This Week's Evil Islam Thread

Quote:

---

Lessons of Hate at Islamic Schools in Britain

LONDON — A British network of more than 40 part-time Islamic schools and clubs with 5,000 students has been teaching from a Saudi Arabian government curriculum that contains anti-Semitic and homophobic views, including a textbook that asks children to list the “reprehensible” qualities of Jews, according to a BBC documentary broadcast on Monday.

The 30-minute “Panorama” program quoted the Saudi government-supplied textbook as saying that Jews “looked like monkeys and pigs,” and that Zionists set out to achieve “world domination.” The program quoted a separate part of the curriculum — for children as young as 6 — saying that someone who is not a believer in Islam at death would be condemned to “hellfire.”

The program said the textbooks had been obtained by an “undercover” Saudi Arabian researcher who asked for them during a visit to one of the Saudi-backed schools and clubs, which meet in the evenings and on weekends in a network that is linked to the cultural bureau of the Saudi Embassy in London.

On Monday, the embassy did not respond to requests for comment, but Saudi officials quoted by the BBC disavowed direct responsibility for the schools and clubs and described the teachings cited in the program as having been “taken out of their historical context.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/wo...%2Findex.jsonp

---

Dear oh dear..

Europe's next generation learns important skills to compete in an increasingly competitive world, such as the exact place where to amputate limbs:

https://img100.imageshack.us/img100/...itainpopup.jpg

My favourite bit is the grasp these schools have of indoctrination techniques, such as presenting the variants of the same viewpoint as different viewpoints. 'Stoning or the cliff'? - that'll teach those students critical thinking!

Quote:

---

One of the textbooks, according to the BBC program, prescribed execution as the penalty for gay sex, and outlined differing viewpoints as to whether death should be by stoning, immolation by fire or throwing offenders off a cliff.

---

The positive part of the story:

Quote:

---

someone who is not a believer in Islam at death would be condemned to “hellfire.”

---

:jumping: I can live in sin for my entire life and still have 72 virgins in the afterlife :cheerleader:

All I have to do is be converted to Islam on my dead bed. To be on the safe side, while I'll be at it, I'd better confess all my sins to a Catholic priest as well.

You just got to respect that, gutmensch knows it simply isn't true :laugh4:

It should be policy that all adults involved with this and are foreign nationals are immediately fined and then deported. Those with a dual passport loose their UK passport. All are banned for life.

There are many places in the globe this poison is allowed. The UK should not be one of them.

Of course what will happen is basically... nothing. A few will be closed down and re-open elsewhere. The Saudis will shuffle their feet a bit and mumble some drivel about how it wasn't their fault and not even their books... OK, they were their books but they didn't know... OK, they did know but it was a mistake... OK, it was intentional but enough time has dragged by for no one to care any more. Perhaps some consular staff will be shuffled around.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

All I have to do is be converted to Islam on my dead bed. To be on the safe side, while I'll be at it, I'd better confess all my sins to a Catholic priest as well.

---

Good points.

Better to err on the safe side and turn religious. I've got it all worked out: I'll convert to Islam right before I die, to get my 72 virgins. But first, I'm going to repent for my sins right now, make confession, and become a Catholic priest. So I can have my 72 virgins in this life too.



All kidding aside, with schools like this it's no wonder Europe keeps breeding homegrown terrorists. As coincidence would have it, right now as we speak, a massive coordinated police operation is happening in Belgium:

Quote:

---

A number of arrests have been made in connection with a suspected plot to carry out a terrorist attack in Belgium, regional media report.
Police in the Belgian city of Antwerp detained several people "planning an attack", Belgium's HLN website says.

Ten people were picked up Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, according to French news agency AFP.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Good points.

Better to err on the safe side and turn religious. I've got it all worked out: I'll convert to Islam right before I die, to get my 72 virgins. But first, I'm going to repent for my sins right now, make confession, and become a Catholic priest. So I can have my 72 virgins in this life too.



All kidding aside, with schools like this it's no wonder Europe keeps breeding homegrown terrorists. As coincidence would have it, right now as we speak, a massive coordinated police operation is happening in Belgium:
.

---

But I dont like raisins can I change it to potatoes instead.

Quote:

---

Scholars have long pointed out that these images are clearly drawn pictures and must have been inspired by the art of painting. Muhammad, or whoever is responsible for the descriptions, may well have seen Christian miniatures or mosaics representing the gardens of paradise and has interpreted the figures of angels rather literally as those of young men and young women. A further textual influence on the imagery found in the Koran is the work of Ephrem the Syrian [306-373 CE], Hymns on Paradise, written in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect and the language of Eastern Christianity, and a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew and Arabic.

---

Quote:

---

Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg, to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You just got to respect that, gutmensch knows it simply isn't true :laugh4:

---

This is clearly unacceptable. [Edit: to be clear, I don't mean your post, rather the subject of the thread!]

I admit my first thought was "lets keep this in perpective", but 5000 students is a lot of people to poison with this rot. My google fu has failed me in finding (recent) statistics on independant faith schools in Britain. It would be interesting to know how big a chunk of the independant Islamic sector this represents. I also know bugger-all about the governance of independant schools, or what powers there are to limit this kind of hideous curriculum.

Re the Saudis, I can quite imagine that this does have nothing to do with the Saudi government, it's most likely to be some sort of charity. Plus, the Saudis govt is really only bothered about what happens at home and not so much about the country's non-petroleum based exports.

OFSTEAD has no clout over out of school activities, so they're pretty much free to do what they want. It is hardly going to get onto the Police's radar as it is "merely" indoctrination rather than anything else. In all seriousness, it falls best under MI5's purview as it is a long term, strategic problem, rather than here and now.

I think that the percentage is irrelevant. All involved should be shipped off. If that's one person then so be it. If it's 2,000 involved then equally get rid of them. Just to be clear: I am against the content, not the religion. If there are any Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Jedis doing this then they should get the same treatment.

~:smoking:

You need to licence your own Imams and print there books for them with plenty unannounced inspections to ensure there not teaching Islamofacism.

Deportation does not seem to me to be a solution at all not that these loons should not be sent home but what if the fella is an English convert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

This is clearly unacceptable. [Edit: to be clear, I don't mean your post, rather the subject of the thread!]

I admit my first thought was "lets keep this in perpective", but 5000 students is a lot of people to poison with this rot. My google fu has failed me in finding (recent) statistics on independant faith schools in Britain. It would be interesting to know how big a chunk of the independant Islamic sector this represents. I also know bugger-all about the governance of independant schools, or what powers there are to limit this kind of hideous curriculum.

Re the Saudis, I can quite imagine that this does have nothing to do with the Saudi government, it's most likely to be some sort of charity. Plus, the Saudis govt is really only bothered about what happens at home and not so much about the country's non-petroleum based exports.

---

Hard to get numbers because of a loop in British law, they can't inspect these schools as they are privately funded.

Little update on arrests, they discussed their plan on internet these are just mountaingoats who misjumped their mountain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I also know bugger-all about the governance of independant schools, or what powers there are to limit this kind of hideous curriculum.

---

Also, the powers used to actually address this now are probably those free-speech limiting "incitement to hatred and violence" ones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Also, the powers used to actually address this now are probably those free-speech limiting "incitement to hatred and violence" ones...

---

Well these powers are simply the word populist, or anything else that calls you morally inferior. Most muslims are really nice people and it matters nothing to me that they are a bit intolerant from a Dutch perspective. But this goes way beyond my tolerance. I also don't think they really want this.

Europe finally has a school that is teaching something other than liberal hogwash, and the conservatives are mad about it....?

That's not clever that's an ultra-conservative reflex.

I must say that in thier very finite wisdom, they are teaching those students some important lessons further down the road. The ones following this bile can, if they work hard enough, first teach their targets and then themself of what being on the recieving sides of the words pruning, purge, pogrom means. :bomb2:

Fanatism really does turn off some of the higher brain functions.

Deportation or at least kicking those teachers out of the school and better control on what is teached at private school is desperatly needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I must say that in thier very finite wisdom, they are teaching those students some important lessons further down the road. The ones following this bile can, if they work hard enough, first teach their targets and then themself of what being on the recieving sides of the words pruning, purge, pogrom means. :bomb2:

Fanatism really does turn off some of the higher brain functions.

Deportation or at least kicking those teachers out of the school and better control on what is teached at private school is desperatly needed.

---

Missed the point entirely, bro.

Banning private schools altogether is, of course, the only possible way forward. This is far from the only instance of "loony private school"-syndrome, even if it is more graphic than other cases. Stop 'em altogether, they have nothing to offer society.

Instead of scrapping the entire private school system or deporting lots of brown people, maybe we could just regulate these institutions better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Instead of scrapping the entire private school system or deporting lots of brown people, maybe we could just regulate these institutions better?

---

Why not use that money to make the public school better?

If the christians want a private school where they get to teach that gays go to hell or creationism, I want a school where I can teach students that people of x colour are vermin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why not use that money to make the public school better?

If the christians want a private school where they get to teach that gays go to hell or creationism, I want a school where I can teach students that people of x colour are vermin.

---

Don't have a problem with it, same rules as for the rest of society, no calls for direct violence. So long as they can still teach kids the necessary when it comes to reading/writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Don't have a problem with it, same rules as for the rest of society, no calls for direct violence. So long as they can still teach kids the necessary when it comes to reading/writing.

---

So, you don't want a school to be in favour of war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Why not use that money to make the public school better?

If the christians want a private school where they get to teach that gays go to hell or creationism, I want a school where I can teach students that people of x colour are vermin.

---

You can honestly not see the difference? Christians don't dehumanise, it's 'want to go to hell well your call', disbelieving is a choice with consequences in death, not life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You can honestly not see the difference? Christians don't dehumanise, it's 'want to go to hell well your call', disbelieving is a choice with consequences in death, not life

---

You do yourelf a dis-service with such a broad post. Are you really saying that ALL Christians have a "live and let live" credo? And conversely, that ALL Muslims are intolerant? Come on...

Also, I think some of y'all non-Brutunculi miss something re the state/independant school issue here. There is a long historic tradition of independant schools -be it public/private schools or others, e.g. faith based or Rudolph Steiner. I don't think that these schools have to teach the national curriculum, but the kids do have to/find it easier to have a normal life by doing the national exams. Clearly, the organisation highlighted by Panorama is doing a lot wrong and should be sanctioned in some way, but lets not through the baby out with the bath water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

You do yourelf a dis-service with such a broad post. Are you really saying that ALL Christians have a "live and let live" credo? And conversely, that ALL Muslims are intolerant? Come on...

---

To say that 'Italy is hotter than Sweden' does not mean 'all of Italy is all of the time warmer than all of Sweden all of the time'.

Consequently, digging up some hot midsummer heatwave in Sweden, or pointing out the very cold Alpine regions of Italy do not disprove the statement either.

I am certain that persons of all religions can be intolerant. I do think however, that some religions do appear to be more tolerant of others. For example what is the penalty of stopping being a Christian in all major denominations? You'll go to hell when you die. Some Christians do try to make things worse by "saving the soul by destroying the body", but this is definitely post-hoc. In Islam? Death. Arguably, to not kill them you're having to re-interpret the texts.

This one is not a school, it's an after school. Private schools fall under OFSTEAD. When I was there we did have to adhere to the national curriculum. Things might have changed of course.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I am certain that persons of all religions can be intolerant. I do think however, that some religions do appear to be more tolerant of others.

~:smoking:

---

By what mechanism would religions all be exactly as tolerant of others? Or for that matter, all end up exactly as peaceful, embracing of diversity, stimulative of scientific enquiry, etc?

Different religions, like different political systems of thought, are...different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

You do yourelf a dis-service with such a broad post. Are you really saying that ALL Christians have a "live and let live" credo? And conversely, that ALL Muslims are intolerant? Come on...

Also, I think some of y'all non-Brutunculi miss something re the state/independant school issue here. There is a long historic tradition of independant schools -be it public/private schools or others, e.g. faith based or Rudolph Steiner. I don't think that these schools have to teach the national curriculum, but the kids do have to/find it easier to have a normal life by doing the national exams. Clearly, the organisation highlighted by Panorama is doing a lot wrong and should be sanctioned in some way, but lets not through the baby out with the bath water.

---

I never say all you just read that, you do me a disservice by assuming I'm that dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

By what mechanism would religions all be exactly as tolerant of others? Or for that matter, all end up exactly as peaceful, embracing of diversity, stimulative of scientific enquiry, etc?

Different religions, like different political systems of thought, are...different.

---

Indeed they are. And in the same way that some political systems are not welcome in the UK, some religions should also not be welcome. Merely as the Celts used to drink blood from skulls of their victims does not mean that the practice is welcome these days.

Religious tolerance should be a two way street; those that are intolerant should not be tolerated.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

This one is not a school, it's an after school.

---

Well that changes everything in my opinion.

What people do in their own free time is up to themselves. Whether they want to pick flowers or learn how to kill is irrelevant to me, it's none of my bloody business.


I do not believe in limiting free speech.

meh, that very same things are taught in some schools here 10 years ago, and now, they start to hatch suicide bombers and terrorists, ok ok, Europe is not here, and far away in half the globe BTW, and I'll just laugh when 10 years from now, European start to produce muslim terrorists that create a lot of bloody fireworks in Europe because some "tolerant leftists" leave them out and "protect their rights"...

not my business, not my business...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Go grab their neck and throw them out of your country you idiot "tolerant leftists" they are the very seeds of terrorists!!!

*. PS: sorry to use the word "idiots", I just can't choose another words to describe that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

By what mechanism would religions all be exactly as tolerant of others? Or for that matter, all end up exactly as peaceful, embracing of diversity, stimulative of scientific enquiry, etc?

Different religions, like different political systems of thought, are...different.

---

Indeed. However, saying that a certain religion is aggressive/intolerant/some other negative adjective, is nowadays been frowned upon my misguided people who think that "tolerance" is the equivalent of "accept everything".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What people do in their own free time is up to themselves. Whether they want to pick flowers or learn how to kill is irrelevant to me, it's none of my bloody business.

---

Yeah sure. Let people indoctrinate their children to hate people who hold different views. It's none of our business. After all, we should be "tolerant".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Indeed. However, saying that a certain religion is aggressive/intolerant/some other negative adjective, is nowadays been frowned upon my misguided people who think that "tolerance" is the equivalent of "accept everything"..

---

very much true...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

meh, that very same things are taught in some schools here 10 years ago, and now, they start to hatch suicide bombers and terrorists, ok ok, Europe is not here, and far away in half the globe BTW, and I'll just laugh when 10 years from now, European start to produce muslim terrorists that create a lot of bloody fireworks in Europe because some "tolerant leftists" leave them out and "protect their rights"...

not my business, not my business...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Go grab their neck and throw them out of your country you idiot "tolerant leftists" they are the very seeds of terrorists!!!

*. PS: sorry to use the word "idiots", I just can't choose another words to describe that...

---

Yeah these are the ones, the 'tolerant leftists', decency fundi's they aren't all that tolerant they are vicious against anything that isn't 100% ok, sectists bah. And you can't reason with them, they are morally superior basta

It's not like its just leftists that are guilty of it, the standard centre-right parties seem to be pretty much the same. But then the far-right go too far in the other direction. Bah!

For the far Right it is an excuse to reinforce their prejudices rather than anything else, and as such poison the whole discussion. In a similar way I find it such a shame that the English flag has been usurped by association with thugs.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It's not like its just leftists that are guilty of it, the standard centre-right parties seem to be pretty much the same. But then the far-right go too far in the other direction. Bah!

---

That is true, but the right isn't holding onto a flawed thought, these people preaching multi don't even live there, I expect people who do to have an opinion on it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Yeah sure. Let people indoctrinate their children to hate people who hold different views. It's none of our business. After all, we should be "tolerant".

---

"Tolerance" has nothing to do with this.

I do not believe that we will get rid of nazism by banning it. I see no reason why we would get rid of extreme religion by banning it.


Our stance is morally superior to this. It's about bloody time we actually start believing that. Sanity will never lose a debate to insanity unless sanity simply concedes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

"Tolerance" has nothing to do with this.

I do not believe that we will get rid of nazism by banning it. I see no reason why we would get rid of extreme religion by banning it.


Our stance is morally superior to this. It's about bloody time we actually start believing that. Sanity will never lose a debate to insanity unless sanity simply concedes.

---

So, what do you propose to do when confronted with such issues?

Nothing at all? Ignore it completely?

I'd say educate them, but well, ehm, they prefer to educate themselves and, morally superior as we are, we must allow them to have their children learn what they think their children have to learn, and not intervene, so :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

So, what do you propose to do when confronted with such issues?

Nothing at all? Ignore it completely?

I'd say educate them, but well, ehm, they prefer to educate themselves and, morally superior as we are, we must allow them to have their children learn what they think their children have to learn, and not intervene, so :shrug:

---

Just why on earth do you think I want to "do nothing"...?

Where did you get that from my post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Just why on earth do you think I want to "do nothing"...?

Where did you get that from my post?

---

Well, if you're not going to do nothing, then what will you do against this?

I was under the impression that the "not my bloody business" meant "let them, if that's what they want, not my problem" in a laissez-faire, laissez-passer kinda way :shrug:

Sanity often looses a debate as the world isn't sane!

What was sane about the Great Leap Forward? Was it an accident waiting to happen? Yes it was - but it still happened. And it by no means stopped the Cambodians undertaking a similar exercise with even worse results (as a percentage of the population).

Surely you've heard it said that it is easier to defend a position that is "known" to be true than argue against it? If you are merely agreeing with current wisdom that fits into a 20 second soundbyte. If you want to argue against it with a reasoned argument... you can't. There's no time and if you try the punchy 20 second job you often sound like a lunatic.

In times of stress or disaster people want certainties. Generally science can't offer these, merely probabilities. People also want scape goats to exonerate themselves and someone else to take their anger out on. Rationality often fails on both accounts, but extremists often supply both in droves.

If you think that all people are open minded and inquisitive for the truth you'll be severely let down by reality.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Well, if you're not going to do nothing, then what will you do against this?

I was under the impression that the "not my bloody business" meant "let them, if that's what they want, not my problem" in a laissez-faire, laissez-passer kinda way :shrug:

---

So when I mention "debate" you somehow think I'm talking about "being silent"? Or is that just your prejudice?

Anyway....

Debate and education is the way forward. We simply need a little faith in our own moral stance, and the fact that it is far superior to barbarism. Democracy, rationality and logic go hand in hand.

I'll give you an example: the neo-nazi's used to have quite an influence here where I live. Even though the police have been after them from day one, they've just grown bigger and bigger. They are now, however, all but gone. When did that happen? When they ran in the election. A couple of weeks of actual debate, and they disintegrated. The leaders quit and the organization is no more. The conclusion I make of this is that forcing something into the underground doesn't work at all, while public debate kills it almost overnight.

But the lack of faith people have in our culture, democracy and morals disappoints me. And it's pathetic to see that the ones who talk most about our moral superiority are the ones with the lesat faith in it, and whom I suspect to be closet authoritarians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Sanity often looses a debate as the world isn't sane!

What was sane about the Great Leap Forward? Was it an accident waiting to happen? Yes it was - but it still happened. And it by no means stopped the Cambodians undertaking a similar exercise with even worse results (as a percentage of the population).

Surely you've heard it said that it is easier to defend a position that is "known" to be true than argue against it? If you are merely agreeing with current wisdom that fits into a 20 second soundbyte. If you want to argue against it with a reasoned argument... you can't. There's no time and if you try the punchy 20 second job you often sound like a lunatic.

In times of stress or disaster people want certainties. Generally science can't offer these, merely probabilities. People also want scape goats to exonerate themselves and someone else to take their anger out on. Rationality often fails on both accounts, but extremists often supply both in droves.

If you think that all people are open minded and inquisitive for the truth you'll be severely let down by reality.

~:smoking:

---

Allright then.

Communism was illegal in the Russian Empire, and yet they managed to take power and murder millions.

Hitler was jailed.

Extreme Islam was illegal in Iran and they still manged to take power.

Castro's revolution was illegal.

Cambodias communism was illegal.

I could go on and on. Every single undemocratic force which has taken power by force has been illegal. Why on earth do people still believe that what hasn't worked 928374 times in a row will somehow magically work the 928375th time...?

To look a population studies you don't just draw conclusions from where it happened to work, you look at the whole population and see the number of places where it didn't, and ideally compare places where take-overs were done within the systems.

Oh, Hitler was elected to power legally.
And look at Africa. The number of leaders who have extended their terms in office or just removed the opposition parties show that usurping power from within democracies is alive and well.

Slavery in Europe / USA was got rid of as it was banned
The Tugee cult was destroyed as it was banned and hunted out of existence.
Pirates were removed from the sea not by debate, but by blowing them out of the water (we're trying the debate method at the moment - and it isn't working[!])

I could go on too.

It's easy to see where things haven't worked, a lot harder to know when they have and hence nothing happened.

~:smoking:

There are several schools of Jurisprudence (fiqh) in Sunni Islam. Most Imams adhering to the relatively relaxed Hanafi' school will most likely not say that gays should be murdered and thieves should have their hands cut off. A Shafi'i Imam would propose legal activity right now. Whether or not that constitutes cutting hands off or throwing people of buildings is another matter.

I would like to add to this that we often mistake the Wahhabis as speaking for all of (Sunni) Islam, while in fact, they represent a very small margin of a minority (the salafiyya). All Wahhabis are Salafis, but not all Salafis are Wahhabis. Terror cells currently operating in Europe and the United States are affiliated more with the Wahabbist interpretation of the Qur'an, while a large majority of Muslims are not Salafis or Wahhabis. It might be that a large group of young Muslims of foreign descent born in Europe are caught inbetween a rock and a hard place, or so they'd percieve. Looking for guidance, they look towards religion, and an interpretation of religion that constitutes behaviour not in accordance with European law.

What I'm trying to say here is that to say that they are Muslims is not incorrect, but we should take care in what differentiates them and other Muslims. If I were a peaceful Muslim and living in Europe right now, I have no idea how I'd feel. On one hand, the European society regards you with growing distrust because of your perceivedly extremist religion, and the religious community regards you with distrust because of your perceivedly weak faith.

And with the outright silly book called "The Invisible Ayatollah" that has recently come out in the Netherlands about the influence of extremist Muslim preachers in the Netherlands and the err, "leftist church" that has enabled them. Apparently, the muslim who wrote the book forgot that "Ayatollah" is a strictly Shi'ite term. The ignorance of some people keeps amazing me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

However, saying that a certain religion is aggressive/intolerant/some other negative adjective, is nowadays been frowned upon my misguided people who think that "tolerance" is the equivalent of "accept everything".

---

No, the reason it is (or should be!) frowned upon is because the labeling of an entire religion -and by association the entire range of its adherents- demonstrates ignorance of its different interpretations.

As Hax has helpfully outlined, there is no single monolithic interpretation of Islam -and there is a real multitude of views within it. As ever, it's the bad bits that get picked up and denounced -which I think is right to do, but it is absolutely wrong to surmise that the whole of Islam is thus.

.... :no:
pride is the biggest sin... and sometimes, you can be proud over a futile "morally superrior" philloshopy, that in turns, will render you helpless when that was too late...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

.... :no:
pride is the biggest sin... and sometimes, you can be proud over a futile "morally superrior" philloshopy, that in turns, will render you helpless when that was too late...

---

Our principles made us great. It's only a few centuries since France couldn't even feed its own people, just a couple of years before she almost conquered all of europe.

Democracy and liberty has made us great. Dictatorships have given us crop failures in Russia. To turn our backs on what has made us great will only destroy us.

Yeah I think there is a tendency to see democracies as weak in the face of external threats, but in reality there's a lot of studies that suggest being a democracy might improve how a state performs in war etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yeah I think there is a tendency to see democracies as weak in the face of external threats, but in reality there's a lot of studies that suggest being a democracy might improve how a state performs in war etc.

---

Indeed!

-Who won the American revolution? The democracy.
-Who won WW1? The democracies.
-Who won WW2? The democracies.
-Who won the cold war? The democracies.
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? The democracy.
-Who won both gulf wars? The democracy(ies).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yeah I think there is a tendency to see democracies as weak in the face of external threats, but in reality there's a lot of studies that suggest being a democracy might improve how a state performs in war etc.

---

We only have WW2 etc to go on but the thinking is a democray is usually not as well prepared for industrial scale warfare as say fascism or communism in early stages. The problem for autocrats is people who dissent are ignored or worse so you end up with no one saying "Mein Furher an invasion of the Soviet Union will fail" everyone ends up a yesman.

Also intelligence agencies of autocratic regimes are better at internal security than at disrupting the enemy a crucial part of warfare today, also members of autocratic governments waste resources watching each other to ensure there quids in with the leader and as a result not properly watching there enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

We only have WW2 etc to go on but the thinking is a democray is usually not as well prepared for industrial scale warfare as say fascism or communism in early stages. The problem for autocrats is people who dissent are ignored or worse so you end up with no one saying "Mein Furher an invasion of the Soviet Union will fail" everyone ends up a yesman. Also intelligence agencies of autocratic regimes are better at internal security than at disrupting the enemy a crucial part of warfare today and the autocrats tend to watch each other to ensure there quids in with the Leader and not the enemy

---

The problem isn't so much the yes men, the problem is a little more complex.

In a dictatorship, when you think of a great plan, you do it.

In a democracy, when you think of a great plan, some other guy will say "no that plan suck monkey testicles!". This reaction will make you look over your plan once more, working a little more on it, making it a little better.

following your hitler example:
Hitler thought of a great invasion plan of the Soviet Union, and so he did.

If he had been living in a democracy, somebody would've pointed out how retarded that plan was, and Hitler would've been forced to look at it again, thus noticing the glaring logistic errors it contained, fixed it and rid the world of smelly commies once and for all!'

Compare the differences in planning of d-day with operation barbarossa, and note which one was succesful....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The problem isn't so much the yes men, the problem is a little more complex.

In a dictatorship, when you think of a great plan, you do it.

In a democracy, when you think of a great plan, some other guy will say "no that plan suck monkey testicles!". This reaction will make you look over your plan once more, working a little more on it, making it a little better.

following your hitler example:
Hitler thought of a great invasion plan of the Soviet Union, and so he did.

If he had been living in a democracy, somebody would've pointed out how retarded that plan was, and Hitler would've been forced to look at it again, thus noticing the glaring logistic errors it contained, fixed it and rid the world of smelly commies once and for all!'

Compare the differences in planning of d-day with operation barbarossa, and note which one was succesful....

---

I agree it is more complex than just having yesmen but it is a valid observation of these governments.

My bit on intelligence stands up I would say spying in Nazi Germany was a basically useless for warfare and only used to watch the people and to watch the other members of the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I agree it is more complex than just having yesmen but it is a valid observation of these governments.

My bit on intelligence stands up I would say spying in Nazi Germany was a basically useless for warfare and only used to watch the people and to watch the other members of the government.

---

The authoritarian Stalin made a war-winning decision(moving troops from Siberia to Stalingrad) based on the intelligence(that the Japanese would attack the US, not Siberia) he recieved from his spy in the Japanese court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The authoritarian Stalin made a war-winning decision(moving troops from Siberia to Stalingrad) based on the intelligence(that the Japanese would attack the US, not Siberia) he recieved from his spy in the Japanese court.

---

There is always an exception to every rule and he ignored spies who told him Nazi Germany was about to invade.

Anyway it doesnt matter the point is if there is to be a war you chances of winning go up if your democratic which we both agree on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

There is always an exception to every rule and he ignored spies who told him Nazi Germany was about to invade.

Anyway it doesnt matter the point is if there is to be a war you chances of winning go up if your democratic which we both agree on.

---

Yes, but remember that it's 00:18 here and I'm dilusional from writing a paper for the last way-too-many-hours.....

IMO the main basis for the democratic success in wars idea is the fact they are meritocratic. Dictators tend to mess up their militaries either through nepotism, or by deliberately crippling them to reduce the threat of a coup by dividing them into different factions (often ethnic based, eg Syria in the 60's), or by completely confusing the chain of command so nobody knows who takes orders from who (eg Argentinian junta). Better just to have a democratic system where the military is accountable to the people, and is given the necessary freedom to do its job properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, but remember that it's 00:18 here and I'm dilusional from writing a paper for the last way-too-many-hours.....

---

Heh, I often have similar problems writing on these boards.

The armies of the 20th Centuary were democratic. Is this a long term trend or a blip?

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient
Napoleon: An autocratic Emperor, but won battles
Roman Empire: worked under both a republic and an Emperor; Byzantine empire was there for hundreds more years
Japanese armies: under a Monarchy. Yes, they lost WW2, but they won most things before that and I don't think being a democracy suddenly makes one beat America.
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great...
Vietnamese: Communist
Cambodian: Communist
Red Army (post revolution): Communist

So, loads of autocratic regimes have been whipping all foes before them for hundreds of years.

~:smoking:

Democracy is better at peace, democratic countries usually don't go to war with other democratic countries

@Hax, book is meant for the layman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Democracy is better at peace, democratic countries usually don't go to war with other democratic countries

---

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

~:smoking:

---

Nor any democratic country, we are no pacifists. But how likely is it that the Dutch and English go to war again, or Germany and France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient

---

It was hardly run by a dictator.

Anyway, democracy is one one of many factors that determine how well a country can fight wars. Although you listed militaries there, the democratic success theories are more concerned with the war machine in general. Lake's 1992 studies on rent-seekign for example show democracies utilise their resources more effectively for war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

~:smoking:

---

If anything this supports the democratic peace idea, since the idea is not that democratic leaders are peace-loving idealists, but that public opinion constrains them, since the public tend to feel the costs of war. The fact that the US could only take covert actions in places like Nicaragua, Chile etc and not declare open war is due to the fact that it was a democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The armies of the 20th Centuary were democratic. Is this a long term trend or a blip?

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient
Napoleon: An autocratic Emperor, but won battles
Roman Empire: worked under both a republic and an Emperor; Byzantine empire was there for hundreds more years
Japanese armies: under a Monarchy. Yes, they lost WW2, but they won most things before that and I don't think being a democracy suddenly makes one beat America.
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great...
Vietnamese: Communist
Cambodian: Communist
Red Army (post revolution): Communist

So, loads of autocratic regimes have been whipping all foes before them for hundreds of years.

~:smoking:

---

When a dictator fights a dictator, one of them will of course win.

I fail to see how stating the obvious is an argument though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When a dictator fights a dictator, one of them will of course win.

I fail to see how stating the obvious is an argument though.

---

Don't get too carried away. Being a democracy doesn't make you invincible, you can't take the democratic success idea to be an absolute rule. The form of government is a moderately-important factor when weighed up against other things in determining how a war will come out. Most studies show democracy to be the best form in this respect, although there is also a tendency for the most authoritarian regimes to do pretty well, so the consolidation of the government in question has also got a lot to do with things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Don't get too carried away. Being a democracy doesn't make you invincible, you can't take the democratic success idea to be an absolute rule. The form of government is a moderately-important factor when weighed up against other things in determining how a war will come out. Most studies show democracy to be the best form in this respect, although there is also a tendency for the most authoritarian regimes to do pretty well, so the consolidation of the government in question has also got a lot to do with things.

---

The humble points remains the same: for a democracy to survive, it needs to adhere to democratic principles.

And an equally good way for democracies to end is to be truly democratic (with the voters having views on everything).

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And an equally good way for democracies to end is to be truly democratic (with the voters having views on everything).

~:smoking:

---

I'm having opinions on everything, and I don't see Norway ending anytime soon.

I am sure that people in China and North Korea have opinions... I rather fail to see the relevance of it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And an equally good way for democracies to end is to be truly democratic (with the voters having views on everything).

~:smoking:

---

You know we mean liberal democracy when we talk about democracy nowadays. Protection of human rights and the separation of powers are IMO much more important than the 51%+ say how things go aspect.

Protection of human rights can itself undermine democracy, as it precludes any effective method of dealing with some individuals.

Pacifism theoretically is great until someone plays by different rules.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Protection of human rights can itself undermine democracy, as it precludes any effective method of dealing with some individuals.

---

I cannot think of any such examples, although that's maybe because my take on rights is that you lose them when you fail to respect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Pacifism theoretically is great until someone plays by different rules.

---

The whole democratic peace idea is based on realist principles you know...

I completely agree with the concept that rights can be lost (and if appropriate, regained), and this invalidates my argument.

The 1930's show that defence is not always based on realism.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Indeed!

-Who won the American revolution? The democracy.
-Who won WW1? The democracies.
-Who won WW2? The democracies.
-Who won the cold war? The democracies.
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? The democracy.
-Who won both gulf wars? The democracy(ies).

---

I just wanna interject here and offer a slightly different viewpoint.


-Who won the American revolution? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW1? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW2? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won the cold war? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won both gulf wars? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money

Who won the Afghan war in the 1990ies?
Who won the Vietnam war?
Who won the Korean war?
Who won the War on Drugs?
Who won the invasion of Cuba?
Who won the cuban revolution?
Who won the french revolution?
Who won the Greek/Persian war?
Who won the War on Terror?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

-Who won WW2? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money

---

Yeah, WWII is not the best example, since something like 85% of the Wehrmacht was deployed fighting the non-democratic USSR on the Eastern Front. Although I read somewhere else around 70% of the German war effort more generally (as opposed to manpower) was for the Western Front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I just wanna interject here and offer a slightly different viewpoint.


-Who won the American revolution? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW1? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW2? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won the cold war? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won both gulf wars? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money

---

I take this as support for my position...

Except for the first one, the american revolutionaries certainly did not have a bigger production capability or more money than the British Empire.

Who won the Afghan war in the 1990ies? - one dictatorship defeated another dictatorship
Who won the Vietnam war? - irregular war, when I say "war" I'm referring to regular wars, occupying a country is something democracies have shown themselves to be poor at
Who won the Korean war? - noone?
Who won the War on Drugs? - this isn't a "war"
Who won the invasion of Cuba? - the dictatorship won, mostly because the democracy(US) withdrew its support at the critical moment. an invasion with the full backing of the US army would have had a completely different outcome.
Who won the cuban revolution? - the revolutionaries defeated a dictatorship
Who won the french revolution? - yes, who did really win the french revolution? I'll let Louis answer that one... But at any rate, there was at least one dictator on both sides
Who won the Greek/Persian war? - dictator vs. dictator
Who won the War on Terror? - irregular and ongoing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

No, the reason it is (or should be!) frowned upon is because the labeling of an entire religion -and by association the entire range of its adherents- demonstrates ignorance of its different interpretations.

As Hax has helpfully outlined, there is no single monolithic interpretation of Islam -and there is a real multitude of views within it. As ever, it's the bad bits that get picked up and denounced -which I think is right to do, but it is absolutely wrong to surmise that the whole of Islam is thus.

---

If each time the reaction when such news comes out has to be "but not all muslims are like that", then you are at least giving the impression of being an apologist. Sure, you didn't say that you agree with children getting this kind of "education", but it wouldn't hurt if you would first start with explicity condemning this and then ask people to be careful not to think all muslims are like that.

Maybe it's not your intention, but this is exactly the kind of reaction I'm getting enough of. It comes accros as apologising, trying to divert attention away from this unacceptable event and making people scared to be labeled as "racist muslim haters" when they're rightfully disgusted by something as children being indoctrinated to hate non-muslims.

In fact, by constantly addressing this kind of issues like this, people will start becoming racist muslim haters for real.

I don't know if I explained myself well. It's a subtle mechanism that comes accross as a waving finger and a "don't you dare say something negative about Islam or you're a racist".

Being disgusted by this news about indoctrination of children is not the same as labelling all muslims as evil. In fact, it is in the best interests of the muslims to not tolerate this.

Just like Catholic pedophile priests should be locked up and the key thrown away, these people indoctrinating those children to start hating non-muslims should be locked up as well. Period, end of story. And no unnecessary drama over it.

Doing the ""people should not use this to label all muslims as evil and blahblahblah" and in the meanwhile ignoring the issue at hand"- thingy is doing a disservice to exactly the majority of muslims you are trying to defend.

I also fail to see the relevance of this or that interpretation of Islam. The issue is: children are being indoctrinated to hate people of different religions. That's what we are talking about. You may find the fact that this particular case of indoctrination is organised by some Islamic group inconvenient, but that's how it is. Now, instead of going defensive and "defend Islam against teh evil racists", it would be better to open your eyes and see what is happening. Then act on it.

EDIT: I also fail to see the relevance for this thread to know who won which war. I thought history was for the Monastery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

If each time the reaction when such news comes out has to be "but not all muslims are like that", then you are at least giving the impression of being an apologist. Sure, you didn't say that you agree with children getting this kind of "education", but it wouldn't hurt if you would first start with explicity condemning this and then ask people to be careful not to think all muslims are like that.

---

So when discussing nazi's or whatever, I need to first state that I'm not a nazi or sympathize with them?

Shouldn't it be obvious that I don't associate with nazism even though I'm white? And shouldn't it be obvious that a muslim isn't an extremist or symathize with extremists?

Should all catholics be required to start their statements with "I don't condone child abuse, but [...]"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So when discussing nazi's or whatever, I need to first state that I'm not a nazi or sympathize with them?

Shouldn't it be obvious that I don't associate with nazism even though I'm white? And shouldn't it be obvious that a muslim isn't an extremist or symathize with extremists?

Should all catholics be required to start their statements with "I don't condone child abuse, but [...]"?

---

That's not what I said. Don't pretend that you're obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

That's not what I said. Don't pretend that you're obtuse.

---

So, muslims are required to state that they do not sympathize with extremism, while I don't need to state that I don't sympathize with nazism?

As a leftie, do I need to state that I don't agree with Gulag? Or Kim Jung-Il? Or the cultural revolution? The moscow trials? Pol pot? As a white european, do I need to state that I don't agree with slavery or imperialism?


Or does this just apply to scary brown people?