[Snake Logan]

Well there we are then. Civs friend isnt westernized, so she must be an ``Islamo fascist`` I expect Civ to be exploded by her at any moment and will take steps to carry the entire (sane) side of the debate myself in light of his imminent immolation.

Did I say that? I guess you think all Muslims are Islamic Fascists and not just the ones with guns shouting for Jihad, I for one don’t think like that. Also, there are other people in the world that are not apart of the self loathing and shallow society known as the west or Islam, like 4 billion other people.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 24 January 2008 - 04:49 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Did I say that? I guess you think all Muslims are Islamic Fascists and not just the ones with guns shouting for Jihad, I for one don’t think like that. Also, there are other people in the world that are not apart of the self loathing and shallow society known as the west or Islam, like 4 billion other people.

Ok here it is so far:

Civ: And I still say I know Jews and Muslims and none of them are warmongers.

Snake: Because those Jews and Muslims you have talked to are westernized.

Civ: There's nowhere to go with your idea that my Jewish and Muslim friends have been "Westernized." Is "Western" the term you use to mean those things you don't take exception to, and "foreign" is everything else? One gal I was referring to grew up in Syria and has relatives she regularly visits in Saudi Arabia. She's well read and like movies, and she speaks English with some accent, but she doesn't eat hamburgers or worship Jesus (a Middle Eastern deity). Do you mean she's "Western" because she doesn't fit a stereotype you hold of the radical terrorist? Or do simply mean that moderation in religious ritual and worship is unique to the West? I'm confused, but my first guess is you should travel more.

Snake: No, westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend. If you are two or more of the things mentioned above then you are a westerner.

Civ: Now I'm sure you're joking. You say that the friend I was mentioning, if she isn't all "Allah Akbar" is Westernised. I ask you what that means and you say that she is Westernised if she is self-loathig and a petty follower of contemporary trends. Ok. She isn't. She is a very happy person with no apparent trendiness and no self-loathing. So I supose she isn't "Westernised." Now, can you explain to me how she is Muslim and she's not all crazy to kill the infidels? Because you're having a hard time selling that to me, and now you can't even justify it by saying she's "Westernised." What you're selling rather easily is that you are yourself a Christian and that you have bought the propaganda that wars in the Middle East are religious, not political, that there is an International Jewish Communist Muslim conspiracy of terror and that we need to get them before they get us.

Snake: Westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend.

She has to be a least two of the things above to be westernized. I made myself pretty clear before and I believe this is fairly accurate representation of western mentality.

So.... I say that I know Jews and Muslims and they are not warmongers, and Snake offers two options: either they are warmongers or they are Westernised. By his definition, "Westernised" is a pejorative, describing a "self-loathing, radically secularized capitalist [who] only is looking to be [a part] of the current trend." Well, the example I gave isn't that, and for the record neither am I. Nor am I nor my friend any two of the items on the list. And yet we're not warmongers. Could it be that one may be something other than either a Westernised person or a warmonger? While he immediately drew the conclusion, simply knowing that my friend was not a warmonger, that she must be "Westernized," he seems now to be allowing that there may be at least a third option. Reason demands this; let's see what Snake has to say. I'm certainly curious to know whether I, a Westerner, will be NOT Westenized (perhaps I am one of he peace-loving peoples of the East), or whether, while "avoiding personal attacks," he will simply insist that I must be shallow, a capitalist, or self-loathing or whatever. Or maybe I'm a warmonger! Anyone taking bets?


Now on to other old business, Canada, France, etc. Canada is as guilty as the US of wiping out aboriginal peoples. Recently in our history we have the scandal of the residential schools for natives, church-run houses of abuse and religious indoctrination. The French have Algeria, the source of a lot of the Islamic hatred of French Christians. Snake, what were the other examples you had of friendly Christian nations with no trouble on ther consciences in this century? I can't think of any either.

[civilian_number_two]

Jordan, Iran was an Islamic country before the Ayatollah, and it was a progressive place with a growing middle class. Islam is no more oppressive than Christianity; you're talking about bad governments, not religion. Fundamentalist Christians are just as obnoxious as Fundamentalist Muslims (this just in, Fred Phelps says Heath Ledger is already in hell). If you think that Muslims move to the West so they can take over the government and impose fundamentalism, you're going to have to show me an example of a country where that has happened. The closest attempt I've seen have been attempt to codify Sharia Law for their own communities in Western countries; these laws would not be applied to non-Muslims. Canada passed on it without any consideration. The majority of the Muslim people certainly didn't want it. It was raised by a minority of a minority, and it was easy enough to ignore.

JM obviously has a point about poverty and desperation creating terrorists; you just never hear about a really wealthy Charles Manson type living in a commune in Death Valley and planning to kill the rich (Osama bin Laden living in a cave and training terrorists in secret camps is a myth). But naturally we need to acknowledge the role of dictators in their own countries creating the conditions. For too long the West has supported the worst sorts of fascists out of commercial expedience. It's going to ake more than a few missiles an a short-term occupation to reverse that trend. Even with "Democratic" elections, who do we think the candidates would be? My guess is wealthy fascists who lean conveniently on the religious fanaticism of the brainwashed poor to keep their land unstable while they scoop up as much money as they can.

[Snake Logan]

So.... I say that I know Jews and Muslims and they are not warmongers, and Snake offers two options: either they are warmongers or they are Westernised.

Nor am I nor my friend any two of the items on the list. And yet we're not warmongers. Could it be that one may be something other than either a Westernised person or a warmonger?

You are either a westerner or a warmonger. It doesn’t matter were you are in the world, if you have been westernized then you are a self loathing, radically secular, shallow capitalist. Remember that this has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with society. I don’t believe Muslims are warmongers, those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey are probably westerners. But of course there is always a grey zone. There are a few warmongers that are self loathing, radically secular, shallow capitalists and there are people who are none of those things, although they are very much in the minority.

By his definition, "Westernised" is a pejorative, describing a "self-loathing, radically secularized capitalist [who] only is looking to be [a part] of the current trend." Well, the example I gave isn't that, and for the record neither am I.

Well I guess I will just have to take your word for it. After all, the best person to judge you in the third person is you.

Now on to other old business, Canada, France, etc. Canada is as guilty as the US of wiping out aboriginal peoples. Recently in our history we have the scandal of the residential schools for natives, church-run houses of abuse and religious indoctrination. The French have Algeria, the source of a lot of the Islamic hatred of French Christians. Snake, what were the other examples you had of friendly Christian nations with no trouble on ther consciences in this century? I can't think of any either.

Uh-huh. Lets all remember that Canada, France, Australia and America are not Christian theological states nor have they ever been to my recollection.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 24 January 2008 - 07:10 AM

[Spoon Poetic]

(Just for the record, an attack on someone's argument is not an attack on their person. I can say "Dude, your argument is full of holes and relies entirely on logical fallacies." I can't say "Your head is full of holes and you rely entirely on welfare." There's a difference.)

And Jordan, didn't I say you'd say "Christian's don't follow that part of the Bible?" I still want to know why Christians get to not follow a part of their holy book and that's all well and good, but you won't allow the same argument to apply to Muslims, who are also picking and choosing which parts of their holy book to follow. And yes, I know the bit about "Jesus came down etc. so the old law became the new law blah blah." (I'm not mocking, just tired of that sentence - I know it's actually biblical, don't worry.) But if you read the Koran, you'll see that there are places in there that also contradict the violent passages, talking about being tolerant and stuff, so maybe that's their "new law." I'm just saying it's not fair to have such a double standard regarding the following of the holy books of the two religions.

Most Satanists don't completely follow Anton LaVey's Satanist Bible, either... Just sayin'...

[Slade]

Smetimes those Satanists seem a lot like Libertarians that need some sort of more iconoclastic name for themselves.

Snaaaaaaaaaake?!: I don't have the time or the patience to pick through your very transparently flawed arguments and point out how you're not arguing well. However, JM and Civ have both brought them up well. And Spoon hit the nail on the head; you need to rethink your outlook on life if you consider my criticism of your argument as a personal attack. For a person who has claimed complete naievity of introspection in earlier posts, it's a little silly and more than a bit hypocritical. But since I'm here, I suppose I can point out that in your latest post, you are completely contradicting yourself. You claim that there are but two choices for a person's outlook on life, your own skewed and narrow view of what is "Western," and warmongering, then you say there is a grey area. You can't have only absolutes and then say there are grey areas. And then you continue to ignore or miss Civ's point that predominantly Christian attitudes have fueled racism, ethnocentrism, and genocide in the Americas and places that have been colonized by Western European peoples, and that it doesn't take a formally theocratic state in order for the conclusion that those practices were fueled by Christians. If you're actually serious about debating, and not just being deliberately contradicting, you're really just not being clear enough, or not understanding other people's arguments well enough to debate their argument.

[Casual]

Ha you just reminded me so much of metal gear solid. Snake! SNAKE! SNAAAAAAAAKE! YOUR VIEWS ARE MISGUIDED AND I TAKE ISSUE WITH THEM!

[J m HofMarN]

Also, there are other people in the world that are not apart of the self loathing and shallow society known as the west or Islam, like 4 billion other people.

But Civs friend is Islamic. Therefore by your own statement she does not fall under the ``other`` category. So she has to be either a self loathing yadda yadda or a die hard jyhadi trained in the mountains of Afghanerstan. Right?

I'm certainly curious to know whether I, a Westerner, will be NOT Westenized (perhaps I am one of he peace-loving peoples of the East), or whether, while "avoiding personal attacks," he will simply insist that I must be shallow, a capitalist, or self-loathing or whatever. Or maybe I'm a warmonger! Anyone taking bets?

Well Civ, Ive taken on the mantle of a self loathing war monger, but if were talking about you Id say you fall under the category of... Secularized capitalist of the current trend. Wait I should have used that one for myself.

audi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey are probably westerners.

Do Westerners generally attend public beheadings a lot? Cuz if so I must have missed the last match between the Washington Axemen and the Los Angeles Kneelers.

Uh-huh. Lets all remember that Canada, France, Australia and America are not Christian theological states nor have they ever been to my recollection.

Ask any of those countries what is the basis of their laws and they will tell you Christianity, except maybe France since they were radically secularist for a while during the revolution deal. And ask any person in the 1800s why their country has an empire overseas and I swear their answer would have been ``To spread Christianity``

But of course there is always a grey zone.

You either butter your bread on the top or the bottom. But of course there is always a grey zone.

although they are very much in the minority.

Ah here we have it. The majority of Islamic populations are either champions of western ideals or blood thirsty terrorists, but somewhere out there you finally admit that there may be a tiny minority of people who dont fit either sweeping generalization. And now to help your argument I will reveal the name of this minority. His name is Steve. He lives up the street from me. He likes blueberry pie. Hello Steve.

It doesn’t matter were you are in the world, if you have been westernized then you are a self loathing, radically secular, shallow capitalist.

So what about the communists? Steve is a communist Muslim. Indeed there are a good many of them, they were one of the groups Saddam crushed in Iraq that we didnt give him any flack for (instead we sent him chemical weapons and such) And communists by nature are not capitalists and I dont think Steve seems very self loathing.

[jeremy]

I don´t get this debate. It is not important that there are many friendly and godloving muslims in the world. These people are irrelevant to the question of how and why islam is spreading through violence and conflict in all their neighboring countries. And they are especially irrelevant because either they don´t have they balls to speak up, now (and then they won´t have it in a time of conflict) or they silently agree, with the inhumane conditions which rule the muslim world and the strict muslim communities.
Look at the other documentary from horstkrautwurst on stage6, the one about "undercover mosques"! these are mainstream, goverment supported interfaith dialogue mosques preaching that way, and nobody dropped a word on it to the media for years. Now if that is the thanks nice, friendly and godloving muslims give to the countries that received them out of mercy with their pitiful situation, then it seems to be a bit of a one way street. don´t it. I am with jordan on this one.


undercover mosque

[J m HofMarN]

Maybe some Muslims cant speak up because there are US made guns and cluster bombs aimed at their anal crevice? Just a thought. As for being with Jordan on this one, I must assume you mean to imply support for ending all Muslim immigration and integration. Brilliant idea. That wont radicalize the Muslims that are already here at all. Do you have a plan for them, then? Does it involve barbed wire and furnaces, perhaps?

[civilian_number_two]

Islam is spreading? I always wonder, when folks say that "if we didn't invade Iraq we'd all be speaking Farsi right now" how they think this is happening? I mean, what's the propaganda that the Muslim church is putting out? Do they have preachers out there trying to convert us? What do most people know about Islam? Do you think the average American can name the Five Pillars of Islam?

Snake, the US is not a theocratic state, but Christian groups have strong representation in government decisions and Jesus is all over the money and the founding documents. So your distinction is 100% semantic.

I'm not getting back into the whole Western/Warmonger dichotomy. It's idiotic and I still can't figure out what "radically secular" means. So far in my life all of the radicals I've met have been non-secular.

[J m HofMarN]

The only radical secularism Ive heard of was in France when the people revolted against church and monarchy control and for a while started to worship a goddess called Reason while killing catholic clergy, nobility, republicans, leftists, rightists, and just about anyone else. Maybe its different in Vancouver, but I havent seen any of that in the Western places Ive been to.

[jeremy]

As a european I have to say, that there are some people over here who does see a rational analysis behind US foreign policy, eventhough it is "tough love" all way round.
This has made me do away with many of the leftish assertions. First of all I believe the us administration has a list of preferred fucked-up regimes. and it goes as follows (descending from the hihest to the lesser of evils) 1 nazism 2 communism 3.theocracy 4. dictatorship 5. royal kingdom and so on.

This explains the many contradictions and intrigues since WW2.

Secondly I have to disagree with a certain tendency on the left. The tendency to "criticise what you know" and read about in the papers. If people seriously studies the history and crimes against humanity committed in the sovjet union, china, corea, vietnam, iran, iraq, afghanistan, indonesia etc. you will find them to be unbelievable in scope and might see some reason behind an activist military politic of us administrations. In a way it is like a child who "does not like what it sees" and then goes on to critisize it. However if you read the reports of 300.000 north coreans being deported, and try and shape an idea of a russian Gulag or iranian child being married away a 50 year old Imam, eventhough it is not given to you in moving pictures then you might see some reason in all the madness.

I am not saying that us policy isn´t problematic, but I find it appalling that the eager critiscisms of the left, does not have the stamina to study what is really going on in these countries before and after conflict with the US without having a highly speculative interest in "blaming everything on the US". (a political masochistic/supremascists complex).

This post has been edited by jeremy: 24 January 2008 - 05:52 PM

[jeremy]

and to be honest, I think that if the US had not invaded iraq, Iran would have the bomb by now. And this would NOT be in the interest of any peaceloving american. That is DANGEROUS!

[civilian_number_two]

Left-leaning self-loathing secularist liberalas aren't criticising the US for trying to prevent unstable regimes from "getting the bomb;" They are criticising government for putting business interests first, and using its armies to defend American money abroad. Civil rights violations are perpetrated by governments all over the world, but the US invaded countries that have natural resources in which we are invested. Your "hierarchy" of the types of governments the US supports is flawed. First off, "Nazism" isn't a type of government; that was the specific name of a political party. And the US supported governments of any kind, no matter how restrictive or unstable, so long as they didn't ally themselves with China or Russia. That goes for Corea too!