08-08-2005 15:42									#151
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Sandman As for the Islamic-Nazi 'link', you'll also find plenty of cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets. And the Islamists and the Americans. And other unlikely combinations. No doubt when the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan, they portrayed their enemy as 'Islamocapitalists'.

'Islamocapitalists'? The fact that the US have been supporting and using Jihad for decades should make anti-imperialist opposition to Islamism more important, not less.

The relationship betwen the Nazis and the Palestinian movement is not just a case of the classic old "My enemy's enemy is my friend". This is a case of an ideological overlap between two systems of reactionary autocracy.

Another important factor is the translating of European style anti-semitism to the Arab & Islamic world during the Nazi era, in contrast to the traditional position of Jews (and Christians) living under Sharia law - that of 'dhimmitude'. Anyone not familiar with the concept should Google it.

Whereas dhimmitude portrayed Jews as weak, European anti-semitism portrayed them as strong, powerful conspirators, ruling the world through Great Power proxies. The roots of this conspiracy theory are usually attributed to a faked and plagiarised propaganda document called 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' - exposed by the London Times as a hoax in 1921. It had been produced by the 19C Russian aristocracy in an attempt to keep the masses away from 'Jewish' concepts like Socialism and Democracy. Despite crude forgery in places, much of the document was cribbed from a French satire against Napoleon III (and nothing to do with Jews), giving it a populist and anti-machivellian edge.

The Nazis didn't invent anti-Jewish prejudice, as the attitudes were widely held in Europe anyway, largely thanks to 'The Protocols'. The Nazis took something that had long been there, and made it the centrepiece of their program. Now the Islamists are attempting to do the same thing.

In the last few years, a serialised TV version of 'The Protocols' has been screened in the Arab world, and ex-Malaysian PM Mohammed Mahathir has openly expounded the idea of a Jewish conspiracy. The idea has also taken residence in amongst sections of both left and right in Europe and the US. That might be expected from the far right but the left ought to know better.

Marx once described anti-Semitism as "The socialism of fools". Today we might add that support for Islamism is the anti-imperialsm of fools.

	08-08-2005 16:20									#152
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Good heavens, I didn't mind when Cort Haus sarcastically linked me with support for 'Islamofascism'.

Sorry for the sarcasm there, Molly

In trying to determine your position (I don't know your posting history on this forum) I was looking to see if you could agree with the notion that the West, despite all its failings, does have something going for it that's worth defending. I assume you do, but are slightly reticent about proclaiming this.

Many progressive-minded people feel that because of a sordid imperial history, we must do ourselves down all the time as if this will absolve the guilt. All it really does is pile another ton of bile on the grievance ledger of those who might otherwise not hate us.

In The Price of Multiculturalism , the author Michael Fitzpatrick, a veteran anti-racist campaigner and as far away from the Daily Mail / Telegraph as you can get, argues how multiculturalism can fuel division, not integration.

	08-08-2005 16:23									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The sordid imperial history is nothing unique to the west, either. It's direct agression wasn't anything new introduced to the places it occupied, either. Now, if they were invading peaceful paradises, maybe it would really be a huge stain. but now? nothing, really.

	08-08-2005 16:45									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Cort Haus I assume you do, but are slightly reticent about proclaiming this.

Yes, because I've obviously voted with my feet and moved to Riyadh or Jeddah.


What concerns me is that 'the West' has replaced religion with nationalism- and that the excesses of one have been repeated in the other, despite the supposed benefits of the Enlightenment.

The 'Enlightened' David Hume and Thomas Jefferson:

quote: David Hume: (On African societies) "No ingenious manufacture amongst them, no arts, no sciences." Thomas Jefferson: " Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. Among the blacks is the misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar oestrum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination. Religion, indeed, has a Phyllis Wheatley, but it could not produce a poet. The compositions published under name are below the dignity of criticism. "

The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein.

I'm not a Westerner who likes to masochistically lament the bad old West and the Slave Trade, or the Bengal Famine, or the Irish Potato Famine or the miseries of Leopold's Belgian Congo and cheer on the likes of Osama Bin Laden or Aum Shinrikyo.

Let's face it, gay apostate atheists wouldn't last long under the Al Qaeda version of the Caliphate.

	08-08-2005 16:58									#155
	Support Apolyton

quote: What concerns me is that 'the West' has replaced religion with nationalism- and that the excesses of one have been repeated in the other, despite the supposed benefits of the Enlightenment.

Not a uniquely western phenomenon, either. Feelings of cultural supremacy are a natural outcome of the economic and geopolitical successes of one's own culture. (Huntington, and others)

quote: The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein.

Yes, but since they were replaced, and didn't mark a departure for the worse ( they didn't ), the overall result is positive. Just like the Romans' extensive slave trade and imperialism doesn't negate at all their role as a positive and constructive force in the world, since they were replacing other systems of slavery, and were invading places that would continue to suffer from wars in any case, but enabled the flourishing of trade, and long periods of peace afterwards.

	08-08-2005 17:07									#156
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Az quote: The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein. Yes, but since they were replaced, and didn't mark a departure for the worse ( they didn't ), the overall result is positive.

Err... even ignoring the worst aspects of colonialism, how positive were World Wars One and Two ?


'My country right or wrong' still makes about as much sense to me as 'my mother drunk or sober', or discussions about whether monophysitism or monotheletism is the correct theological standpoint.

	08-08-2005 18:08									#157
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Err... even ignoring the worst aspects of colonialism, how positive were World Wars One and Two ?

Terrible, but basically a droplet of problems in a bucket of solutions, like the fact that the amount of people that died in these wars would never been able to be alive without modernity, that was the direct result of imperialism and western culture.

	08-08-2005 19:03									#158
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Are the unique depravities of WW1 & WW2 down to western society or humanity generally?

Who was it said something like "history is a nightmare from which we are continually reawakening"?

quote: What concerns me is that 'the West' has replaced religion with nationalism- and that the excesses of one have been repeated in the other, despite the supposed benefits of the Enlightenment.

OK, but what the current multicultural strategy gives us is a myriad more 'micronationalisms' - as the trend in Identity Politics sets people apart from others and encourages them to see the world through a lens of grievance and unltimately anger - as Nationalism can do. So multiculturalism is an inward version of nationalism - and potentially destructive, as we are seeing.

'My country right or wrong' is not confined to the west. 'My fellow muslims right or wrong' is a familiar refrain, and shows how religion can also be like a nationalism of its own.

In fact many nationalisms have been de-legitimised over the last decade or two within the west, while others are encouraged - it depends on the nation. That probably deserves its own thread, though.

	08-08-2005 19:50									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Cort Haus

	08-08-2005 19:56									#160
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Cort Haus 'Islamocapitalists'? The fact that the US have been supporting and using Jihad for decades should make anti-imperialist opposition to Islamism more important, not less. The relationship betwen the Nazis and the Palestinian movement is not just a case of the classic old "My enemy's enemy is my friend". This is a case of an ideological overlap between two systems of reactionary autocracy. Another important factor is the translating of European style anti-semitism to the Arab & Islamic world during the Nazi era, in contrast to the traditional position of Jews (and Christians) living under Sharia law - that of 'dhimmitude'. Anyone not familiar with the concept should Google it. Whereas dhimmitude portrayed Jews as weak, European anti-semitism portrayed them as strong, powerful conspirators, ruling the world through Great Power proxies. The roots of this conspiracy theory are usually attributed to a faked and plagiarised propaganda document called 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' - exposed by the London Times as a hoax in 1921. It had been produced by the 19C Russian aristocracy in an attempt to keep the masses away from 'Jewish' concepts like Socialism and Democracy. Despite crude forgery in places, much of the document was cribbed from a French satire against Napoleon III (and nothing to do with Jews), giving it a populist and anti-machivellian edge. The Nazis didn't invent anti-Jewish prejudice, as the attitudes were widely held in Europe anyway, largely thanks to 'The Protocols'. The Nazis took something that had long been there, and made it the centrepiece of their program. Now the Islamists are attempting to do the same thing. In the last few years, a serialised TV version of 'The Protocols' has been screened in the Arab world, and ex-Malaysian PM Mohammed Mahathir has openly expounded the idea of a Jewish conspiracy. The idea has also taken residence in amongst sections of both left and right in Europe and the US. That might be expected from the far right but the left ought to know better. Marx once described anti-Semitism as "The socialism of fools". Today we might add that support for Islamism is the anti-imperialsm of fools.

I think the ideological 'overlap' is an propaganda tool, nothing more. There similarities, sure, but there are also profound differences. For starters, fascists are motivated by nationalism, not religion. Their movements don't start in places of worship or religious schools. And then there's the distinctly internationalist streak that Islamic fundamentalists have - unthinkable to a fascist.

Your point that Islamic fundamentalists have re-packaged old anti-Semitic myths which the Nazis in turn copied from Tsarist Russia surely weakens your arguments. I mean, it's not as if anybody calls the Nazis 'Naziotsarists', despite a handful of similarities between the two (autocracy, secret police).

I'm also unconvinced that the 'Jews = powerful' aspect of anti-semitism was simply 'imported' from Europe. Israel defeated their neighbours repeatedly - how could dhimmitude survive that?

	09-08-2005 00:08									#161
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sandman I think the ideological 'overlap' is an propaganda tool, nothing more. There similarities, sure, but there are also profound differences. For starters, fascists are motivated by nationalism, not religion. Their movements don't start in places of worship or religious schools. And then there's the distinctly internationalist streak that Islamic fundamentalists have - unthinkable to a fascist.

Yes, there are differences and similarities, hence the word 'overlap'.

Surely "I always support the nation of ABC " equates to "I always support people of the XYZ religion". Hence Islamism is like nationalism. Nazism held the German people to be the master-race to rule over inferior races. Islamists hold muslims to be the masters over the inferior infidel. Neither have any concept of freedom or equality.

When the binding is religion not race the internationalism can obviously go further, but neither systems respect borders or sovereignty, and both constantly claim 'human rights abuses' against their brethren as a justification of violent action.

To quote Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger :
"a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Your point that Islamic fundamentalists have re-packaged old anti-Semitic myths which the Nazis in turn copied from Tsarist Russia surely weakens your arguments. I mean, it's not as if anybody calls the Nazis 'Naziotsarists', despite a handful of similarities between the two (autocracy, secret police).

I see what you're getting at here but I'd say the Nazis and Fundies have far more in common than Nazis and Monarchists. Yes, they're all using the same tool to advance their interests in some way, but to very different political ends. The principle of a full-on assault on world Jewry is central to Nazism and Islamism, not so with Tsarism.

quote: Originally posted by Sandman I'm also unconvinced that the 'Jews = powerful' aspect of anti-semitism was simply 'imported' from Europe. Israel defeated their neighbours repeatedly - how could dhimmitude survive that? [q]

The article 'National Socialism and Anti-Semitism in the Arab World'
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/artikel.php?artikelID=86 explores this process.

The following quote is the opening paragraph from that study.

quote: Anti-Semitism based on the notion of a Jewish world conspiracy is not rooted in Islamic tradition but, rather, in European ideological models. The decisive transfer of this ideology to the Muslim world took place between 1937 and 1945 under the impact of Nazi propaganda. Important to this process were the Arabic-language service broadcast by the German shortwave transmitter in Zeesen between 1939 and 1945, and the role of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who was the first to translate European anti-Semitism into an Islamic context. Although Islamism is an independent, anti-Semitic, antimodern mass movement, its main early promoters - the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Mufti and the Qassamites in Palestine - were supported financially and ideologically by agencies of the German National Socialist government.

	09-08-2005 00:21									#162
	Tired of ads?

the Qutbist/jihadis (not all Islamists are necessarily Qutbists, just as, of course, not all muslims are Islamists) did more than take their antisemitism from western facism. They also took a more general glorification of violence and death, which are largely alien to traditional Islam. And their ambiguous relationship to modernity - despising its freedom, and yet using its technology. About the ONLY thing thats different is the Islamists devotion to a universal muslim Umma, as opposed to "nations". To Paul Berman, at least, thats not an essential difference - a reaction against enlightenment universalism and modernity in the West naturally takes the form of ultra-nationalism - in the very different cultural background of the Islamic world, it takes an Islamist form. Of course to those for whom the essence of fascism is NOT its death cult, its totalitarianism, or its violence, but the essence IS its connection to nationalism - to those who see fascism as the logical outcome of nationalism - this difference IS essential.


Mollywobbles - Jefferson was famously reluctant to build a large US Navy, fearing it would lead to wars. He was very much a LIBERAL nationalist, one who distrusted war and militarism - that he had a blind spot about blacks and slavery was, I think, a part of his peculiar local circumstances, not a natural fruit of his ideology.
Cant speak to Hume, whom ive read only for technical phil, not politics.

	09-08-2005 04:32									#163
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom The 'Enlightened' David Hume and Thomas Jefferson: The 'certainties' of religion were replaced with 'certainties' of pseudo-science and justification for economic exploitation therein.

No, I think that Jefferson's attitude exemplifies the observation that we are all prisoners of our past. Even the greatest of minds can transcend his upbringing to only a certain extent, for it is the very nature of our minds that our past experiences and habits determines how we percieve our present and what we expect from the future.

	09-08-2005 12:55									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Cort Haus Yes, there are differences and similarities, hence the word 'overlap'. Surely "I always support the nation of ABC " equates to "I always support people of the XYZ religion". Hence Islamism is like nationalism. Nazism held the German people to be the master-race to rule over inferior races. Islamists hold muslims to be the masters over the inferior infidel. Neither have any concept of freedom or equality. When the binding is religion not race the internationalism can obviously go further, but neither systems respect borders or sovereignty, and both constantly claim 'human rights abuses' against their brethren as a justification of violent action. To quote Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger : "a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East."

Their violent, aggressive beliefs are common to any number of bloodthirsty governments throughout history. I see no reason to make a specific link between Islamic Fundamentalism and Fascism.

In any case, you're mixing your terms a bit here. Fascism and Nazism are not exactly the same thing. Islamic Fundamentalism and 'the Palestinian movement' are emphatically not the same thing. The PLO was secular to begin with, for example.

The Nazis tried to make common cause with any number of convenient groups on the fringes of their empire: The Welsh, Bretons, Gaels, the Flemish, Croats, Scandanavians, the Baltics, Croats. It's hardly surprising they'd try to stir up unrest in the largely British-controlled Arab world.

I'm sceptical about that quote. It appears exclusively on right-wing websites, all apparently quoting the same book, and I seriously doubt its authenticity. The book is: "The Sword of the Prophet: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam".

As for Matthias Kuentzel, he ignores the many other influences on Islamic Fundamentalism. The rise of Wahhabism, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the alliance between America and Saudi Arabia and the failure of Arab Nationalism (an ideology which is much closer to fascism than Islamic fundamentalism).

	09-08-2005 14:59									#165
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Mollywobbles - Jefferson was famously reluctant to build a large US Navy, fearing it would lead to wars. He was very much a LIBERAL nationalist, one who distrusted war and militarism - that he had a blind spot about blacks and slavery was, I think, a part of his peculiar local circumstances, not a natural fruit of his ideology. Cant speak to Hume, whom ive read only for technical phil, not politics.

Ladylordy (!) - he also considered cooperating with Napoleon on the suppression of the free slave republic of Haiti- because free black sailors were an obvious example to enslaved blacks in the new United States, and how could you keep them down on the farm when they've burned Port au Prince down ?


I'm not saying Jefferson or Hume were bad men- I don't think they were- but given their intelligence and depth of learning and experience, see what absurd assumptions they leap to, based on economic rationales and pseudo-science- products of the Enlightenment.


We topple the old gods and replace them with others.

quote: Are the unique depravities of WW1 & WW2 down to western society or humanity generally?

Cort Haus


Nazi anti-semitism is ultimately the bastard child of nationalism and long centuries of Western Christian anti-semitism. The nationalism is founded upon certain distorted ideals of the Enlightenment and the resulting pseudo-scientifc rationalizations and an unpleasant agglomeration of Romantic myths.

Even in WWI Hindenburg and Ludendorff were entertaining bizarre notions of Prussian and German cultural 'superiority' as I mentioned in another thread, noting Ludendorff's comments on capturing Kaunas and noting a Teutonic Knights' castle nearby.

The wedding of aggressive nationalism with proselytizing religion seems to me a post Thirty Years' War European and Christian characteristic- taking up 'The White Man's Burden', bringing 'light' to the Dark Continent, Manifest Destiny, the pervasive portrayals of 'Oriental' races as effete, corrupt, lethargic or especially cunning and cruel, and the blind assumption of racial or genetic inferiority of non-white, non-European 'races'.

	09-08-2005 15:29									#166
	clearly pwned etc. Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

well i've got some time on my hands now, so here we go.

whaleboy, your whole argument is based, not on actually arguing the point (because doing that would just make you look even more silly...), but rather on attacking the validity of the question. your argument rests on two things, firstly that you can't talk about 'islam' or 'muslims' as one group.

so i think it would be helpful to refresh our (your) memory, this is the original question which started this whole thing, posted by provost (who seems to have developed a great reluctance to carry on...)

quote: is it just me who considers both Islam and Christianity to be an equal danger. I am no fan of religion and I certainly have no preference for one over the other...

you'll notice here that both 'islam' and 'christianity' are used and put up for comparison. now here what you have are two religious groups being compared, these groups are very broad, they encompass a whole range of views on the world and how faith fits into that, this SHOULD all go without saying. and you are right that you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...

your argument is that you can't talk about a group simply because it is very broad, but the point is that here we have two EQUALLY broad groups that are being compared with each other regarding how dangerous or how much of a 'threat' they are. this is hardly a difficult concept, and if still can't grasp it, then i'm afraid i can't help you, except perhaps to suggest that you exchange some of your philosophy books for some mr. men volumes (no disrespect to the mr. men ).

which brings us neatly to your second 'point', that to make an argument that 'islam' is more dangerous than 'christianity' you have to narrow it down so much it becomes meaningless, why? because you say so of course! your argument only holds water if you're the one that does the narrowing and sets the limits, but it all falls down here, because your limits are wrong.

i think you could make the argument that islam is more of a threat than christianity to the whole world at the present time. but i'm well up for a bit of narrowing down, so i think that islam is more of a threat to the west, its societies, its values, and its people at the present time (this of course, includes the UK). if you want to argue differently then go ahead (good luck btw), but if you think that's too 'narrow' or whatever, then don't bother.

finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

	09-08-2005 15:29									#167
	Get a bigger avatar today!

and btw, cort haus, awesome stuff dude

	09-08-2005 15:32									#168
	Re: clearly pwned etc. Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

As opposed to how many Ulster Protestants who supported the assassination and murder and bombing of fellow British citizens ?


Plus ca change...

	09-08-2005 15:33									#169
	Re: clearly pwned etc. Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney so i think it would be helpful to refresh our (your) memory, this is the original question which started this whole thing, posted by provost (who seems to have developed a great reluctance to carry on...)

Actually I have been back in Hull for a few days and it is very hard to be arsed to read through everything that has been said

quote: you'll notice here that both 'islam' and 'christianity' are used and put up for comparison. now here what you have are two religious groups being compared, these groups are very broad, they encompass a whole range of views on the world and how faith fits into that, this SHOULD all go without saying. and you are right that you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...

Erm, hang on a minute, it was you expressing your fear of Islam...now this change of tune.

quote: your argument is that you can't talk about a group simply because it is very broad, but the point is that here we have two EQUALLY broad groups that are being compared with each other regarding how dangerous or how much of a 'threat' they are. this is hardly a difficult concept, and if still can't grasp it, then i'm afraid i can't help you, except perhaps to suggest that you exchange some of your philosophy books for some mr. men volumes (no disrespect to the mr. men ).

From that same logic, there are aspects of Christianity that are equally dangerous then. Remember Waco, for example?

quote: which brings us neatly to your second 'point', that to make an argument that 'islam' is more dangerous than 'christianity' you have to narrow it down so much it becomes meaningless, why? because you say so of course! your argument only holds water if you're the one that does the narrowing and sets the limits, but it all falls down here, because your limits are wrong. i think you could make the argument that islam is more of a threat than christianity to the whole world at the present time. but i'm well up for a bit of narrowing down, so i think that islam is more of a threat to the west, its societies, its values, and its people at the present time (this of course, includes the UK). if you want to argue differently then go ahead (good luck btw), but if you think that's too 'narrow' or whatever, then don't bother. finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

When it is a 'Christian' regime raining bombs on Iraq and in control of the situation it is different. Christians have very little to feel oppressed about...I wonder what it would be like if it was the other way around. I can understand why these moslems are really, really pissed off. Doesn't mean I support the tactics of bombing innocent civilians...

	09-08-2005 17:02									#170
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Who the hell is raining bombs on Iraq? Certainly not Christians. More Muslims are killed by Muslims every year than are killed by Christians, and more Christians are killed by Muslims every year than are killed by Christians. The real problem is that almost every Arab Muslim with even slight awareness of the world around themselves realizes that their culture is pathetic. The same is even more true for those who look up to the Arabs (like some in Pakistan), though they are less likely to blow themselves up in an infantile rage about it.

	09-08-2005 17:03									#171
	Suffering from ads?

quote: I can understand why these moslems [sic] are really, really pissed off

Yes, after all, we only housed them, and kept them on benefit for decades until they decided to attack us for our errors.

	09-08-2005 17:23									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Yes, after all, we only housed them, and kept them on benefit for decades until they decided to attack us for our errors.

Aaahh, the voice of the people yodels its clarion call !!!

	09-08-2005 17:29									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

	09-08-2005 17:32									#174
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

Yes, random geographical location has a way of imparting intelligence and knowledge, doesn't it ?

quote: "We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central." Iris Murdoch

I'm sure you agree. Or are you sure you're not stuck up here too, without a clue ?

	09-08-2005 17:37									#175
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Yes, random geographical location has a way of imparting intelligence and knowledge, doesn't it ?

I think direct experience is slightly more important than pure cultural verbosity molly

	09-08-2005 17:41									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Datajack Franit I think direct experience is slightly more important than pure cultural verbosity molly

Wtf is 'cultural verbosity' ?


And what does P.A. allegedly have direct experience of, exactly ?

	09-08-2005 18:34									#177
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

Which people?

	09-08-2005 18:39									#178
	Full PM-box? Change here!

People I speak to at work and socially, the Yorkshire Post, local radio, even nationall press.

	09-08-2005 20:02									#179
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Wtf is 'cultural verbosity' ?

We are discussing about two issues: islamists in western societies and people of muslim religion supporting terrorism acts. Knowing more about flemish weavers or chinese sailors has hardly any kind or relevance to this topic. Or do you just want someone to tell you how good your history knowledge is?


And about this

quote: And what does P.A. allegedly have direct experience of, exactly ?

He lives there! And his opinion isn't less important just because he's not a polish farmer living in the middle-ages

	10-08-2005 02:15									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: whaleboy, your whole argument is based, not on actually arguing the point (because doing that would just make you look even more silly...), but rather on attacking the validity of the question. your argument rests on two things, firstly that you can't talk about 'islam' or 'muslims' as one group.

Well I fail to see how one can extract a meaninful answer from a meaningless question .

quote: you are right that you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...

You contradict yourself here, since you are attempting to establish that Islam is a more dangerous religion, the only way you could do that if you wish to compare Islam and Christianity as two groups is to say that they represent the sum of their constituent parts... in other words if Islam has a greater quantity/quality of fundamentalists than Christianity then Islam is more dangerous.

Is it something you could plug into a computer and come out with a graph? Yes of course. Per capita you may be more likely to be killed by a Muslim than a Christian (depending upon geographic location which leads to my following point). The problem is that, as I have been saying all along, it's a useless, meaningless determination... indeed a harmful one for the simple reason that as you expand a definition you do so at the expense of contextual relevance. It's like saying you're more likely to be killed by someone with brown eyes than blue.

It is entirely different to an analysis of the causes that makes a group, a cult, an organisation, an individual etc dangerous in the first place. That *is* useful, both tactically and sociologically. Of course then, after you work that out, you lose the mud-slinging value of "dangerous muslims" and "beware the exploding shi'ites".

quote: which brings us neatly to your second 'point', that to make an argument that 'islam' is more dangerous than 'christianity' you have to narrow it down so much it becomes meaningless, why? because you say so of course! your argument only holds water if you're the one that does the narrowing and sets the limits, but it all falls down here, because your limits are wrong.

To establish which religion is more dangerous you have to narrow it down to the individual acts and thus individual terrorists, and like I said above, in doing so you are unable to prescribe the wider group as more dangerous.

quote: i think that islam is more of a threat to the west, its societies, its values, and its people at the present time (this of course, includes the UK). if you want to argue differently then go ahead (good luck btw), but if you think that's too 'narrow' or whatever, then don't bother.

I would agree if you narrow down further to fundamentalist/terroristic Islam. With regards to Islam proper, you're not qualified to talk about it until you've experienced Northampton's battle-hardened taxi drivers .

quote: finally when i say that islam is more of a threat, i don't just mean the bombers, i mean also the 6% of british muslims who 'fully supported' the bombing of london, that's 100,000 people not only condoning but supporting terrorism and bloody murder.

So again what you're suggesting is that, despite having quoted you saying "you cannot simply talk about 'muslims' or 'christians' as if they are one homogenous group, but then no one has said that you can...", you really are taking a percentage and using them to create a more dangerous average result for the whole.

For the third time then, in order to make such a claim, you need to show why Islam proscribes terror, why Islam is a sufficient condition to greater terrorism. If you can't, then logically you must default to my method of analysing further and dropping the wider group of "Islam".

quote: Yes, after all, we only housed them, and kept them on benefit for decades until they decided to attack us for our errors.

You housed them? You'd have had them thrown into the North Sea if you could... indeed it's ignorant, maladjusted ****** like you that are part of the problem, because the likes of you can be used to cause ****** like them!

quote: Working in Holbeck, Leeds, less than a mile from where the bombers came from, I think I can tell you the mood of the people better than some ignorant philosopher who never sees humanity.

Ah yes, Park Avenue, the voice of the people once more. Burberry and a large collection of anal beads hidden under the floorboards...

"Without racism, Great Britain would merely be Britain"

/Drunk Churchillian drawl

quote: And what does P.A. allegedly have direct experience of, exactly ?

Getting gang-raped by brownies most likely...