Open letter from a pilot to muslims

[DanG 1]

Quote

...if we chanchanged ...

Is that how David Bowie would say it?

- Dan G

[Stumpy 284]

winsor

***For someone that's really too stupid to see it, they're probably beyond any help.

If you want to stick up for moslems, read the koran and get back to me. While you're at it, peruse a copy of Mein Kampf and explain its relative merits on a comparative basis (hint: they're operationally interchangeable).

As is the bible, particularly the old testament. But don't let that colour your judgement.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[winsor 236]

Stumpy

******For someone that's really too stupid to see it, they're probably beyond any help.

If you want to stick up for moslems, read the koran and get back to me. While you're at it, peruse a copy of Mein Kampf and explain its relative merits on a comparative basis (hint: they're operationally interchangeable).

As is the bible, particularly the old testament. But don't let that colour your judgement.

The Hebrew Scriptures do not recognize any "new" addenda. They constitute the Bronze Age family history of one very, very dysfunctional family, and they were never written for general consumption.

Any Rabbi worth his/her salt will take care to distinguish between the elements that have merit and have served to hold us together these thousands of years, and those whose time has long come and gone.

A Parsha reading from the Torah will often include discussion of the sociopolitical realities of the time of the writing, as well as the political intent of the writer as reflected in the content of the passage.

Admitted, there are those who consider every word to be The Truth (tm), but my experience is that if you present it as such, many Rabbis will roll their eyes and ask if you are kidding.

"Look it's Bronze Age writing. Take it for what it's worth."

Within the family, the writings have been a mixed blessing indeed; as adopted by others (Christians, Muslims, et al.), their interpretation has been particularly virulent.

Grimm's Fairy Tales are similarly horrific, have about as solid a basis in fact, and are used by those who do not advocate any of the actions contained therein (e.g., baking and eating children).

In any event, I agree that the Tanakh is a collection of lore and mythology from a time when life was brutal and short, and the capricious cruelty it describes reflects this. As a period piece it is of interest; as a be-all and end-all it leaves much to be desired.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 2,991]

>Any Rabbi worth his/her salt will take care to distinguish between the elements that
>have merit and have served to hold us together these thousands of years, and those
>whose time has long come and gone.

As will any Imam.

[Andy9o8 2]

lawrocket

Can anybody here tell me what groups it's okay to look at with mistrust and which groups is is not okay?

3... 2... 1...

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands,
professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow
citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully
understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify
the inhumanity of their attacks.

I stopped reading here. Obviously this dude has no clue the amount of death and destruction we have either done or had a hand in over the last 60 years.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Skyrad 0]

OHCHUTE

who cares who wrote it.
The lady in front of me at my sons graduation donned her head scarf the moment the National Anthem started. She never put her hand over her heart.
There were many head scarfs in the audience. More and more are coming.

Maybe that post would mean something to me if I were an American, but I honestly have not got a scooby what the hell you're trying to say. Some bird put on a head scarf? And?? She never put her hand on her heart? So what maybe she took a indigestion tab before lunch and didn't need to. What is with your obsesion with headscarfs??? Who cares how many there were? Did you count how many men were wearing syrups as well?

Weird.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[davjohns 1]

Lawyers?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[melch 1]

Quote

I stopped reading here. Obviously this dude has no clue the amount of death and destruction we have either done or had a hand in over the last 60 years.

Agreed. Go back even further and read about the crusades, the Inquisition, numerous other examples of religion throughout history...some absolutely brutal stuff.

It's not just Islam vs Christianity but religions throughout history have caused more trouble than can be measured. Hence why I think organized religion is crap. It doesn't take a book or a scholar of that book to educate me in simple human decency of be nice to others as you would want them to be with you, help the less fortunate, etc. I have severe qualms with this because it is a perfect example of how someone with charisma can tame weaker or uneducated mind through intangible beliefs and feelings...before you start, no I'm not calling religious people uneducated or weak minded. I'm saying that uneducated or weak minded people are easily sawyed and can be manipulated. Personal example; in Afghanistan the area I was located had an extremely low literacy rate (less than 5-6%). When we captured fighters fortunate enough to survive the fire fights we would ask them questions. Most of them were unable to read and fighting because their Imam told them that it was in the Koran to kill Americans and their families would be condemned to hell if they didn't fight us. Because they had never actually picked up the book themselves and made any type of interpretation of the words and applied it they took a corrupted guy's word who is supposed to be a religious leader (ultimately is the goal of religion not peace?) and went out for the normal fear of their families' well being. You see the same thing in Christianity and other types of religions. We like to refer to them as cults or any other number of words because it dissaccoicates them from our own belief system that at the foundation we share with them.

Every group of people has its radicals. Even a normal functioning homogeneous socitey will have criminals, deliquents, etc. We could go from here into a long drawn out conversation about preconcieved notions, media sensationalism and its effects on the perception of other, and egocentricsm but at the end of the day the world will continue to have issues as long as society perpetuates itself. We could start thinning out the gene pool and getting rid of those that are different and undesirable but everytime someone starts doing that the world stands up and says no. You wan't a world at peace...kill everyone thats not like you.

/pontification

[davjohns 1]

Andy9o8

***Can anybody here tell me what groups it's okay to look at with mistrust and which groups is is not okay?

3... 2... 1...

I said....LAWYERS!

Heheheh

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[turtlespeed 220]

melch

Quote

I stopped reading here. Obviously this dude has no clue the amount of death and destruction we have either done or had a hand in over the last 60 years.

Agreed. Go back even further and read about the crusades, the Inquisition, numerous other examples of religion throughout history...some absolutely brutal stuff.

I LOVE THIS DEFENSE!

But MOM, Jimmy did it first!

Last I checked, the world is supposed to have grown up and matured a bit since the middle ages.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

winsor

*********For someone that's really too stupid to see it, they're probably beyond any help.

If you want to stick up for moslems, read the koran and get back to me. While you're at it, peruse a copy of Mein Kampf and explain its relative merits on a comparative basis (hint: they're operationally interchangeable).

As is the bible, particularly the old testament. But don't let that colour your judgement.

The Hebrew Scriptures do not recognize any "new" addenda. They constitute the Bronze Age family history of one very, very dysfunctional family, and they were never written for general consumption.

Any Rabbi worth his/her salt will take care to distinguish between the elements that have merit and have served to hold us together these thousands of years, and those whose time has long come and gone.

A Parsha reading from the Torah will often include discussion of the sociopolitical realities of the time of the writing, as well as the political intent of the writer as reflected in the content of the passage.

Admitted, there are those who consider every word to be The Truth (tm), but my experience is that if you present it as such, many Rabbis will roll their eyes and ask if you are kidding.

"Look it's Bronze Age writing. Take it for what it's worth."

Within the family, the writings have been a mixed blessing indeed; as adopted by others (Christians, Muslims, et al.), their interpretation has been particularly virulent.

Grimm's Fairy Tales are similarly horrific, have about as solid a basis in fact, and are used by those who do not advocate any of the actions contained therein (e.g., baking and eating children).

In any event, I agree that the Tanakh is a collection of lore and mythology from a time when life was brutal and short, and the capricious cruelty it describes reflects this. As a period piece it is of interest; as a be-all and end-all it leaves much to be desired.


BSBD,

Winsor

Where have I heard this, my religion is better than your religion, before...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

turtlespeed

***

Quote

I stopped reading here. Obviously this dude has no clue the amount of death and destruction we have either done or had a hand in over the last 60 years.

Agreed. Go back even further and read about the crusades, the Inquisition, numerous other examples of religion throughout history...some absolutely brutal stuff.

I LOVE THIS DEFENSE!

But MOM, Jimmy did it first!

Last I checked, the world is supposed to have grown up and matured a bit since the middle ages.

Oh it has.

As long as women know their place and coloured don't get too uppity, we have come a long way!

[rickjump1 0]

skinnay

Here's an open letter to the pilot:

Shut the fuck up. When did you flood the media to condone the masses of kids killed by drones in Pakistan?

"Masses....."? Maybe some collateral damage with drones, but nobody picks out kids like the taliban in Pakistan.http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/26/world/la-fg-pakistan-education-taliban-20121027 Pulling one little school girl off the bus and shooting her in the head is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[muff528 3]

Darius11

Quote

I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands,
professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow
citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully
understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify
the inhumanity of their attacks.

I stopped reading here. Obviously this dude has no clue the amount of death and destruction we have either done or had a hand in over the last 60 years.

So, you do believe there really was justification for the cowardly murders of 3000 innocent people ...the 60 years of death and destruction wrought by the Great Satan. These 3000 must have had a hand in that desolation. This does seem to validate the author's observation that early Muslim condemnation (particularly by Muslim leadership) of the attacks on innocents by Muslims really must come with the caveat that they were justified in doing so. There really can be no "stand-alone" condemnation based on any moral or lawful standard. So, it seems that they should have no complaints over the drone attacks. Their rules, and all.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Where have I heard this, my religion is better than your religion, before...

Gee, if I said anything that seemed to support that observation, it was not intended as such.

The Children of Israel are exactly that - the progeny of Jacob. Judaism is a tribal identity, with significant religious overtones.

The Tanakh and Talmud are writings assembled over a reasonably long time, and much of this has been deemed The Word of God (tm), depending upon who you ask. The intended audience of these writings was internal ONLY, and the 613 Mitzvot were specific to members of the Tribe.

The folks in Rome/Constantinople and in Mecca/Medina made use of the Tanakh as the basis for their Universal Religions, with modifications (by "revelation") to suit their political realities.

There is a story of a French officer who infiltrated a group of English officers to obtain intelligence, in the days when wars between Britain and the Continent were commonplace.

It seems that the French officer used the occasion of a fox hunt to make a break from the English host. As he galloped off, he dispatched the fox with his sword thinking "aha! I have beaten them at their own game!"

Of course, from the English perspective the act of killing the fox demonstrated nothing but ignorance of the whole process ("we'll catch the fox and put him in a box, and then we'll let him go!...").

Similarly, reading the take of Europeans and Arabs who used the Tanakh as the basis for their move from pagan to monotheism gives the impression of "uh, we're flattered, but you guys just don't get it."

I am not claiming that one religion is better than another; that is a different issue altogether. My point here is that the Tanakh, as described in the Koran, for example, is viewed from a vastly different standpoint than that of those who wrote it (Ezra the Scribe, et al.).

I think it was Yassir Arafat that said that religious wars were disputes over who had the best invisible friend. Whatever his faults, he was no idiot.


BSBD,

Winsor

[mistercwood 287]

muff528

***

Quote

I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands,
professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow
citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully
understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify
the inhumanity of their attacks.

I stopped reading here. Obviously this dude has no clue the amount of death and destruction we have either done or had a hand in over the last 60 years.

So, you do believe there really was justification for the cowardly murders of 3000 innocent people ...the 60 years of death and destruction wrought by the Great Satan. These 3000 must have had a hand in that desolation. This does seem to validate the author's observation that early Muslim condemnation (particularly by Muslim leadership) of the attacks on innocents by Muslims really must come with the caveat that they were justified in doing so. There really can be no "stand-alone" condemnation based on any moral or lawful standard. So, it seems that they should have no complaints over the drone attacks. Their rules, and all.

My, what an impressive straw man! Did you build him all by yourself?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[muff528 3]

mistercwood

My, what an impressive straw man! Did you build him all by yourself?

What "straw man"? After the 9/11 attacks on innocent people, The AA pilot, not a straw man, observed in his letter that Muslim "leaders", when asked whether they condemned those attacks, would do so with equivocation. "The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating." ~ 10th paragraph. The author wrote that he didn't "understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks." No straw men there.

Darius, not some straw man, pointed out that they do, indeed, have justification for the slaughter of 3000 innocent folks and, presumedly, for the terror attacks which occurred prior to that. I can only assume that he is agreeing with that justification since he apparently became disgusted with the author's inability to recognize the "death and destruction" which occurred at the hands of the USA during the prior 6 decades, and quit reading the letter. You'll have to ask him if I am interpreting his response wrongly.

My short conclusion was that, since I have been schooled by Darius that the terrorist attacks targeting innocent non-combatants are justified, the drone attacks (mentioned earlier in the thread), on actual military/command targets which are intentionally intermingled among "civilians" must also be justified. I added further that those who are justifying the 9/11 attacks must also see the justification for the drone attacks. Maybe they do see justification for terrorist attacks on innocents but don't see it for the drone attacks. Hell, I don't know!

I'm not making stuff (or straw men) up ...just reading what other people wrote.

[davjohns 1]

I'm very concerned about this argument that the terrorist attacks of 9-11 are justified or otherwise understandable in light of the crusades or any other such events. I'm not aware of any evidence that people harmed in those events are connected to the terrorists except through religion. I'm pretty certain the British involved in the crusades are fairly remote from the people in the towers on 9-11. So, the only connection there would be...relgion, again? So, we are at war with Islam?

I think the pilot presumed that nobody was at war with Islam. The comments about past behaviors justifying recent terrorism tend to presume the US is at war with Islam.

Disturbing.

I would have understood if anyone had said something like, "From the perspective of someone raised in that culture...". But what I think I'm reading is that some people here think the terrorist attacks had justification. Perhaps I misunderstand.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[mistercwood 287]

muff528

Darius, not some straw man, pointed out that they do, indeed, have justification for the slaughter of 3000 innocent folks and, presumedly, for the terror attacks which occurred prior to that. I can only assume that he is agreeing with that justification since he apparently became disgusted with the author's inability to recognize the "death and destruction" which occurred at the hands of the USA during the prior 6 decades, and quit reading the letter. You'll have to ask him if I am interpreting his response wrongly.

Understanding the trigger =/= justifying the reaction. Ergo - strawman.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[muff528 3]

mistercwood

.....

Understanding the trigger =/= justifying the reaction. Ergo - strawman.

I agree that "Understanding the trigger =/= justifying the reaction".
I just don't know what "strawman" has to do with it. I do understand what you're saying, though. I just don't agree.

However the poster was specifically responding to the comment in the letter that he highlighted, leaving no ambiguity over what irked him. i.e., Not that the author of the letter didn't understand some "trigger" that caused the attackers to act, but that he was too blind to understand their justification for the terror attacks against people who weren't engaged in any way against the attackers, and which occurred over the course of many years. And not just justification for the attacks ...but justification for the inhumanity of the attacks.

"I don't fully understand their grievances and hate, but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks."

Also, I'm not comfortable with continuing to discuss another member's comments without his participation. I think it's bumping up against the rules, too. Interesting topic, though.

[mistercwood 287]

I never saw Darius use the or imply "justification", hence my objection. You're right though, it's not my place to speak for him so I'll bow out for now.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.