We're not at war with Islam?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 2:44 pm
Why am I not surprised that you're the type that Gets pleasure from instilling fear into something before killing it?
Left your sense of humour at home again, did you? :lol:
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 2:58 pm
Left your sense of humour at home again, did you? :lol:
There's nothing funny about you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:04 pm There's nothing funny about you.
Then I'm pleased to be taken so seriously.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 3:15 pm
Then I'm pleased to be taken so seriously.
Fortunately, you are only taken serious by the ones who are too stupid to do any harm.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 8:46 pm
bobevenson wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:43 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 9:42 am
That is a rude and inconsiderate thing to say, Bob. As a prophet, I should think you ought to know better.
Jesus Christ, Gary, it may be rude and inconsiderate, but you know damn well I am speaking the honest-to-God truth! Why is it that just yesterday President Trump had to blast all the other NATO countries for not paying their fair share of defense? Why should America have to carry the whole fucking world on its back, huh?
It's not our obligation to carry the rest of the world or to tell them what to do. Let them do what they want. We're nobody's boss and we're not obligated to defend anyone else. We should probably just mind our own business and stop telling other countries what to do.
Even though you portray yourself as 'tolerant and reasonable', the fact that you refer to 'the rest of the world' is very telling. You are still American to the core, and that is the American attitude in a nutshell. There is America, and then there is this vague entity called 'the rest of the world'. The US used to mind its own business, until oil came into the equation. Then greed and money worship took over.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:20 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 8:46 pm
bobevenson wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:43 pm

Jesus Christ, Gary, it may be rude and inconsiderate, but you know damn well I am speaking the honest-to-God truth! Why is it that just yesterday President Trump had to blast all the other NATO countries for not paying their fair share of defense? Why should America have to carry the whole fucking world on its back, huh?
It's not our obligation to carry the rest of the world or to tell them what to do. Let them do what they want. We're nobody's boss and we're not obligated to defend anyone else. We should probably just mind our own business and stop telling other countries what to do.
Even though you portray yourself as 'tolerant and reasonable', the fact that you refer to 'the rest of the world' is very telling. You are still American to the core, and that is the American attitude in a nutshell. There is America, and then there is this vague entity called 'the rest of the world'. The US used to mind its own business, until oil came into the equation. Then greed and money worship took over.
OK. Maybe I should have said, "it's not our business to tell other countries what to do?" Would that be a better way of making the same point?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:42 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:20 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 8:46 pm

It's not our obligation to carry the rest of the world or to tell them what to do. Let them do what they want. We're nobody's boss and we're not obligated to defend anyone else. We should probably just mind our own business and stop telling other countries what to do.
Even though you portray yourself as 'tolerant and reasonable', the fact that you refer to 'the rest of the world' is very telling. You are still American to the core, and that is the American attitude in a nutshell. There is America, and then there is this vague entity called 'the rest of the world'. The US used to mind its own business, until oil came into the equation. Then greed and money worship took over.
OK. Maybe I should have said, "it's not our business to tell other countries what to do?" Would that be a better way of making the same point?
Too late. :|
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:20 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 8:46 pm
bobevenson wrote: Fri May 26, 2017 12:43 pm

Jesus Christ, Gary, it may be rude and inconsiderate, but you know damn well I am speaking the honest-to-God truth! Why is it that just yesterday President Trump had to blast all the other NATO countries for not paying their fair share of defense? Why should America have to carry the whole fucking world on its back, huh?
It's not our obligation to carry the rest of the world or to tell them what to do. Let them do what they want. We're nobody's boss and we're not obligated to defend anyone else. We should probably just mind our own business and stop telling other countries what to do.
Even though you portray yourself as 'tolerant and reasonable', the fact that you refer to 'the rest of the world' is very telling. You are still American to the core, and that is the American attitude in a nutshell. There is America, and then there is this vague entity called 'the rest of the world'. The US used to mind its own business, until oil came into the equation. Then greed and money worship took over.
Funny the same can be said about England who used to mind its own business before seeking to be a world power through the UK system. And I bet that England has many that are still English to the core.

PhilX
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 6:45 pmToo late. :|
Good grief. :roll:
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by bobevenson »

Ginkgo wrote: Sat May 27, 2017 5:26 am Right, and maybe the vegies on this planet will just kill each other off and let the AEP rule the world as God intended!
Stop being modest Bob, why not have the AEP rule the entire universe?
Well, you know, that might be an overkill.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Belinda »

tbieter wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 1:57 pm
bobevenson wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 12:57 pm The whole damn family has been arrested!!!
Is Britain at war with radical Islamic terrorism? Is it reasonable, based upon his public words and actions, to contend that Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, acted as an Islamic terrorist? Under a war policy of pre-emptive defense, shouldn't Abedi have been killed before he could kill? Does Britain need death squads in this war?
" War" is a word that we need to define. In past times war was a situation of hostilities between peoples and most people concerned knew who and where the enemies were. The enemies were based upon their own soil, and this applied to civil war too.

Then " war" became fought not upon Americs'a own soil, but in foreign lands far away from America.

Now some are calling the ISIS troubles " war". This is not good as the ISIS hostilities are sporadic and more secret than all hostilities that have been customary, and so it's not true to describe the hostility with ISIS as war. The situation cannot be solved by conventional methods but the solution depends upon knowing who the enemy is. Knowing who the enemy is is crucial.

To call the search for facts about the enemy "war" does nothing but stir up hatred against peaceful non -combatants.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Arising_uk »

bobevenson wrote:Why should America have to carry the whole fucking world on its back, huh?
Well the main reason was that you thought it in your national interest to have the clout to say how things were going to be with NATO.

Hence in the past you've been very against the idea of a European Armed Force apart from NATO. Not that the Europeans could get their act together in this respect but you never know, if Trump keeps supporting Putin and threatening to not keep the NATO agreement then maybe they might wake up to the fact that we shouldn't be relying upon the Yank as history shows they're not very reliable if it's not in what they see as their national interest and ideals don't matter much to the mercantile.

It'd could have been a pretty tasty Armed force as well, there's some bloody scary geezers in the old Eastern Europe and all the countries have their monsters, get them as squaddies trained by the British Army and armed and equipped with French, German, Dutch, Belgium, British, et al weapon systems and it'd be a bit of a force. It'd also mean a big investment and boost to the heavy manufacturing, aerospace and electronics and avionics industries.
Ah! Well, ces't la vie given Brexit.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Gary Childress »

Belinda wrote: Sun May 28, 2017 9:53 am
tbieter wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 1:57 pm
bobevenson wrote: Thu May 25, 2017 12:57 pm The whole damn family has been arrested!!!
Is Britain at war with radical Islamic terrorism? Is it reasonable, based upon his public words and actions, to contend that Salman Abedi, the Manchester bomber, acted as an Islamic terrorist? Under a war policy of pre-emptive defense, shouldn't Abedi have been killed before he could kill? Does Britain need death squads in this war?
" War" is a word that we need to define. In past times war was a situation of hostilities between peoples and most people concerned knew who and where the enemies were. The enemies were based upon their own soil, and this applied to civil war too.

Then " war" became fought not upon Americs'a own soil, but in foreign lands far away from America.

Now some are calling the ISIS troubles " war". This is not good as the ISIS hostilities are sporadic and more secret than all hostilities that have been customary, and so it's not true to describe the hostility with ISIS as war. The situation cannot be solved by conventional methods but the solution depends upon knowing who the enemy is. Knowing who the enemy is is crucial.

To call the search for facts about the enemy "war" does nothing but stir up hatred against peaceful non -combatants.
Completely agree with almost everything above. Well said.
Flaubertian
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:28 pm

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Flaubertian »

I'd answer that we (the West) are not at war with Islam; but that Islam is at war with us (and has been, since the beginnings of Islam in the 7th century, when they dreamed of conquering "Rome" (Ar-Rum; Byzantium) -- and that we (well, most of us) don't know it... yet.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: We're not at war with Islam?

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Science Fan wrote:I'm not sure what it even means to voice the opinion that "we are at war with Islam." What would it mean to "win" such a "war"? Would every Muslim who is alive have to be killed in order for us to win such a war? Would we have to force every Muslim to convert to another religion or abandon religion entirely? Would we have to ban anyone from speaking out on behalf of Islam; and, therefore, ban freedom of speech in order to win such a war? Would we need to burn every single copy of the Koran and Hadith collections? Is it a war against ideas that make up Islam, or against people who identify themselves as Muslims, or both? The fact that there is no clearly defined victory for a "war against Islam" that does not include either mass genocide against millions of innocents or the denial of basic civil liberty to millions of innocents makes me skeptical regarding the claim that we are at war with all of Islam.
You would have to first define the 'we'. You would have to spend a good deal of time on this.

You would have to understand what stands to be 'lost', and then to conclude if that is real or imaginary. To be able to define a 'win' you'd have to know what you were on the verge of losing.

To define a cultural and religious 'war' is an important step. Is there a process of Islamification? Has that happened anywhere else? Is it happening now? I mean, anywhere in the world. The answer obviously is yes. Islam is tremendously expansionist. And where it gains a foothold, if I have this right, it tends to be possessive, intolerant and dominating. Is Europe in danger of 'Islamification'? If it is, should it be opposed or cooperated with?

What about 'meta-historical view'? Is there Islamification creep? What if it were to take 50 years, or 75? Who would be capable of recognising the danger? Who could plan to stop it or to reverse it? It would require a meta-political vision, would it not?

Islam rushes in to fill a void. That is, Europe has become and is becoming secular. I think Europe is the more unreligious zone excluding some of the former Communist countries. I think it is historically true that where there is a religious void or weakness, Islam has been able to fill the void. There does not seem to be a Christian resistance in Europe, and 'resistance' to Muslim penetration has been limited. Is that good, or is that bad?

In my own view --- not quite kosher as the politically correct goes! --- I think Islam needs to be identified as a threat and the threat needs to be addressed. But the way that it can be addressed is, as I have said elsewhere, through 'European identity projects'.

I watched this quite fair and I thought 'balanced' news report published by SBE Australia entitled 'Europe's Right-Wing Youth Activists are Striking Back Against Multi-Culturalism'. Its focus is Austria.
Post Reply