Do you consider Islam a threat?

Post Reply New Topic

Michjo, I agree with #2 - but Wikipedia is -not- Encyclopaedia Britannica... it is a user-reviewed service, which while it has a lot of information and greater fluidity than authoritative publications, it is also susceptible to bias and error. Not saying it is useless, but it isn't a repository of cross-confirmed facts, either.


M.

you can "grade" the reliability of wikipedia on the topic:

politics: relatively unrealiable
religion/spirituality: you get what you expect
biology: relatively reliable

@ ascan - agreed and well put. destroy with argument not skullduggery.

Hrmph, this is also why i tried to warn cognito =.= -sigh-

There no history that is "balanced" and "undistorted", the interpretations always depend of the politicals and intellectuals views of those analysing it.
Also, the politicals views of social sciences teachers is not "imposed" by the U.S. government. They're liberals views is simply the general of they're profession.


It's because of the povertry of the minorities. A better wealth distribution and a better education among the minorities population will bring the same birthrate as the "white" population.


By the way Brusilov, I bet you don't know wich population (of european origin) had uncharted the most the north american territory.

¡No! ¿Es ello a quién pienso que es?

I think islam by itself is not a threat, but some extremists are, and these people and regimes are a threat to the countries where they have enough political or military power to significantly dictate legislation (eg. Iran). And in a sense, in some of these countries they may not even be viewed by the peoples as posing a threat. At this point, however, there is no risk that these extremists will get enough power in the western world to cause a significant threat.

Any religion... taken to the point of religious fanatisism is a major threat...not just Islam

Think of all the wars that have been waged in the name of religion.

That is true. In biblical times, followers of the Abraham / Moses cult were very bad news for the people of Cana'an. In later times Catholics were very bad news for non-Catholics. In our times, Islam is the name of our paIn.

ruveyn

we already covered this haven't we? I don't agree at all that religion is the cause of war. Evidence for your statement please Ruyven?
Just about every war in history has been economic at root.

Note also (daydreamer84 said) 'wars that have been waged in the name of religion' - in name only, not because of religion or religious differences.

There's a strange resonance in the (often liberal) chatter about the Iraq war being illegal and supposedly religious conflicts. As though Bush et Blair failed to properly consult and seek the blessings of the Law (God) and Lawyers (Priests). If it were legal would they be the first of the landing craft, machine gun blazing? Does the rule of law matter more to a liberal than the simple fact that it was a war of aggression to seize oil resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, mutilations and the inducement of a widespread psychosis? Either liberals are displaying their true concerns or they simply do not understand war.

Why call it 'the illegal war in Iraq' and not the 'colonial war in Iraq'? (seeing as it fits the standard for imperial powers invading a country then setting up a 'friendly' government, often bloody handed dictators, and is standard US practice in South and Central America).

if you don't wish to see extremism, here's a polite suggestion: quit bombing the #$%@ out of people FOR NO REASON.

(but oil.)

I would disagree... many wars and conflicts (crusades, israel, etc) are based on religious differences; more still on matters of morality and dogma (US civil war, for one). That does not diminish the economic component, but consider that while not everyone shares a religion they do tend to share a market... appealing to that fear would logically be one of the best ways to garner support.


M.

I'm of the position that the crusades were to control the silk route ports and while the US civil war is ostensibly to end slavery I understand it as a conflict of industrialised, capitalist North against slave holding South (that is economic conflict) and also over who would assert their influence over the new founded colonies/states in the west. The very ideological nature of the purported desire to free the slaves is best displayed by the fact that slaves were used in building the White house and Capitol building during the Civil War. A darkly humorous (gallows humour that is) detail is that the bronze "Freedom" statue atop the Capitol building was cast by a slave in Maryland, Philip Reid. And who says Americans don't get irony?

(this is PBS I think http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video ... use_u.html)



which is to relegate religion to a secondary role of content, filling out economic form. Furthermore it's not important that religion take up this secondary position to economic concerns, any ideology can do that eg Vietnam war=prevent spread of communism/domino effect, Iraq war (or even afghanistan)=bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, US civil war=end slavery (teh end of which is also economically motivated as capitalsit production is far more efficient and has higher output than slavery, so the war was fought to secure a larger workforce for northern industry also)

There we agree to disagree; I see the Crusades as being a religious exercise with economic rewards if successful. The USCW had extraordinary economic repercussions, and I don't pretend that it was a purely moral reaction - but I do not see it having a financial basis. The irony is not lost; there are many times where the reality of the situation does not jibe with the trappings history places on it.


M.

I think the idea that the Iraq war was about oil and expanding US power in the region (and not about 9/11) is pretty widely held among liberals. It was the conservatives in the US that have hyped the idea of religious conflict (to link it to Al Qaeda), or of spreading democracy and nation building.

And the war in Afghanistan, by contrast, was legal and justified, and supported by most liberals. Not that there is a clear reason to explain why we are still there and what we are doing...

which in a way underlines my argument. Liberals know Iraq is about oil, but argue on the grounds of legality. If it were legal, would they then support the invasion and occupation safe in the knowledge that it is a 'legal' act to secure oil?
My primary point being that the legality or otherwise is irrelevant at the end of the day. edit: the legal question is of secondary importance and not a determining factor - seeking legal grounds is the same as seeking religious support for a crusade, the question for liberals is whether 'god/the priests' support the war or not, the reasons for the war is of secondary concern and not importnat for them. They want the war, but they want the cover of the big Other, the God/the People/the Law to take responsibility for their (the liberals) act. Note the expenses scandal in Britain, the MP's argument is that their claims are within the rules of claiming expenses (the rules they wrote!), they don't question whether they were right or wrong, just if they are within the rules. They are covered by the big Other.

further edit: Is it also, given the level of death and suffering caused by the invasion and occupation, not both obscene and absurd to argue on the grounds of legality?

So far as Afghanistan is concerned, it may be legal, but I don't accept that it is justified. And for motivation, Afghanistan is the eastern arm of a pincer movement (a NATO presence in the Balkans and Georgia being the western arm) to enclose the large oil deposits in the Caspian sea region and the central asian former Soviet Republics. So far as my lay knowledge of military matters go, Afghanistan makes an excellent strategic base as it is eminently defendable (no western army since Alexander has conquered the region I think) only the Khyber pass giving access to the east (through Pakistan), Hindu Kush keeping back China, Iran to the West leaving central Asia as your frontline. I believe China had also just about signed an agreement to build a pipleine thorugh afghanistan just before the invasion, a contract promptly torn up.