Jafar needs to watch this all the way through

[Gaffer]

It covers his favorite excuse "context".


http://youtu.be/jHmsL0p6jnI

[jafar00]

I'll let Jamal Badawi answer for me since you wouldn't listen to me anyway.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqtNOF2ecLg

BTW it was hard to watch the guy in your video. Such self important arrogance. Yet he comes out looking like a fool at the end.

[tailfins]

I'm still willing to give Muslims enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume the terrorists are to Islam what the Jehovah's Witnesses, Boston Church of Christ or Warren Jeffs are to Christianity.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'll let Jamal Badawi answer for me since you wouldn't listen to me anyway.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqtNOF2ecLg

BTW it was hard to watch the guy in your video. Such self important arrogance. Yet he comes out looking like a fool at the end. So the perfect Koran has mistakes in it that were written for a specific place and time. How can that be? Is Allah unable to give a book of guidance that can be for all time, all people, all places as is the Christian bible, the word of God? Jafar a thing is not perfect if its mistakes can be shown to be so greatly and widely --"misinterpreted by the majority of its followers. I thought that both Allah and the Koran were supposed to be perfect? --Tyr

[Gaffer]

Well jafar, truth is hard to watch when you have been fed constant lies. But he does go into the context argument very throughly. He even covers the differences between ME muslims and western muslims like yourself. It's a well thought out and researched presentation, and the best you can do is say he looks like a fool at the end.

This guy just likes to hold up your perfect book and peek through the holes in it. Like where the sun sets.

[Drummond]

I'm still willing to give Muslims enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume the terrorists are to Islam what the Jehovah's Witnesses, Boston Church of Christ or Warren Jeffs are to Christianity.

... which begs the question, doesn't it, Tailfins .. just what would it take for you to change your mind on that ?

Seems to me that no matter how many attacks happen, no matter how many terrorist groups spring up, no matter what their involvement in Nation State business (think of what WAS the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of Egypt, for example, or Hamas's current domination of Gaza .. Hamas being an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and very obviously a TERRORIST organisation !!!) ... you'll still say that, no matter how great the percentage of Muslims connected directly or indirectly to terrorism .... NOTHING need change a view such as yours.

No matter that they ALL, regardless of how many countries in the world are involved, profess to a man (or woman) to be representative of, or loyal to, Islam ... you will deny all that they claim, or do, as being Islamic.

How many MILLIONS of Muslims will it take to persuade you you're wrong in your stance ? THEY have all got it wrong, but YOU have got it right ??

[jimnyc]

It covers his favorite excuse "context".

All lies. No real muslims in there. It's not in arabic and translated wrong. It's all about the context you speak of, but can't place it in context, like only muslims can. Oh, and it's from a hate site! :lol:

[tailfins]

... which begs the question, doesn't it, Tailfins .. just what would it take for you to change your mind on that ?

Seems to me that no matter how many attacks happen, no matter how many terrorist groups spring up, no matter what their involvement in Nation State business (think of what WAS the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of Egypt, for example, or Hamas's current domination of Gaza .. Hamas being an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and very obviously a TERRORIST organisation !!!) ... you'll still say that, no matter how great the percentage of Muslims connected directly or indirectly to terrorism .... NOTHING need change a view such as yours.

No matter that they ALL, regardless of how many countries in the world are involved, profess to a man (or woman) to be representative of, or loyal to, Islam ... you will deny all that they claim, or do, as being Islamic.

How many MILLIONS of Muslims will it take to persuade you you're wrong in your stance ? THEY have all got it wrong, but YOU have got it right ??

A thorough military and intelligence analysis showing a feasible plan for victory and rendering inoperable the terrorists. It's the emotionalism than annoys me. Just fix the problem by any means necessary. It's not necessary to decide if anyone deserves to die. People die in wars, some of them don't deserve to, that's just a fact of war. I have no reservations about killing to win a war. If some of the deaths happen to be Muslim, that's what war is. Armchair hate does not win wars.

[Abbey Marie]

Armchair propaganda can and often does win people to your side, though.

[Kathianne]

Armchair propaganda can and often does win people to your side, though.

Indeed. There have been literally tens or more than a hundred topics brought up here and elsewhere, that perhaps didn't make an immediate impression with what was said. Months, even years later, I see something else and because of an 'awareness' read and find out more. That has happened more than a few times with stuff Rev has posted, something a year or more later before I hunt down that first thread. ;)

[Drummond]

A thorough military and intelligence analysis showing a feasible plan for victory and rendering inoperable the terrorists. It's the emotionalism than annoys me. Just fix the problem by any means necessary. It's not necessary to decide if anyone deserves to die. People die in wars, some of them don't deserve to, that's just a fact of war. I have no reservations about killing to win a war. If some of the deaths happen to be Muslim, that's what war is. Armchair hate does not win wars.

But what if a part of the intelligence analysis calls for an understanding of your enemy, so that you not only understand its nature, but its likely tactics ?

Understanding what drives your enemy is surely a necessary part of the task .. ?

[tailfins]

But what if a part of the intelligence analysis calls for an understanding of your enemy, so that you not only understand its nature, but its likely tactics ?

Understanding what drives your enemy is surely a necessary part of the task .. ?

We're not making any progress. Terrorism is no less of a risk now than five years ago. The TSA is no closer to being dismantled. Treating Abdul the Database Analyst down the hall like crap will not win the war, using atomic weapons on Tehran will. Advocating less than nuclear weapons is ineffective chest thumping and dog barking. When I see real petitions and effective plans to use nuclear weapons to win, I will know people are serious.

[Drummond]

We're not making any progress. Terrorism is no less of a risk now than five years ago. The TSA is no closer to being dismantled. Treating Abdul the Database Analyst down the hall like crap will not win the war, using atomic weapons on Tehran will. Advocating less than nuclear weapons is ineffective chest thumping and dog barking. When I see real petitions and effective plans to use nuclear weapons to win, I will know people are serious.

Nuclear weapons have their place, possibly their part to play against terrorism. I absolutely don't rule that out.

But it's not the complete picture, either. There are other ways to fight.

Cyber-war comes to mind. Consider this: if you make a real effort to know your enemy, say in the sense of tracking down his websites .. &/or knowing who'll willingly fund him, or facilitate his online activities .. then, without dropping a bomb and risking the deaths of thousands of innocents, a cyber-attack could be launched.

Didn't I read something about a virus attack that did damage to the Iranian nuclear program ?

In the UK, one of our TV channels has produced a programme based on a study of the effect of a successful cyber attack aimed at our power stations. I think it has yet to be screened, but I've read that the conclusion was that the UK would know total anarchy inside of a week.

Our GCHQ people successfully attacked an Al Qaeda site some time ago, and substituted bomb-making instructions for a recipe on making cupcakes. Food poisoning notwithstanding, I wonder how many lives they saved by doing that ? Not to mention the effect on morale from the sheer ridicule those connected to the site must've suffered.

And I think breaking the enemy's morale is important. I say - know your enemy. And use that knowledge against him .. not just with brute force, but efficiently as well.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm still willing to give Muslims enough of the benefit of the doubt to assume the terrorists are to Islam what the Jehovah's Witnesses, Boston Church of Christ or Warren Jeffs are to Christianity.

Don't forget the Westboro Baptist Church guys who desecrated the funerals of dead soldiers. Then you have the Mormon communes where polygamy is practiced and abused as hell. We're not exactly swimming in a clean river ourselves.

[DragonStryk72]

I think it comes down to a divide within Islam, one that they aren't yet aware has formed. With so many muslims now being born, living, and building families in more affluent and educated areas, a schism has formed, somewhat akin to how, in the 1500-1600s, we got a lot of factioning in Christianity as the religion spread out. You had the Catholics, working out of the Vatican, but there were even splits within that structure (The Spanish Inquisition operated independently as was not a well-liked faction. Basically, the Church had to put up with the Inquisition because they couldn't afford another Church of England.). then there were the Calvinists, Lutherans, and whatnot, with each group proudly thumping their chest and proclaiming that they were the one true church.

Well, Islam is going through that period now, and yeah, it gets ugly. There's a good chance it'll get uglier, too. So now, the reformation Muslims are looking on the Orthodox Muslims and going, "They really don't understand the word of the prophet." And the same is true in reverse.

I'm willing to bet good money that Jafar would be seen as a traitor to his religion in Middle Eastern countries, as not understanding the word of Allah. He meanwhile, clearly believes the same of them. Both can be telling the truth, but still be wrong.

Now, the difference in the Middle East is that resources are much more scarce than they were in Europe at the time, so you have a harder people, who are used to fighting for survival in a desert land. In Europe's time, they had abundant farmland, and ample natural resources for trade. We still got ugly.

Then there's the US, who tends to sort of swoop in and do things, good or bad. When we help out a country like Kuwait, or Israel, it looks like we're playing favorites.... and we are, which increases resentment. Then of course, we have to get serious, and we quickly prove that the pride they had in their forces was naive on a grand scale (Iraq, Afghanistan), and thus resentment is increased. Then we help out the countries we just beat to hell and gone, and for some, it gives them thoughts that we aren't so bad. Others however, especially those who lost people close to them, become resentful of the aid, feeling that they are being forced to smile in the face of their loved one's killer.

Yeah, it sucks, and there's no easy answer to it, but long game, the extremists are going away. They're a relic of past times, and as the Muslim countries become more technologically advanced, and their people become more educated as some Muslim from affluent countries return to affect change, their numbers will continue to fall.

[Drummond]

I think it comes down to a divide within Islam, one that they aren't yet aware has formed. With so many muslims now being born, living, and building families in more affluent and educated areas, a schism has formed, somewhat akin to how, in the 1500-1600s, we got a lot of factioning in Christianity as the religion spread out. You had the Catholics, working out of the Vatican, but there were even splits within that structure (The Spanish Inquisition operated independently as was not a well-liked faction. Basically, the Church had to put up with the Inquisition because they couldn't afford another Church of England.). then there were the Calvinists, Lutherans, and whatnot, with each group proudly thumping their chest and proclaiming that they were the one true church.

Well, Islam is going through that period now, and yeah, it gets ugly. There's a good chance it'll get uglier, too. So now, the reformation Muslims are looking on the Orthodox Muslims and going, "They really don't understand the word of the prophet." And the same is true in reverse.

I'm willing to bet good money that Jafar would be seen as a traitor to his religion in Middle Eastern countries, as not understanding the word of Allah. He meanwhile, clearly believes the same of them. Both can be telling the truth, but still be wrong.

Now, the difference in the Middle East is that resources are much more scarce than they were in Europe at the time, so you have a harder people, who are used to fighting for survival in a desert land. In Europe's time, they had abundant farmland, and ample natural resources for trade. We still got ugly.

Then there's the US, who tends to sort of swoop in and do things, good or bad. When we help out a country like Kuwait, or Israel, it looks like we're playing favorites.... and we are, which increases resentment. Then of course, we have to get serious, and we quickly prove that the pride they had in their forces was naive on a grand scale (Iraq, Afghanistan), and thus resentment is increased. Then we help out the countries we just beat to hell and gone, and for some, it gives them thoughts that we aren't so bad. Others however, especially those who lost people close to them, become resentful of the aid, feeling that they are being forced to smile in the face of their loved one's killer.

Yeah, it sucks, and there's no easy answer to it, but long game, the extremists are going away. They're a relic of past times, and as the Muslim countries become more technologically advanced, and their people become more educated as some Muslim from affluent countries return to affect change, their numbers will continue to fall.

A couple of quick points.

One .. Jafar works to sanitise Islam. He sees that Muslims do things that get them a bad press, things he cannot excuse, or at least credibly excuse .. then, they're 'not Muslims'. He takes that line, generally speaking, with terrorists, who, he says, go against Islam by turning to terrorism.

... EXCEPT ... that, though on the one hand he is shy of outright celebrating their terrorism as such, Jafar is nevertheless broadly SUPPORTIVE OF HAMAS. Now, this makes no sense in the greater 'JafarWorld' view of things, IF he's against terrorism, since Hamas ARE TERRORISTS. But he supports them just the same.

He recently indicated irritation with Hamas, on account of an alleged link they have with the Egyptian situation. Now, that 'irritation' didn't surface when Hamas's focus was on Israel. No, THEN it was absent. THEN, it was ISRAEL who were singled out for blame-game tactics.

So you see, Jafar is selective in his choice of terrorists, in his support of terrorism, in his choice of its victims. He prefers not to say so, but, demonstrably, he is.

And that, I suggest, doesn't make him as different from the Muslims you have in mind as you seem to think it does.

Other point ... you say 'the extremists' are going away, long term. I fail to see how you can come to any such conclusion. Based on what present-day evidence ? How is technological advance neutralising extremism ? What about Iran's rush to perfect its nuclear capabilities, twinned with Ahmadinejad's holocaustal threat against Israel ?

Do you imagine that there are no computer programmers out there, no website hosts, who are Islamic ? No Jihadist websites ? What makes you think that 'extremists' aren't embracing modern advances, and trying to use them for their own ends ?

Islamists live in Western advanced societies. Do they integrate, or stand apart ? Are there no Islamic terrorists in Western advanced countries ? In that case, how do you explain - from the UK - Anjem Choudary ? Abu Hamza, who preached a Jihadist message for years in London, and who's now extradited to the US on terrorism charges ? How about the 7/7 attack on London ?? Or the attempted copycat attack, which a group of Muslims tried to perpetrate, again in London, two weeks later ?

Do you know of evidence that the CIA, MI5, MI6, the FBI, are all scaling down their interest in Muslims at home and abroad because of ANY sign in a downturn in 'extremist activity' .. ? Because, I certainly don't.

The very LAST think that Western intelligence agencies should indulge is any trend to complacency !!!

[DragonStryk72]

A couple of quick points.

One .. Jafar works to sanitise Islam. He sees that Muslims do things that get them a bad press, things he cannot excuse, or at least credibly excuse .. then, they're 'not Muslims'. He takes that line, generally speaking, with terrorists, who, he says, go against Islam by turning to terrorism.

Well, Islam is going through that period now, and yeah, it gets ugly. There's a good chance it'll get uglier, too. So now, the reformation Muslims are looking on the Orthodox Muslims and going, "They really don't understand the word of the prophet." And the same is true in reverse.

... EXCEPT ... that, though on the one hand he is shy of outright celebrating their terrorism as such, Jafar is nevertheless broadly SUPPORTIVE OF HAMAS. Now, this makes no sense in the greater 'JafarWorld' view of things, IF he's against terrorism, since Hamas ARE TERRORISTS. But he supports them just the same.

Define "supportive of Hamas" for me. And it better not be "doesn't seem them as all evil who need to be wiped from the Earth". Those are still different things. People are allowed to see some good in bad people, you know, like Jesus did.

He recently indicated irritation with Hamas, on account of an alleged link they have with the Egyptian situation. Now, that 'irritation' didn't surface when Hamas's focus was on Israel. No, THEN it was absent. THEN, it was ISRAEL who were singled out for blame-game tactics.

Just like you're singling out Hamas for the blame? Israel isn't innocent, even if they are in the right over all.

So you see, Jafar is selective in his choice of terrorists, in his support of terrorism, in his choice of its victims. He prefers not to say so, but, demonstrably, he is.

No, he just doesn't see it as pure black and white.

And that, I suggest, doesn't make him as different from the Muslims you have in mind as you seem to think it does.

Suggestion noted, but dismissed as severely biased.

Other point ... you say 'the extremists' are going away, long term. I fail to see how you can come to any such conclusion. Based on what present-day evidence ? How is technological advance neutralising extremism ? What about Iran's rush to perfect its nuclear capabilities, twinned with Ahmadinejad's holocaustal threat against Israel ?

The Arab Spring, Israel, Iraq has been converted over. As to Iran, it's bluster at this point, because they ever did try to take the shot, they wouldn't be around to talk about it afterward. It was us, what, half a month to roll across Iraq, and maybe three months to take Afghanistan? Sure, there were issues afterward, but let's look at how fucking with us ended for Osama and Saddam. Even Hamas, what the hell are they going to do but piss and moan like an impotent jerk? I mean seriously, the second they try to act, both we and Israel will kick the shit out of them. Israel has the most advanced and well-trained military in the region, backed up by us, so what are their enemies' chances?

Do you imagine that there are no computer programmers out there, no website hosts, who are Islamic ? No Jihadist websites ? What makes you think that 'extremists' aren't embracing modern advances, and trying to use them for their own ends ?

They're a relic of past times, and as the Muslim countries become more technologically advanced, and their people become more educated as some Muslim from affluent countries return to affect change, their numbers will continue to fall.

Please be certain to read what I actually wrote, and not warp it with bias. Not every Muslim is an extremist, because by nature, extremists are the minority not the majority.

Islamists live in Western advanced societies. Do they integrate, or stand apart ? Are there no Islamic terrorists in Western advanced countries ? In that case, how do you explain - from the UK - Anjem Choudary ? Abu Hamza, who preached a Jihadist message for years in London, and who's now extradited to the US on terrorism charges ? How about the 7/7 attack on London ?? Or the attempted copycat attack, which a group of Muslims tried to perpetrate, again in London, two weeks later ?

Gee, with all the kind acceptance you and yours have given them, how could they not be ready and raring to go socialize? So basically, the United States supports rape and murder, because we do still have rapists and murderers, and the Catholic Church supports pedophilia because of that priest thing a few years back, and there may still be priests that feels that way? Suddenly not liking the broad brush method of judging others by their worst element.

Of course there are terrorists operating in the west. I mean, jesus, are you really trying to suggest that the best place for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan was Houston, TX? You send forces where the intended target is, and it's no different here. Oh yeah, and all of those were done by Middle Eastern terrorist groups, who sent someone here.

Do you know of evidence that the CIA, MI5, MI6, the FBI, are all scaling down their interest in Muslims at home and abroad because of ANY sign in a downturn in 'extremist activity' .. ? Because, I certainly don't.

The very LAST think that Western intelligence agencies should indulge is any trend to complacency !!!

Dude, they have Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and Ben Franklin listed as extremists here in our intelligence training manuals. Sure, they were only the founding fathers, but why should that mean anything?

And I never mentioned complacency. Not once, so I don't even get where you were going with that one. I even believe I flatly said it was ugly out there, and it would get uglier. That say, no, not complacent, but we do not have to be ugly to stand against it, as you seem to be preaching here.

[Drummond]

Dude, they have Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and Ben Franklin listed as extremists here in our intelligence training manuals. Sure, they were only the founding fathers, but why should that mean anything?

And I never mentioned complacency. Not once, so I don't even get where you were going with that one. I even believe I flatly said it was ugly out there, and it would get uglier. That say, no, not complacent, but we do not have to be ugly to stand against it, as you seem to be preaching here.

Well, if you question the way the word 'extremism' applies, why use it yourself .. at all ?

For myself, I would rather it wasn't used. Our media (I expect yours are the same ?) keep using the word 'extremist' as a means of separating out the hardcore terrorist elements from 'mainstream' Islam, so as to say that terrorism is far removed from it .. which buys into Jafar's own sanitising agenda.

You've not mentioned the WORD 'complacency', no. But any message which has it that we can expect any downturn in 'extremism', which is certainly what you must be saying with 'but long game, the extremists are going away. They're a relic of past times' has no basis in reality I'm aware of.

As for 'being ugly to stand against it' .. what's really needed is an acute awareness of what the enemy is all about, combined with a determination to deal with it. I'm not about adopting an 'ugly' attitude, but a fully realistic one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think it comes down to a divide within Islam, one that they aren't yet aware has formed. With so many muslims now being born, living, and building families in more affluent and educated areas, a schism has formed, somewhat akin to how, in the 1500-1600s, we got a lot of factioning in Christianity as the religion spread out. You had the Catholics, working out of the Vatican, but there were even splits within that structure (The Spanish Inquisition operated independently as was not a well-liked faction. Basically, the Church had to put up with the Inquisition because they couldn't afford another Church of England.). then there were the Calvinists, Lutherans, and whatnot, with each group proudly thumping their chest and proclaiming that they were the one true church.

Well, Islam is going through that period now, and yeah, it gets ugly. There's a good chance it'll get uglier, too. So now, the reformation Muslims are looking on the Orthodox Muslims and going, "They really don't understand the word of the prophet." And the same is true in reverse.

I'm willing to bet good money that Jafar would be seen as a traitor to his religion in Middle Eastern countries, as not understanding the word of Allah. He meanwhile, clearly believes the same of them. Both can be telling the truth, but still be wrong.

Now, the difference in the Middle East is that resources are much more scarce than they were in Europe at the time, so you have a harder people, who are used to fighting for survival in a desert land. In Europe's time, they had abundant farmland, and ample natural resources for trade. We still got ugly.

Then there's the US, who tends to sort of swoop in and do things, good or bad. When we help out a country like Kuwait, or Israel, it looks like we're playing favorites.... and we are, which increases resentment. Then of course, we have to get serious, and we quickly prove that the pride they had in their forces was naive on a grand scale (Iraq, Afghanistan), and thus resentment is increased. Then we help out the countries we just beat to hell and gone, and for some, it gives them thoughts that we aren't so bad. Others however, especially those who lost people close to them, become resentful of the aid, feeling that they are being forced to smile in the face of their loved one's killer.

Yeah, it sucks, and there's no easy answer to it, but long game, the extremists are going away. They're a relic of past times, and as the Muslim countries become more technologically advanced, and their people become more educated as some Muslim from affluent countries return to affect change, their numbers will continue to fall. -----------------------------------------------------------SORRY, WISH IT WERE SO BUT IT'S JUST NOT...The fact is Islam has withstood over 1400+ years and not a whit of reform has came about. The Koran has not been altered nor has there been a New Testament added. In fact, its blasphemy to suggest it in Islam and will get a muslim's head chopped of rather quickly. Islam was founded and designed to be an absolute that will stand unmolested after Moham's death. Allah only talked to the Prophet ,all following texts were further translations or inspired thought based upon Islam's foundation. Any group of muslims that stray from that will be hunted down and murdered. In fact, that is the justification that the Sunni and Shia use for wantonly murdering each other. There will be no Reformation, ask any top muslim scholars but be sure to do so from a safe distance preferably here in USA. Islam is already on a Reformation and that is Reforming the world to its demand for ALL--every human to bow to Allah! I can only surmise you do not truly understand that is the Ultimate and primary goal it exists to accomplish.. --Tyr