The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

And I find it sad (and quite inexcusable, frankly) that you equate political processes and words with the daily bombings in Isreal.

Deranged "few"? Just how small do you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Qaida and Al Aqsa Matryrs Brigade and (insert the other numerous Islamic terror organizations here) are?

Edited to add: I just want to reinforce that I have not said that all Islamic people are radical Islamists who support bombing and/or terrorism.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

And I find it sad (and quite inexcusable, frankly) that you equate political processes and words with the daily bombings in Isreal.

I'd respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Deranged "few"? Just how small do you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Qaida and Al Aqsa Matryrs Brigade and (insert the other numerous Islamic terror organizations here) are?

Edited to add: I just want to reinforce that I have not said that all Islamic people are radical Islamists who support bombing and/or terrorism.

The extremists may have large numbers, but they are in the minority. I suspect that the majority of Muslims privately do not condone the bombings, but remain silent publicly out of misguided loyalty to their religion (or fear of being labled heritics) - much like Christians here at home.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I'd respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

It's quite simple, really. I am expressing disgust with the violence performed by Islamic radicals. You said:

And before some says “But mainstream Islam is evil because it does not condemn the fanatics!”, stop and think about the resounding silence of mainstream Christianity in this country when it comes to fanatical Christians

The "fanatical Christians" as you put it, by and large, aren't out killing people they disagree. Radical Islamists are. Daily. And they want more of it. You are making a comparison between non-violent Christian "radicals" and ultra-violent Islamic terrorists by saying that equal comdemnation should exist of words and of killing people.

Edited to add:
Another quote:

The extremists may have large numbers, but they are in the minority. I suspect that the majority of Muslims privately do not condone the bombings, but remain silent publicly out of misguided loyalty to their religion (or fear of being labled heritics) - much like Christians here at home.

I would agree with that sentiment, but again you have compared a lack of vigorous opposition to spoken word as equivalent to lack of opposition to blowing up restaurants.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It's quite simple, really. I am expressing disgust with the violence performed by Islamic radicals. You said:



The "fanatical Christians" as you put it, by and large, aren't out killing people they disagree. Radical Islamists are. Daily. And they want more of it. You are making a comparison between non-violent Christian "radicals" and ultra-violent Islamic terrorists by saying that equal comdemnation should exist of words and of killing people.

Edited to add:
Another quote:



I would agree with that sentiment, but again you have compared a lack of vigorous opposition to spoken word as equivalent to lack of opposition to blowing up restaurants.

Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

Couldn't disagree more. Words are words. Those who do the actions (or plan the actions) bear the blame themselves.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Couldn't disagree more. Words are words. Those who do the actions (or plan the actions) bear the blame themselves.

And right here is a great illustration of where some of the fundemental differences are between various poters on this board - and probably the world over (since we are such a perfect little microcosm )

I happen to agree with JWBear on this because the hate that is taught can and DOES lead to violence. The church or whichever institution is teaching intolerance can deny direct responsability for the actions but they still had a part in getting the radical thinker to that point of insane action.

There is so separation, no black and white, it's all just a continium - a domino effect. That's where I think we have a great deficite in our national intelligence. There is not a whole lot of understanding about cause and effect. Maybe Candide shoule be required reading again.