Posted on 09/03/2006 10:56:41 PM PDT by Tamar1973
As the war on terror heads into its sixth year, a new racial stereotype is emerging in America. Brown-skinned men with beards and women with head scarves are seen as "Muslims" -- regardless of their actual faith or nationality.
Law enforcement measures, politicians, religious leaders and the media have contributed to stereotyping Muslims as a race -- echoing the painful history of another faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I think you and perhaps he miss the point when they refer to "fundamentalists" Muslims.
How so?
"How so?"
What does this word "fundamental" mean to you?
Fundamentalist Islam is Islam at its core.
Oh, and Dr. Pipes was the one who coined the term "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" - which is exactly why Muslims in this country need to be monitored. An increasingly common opinion, by the way:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec04/Muslim.Poll.bpf.html
"The survey also examined the relation of religiosity to perceptions of Islam and Islamic countries among Christian respondents."
So perception is reality? And if the perception among the left is that George Bush lied to get us into Iraq, and only did it to control all that oil this is also true?
perception and reality are two different things not necessarily the same thing.
"What does this word "fundamental" mean to you?"
In terms of modern Islam. Wahhabism / Muwahhidun, Salafism, Twelver Shi'ism.
"So perception is reality"
No, reality is reality. People are waking up. The smoke screens put up by people like you are starting to clear.
"In terms of modern Islam. Wahhabism / Muwahhidun, Salafism, Twelver Shi'ism. "
So, you believe that these sects represent the basis if Islam? That is what "fundamental" means, after all.
The smoke screens put up by people like you are starting to clear.
And what "smokescreen would that be?
So, you believe that these sects represent the basis if Islam? That is what "fundamental" means, after all.
Didn't say that. You asked what does fundamentalist Islam mean to me, I answered. None of these really repersent the mainstream of Islam. Without Saudi money Wahhabism / Muwahhidun would be nothing more than a minor sect of Islam.
"And what "smokescreen would that be? "
The one you project. That there is a "moderate" Islam out there.
"You asked what does fundamentalist Islam mean to me, I answered."
Do you no know the definition of the word?
"Without Saudi money Wahhabism / Muwahhidun would be nothing more than a minor sect of Islam."
Perhaps, but the Shi'ites are a problem too. Without oil money, this latest round of Jihad would not have started, but it isn't the first time by any means.
Islam is an evil political ideology. No obfuscation from you will change the fact that more and more Westerners are waking up to that fact.
While you may not think there is a need to profile, I do, and it won't stop me from applying that profiling while I'm traveling and moving around.... to each his own, I guess.
Please cite some of these reports. Numbers can be dangerous and you shouldn't play with statistics unless you are adequately protected by facts.
See post 178, which quotes the following from Daniel Pipes:
For one, not all Muslims hate the West. Muslims who most hate the West-the fundamentalists-constitute a small minority in most places. Survey research and elections suggest that dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists most places constitute no more than 10 percent of the Muslim population(Daniel Pipes Nov. 19, 1990)
Islamists constitute a small but significant minority of Muslims, perhaps 10 to 15 per cent of the population. Many of them are peaceable in appearance, but they all must be considered potential killers. (Daniel Pipes, Sept. 14, 2001)
Islamists constitute a small but significant minority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide, perhaps 10 to 15 percent. (Daniel Pipes, Nov. 2001)
BTW, I'm not the one wasting time trying to claim that the likes of the KKK, IRA, etc. are a real threat in the 21st century. The fact that you even bother to bring them into this discussion shows that's exactly what you are trying to do despite your throwaway line "It is clear that Islamist terrorists are our most pressing enemies at this time."
OK how about "every terrorist of significance to the USA is a Muslim?" Does that work for you?
Actually one could substitute "West" for "USA" if we're talking about the present day.
FACT: Every terrorist of signifcance to the West today is a muslim.
If you replaced "every terrorist" with "most terrorists" that would be more accurate.
The first piece you give here cites "Survey research and elections" and says that fundamentalists constitute "no more than 10%" of the population. The other two are more speculative, and don't cite any reports.
BTW, I'm not the one wasting time trying to claim that the likes of the KKK, IRA, etc. are a real threat in the 21st century.
You seem to be stating that deadly threats faced in the first 6 years of the century will remain as threats for the rest of the century. The politics of security aren't that permanent. Bin Ladin was our anticommunist ally 2 decades years ago. Russia was at our throats in Cuba 4 decades ago. Germany, Italy, and Japan were bloodthirsty dictatorships 6 decades ago. 8 decades ago, one out of every six white men in America wanted to kill me. One century ago the Philippine War was the life-and-death struggle for Western Civilization.
The fact that you even bother to bring them into this discussion shows that's exactly what you are trying to do despite your throwaway line "It is clear that Islamist terrorists are our most pressing enemies at this time."
I was responding to a post that claimed that almost every terrorist was a Muslim by naming 7 very deadly and very well known terrorist groups with no roots in Islam few, if any, Muslim members.
Any dictionary or encyclopaedia, for example.
I really couldn't care less about what Brasialians, Chineese, Serbs, or Belorussians, or you personally call pizza, or breakfast, or local Muslims. Webster's authority is good enough for me.
I also don't care whose will be the last word in this increasingly stupid argument, so all the best to you and the turcos together with syrians.
And you obviously think it's smart to replace the past tense with the present?
Non-Islamist groups WERE sugnificant, but where is the Klan now? Where is IRA?
Your way of reasoning resembles involving the Incvisition and Western Hemisphere slavery in discussion of the Crusades... confortably forgetting that both took place several centuries AFTER the event in question.
And where does the dictionary get its definitions? From tracking the way words are used, of course.
I'm sure Brazilian dictionaries and encyclopedias are quite clear on the distinction between "turcos" and "syrios", whether or not you care.
Were you suggesting that non-Islamist terrorist groups were not significant terrorists in the past?
Non-Islamist groups WERE sugnificant, but where is the Klan now? Where is IRA?
The Klan is still here, although fortunately it does not have the power it once had. Unfortunately, it competes with other white supremacist groups for membership these days. The Provisional IRA surrendered its weapons a few years back. Other IRA splinter groups continue their work as terrorists. FARC is still around, as are the LTTE. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that Islamist groups will be the only significant terrorists for the rest of time.
Your way of reasoning resembles involving the Incvisition and Western Hemisphere slavery in discussion of the Crusades... confortably forgetting that both took place several centuries AFTER the event in question.
If you can't see how the Crusades -- campaigns against the non-Christian control of the Holy Land -- is related to the Inquisition, then you have no business posting here. If you can't see how the Crusades -- which held that non-Christian, non-Europeans did not have the same rights that Christian Europeans had -- are related to the enslavement of millions of non-Christian Africans and non-Christian Indians in the Western Hemisphere, you have no business posting here. Violence against infidels (including the Eastern Orthodox) was considered justified and laudable during the crusades, an attitude Europeans held towards infidels for centuries after and carried with them to the Americas.
I have no business posting TO YOU. It was clear long time ago, so I can blame only myself for the waste of time.
Just a good-bye remark:
a) all the terrorist groups, Muslim or other, which are now out of business are out of business as a result of solid ass-kicking;
b) Islam is a religion, not ethnic or national group, the names Brasilians give to different species of Levantines notwithstanding.
Be well!
"If that's the case, why were some of the first victims of the Crusades European Jews?"
Sorry fella' but that IS the case irrespective of what happened to the Jews. As you may know the Crusades were a protracted affair provoked by Muslim SOP aggression.
"As for Jewish ''guilt' show me the part where the Pope called for or endorsed their utter destruction as a response." "See above"
See? I knew you couldn't do it, now admit it to yourself.
If all Muslims spent their days doing as Muhammad did in his life with HIS days, WHAT would they be doing? And if all Christians spent their days doing what Jesus did with His WHAT would they be doing?
Any one who can't see a difference between Islam and Christianity (or Judiasim) doesn't WANT to see one. In which case I recommend to you (today; 9/7/06) Ralph Peters demented screed of a column in which (among other things) he doesn't recognize the difference between murderous muslim fanatics and God Almighty Himself in the book of Joshua. You'll love it!!!
Among other things, the Crusades were Christian European campaignes for Christian Euopean control of the Holy Land. Muslims, Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians were all considered legitimate targets at different times -- by the Crusaders as well as the Pope.
Provoked by CENTURIES of EFFECTIVE muslim SOP aggression.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.