A Very Gutsy Lady

Here is a link to a very interesting Al Jazeera TV showhttp://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&...

Hahahaha, that lady rocks.

Here is another take on the same subject from the Toronto Star Toronto Star

I really don't think that it is that kind of attitude that is going to fix anything. We don't need more people who just paint the world by numbers using only the colors black and white. She is blatantly stereotyping and also is either lying or ignorant of history.She paints a picture of a primitive and backwater religion and culture of Islam and an advanced and civilized Judiasm and Christianity.The reality of the situation is that the cultures have traded the title of "most civilized" in the past. The middle east was a pinnacle of knowledge and advancement during the time that the west was hacking people to bits and burning witches. None of the 3 Abrahamic religions have blood free hands.The world is different now and Islam is going through its own crisis. I am not sitting here trying to deny that radical Shiaism is not a problem at has not been the cause and justification for many terrible things in current events. But if we were living in in first millennia AD, I wonder if this lady's perspective would be different.All it looks like to me is Al Jazeera succumbing to the same media tendencies the likes of FOX, CNN, etc. You get people only with polar opposite and seemingly dogmatic views and let them yell at the camera for awhile.What the heck is wrong with being moderate? I guess it just isn't interesting enough to get you on TV. So what if she is some secular humanist anti-Islam apologetic? The only thing that makes her "gutsy" is that she said what she did on Al Jazeera.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

That was excellent, and I am shocked that al jazeera would air something like that, after seeing some other broadcasts of theirs.

And Fred Phelps on CNN doesn't shock you? News sources lately seem to just be outlets for whackos.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I am sure she was only addressing those musslims who are at the forfront of the terrorists movements, or extremists.I thought she was extremely fair about it, and was pleased to here another peacful musslim putting down war, and the motives of war.

Over all, I do not like news reports, but what other source of information do we have?CNN will say one thing, while the NY Times will say another, and TBN will say yet another, and al jazeera is reporting from the moon or something.The reports I have heard from my friends who went to Iraq to fight, are very different from the ones I see on TV.

It didn't seem that way to me. Then she goes on a tirade of "The Muslims this.... The Muslims that...." She is BLATANTLY stereotyping. I think her attitude is negative, and completely unnecessary. It is people with black and white views like this that will propogate the problems rather than help end them. Maybe you didn't notice that she is not Moslem.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Did you listen to the interview. She is not Muslim, Christian or Jew but Secular.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

At least she is not taping explosives on her body and blowing herself up in a crowd. She is voicing her opinion. How is that bad? And maybe she is being a bit black and white. So what? The people who most need to pay heed to her message think black and white themselves, so maybe her tone might be the only way to get through to them. Amidst all the deafening noise of car bombs and suicide attackers, shouting may be the only way to get the message across. But the reality is also that this "pinnacle of knowledge and advancement" has since come to a grinding halt. Wafa Sultan said:

quote:

---

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

---

(Here is a complete transcript of the debate.)In the Middle Ages, there was a mentality in the Middle East that belonged to the Middle Ages. Well, obviously. But the point is, there still is. There was what you might call a civilized society. But that society has largely remained the same since then, and now seems a bit primitive in certain aspects, in comparison to modern Western society.In the Middle Ages, there was oppression in the Middle East. Enlightened oppression perhaps, but still. Also, oppression was very much the thing anywhere, back then. Fortunately, things have improved much in later ages. But not so in the islamic countries of the Middle East.Human rights in the Middle Ages, anyone? None to speak of really. Again, a huge improvement lately. Admittedly, not everywhere - Guantanamo Bay springs to mind - but certainly not in the islamic countries of the Middle East. Well, the fact is that she doesn't live in the first millenium, so there's no point arguing that, is there? The fact is that she lives in the 21st century, while those she fulminates against live in the first millenium, so to speak. And in itself, that isn't the problem. But they want her - and us, I might add - to live in the first millenium as well. That's where the rub is. For one thing, it doesn't accomplish much with extremists. I'm not saying that all muslims are extremists, but 'moderate' is not a term I'd use either. As if muslims only watch Al Jazeera. Theo van Gogh was never on Al Jazeera, but he was murdered by an islamic fundamentalist anyway. Do you think there are no muslims in Los Angeles, where she lives? And do you think that among those muslims in Los Angeles there are no fundamentalists? And that among those fundamentalists there are no extremists?This woman has guts, there's no doubt about it.Edited by Parasomnium, : Had forgotten 'no' in "no doubt"

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Neither is 99.9% of the rest of the world. This is not some big accomplishment. Nor is it a meaningfull statement. I don't necessarily think all opinions deserve equal weight when considering geo-politics. This especially includes ones that are exclusionary, biggotted, ignorant, etc. I am not just talking about her. I am talking about a number of people who get to flap their tongue on large audience news networks just because their ideas are fixed and often extreme. Because it is not correct nor justified on correct information. She made a number of statements that shows an obvious ignorance of history. You often have to ignore reality to live in a world where only you are right and everyone else is wrong. That is what she is doing. Right, because extremist Shias are going to be reasoned with by calling them backwards? Maybe you can identify a situation where this kind of tactic actually had any practical benefit. I never said that it didn't. I was simply pointing out how one sided her argument was. Why not? Because you say so? But calling them backwards and uncivilized will accomplish something with them? Based on what? Your opinion?That is besides the point I was trying to make though. I was talking about being moderate in the sense that SHE is expressing a non moderate view. There is what is dogmatically right and then there are the evil Moslems. A more moderate position would be simply that YES there IS a problem with radical Shia Moslems and we need to address the real issue of that in the context of the reality of the rest of the Moslem world. Just outright condemning anything and everything Moslem is pure bigotry and stereotyping.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Is the problem with Shias? Or is it the Wahabbi/Salafi fundies stirring the pot? While certain cartoons from the West provoked the Islamic world, apparently it is open slather in most Islamic countries to publish extremely offensive cartoons of Israel and the West. If moderates want to be recognised by us, where`s the chastisement of their fellow believers? I`ve only seen a few outspoken on the constant misrepresentation and denigration of the West. Maybe it`s time for hard talk from our perspective.

Well, I mean even some Sun'ni are extremists just for different reasons like Hamas. It doesn't really matter. The point is simply that the problem is extremism. I don't disagree at all. I just think that there is a BIG difference between "hard talk" and crazy, broad generalization, anti-Islam ranting. You can raise the stakes of the discussion without irrationally making the situation black and white. Reality is rarely so cut and dry so I see any attempt to characterize that as a failure to be strong about the real issues rather than "gutsy" over misrepresentations, generlizations, stereotypes, and even some bigotry.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

quote:

---

I just think that there is a BIG difference between "hard talk" and crazy, broad generalization, anti-Islam ranting. You can raise the stakes of the discussion without irrationally making the situation black and white. Reality is rarely so cut and dry so I see any attempt to characterize that as a failure to be strong about the real issues rather than "gutsy" over misrepresentations, generlizations, stereotypes, and even some bigotry.

---

I am compelled to largely agree. The real question is essentially how does one eliminate the problem of self-righteous fanaticism that seems to invariably lead to the slaughter of the innocents.In the recent past during the mid 80s, when I was working in military intelligence, the goal was to outwit the enemy. It worked, and if you don't believe me, ask any representative of the former Soviet Union.Today, very few seem to argue for outwitting the enemy. All solutions apparently involve demonization instead of intelligent, and indeed, respectful, engagement. It appears the moral code of the day is one of unquestioning slaughter in the name of some false god.Which is better? Victory through intelligence or some dubious victory through brute force? Virtually all Muslims do not deserve to be conflated with Nazis, Communists, or Japanese imperialists from the past. Islam is a religion, not an ideology of extermination despite the continuous flow of misinformation from those who have abandoned any pretense of morality or peity in their respective religions.It is the inability of our present world leaders to actually lead, as much as the inability of Islamic spokesmen to actually represent Islam, which causes the current problem. As members of the human race, both sides should demand intelligence and tolerance instead of sacrificing babies to their leader's new age version of Tlaloc or Baal.Unfortunately, there are many who prefer the lie of 72 virgins or the rapture of dominionism to the teachings of Mohammed or Jesus.It is of little comfort that those who preach intolerance and racism in the name of their false god would be condemmed by their own belief system to eternal torment.However, as strange as it may seem I largely remain optimistic. If one studies history with any diligence, one sees that human culture is evolving in a positive direction despite the occasional temporary slide back to the aggrandisment of pathetic demonizers.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.