BigLundi wrote...
I did. After arguing with several people who annoy me by not representing my arguments accurately, misquoting me and being straight dishonest, and just outright ignore the fact that I've already addressed these claims before...nice BigLundi is not nice no more. Besides, with you throwing out the "It's a chinese conspiracy! The tibetans WOULD be fucking shit up if they weren't under an iron heel!" I lost my patience...you'll have to forgive me. I've little patience for unfalsifiable bare ass assertion arguments.
From my perspective, people have provided counterpoints against your arguments and you have simply dismissed them without really addressing them (i.e., "that's a propaganda site, therefore I can dismiss anything from it without actually addressing its veracity"). Also, after seeing you twist around my arguments to suit you, I find it rather ironic that you're upset by people purportedly doing the same to you.
You were given examples of violent Buddhists, but you persist in painting Islam as a uniquely violent and dangerous religion.
BigLundi wrote...
you are aware that these people are easily recruited all over the country through local mosques and youtube videos...right? This isn't just about sleeper agents... Here in america, the giant demonstrations aren't necessary, you can just make a video and get thousands of views of people watching you say "Death to america." personally. the demonstrations are out there, just in a different way.
People who are satisfied and happy with their lot in life are not easily persuaded to commit atrocities. One of the necessary factors in making a terrorist is a sense of injustice. If you look at where most terrorists actually come from, the lion's share come from Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most repressive states in the Middle East AND has ties with the United States that many of its citizens resent. Yes, some radicals have come from the United States, but they're a minority within a minority.
BigLundi wrote...
Do radicals represent the fundamentals of their religion? Yes. And besids, talking of reading comprehension, I talked about state enforced religion, and sharia laws enforcing things like beheading witches, and you bring up something that isn't enforced biblically, and is against the law, so your analogy fails on all levels.
I strongly disagree. Radicals are statistical outliers. They are the minority. The majority of the adherents represent the "fundamentals" of their religion, since a "fundamental" is adopted and practiced by the majority (such as the sacraments, in the case of Roman Catholics). Radicals take those and carry them to an extreme.
BigLundi wrote...
I've read the bible, and if people started making laws based off of what's in there, I'd call bullshit on that too...wouldn't you? I will always call bullshit on religions that teach stupid, violent shit. Like Christianity eaching intolerance(and being used to support slavery) and Islam encouraging martyrdom, and the destruction of infidels(which includes EVERYONE who isn't a muslim).
Yes, I would. We have to be vigilant even now about people like Rick Santorum trying to get into higher offices where they can warp policy to suit their religion, but that doesn't mean I should regard all Christians with suspicion.
BigLundi wrote...
Nice shifting of the goal posts, if this is true, then CLEARLY it isn't our CURRENt occupation that's causing extremism...now is it? And besides, they've been like this for hundreds of years, or don't you know of Jefferson's presidential run where he had to deal with Muslim slave traders?
... uh, what?
Slavery was not unique to Muslims. Thomas Jefferson himself owned slaves. I have absolutely no clue what point you're trying to make here, other than making yourself look silly. Let me ask you this: what were our ships doing over there in the first place? Yeah, I'm sure absolutely NONE of them were involved in the slave trade themselves.
Also, our current WARS in the Middle East (let's not pussyfoot around and call them something mild like "occupations", especially considering the civilian death toll) are certainly contributing to anti-United States sentiment.
BigLundi wrote...
Something fundamentalists of the Islamic variety and all state enforced Islam refuses to do...and that's what I've been saying is the problem in the first place. If Islam allowed for development and letting go of past prejudices, maybe they could join the christians in accepting 21st century morals...as it stands, they're hundreds of years behind, and Islam's principals are to blame.
What do you say to the peaceful Muslim populations in the United States, Malaysia, Singapore...?
BigLundi wrote...
The bible? No, the Catholic Church? you'd better believe it. The church is the ONLY reason that Christianity has survived to this day, because they force the vast majority of christians to accept that Christianity must adapt or die. Islam's problem? They don't adopt this idea. They say, "No, we have the quran, and the Hadith, we don't need more philosophy beyond that."
[quote="BigLundi"]Ugh, and you demonstrate my point for me, without realizing it, just as the last person did. I in no way implied that "No Tibetan anywhere does bad." What I DO, however say, is that in comparison to the Muslims...the comparison isn't even fair. Yes, a few splinter tibetan groups do some bad things, but the fact remain that whatever you comme up with the Tibeta n people may do, that PALES in comparison to the multiple terror attacks committed by fIslamic fundamentalists...every day.
Dude... You're comparing apples and oranges. To start with, there are far more Muslims than there are Buddhists, to the tune of 1.5 billion to 376 million (since 2005). There are also far more Muslims that are currently being negatively impacted by our foreign policy than Buddhists, which is why the United States is often targeted and/or demonized. That alone could account for the disparity.
BigLundi wrote...
And one of those fundamental problems of Islam, which is enforced by the state, is that it shall not change its Sharia Laws in ccordance to the cultures around it...which is a problem. A problem..directly tied to Islam...state enforced Islam...tImagine if Christianity didn't adapt to changing morals and enlightenments, and you have Islam, except the added principal that Mohammed was kind enough to put in, that whole 'conversion by the sword' thing. Which...is even worse.
[quote="BigLundi"]Your entire argument centers around the idea that fundamentalists only arise due to actions of others, and that we are to blame for terror, which...is complete bs. We could have left them alone for the entirety of history...they would have eventually attacked us, it's part of their religious policy.
I wouldn't say that fundamentalists only arise because of the actions of others. That's overly simplistic. However, our foreign policy certainly isn't helping things. Looking OBJECTIVELY,
a) The United States is waging two wars and is carrying out military and espionage actions in others that violate their sovereign rights
b) The United States has been the most aggressive nation since the turn of the millennium, hands down
c) Our government has tried to suppress things like civilian deaths (Wikileaks)
d) We were lied to about the likelihood of WMDs in Iraq
e) We spend over half of our budget on the military and "hostile foreign relations"
The most dangerous country on the planet right now is the United States.
BigLundi wrote...
Well, put quite simply...religion and policy, mixing together in one big clusterfuck. When we have presidents who say "When america goes to battle it's a mission from God." and when we have ignorant masses who are triggered by the key phrases "Mission from god" combined with ignorant extremists who twitch at the key words "Martyr for Allah"...it becomes, once again...a clusterfuck. If we get rid of these ignorant ideals of religion...what is there left to hide blood battles from? Battles that are meant for money can't be hidden behind the guise of holy wars anymore, they would have to be more elaborate,make more absurd lies that become harder and harder to believe...soon enough people figure out this killing eachother over religious reasons is completely insane(something I've been saying this entire time) and start recognizing the futility of the idea.
Yes, combining religion and politics is a Bad Idea. But a) Islam is not unique in that regard, and b) You don't need religion to be dangerous (look at the present United States, or Cold War era Russia).
You also haven't really addressed the fact that the United States is currently far more dangerous than any group of Muslim radicals.