So I guess that he's a responsible enough subject of the Queen to be knighted by her means his opinion doesn't count? I never would've figured you for someone who's into that whole "keeping it real" thing.
Grow up! Lose the vitriol and act like a mature adult for a change. There is an actual converation that needs to happen here. Islamic terrorism exists, and one should ask why it is that there are mullah's and clerics that not only promote the idea of terrorism, but actively assist in it. Your saying that it is "not so" does not change the basic facts on the ground. Until Islamic leaders speak out vocifieriously, and with ONE voice, it will not change...
Mel, you know I like you... I think you misreading my aim here... We need not be afraid of asking the sensitive question of what is going on inside Islam that leads people to commit these acts... The means to that conversations starts with what I perceived to be a lack of condemnation from Islamic leaders who the masses truly follow. Sure, all the usual suspects have said what we all expect to be said, and yet you and I know that nothing has changed... The same vile will be preached in the Mosques on Friday! And the way to paradise will remain, for all to many, through a car bomb!
It is obvious to all rational people that the majority of Muslims find this sort of thing as horrible as anyone else. But the fundamentalist violent wing of Islam is far from being entirely marginal -- I would compare its influence to that of the KKK in the South in the middle of last century.
You say that to the victims of terror too? Or just to those with whose political opinion you might disagree? My point was that the entire Muslim Community needs to be more proactive in its condemnation of this bombing...and the bombing in Iraq... If that opinion somehow upsets you, you might be surprised to learn it is the same opinion shared by millions of Americans, and the White House, and thousands in the world whom this terrorism touches.
Oh, I guess since you have stretch to find some type of inconsistency, that you are right... Close the thread... We can all go home, nothing to see here anymore... (I'll go back to remaining silent again...) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-07-07-iraq-envoy_x.htm
I'm concerned that, with this monolith frame on Muslims, that you lack substantive dialogue with regular Muslims who are not Americans. The folks I've dealt with from Iran, Oman, Syria, etc., make it clear to me that Islam is as diverse as Christian denominations. Is there a larger murderous fringe of Islam right now than there is of Western Christian radicals? Certainly. Does doing the above generalization of mosque teaching, the above murderous pessimism with regard to the intransigency of change (therefore killing is the only answer to killing?), help in any way at all? Certainly not.
******** you. Nope. Only ****************s like you who continuously troll. My response was to your first quote: I provided a link showing lots of people in the Muslim world denouncing this atrocity. Which both you and USASoccer ignored then changed the goal posts.
Were the attacks commited by Austrian-Americans?? Were the attacks committed by Southern Baptists or Reform Methodists?? Not quite, since I don't think that Bin Laden has ever claimed he's the Messiah. Still, don't you think that Muslim leaders, particularly Muslim leaders living in the west, have a responsibility to the societies in which they live to condemn these acts of terrorism and scream from the rafters exactly what you just said--that they are crimes according to the Koran?? It looks like some Muslim leaders have done that, and that's great, but far too many have not.
Yeah, it's a lot more complicated to say that Muslims are assumed to be cheering today's events until they publicly condemn them. I didn't ask about the Pope. As much as the British Muslim clerics do. The Klan was / is a "Christian" organization. McVeigh was a "Christian". The Branch Davidians were a "Christian" organization. The IRA was / is a "Christian" organization. Based on these examples, Christianity is a gutter religion followed by psychopaths.
I'm not the one who's doing the stretching here. Translation: Oh, snap! I keep forgetting BigSoccer posters aren't like Alan Colmes!
But what about Opus Dei - did they condemn this yet? Are we sure its not payback for Henry 8th? What about the IRA? Have they said anything? Presumably they're #2 on the suspects list. While yes, all leaders should certainly speak out, especially if they think the people who listen to them are at risk to do something similar....one cannot condemn an entire group for some perceived lack of action - especially before it is conclusively proven that the group was behind it (remember spain and OKCity and jumping to conclusions?)
You don't think that OBL thinks he's messianic? It'd be fine for them to do that, but you and the rest of you here are assuming that failure to condemn them immediately means complicity or support for terrorism, which is pathetic even for here.
For the record: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html Not a problem -- Phelps is a prime example of how Christianity is a gutter religion.
That's not a great comparison either, since I don't think any members of the Westboro congregation have ever themselves committed acts of violence (FWIW my theory is that Phelps, and that probably isn't his real name, is not a spiteful hatemongerer but instead a brilliant satire artist). Come on, you can do better than that. By that logic anyone on this thread who condemned it was also in on the plot. Why can't you just accept that Muslim leaders have a responsibility, both to the Muslim community and to the world community, to loudly and brazenly proclaim at every possible opportunity that these attacks are a crime against Islam?? Why is it usually up to non-Muslim apologists to point these facts out??
So, after reading this thread, I'm curious to know what IntheNet and USASoccer would actually consider 'enough' 'condemnation' of the acts. Do people actually need to say they condem the acts? Like this: "It is a heinous act," Saudi Arabia's Social Affairs Minister Abdulmohsen Al-Akkas said. Syria's President Bashar al-Assad condemned "these detested acts." Arabic satellite channels such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya aired live footage of the scenes of the bombings that hit a bus and underground trains, as did Lebanese and Israeli media. "We condemn with the strongest possible terms these explosions, and convey our sincere condolences to the British people and government," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat." Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=1&u=/nm/20050707/wl_nm/security_britain_world_dc Or is okay to just say that the attacks were wrong? If you want a very specific definition of what acceptible condemnation is (they need to say they condem the act), then technically what the pope wired to London was not a condemnation: " Telegram from Pope Benedict XVI to London Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: "Deeply saddened by the news of the terrorist attacks in central London, the Holy Father offers fervent prayers for the victims and for all those who mourn. While he deplores these barbaric acts against humanity, he asks you to convey to the families of the injured his spiritual closeness at this time of grief. Upon the people of Great Britain, he invokes the consolation that only God can give in such circumstances." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/world.reax/index.html The Pope never said he "condemned" the act, just that he "deplores these barbaric acts" which is rhetoric that sounds similar to what every other world leader is using. If the Pope's comments are acceptable, then I don't know why similarly worded comments presented in this thread are not acceptable condemnations (as found in the BBC and Yahoo links). I await thoughs on what an 'acceptable level of condemnation' is.
I think it is unfair to say that all muslim leaders are not condemning the attacks, because they are. But I wish they would go further. Islamic leaders should begin a strong campaing to debunk all the ridiculous assertions of the extremists. I'd like to see respected Islamic leaders be more emphatic in public in talking about Islamic doctrine, and also produce literature to be distributed among their followers and available to the rest of us who are not muslim as well. I'd like them to take more time to publicly explain their interpretation of the Koran. I'd like to hear them make clear, from an Islamic dogmatic perspective, their strong condemnation of certain false beliefs. For example, the idea that if you become a suicide bomber you will be welcomed in heaven with a bunch of virgins, and other such ideas which give incentive to young kids to allow themselves to be used by the terrorist leaders. It is hard for me to say, without knowing much about Islam, how effective it would be. But at least it would make clear to everybody where true Islam stands as opposed to the extremist fundamentalists.
There's a big difference between being "messianic" and being the Messiah. Koresh, if I'm not mistaken (which I could be since I was 9 or 10 during Waco), believed he was actually the second coming of Jesus Christ. I don't think that, but I do think that those who do not support AQ but do not loudly and publicly condemn these attacks are EXTREMELY irresponsible.
The pride and joy of the left had some really predictable, I mean, interesting things to say: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6929
Saying "Islam is a religion of peace" and all that other crap is pretty stupid. Like Christianity, Islam is a huge religion encompassing a spectrum of worldviews. The jihadist violent anti-Western worldview enjoys a very substantial following in the Muslim world.
Bingo. Most of us know what al-Qaeda does, whether in London or Iraq or Madrid or New York or Bali is wrong. We've already figured that out, along with other basic facts like water being wet. But maybe some people apparently need to put a stickie on their bedroom mirror to remind themselves, right next to the one that says "Socks first, then the shoes." The rest of us don't need that reminder, though.