B.Schuss wrote:
xanthpi wrote:
B.Schuss wrote:
I have yet to read the Qu'ran in its entirety, so I shall not comment on its contents right now.
I have, however, discussed this issue with xanthpi at considerable length in other threads here. I have reached the conclusion that he most likely really has read some translation of the Qu'ran ( although the Qu'ran itself should only be read in its original form, there are "authorized" translations out there, approved by the Imams ).
So, we should all learn Arabic before we read the Qur'an then? Hmmmmm. That's a ridiculous suggestion.
B.Schuss wrote:
I have also made it clear to him that although all he is saying about Islam and the Qu'ran just might be true, I will not be afraid of all muslims or fear Islam in general personally since all muslims I know are friendly, law-abiding citizens who have never harmed me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, xanthpi, I know, these are not "real" muslims, but for the sake of the discussion, I shall call them muslims since those are the only ones I know
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it's essential that we differentiate between different types of people who claim to have some form of Islamic identity. How can we work with 'peaceful Muslims' if we have to lump them in with the real, infidel-hating ones?
There's nothing to be gained by refering to someone as a Muslim if they are anything but.
B.Schuss wrote:
I do have some trust in my government, and I believe we can deal with those who break the laws of our society just fine. Wether we will have a "clash of cultures" in the future remains to be seen.
We have one right now. Were you asleep during the Muhammad cartoon fiasco?
B.Schuss wrote:
Xanthpi will certainly argue that this war is already going on. My opinion would be that those are not nations fighting but rather isolated terrorist NGO's.
The war began (ie. the jihad began) right at the start of Islam and has been going on ever since, at differing intensities.
The current segment of the war started, I would say, in the 60s or 70s with the Islamic resurgence.
B.Schuss wrote:
Now, back on topic.
Is gitmo legit ? I have no idea. But even if you acknowledge that those detained there are no POW's, they still deserve to be tried formally before a court of law.
But the stakes are too high to try them to the same level which you would try a common criminal.
B.Schuss wrote:
You should not hold people indefinetely without filing charges and allowing some kind of judiciary process ( including evaluation of evidence and some kind of defense ). That is fascist.
So, the Communists and the Muslims themselves are also fascists.
B.Schuss wrote:
The "War on Terror" has led to some drastic infringements on civil rights ( aka Patriot Act ). Gitmo is simply a representation of that.
The Patriot Act is a GOOD THING. It has prevented several attacks so far and has not altered the lives of 99% of US citizens. In wartime, the rules must change.
B.Schuss wrote:
"The strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must"
For real. Let's be the strong ones and not submit to the Islamofascists.
PS. I wondered when you would show up
As usual, you are great at taking my statement apart and drawing your own conclusions.
I certainly did not say we all should learn arabic to be able to read the Qu'ran in its original form. You just made that up, didn't you ?
You said, "the Qu'ran itself should only be read in its original form". The original form of the Qur'an is in Arabic, so you were indeed saying that we have to learn Arabic in order to read the original version of the Qur'an. So no, I didn't make it up. If however, you meant something else, then you should try and make your English a bit more clear.
B.Schuss wrote:
Actually, I did acknowldege that there are "official" english translations out there. I think we agree on that. So why are you trying to ridiculize me ? shame on you...
You have to reply to my specific points otherwise I don't know which bits of my posts you are refering to.
B.Schuss wrote:
And btw, from a historian's POV I do believe it is best to read any historic document in its original form, since any translation is some form of interpretation. If you have to rely on somebody else's translation of a certain historic text, you are bound to be influenced by their view.
Unless of course they are translating it on the basis of language alone.
B.Schuss wrote:
Apart from that, as always, we agree on the principles, but disagree on the conclusions, or the extent of the problem. I am a bit more moderate, liberal if you will, while you have quite radical views on these issues.
The only way we are going to prevail against the Islamic threat is to be honest and correct about it. Being 'moderate' or 'extreme' will not help us. It's not extreme or radical to want to defeat the people who are sworn to killing/ enslaving/ converting us, which is EXACTLY what a true Muslim must do, as and when the opportunity presents itself. Just because Europe has enjoyed peace for 60 years does not mean that we will never have to fight again.
B.Schuss wrote:
No big deal. As I have said before, I do acknowledge that it is possible that Islam and the "West" just don't fit together and that we will be faced with some final battle with Islam at some point in the future.
There will not be a final battle, as that would involve the eradication of every trace of Islam, which is not possible. This war will go on and on, at varying strengths, forever and ever, as it has done for the last 1400 years.
B.Schuss wrote:
Still, I hope it doesn't come to that and that our cultures can live together on this planet peacefully.
History shall prove which one of us is right ( ten minutes until I hear you say "that will undoubtedly be me" ).
That will undoubtably be me
Well, I've been proven right so far. And am every day. Every day there is another outrage which the jihadis manage to justify by reference to the Qur'an and Hadiths and which the 'mainstream' Muslims (ie, pseudo-Muslims) seem to have no inclination to refute.
B.Schuss wrote:
As far as Guantanamo is concerned, you seem all to willing to take rights away from those suspected to be terrorists.
Correct.
B.Schuss wrote:
Western democracies are based on the rule of law.
No laws are being broken at Guantanamo Bay.
B.Schuss wrote:
Our legal traditions go back to habeas corpus.
Whatever the circumstances, holding hundreds of people captive without allowing them access to a lawyer and without having them tried before an independant court of law is just not right.
Existing international law was created to deal with the wars which had gone before; the ones in which two opposing professional armies acted, in the most part, in accordance with the norms and customs of warfare.
Things have changed since then, which means that new laws muct be made. So at the moment, we have the US (and other) Governments using existing laws and exploring new means to deal with the threat whilst having the minimum effect possible on the lives of law-abiding citizens.
The existing framework doesn't work well when dealing with civilians who take up arms and who break all the existing rules of war.
B.Schuss wrote:
I do agree that in wartime, some of the rules need to be changed to fit the situation, but if the USA wants to make us believe that they are the "good ones" in this conflict ( a statement which GWB does make quite often when asked about the War on Terror ), they'd better reconsider their approach at guantanamo.
As we've already discovered, there is no evidence of torture at Guantanamo Bay. Why do people keep saying that Gitmo is a bad thing? What else should be done with terrorists? Should they be released? Should they be killed?
B.Schuss wrote:
you say the stakes are too high to allow them the same treatment as other criminals. Could you elaborate on that ? What stakes ? what are you afraid of ?
If an ordinary criminal is released due to them not being convicted due to reasonable doubt, they may at most go on to commit a few more burglaries/ muggings/ rapes/ murders. If exactly the same principle of reasonable doubt is applied to suspected terrorists and the terrorist is released due to reasonable doubt, the consequence could be many many times more serious than the threat posed to society by an ordinary criminal.
Society has decided that it can accept the threat posed by the release due to reasonable doubt of ordinary criminals. That is why we have that system. The process of debate about whether society accepts the risks posed by released terrorists is still going on. People like myself, the US Government and many others think that releasing someone against whom there is evidence that they pose a threat but who must be released due to lack of evidence under ordinary criminal law, poses an unacceptable risk to society. People like possibly yourself think that the risk of releasing someone who may well then go on and commit an act of mass murder is acceptable to society.
It was known prior to 911 that 'al Qaeda' posed a threat to the West. In 1998 Osama bin Laden actually told us of the threat he posed. Due to a culture of 'live and let live', little was done about that threat. 911 was the cost of that policy. Most people think that another 911 is not a cost which can be borne again, hence the willingness of some people to fight, rather than to lie down like good little infidels and grant rights to the terrorists which they would take away from us if they had half the chance.
We ALREADY KNOW that the ideology these people follow forces them to be commited to the violent overthrow of liberal democracies. The question is, if we release them will they act on the ideology which drives them? The answer of course, in each individual case, is 'most probably', and hence it can be deemed reasonable that we keep these people in detention rather than releasing them. It is not the fault of peaceful people that the terrorists/ jihadis/ Islamists/ call them what you will, follow that ideology. No one has forced them to. It is THEIR choice, and hence THEY are the ones who should have their liberty taken away from them, rather than the peaceful people having their lives, health, friends and families taken away from them.
B.Schuss wrote:
PS: I was here all the time, watching silently. But it's always fun to see you battle it out verbally in here, so I thought I'd join the pack...
I'm a little less patient than the other times don't you think?
But, groovy.