Should the Osama death pictures be released?

#102
#102
justingroves said:
You either have to kill them all or leave them alone?

Okay.

Let's kill the extremists first before we start just labeling an entire religion as a threat to America.
Click to expand...

Muslims (not all) have committed acts of murder in the name of faith. - True

The overwhelming majority of Muslims, while disapproving of the action itself, are largely silent to condemn the actions. - True

What is false about that?



...the point trying to be made here is the Muslim community seems to be saying "We are a religion of peace, and when some of us commit acts of violence we will spend the majority of our efforts vilifying those who burned a Koran, printed cartoons of Muhammed, etc. instead of those who committed the violent act."
 
#103
#103
therealUT said:
And...? I am glad you know how to use a search engine in order that you may take verses of the Koran out of context. Would you like for me to do the same with the Old and New Testaments? Would you just like to take my word for it that it can certainly, and very easily be done? or, would you rather me point you to the two other threads in the politics forum where I have done so ad nauseum?
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned, context is crap. It is there, it is written, and people use it. Same with Old and New Testament. People will twist this crap to fit any worldview they want, and at the bottom of it one context isn't better than another. Popular belief is the only separation.
 
#104
#104
volfanjustin said:
No
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Westboro are Christians. They accept Jesus as their savior. They meet the minimum requirement to be considered Christian.

Just because you distaste their views doesn't mean they aren't Christian, by definition.
 
#105
#105
rjd970 said:
Muslims (not all) have committed acts of murder in the name of faith. - True

The overwhelming majority of Muslims, while disapproving of the action itself, are largely silent to condemn the actions. - True

What is false about that?



...the point trying to be made here is the Muslim community seems to be saying "We are a religion of peace, and when some of us commit acts of violence we will spend the majority of our efforts vilifying those who burned a Koran, printed cartoons of Muhammed, etc. instead of those who committed the violent act."
Click to expand...

Why does this myth regarding the overwhleming majority of Muslims (as compared to any overwhelming majority) and their silence get so much play and credence?

There is a reason for the term "vocal minority"; obviously, the term appears to have universal standing. I have met countless Muslims who do not agree with the radical and the violent; many do not speak up out of fear; some simply do not speak up because they do not have outgoing personalities. That in no way means they are complicit.

As for leaders in the Muslim world, there are those who speak out, most notably the leaders in Yemen and Turkey. Ironically, for all the outcry and desire for the Western world to see and hear Muslims speak out against radical Islamist extremists, these leaders' comments rarely make it onto the front pages of our newspapers.
 
#107
#107
rjd970 said:
As far as I am concerned, context is crap. It is there, it is written, and people use it. Same with Old and New Testament. People will twist this crap to fit any worldview they want, and at the bottom of it one context isn't better than another. Popular belief is the only separation.
Click to expand...

Popular belief is defined by socio-economic positions and relationships to power.

When Christian groups/nations felt power slipping away, they did not hesitate to resort to violence and to justify their actions through their book.
 
#108
#108
therealUT said:
Why does this myth regarding the overwhleming majority of Muslims (as compared to any overwhelming majority) and their silence get so much play and credence?

There is a reason for the term "vocal minority"; obviously, the term appears to have universal standing. I have met countless Muslims who do not agree with the radical and the violent; many do not speak up out of fear; some simply do not speak up because they do not have outgoing personalities. That in no way means they are complicit.

As for leaders in the Muslim world, there are those who speak out, most notably the leaders in Yemen and Turkey. Ironically, for all the outcry and desire for the Western world to see and hear Muslims speak out against radical Islamist extremists, these leaders' comments rarely make it onto the front pages of our newspapers.
Click to expand...

Because it is true. Who in Turkey, Egypt, etc (won't even go into the more radical countries) condemned Embassy's being burned, or people being killed because of Koran burnings and cartoon's being published? The best you will find is a nuanced statement like "We don't agree with the violence, but what was done to our faith is an outrage".

It sure would be nice for someone in a Muslim country to come out and say "We respect the right of anybody to burn whatever book they want or print whatever cartoon they want. These violent protests and backlash are never acceptable."
 
#109
#109
therealUT said:
Popular belief is defined by socio-economic positions and relationships to power.

When Christian groups/nations felt power slipping away, they did not hesitate to resort to violence and to justify their actions through their book.
Click to expand...

The Tibet/China (Bhuddist/Communist) conflict disagrees. Christian Palestinians disagree. And this nonsense about Bhuddism being a philosophy is silliness. There is a belief about the afterlife (reincarnation), a deity, and a path to eternal happiness.

There is a reason we don't worry about having to fight suicide Amish teenagers, and it has more to do with what they believe as opposed to their socioeconomic status.
 
#110
#110
DinkinFlicka said:
Well, RJD, wouldn't it be more logical to blame human nature as opposed to the concept of Islam?
Click to expand...

No.

I deplore aspects of every religion, Islam has more than its fair share. It's history of conquest by force and violent retribution for perceived slights against its central tenets attests.

No matter how the west and liberals in general want to make it out like all religion is created equal, it simply isn't the case. Some are manifestly more dangerous than others.
 
#111
#111
rjd970 said:
the tibet/china (bhuddist/communist) conflict disagrees. Christian palestinians disagree. And this nonsense about bhuddism being a philosophy is silliness. There is a belief about the afterlife (reincarnation), a deity, and a path to eternal happiness.

There is a reason we don't worry about having to fight suicide amish teenagers, and it has more to do with what they believe as opposed to their socioeconomic status.
Click to expand...

buddhism and violence
print.gif
by bernard faure, professor of religious studies at stanford university; published december 6, 2003

is buddhism pacifist? One would think so, to hear the declarations of the dalai lama and those who claim there has never been "buddhist war." so has zen buddhism's "drift" to militarism been only an aberration, after the timeless message of gautama, the warrior-prince who, once he became the buddha, preached nonviolence? We are not simply faced here with a gap between theory and practice. Even though buddhism has no concept of a "holy war," it doesn't mean its doctrine does not at times legitimize the recourse to violence and the just war.

 in whatever countries buddhism has became official ideology—whether theravada buddhism in southeast asia or tantric buddhism in tibet or east asia—war has often been zealously waged. At present, the buddhists of sri lanka, for example, have openly taken up the struggle against the tamil freedom fighters. What is true of japanese zen holds equally for other forms of buddhism. Long before its lyrical metaphysical flights exerted their charm, buddhism took hold first and foremost as a tool for protecting states.
the buddha's sermons seem, however, to condemn all violence, toward oneself and toward others. Suicide, it is true, is not formally forbidden. And buddhism remains ambivalent toward the interiorized form of violence that is asceticism. Well-ordered violence begins with oneself. Chinese monks, to show their determination, would sometimes mutilate themselves—cutting off or burning one or more of their fingers. In extreme cases self-denial could extend to self-immolation by fire. We recall the horrific image of the vietnamese monk who, at the start of the u.s. Military intervention in his country, chose this death as a sign of protest.

 murder, on the other hand, is clearly condemned. As the buddha states in the brahma net sutra: "if a child of buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community."
buddhism and violence - sangam.org
​
Click to expand...

​
 
#112
#112
rjd970 said:
No.

I deplore aspects of every religion, Islam has more than its fair share. It's history of conquest by force and violent retribution for perceived slights against its central tenets attests.

No matter how the west and liberals in general want to make it out like all religion is created equal, it simply isn't the case. Some are manifestly more dangerous than others.
Click to expand...

Islam has more than its fair share? As long as one decides to intentionally forget the history of Judaism and Christendom, your point has merit.

Also, there can be no moral high ground in which to place Christianity above, in terms of peace, Islam for those persons, peoples, and societies which benefited from the violent conquests of their Christian forefathers.
 
#113
#113
Show me where Bhuddist are blowing themselves up in waves over treatment in Tibet. The situation is similar, if not worse, than what is happening in the middle east with the Palestinians.
 
#114
#114
therealUT said:
Islam has more than its fair share? As long as one decides to intentionally forget the history of Judaism and Christendom, your point has merit.

Also, there can be no moral high ground in which to place Christianity above, in terms of peace, Islam for those persons, peoples, and societies which benefited from the violent conquests of their Christian forefathers.
Click to expand...

My point has merit anyway. Far be it from me to defend Judaism and Christinity, they have their own issues. The Koran has precepts of subjugation and holy war not stated in the Bible.

I'm not placing a moral high ground over Islam. But ask yourself this, would the world be better if everyone was Amish or Muslim? I despise either choice, but clearly one would produce a less violent society than the other.
 
#115
#115
rjd970 said:
My point has merit anyway. Far be it from me to defend Judaism and Christinity, they have their own issues. The Koran has precepts of subjugation and holy war not stated in the Bible.

I'm not placing a moral high ground over Islam. But ask yourself this, would the world be better if everyone was Amish or Muslim? I despise either choice, but clearly one would produce a less violent society than the other.
Click to expand...

If everyone were Muslim, would there be any violence? The Koran only authorizes violence against nonbelievers who actively suppress and/or oppress believers. If everyone were Muslim, the world would be peaceful.

Further, everyone would pay the poor-rate; death taxes would also be collected and given to the poor. Muslims have certainly furthered science and technology more than any Amish person ever has; therefore, I would have to say that if I were given that choice, I would choose that everyone be Muslim before I chose that everyone be Amish.
 
#116
#116
therealUT said:
If everyone were Muslim, would there be any violence? The Koran only authorizes violence against nonbelievers who actively suppress and/or oppress believers. If everyone were Muslim, the world would be peaceful.

Further, everyone would pay the poor-rate; death taxes would also be collected and given to the poor. Muslims have certainly furthered science and technology more than any Amish person ever has; therefore, I would have to say that if I were given that choice, I would choose that everyone be Muslim before I chose that everyone be Amish.
Click to expand...

So you admit it does advocate violence? That is a start.

And every religion has its bright points. Algebra, for instance, was invented by the Muslims. And as you have stated, their views are charity are very progressive. But that says nothing about the efficacy of the belief, especially given everything else its adherents believe about social justice. You would still have Sunni's and Shiites lopping each other's head's off.
 
#117
#117
rjd970 said:
So you admit it does advocate violence? That is a start.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I have ever denied that point; I do deny that it advocates for more violence than the Old and New Testaments, though (it also advocates for less violence than the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita).

rjd970 said:
And every religion has its bright points. Algebra, for instance, was invented by the Muslims. And as you have stated, their views are charity are very progressive. But that says nothing about the efficacy of the belief, especially given everything else its adherents believe about social justice. You would still have Sunni's and Shiites lopping each other's head's off.
Click to expand...

Fair point; I should have qualified: if given the choice, I would rather everyone be Shia. I have little love for the fundamentalist and literalistic interpretations of the Sunni and the Wahabbi.

However, I am not sure I would ever want a completely Amish world. In fact, I think I would rather live with the warfare of today's world than ever live in an Amish community.
 
#121
#121
droski said:
I can't say i disagree with the logic. what's the upside to releasing them?
Click to expand...

We should be able to see them. Why not release them? Why was Barry so forceful in wanting to get the Abu Ghraib photos and not these? If anyone is going to want to blow us up, not releasing the photos will not make them change their minds. I want every terrorist or potential terrorist to see, no matter how long it takes or where you hide our guys will find you and kill you if you hurt this country.
 
Last edited:
#122
#122
volfanjustin said:
We should be able to see them. Why not release them? Why was Barry so forceful in wanting to get the Abu Ghraig photos and not these? If anyone is going to want to blow us up, not releasing the photos will not make them change their minds. I want every terrorist or potential terrorist to see, no matter how long it takes or where you hide our guys will find you and kill you if you hurt this country.
Click to expand...

we'll see it on every wackjobs sign for years to come. i agree it wont make a material difference, but i understand the logic.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top