What Are Your Opinions On the Creation of the State of Israel?
Options
Comments
-
your previous remark on this point was a concession? because i quoted it, and yet i could not find that.i conceded that. which leaves us at a moot point
-
01. let me repeat a point: you're saying i might just have learned about something you've known for years based on nothing more than your own background (hence the "you might not know anything about other posters on this forum - their background, their education, their level of knowledge, etc, etc"). it would be more logical to make your point on topic, because this method is simply saying, "i'm of Pakistani descent, so i know and you don't." yeah, you might have reason to care about the topic more, but than increased concern also doesn't make you immune to the "propaganda and psychological warfare" stuff you mention. and again, when did i call Pakistan a terrorist nation?1) umm No. the point was that I might actually understand Pakistan's history and internal politics in a way that might not make sense to you. you might just have learned about some of these people now but again we've known about them for years. for instance you might have HEARD about asif ali zardari but do you know of first hand accounts of the things he's done and been accused of? I doubt it. maybe if you did you might interpret things in a different light. For example, instead of implying that Pakistan may be a terrorist state based on whats been happening in the past 10 or so years, you could actually look at its history and understand that Pakistan has always been "moderate" in terms of its religious values.
2) I fully admit Pakistan would do things to screw over the US if it was in its best interests (hell every country does things like that), however Pakistan has done far more to help the US and has had to pay for it in the blood of its soldiers and citizens. Coupled with the fact that this has been the US's m.o. from the start of its relationship with Pakistan I dont think you can blame Pakistan for being a reluctant partner.
3) No one ever stated you said anything. When I say "you" im speaking in a general nature. Furthermore, here's the problem with you thinking that there is a reason why these people are being labelled terrorists/fundamentalists, I dont think you understand enough about islam to make a distinction from someone who is following the faith in its intended form. for example, one may call them terrorists because they believe they are fighting jihad. here's the problem, westerners here jihad and then equate it with fundamentalism. in islam jihad is a concept that has many different meanings. for example, the jihad that westerners know of is when it is applied to war, however a key misunderstanding is that a true jihad can ONLY be defensive in nature! Now if one doesnt understand this point they can make the "intellectual" leap of equating islam with terrorism. On the flip side the afghanis (taliban or whoever else) believe they are defending themselves after all they were attacked they didnt do the attacking. the most the taliban could be accused of was giving sanctuary to bin Laden which if you go back and research the issue you'd see the taliban did state that if evidence was provided for bin Laden's guilt they would try him in an islamic court. So again in their view they were the ones being attacked so for them jihad is justified ( it would still be a problematic issue from an islamic legal point of view). one needs to understand the religion before one can even pretend they understand what terms like fundamentalism and wahhabi even mean. maybe then you might understand why terrorism seems to only be associated with muslims. when a white man shot up a theatre in aurora, colorado he wasnt called a terrorist even though in the strict sense of the term what he did WAS an act of terrorism. instead you have people questioning his sanity. when a black person commits a crime he is stereotyped because thats what black people do and now when muslims or those claiming to be muslims (and there is a huge difference there) commit violence its labelled as terrorism. the point in all of this that before one applies labels one must understand them first, especially from a point of view that is not of your own.
02. from the start of the relationship, both sides had their agendas and operated in accordance with them. the major differences are that Pakistan is right there and thus pays the price in people getting killed that the US generally does not, and that Pakistan can be accused of double-dealing in ways the US cannot (ON THIS ISSUE, let's not totally stray). if you think Pakistan is a reluctant partner because they think the US is about to leave them in the lurch, fine, but that argument makes it more likely they'd ? over the US as they saw fit.
03. if you want to speak in a general sense, i suppose i would have to ask you to actually make that clear. do i not know enough about Islam, or do Americans/Westerners not know enough about Islam? because it comes across as a shot at me that you then step aside from by saying "well, i don't mean YOU." yet it's you and i debating this topic, so i don't know who else you're talking to.
another key misunderstanding is stating something like, for example, "true jihad can ONLY be defensive in nature" without considering that people are always, ALWAYS going to manipulate stuff like this for their own interests. i get your point, but you're presuming a universal agreement on this topic.
as far as the Colorado shooter, if we're going with terrorism being for the purposes of coercion, we probably wouldn't call him a terrorist because we don't know what the hell he would have been trying to coerce us into. and if i have to say it, i don't think i'm arguing people don't unnecessarily equate Islam with terrorism. -
first, take a deep breath. next, ask yourself how often i post repeated strings of posts in a thread instead large posts with multiple quotes.no. i really dont know what you were talking about there.
-
01. i don't agree, i think that's the point. quote something i might have missed in all the talk about the current US-Israel relationship?
i did not say there was no history between the US and Israel, as there obviously is. however, this history does not necessary have anything to do with the CREATION of Israel.no actually im talking about how current events and history tie together because basically not much has changed. i even offered support as to my conclusions. there is ample evidence out there that shows the US's role in the creation of israel, a simple google search will show you as much. I even tried to point out that logically speaking such staunch support of a nation would have to be based on some sort of history between the two, it just doesnt happen over night.
further, i'll just point out that despite the fact that both the Ottomans and the British considered it their property to dispose of as they saw fit, the single country you want to focus on is the US. hmmm.
1) thats just it! ive posted enough evidence to negate that claim. history shows the US had A LOT to do with the creation of israel. Maybe it didnt fire the gun but it supplied the bullets.
2) the Ottoman Empire doesnt exist now im sure if it did the Palestinians would have beef with them now. The British took a back seat in the world as a major player. They simply dont matter as much now, however, the Palestinians still have a lot of indignation for them too.
as a side note. the fact that the western powers called for the dissolution of the Islamic Caliphate (which had been around for 1300 years by that time shows again a religious battle being fought.
02. and this is exactly my point: in discussing the CREATION of the state of Israel, you're telling me the Ottomans don't exist now and the British aren't a major player now. but we're not talking about NOW, we're talking about WHEN ISRAEL WAS CREATED.
-
(deep sigh)
a better question is, do you have the ability to debate a topic WITHOUT your argument being "no one knows what they're talking about but me?" because that one is clearly designed for the sole purpose of talking ? and nothing more.the taliban and mujahiddeen are one and the same in terms of ideology. both fought a jihad to ride their lands of kuffar (non-believers according to them) do you even know what mujahiddeen means without having to look it up?
fine, let's look it up:
mujahideen: Islamic guerrilla fighters especially in the Middle East (yes, it's a little more general than that, i suppose)
Taliban: a fundamentalist Islamic militia in Afghanistan
so, once again i will post this: "no, all Taliban might be mujaheddin, but not all mujaheddin are Taliban."
also, let me know when you want to address your OWN use of blanket terminology.
those are the definitions the west have given each to describe them however, they miss the mark.
a mujihad is a muslim engaged in jihad.
taliban is derived from the arabic word talib meaning student. however, the taliban are also mujahid in the sense that they are muslims engaged in jihad. the issue is one being justified while the other being crucified according to the needs of american foreign policy
its kind of ironic that you dont get why I say I understand the issue more than you do when you keep misunderstanding the argument
once again both the mujahiddeen and the taliban waged jihad against who they saw as oppressors. they're fundamentally the same because both are based on the same principles. maybe thats why u dont get why its not a blanket statement!
do i have to break this "all Taliban might be mujaheddin, but not all mujaheddin are Taliban" down?
okay, if the Taliban are Muslims engaged in jihad, then they are mujaheddin ("all Taliban might be mujaheddin"); however, since you can be a Muslim engaged in jihad and NOT be a member of the Taliban, it does not make you Taliban to be a mujaheddin ("not all mujaheddin are Taliban). therefore, they are NOT the same thing.
what's really ironic is that i am repeating this statement over and over and you have not gotten it as of yet. -
01. let me repeat a point: you're saying i might just have learned about something you've known for years based on nothing more than your own background (hence the "you might not know anything about other posters on this forum - their background, their education, their level of knowledge, etc, etc"). it would be more logical to make your point on topic, because this method is simply saying, "i'm of Pakistani descent, so i know and you don't." yeah, you might have reason to care about the topic more, but than increased concern also doesn't make you immune to the "propaganda and psychological warfare" stuff you mention. and again, when did i call Pakistan a terrorist nation?1) umm No. the point was that I might actually understand Pakistan's history and internal politics in a way that might not make sense to you. you might just have learned about some of these people now but again we've known about them for years. for instance you might have HEARD about asif ali zardari but do you know of first hand accounts of the things he's done and been accused of? I doubt it. maybe if you did you might interpret things in a different light. For example, instead of implying that Pakistan may be a terrorist state based on whats been happening in the past 10 or so years, you could actually look at its history and understand that Pakistan has always been "moderate" in terms of its religious values.
2) I fully admit Pakistan would do things to screw over the US if it was in its best interests (hell every country does things like that), however Pakistan has done far more to help the US and has had to pay for it in the blood of its soldiers and citizens. Coupled with the fact that this has been the US's m.o. from the start of its relationship with Pakistan I dont think you can blame Pakistan for being a reluctant partner.
3) No one ever stated you said anything. When I say "you" im speaking in a general nature. Furthermore, here's the problem with you thinking that there is a reason why these people are being labelled terrorists/fundamentalists, I dont think you understand enough about islam to make a distinction from someone who is following the faith in its intended form. for example, one may call them terrorists because they believe they are fighting jihad. here's the problem, westerners here jihad and then equate it with fundamentalism. in islam jihad is a concept that has many different meanings. for example, the jihad that westerners know of is when it is applied to war, however a key misunderstanding is that a true jihad can ONLY be defensive in nature! Now if one doesnt understand this point they can make the "intellectual" leap of equating islam with terrorism. On the flip side the afghanis (taliban or whoever else) believe they are defending themselves after all they were attacked they didnt do the attacking. the most the taliban could be accused of was giving sanctuary to bin Laden which if you go back and research the issue you'd see the taliban did state that if evidence was provided for bin Laden's guilt they would try him in an islamic court. So again in their view they were the ones being attacked so for them jihad is justified ( it would still be a problematic issue from an islamic legal point of view). one needs to understand the religion before one can even pretend they understand what terms like fundamentalism and wahhabi even mean. maybe then you might understand why terrorism seems to only be associated with muslims. when a white man shot up a theatre in aurora, colorado he wasnt called a terrorist even though in the strict sense of the term what he did WAS an act of terrorism. instead you have people questioning his sanity. when a black person commits a crime he is stereotyped because thats what black people do and now when muslims or those claiming to be muslims (and there is a huge difference there) commit violence its labelled as terrorism. the point in all of this that before one applies labels one must understand them first, especially from a point of view that is not of your own.
02. from the start of the relationship, both sides had their agendas and operated in accordance with them. the major differences are that Pakistan is right there and thus pays the price in people getting killed that the US generally does not, and that Pakistan can be accused of double-dealing in ways the US cannot (ON THIS ISSUE, let's not totally stray). if you think Pakistan is a reluctant partner because they think the US is about to leave them in the lurch, fine, but that argument makes it more likely they'd ? over the US as they saw fit.
03. if you want to speak in a general sense, i suppose i would have to ask you to actually make that clear. do i not know enough about Islam, or do Americans/Westerners not know enough about Islam? because it comes across as a shot at me that you then step aside from by saying "well, i don't mean YOU." yet it's you and i debating this topic, so i don't know who else you're talking to.
another key misunderstanding is stating something like, for example, "true jihad can ONLY be defensive in nature" without considering that people are always, ALWAYS going to manipulate stuff like this for their own interests. i get your point, but you're presuming a universal agreement on this topic.
as far as the Colorado shooter, if we're going with terrorism being for the purposes of coercion, we probably wouldn't call him a terrorist because we don't know what the hell he would have been trying to coerce us into. and if i have to say it, i don't think i'm arguing people don't unnecessarily equate Islam with terrorism.
1) I'd still say being from a country allows one to have more access to information that others might not have hence having a more informed opinion. that point kind of underlies what all spy agencies are about. there is a reason they dont just sit home and try to figure things out. they send operatives out into the field to collect raw data that would not otherwise be available. simply put I have more access to such "raw" data than you do. I think you undervalue such information. and yeah it could be considered psy ops or you could actually have a credible source (another thing spy agencies rely heavily on for their info). to drive the point home, who do you think would know more about local elections wherever you live, you or someone sitting in Pakistan? we'll go with you on this one
2) actually that IS the Issue that Pakistan has with the US. the view is the US cannot be trusted either due to the backroom dealings it makes with supposed enemies.
3) Well in this one instance I do believe you dont know enough about islam to make certain judgments. Im sure you will try to argue the point but thats pretty much the point im making, which is, westerners (especially Americans) think they understand islam when they have no real clue.
4) there is a universal agreement as far as what constitutes legal and illegal warfare. if westerners could actually understand that point they wouldnt be equating islam with terrorism so much. simply put its guilt by association which is claimed to be something that is contrary to American values. anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions but only muslims receive communal blame. -
01. there are several problems with this point:1) I'd still say being from a country allows one to have more access to information that others might not have hence having a more informed opinion. that point kind of underlies what all spy agencies are about. there is a reason they dont just sit home and try to figure things out. they send operatives out into the field to collect raw data that would not otherwise be available. simply put I have more access to such "raw" data than you do. I think you undervalue such information. and yeah it could be considered psy ops or you could actually have a credible source (another thing spy agencies rely heavily on for their info). to drive the point home, who do you think would know more about local elections wherever you live, you or someone sitting in Pakistan? we'll go with you on this one
2) actually that IS the Issue that Pakistan has with the US. the view is the US cannot be trusted either due to the backroom dealings it makes with supposed enemies.
3) Well in this one instance I do believe you dont know enough about islam to make certain judgments. Im sure you will try to argue the point but thats pretty much the point im making, which is, westerners (especially Americans) think they understand islam when they have no real clue.
4) there is a universal agreement as far as what constitutes legal and illegal warfare. if westerners could actually understand that point they wouldnt be equating islam with terrorism so much. simply put its guilt by association which is claimed to be something that is contrary to American values. anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions but only muslims receive communal blame.
--that you claimed others would need to work in intelligence to have positions while you don't need to simply to disagree;
--that having an ethnic connection to a country is the same thing as been born, raised and/or living in that country (because if you're born and raised in the US, you're not FROM Pakistan) AND that it gives you increased access to "information";
--that your "raw data" is immune to propaganda (note the repeated claims that any point i make is suspect for this reason while there is no actual acknowledgement your personal connection could be colored by it).
yes, it is true that someone in the area is likely to have better information on local events. that said, we're not talking about local events for the most part. and now we're also going beyond that to essentially argue that one cannot have information on a topic WITHOUT being local.
02. still just backing the justification to double-deal, not really disputing it.
03. well, since we're being personal about this, let me just say a) this is that "blanket statement" thing that you complained about, so i'll trust you stop with that argument; b) this your personal conceit because it's easier to say "westerners don't understand Islam" than actually debate a topic; and c) it's the same argument of "i know something because of who i am, while you cannot personally ever learn anything because you're not from a certain area or of a certain background."
plus... born, raised and currently living in the US makes you a westerner, man. i guess that means you don't know anything about Islam?
04. universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare is not the boon to your "whatever is contrary to American values is illegal warfare" argument that you seem to think it is. in fact, you THEN follow it with "anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions": this is not the same thing as "there is universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare." what are you arguing? -
01. there are several problems with this point:1) I'd still say being from a country allows one to have more access to information that others might not have hence having a more informed opinion. that point kind of underlies what all spy agencies are about. there is a reason they dont just sit home and try to figure things out. they send operatives out into the field to collect raw data that would not otherwise be available. simply put I have more access to such "raw" data than you do. I think you undervalue such information. and yeah it could be considered psy ops or you could actually have a credible source (another thing spy agencies rely heavily on for their info). to drive the point home, who do you think would know more about local elections wherever you live, you or someone sitting in Pakistan? we'll go with you on this one
2) actually that IS the Issue that Pakistan has with the US. the view is the US cannot be trusted either due to the backroom dealings it makes with supposed enemies.
3) Well in this one instance I do believe you dont know enough about islam to make certain judgments. Im sure you will try to argue the point but thats pretty much the point im making, which is, westerners (especially Americans) think they understand islam when they have no real clue.
4) there is a universal agreement as far as what constitutes legal and illegal warfare. if westerners could actually understand that point they wouldnt be equating islam with terrorism so much. simply put its guilt by association which is claimed to be something that is contrary to American values. anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions but only muslims receive communal blame.
--that you claimed others would need to work in intelligence to have positions while you don't need to simply to disagree;
--that having an ethnic connection to a country is the same thing as been born, raised and/or living in that country (because if you're born and raised in the US, you're not FROM Pakistan) AND that it gives you increased access to "information";
--that your "raw data" is immune to propaganda (note the repeated claims that any point i make is suspect for this reason while there is no actual acknowledgement your personal connection could be colored by it).
yes, it is true that someone in the area is likely to have better information on local events. that said, we're not talking about local events for the most part. and now we're also going beyond that to essentially argue that one cannot have information on a topic WITHOUT being local.
02. still just backing the justification to double-deal, not really disputing it.
03. well, since we're being personal about this, let me just say a) this is that "blanket statement" thing that you complained about, so i'll trust you stop with that argument; b) this your personal conceit because it's easier to say "westerners don't understand Islam" than actually debate a topic; and c) it's the same argument of "i know something because of who i am, while you cannot personally ever learn anything because you're not from a certain area or of a certain background."
plus... born, raised and currently living in the US makes you a westerner, man. i guess that means you don't know anything about Islam?
04. universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare is not the boon to your "whatever is contrary to American values is illegal warfare" argument that you seem to think it is. in fact, you THEN follow it with "anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions": this is not the same thing as "there is universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare." what are you arguing?
working in intelligence was a counter claim I put forth to show that only those people have the actual data! we only know what we're told.
I dont only have an "ethnic" connection to Pakistan. I have spent time in the country as well. Im pretty sure I know the workings of the country in a way you just dont. the raw data would be immune from propaganda if its first hand knowledge which is the only type I alluded to. your knowledge is colored based on the subjectivity in which you receive it. being from the states you're not really going to be taught that America is at fault and Pakistan is the victim. clearly you havent shown anything but disdain for Pakistan even when it has sacrificed more lives on the war on terror than the US.
Westerners dont understand anything about islam. because if they did they simply would not associate the religion with terrorism. and I think perhaps me being a muslim has more to do with saying that than being an American. I know when my religion is being misrepresented.
I said there was universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare in islamic law! humans on the other hand can and do misinterpret the law to suit their own goals -
01. however, you dropped it as an indictment of my argument without bothering to admit that you would be subject to the same argument.
01. there are several problems with this point:1) I'd still say being from a country allows one to have more access to information that others might not have hence having a more informed opinion. that point kind of underlies what all spy agencies are about. there is a reason they dont just sit home and try to figure things out. they send operatives out into the field to collect raw data that would not otherwise be available. simply put I have more access to such "raw" data than you do. I think you undervalue such information. and yeah it could be considered psy ops or you could actually have a credible source (another thing spy agencies rely heavily on for their info). to drive the point home, who do you think would know more about local elections wherever you live, you or someone sitting in Pakistan? we'll go with you on this one
2) actually that IS the Issue that Pakistan has with the US. the view is the US cannot be trusted either due to the backroom dealings it makes with supposed enemies.
3) Well in this one instance I do believe you dont know enough about islam to make certain judgments. Im sure you will try to argue the point but thats pretty much the point im making, which is, westerners (especially Americans) think they understand islam when they have no real clue.
4) there is a universal agreement as far as what constitutes legal and illegal warfare. if westerners could actually understand that point they wouldnt be equating islam with terrorism so much. simply put its guilt by association which is claimed to be something that is contrary to American values. anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions but only muslims receive communal blame.
--that you claimed others would need to work in intelligence to have positions while you don't need to simply to disagree;
--that having an ethnic connection to a country is the same thing as been born, raised and/or living in that country (because if you're born and raised in the US, you're not FROM Pakistan) AND that it gives you increased access to "information";
--that your "raw data" is immune to propaganda (note the repeated claims that any point i make is suspect for this reason while there is no actual acknowledgement your personal connection could be colored by it).
yes, it is true that someone in the area is likely to have better information on local events. that said, we're not talking about local events for the most part. and now we're also going beyond that to essentially argue that one cannot have information on a topic WITHOUT being local.
02. still just backing the justification to double-deal, not really disputing it.
03. well, since we're being personal about this, let me just say a) this is that "blanket statement" thing that you complained about, so i'll trust you stop with that argument; b) this your personal conceit because it's easier to say "westerners don't understand Islam" than actually debate a topic; and c) it's the same argument of "i know something because of who i am, while you cannot personally ever learn anything because you're not from a certain area or of a certain background."
plus... born, raised and currently living in the US makes you a westerner, man. i guess that means you don't know anything about Islam?
04. universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare is not the boon to your "whatever is contrary to American values is illegal warfare" argument that you seem to think it is. in fact, you THEN follow it with "anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions": this is not the same thing as "there is universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare." what are you arguing?
working in intelligence was a counter claim I put forth to show that only those people have the actual data! we only know what we're told.
I dont only have an "ethnic" connection to Pakistan. I have spent time in the country as well. Im pretty sure I know the workings of the country in a way you just dont. the raw data would be immune from propaganda if its first hand knowledge which is the only type I alluded to. your knowledge is colored based on the subjectivity in which you receive it. being from the states you're not really going to be taught that America is at fault and Pakistan is the victim. clearly you havent shown anything but disdain for Pakistan even when it has sacrificed more lives on the war on terror than the US.
Westerners dont understand anything about islam. because if they did they simply would not associate the religion with terrorism. and I think perhaps me being a muslim has more to do with saying that than being an American. I know when my religion is being misrepresented.
I said there was universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare in islamic law! humans on the other hand can and do misinterpret the law to suit their own goals
02. i haven't spent time in Pakistan, i grant you that, but then i don't like to travel. that said, you're still playing the "because of who i am, i simply KNOW and you simply DON'T game." you're arguing you're immune to propaganda (which, by the way, "raw data" is not immune from) as well as that you know my thought process, background, sources, etc, etc. being from the US i won't be taught the US is at fault and Pakistan is the victim? YOU ARE FROM THE US. and ? , i never said anything more than "they both play their games."
but aside from the fact that i am from the US, please, feel free to break down my ethnic background and the rest.
03. YOU ARE A WESTERNER. also, awesome blanket statement.
04. please don't be so dense as to tell me Islamic law has universal agreement but humans can misinterpret the law to suit their own goals in the same damn sentence. there's no religion out there with universal agreement going on unless you're talking about some crazy cult with 13 members, 12 of whom have committed suicide.
-
01. however, you dropped it as an indictment of my argument without bothering to admit that you would be subject to the same argument.
01. there are several problems with this point:1) I'd still say being from a country allows one to have more access to information that others might not have hence having a more informed opinion. that point kind of underlies what all spy agencies are about. there is a reason they dont just sit home and try to figure things out. they send operatives out into the field to collect raw data that would not otherwise be available. simply put I have more access to such "raw" data than you do. I think you undervalue such information. and yeah it could be considered psy ops or you could actually have a credible source (another thing spy agencies rely heavily on for their info). to drive the point home, who do you think would know more about local elections wherever you live, you or someone sitting in Pakistan? we'll go with you on this one
2) actually that IS the Issue that Pakistan has with the US. the view is the US cannot be trusted either due to the backroom dealings it makes with supposed enemies.
3) Well in this one instance I do believe you dont know enough about islam to make certain judgments. Im sure you will try to argue the point but thats pretty much the point im making, which is, westerners (especially Americans) think they understand islam when they have no real clue.
4) there is a universal agreement as far as what constitutes legal and illegal warfare. if westerners could actually understand that point they wouldnt be equating islam with terrorism so much. simply put its guilt by association which is claimed to be something that is contrary to American values. anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions but only muslims receive communal blame.
--that you claimed others would need to work in intelligence to have positions while you don't need to simply to disagree;
--that having an ethnic connection to a country is the same thing as been born, raised and/or living in that country (because if you're born and raised in the US, you're not FROM Pakistan) AND that it gives you increased access to "information";
--that your "raw data" is immune to propaganda (note the repeated claims that any point i make is suspect for this reason while there is no actual acknowledgement your personal connection could be colored by it).
yes, it is true that someone in the area is likely to have better information on local events. that said, we're not talking about local events for the most part. and now we're also going beyond that to essentially argue that one cannot have information on a topic WITHOUT being local.
02. still just backing the justification to double-deal, not really disputing it.
03. well, since we're being personal about this, let me just say a) this is that "blanket statement" thing that you complained about, so i'll trust you stop with that argument; b) this your personal conceit because it's easier to say "westerners don't understand Islam" than actually debate a topic; and c) it's the same argument of "i know something because of who i am, while you cannot personally ever learn anything because you're not from a certain area or of a certain background."
plus... born, raised and currently living in the US makes you a westerner, man. i guess that means you don't know anything about Islam?
04. universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare is not the boon to your "whatever is contrary to American values is illegal warfare" argument that you seem to think it is. in fact, you THEN follow it with "anybody can believe whatever they want and use it for the justification of their actions": this is not the same thing as "there is universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare." what are you arguing?
working in intelligence was a counter claim I put forth to show that only those people have the actual data! we only know what we're told.
I dont only have an "ethnic" connection to Pakistan. I have spent time in the country as well. Im pretty sure I know the workings of the country in a way you just dont. the raw data would be immune from propaganda if its first hand knowledge which is the only type I alluded to. your knowledge is colored based on the subjectivity in which you receive it. being from the states you're not really going to be taught that America is at fault and Pakistan is the victim. clearly you havent shown anything but disdain for Pakistan even when it has sacrificed more lives on the war on terror than the US.
Westerners dont understand anything about islam. because if they did they simply would not associate the religion with terrorism. and I think perhaps me being a muslim has more to do with saying that than being an American. I know when my religion is being misrepresented.
I said there was universal agreement on what is legal and illegal warfare in islamic law! humans on the other hand can and do misinterpret the law to suit their own goals
02. i haven't spent time in Pakistan, i grant you that, but then i don't like to travel. that said, you're still playing the "because of who i am, i simply KNOW and you simply DON'T game." you're arguing you're immune to propaganda (which, by the way, "raw data" is not immune from) as well as that you know my thought process, background, sources, etc, etc. being from the US i won't be taught the US is at fault and Pakistan is the victim? YOU ARE FROM THE US. and ? , i never said anything more than "they both play their games."
but aside from the fact that i am from the US, please, feel free to break down my ethnic background and the rest.
03. YOU ARE A WESTERNER. also, awesome blanket statement.
04. please don't be so dense as to tell me Islamic law has universal agreement but humans can misinterpret the law to suit their own goals in the same damn sentence. there's no religion out there with universal agreement going on unless you're talking about some crazy cult with 13 members, 12 of whom have committed suicide.
what exactly are your qualifications on this issue? you're sitting on AHH voicing your opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.
and you just proved my point that you really dont know anything about islam. you dont know the first thing about islamic law so dont sit there and try to tell me what there is and isnt agreement on (btw I said there was universal agreement on what constitutes Jihad). maybe YOU shouldnt be so dense as to not think people break the law all the time regardless of how "universal" it may be. -
sitting on AHH voicing your opinion is all you're doing as well, so it's sort of weird to insult me in a manner that applies to yourself as well. the major difference is i'm not the one making rulings about who is and is not allowed to weigh in on topics or learn about them. what you seem to want is to be able to say "i have relatives from Pakistan" and have everyone automatically acquiesce to your opinion. welcome to the internet.what exactly are your qualifications on this issue? you're sitting on AHH voicing your opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.
and you just proved my point that you really dont know anything about islam. you dont know the first thing about islamic law so dont sit there and try to tell me what there is and isnt agreement on (btw I said there was universal agreement on what constitutes Jihad). maybe YOU shouldnt be so dense as to not think people break the law all the time regardless of how "universal" it may be.
and let me just add this about your Islamic law argument: you should know, since you're well-versed on Islam, that it's like EVERY OTHER MAJOR RELIGION: it has a variety of people on various sides of debates that don't agree. and when they don't agree, they state that their side is the one with the correct interpretation of the law. if your argument is, let's say, that every Muslim agrees on what is and is not acceptable for jihad, you're either:
a) making an argument that certain people should not be considered Muslims;
b) being intentionally dense on the topic because you do not want to concede that Muslims are humans.
but then again, you ARE a Westerner, and according to you, "Westerners dont understand anything about islam." so maybe this makes sense? -
sitting on AHH voicing your opinion is all you're doing as well, so it's sort of weird to insult me in a manner that applies to yourself as well. the major difference is i'm not the one making rulings about who is and is not allowed to weigh in on topics or learn about them. what you seem to want is to be able to say "i have relatives from Pakistan" and have everyone automatically acquiesce to your opinion. welcome to the internet.what exactly are your qualifications on this issue? you're sitting on AHH voicing your opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.
and you just proved my point that you really dont know anything about islam. you dont know the first thing about islamic law so dont sit there and try to tell me what there is and isnt agreement on (btw I said there was universal agreement on what constitutes Jihad). maybe YOU shouldnt be so dense as to not think people break the law all the time regardless of how "universal" it may be.
and let me just add this about your Islamic law argument: you should know, since you're well-versed on Islam, that it's like EVERY OTHER MAJOR RELIGION: it has a variety of people on various sides of debates that don't agree. and when they don't agree, they state that their side is the one with the correct interpretation of the law. if your argument is, let's say, that every Muslim agrees on what is and is not acceptable for jihad, you're either:
a) making an argument that certain people should not be considered Muslims;
b) being intentionally dense on the topic because you do not want to concede that Muslims are humans.
but then again, you ARE a Westerner, and according to you, "Westerners dont understand anything about islam." so maybe this makes sense?
first of all if I wanted to come up with an insult im sure I could do better. that was merely stating the obvious. and you still didnt answer the question what exactly are your qualifications on the issue (you tried scrutinize mine after all)? moreover I never said my opinion was the only one I said it was the more informed one. it seems to me that that YOU ARE the one trying to decide who's right or wrong here.
as for the argument about religion you're still showing that you just dont know what you're talking about. how about you actually tell me what constitutes a legal (islamically) jihad? I mean you are keen to point out how much we muslims disagree on the subject so do tell what exactly are those disagreements? can you tell me the various positions on jihad and who stated them?
-
what qualifications do i need to state? i'm allowing for everyone to express their position on the issue; you're the one attempting to decide who is or is not qualified to opine. what i HAVE said, however, is that you're not any more qualified than the people you're saying aren't qualified.
sitting on AHH voicing your opinion is all you're doing as well, so it's sort of weird to insult me in a manner that applies to yourself as well. the major difference is i'm not the one making rulings about who is and is not allowed to weigh in on topics or learn about them. what you seem to want is to be able to say "i have relatives from Pakistan" and have everyone automatically acquiesce to your opinion. welcome to the internet.what exactly are your qualifications on this issue? you're sitting on AHH voicing your opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.
and you just proved my point that you really dont know anything about islam. you dont know the first thing about islamic law so dont sit there and try to tell me what there is and isnt agreement on (btw I said there was universal agreement on what constitutes Jihad). maybe YOU shouldnt be so dense as to not think people break the law all the time regardless of how "universal" it may be.
and let me just add this about your Islamic law argument: you should know, since you're well-versed on Islam, that it's like EVERY OTHER MAJOR RELIGION: it has a variety of people on various sides of debates that don't agree. and when they don't agree, they state that their side is the one with the correct interpretation of the law. if your argument is, let's say, that every Muslim agrees on what is and is not acceptable for jihad, you're either:
a) making an argument that certain people should not be considered Muslims;
b) being intentionally dense on the topic because you do not want to concede that Muslims are humans.
but then again, you ARE a Westerner, and according to you, "Westerners dont understand anything about islam." so maybe this makes sense?
first of all if I wanted to come up with an insult im sure I could do better. that was merely stating the obvious. and you still didnt answer the question what exactly are your qualifications on the issue (you tried scrutinize mine after all)? moreover I never said my opinion was the only one I said it was the more informed one. it seems to me that that YOU ARE the one trying to decide who's right or wrong here.
as for the argument about religion you're still showing that you just dont know what you're talking about. how about you actually tell me what constitutes a legal (islamically) jihad? I mean you are keen to point out how much we muslims disagree on the subject so do tell what exactly are those disagreements? can you tell me the various positions on jihad and who stated them?
i've seen a LOT of posters on this forum playing the "i'll decide who is and is not allowed to know about a topic" game; sorry if i call that out.
as for the jihad question, we can handle this in a simple manner: members of al-Qaeda claim to be practicing jihad in accordance with Islamic law. do all Muslims agree with them? -
what qualifications do i need to state? i'm allowing for everyone to express their position on the issue; you're the one attempting to decide who is or is not qualified to opine. what i HAVE said, however, is that you're not any more qualified than the people you're saying aren't qualified.
sitting on AHH voicing your opinion is all you're doing as well, so it's sort of weird to insult me in a manner that applies to yourself as well. the major difference is i'm not the one making rulings about who is and is not allowed to weigh in on topics or learn about them. what you seem to want is to be able to say "i have relatives from Pakistan" and have everyone automatically acquiesce to your opinion. welcome to the internet.what exactly are your qualifications on this issue? you're sitting on AHH voicing your opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.
and you just proved my point that you really dont know anything about islam. you dont know the first thing about islamic law so dont sit there and try to tell me what there is and isnt agreement on (btw I said there was universal agreement on what constitutes Jihad). maybe YOU shouldnt be so dense as to not think people break the law all the time regardless of how "universal" it may be.
and let me just add this about your Islamic law argument: you should know, since you're well-versed on Islam, that it's like EVERY OTHER MAJOR RELIGION: it has a variety of people on various sides of debates that don't agree. and when they don't agree, they state that their side is the one with the correct interpretation of the law. if your argument is, let's say, that every Muslim agrees on what is and is not acceptable for jihad, you're either:
a) making an argument that certain people should not be considered Muslims;
b) being intentionally dense on the topic because you do not want to concede that Muslims are humans.
but then again, you ARE a Westerner, and according to you, "Westerners dont understand anything about islam." so maybe this makes sense?
first of all if I wanted to come up with an insult im sure I could do better. that was merely stating the obvious. and you still didnt answer the question what exactly are your qualifications on the issue (you tried scrutinize mine after all)? moreover I never said my opinion was the only one I said it was the more informed one. it seems to me that that YOU ARE the one trying to decide who's right or wrong here.
as for the argument about religion you're still showing that you just dont know what you're talking about. how about you actually tell me what constitutes a legal (islamically) jihad? I mean you are keen to point out how much we muslims disagree on the subject so do tell what exactly are those disagreements? can you tell me the various positions on jihad and who stated them?
i've seen a LOT of posters on this forum playing the "i'll decide who is and is not allowed to know about a topic" game; sorry if i call that out.
as for the jihad question, we can handle this in a simple manner: members of al-Qaeda claim to be practicing jihad in accordance with Islamic law. do all Muslims agree with them?
did u not mention something about me not having a degree in history? you seem to speak in a manner consistent with someone who feels they have authority in the manner. My whole point in addressing YOU was to remind YOU that YOU are only voicing an opinion like the rest of us. As I stated last time my position was that I believe my opinion is a more informed one.
as for jihad and al qaeda well thats simple. al qaeda has no standing in islamic jurisprudence. neither osama bin laden nor anyone else in al qaeda has the authority to call for jihad. killing innocent civilians and using suicide bombings is expressly forbidden in islam. a true jihad has to be pure in its purpose (this is a topic that requires clarification but for brevity's sake i'll leave it at that). the point is that al qaeda claiming they are waging jihad doesnt mean that its sanctioned islamically. I can punch you in the face and say it was jihad but it doesnt mean it is. like i said before the principles are agreed upon however the actors (ie human beings) tend to interpret and act in ways that are self-serving.
-
i am pretty sure i mentioned you having a degree in history due to you claiming knowledge based on your ethnic background. here's the quote: "and here i was not realizing that being born outside the continental US means you get issued a master's degree in history when you exit the ? ." let's also note it was a response to YOUR quote of "dude do me a favor learn something about Pakistan/US history and then come back and talk to me." honestly, i'm not getting where you get off reminding me of anything of that sort when post after post of yours has been declaring who is and is not qualified to state an opinion on the topic.did u not mention something about me not having a degree in history? you seem to speak in a manner consistent with someone who feels they have authority in the manner. My whole point in addressing YOU was to remind YOU that YOU are only voicing an opinion like the rest of us. As I stated last time my position was that I believe my opinion is a more informed one.
-
as for the al-Qaeda/jihad issue, it IS simple: they profess to be Muslims and they profess to waging Islamically-allowed jihad. now, i disagree with them, you disagree with them, most Muslims disagree with them, right? however, unless you are arguing they cannot be considered Muslims (in which case, proceed), then you should be acknowledging that the principles are NOT agreed on. listen to the convenient contradiction you're embracing: "I said there was universal agreement on what constitutes Jihad" versus "the actors (ie human beings) tend to interpret and act in ways that are self-serving." i suppose you could correct that by changing "universal agreement" to something more specific...
-
as for the al-Qaeda/jihad issue, it IS simple: they profess to be Muslims and they profess to waging Islamically-allowed jihad. now, i disagree with them, you disagree with them, most Muslims disagree with them, right? however, unless you are arguing they cannot be considered Muslims (in which case, proceed), then you should be acknowledging that the principles are NOT agreed on. listen to the convenient contradiction you're embracing: "I said there was universal agreement on what constitutes Jihad" versus "the actors (ie human beings) tend to interpret and act in ways that are self-serving." i suppose you could correct that by changing "universal agreement" to something more specific...
yes it CAN be argued that the adherents of al qaeda fall outside of the fold of islam (ie they are not muslims). although in islam there is no such thing as ex-communication. and once again the PRINCIPLES are universally agreed upon. to give an example of my point there is universal agreement on murder being wrong (both religious and secular agreement) however, that still doesnt stop people from committing it! -
i am pretty sure i mentioned you having a degree in history due to you claiming knowledge based on your ethnic background. here's the quote: "and here i was not realizing that being born outside the continental US means you get issued a master's degree in history when you exit the ? ." let's also note it was a response to YOUR quote of "dude do me a favor learn something about Pakistan/US history and then come back and talk to me." honestly, i'm not getting where you get off reminding me of anything of that sort when post after post of yours has been declaring who is and is not qualified to state an opinion on the topic.did u not mention something about me not having a degree in history? you seem to speak in a manner consistent with someone who feels they have authority in the manner. My whole point in addressing YOU was to remind YOU that YOU are only voicing an opinion like the rest of us. As I stated last time my position was that I believe my opinion is a more informed one.
the point is you are adamant in your opinion meaning much more than you think it is (so am I but at least I am trying to base it on certain qualifications however you aren't). you still havent offered any background into your qualifications on the subject matter. everyone can have an opinion but on what grounds do YOU believe yours is the more informed one? all you seem to be doing is denying that my opinions matter more than others which says nothing of the validity of your own opinions.
-
hence the reason why i provided it as a loophole for the "universal agreement" thing.yes it CAN be argued that the adherents of al qaeda fall outside of the fold of islam (ie they are not muslims). although in islam there is no such thing as ex-communication. and once again the PRINCIPLES are universally agreed upon. to give an example of my point there is universal agreement on murder being wrong (both religious and secular agreement) however, that still doesnt stop people from committing it!
and again, you'd either need to be more specific ("all accepted religious authorities agree that...") or acknowledge that thanks to human nature, there is NOT universal agreement. all people may agree that murder is wrong (and even on this point, i don't think ALL people agree), but all people might not agree what constitutes murder. and when the concept is more complicated than murder, agreement is less likely.
-
one, i don't know what you mean by "trying to base it on certain qualifications however you aren't." you haven't provided more "proof" than i have; you HAVE made various claims that you personally are automatically more qualified to opine on the topic, which i call ? on.
two, i have not offered background into my qualifications because I AM NOT THE ONE STATING PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE QUALIFICATIONS TO SPEAK ON THE TOPIC. there's also no point considering your "Westerners don't know anything" attitude, but again, when did i demand qualifications?
three, yes, i am denying your opinions matter more than others because you have given me no reason to think otherwise. remember again that i am not the one in this thread claiming my opinions carry special weight. and? -
hence the reason why i provided it as a loophole for the "universal agreement" thing.yes it CAN be argued that the adherents of al qaeda fall outside of the fold of islam (ie they are not muslims). although in islam there is no such thing as ex-communication. and once again the PRINCIPLES are universally agreed upon. to give an example of my point there is universal agreement on murder being wrong (both religious and secular agreement) however, that still doesnt stop people from committing it!
and again, you'd either need to be more specific ("all accepted religious authorities agree that...") or acknowledge that thanks to human nature, there is NOT universal agreement. all people may agree that murder is wrong (and even on this point, i don't think ALL people agree), but all people might not agree what constitutes murder. and when the concept is more complicated than murder, agreement is less likely.
funny though islamic law has been around for over 1400 years now. the rules of jihad have been quite clear. al qaeda's motives have always been political. bin laden's aim (one of his main goals) was to rid Saudi Arabia of the american forces who were in the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah (no non-muslims are allowed in Makkah). it was easy to label it a "jihad" for political purposes and even if there was merit in it being a jihad the principles of warfare were routinely violated (ie killing innocent people) and hence it could never have been a true jihad. like I said the principles of what constitutes jihad are clear as they have been for centuries. muslims believe that the ummah (the whole muslim community) will never agree on a wrong as a whole (this is a Prophetic injunction). for muslims this gives credence to the fact that al qaeda's "jihad" is not justified. as for the argument that muslims may disagree on what constitutes jihad there is a key point you are misunderstanding: only qualified muslim jurists can interpret islamic law so individual opinions have no legal standing
-
even though Islamic law has been around for 1400+ years, it has not stopped groups like al-Qaeda from claiming they have religious justification for their actions. yeah, it's easy to label your craven political goals a "jihad" in order to get support and i think we agree that al-Qaeda is wrong in their claims ... but this is still a situation where a) you have people who profess to be Muslims who are taking part in this (comes back to where we decide they're not actual Muslims, i suppose) and b) you have plenty of people not automatically agreeing they're in the wrong despite the supposed Islamic agreement.
-
even though Islamic law has been around for 1400+ years, it has not stopped groups like al-Qaeda from claiming they have religious justification for their actions. yeah, it's easy to label your craven political goals a "jihad" in order to get support and i think we agree that al-Qaeda is wrong in their claims ... but this is still a situation where a) you have people who profess to be Muslims who are taking part in this (comes back to where we decide they're not actual Muslims, i suppose) and b) you have plenty of people not automatically agreeing they're in the wrong despite the supposed Islamic agreement.
ironically for 1400 years there was no issue with jihad. now all of a sudden groups who have political motivations for their goals are supposedly waging jihad. its a convenient argument by the west in order to keep the "boogeyman" argument going. first it was the communists now its the muslims. you can't control any group or individual from claiming they are following a religious decree but you can differentiate between their actions and what the religion actually says. islamically only ? can decide if they are or arent muslims so thats a moot point.
what gets me is that you continually make the same mistakes the most westerners make in regards to islam. you cant seem to differentiate the actions of people from their supposed beliefs. by your logic christianity must have some real issues since 99% of the crime committed in this country is by christians (whether they label themselves as such or not). the fact that many people dont disagree with al qaeda doesnt imply that its due to their religious beliefs. there is universal agreement on the principles of all religions however individuals dont always practice what they preach only difference is that islam is the only religion that gets blamed for its ideology. -
I think that both of you guys are making good arguments, even though imo this whole debate has occasionally suffered from antagonism, repitition, and divergence. But it seems like you guys actually might agree with a lot of what you're saying even if it doesn't look that way.
I feel the urge to add my two cents because 1. it's my thread and I should at least chime in and 2. I think that this debate may go on forever. And all debates should eventually come to some kind of resolution even if both parties have to reasonably agree to disagree.
As for your original argument, can we all agree with this: the United States supported the creation of Israel as a Jewish state, but they weren't the only ones, and it seems that they weren't the definitive ones to make Israel's creation happen either (I personally think that the Israelities/Jews themselves were actually the definitive ones that demanded and effected the creation of Israel as a Jewish state, but that's neither here not there); nevertheless, the United States today indeed remains the main supporter of Israel for obvious reasons. -
As for the argument about Pakistan's questionable "conduct", I don't know enough to say much. But Pakistan and the United States seem to not see eye to eye at times concerning the "War on Terror". Whether this is because Pakistan has interests invested in these persecuted "terrorists" or because Pakistan's mode of operation differs from that of the Americans (like how the United States has difficulties dealing with countries that have outlawed the death penalty). Either one wouldn't suprise me, especially the former. All nations had, have, and will continue to have ? dealings with disreputable individuals or organizations (some of these being "terrorists"). I don't think that janklow has ever said the opposite, but I think that we can all agree that Pakistan is not a "terrorist nation". Unfortunately, some Westerners may think this, but certainly not all Westerners.
Which leads me to reiterate husnain's point that yes, Muslims are easily discriminated and misunderstood as a whole. Westerners aren't that stupid. It's just a mixture of innocent ignorance, fear/hate, and Western media bias. In the same way that Westerners are not aware that Muslim "terrorists" account for a very small percentage of Muslims in the world , Westerners may also not be aware that gang members (or even military servicemen) account for a very small percentage of Americans in the country. That may be a bad analogy, but this point is clearer given the fact that many Americans don't even know why these "terrorists" are doing what they are doing. They just think that they are bat ? crazy evil. Though some of these terrorist masterminds are actually very "intelligent" and see themselves as saints/matryrs/freedom fighters.
This discussion has been closed.