Octopus Overlords

msduncan wrote:So in a grand total of less than five posts in this "ISIS thread", you guys managed to make it 100% evil Christian thread.

Whoa, man. The point here is just the opposite of that: just as Jews and Christians can work from a text that contains cruelty and genocide to build religions that don't, so can Muslims.

msduncan wrote:So in a grand total of less than five posts in this "ISIS thread", you guys managed to make it 100% evil Christian thread.

I'm calling Guiness.

Do we get a prize?

But as Kraken says, we're talking about militant religious fundamentalism, which Islam does not have a monopoly on. I'm not going to cut the Lord's Resistance Army any slack just on account of the particular religion they profess.

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:So in a grand total of less than five posts in this "ISIS thread", you guys managed to make it 100% evil Christian thread.

I'm calling Guiness.

Do we get a prize?

But as Kraken says, we're talking about militant religious fundamentalism, which Islam does not have a monopoly on. I'm not going to cut the Lord's Resistance Army any slack just on account of the particular religion they profess.

Then you disagree with the Holy Rush Limbaugh then. Here's a quote from him on the Wikipedia page about the Lords Resistance Army:

On 14 October 2011, far-right political commentator Rush Limbaugh questioned the U.S. move against the LRA, declaring that the "Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them...So that’s a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda..."

So good ole' boy Rush thinks they get a pass because they call themselves Christians. But wait! There's more!

Later in the show, after a break, Limbaugh apparently equivocated: "Is that right? The Lord's Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We're gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians."

So Rush is wavering, but still desperately wants to give them a pass because...because...well, they're not Muslims!

I do frequently disagree with Rush, yes.

I actually do disagree with the band Rush quite a bit, incidentally, since my understanding is that they're Ayn Randian-style objectivists politically.

They are rumored to have built an underwater city that was policed by giant mutants in deep sea diving suits, yes.

So in a grand total of less than two pages in this "ISIS thread", you guys managed to make it 100% evil progressive rock thread.

I'm calling Yuengling .

Rush isn't really all that progressive, grandpa!

I've never considered Rush to be progressive myself. Although his attempt to sneak a bunch of viagra into and out of the Dominican Republic showed a lot of forethought.

hepcat wrote:The problem with the article (in my opinion) is that the writer ignores the fact that the Christian bible is equally as violent and intolerant if taken literally and word for word.

Why should he? He's discussing ISIS not Christianity. If he should discuss the sins of Christianity, why not also bring atheism into the discussion, and include the fact that all the atheistic govts that has ever existed has oppressed and killed millions. Do you have some need to point out the sins of Christianity that you feel it needs to be dragged into a discussion that has nothing to do with it?

he's also saying we should call slavery a Christian act because it's supported in some passages of the bible.

Perhaps you could draw that conclusion (though I would argue that you can't) but he doesn't care about Christianity, he's writing about ISIS, not about the sins of every religion out there.

The followers of a religion are the ultimate word in what they believe in. Not ancient texts. So if the majority of the Muslim world is decrying ISIS as being UN-Islamic, they're not wrong.

Nor is he saying they are wrong. His point is though that ISIS can point to Islamic texts and strong historical traditions to support their case.

But he also has some really great insight into the history of ISIS in that article as well. I just thought that one item was an unfair assertion.

He was writing about Christianity so there was no need to go into that even if it he thought it was true. It would distract and dilute his argument about ISIS.

msduncan wrote:So in a grand total of less than five posts in this "ISIS thread", you guys managed to make it 100% evil Christian thread.

I'm calling Guiness.

You nailed it ms. It shows the predilections of this forum

Kraken wrote:If you read for comprehension you will see that we're talking about fundamentalism in general and the difference between Christian and Muslim fundies in particular.

The initial post was about ISIS, not Christian fundementalism.

I brought the bible into it because it's a more commonly known tool in our country for the analogy I was trying to create. But I think you misunderstood my intent. It was not to show how horrible Christianity was. I was simply saying that I thought it was unfair for him to tell those who are decrying the acts of ISIS as UN-Islamic that they were wrong to do so (which is how I interpreted his quote). Much in the same way that I think it would be wrong to tell someone they're wrong if they call the acts of someone who commits a crime that has precedent in the bible UN-Christian.

You and MSDuncan see attacks where there are none.

El Guapo wrote:I actually do disagree with the band Rush quite a bit, incidentally, since my understanding is that they're Ayn Randian-style objectivists politically.

In his youth, Neil Peart was pretty taken with Objectivism. He's grown out of it as he's aged. The later albums aren't at all that way.

But he DID build an underwater city during his youth, right?

Grifman wrote:

Kraken wrote:If you read for comprehension you will see that we're talking about fundamentalism in general and the difference between Christian and Muslim fundies in particular.

The initial post was about ISIS, not Christian fundementalism.

The nature and history of religious fundamentalism is hardly a major divergence in a thread about the motivations of ISIS.

And again, no one is slamming Christianity in this thread.

There DOES seem to be an unfair prejudice against Objectivists though.

Wow, this thread delivers! Especially if you are into mental gymnastics. In my newly self-appointed role as "OO Thread Summarizer, Esquire", I should probably also include warnings for threads like this one.

Examples:
WARNING: DO NOT CONSUME WHILE DRINKING OR DRUNK
WARNING: Extremely volatile thread with triple, sometimes quadruple entendres going on at the same time!
WARNING: Thread escalates EXTREMELY quickly, be prepared for 1st page ranting!
WARNING: Not for OO noobs! 90% of the thread is made up of reference from previous discussions or themes from 5+ years ago.

Ratings, if you will, for the OO consumers.

I don't think its terribly volatile. No one has questioned anyone's parentage, I've yet to see one mention of Nazis and there's only one picture of Geddy Lee.

Carpet_pissr wrote:Wow, this thread delivers! Especially if you are into mental gymnastics. In my newly self-appointed role as "OO Thread Summarizer, Esquire", I should probably also include warnings for threads like this one.

Examples:
WARNING: DO NOT CONSUME WHILE DRINKING OR DRUNK
WARNING: Extremely volatile thread with triple, sometimes quadruple entendres going on at the same time!
WARNING: Thread escalates EXTREMELY quickly, be prepared for 1st page ranting!
WARNING: Not for OO noobs! 90% of the thread is made up of reference from previous discussions or themes from 5+ years ago.

Ratings, if you will, for the OO consumers.

I wonder why you didn't post this in the thread that mentions nuking all Muslims and sewing them up inside of pigs.

Grifman wrote:

msduncan wrote:So in a grand total of less than five posts in this "ISIS thread", you guys managed to make it 100% evil Christian thread.

I'm calling Guiness.

You nailed it ms. It shows the predilections of this forum

Jesus Christ.

GreenGoo wrote:

Grifman wrote:

msduncan wrote:So in a grand total of less than five posts in this "ISIS thread", you guys managed to make it 100% evil Christian thread.

I'm calling Guiness.

You nailed it ms. It shows the predilections of this forum

Jesus Christ.

He nailed it too.
Too soon?

Sha ZAM!

What harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists?

...oh wait...this is just a THANKS OBAMA! post, isn't it?

hepcat wrote:What harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists?

Pretty sure that means that the terrorists win.

hepcat wrote:What harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists?

...oh wait...this is just a THANKS OBAMA! post, isn't it?

How does refusing to acknowledge that the terrorists that are beheading people are doing so using Islam as a justification help? I fail to see where pointing out they are Islamic does any more harm than pointing out the Crusades were done by Christians or any other crime perpetrated in the name of a religion.

The notion that doing so somehow indicates a disdain for all Muslims is ridiculous and repulsive.

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:What harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists?

...oh wait...this is just a THANKS OBAMA! post, isn't it?

How does refusing to acknowledge that the terrorists that are beheading people are doing so using Islam as a justification help?

Because it helps keep innocent followers of Islam (like those being led by your man crush, the King of Jordan) from being told they should all be killed and sewn into the bodies of pigs.

I fail to see where pointing out they are Islamic does any more harm than pointing out the Crusades were done by Christians

You have a point. If Doc Brown takes us back to that age, I'll make sure to mention that not all Christians supported the Crusades. But since my calendar reads 2015 and not 1095, I'm not sure it's urgent.

The notion that doing so somehow indicates a disdain for all Muslims is ridiculous and repulsive.

The belief that we shouldn't try to distinguish between terrorists and people who are quite often on our side is even more ridiculous and repulsive.

And news flash: the vast majority of the victims of these terrorists are...wait for it...followers of Islam themselves.

Again I ask, what harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists? I've answered your question as to why it does help not to do so. Now you tell me what advantage we gain by uttering the phrase you seem to need to hear.

hepcat wrote:What harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists?

I think the fellow quoted below by the New York Times puts it well:

NYT wrote:Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University and author of a book on Islam in America, said he supported the Obama administration’s care in avoiding a counterproductive smear of all Muslims. But he said the president sometimes seemed to bring an academic approach to a visceral, highly politicized discussion.

“Obama’s reaching a point where he may have to ditch this almost scholastic position,” Mr. Ahmed said. “He sounds like a distinguished professor in the ivory tower, and he may have to come down into the hurly-burly of politics.”

I see nothing in that passage except a statement that essentially says, "He needs to stop sounding stuck up".

“Obama’s reaching a point where he may have to ditch this almost scholastic position,” Mr. Ahmed said. “He sounds like a distinguished professor in the ivory tower, and he may have to come down into the hurly-burly of politics.”

Agree with that 100%. Especially the quotes I heard from him today on NPR. Very above the fray, academic (although I DID agree with the words he was saying...a big part is demeanor as well)

Would a change in his look and demeanor make him more acceptable?

Put it this way: At this point, who, exactly, is the President hoping to convince with such scholastic verbiage? Because if even Akbar Ahmed, someone clearly supportive of the notion of avoiding counterproductive smears of all Muslims, thinks it's time to ditch it, then perhaps he's right.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Put it this way: At this point, who, exactly, is the President hoping to convince with such scholastic verbiage? Because if even Akbar Ahmed, someone clearly supportive of the notion of avoiding counterproductive smears of all Muslims, thinks it's time to ditch it, then perhaps he's right.

Maybe overthinking. Dude's a professor, truly an academic at heart...this is just Professor Obama being Professor Obama most likely.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:

hepcat wrote:What harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists?

...oh wait...this is just a THANKS OBAMA! post, isn't it?

How does refusing to acknowledge that the terrorists that are beheading people are doing so using Islam as a justification help?

Because it helps keep innocent followers of Islam (like those being led by your man crush, the King of Jordan) from being told they should all be killed and sewn into the bodies of pigs.

I fail to see where pointing out they are Islamic does any more harm than pointing out the Crusades were done by Christians

You have a point. If Doc Brown takes us back to that age, I'll make sure to mention that not all Christians supported the Crusades. But since my calendar reads 2015 and not 1095, I'm not sure it's urgent.

The notion that doing so somehow indicates a disdain for all Muslims is ridiculous and repulsive.

The belief that we shouldn't try to distinguish between terrorists and people who are quite often on our side is even more ridiculous and repulsive.

And news flash: the vast majority of the victims of these terrorists are...wait for it...followers of Islam themselves.

Again I ask, what harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists? I've answered your question as to why it does help not to do so. Now you tell me what advantage we gain by uttering the phrase you seem to need to hear.

It isn't hard to make it evident. You just say it. It doesn't preclude you from noting that the terrorists are also followers of Islam. Whether you do or don't won't stop some nutjobs from calling for them all to be killed and sewn into the bodies of pigs. So the effort is futile. If you can't count on the civilized people of the world to recognize the difference without having to avoid noting that the terrorists in question are Muslims then you have already lost.

Not to worry though, I am quite sure if they continue to flourish we will have no problems getting a POTUS elected that has no problem calling them what they are. Of course by then the damage to how the moderate Muslims are viewed will be far greater than had we dealt with it before they do in fact become an actual state.

I've never seen an abortion clinic murder or bombing referred to as an act of Christian terrorism. Does that bother you as well?

Yes, the problem here is the exact words our current president uses to describe them. Once we elect someone that is willing to use better adjectives to describe them everything will fall into place.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

hepcat wrote:What harm is done by trying to make it clear that not all followers of Islam are terrorists?

I think the fellow quoted below by the New York Times puts it well:

NYT wrote:Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University and author of a book on Islam in America, said he supported the Obama administration’s care in avoiding a counterproductive smear of all Muslims. But he said the president sometimes seemed to bring an academic approach to a visceral, highly politicized discussion.

“Obama’s reaching a point where he may have to ditch this almost scholastic position,” Mr. Ahmed said. “He sounds like a distinguished professor in the ivory tower, and he may have to come down into the hurly-burly of politics.”

I too applaud any effort to avoid a counterproductive smear of all Muslims. This is not that. Noting that the terrorists are Muslim does nothing in my mind to smear those Muslims who don't endorse this. Not like calling all Jews pigs etc, which is done throughout much of the Muslim world, even those we are for this topic referring to as moderate Muslims. The majority of them certainly have no moderate view of Israel or of Jews in general.

Smoove_B wrote:Yes, the problem here is the exact words our current president uses to describe them. Once we elect someone that is willing to use better adjectives to describe them everything will fall into place.

Don't be such a drama queen.

No one is seriously suggesting it's the problem, only that it's a problem.

Edited to avert hepcat's knickers from getting knotted.