Peaceful my ARSE!

a key quote from the article:

Under that context, i can understand their opinions... If the US were under occupation, we would set of bombs to try to drive the occupiers away.

That was a very good try at polarizing people, though... you almost had me for a second

 

Well, there are some aspects you might like:

This is from the Wall Street Journal's free "Best of the Web" daily e-mail:

Best of the Web Today - May 22, 2007

By JAMES TARANTO

Management Secrets of the Prophet Muhammad
This is quite a story, from the Associated Press in Cairo:

"Al-Azhar University, one of Sunni Islam's most prestigious institutions, ordered one of its clerics Monday to face a disciplinary panel after he issued a controversial decree allowing adults to breast-feed.

Ezzat Attiya had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, saying adult men could breast-feed from female work colleagues as a way to avoid breaking Islamic rules that forbid men and women from being alone together.

In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers. It means the child could not marry the nursing woman's biological children.

Attiya--the head of Al-Azhar's Department of Hadith, or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad--insisted the same would apply with adults. He argued that if a man nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation."

Well, it's certainly a creative attempt to resolve a conundrum that must bedevil many a jihadi human-resources manager. One wonders if a similar approach could help shield American employers against sexual-harassment lawsuits. Nah, one realizes, probably not.

More on it here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...Update&only

 

That would be my question: If the USA were under occupation from a far, far wealthier nation, with technology that was a century ahead of our own, what would YOU be willing to do to defend your country?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 23 2007, 08:42 AM) [snapback]448102[/snapback]</div>

I love it! I should go ask my admin...

 

I'm hungry! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 23 2007, 06:41 AM) [snapback]448101[/snapback]</div>

According to Islamists, the U.S. is under the occupation of the infidels! Worship Islam or be subjugated, those are the two options.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ May 23 2007, 08:15 PM) [snapback]448639[/snapback]</div>

Don't you mean "worship Islam" or face death?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(loveit @ May 23 2007, 08:27 PM) [snapback]448719[/snapback]</div>

That is pretty much how Sam Harris summed it up in "The End of Faith". lol

I listened to about 45min worth of quotes directly our of the quran and it wasn't pretty.

 

I'm no fan of Muslim extremists, but I think this survey doesn't mean what the Fox News or Washington Post story said it did in the headlines. Quoting from farther down in the Fox News article:

Observe the multiple choice nature of the quiz, and the limits to how you can answer it:

1. Often justified
2. Sometimes justified
3. Rarely justified
4. Never justified

#4 is an all-inclusive, never justified option. I would rather everyone answer the question that way, but I can see how a Muslim might think that someone sacrificing their lives to defend the faith by blowing up a civilian could be justified in very rare cases. Remember that under their system, someone who insults the faith can be executed by legal means, so its not too far a jump to say that there is, maybe, a case where it might be justified. To say it is "never" justified will take more thought and study for them.

If the 30% of young people truly were extremists, they would have answered in the "Often justified" category; I suspect the average Muslim in the middle east probably would answer with #2 if the question was asked specifically about Palestinians and Israelis. So the fact that they answered with #3, rarely justified, probably means they cannot think of a current situation where it would be justified. That's not perfect, but its also not a dangerous view that means we have to start patching up the fences at Manzanar.

 

First, The poll is disturbing if you calculate just how many people each prcentage point.

Second; if 80% of U.S. Muslims are opposed to murder bombings, where are they?? Where's their voice?? Why don't I hear and see them on the network news decrying these actions??

I mean think about the question for a second... do you agreee that it is OK to murder innocent people in the name of islam? That's the real question, and people actually answered YES to this!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ May 24 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]449137[/snapback]</div>

Stop being sanctimonious. Many in this country (and around the world) believe without a twitch of conscience:

It is OK to murder innocent people in the name of fear.
It is OK to murder innocent people in the name of revenge for 9/11.
It is OK to murder innocent people in the name of regime change.
It is OK to murder innocent people in the name of resource procurement.
It is OK to murder innocent people in the name of sustaining a lifestyle.
It is OK to murder innocent people in the name of "democracy".
It is OK to murder innocent people in the name of patriotism.

Etc.

It is OK to murder innocent people. The only disagreements are under what "name" is it OK - and it is also OK to murder innocent people in the name of asserting that your "name" is righteous.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ May 24 2007, 11:53 AM) [snapback]449137[/snapback]</div>

Who would chime in to listen to someone say they're opposed to the bombings, when the next channel over is showing the aftermath of the bombing and some soldier pulling a little girl's mangled corpse from the wreckage? The media is interested only in the bottom line - the number of viewers they have compared to the competition. The truth takes a second seat to that.

 

No, Mark, you are incorrect.

People who advocate for the "names" you state do not believe that it is OK to murder innocent people to gain those ends. They may be a little to comfortable with innocents who do die in the pursuit of those names, but they do not actively advocate for the murder of the innocents to gain those ends.

The Muslims specifically advocate the deliverate targeting and murder of innocents as a means to spread their power and influence.

While you may see the line between consequential innocent death and deliberate murder as thin or fuzzy, it is not, and if you can't see that then you are already lost.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ May 24 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]449490[/snapback]</div>

That may be true, but you can't make that conclusion about American Muslims from the results of this study.

In this study, a minority of a minority picked the weakest and least objectionable of the "targeting civilians" choices. Everyone else picked that it is never acceptable.

Its hard to get anyone to say something is "never" acceptable.

I suspect those that hold out some slim chance that it might be acceptable to target civilians is about equal in size, proportionally, to the number of people who believe we should use nukes and decimate the population in Iraq, or "kill all the ragheads" as I've heard it expressed. We shouldn't target civilians, and in the cases where we did, we were wrong to do so. But I'll bet a large minority ... perhaps a majority ... would defend the firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden or the nuke dropped on the civilian city of Hiroshima.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ May 24 2007, 10:29 AM) [snapback]449163[/snapback]</div>

Remember, no one was murdered for breastfeeding!
Just think how peaceful the world will be, when everyone can take a "snuggle break" during the day!