Education helps in comparing right from wrong, but when doctors, engineers, lawyers, graduates among M-team faithfuls become fanatic without logical reasoning, education fails.

I'm sure CD is educated, but a perfect example that education does not help in reasoning when an educated person's mind gets clouded through religion.
Has your education failed you? It looks like it else you wouldn't be supporting Modijisus blindly.
I DO NOT support Modi.

I support Modi's actions, his statements as Prime Minister of India.
You mean actions/allegations such as loveJihad, which you had openly supported.

Are you confused? Did Modi comment anything on loveJihad?

BTW, since my last post on love Jihad, I have talked to more friends, family members in India to discuss with daughters/girls, before they get involved with Muslim boys.

After marriage to a Muslim boy, the girl will be asked or forced to convert to Islam.

by Kris Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:16 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:I have a lot of muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers etc from all sorts of countries: arabic countries, north africa, pakistan, malaysia, iran among others. and I get along with most of them but if there's one thing common to them all, it's the paranoid mindset. they see foreign hand in everything and everyone..nothing is ever their fault, someone is out to get them. our own mulla reddy is also exhibiting this mindset on a daily basis. something abt that religion's fucked up
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?
How many of your muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers have been among them folks that you're alluding to?

>>>> You are not answering my question. You made an implicit moral equivalency in your previous post. My question to you was to elicit the basis for this equivalency; to wit, are there suicide bombers, hijackers, beheaders, etc. among the erudite SUCH'ers? And if so, are there other members of this erudite SUCH'er group who are deflecting the blame to someone else? Quite simply, this "equivalency" that you are positing is an example of what I am referring to. It is along the lines of 'others are doing it too*, so there!'

*Of course, there is no SUCH'er, erudite or otherwise, who has done any of this, unless you know something I don't.

P.S. I can assure you that even within the small sample of Muslims I have run into (majority with grad degrees and living in the US/UK), the idea that the mayhem in Islamic societies is purely due to external reasons and isalm is infallible is disproportionately high. The exceptions I mentioned in my original post were an Iranian friend who was an atheist and one an Algerian who thought his country was caught between the militarists and the islamists and felt that they may have been better off under France. The latter also held that Berber culture had been destroyed by the Arab/Islamic colonization. They stayed clear of the subject when there were other co-religionists around.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:29 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>> This has pretty much been my general experience too, with maybe a few exceptions.
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?
How many of your muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers have been among them folks that you're alluding to?

>>>> You are not answering my question. You made an implicit moral equivalency in your previous post. My question to you was to elicit the basis for this equivalency; to wit, are there suicide bombers, hijackers, beheaders, etc. among the erudite SUCH'ers? And if so, are there other members of this erudite SUCH'er group who are deflecting the blame to someone else? Quite simply, this "equivalency" that you are positing is an example of what I am referring to. It is along the lines of 'others are doing it too*, so there!'

*Of course, there is no SUCH'er, erudite or otherwise, who has done any of this, unless you know something I don't.

P.S. I can assure you that even within the small sample of Muslims I have run into (majority with grad degrees and living in the US/UK), the idea that the mayhem in Islamic societies is purely due to external reasons and isalm is infallible is disproportionately high. The exceptions I mentioned in my original post were an Iranian friend who was an atheist and one an Algerian who thought his country was caught between the militarists and the islamists and felt that they may have been better off under France. The latter also held that Berber culture had been destroyed by the Arab/Islamic colonization. They stayed clear of the subject when there were other co-religionists around.

I've pretty much answered your question but you're pretending that I didn't, and you've answered your own question too so I don't need to elaborate further. In any case, if it is still not clear, SuCHers have said many many a time that Ahmadabad riots were/are justified because someone is out to get them Hindus; and the support for loveJihad, supporting persecution of Christians fall directly into the line of thinking you're conveniently attributing to a particular community. An Indonesian or Iranian is as responsible as you & I are for flying planes into skyscrapers or beheadings or suicide bombings.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:48 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> You are not answering my question. You made an implicit moral equivalency in your previous post. My question to you was to elicit the basis for this equivalency; to wit, are there suicide bombers, hijackers, beheaders, etc. among the erudite SUCH'ers? And if so, are there other members of this erudite SUCH'er group who are deflecting the blame to someone else? Quite simply, this "equivalency" that you are positing is an example of what I am referring to. It is along the lines of 'others are doing it too*, so there!'

*Of course, there is no SUCH'er, erudite or otherwise, who has done any of this, unless you know something I don't.

P.S. I can assure you that even within the small sample of Muslims I have run into (majority with grad degrees and living in the US/UK), the idea that the mayhem in Islamic societies is purely due to external reasons and isalm is infallible is disproportionately high. The exceptions I mentioned in my original post were an Iranian friend who was an atheist and one an Algerian who thought his country was caught between the militarists and the islamists and felt that they may have been better off under France. The latter also held that Berber culture had been destroyed by the Arab/Islamic colonization. They stayed clear of the subject when there were other co-religionists around.
I've pretty much answered your question but you're pretending that I didn't, and you've answered your own question too so I don't need to elaborate further. In any case, if it is still not clear, SuCHers have said many many a time that Ahmadabad riots were/are justified because someone is out to get them Hindus; and the support for loveJihad, supporting persecution of Christians fall directly into the line of thinking you're conveniently attributing to a particular community. An Indonesian or Iranian is as responsible as you & I are for flying planes into skyscrapers or beheadings or suicide bombings.

I'm not sure what amounts to disproportionately high 1%, 10% or is it 50%? one can't help but wonder if this is due to the world's reaction in post 9/11 world. Many Sikhs immediate aftermath of khalistan and some still are prone to this kind of angst.

by Kris Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:05 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
How is this any different from Modiji's ardent supporters, especially the erudite souls on this board.

>>>>Could you please explain this very puzzling moral equivalency you are positing? Have these erudite souls in this online forum have among them folks who have been flying planes into skyscrapers, engaging in beheadings, suicide bombings, demanding separate laws, killing people for blasphemy etc, and insisting all this is due to someone else's fault?
How many of your muslim friends, acquaintances, coworkers have been among them folks that you're alluding to?

>>>> You are not answering my question. You made an implicit moral equivalency in your previous post. My question to you was to elicit the basis for this equivalency; to wit, are there suicide bombers, hijackers, beheaders, etc. among the erudite SUCH'ers? And if so, are there other members of this erudite SUCH'er group who are deflecting the blame to someone else? Quite simply, this "equivalency" that you are positing is an example of what I am referring to. It is along the lines of 'others are doing it too*, so there!'

*Of course, there is no SUCH'er, erudite or otherwise, who has done any of this, unless you know something I don't.

P.S. I can assure you that even within the small sample of Muslims I have run into (majority with grad degrees and living in the US/UK), the idea that the mayhem in Islamic societies is purely due to external reasons and isalm is infallible is disproportionately high. The exceptions I mentioned in my original post were an Iranian friend who was an atheist and one an Algerian who thought his country was caught between the militarists and the islamists and felt that they may have been better off under France. The latter also held that Berber culture had been destroyed by the Arab/Islamic colonization. They stayed clear of the subject when there were other co-religionists around.
I've pretty much answered your question but you're pretending that I didn't, and you've answered your own question too so I don't need to elaborate further. In any case, if it is still not clear, SuCHers have said many many a times that Ahmadabad riots were/are justified because someone is out to get them Hindus; and the support for loveJihad, supporting persecution of Christians fall directly into the line of thinking you're conveniently attributing to a particular community. An Indonesian or Iranian is as responsible as you & I are for flying planes into skyscrapers or beheadings or suicide bombings.

>>>> We seem to be going round and round. For sakes of this argument, let's assume "erudite" SUCH'ers and by extension many hindus are not really upstanding folk and really vindictive by nature. Now that is out of the way, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others do it too? Your point about Iranians/ Indonesians would have validity if it is simply a case of casting aspersions and establishing guilt by association. However, that doesn't hold water when the one being judged explicitly rationalizes it by placing the blame on someone else consistently. This is what Propa is referring to presumably and I have seen this syndrome as well. Ditto for societies. You don't have to look far. Observe Pakistan's pronouncements.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:30 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>> We seem to be going round and round. For sakes of this argument, let's assume "erudite" SUCH'ers and by extension many hindus are not really upstanding folk and really vindictive by nature. Now that is out of the way, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others do it too? Your point about Iranians/ Indonesians would have validity if it is simply a case of casting aspersions and establishing guilt by association. However, that doesn't hold water when the one being judged explicitly rationalizes it by placing the blame on someone else consistently. This is what Propa is referring to presumably and I have seen this syndrome as well. Ditto for societies. You don't have to look far. Observe Pakistan's pronouncements.

Why should an Indonesian condemn IS atrocities more than any other global citizen, how is he responsible for the heinous actions committed in Iraq/Syria? I asked you this question before, what percentage of your muslim friends, acquaintances, colleagues blame someone else, 90% of them or is it more than your fellow SuCHers that consistently blame others for RSS ideology.

The problem is you want that Indonesian to blindly parrot what you think is right i.e. Islam is the root cause for this, you don't like it when he says what IS preaching is not Islam (that he is aware of), you have no respect for his opinion (not you personally).

by Kris Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:52 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> We seem to be going round and round. For sakes of this argument, let's assume "erudite" SUCH'ers and by extension many hindus are not really upstanding folk and really vindictive by nature. Now that is out of the way, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others do it too? Your point about Iranians/ Indonesians would have validity if it is simply a case of casting aspersions and establishing guilt by association. However, that doesn't hold water when the one being judged explicitly rationalizes it by placing the blame on someone else consistently. This is what Propa is referring to presumably and I have seen this syndrome as well. Ditto for societies. You don't have to look far. Observe Pakistan's pronouncements.
Why should an Indonesian condemn IS atrocities more than any other global citizen, how is he responsible for the heinous actions committed in Iraq/Syria? I asked you this question before, what percentage of your muslim friends, acquaintances, colleagues blame someone else, 90% of them or is it more than your fellow SuCHers that consistently blame others for RSS ideology.

>>>Looks like you missed my point. If an Indonesian is insistent that IS or Taliban or al queda is justified because the root cause lies elsewhere (read "infidels"), you cannot expect others to not judge him. The % of my muslim friends or SUCH'ers won't hold up as a valid sample to represent anything due to the sample size being negligible. However, since you asked, those who held/hold their religion to be beyond doubt and perfect in that sample is close to 99%. Therefore, if the conflict is between their religion and an idea seen as not belonging to that religion, the default option is to take a pro-muslim standpoint. My sample size is small obviously. As I said before, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others (including SUCH'ers) do it too?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:53 pm

After reading this thread I am fast coming to a conclusion.

If there is ONE person who is in denial more than the Ummah iSlamis....it is Mian Daud.

He has never answered a single question honestly and straight forward. He think by doing a Morarji, he is outsmarting everyone.

He aint morarji - but more like a drinker of Camel Urine.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:14 pm

"Educated and open minded muslims" - hmm......

Dr. PBUH must be very upset with them for worshipping the devil and not following uncle Gabriel's command that infidels and kafirs should have pieceful lives.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:35 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
After reading this thread I am fast coming to a conclusion.

If there is ONE person who is in denial more than the Ummah iSlamis....it is Mian Daud.

He has never answered a single question honestly and straight forward. He think by doing a Morarji, he is outsmarting everyone.

He aint morarji - but more like a drinker of Camel Urine.

It means you don't have much to counter my argument

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:42 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> We seem to be going round and round. For sakes of this argument, let's assume "erudite" SUCH'ers and by extension many hindus are not really upstanding folk and really vindictive by nature. Now that is out of the way, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others do it too? Your point about Iranians/ Indonesians would have validity if it is simply a case of casting aspersions and establishing guilt by association. However, that doesn't hold water when the one being judged explicitly rationalizes it by placing the blame on someone else consistently. This is what Propa is referring to presumably and I have seen this syndrome as well. Ditto for societies. You don't have to look far. Observe Pakistan's pronouncements.
Why should an Indonesian condemn IS atrocities more than any other global citizen, how is he responsible for the heinous actions committed in Iraq/Syria? I asked you this question before, what percentage of your muslim friends, acquaintances, colleagues blame someone else, 90% of them or is it more than your fellow SuCHers that consistently blame others for RSS ideology.
>>>Looks like you missed my point. If an Indonesian is insistent that IS or Taliban or al queda is justified because the root cause lies elsewhere (read "infidels"), you cannot expect others to not judge him. The % of my muslim friends or SUCH'ers won't hold up as a valid sample to represent anything due to the sample size being negligible. However, since you asked, those who held/hold their religion to be beyond doubt and perfect in that sample is close to 99%. Therefore, if the conflict is between their religion and an idea seen as not belonging to that religion, the default option is to take a pro-muslim standpoint. My sample size is small obviously. As I said before, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others (including SUCH'ers) do it too?

When they say it is not true Islam they are condemning them and their practices, don't they? What do you want them to do, take up arms and fight IS or renounce their religion.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:44 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
When they say it is not true Islam they are condemning them and their practices, don't they? What do you want them to do, take up arms and fight IS or renounce their religion.

YES...that will be a good.... very good start for their own good.

by confuzzled dude Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:49 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
When they say it is not true Islam they are condemning them and their practices, don't they? What do you want them to do, take up arms and fight IS or renounce their religion.

YES...that will be a good.... very good start for their own good.

Let me refresh the memory of his highness, only Muslims are fighting the IS on the ground in both Iraq and Syria but that doesn't sit with a particular narrative of you guys so we choose to ignore that fact.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:18 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
When they say it is not true Islam they are condemning them and their practices, don't they? What do you want them to do, take up arms and fight IS or renounce their religion.

YES...that will be a good.... very good start for their own good.
Let me refresh the memory of his highness, only Muslims are fighting the IS on the ground in both Iraq and Syria but that doesn't sit with a particular narrative of you guys so we choose to ignore that fact.

And those who are supporting ISIS are non-muslims?

by Kris Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:07 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> We seem to be going round and round. For sakes of this argument, let's assume "erudite" SUCH'ers and by extension many hindus are not really upstanding folk and really vindictive by nature. Now that is out of the way, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others do it too? Your point about Iranians/ Indonesians would have validity if it is simply a case of casting aspersions and establishing guilt by association. However, that doesn't hold water when the one being judged explicitly rationalizes it by placing the blame on someone else consistently. This is what Propa is referring to presumably and I have seen this syndrome as well. Ditto for societies. You don't have to look far. Observe Pakistan's pronouncements.
Why should an Indonesian condemn IS atrocities more than any other global citizen, how is he responsible for the heinous actions committed in Iraq/Syria? I asked you this question before, what percentage of your muslim friends, acquaintances, colleagues blame someone else, 90% of them or is it more than your fellow SuCHers that consistently blame others for RSS ideology.
>>>Looks like you missed my point. If an Indonesian is insistent that IS or Taliban or al queda is justified because the root cause lies elsewhere (read "infidels"), you cannot expect others to not judge him. The % of my muslim friends or SUCH'ers won't hold up as a valid sample to represent anything due to the sample size being negligible. However, since you asked, those who held/hold their religion to be beyond doubt and perfect in that sample is close to 99%. Therefore, if the conflict is between their religion and an idea seen as not belonging to that religion, the default option is to take a pro-muslim standpoint. My sample size is small obviously. As I said before, is your point that when Islamic atrocities happen, they are roundly condemned by muslims to an appreciable degree? Or, when such condemnation does not take place, that is fine, since others (including SUCH'ers) do it too?
When they say it is not true Islam they are condemning them and their practices, don't they? What do you want them to do, take up arms and fight IS or renounce their religion.

>>>> This is lame and is getting old. It is a clever ploy to put distance between the religion and the terrorists. The problem is that the terrorists are quoting chapter and verse from scripture. If there is going to be reform, it is not going to come from insisting that it has nothing to do with the religion. I don't care of someone changes his religion. I do want countries to not harbor terrorists. Again, you need to look further than Pakistan on this count.

by confuzzled dude Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:00 am

Kris wrote:
>>>> This is lame and is getting old. It is a clever ploy to put distance between the religion and the terrorists. The problem is that the terrorists are quoting chapter and verse from scripture. If there is going to be reform, it is not going to come from insisting that it has nothing to do with the religion. I don't care of someone changes his religion. I do want countries to not harbor terrorists. Again, you need to look further than Pakistan on this count.

I'm not really sure what your point is, on one hand you suggest that your sample size (of muslim acquaintance) is too small to come to any conclusions OTOH you're holding an ordinary muslim in a faraway country responsible for saying things like that is not the Islam I'm aware of, and want him to take it upon himself & go on a mission to fix Islam. If the US balks at going after its allies like Saudi, Pakistan and other countries despite knowing that they harbor/fund terrorists, it is because of realpolitik but when an educated muslim blames the US for its double standards he is being paranoid, sees foreign hand in everything and nothing is ever his ilk's fault. so what is it?

I would say if the US wants to talk the talk (not sell arms) go after Saudi and other countries that are financial arms of these terrorist outfits, bomb the heck out of their oil wells, dry-up their financial resources so they won't be in a position to fund or foster such ideologies. I'm willing to accept the risk that comes with it, will pay $25 dollars per gallon of gasoline and will stand in the lines at gas stations, and suck up to all other inconveniences & expenses that I incur, if that resolves this menace once for all.

by Kris Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:18 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> This is lame and is getting old. It is a clever ploy to put distance between the religion and the terrorists. The problem is that the terrorists are quoting chapter and verse from scripture. If there is going to be reform, it is not going to come from insisting that it has nothing to do with the religion. I don't care of someone changes his religion. I do want countries to not harbor terrorists. Again, you need to look further than Pakistan on this count.
I'm not really sure what your point is, on one hand you suggest that your sample size (of muslim acquaintance) is too small to come to any conclusions OTOH you're holding an ordinary muslim in a faraway country responsible for saying things like that is not the Islam I'm aware of, and want him to take it upon himself & go on a mission to fix Islam. If the US balks at going after its allies like Saudi, Pakistan and other countries despite knowing that they harbor/fund terrorists, it is because of realpolitik but when an educated muslim blames the US for its double standards he is being paranoid, sees foreign hand in everything and nothing is ever his ilk's fault. so what is it?

I would say if the US wants to talk the talk (not sell arms) go after Saudi and other countries that are financial arms of these terrorist outfits, bomb the heck out of their oil wells, dry-up their financial resources so they won't be in a position to fund or foster such ideologies. I'm willing to accept the risk that comes with it, will pay $25 dollars per gallon of gasoline and will stand in the lines at gas stations, and suck up to all other inconveniences & expenses that I incur, if that resolves this menace once for all.

I'm not really sure what your point is,

>>>>As I have repeated ad nauseam, it is simply that the problems emanating from the Islamic world are being ascribed conveniently to 'others'. There is no introspection because the religion is seen as perfect including tis views of intolerance. If there is an honest accounting for this, the world would be more amenable to engage and acknowledge the whatever extent others are at fault as well. After all, no one is perfect.

on one hand you suggest that your sample size (of muslim acquaintance) is too small to come to any conclusions

>>>Weren't you the one that was insistent that I answer this question and also brought up "erudite SUCH'ers" etc.? I was simply making the obvious point that this was a small sample size.

OTOH you're holding an ordinary muslim in a faraway country responsible for saying things like that is not the Islam I'm aware of, and want him to take it upon himself & go on a mission to fix Islam.

>>>>Again, the issue comes up if the muslim in the faraway country comes on the media and insists that the problems are due to others or those countries themselves insist the same. Why should they not be held responsible?

If the US balks at going after its allies like Saudi, Pakistan and other countries despite knowing that they harbor/fund terrorists, it is because of realpolitik but when an educated muslim blames the US for its double standards he is being paranoid, sees foreign hand in everything and nothing is ever his ilk's fault. so what is it?

>>>>American realpolitik is not a secret .It is freely talked about in the media and questioned by several people including taxpayers. The day of paying $25 a gallon is likely not going to come anytime soon. You can blame politics and economics for that, although I would blame myopia in energy policies more (and foreign relations) for that. Assuming this is all magically corrected, Islamic societies are not going to become innately tolerant.

by truthbetold Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:21 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>> This is lame and is getting old. It is a clever ploy to put distance between the religion and the terrorists. The problem is that the terrorists are quoting chapter and verse from scripture. If there is going to be reform, it is not going to come from insisting that it has nothing to do with the religion. I don't care of someone changes his religion. I do want countries to not harbor terrorists. Again, you need to look further than Pakistan on this count.
I'm not really sure what your point is, on one hand you suggest that your sample size (of muslim acquaintance) is too small to come to any conclusions OTOH you're holding an ordinary muslim in a faraway country responsible for saying things like that is not the Islam I'm aware of, and want him to take it upon himself & go on a mission to fix Islam. If the US balks at going after its allies like Saudi, Pakistan and other countries despite knowing that they harbor/fund terrorists, it is because of realpolitik but when an educated muslim blames the US for its double standards he is being paranoid, sees foreign hand in everything and nothing is ever his ilk's fault. so what is it?

I would say if the US wants to talk the talk (not sell arms) go after Saudi and other countries that are financial arms of these terrorist outfits, bomb the heck out of their oil wells, dry-up their financial resources so they won't be in a position to fund or foster such ideologies. I'm willing to accept the risk that comes with it, will pay $25 dollars per gallon of gasoline and will stand in the lines at gas stations, and suck up to all other inconveniences & expenses that I incur, if that resolves this menace once for all.

CD

My two cents. Koran (Quran) is a book. Islam is just an organization. What makes it real are people. Few people in this box terrorize people inside the box and create incidents outside the box area. These terrorist incidents cause severe loss of life (ex: sep 2001, and Nov 2008) and a sense of insecurity in otherwise set patterns of life of other (western/Indian) societies. Those outside the box area have to significantly change their behavior and make huge time and money investments to protect themselves. The people outside the box are interested in few such as protection of their people, property and return to their normal life style.

The responsibility to protect and improve the lives of those inside the box lies with those vast masses of so called normal Muslims.
They have to find a way to silence the extremists. Vanquish them. But they find the ruling classes and the masses (as clearly demonstrated in the cases of ISIS) inside the Islamic box are reluctant, silent, selfish, and uncommitted. In some cases supportive of these extreme elements. The intellectuals , instead of vigorously fighting against extremists, find excuses for extremist behavior and focus on the mistakes of those who fight extremists.

For a common person outside the box, it appears that the whole box area is dangerous and people inside are anti infidels. It is the responsibility of moderate Muslims and intellectuals to unite and raise their voice to be an effective force to crush the extremists. No body cares for perfunctory condemnations after the fact. When Muslim society silences extremists, Islam will regain its normal place.

by confuzzled dude Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:38 am

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
I'm not really sure what your point is,

>>>>As I have repeated ad nauseam, it is simply that the problems emanating from the Islamic world are being ascribed conveniently to 'others'. There is no introspection because the religion is seen as perfect including tis views of intolerance. If there is an honest accounting for this, the world would be more amenable to engage and acknowledge the whatever extent others are at fault as well. After all, no one is perfect.

Who are they ascribing IS fiasco to? If anything republicans are ascribing it to Obama.

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
on one hand you suggest that your sample size (of muslim acquaintance) is too small to come to any conclusions
>>>Weren't you the one that was insistent that I answer this question and also brought up "erudite SUCH'ers" etc.? I was simply making the obvious point that this was a small sample size.

We're going in circles here, your comment came first, not the other way around. I've applied the very logic of yours on erudite SuCHers.

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
OTOH you're holding an ordinary muslim in a faraway country responsible for saying things like that is not the Islam I'm aware of, and want him to take it upon himself & go on a mission to fix Islam.
>>>>Again, the issue comes up if the muslim in the faraway country comes on the media and insists that the problems are due to others or those countries themselves insist the same. Why should they not be held responsible?

Because he was asked to comment on it. I don't think an Indian or Indonesian citizen goes to press voluntarily to make such statements let alone insisting.

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
If the US balks at going after its allies like Saudi, Pakistan and other countries despite knowing that they harbor/fund terrorists, it is because of realpolitik but when an educated muslim blames the US for its double standards he is being paranoid, sees foreign hand in everything and nothing is ever his ilk's fault. so what is it?
>>>>American realpolitik is not a secret .It is freely talked about in the media and questioned by several people including taxpayers. The day of paying $25 a gallon is likely not going to come anytime soon. You can blame politics and economics for that, although I would blame myopia in energy policies more (and foreign relations) for that. Assuming this is all magically corrected, Islamic societies are not going to become innately tolerant.

Because, dollar is valued nothing if not for oil trade and the US economy will be crippled in no time without it, so it is in the U.S.'s interests to turn a blind eye and protect their allies; to do that they will have to come up with weird theories & logic that Islam is the root cause not the sub-sects of it (who are mainly their buddies).

by Kris Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:55 am

; to do that they will have to come up with weird theories & logic that Islam is the root cause not the sub-sects of it (who are mainly their buddies).

>>>I will leave you with this thought. The US/Israel did not exist during Ghazni's times or Mughal times and have no connection to the five (I think) examples I gave you in a previous thread about Islam-driven conflicts in various parts of the world. I will let you work out the root cause aspect of that.

by confuzzled dude Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:58 am

truthbetold wrote:
CD

My two cents. Koran (Quran) is a book. Islam is just an organization. What makes it real are people. Few people in this box terrorize people inside the box and create incidents outside the box area. These terrorist incidents cause severe loss of life (ex: sep 2001, and Nov 2008) and a sense of insecurity in otherwise set patterns of life of other (western/Indian) societies. Those outside the box area have to significantly change their behavior and make huge time and money investments to protect themselves. The people outside the box are interested in few such as protection of their people, property and return to their normal life style.

The responsibility to protect and improve the lives of those inside the box lies with those vast masses of so called normal Muslims.
They have to find a way to silence the extremists. Vanquish them. But they find the ruling classes and the masses (as clearly demonstrated in the cases of ISIS) inside the Islamic box are reluctant, silent, selfish, and uncommitted. In some cases supportive of these extreme elements. The intellectuals , instead of vigorously fighting against extremists, find excuses for extremist behavior and focus on the mistakes of those who fight extremists.

For a common person outside the box, it appears that the whole box area is dangerous and people inside are anti infidels. It is the responsibility of moderate Muslims and intellectuals to unite and raise their voice to be an effective force to crush the extremists. No body cares for perfunctory condemnations after the fact. When Muslim society silences extremists, Islam will regain its normal place.

Can you tell us how can those individuals (like you and me) or poor states can successfully accomplish that objective when in fact extreme ideologies are fostered & funded by petrodollars from oil rich states that have unconditional support of superpower.

by truthbetold Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:41 am

CD

First thing: US is neither the cause nor the solution for Islamic problems. US will protect its interests. Muslims should take responsibility for their countries and for their societies.

Second: Islam needs to find a way to discuss its problems without killing dissent. They may mean a few sacrifices from intellectuals. They have to teach Muslims that Islam is fallible. Of course not in those words. Only someone who wears the mullah garbs and spread the change as Islam's message. A Muslim Gorbachev. Success in one or two countries may inspire the rest.

Third: Women's education

You can add your own ideas.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:48 pm

Out of 57 OIC countries how many are democratic.(that is bcz all other forms deny minorities any rights).

With such an attitude towards democracy, suppression, subjugation and subversion - which are embedded in iSlam - are the defining factors in their rule.

There is no hope the iSlamis will EVER change.

by truthbetold Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:38 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Out of 57 OIC countries how many are democratic.(that is bcz all other forms deny minorities any rights).

With such an attitude towards democracy, suppression, subjugation and subversion - which are embedded in iSlam - are the defining factors in their rule.

There is no hope the iSlamis will EVER change.

Uppili

That is what I heard about communist nations. look where are they now and look where communism is.

Those ideas, isms, religions and dictators who do not change with people and times will face the same fate.

by confuzzled dude Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:56 pm

truthbetold wrote:CD

First thing: US is neither the cause nor the solution for Islamic problems. US will protect its interests. Muslims should take responsibility for their countries and for their societies.

Second: Islam needs to find a way to discuss its problems without killing dissent. They may mean a few sacrifices from intellectuals. They have to teach Muslims that Islam is fallible. Of course not in those words. Only someone who wears the mullah garbs and spread the change as Islam's message. A Muslim Gorbachev. Success in one or two countries may inspire the rest.

Third: Women's education

You can add your own ideas.

US may not be the cause or solution of Islamic problems but certainly is a catalyst adding fuel to their woes by sidetracking the issue to further its own agenda. You're talking about Muslim nations taking responsibility for their actions but does the US do it? for example, US MainStream Media goes at Islam with hammer & tongs, fosters hatred with all their relentless drivel but not a peep when it comes its own countries foreign policies, do you see any protests in the US or the MSM asking the US government to change their policies against Saudi, from where most of those guys that have flown planes into skyscrapers hailed from.

by truthbetold Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:36 pm

CD

Your link between problems of islam and US are as justifiable as flimflam's slimy logic of link between open defecation and Hinduism.

Us is a capitalistic country and looks after its own interests. On occasion there may be a conflict of interest between nations. But those situations are not the primary drivers of progress or lack of it. China found a way to sell its services to west and US despite a more bitter ideological difference with US. No one else in the world is going to stop and say, we will stop taking advantage of you.

each country has to organize itself and its people to contribute to the world and get its fair share. blame usa technique did not create wealth for any country. Smart countries find ways to work with or without USA.

The current problems in Syria, Egypt, Libya , Algeria etc are all home grown and have limited or no US role. They are all a result of brutal regimes and a poor democratic culture. The arab spring took US also by surprise. Muslim world needs more of arab spring like events changing regimes and minds.

by confuzzled dude Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:46 pm

truthbetold wrote:CD

Your link between problems of islam and US are as justifiable as flimflam's slimy logic of link between open defecation and Hinduism.

Us is a capitalistic country and looks after its own interests. On occasion there may be a conflict of interest between nations. But those situations are not the primary drivers of progress or lack of it. China found a way to sell its services to west and US despite a more bitter ideological difference with US. No one else in the world is going to stop and say, we will stop taking advantage of you.

each country has to organize itself and its people to contribute to the world and get its fair share. blame usa technique did not create wealth for any country. Smart countries find ways to work with or without USA.

The current problems in Syria, Egypt, Libya , Algeria etc are all home grown and have limited or no US role. They are all a result of brutal regimes and a poor democratic culture. The arab spring took US also by surprise. Muslim world needs more of arab spring like events changing regimes and minds.

But the country that always almost cries first about it is the US, they're going to get us if we don't keep them away.

by confuzzled dude Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:56 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Out of 57 OIC countries how many are democratic.(that is bcz all other forms deny minorities any rights).

With such an attitude towards democracy, suppression, subjugation and subversion - which are embedded in iSlam - are the defining factors in their rule.

There is no hope the iSlamis will EVER change.

What are you blabbering about? India ranks lower than Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi and other muslim countries when it comes to gender inequality index.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-4-gender-inequality-index

by truthbetold Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:35 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Out of 57 OIC countries how many are democratic.(that is bcz all other forms deny minorities any rights).

With such an attitude towards democracy, suppression, subjugation and subversion - which are embedded in iSlam - are the defining factors in their rule.

There is no hope the iSlamis will EVER change.
What are you blabbering about? India ranks lower than Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi and other muslim countries when it comes to gender inequality index.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-4-gender-inequality-index

CD

That speaks more about the gender inequality index than who is above and who is below. Obviously that index is confounding the problems of poverty with gender inequality.

by truthbetold Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:01 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:CD

Your link between problems of islam and US are as justifiable as flimflam's slimy logic of link between open defecation and Hinduism.

Us is a capitalistic country and looks after its own interests. On occasion there may be a conflict of interest between nations. But those situations are not the primary drivers of progress or lack of it. China found a way to sell its services to west and US despite a more bitter ideological difference with US. No one else in the world is going to stop and say, we will stop taking advantage of you.

each country has to organize itself and its people to contribute to the world and get its fair share. blame usa technique did not create wealth for any country. Smart countries find ways to work with or without USA.

The current problems in Syria, Egypt, Libya , Algeria etc are all home grown and have limited or no US role. They are all a result of brutal regimes and a poor democratic culture. The arab spring took US also by surprise. Muslim world needs more of arab spring like events changing regimes and minds.
But the country that always almost cries first about it is the US, they're going to get us if we don't keep them away.

what is US crying about? second part is even more incoherent. Put some proper nouns to help us.

by confuzzled dude Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:47 pm

Many people in the west often ask why Muslims don’t take a stronger stand against terrorism in general and ISIS in particular, especially given the fact that the main victims of ISIS atrocities are non-westerners living in the Middle East, many of whom are Muslim. The U.N. reported that in the first eight months of 2014, at least 9,347 civilians were slaughtered in Iraq, mostly by ISIS. While many of the victims were Yazidis, Christians, and other minority groups, the UN in a recent report documented many instances of Muslims also being slaughtered.

According to a report in The Daily Beast, ISIS slaughtered three Sunni Muslim women for refusing to provide medical care to members of ISIS; a Sunni imam was murdered for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS; a Muslim was abducted and beheaded for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS; a Muslim female doctor was murdered for organizing a protest against the ISIS law that Muslim female doctors must wear face veils; Sunni mosques have been blown up because their Imams refuse to support ISIS; and the list goes on. So many in the West ponder, why don’t more Muslims do more to speak out against these atrocities?

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2014/10/10/moderate-muslims-speak-out-against-terrorism/

by truthbetold Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:33 am

Cd
You throw some excerpt that you feel expresses your view point. You do not provide any detail. If challenged you find an escape route.

Tell us what your opinion is along with your links.

by confuzzled dude Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:38 am

truthbetold wrote:Cd
You throw some excerpt that you feel expresses your view point. You do not provide any detail. If challenged you find an escape route.

Tell us what your opinion is along with your links.

Challenged! Don't flatter yourself much, you haven't had any rebuttal to my points in this thread other than you usual mumbo jumbo

by confuzzled dude Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:59 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Cd
You throw some excerpt that you feel expresses your view point. You do not provide any detail. If challenged you find an escape route.

Tell us what your opinion is along with your links.
Challenged! Don't flatter yourself much, you haven't had any rebuttal to my points in this thread other than you usual mumbo jumbo

Btw, if erudite SuCHers were faced with similar situation as some of those Sunnis in Iraq did they would have shit in their pants and joined IS quietly

by truthbetold Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:24 am

Cd
Challenged by what?

You present islamist violence against other Muslims.topic is educated and open minded Muslims. So what is holding you back to come out and tell us your conclusions.

Then you accuse suchers as cowards in a non existent situation.

Tell us who is having problems? Identify who is being a gutless wonder?

by confuzzled dude Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:19 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Challenged by what?

You present islamist violence against other Muslims.topic is educated and open minded Muslims. So what is holding you back to come out and tell us your conclusions.

Then you accuse suchers as cowards in a non existent situation.

Tell us who is having problems? Identify who is being a gutless wonder?

I did not challenge anyone it was you that said I look for escape route when challenged.

I have made my point already but I'm going to reiterate one last time. Do you erudite SuCHers realize that you're criticizing an individual for not doing something you expect him to do just because he belongs to a certain community. And you guys are being critical of his opinion, who is as much responsible as you are for the recent events, labeling him as being intellectually dishonest for saying his viewpoint as though you guys are scholars or have some sort of authority over his religion/religious texts. All this while you are relaxing in a comfortable lazboy recliner in your urban mansion, sipping fine wine, enjoying luxuries of civilization, chatting with online friends about pros and cons of installing solar panels.

And you are coming up with inane excuses when someone points out that the root cause of this menace is certain oil rich states' proclivity for sponsoring & spreading extreme ideologies. Real WMDs are salafi/Wahhabi schools of thought. Instead of whining, blaming & asking others to solve problems for you, why don't you as a global citizen assume responsibility and start protests that force your country to cut ties & impose sanctions on those rogue states so they become impotent and subsequently incapable of fostering extremist ideologies.

by truthbetold Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:03 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Cd
You throw some excerpt that you feel expresses your view point. You do not provide any detail. If challenged you find an escape route.

Tell us what your opinion is along with your links.
Challenged! Don't flatter yourself much, you haven't had any rebuttal to my points in this thread other than you usual mumbo jumbo
Btw, if erudite SuCHers were faced with similar situation as some of those Sunnis in Iraq did they would have shit in their pants and joined IS quietly

Read what you said above. When I asked "challenged by what?", your response was "I did not challenge anyone.....".

You need to maintain clarity on what you are talking about. Jumping and switching logic does not help much.

by truthbetold Tue Oct 14, 2014 5:17 pm

CD

Your mythical moderate muslim is the main character in our discussions.

You are saying the extremist is threatening these moderates. Scared moderates are too afraid to speak and act.

Saudi or qatar extremist billionaires are funding these extremists.

On the factual side we may have agreement.

Your solution is US has to disown saudis and attack muslim govts financially.

You have not uttered a single sentence about the role of moderate muslim intellectuals, muslim govts such as saudi, qatar etc. What is their role?

IF US has to do something, what is legal frame work for that? What is supporting logic?

by Sponsored content