U S Wants The Film "innocence Of Muslims" To Be Removed From Google

[simple1]

... it is difficult to know how many Muslims subscribe to this ideology, but a recent poll found 40% of British Muslims were in favour of living under Sharia law.

The Gallup organization conducted surveys in the Islamic world between 2002 and 2007. The data were written up as Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed and published in 2008.

Among their findings were that in five countries - Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh - a majority of respondents favoured Sharia as the only source of law. In other Muslim countries, a majority supported Sharia as one, but not the only source of law. In those nations a minority preferred Sharia as the sole source.

It is fair, I think, to generalize that Muslims in Islamic countries favour Sharia as a foundation for strong and well-disciplined families and communities. Women also support it as they perceive it as protecting them from harsher alternatives in historically highly masculinist cultures. Related to this fear of the alternatives, it is also seen by men and women as a means of limiting the power of the national leader and his cohorts. It would appear (IMHO) that Sharia is a product of a harsh cultural environment and, in its best forms, is a counterweight to those who, given the power, would exercise it without moral restraint.

Esposito and Mogahed say the following:

Commonly thought of in the West as a harsh and primitive code of law, Sharia represents something very different for many Muslims. Sharia literally means "the path to water", but means "the path to God" when used in a religious context, and symbolizes a path of both spiritual and societal guidance. Sharia represents the moral compass of a Muslim's personal and public life. So what are Muslims calling for when they want Sharia as a source of legislation? The answer to this is as diverse as the Muslim community. (Kindle loc. 365)

Those Muslims in Western countries who would like to see Sharia as either the legal code applying to Muslims, or to the whole of society (i.e. those such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, supporting the return of the caliphate) obviously do not see the laws in their adopted country as providing suitable protection for, or indeed, as hostile to Muslim values and practices. They are not alone. In Australia there has been considerable advocacy from some indigenous leaders for the acceptance of Aboriginal law as an alternative legal option for Aboriginal people. Having been away for many years I don't know how successful this has been. But not only ethnic or religious minorities have a beef with the law. Atheists campaign against legal protection of religious symbols; libertarians campaign against various forms of legally-based social engineering. There is nothing illegal about wanting to change the laws. A society could, if there is majority support via governments or referenda, change the laws to, e.g. establish a certain religion as the state religion, but it has to be done by peaceful and legal processes. Islamic fundamentalists who prefer violence do not accept that and, hence, are lawbreakers and a menace to peace and safety in the community.

Good balanced post. FYI a referendum in Australia to include recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution was recently postponed due to lack of support.

[rgs2001uk]

Billionaire businessman Frank Lowy says Australian multiculturalism has been a "triumph in tolerance" despite the violent Islamic protests which erupted in Sydney last weekend.

The Westfield co-founder, who was born in Czechoslovakia and came to Australia in 1952, delivered a lecture to the Australian Multicultural Council in Canberra on Wednesday evening.

He commended Muslim leaders for their response to the heated demonstrations in Sydney, and said it shows Australia's multicultural society is both strong and mature.

More at http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

The reason Australia's version of multiculturalism has to date been successful is that it's sensible and balanced. It acknowledges the fact that four in every ten Australians are either immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants, but also demands that all people accept "the basic structures and principles of Australian society". These are spelt out in the bipartisan National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia as "the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, and equality of the sexes". Not much room for Sharia or the Caliphate here.

A key statement in the Agenda is the following: multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values.

A summary of the National Agenda can be found here: http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

And another side;

There does appear to be a large anti muslim wave brewing, it has been for some time in Australia but the prostests last week really brought it to a head. The riots by muslims slammed a huge wedge between them and a lot of mainstream Australians.

Yes, the thousand or so Muslims protesting did a lot of damage to relations with mainstream Australia. Now media reports of Australians trying to organise demonstration against Muslims with very racist messages. Not exactly the smartest thing to do exposing Australian racism

http://www.radioaust...h-fears/1018648

Nothing whatsoever to do with racism, its saying enough is enough.

I wonder what Islamic paradises these poor persecuted people fled from that they chose to live in the darkness of Australia.

I would have thought these poor oppressed souls would follow in the footsteps of thousands who went before them and successfully integrated, pray to whatever deity they pray to and give thanks for finding refuge in Australia.

They obviously do not wish to integrate, like the thousands in the Uk or Europe who choose to live in ghettoes of their own making, makes one wonder why they chose to flee from the light.

There comes a time when enough is enough, unfortunately the weak politicians dont have the balls to stand up and say so and choose to ignore the voices of their own constituents, no wonder right wing groups are on the rise in Europe.

Soultion simple, round them up and deport back to whatever paradise they came from.

[Steely Dan]

I think Mr Condell has captured the mood of western nations, the poll at the start of this thread supports this in a microcosm - The press, who have for the most part tried to ignore this are starting to break ranks and tell the truth, just as many liberals are starting to finally wake up and face the problem instead of throwing accusations of racism at the right.

[Chicog]

The one thing he's really got right there is the worthless politicians that pander to these headcases just to get their votes. They are the ones doing the real damage.

[koheesti]

It is fair, I think, to generalize that Muslims in Islamic countries favour Sharia as a foundation for strong and well-disciplined families and communities.

Well-disciplined - is that what they call honor killings and rioting?

[Xangsamhua]

I think Mr Condell has captured the mood of western nations, the poll at the start of this thread supports this in a microcosm - The press, who have for the most part tried to ignore this are starting to break ranks and tell the truth, just as many liberals are starting to finally wake up and face the problem instead of throwing accusations of racism at the right.

I love rants and UKIP are so good at them. Pat Condell's is a fine example. I wonder if he mentored Godfrey Bloom?

Of course he's over the top, but he's a comedian and comedians don't deal in subtlety. They magnify the salient points and that's what makes their message so effective.

Mr Condell is voicing the frustration and exasperation of many, probably most, people in free societies right now. It's probably a good thing that he's doing so in such a forthright, indeed forceful way. The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Ed Husein, in his book The Islamist, speaks of the baffled alarm of his middle-class inoffensive parents when he and his friends began to engage in militant activities. This was something they didn't expect and couldn't understand. Maybe they were indeed blameless in causing it, but they did nothing to stop it. They didn't know what to do. Now Muslim parents and elders have to think seriously and take action. Blaming others will not absolve them.

[koheesti]

The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

[Xangsamhua]

It is fair, I think, to generalize that Muslims in Islamic countries favour Sharia as a foundation for strong and well-disciplined families and communities.

Well-disciplined - is that what they call honor killings and rioting?

Perhaps the majority in countries that want Sharia as only one source for law don't want the honor killings and stoning for adultery bits.

In one country, Jordan, where the majority want Sharia as the only source of law, support for it was at 54% of men and 55% of women.

Female literacy (ages 15-24) in Jordan in 2003 was 99% (same for males). 89% of females attended secondary school (cf. 85% of males).

It seems Islam is only as coherent as the most recent interpretation by one's favourite mufti or ayatollah, so as Esposito and Mogahed suggest, there are many possible understandings of Sharia.

The diversity of Islam is not recognized by the extremists who accept only Wahhabist and Salafist interpretations (and most Salafists reject Wahhabi also). They are lunatic fringe Sunnis and really do not speak for the Islamic world, let alone for mainstream Islamic law and ethics in any way at all. You will also note that there has been virtually no news of protests in Iran, a Shi'ite nation, though their puppet outfit, Hezbollah, has been stirring up trouble in Lebanon for purely political reasons.

[Xangsamhua]

The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

Good question. Do you have a suggested answer?

PS. I like the gun ownership hypothesis. I wonder if it really does put firebrands off or are firebrands too thick to think of that?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[koheesti]

The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

Good question. Do you have a suggested answer?

PS. I like the gun ownership hypothesis. I wonder if it really does put firebrands off or are firebrands too thick to think of that?

I believe mainly it is that America tends to get better immigrants. We don't have a reputation for giving free money, cars and homes to immigrants like those other places I mentioned. Those people go elsewhere. The ones who want to work hard and succeed then America is the best choice. I've worked with a lot of people back in the USA from the Middle East and Africa and they work harder than anyone else. Even with our own illegal immigrant population, at least they are here to work and earn money for their families.

Another reason might be that the USA has a reputation as being more religious than Europe for sure. The islamo-fanatics probably have figured out that pissing off a bunch of rednecks, wetbacks or inner-city blacks all packing heat in some for of another who either go to church or have a mother who does is a losing proposition.

[Xangsamhua]

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

Welfare payments in Australia aren't all that generous. Immigrants usually want to get a steady job so they can buy the cars, furniture, TVs, etc. that will impress their friends and signify their success in settling in. However, among the more recent waves of immigrants, those from the Muslim nations, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, have high levels of unemployment (17.7%, 22.2%, 30.7% respectively). Nevertheless, these figures should not mask the fact that about 70% to 80% of those people are in jobs, and often in ones that require long hours at a low hourly rate (e.g. cab driving).

I couldn't find any figures by country of origin for the US.

PS. Just saw your comment: We don't have a reputation for giving free money, cars and homes to immigrants like those other places I mentioned.

I don't know about the UK, but in Australia this is an urban legend. It surfaces every so often and the Department of Immigration has to put out a statement refuting it. I worked with refugees for many years in Victoria and Queensland and can declare on oath that there are no free cars or homes for migrants and refugees. "Free money" is in the form of Special benefits for refugees to help them settle. It's the same amount as the Unemployment benefit. Able-bodied refugees are expected to find jobs and most are very keen to do so.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[Scott]

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

Years ago, when I worked in the area of refugee, immigrant and resettlement, I met and assisted a large number of Muslims. (One group consisted of over 10,000 people). I am still in contact with a number of them.

I don't think it has a lot to do with gun laws--but that is an interesting point.

Those resettled usually go through a very brief cultural orientation and one of the areas that is covered is about freedom of religion, the constitution and laws--with a special emphasis on what is going to be different from their culture. This helps.

Second, the people being resettled mostly really want to go to the US and those that might be hesitant at least really want to leave their home country.

Third, most that I have met and worked with were reasonably moderate to begin with.

Finally, for refugees, they are expected to get employment and be up and running as a productive person in a relatively short period of time. Most, even some relatively lowly educated of them, got jobs, apartments or houses and cars. They work relatively hard and none of them would likely take their hard earned vacation days or money to protest.

[simple1]

Do African Americans who are Muslims, share the same mosques/suburbs as Muslim immigrants, communicate a more moderate interpretation of Islam?

[Steely Dan]

The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Ed Husein, in his book The Islamist, speaks of the baffled alarm of his middle-class inoffensive parents when he and his friends began to engage in militant activities. This was something they didn't expect and couldn't understand. Maybe they were indeed blameless in causing it, but they did nothing to stop it. They didn't know what to do. Now Muslim parents and elders have to think seriously and take action. Blaming others will not absolve them.

Some of the first Muslims to arrive in the UK were Ahmadis, who quite possibly came themselves to flee persecution. I would venture that 40 or 50 years ago the Muslim populations in the UK were actually better integrated into UK society than their children's generation. I'm of the view that the radicalization of both young and recent immigrants is largely down to Wahhabi Islam funding of Mosques in the UK resulting in Imams therein preaching a separatist clash of civilizations type doctrine. Parents are then put in a difficult situation seeing as totalitarian ideology will not hesitate to use violence or intimidation against those it regards as belonging to them, hence reluctance to criticize what's going on.

Our governments know what is happening but seem reluctant to investigate Mosques from where hatred and indoctrination are a problem.

Edit: See below what happens to moderates who stick their heads above the parapet.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Asiantravel]

After the Obama administration paid $70,000 for TV adverts to tell the people of Pakistan USA “ condemns

the anti-Islam film “ ….

The U.S. Has Bought $70,000 in TV Ads in Pakistan Denouncing Anti-Islam Film

http://www.theatlant...lam-film/57096/

...................It looks like it was an unfortunate waste of tax payers money because the people didn't buy it.

Fresh anti-Islam film protests in Muslim countries

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-19670527

Edited September 21, 2012 by Asiantravel

[sunshine51]

Again...as I have stated in other threads about this new Islamist

uprising....It ain't gonna end anytime soon. And these fools had

better realise that the US isn't gonna detain, arrest, incarcerate

the Coptic Christian mastermind because it goes the US

Constitution' Bill Of Rights...1st Ammendment. It would also

be good that if folks from the so called "Western World" try

to comprehend just how much Islam effects those who are

born into said religion. It would be nice if Muslims try and under-

stand the West but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

either....Perhaps the old Randy Newman song " Political

Science" fits in here at this moment in the worlds history......

Link to the song....

[simple1]

Again...as I have stated in other threads about this new Islamist

uprising....It ain't gonna end anytime soon. And these fools had

better realise that the US isn't gonna detain, arrest, incarcerate

the Coptic Christian mastermind because it goes the US

Constitution' Bill Of Rights...1st Ammendment. It would also

be good that if folks from the so called "Western World" try

to comprehend just how much Islam effects those who are

born into said religion. It would be nice if Muslims try and under-

stand the West but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

either....Perhaps the old Randy Newman song " Political

Science" fits in here at this moment in the worlds history......

Link to the song....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

Just watched "Fog of War" interview with McNamara, rule #1 empathise with your enemy. Right now definitely not happening on either side of the debate as anyone attempting to do is called an appeaser. Obama is trying, but being shouted down by the right of politics.

Edited September 21, 2012 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

Do you think that radical Muslims empathise with their enemy? If it is a one way street, it is just preyed on as a weakness.

[Soutpeel]

The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

Good question. Do you have a suggested answer?

PS. I like the gun ownership hypothesis. I wonder if it really does put firebrands off or are firebrands too thick to think of that?

How about water boarding, redition and being sent to Gitmo ?

[exeter]

There is nothing innocent about violent muslims and there seems to be a lot of them, tolerance can only go so far before it gets out of hand and it seems like problem that wont go away, the people in charge need to seize the nettle and deal with it or it will get worse and worse. Appeasement does not work and soft touch has just made them bolder, how long before it gets out of hand? I am tired of the demonstrations at the drop of a hat, violent and organised, rent a mob, this could get out of hand very quickly.

Edited September 21, 2012 by metisdead
: Bold font removed.

[simple1]

Do you think that radical Muslims empathise with their enemy? If it is a one way street, it is just preyed on as a weakness.

No I don't, but dialogue has to start at some point, even if it just starts with the marginalised moderate Muslims in order to slowly gain mutual understanding & influence in their society.

[MaxYakov]

The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

Good questions! Most American, law-abiding, gun owners wouldn't resort to using guns first and they would probably avoid an area where there is a Muslim protest while carrying. As to the second hypothesis, America's becoming a nation of takers with freebies available to anyone so I wouldn't rule out the Muslims in this regard.

There's a third and more likely one: Would they suspect that American law enforcement/riot control, remembering 9/11, other terrorist acts and the frustrating and deadly American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, might be very intolerant of violent (or even enciteful?) behavior by Muslims and likely to take names and kick ass? There is also the risk of coming under FBI scrutiny by participating as well.

I recall a mildly violent and inpromptu Muslim protest at an amusement park a couple of years back over some alleged mis-treatment of Muslim women. One has to wonder if the reporting of similar events is being suppressed by the MSM, however. The MSM is masking the race of the instigators of flash mobs as it is.

Edited September 21, 2012 by MaxYakov

[MaxYakov]

Again...as I have stated in other threads about this new Islamist

uprising....It ain't gonna end anytime soon. And these fools had

better realise that the US isn't gonna detain, arrest, incarcerate

the Coptic Christian mastermind because it goes the US

Constitution' Bill Of Rights...1st Ammendment. It would also

be good that if folks from the so called "Western World" try

to comprehend just how much Islam effects those who are

born into said religion. It would be nice if Muslims try and under-

stand the West but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

either....Perhaps the old Randy Newman song " Political

Science" fits in here at this moment in the worlds history......

Link to the song....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

Just watched "Fog of War" interview with McNamara, rule #1 empathise with your enemy. Right now definitely not happening on either side of the debate as anyone attempting to do is called an appeaser. Obama is trying, but being shouted down by the right of politics.

Obama is trying to do what? And he is being shouted down by the right?

What say you about his administration's persistent misrepresentation of Ambassador Stevens' assassination attack as a Muslim protest gone bad, rather than a planned, premeditated terrorist attack?

IMHO, the only thing Obama is trying to do (other than party with the celebs and play golf), and has been obsessively doing for some time, is get re-elected. He is willing to do anything, say anything to succeed.

Edited September 21, 2012 by MaxYakov

[MaxYakov]

Is this just "Oriental hyperbole" or is this man sensitive to the point of lunacy?

Muslim cleric Allama Shafaat Rasool said the film .... threatens to deepen religious tensions and promote extremism.

“I could not sleep a whole night after watching the video,” he said. “The pain equals that of all the cancers in the world combined, but we have to control our emotions.”

http://www.ucanews.c...-film-protests/

I'd say the latter, but omitting the parts about 'sensitivity' and 'to the point'. Perhaps it's time to start classifying some of these people by ... let's say ... this reference manual?:

'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR'

The article you linked, thanks, on the 'interfaith conference' concluded with this paragraph:

The interfaith conference concluded with a declaration demanding a trial for the filmmaker behind Innocence of Muslims in an international court, as well as the removal of material deemed hateful in textbooks, and an end to the misuse of blasphemy and forced conversion laws.

I wonder which faith got most of what they wanted from this conference. Let's see ... international criminalization of freedom of speech and textbook censorship (which, hopefully, won't happen) traded for the other two, which definitely won't happen.

Edited September 21, 2012 by MaxYakov

[Steely Dan]

19 Dead in Pakistan, Is it a coincidence but Saudi Arabia sends plenty of Wahab Imam's there to preach, indeed recently some Saudi Imams were expelled from Bangladesh of all places for preaching hate. Meanwhile as a bit of light relief the Onion demonstrates why blasphemy laws only apply to Islam.

P.S Don't click on the link if you are not Muslim but suspect you may be offended by blasphemy against the other major religions.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

[MaxYakov]

Again...as I have stated in other threads about this new Islamist

uprising....It ain't gonna end anytime soon. And these fools had

better realise that the US isn't gonna detain, arrest, incarcerate

the Coptic Christian mastermind because it goes the US

Constitution' Bill Of Rights...1st Ammendment. It would also

be good that if folks from the so called "Western World" try

to comprehend just how much Islam effects those who are

born into said religion. It would be nice if Muslims try and under-

stand the West but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

either....Perhaps the old Randy Newman song " Political

Science" fits in here at this moment in the worlds history......

Link to the song....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

Just watched "Fog of War" interview with McNamara, rule #1 empathise with your enemy. Right now definitely not happening on either side of the debate as anyone attempting to do is called an appeaser. Obama is trying, but being shouted down by the right of politics.

I just reviewed Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy of the 'The Fog of War'. It was explained by McNamara by means of a review of the Cuban missile crisis and the need to reply either to a 'soft' message or a 'hard-line message' sent by the Kremlin to end the crisis. The decision was made to reply to the 'soft' message in order to give Khrushchev a rationale he could tell the Russian people to justify their leaving Cuba. Khrushchev could explain leaving Cuba by claiming that it prevented invasion and destruction by the USA.

As McNamara said in the 'The Fog of War' explaining Lesson #1 (transcribed by me from the soundtrack):

That's what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions. Khrushchev's advisors were saying 'there could be no deal unless you somewhat reduce the pressure on us when you ask us to reduce the pressure on you.'

I think that this is not exactly the kind of 'empathy' that most of us had in mind from your post. Wouldn't it be more fitting under the heading of "know your enemy?"

It appears as though this logic would more aptly apply to the Iranian nuclear effort. Would they back down from obtaining nuclear weapon capability? Can we 'empathize' with them on this issue, and give them an out? Is there really any way to reason with Islamic fanatics and isn't the 'The Fog of War' really not that analogous here since it's not Khrushchev, the Kremlin and the Russian people we're dealing with?

Incidentally, 'The Fog of War' has a downright eerie and hypnotizing soundtrack by Philip Glass and worth watching for the music alone, IMHO. McNamara is just ... well ... eerie. Anyway, it's history, so who cares?

Edited September 21, 2012 by MaxYakov

[simple1]

Again...as I have stated in other threads about this new Islamist

uprising....It ain't gonna end anytime soon. And these fools had

better realise that the US isn't gonna detain, arrest, incarcerate

the Coptic Christian mastermind because it goes the US

Constitution' Bill Of Rights...1st Ammendment. It would also

be good that if folks from the so called "Western World" try

to comprehend just how much Islam effects those who are

born into said religion. It would be nice if Muslims try and under-

stand the West but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

either....Perhaps the old Randy Newman song " Political

Science" fits in here at this moment in the worlds history......

Link to the song....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

Just watched "Fog of War" interview with McNamara, rule #1 empathise with your enemy. Right now definitely not happening on either side of the debate as anyone attempting to do is called an appeaser. Obama is trying, but being shouted down by the right of politics.

I just reviewed Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy of the 'The Fog of War'. It was explained by McNamara by means of a review of the Cuban missile crisis and the need to reply either to a 'soft' message or a 'hard-line message' sent by the Kremlin to end the crisis. The decision was made to reply to the 'soft' message in order to give Khrushchev a rationale he could tell the Russian people to justify their leaving Cuba. Khrushchev could explain leaving Cuba by claiming that it prevented invasion and destruction by the USA.

As McNamara said in the 'The Fog of War' explaining Lesson #1 (transcribed by me from the soundtrack):

That's what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions. Khrushchev's advisors were saying 'there could be no deal unless you somewhat reduce the pressure on us when you ask us to reduce the pressure on you.'

I think that this is not exactly the kind of 'empathy' that most of us had in mind from your post. Wouldn't it be more fitting under the heading of "know your enemy?"

It appears as though this logic would more aptly apply to the Iranian nuclear effort. Would they back down from obtaining nuclear weapon capability? Can we 'empathize' with them on this issue, and give them an out? Is there really any way to reason with Islamic fanatics and isn't the 'The Fog of War' really not that analogous here since it's not Khrushchev, the Kremlin and the Russian people we're dealing with?

Incidentally, 'The Fog of War' has a downright eerie and hypnotizing soundtrack by Philip Glass and worth watching for the music alone, IMHO. McNamara is just ... well ... eerie. Anyway, it's history, so who cares?

I think you have missed the point and relevance to the current conflict in the ME. Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another as you highlighted with your example in negotiating with Khrushchev.

EDIT: Regard to Iran the President and his supporters are nutcases. The Iranian people attempted to replace the regime in their Arab Spring, but were brutally oppressed. BTW you do know that China, Russia, Pakistan & North Korea supply the technology to develop nuclear capability. Looks like the West has an endless supply of enemies

Edited September 22, 2012 by simple1

[MaxYakov]

Again...as I have stated in other threads about this new Islamist

uprising....It ain't gonna end anytime soon. And these fools had

better realise that the US isn't gonna detain, arrest, incarcerate

the Coptic Christian mastermind because it goes the US

Constitution' Bill Of Rights...1st Ammendment. It would also

be good that if folks from the so called "Western World" try

to comprehend just how much Islam effects those who are

born into said religion. It would be nice if Muslims try and under-

stand the West but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

either....Perhaps the old Randy Newman song " Political

Science" fits in here at this moment in the worlds history......

Link to the song....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

Just watched "Fog of War" interview with McNamara, rule #1 empathise with your enemy. Right now definitely not happening on either side of the debate as anyone attempting to do is called an appeaser. Obama is trying, but being shouted down by the right of politics.

I just reviewed Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy of the 'The Fog of War'. It was explained by McNamara by means of a review of the Cuban missile crisis and the need to reply either to a 'soft' message or a 'hard-line message' sent by the Kremlin to end the crisis. The decision was made to reply to the 'soft' message in order to give Khrushchev a rationale he could tell the Russian people to justify their leaving Cuba. Khrushchev could explain leaving Cuba by claiming that it prevented invasion and destruction by the USA.

As McNamara said in the 'The Fog of War' explaining Lesson #1 (transcribed by me from the soundtrack):

That's what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions. Khrushchev's advisors were saying 'there could be no deal unless you somewhat reduce the pressure on us when you ask us to reduce the pressure on you.'

I think that this is not exactly the kind of 'empathy' that most of us had in mind from your post. Wouldn't it be more fitting under the heading of "know your enemy?"

It appears as though this logic would more aptly apply to the Iranian nuclear effort. Would they back down from obtaining nuclear weapon capability? Can we 'empathize' with them on this issue, and give them an out? Is there really any way to reason with Islamic fanatics and isn't the 'The Fog of War' really not that analogous here since it's not Khrushchev, the Kremlin and the Russian people we're dealing with?

Incidentally, 'The Fog of War' has a downright eerie and hypnotizing soundtrack by Philip Glass and worth watching for the music alone, IMHO. McNamara is just ... well ... eerie. Anyway, it's history, so who cares?

I think you have missed the point and relevance to the current conflict in the ME. Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another as you highlighted with your example in negotiating with Khrushchev.

I pointed out the relevance to the current ME conflict - Iranian nukes. I don't see any mention of 'feelings' in McNamara's description of Khrushchev's situation. It was about seeing things from your opponent's perspective. Maybe you can enlighten us as to Khrushchev's 'feelings' about the Cuban missile crisis? My guess was that his main 'feeling' was fear - damned if he did and damned if he didn't withdraw the missiles and he was looking at the serious prospect of a nuclear confrontation if he didn't. We were wise enough to give him a plausible 'out' by responding to the 'soft' message. Take note that McNamara said 'That's what I call empathy.' It may not be everyone's definition or implied meaning.

Edited September 22, 2012 by MaxYakov

[MaxYakov]

Again...as I have stated in other threads about this new Islamist

uprising....It ain't gonna end anytime soon. And these fools had

better realise that the US isn't gonna detain, arrest, incarcerate

the Coptic Christian mastermind because it goes the US

Constitution' Bill Of Rights...1st Ammendment. It would also

be good that if folks from the so called "Western World" try

to comprehend just how much Islam effects those who are

born into said religion. It would be nice if Muslims try and under-

stand the West but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon

either....Perhaps the old Randy Newman song " Political

Science" fits in here at this moment in the worlds history......

Link to the song....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

Just watched "Fog of War" interview with McNamara, rule #1 empathise with your enemy. Right now definitely not happening on either side of the debate as anyone attempting to do is called an appeaser. Obama is trying, but being shouted down by the right of politics.

I just reviewed Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy of the 'The Fog of War'. It was explained by McNamara by means of a review of the Cuban missile crisis and the need to reply either to a 'soft' message or a 'hard-line message' sent by the Kremlin to end the crisis. The decision was made to reply to the 'soft' message in order to give Khrushchev a rationale he could tell the Russian people to justify their leaving Cuba. Khrushchev could explain leaving Cuba by claiming that it prevented invasion and destruction by the USA.

As McNamara said in the 'The Fog of War' explaining Lesson #1 (transcribed by me from the soundtrack):

That's what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions. Khrushchev's advisors were saying 'there could be no deal unless you somewhat reduce the pressure on us when you ask us to reduce the pressure on you.'

I think that this is not exactly the kind of 'empathy' that most of us had in mind from your post. Wouldn't it be more fitting under the heading of "know your enemy?"

It appears as though this logic would more aptly apply to the Iranian nuclear effort. Would they back down from obtaining nuclear weapon capability? Can we 'empathize' with them on this issue, and give them an out? Is there really any way to reason with Islamic fanatics and isn't the 'The Fog of War' really not that analogous here since it's not Khrushchev, the Kremlin and the Russian people we're dealing with?

Incidentally, 'The Fog of War' has a downright eerie and hypnotizing soundtrack by Philip Glass and worth watching for the music alone, IMHO. McNamara is just ... well ... eerie. Anyway, it's history, so who cares?

EDIT: Regard to Iran the President and his supporters are nutcases. The Iranian people attempted to replace the regime in their Arab Spring, but were brutally oppressed. BTW you do know that China, Russia, Pakistan & North Korea supply the technology to develop nuclear capability. Looks like the West has an endless supply of enemies

Well we finally agree on something! Any ideas on how to 'empathize' with these 'nutcases' by any reasonable definition of the word?

Edited September 22, 2012 by MaxYakov

[simple1]

@MaxYakov This topic is about the Islamic world response to a film and the extreme reaction that resulted. In this forum there are a large number of posts saying why do some people in the Muslim world get so offended as well as the supposition that Islam is the enemy of the West . So you still don't get the point I was making by using the words "Empathize with your enemy". To contribute to understand the context of my post I provided the definition of empathy below that is certainly not in vogue by many on this forum.

"Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another".

I trust you now understand. - over & out

Edit: Your post "Well we finally agree on something! Any ideas on how to 'empathize' with these 'nutcases' by any reasonable definition of the word?" No & I guess it will eventually lead to an attack on Iran's nuclear development facilities, unless Iran can conclusively prove they are not producing or attempting to produce weapons grade material.

Edited September 22, 2012 by simple1