Originally Posted by needforspeed

Pawarrant - I agreed with whippersnappers post in respect of CMD's statements. I don't think it was directed at yours.

You two have like liberal minds, why would you not agree with him?

Originally Posted by needforspeed

In particular the problem is that CMD apparently considers all muslims to be either terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. He also says that anyone who does not agree with this is 'in denial'. Strictly speaking this is not racism - it's religious hatred and it's illegal in the UK.

First of all you are mistaken in your assumtion. The key words here are "apparently considers." I never said I consider all Mulsims to be either terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. What I said was, until the Muslim community speaks out more vocally denoucing terrorism I will be suspicious of them.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Your posts were quite a lot more balanced and did not make this point, instead you talked about the muslim leaders allowing views like CMD's to flourish by not denouncing the terrorists strongly enough.

Which I agree with. You are doing a good job of sucking up to pawarrant, by the way!

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Despite the fact that we are on opposite sides of the political spectrum I agree with many of your comments in this thread including that one.

Please. The vaccum level is beginning to affect me now.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I also accept that, as with all matters political, there are only personal views and no right or wrong answers.

Well, in fact, there are right and wrong answers.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Just wanted to be clear

Crystal.

Note: nfs and ws, please do not respond.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

CMD - I can't see what you are saying because I am ignoring you !

Good luck with the mexicans and the muslims (they really are out to get you)

needforspeed, DO NOT READ THIS!

Bite me!

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I 'largely agreed' with the pawarrents post - not you.

Oh. Damn!

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Unlike you - he did not suggest that all muslims supported terrorism and / or were terrorists.

I did not suggest that all Muslims support terrorism. What I suggested is I would be less apt to be suspicious of Muslims if the community as a whole would speak out much more agressively against terrorism.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

This is a really easy concept - I disagree with one thing you have repeatedly said in this thread - that's it.

And what was that, that all terrorism carried out against the United States, ie all the actions stated in the "Quiz" were not male Muslim extremists between the ages of 17 and 40? Well, my friend, you may disagree as much as you want but that won't change the facts, will it?

Originally Posted by needforspeed

It's not a 'complex circular argument' - it's a single point which a small child would understand, but which you apparently don't.

Well, one more circle. Okay, I'll play again. The point is, all the terrorism carried out against the United States in the "Quiz" was, IN FACT, carried out by male Muslim extremists between the ages of 17 and 40. I seem to understand this quite well and you don't. Is that the point?

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Your position on this IS the reason why you posted your quiz - I see that that very clearly now.

My "position"? Hmmmm . . . . Well, if you mean that I believe that all terrorism carried out against the United States in the last 15 years has been carried out by male Muslim extremists between the ages of 17 and 40, then you are correct! Bravo!

Originally Posted by needforspeed

You actually believe that my trust of Muslims generally (the 2nd largest religion on this planet) demonstrates a 'lack of grip on reality'.

Guess what? I don't care if the Muslim religion out numbers the next biggest by 100 to 1. How does that matter? Anyway, yes, if you trust all Muslims in today’s world you either are one, or you need to have your head examined. I trust most Muslims, but I don't automatically trust all Muslims. If I did, I'd need my own head examined.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Your ignorance and lack of rational thought is simply staggering. I am amazed that anyone can denounce an entire religion (1.4 billion people) as terrorists and terrorist sympathisers. This isn't political correctness it's simple logic and common sense.

I know, I'm actually posting from a mental institution here in California. Have you ever heard of Camarillo? I stagger a lot too because of all the Prosac they give me. By the way, I did not "denounce" an entire religion. I simply stated I don't default to trusting the entire religion.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

If there really were 1.4 billlion muslim terrorists out there you would be absolutely fucked.

I think I'm absolutely fucked anyway.

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Oh dear, a freudian slip. Your comment sums up perfectly why your country is in such deep shit.

My country is in "deep shit" because your opinion on U.S. policy doesn't matter?

Wow! You think an awful lot of youself, huh?

CMD, your series of posts indicates the following

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

a) you hold strongly felt ideological views

I feel strongly about the sovereignty of my country. Tight border control, immigration policies that restrict entry without proper credentials and limiting the number of immigrants.

I feel strongly that if we don't protect our country from terrorists by tight border control, profiling, and monitoring calls in and out of our country to known Al Qaeda sympathizers we will regret it. I believe that the ACLU will be instrumental in the eventual destruction of the United States of America as we know it. In other words, it will be virtually unrecognizable when they are done with it.

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

b) you don't have a logical rationale to argue why you hold the views you do

Because I love my country and don't want to see terrorism carried out here like it is in the middle east. Radical Muslim extremists want to kill all Americans. We are the "blue eyed devils." I haven't made that clear to you in any of my posts? How could you have missed that? You are supposed to read the black stuff, not the white. LOL!

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

c) your views hint at an underlying racism

This is right out of the Liberal's play book, I can't recall what page it is. But whenever a liberal disagrees with someone’s views, or otherwise can't understand them, they call the person a racist. This is very typical "liberal" behavior and not unexpected.

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

d) when oyur views are challenged you attmept to paint the challenger as some democrat lefty and failing that, launch into personal attacks

When my views were challenged here I answered over, and over, and over, and over again. We kept dancing in circles. I tried every way I could think of to make myself understood. I've only made a few, what you refer to as, "personal attacks." No more or less that you've made. Take a chill pill.

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

This cluster of behaviors is not unknown in feeble minded individuals. Based on this assessment I have decided to exorcise you from my view of this otherwise excellent forum

Are you suggesting I'm a "feeble minded individual?" LOL! Hell, I've been called worse. I'm sorry you've decided to bow out. But again, this is typical behavior of a liberal that can't "win" an "argument."

[NFS]

In this thread I have consistently disagreed with CMD about only one thing:

The area of disagreement is his position in respect of the muslim people in general, which is clearly exlpained in the following quotations:

Originally Posted by CMD

I honestly have no way of knowing. No Muslims thus far, that I am aware of, have ever stepped up and denounced terrorism. They just sit quietly and let it happen. Until they do, quite honestly, I will default to disagree with that statement.

Originally Posted by CMD

In the United States, where I happen to live and where the attacks we are discussing are focused, there has, again . . . . been little, if ANY, Muslims speaking out publicly and vocally with regard to the terrorists that practice their faith, okay! And if the truth be known, and Americans have been brow-beaten for so long to be Politically Correct so they won't speak out publicly, we have a widespread distrust of these people. Would you expect any less of a normal human being?

Originally Posted by CMD

Because the Muslim community has not vocally and repeatedly denounced these terrorist acts, we are discussing, I have no reason to belive that the majority of them do not support terrorism. And I will tell you that there are many Americans that feel this way whether they admit it openly or not.

Because of the following I have decided not to continue a direct discussion with CMD:

1. I find this view completely unnaceptable.

2. He consistently replies in an offensive and insulting manner.

3. He consistently misunderstands and confuses posts causing him to argue with me about things said by other forum members.

4. He seems incapable of grasping this single point of our disagreement.

I have posted this purely because in his last group of posts CMD seems to be trying to distance himself from his earlier statements:

Originally Posted by CMD

First of all you are mistaken in your assumtion. The key words here are "apparently considers." I never said I consider all Mulsims to be either terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. What I said was, until the Muslim community speaks out more vocally denoucing terrorism I will be suspicious of them.

In fact what he said was that he would 'default to disagree' with my statement that 'the majority of Muslims particularly those in the West do not support terrorism or commit terrorist acts'.

If he disagrees with this then he very clearly MUST believe that the majority of Muslims (but perhaps not all) are terrorists or support terrorism. This is simple logic.

If CMD does not believe this and his earlier quotes are simply examples of a poor ability to express what his views really are ... then he should say so and clarify his position.

If they are his views then he is entitled to them no matter how stupid, illogical, racist and bigoted they might be.

However, I want no truck with racists or bigots.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by BadBob

I think you need to wake up to the fact that Islam is the enemy of the Western world. Just because we despised Nazism didn't mean we despised the German people. The same goes for Islam and it's followers. The Arabs, Persians etc. have a contributed much to our world in terms of mathematics, science and architecture. However, if they continue to look the other way, just like the Germans did during the rise of the Third Reich, it will lead to the destruction of all of them.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

In this thread I have consistently disagreed with CMD about only one thing:

The area of disagreement is his position in respect of the muslim people in general, which is clearly exlpained in the following quotations:

Because of the following I have decided not to continue a direct discussion with CMD:

1. I find this view completely unnaceptable.

2. He consistently replies in an offensive and insulting manner.

3. He consistently misunderstands and confuses posts causing him to argue with me about things said by other forum members.

4. He seems incapable of grasping this single point of our disagreement.

I have posted this purely because in his last group of posts CMD seems to be trying to distance himself from his earlier statements:

In fact what he said was that he would 'default to disagree' with my statement that 'the majority of Muslims particularly those in the West do not support terrorism or commit terrorist acts'.

If he disagrees with this then he very clearly MUST believe that the majority of Muslims (but perhaps not all) are terrorists or support terrorism. This is simple logic.

If CMD does not believe this and his earlier quotes are simply examples of a poor ability to express what his views really are ... then he should say so and clarify his position.

If they are his views then he is entitled to them no matter how stupid, illogical, racist and bigoted they might be.

However, I want no truck with racists or bigots.

needforspeed,

I'd like to address three issues I have with you here.

1) Unless I'm mistaken, I believe I've addressed every single one of your posts and the points contained within them. (For the sake of argument, I will concede I may have missed one or two). You, on the other hand, have chosen to only respond to only a selected few of the points within my posts. What's up with that?

2) You are apparently hell-bent on labeling me a racist bigot. So, if it makes you more comfortable, please do. I have no problem with that. I matters little to me what you, or anyone else here, thinks I am, or chooses to label me.

3) Why are you still responding to my posts when you already said you were done? (I knew you couldn't resist). I wonder how much longer our friend whippersnapper can hold out?

I hope you have a nice day.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by BadBob

I think you need to wake up to the fact that Islam is the enemy of the Western world. Just because we despised Nazism didn't mean we despised the German people. The same goes for Islam and it's followers. The Arabs, Persians etc. have a contributed much to our world in terms of mathematics, science and architecture. However, if they continue to look the other way, just like the Germans did during the rise of the Third Reich, it will lead to the destruction of all of them.

I don't need to wake up to this because it isn't true.

Islam is NOT the enemy of the western world. It is no different to Judaism, Sikhism, Christianity, buddhism or hinduism. All are peaceful religions and all deserve respect.

I agree that there is a dangerous faction among muslims which considers the western world to be it's enemy. When it comes to places like Lebanon, Palestine and Syria this view pre-dominates more because of socio-economic status than religion.

This faction practice the dangerous fundamentalism which led to the creation of states like Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am in support of the allied military action is both of those countries, because the human rights abuses carried out against the afghans and iraqi's by their leaders was so apalling that 'regime change' was entirely justified.

The Islamic fundamentalism that governed these regimes was and is the problem that 'feeds' al qaeda.

However, these people do not represent Islam as a whole. Just like the Spanish Inquisition and priests who abuse children don't represent Christianity as a whole.

I only disagree with you, pawarrant and CMD because you generalise against the entire religion.

I find this unacceptable and just cannot understand how you can logically arrive at a view that an entire religion is somehow 'wrong'. Using your analogy that the conclusion that the Nazi party came to about the Jews.

I've read and re-read your post and am concerned about your analogy comparing Islam to the Nazi's.

Maybe the problem is generalisation. If you mean to compare the sort of islamic fundamentalism that was used to enslave the people of afghanistan under the taliban - then perhaps you have a point.

If you mean Islam as a whole then you are as far away from right as it is possible to be.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by CMD

needforspeed,

I'd like to address three issues I have with you here.

1) Unless I'm mistaken, I believe I've addressed every single one of your posts and the points contained within them. (For the sake of argument, I will concede I may have missed one or two). You, on the other hand, have chosen to only respond to only a selected few of the points within my posts. What's up with that?

2) You are apparently hell-bent on labeling me a racist bigot. So, if it makes you more comfortable, please do. I have no problem with that. I matters little to me what you, or anyone else here, thinks I am, or chooses to label me.

3) Why are you still responding to my posts when you already said you were done? (I knew you couldn't resist). I wonder how much longer our friend whippersnapper can hold out?

I hope you have a nice day.

These 3 issues are not THE issue, they are a distraction.

THE ONLY ISSUE is the generalised negative opinions you have expressed about Muslims as a whole, which I find absolutely unacceptable.

If you re-read all my posts in this thread you will see that they ALL focus on this point.

Part of me hopes that I have misunderstood your position, which is why I set out the 'issue' once agaion.

I find it almost impossible to understand that an educated adult, living in a country like the USA, really can believe the majority of Muslims to be terrorists or supporters of terrorism

Originally Posted by needforspeed

These 3 issues are not THE issue, they are a distraction.

THE ONLY ISSUE is the generalised negative opinions you have expressed about Muslims as a whole, which I find absolutely unacceptable.

If you re-read all my posts in this thread you will see that they ALL focus on this point.

Part of me hopes that I have misunderstood your position, which is why I set out the 'issue' once agaion.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I find it almost impossible to understand that an educated adult, living in a country like the USA, really can believe the majority of Muslims to be terrorists or supporters of terrorism

I do not, let me repeat, do not think the majority of Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters.
I do believe there are tens of thousands, a huge number, that secretly do.

In other words, there are many living among us, in your country and mine, that secretly support these weasles and we would never even suspect them.
They may even openly denounce it.

I believe that there are tens of thousands that are secretly funding these murdering, less-than-human cockroaches.

Let those that don't support these snakes become activists against these murderers of innocents.

Action! Action speaks far louder that words.

That, my naive friend, is my point.

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I don't need to wake up to this because it isn't true.

Islam is NOT the enemy of the western world. It is no different to Judaism, Sikhism, Christianity, buddhism or hinduism. All are peaceful religions and all deserve respect.

I agree that there is a dangerous faction among muslims which considers the western world to be it's enemy. When it comes to places like Lebanon, Palestine and Syria this view pre-dominates more because of socio-economic status than religion.

This faction practice the dangerous fundamentalism which led to the creation of states like Afghanistan and Iraq.

I am in support of the allied military action is both of those countries, because the human rights abuses carried out against the afghans and iraqi's by their leaders was so apalling that 'regime change' was entirely justified.

The Islamic fundamentalism that governed these regimes was and is the problem that 'feeds' al qaeda.

However, these people do not represent Islam as a whole. Just like the Spanish Inquisition and priests who abuse children don't represent Christianity as a whole.

I only disagree with you, pawarrant and CMD because you generalise against the entire religion.

I find this unacceptable and just cannot understand how you can logically arrive at a view that an entire religion is somehow 'wrong'. Using your analogy that the conclusion that the Nazi party came to about the Jews.

I've read and re-read your post and am concerned about your analogy comparing Islam to the Nazi's.

Maybe the problem is generalisation. If you mean to compare the sort of islamic fundamentalism that was used to enslave the people of afghanistan under the taliban - then perhaps you have a point.

If you mean Islam as a whole then you are as far away from right as it is possible to be.

So you are in the camp that all Nazis were not bad? (I'm not saying that all Muslims are bad, I think I've made that clear before)

[NFS]

Originally Posted by CMD

I do not, let me repeat, do not think the majority of Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters.
I do believe there are tens of thousands, a huge number, that secretly do.

In other words, there are many living among us, in your country and mine, that secretly support these weasles and we would never even suspect them.
They may even openly denounce it.

I believe that there are tens of thousands that are secretly funding these murdering, less-than-human cockroaches.

Let those that don't support these snakes become activists against these murderers of innocents.

Action! Action speaks far louder that words.

That, my naive friend, is my point.

That's not what you said before.

You said that you that you would 'default to disagree' with my statement that 'the majority of Muslims particularly those in the West do not support terrorism or commit terrorist acts'.

Originally Posted by CMD

I do not, let me repeat, do not think the majority of Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters.
I do believe there are tens of thousands, a huge number, that secretly do.

It's not a case of 'repeating' something. Your position now seems to be the same as mine. Whereas before you disagreed with me when I made this statement.

I would suggest that need to be more clear about your views because there is a world of difference between what you said before and what you said now.

For the record I think you are probably correct that there are tens of thousands of muslims who support the terrorists. Let's say that there are even one hundred thousand. That is a tiny fraction of one percent of the 1.4 billion muslims on this planet.

I am not naive - and it seems that based on your latest post we do not even disagree.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

That's not what you said before.

I've probably been doing a really bad job of translating my beliefs into words.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

You said that you that you would 'default to disagree' with my statement that 'the majority of Muslims particularly those in the West do not support terrorism or commit terrorist acts'.

I'm not convinced that the majority do not support terrorism. I think it could quite possibly be, if truth be known, 500,000 plus or minus 10% This would not surprise me. But anyway, I don't know this for a fact so I could be way off. So I'd say hundreds of thousands. (Yeah, I know, I just posted tens).

Originally Posted by needforspeed

It's not a case of 'repeating' something. Your position now seems to be the same as mine. Whereas before you disagreed with me when I made this statement.

Well, at least were making some progress.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I would suggest that need to be more clear about your views because there is a world of difference between what you said before and what you said now.

I probably do. I've had so many posts to answer I get in a hurry. If I took my time, I'd end up representing how I feel much more accurately.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

For the record I think you are probably correct that there are tens of thousands of muslims who support the terrorists. Let's say that there are even one hundred thousand. That is a tiny fraction of one percent of the 1.4 billion muslims on this planet.

As you can see, now I've upped the ante.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I am not naive - and it seems that based on your latest post we do not even disagree.

It seemed to me that you were. I don't know you, but I think it would be fun for the four of us to meet, check out each others E90s, (the main reason we are all here), have a nice meal and chat.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

So you are in the camp that all Nazis were not bad? (I'm not saying that all Muslims are bad, I think I've made that clear before)

No not at all - I don't see how you got that from my post.

The Nazi philospophy was morally bankrupt, even if they had won the war I think the third reich would have eventually collapsed for just this reason.

The muslim religion is not a particularly old one (like Christianity it is a relatively new idea compared to very old religions like Hinduism) , but it has been around for more than 1000 years. As Bad Bob acknowledged a vastly succesful civilisation was founded on Muslim beliefs.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the way in which the Islamic fundamentalists have distorted Islam to turn it back into a 'third world' religion - when in the past it was a world leader. The Taliban way of life was apallingly uncivilised compared to the persians and the ottoman empire. Not least the modern fundamentalist interpretaion of Islam inherently devalues the contribution of women - which was simply not the case historically.

The Nazi party was a political movement not a religion. It had nothing like the moral value, following or longevity of any or the major religions - including Islam.

As a way of life I cannot see any good in the Nazi philosophy or anyone who followed it. It was a society built around hate, predjudice and power, led by a dangerous madman.

I do agree with Bad Bob to an extent. Just because the Nazis were bad and were German, it does not follow that Germans are bad.

But ... many supported and followed the Nazi's even after their 'final solution' became clear. Just as I am sure that a minority of Muslims support Al Qaeda.

That is the frightening part

[NFS]

Originally Posted by CMD

I'm not convinced that the majority do not support terrorism. I think it could quite possibly be, if truth be known, 500,000 plus or minus 10% This would not surprise me. But anyway, I don't know this for a fact so I could be way off. So I'd say hundreds of thousands. (Yeah, I know, I just posted tens).

I think many more than 1/2 a million Muslims might support terrorism in one form or another (if not al qaeda).

For instance there are about 3.2 million people in the Lebanon. Most of whom are probably muslim. I would not be surprised if at least 1/2 of them supported hesbullah (at least until Hesbullah dropped them deeply into the shit with the latest conflict).

Even so ... and this is my point .... even if 20 million muslims supported terrorism that would still be just 0.014% of the muslim population of the world.

The majority would be more than 700 million - if that many people wanted to end western civilisation it would be over by now.

You are right of course that this is a poor medium for political debate and that it is often difficult to be clear in these sort of discussions. I am really pleased to hear that you don't consider the majority of muslims to be in cahoots with al qaeda. To me this is the difference between racism and normal human behaviour.

For various reasons I will have nothing to do with racism - hence my slightly dogmatic position here. Of course I like an argument (that's why I keep coming back for more) and I am sure we would have a great argument over (many) beers.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by BadBob

The difference is that that followers of of these other religions aren't trying to destroy us. If all of Islam must be destroyed to eliminate radical Islam then so be it.

Islam isn't trying to destroy you Bob. Islam is followed by 1.4 billion people. If they were trying to destroy you they would have succeeded by now.

Western civilisation does not have the power to 'destroy' Islam and the destruction of a religion for whatever reason would not be a civilised act.

It seems to me that you are just generalising without appreciating how BIG Islam is.

Originally Posted by BadBob

The difference is that that followers of of these other religions aren't trying to destroy us. If all of Islam must be destroyed to eliminate radical Islam then so be it.

I'm there.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Islam isn't trying to destroy you Bob. Islam is followed by 1.4 billion people. If they were trying to destroy you they would have succeeded by now.

Western civilisation does not have the power to 'destroy' Islam and the destruction of a religion for whatever reason would not be a civilised act.

It seems to me that you are just generalising without appreciating how BIG Islam is.

Finally, someone has put into words how I feel, and I believe that most Americans feel, about Islam:

[This is especially appropriate for needforspeed to read}


Islam vs. Civilization: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Written by Raymond Kraft

Friday, August 25, 2006

To those Muslims, the silent and invisible majority, who truly are peaceful, or moderate, or liberal, and tolerant of others unlike yourselves, who are opposed to the deadly militancy of Islamic Jihad and Islamic Imperialism, whoever you are, wherever you are, I wish to make a pre-emptive apology for the broad brush with which I shall paint Islam. But a religion is what its believers say it is. In any age the nature and substance of any religion is defined by those who are most strident and assertive in saying what it is. And in this age it is the Islamic Resistance Movement, the voices of Puritanical Islam, the Islam of Jihad against the Unbelievers and Infidels, all the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, the Liberal Democracies, and all the others, that define Islam for the world. Perhaps one day the silent and invisible majority of non-militant Muslims will become an outspoken and visible majority, and then the dialectic of Islam will change, the voice of Islam to the world will change, and Islam will become what it should be: a great religion. A religion of peace. I hope.

On December 10, 1948, with the devastation of World War II fresh in memory and many cities in Europe still in rubble, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (below) in the hope of spreading freedom, security, and peace, throughout the world. It was a most excellent hope. It is a most excellent aspiration, one that may never be perfectly realized anywhere, but one that is far better realized in some countries than others. It begins:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world . . . Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people . . . Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law . . ."

"Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

They should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. They should.

This document, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a useful blueprint for the description or definition of Civilization, the political, social, cultural, and religious congregation of people in a civilized, or civil, manner, which (according to Webster) is characterized by "courtesy, politeness," i.e., by respect for the rights, lives, safety, and liberties of others as memorialized in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "Civilization," summarized as succinctly as possible, is The Golden Rule: "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." - Jesus, Matthew 7:12. This is the distilled essence of the ideal we call Judeo-Christian Civilization, or Western Civilization.

Most of the laws of America, of England, of Europe, are elaborations on The Golden Rule. We prohibit murder and theft, because we would not want to be murdered or robbed. We require the payment of spousal and child support, because we would not want to be a wife or child left indigent by a departing husband or father. We punish speeders and stoplight runners because we do not want to be endangered by speeders and stoplight runners. Crimes and torts are acts of wilful injury, or careless injury, that the perpetrators would not like to have done to themselves. We do not want to be hurt or endangered or cheated, and so we adopt laws to punish those who hurt, or endanger, or cheat others. We have constructed an entire edifice of law and public philosophy on the foundation in this simple idea: Treat others as you would want them to treat you. And that is the foundational, essential concept, or principle, that defines Civilization. Not just "Western Civilization," but Civilization, period. No nation, and no person, achieves this ideal perfectly, but some nations and some people and some religions and cultures do a far better job of it than others.

And that is the standard by which the existence, or non-existence, or quality, of a civilization can be judged. Does the nation, the culture, the religion, the non-state actor, the non-governmental organization, the political movement, treat others as it would like to be treated, if the roles were reversed? And does it aspire to treat others as it would like to be treated?

If it does, or tries to, and to the extent that it does or tries to, it is, or aspires to be, a civilization. If it does not, then it may be a society, a culture, a nation, a religion, a political movement, but it is not a Civilization. It does not practice or aspire to Civility. It is not Civilized.

Today, the Islamic world, that part of the world defined or characterized or dominated by militant Islam, by the Puritanical Islam that stones women to death for adultery while punishing men convicted of murder with only six years in prison (Iran, Cybercast News Service, August 24, 2006) and tolerates the "honor killings" of daughters for seeing a boyfriend unchaperoned cannot be recognized by civilized people as Civilized. We can ask of the judges who passed the sentence and the men who will throw the stones, Would you like to be stoned to death for adultery? Should that offense justify that sentence, if you commit it? I rather doubt they would answer, Yes.

In the same article, U.S. Strategy Blocking Mideast Peace, Arab-American Group Says (Cybercast News Service, August 24, 2006) it is reported that the National Council of Arab Americans is one of several U.S.-based Arab and Muslim organizations demanding that the United States adopt what they call a "more even-handed stance toward Israel," which is, rather obviously, to abandon its support of Israel against deadly Arab-Muslim and Iranian attacks. "As long as the United States continues to throw up blind support for Israel, there will be no peace and justice in the Middle East," Mounzer Sleiman said at the Palestine Center in Washington, D.C., blaming Israel for a "systematic campaign of destruction" in Lebanon (and ignoring, of course, the "systematic campaign of destruction" that Arab Muslims have waged against Israel for 58 years and Ahmadinejad's popular threat, promise, and call for the destruction of Israel).

Rather obviously, the Arab-Muslim groups do not want Israel to damage or destroy any part of Lebanon, not even in self-defense. But they want America to abandon its support of Israel, so the Arabs and Iranians can destroy Israel without interference. They want to do to Israel what they do not want done to themselves. They declare their ambition to purge the Middle East of Israel and of Jews, which they say defile the lands of Islam, as clear a declaration of racism and religious bigotry as a matter of public policy, national policy, religious policy, as can be made. We are racists, and we are bigots, and we are proud of it, and we will kill and kill and kill and kill to spread our racism and bigotry throughout the Middle East, throughout the world. They memorialize their ambition in The Hamas Covenant, in The Palestinian National Covenant, in The Management of Savagery (all readily found via any search engine), but they do not want any harm done to themselves. They do not treat others as they want to be treated. One standard for us, another standard for you. We will kill you and eradicate your country, but you must not hurt us. They reject the Golden Rule, they repudiate the Golden Rule, and in doing so, the Islamic world in which militant Islam, Puritanical Islam, Jihadist Islam is politically, socially, culturally, and spiritually ascendant, where militant Islam is accomodated and accepted and supported, has placed itself outside the world of Civilization, in opposition to the world of Civilization, as defined by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Islam has made itself the antithesis of Civilization.

"Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Islam today kills Jews and dedicates itself to the abolition of Israel. It sponsors acts of terror in New York City, in London, in Madrid, in Bali, in Besla, in Baghdad, in many other cities and towns around the world, and wars of terror, racial slaughter, ethnic cleansing, now in Sudan, and Somalia. Islam sends missiles into Israel by the hundreds, thousands, to kill and wound and terrorize civilians at random, just as Hitler once sent missiles into London to kill and terrorize the civilian population of England. It rejects The Golden Rule. It repudiates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not Civilized.

"Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment."

Islam today is universally known for the barbarous treatment of its prisoners of war and victims of kidnapping, pictures of some of whom, their bodies burned almost beyond recognition and hanging from a bridge in Baghdad, are well known. Islam today kidnaps Westerners and cuts off their heads and broadcasts the videos on Al Jazeera television. Islam today accepts the mass murder of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein, some half million of whom have been found in mass graves, without criticism or objection from any Islamic state or nation or mullah. A Fatwah called for the death of Salman Rushdie for writing a book critical of Islam (The Satanic Verses), but no Fatwah called for the death of Saddam Hussein for murdering a half million Iraqis. A book, death. A half million murders, no problem. Islam repudiates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not Civilized.

"Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public, or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."

Islam today claims the right to manifest its religion and belief in terrorism and mass murder, in virulent anti-Jewish racism and virulent religious bigotry against Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and all others who are not Muslim. Religious freedom for us, but no religious freedom for you: our religion forbids it. Sunni Islam today claims the right to manifest its religion by killing Shias, and Shia Islam by killing Sunnis, as they have off and on for centuries, a blood feud that cannot ever be settled over who was the rightful successor to Muhammed 1400 years ago, his friend, or his son. Islam today punishes those who convert from Islam to any other religion with death, and those who do not convert to Islam from other religions with death or oppression. Islam today teaches and practices the exact opposite of "freedom of thought, conscience and religion." Islam today wants civil law throughout the world replaced with Sharia law, Islamic law, religious law. Islam today is diametrically opposed to religious freedom and intellectual freedom - it seeks religious hegemony, a theocratic Islamic empire, a region, first, and a world, later, of religious totalitarianism. It repudiates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not Civilized.

Islam today, as it is manifest in the "Islamic Resistance Movement," which is merely a transparent euphemism for its religious war, its Jihad against everything but itself and everyone who is not Muslim, is a culture, and it is a religion, but it is not a Civilization. It rejects the one core principle, the one irreducible principle, the one necessary element of Civilization, the one idea without which Civilization does not and cannot exist: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Respect their freedom, their lives, their right to be different from yourself, to think and believe differently and live differently. This, Civilization does. This, Islam does not do.

Islam today, as it is manifest in the Islamic Resistance Movement, in the Puritanical Islam of Jihad, is to Civilization as anti-matter is to matter. When anti-matter collides with matter, matter is annihilated. Today, when Islam collides with Civilization, Civilization is annihilated. More precisely, when anti-matter collides with matter, both are annihilated in a great burst of energy. I hope that we will not see the collision of Islam with Civilization annihilate both Islam and Civilization in a great burst of terror and war. I hope.

About the Writer:
Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California.

Raymond receives e-mail at rskraft@vfr.net.

Jeeez, is that a beautifully written article, or what?

[pawarrant]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

For instance there are about 3.2 million people in the Lebanon. Most of whom are probably muslim. I would not be surprised if at least 1/2 of them supported hesbullah (at least until Hesbullah dropped them deeply into the shit with the latest conflict).

I wouldn't be surprised if 1/2 of the morons here support Hezbollah.

[pawarrant]

Another question you guys can answer is...can you name a time in history in which Muslims have lived peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by pawarrant

Another question you guys can answer is...can you name a time in history in which Muslims have lived peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors?

The ottoman empire was the height of the muslim civilisation and it was (for it's time) a relatively peaceful one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Every single civilisation in the worlds history has been founded on war and has fought wars.

I don't think you could name a single civilisation or country which has lived pecefully with it's neighbours for a significant period.

For instance here is a list of wars fought by America:

http://www.historycentral.com/wars.html

The list of wars fought and countries annexed by the UK would be too long to print.

The bottom line is that the religion of Islam is a legitimate and peaceful one.

There are problems in the current world climate with various states and islamic groups which take a fundamentalist approach to their religion and culture. In doing so they clash with the west and destroy the human rights of their people. There is nothing wrong with fighting humans rights abuse no matter where it is found.

But there are hundreds of millions of Muslims on this planet who want to practice their faith and live in peace as part of a civilised forward thinking society.

Pawarrant / Bad Bob and CMD are not going to convince me that Islam is somehow bad.

Put simply I cannot concieve of how you are able to make such sweeping and unfounded generalisations about such a vast number of people.

Bad Bob for instance thinks his country is fighting a war against Islam.

President Bush says otherwise - he understands that the West cannot fight the 'war on terror' without the support of the wider Muslim people:

"The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010920-8.html

What amazes me is that you guys are the ones that call me naive.