I'm a Muslim and I don't stereotype, neither does any other Muslims I know. I think its your media feeding you shit. You and lowing too much Fox newsusmarine2005 wrote:
Because they stereotype the west ffs. So they do not want to be stereotyped, yet they have no problem stereotyping?adam1503 wrote:
adam1503 wrote:
Nobody said that. But it is clear that many Muslims feel they are being stereotyped as radicals and as being "anti-west", so it is our duty to make sure we make it clear that we can differentiate between radical and mainstream muslims.
You were right, debate over.
Both sides are guilty of stereotyping and assuming the worst about the other:usmarine2005 wrote:
Because they stereotype the west ffs. So they do not want to be stereotyped, yet they have no problem stereotyping?
You were right, debate over.
Some Muslims stereotype the west as being anti-Islamic because of the opinions of a minority of people (like yourself) who want to see Islam erased. Likewise, some westeners stereotype Islam as being anti-west because of the opinions of a minority of radical Muslims. This stereotypical attitude towards Islam alienates many Muslims, and causes them to feel more and more alienated and defensive of their faith. As a result, more are likely to turn to extremism, thus reinforcing the stereotype of Islam being anti-west.
The more we reinforce the stereotype of Islam being anti-west, the more we will see radicalisation of Muslims. Eventually, the stereotype becomes reality because we believed in it so strongly. So we have to combat these stereotypes by definitively showing that we are not anti-Islam as a rule.
Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-20 08:45:36)
C'mon this debate is no fun if nobody joins in!
I thought you didn't stereotype?--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:
You and lowing too much Fox news
And no, I do not watch Fox news.
i joined in when it started, then realised how pointless it was gonna be...
All this is is another excuse for Americans to attack Europe over political correctness when in their country you can buy guns in a bank, i know that was off topic i just hate Americans who think they're superior to the rest of the world.
All this is is another excuse for Americans to attack Europe over political correctness when in their country you can buy guns in a bank, i know that was off topic i just hate Americans who think they're superior to the rest of the world.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
I dont hate Americans per se, just the attitude of "youre either with us or against us" or "its us against them". Things are never as black and white as some people make them out to be.presidentsheep wrote:
i joined in when it started, then realised how pointless it was gonna be...
All this is is another excuse for Americans to attack Europe over political correctness when in their country you can buy guns in a bank, i know that was off topic i just hate Americans who think they're superior to the rest of the world.
Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-20 09:02:14)
That attitude is the reason i hate some of them and unfortunatly they seem to be the ones i'm exposed to most. I agree that things are not as black and white as people make them out to be but some people are trying to make it that way, i.e the us against them attitude.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Nor do the majority of Americans think they're "superior to the rest of the world" or "you're either with us or against us" or "its us against them". Perhaps it's a bit of backlash over all the anti-US crap that people throw around here in D&ST? Most likely that's a part of it.adam1503 wrote:
I dont hate Americans per se, just the attitude of "youre either with us or against us" or "its us against them". Things are never as black and white as some people make them out to be.presidentsheep wrote:
i joined in when it started, then realised how pointless it was gonna be...
All this is is another excuse for Americans to attack Europe over political correctness when in their country you can buy guns in a bank, i know that was off topic i just hate Americans who think they're superior to the rest of the world.
I guess it's only acceptable to bash the US...bashing Europe for anything is completely verboten (no pun intended).
Regardless, what some people say on BF2S forums is not a statistically relevant cross-section of how most Americans feel about any given issue.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-01-20 09:57:25)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Im not bashing the US people, but the foreign policy of the US govt. Bush himself said of the war on terror: "Youre either with us or against us".FEOS wrote:
Nor do the majority of Americans think they're "superior to the rest of the world" or "you're either with us or against us" or "its us against them". Perhaps it's a bit of backlash over all the anti-US crap that people throw around here in D&ST? Most likely that's a part of it.adam1503 wrote:
I dont hate Americans per se, just the attitude of "youre either with us or against us" or "its us against them". Things are never as black and white as some people make them out to be.presidentsheep wrote:
i joined in when it started, then realised how pointless it was gonna be...
All this is is another excuse for Americans to attack Europe over political correctness when in their country you can buy guns in a bank, i know that was off topic i just hate Americans who think they're superior to the rest of the world.
I guess it's only acceptable to bash the US...bashing Europe for anything is completely verboten (no pun intended).
Regardless, what some people say on BF2S forums is not a statistically relevant cross-section of how most Americans feel about any given issue.
So you're extrapolating a sound bite to an attitude of a nation?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Oh come on, everyone knows US foreign policy is fairly hostile.FEOS wrote:
So you're extrapolating a sound bite to an attitude of a nation?
Once my history sub teacher said: America has no allies, just themselves.adam1503 wrote:
Im not bashing the US people, but the foreign policy of the US govt. Bush himself said of the war on terror: "Youre either with us or against us".FEOS wrote:
Nor do the majority of Americans think they're "superior to the rest of the world" or "you're either with us or against us" or "its us against them". Perhaps it's a bit of backlash over all the anti-US crap that people throw around here in D&ST? Most likely that's a part of it.adam1503 wrote:
I dont hate Americans per se, just the attitude of "youre either with us or against us" or "its us against them". Things are never as black and white as some people make them out to be.
I guess it's only acceptable to bash the US...bashing Europe for anything is completely verboten (no pun intended).
Regardless, what some people say on BF2S forums is not a statistically relevant cross-section of how most Americans feel about any given issue.
a) the sacrifice is the truth. The truth is "ceded" by calling Islamic terrorism anti-islamic activity. This is a lie, of which you are already aware. YOU yourself called it a form of brainwashing.CameronPoe wrote:
lowing wrote:
They are not out to appease terrorists. They are appeasing the Muslim community to hopefully make sure they do not turn radical on them.a) No sacrifice of anything here to my knowledge. Nobody cedes anything.Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles.
b) Conditions not imposed by any aggressor.
Lowing is wrong with his term appeasement, game, set and match.
b) conditions made aware the last time moderate muslims were pissed off. cartoons. This appeasement is a preventative maintenance measure.
Sorry game, the game continues.
Your difinition is one of several, some of which I have posted here. They are undeniable.
LOL.......and am I the only one that sees the difference??jord wrote:
It was most Terrorists are Muslims if I remember...lowing wrote:
you are reaching and failingsergeriver wrote:
I didn't say Islamic.
back up and try again...Tell me where I said most Muslims are terrorists
Lowing your arguments dont make any sense whatsoever.
1. been through this....the key word is potential. this is preventative maintenanceadam1503 wrote:
1.INCONSISTENCIES:lowing wrote:
Again you accuse me of it. Show me the inconsistencies.2.adam1503 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Then what the hell do you call it when a country is going to re-phrase a war with radical Islam. To make it sound like they are not at war with radical Islam for no other reason than to keep potential radical muslims happy? It is appeasement no matter you want to try an slice it.lowing wrote:
they didn't do this to piss off Bin Laden, they did this to keep from pissing off other Muslims, and we all know what can happen when you piss off a member of this peaceful religion don't we? So they appeased themHERE IT IS:lowing wrote:
show me where I said all Muslims are terrorists.3.lowing wrote:
The world wide cartoon riots pretty much suggests that mainstream Islam can ride the ragged edge to radical behavior.APPEASEMENT:lowing wrote:
Show me how the definition of appeasement DOE NOT apply to the OP. Because I have showed you all several times the divination can applyChannel 4 wrote:
Giving in to the demands of aggressive powers to avoid war, as long as those demands appear reasonable. ... sourceNote in particular the section on appeasement where it is defined as "giving in to demands in order to avoid war."Wikipedia wrote:
Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war... source
No demands have been made for us to give in to.
We are already at war with Radical Islam
...lets see you bullshit your way out of that.
2. the key phrase here is " CAN ride the ragged edge to radical behavior. " this has also been proven to be true.
3. 1 of several definitions. I have posted the definition of which the context of the OP suggests. Tough shit if you do not like it. It fits and is appropriate.
Both are wrong mate. Though yes I can see the difference.lowing wrote:
LOL.......and am I the only one that sees the difference??jord wrote:
It was most Terrorists are Muslims if I remember...lowing wrote:
you are reaching and failing
back up and try again...Tell me where I said most Muslims are terrorists
Lol, i see you found my post.lowing wrote:
1. been through this....the key word is potential. this is preventative maintenance
2. the key phrase here is " CAN ride the ragged edge to radical behavior. " this has also been proven to be true.
3. 1 of several definitions. I have posted the definition of which the context of the OP suggests. Tough shit if you do not like it. It fits and is appropriate.
If this is what you truly believe, then you personify everything that these radicals hate about the west.
Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-20 12:56:07)
I can not help it if you can't keep up.adam1503 wrote:
Lowing your arguments dont make any sense whatsoever.
Try reading slower
Sorry pal, but when we are TALKING about ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, in an ISLAMIC TERRORIST thread. I will assume when I speak of ISLAMIC TERRORISM that those I speak of, are MOSTLY MUSLIMS. I am not going to split hairs with you, when you know damn well what this thread is about.jord wrote:
Both are wrong mate. Though yes I can see the difference.lowing wrote:
LOL.......and am I the only one that sees the difference??jord wrote:
It was most Terrorists are Muslims if I remember...
Nobody is ceding 'the truth'. Ask anyone what's happening and they'll tell you that people who don't like the west are blowing people up. Nobody is hiding anything. No British government minister will pretend that it isn't terrorism - which is what would be required for your assertion that the truth is being ceded to hold true. The British government as far as I can gather are no longer going to use the misnomer 'Islamic Terror' and call it 'unislamic activity' in parallel with the use of the term terrorism. No British government minister is surely going to say that terrorism doesn't exist - that's just completely ludicrous. We are of course talking about a Daily Mail article though so we only have half the story right there.lowing wrote:
a) the sacrifice is the truth. The truth is "ceded" by calling Islamic terrorism anti-islamic activity. This is a lie, of which you are already aware. YOU yourself called it a form of brainwashing.
b) conditions made aware the last time moderate muslims were pissed off. cartoons. This appeasement is a preventative maintenance measure.
Sorry game, the game continues.
Your difinition is one of several, some of which I have posted here. They are undeniable.
Preventative measure for what? What the fuck is anyone trying to prevent? Nothing untoward happened in the UK as a consequence of the cartoons - a nation with probably the second highest muslim population in the EU. Nobody paid a blind bit of difference to the moaning minnies and their stupid cartoon complaints. If you think cartoons are driving British governmental policy then I think you don't know much about the British government.
His arguments make sense to me...lowing wrote:
I can not help it if you can't keep up.adam1503 wrote:
Lowing your arguments dont make any sense whatsoever.
Try reading slower
If old Irish women start blowing up buildings or killing people in the name of a religion they have perverted.... I will call them old Irish lady Terrorists too... lol
Love is the answer
Ok, so, the British govt. is not concerned about pissing off the muslim community huh. Then why the change in the first place if all was well with the way it was and no one hada problem?CameronPoe wrote:
Nobody is ceding 'the truth'. Ask anyone what's happening and they'll tell you that people who don't like the west are blowing people up. Nobody is hiding anything. No British government minister will pretend that it isn't terrorism - which is what would be required for your assertion that the truth is being ceded to hold true. The British government as far as I can gather are no longer going to use the misnomer 'Islamic Terror' and call it 'unislamic activity' in parallel with the use of the term terrorism. No British government minister is surely going to say that terrorism doesn't exist - that's just completely ludicrous. We are of course talking about a Daily Mail article though so we only have half the story right there.lowing wrote:
a) the sacrifice is the truth. The truth is "ceded" by calling Islamic terrorism anti-islamic activity. This is a lie, of which you are already aware. YOU yourself called it a form of brainwashing.
b) conditions made aware the last time moderate muslims were pissed off. cartoons. This appeasement is a preventative maintenance measure.
Sorry game, the game continues.
Your difinition is one of several, some of which I have posted here. They are undeniable.
Preventative measure for what? What the fuck is anyone trying to prevent? Nothing untoward happened in the UK as a consequence of the cartoons - a nation with probably the second highest muslim population in the EU. Nobody paid a blind bit of difference to the moaning minnies and their stupid cartoon complaints. If you think cartoons are driving British governmental policy then I think you don't know much about the British government.
The Muslim community has already established what they are capable of if they are not appeased. THey have proven it. GB just wants to be sure it doesn't happen there.
You keep saying that they have established what they are "capable of if not appeased"; but what do you mean by this? Can you clarify for me what they are capable of? Because if its going to happen here, as you say it is, then i want to be able to look out for it.lowing wrote:
Ok, so, the British govt. is not concerned about pissing off the muslim community huh. Then why the change in the first place if all was well with the way it was and no one hada problem?
The Muslim community has already established what they are capable of if they are not appeased. They have proven it. GB just wants to be sure it doesn't happen there.
But if it turns out that old Irish women have a history of violent reactions and can and will burn down a city, I am sure measures will be taken not to get them stirred up. In other words, we can appease them.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
His arguments make sense to me...lowing wrote:
I can not help it if you can't keep up.adam1503 wrote:
Lowing your arguments dont make any sense whatsoever.
Try reading slower
If old Irish women start blowing up buildings or killing people in the name of a religion they have perverted.... I will call them old Irish lady Terrorists too... lol
If you throw a mad dog a steak to divert his attention so he does not bite you, it may be smart, but you still appeased the dog with the steak.