The Islamophobia split on the left.

[Mouthwash]

It's not civil rights activists doing it, though, it's an Alabama police force. Even a 'match for peace' is itself a propaganda stunt. It presents the Israelis as trying to bring about peace and focuses attention on these sort of interactions, so people ignore the other interactions done with tanks and aircraft. I'm not denying that he may well have organised it in good faith, but it's quite short-sighted to miss that people on the (literal) other side of the fence might not see it so charitably.

Doesn't make it a crime against humanity. They didn't do it because they disapproved of the message, they did it because interacting with Israelis in any fashion- what they call normalization- is taboo amongst Arabs.

Incidentally, what exactly is a 'collapse of civilisation'?

Well, first you have to define civilization. And unless you have a totally fleshed-out theory of precisely what that is, this debate is going nowhere.

I view the Arab world as having a particular set of socio-politico characteristics, and I think that those characteristics are undermining the basic fabric of society.

Okay, so, again, what do we have to think that the ethnicity of the citizens is the primary variable, here? I mean, the Arabs aren't intrinsically anti-Semitic savages, y'know, they're not Scots, so you've got to have some sort of reasoning behind all this.

I said it already: the term Arab is less an ethnicity than a nationality. Opposing the Zionist regime is integral to Arab identity. Much like German nationalism in the thirties, and how it viewed Poland's 'occupation' of West Prussia.

 

[Arakhor]

Opposing the Zionist regime is integral to Arab identity.

So, you're not a "true" Arab unless you oppose Israel? Really?

 

[warpus]

I don't know. I can't predict how things would be had there never been a Jesus Christ or Buddha or Socrates or anyone else. It's difficult enough just to understand the real past as opposed to hypothesizing about "alternative universes".

That's why I disagreed with what you said, because it's just impossible to predict what would have happened had historical figure X not existed.

 

[classical_hero]

The wonderful thing about this thread is there are no standard being applied those who call them Christians or Muslims. Apparently you can be a Muslim and not follow the teachings of Mohammed. You can be a Christian while not following the teachings of Christ.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

The wonderful thing about this thread is there are no standard being applied those who call them Christians or Muslims. Apparently you can be a Muslim and not follow the teachings of Mohammed. You can be a Christian while not following the teachings of Christ.

You're only realizing this now? Basically every religion is just a club that people join based on who their parents were. Nobody really follows any religious teaching except for a tiny minority and even they do so on a very selective basis- when it benefits them.

This is why you have "islamic fundamentalism"- a movement which is, upon empirical observation, primarily devoted towards killing muslims. It suits the political goals of those who support it.

Likewise, self-described Christian fundamentalists are opposed to universal healthcare and welfare because it suits their political goals even though the stated views of Jesus were diametrically opposite.

Its almost as if religion was just a paper-thin facade and people were pursuing their own political and economic interests regardless of religious affiliation.

 

[Smote]

"how religious moderates protect religious extremists"
Sam Harris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WOAAKMA6Hk

 

[Mouthwash]

So, you're not a "true" Arab unless you oppose Israel? Really?

Look at what I said and look at what you said.

The two do not, in fact, correlate.

 

[Flying Pig]

]Well, first you have to define civilization. And unless you have a totally fleshed-out theory of precisely what that is, this debate is going nowhere.

Well, you were the one who used the term, so I thought you might know what it means.

 

[Arakhor]

The two do not, in fact, correlate.

Perhaps you could explain what you meant more clearly, without sounding really racist?

 

[Traitorfish]

I said it already: the term Arab is less an ethnicity than a nationality. Opposing the Zionist regime is integral to Arab identity. Much like German nationalism in the thirties, and how it viewed Poland's 'occupation' of West Prussia.

That seems tenuous. To be an Arab, one must oppose Israel, and to oppose Israel, one must hate Jews? And Islam is also mixed into all, although you've not really been specified where. So what reason do we have to believe this?

 

[onejayhawk]

OK, yes, that's a bad example. Nonetheless, a good 90% of the violence and intolerance we see from Muslims come from Arabs.

Neither Iraq nor Iran is Arab. IS is not Arab.

J

 

[Borachio]

Well, I always thought that the Iraqi population was largely Arabic. It's kind of strange that they'd have arabic as their principal language if they weren't.

Or is this a quibble on countries themselves (the geographic landmass if you like) not having an ethnicity?

Still, who knows? Not I.

 

[Tahuti]

That seems tenuous. To be an Arab, one must oppose Israel, and to oppose Israel, one must hate Jews? And Islam is also mixed into all, although you've not really been specified where. So what reason do we have to believe this?

'Zionist' is to the Arab world what 'Socialist' is to the 1950s USA. Saying anything that could be perceived as supporting it - including sentiment that merely challenges Anti-Israel hysteria - can lead to social ostracision as Mouthwash pointed out. In fact, the normal relations between Egypt and Israel are perhaps more comparable to the US-Soviet detente than the post-war peace between France and Germany.

 

[onejayhawk]

That seems tenuous. To be an Arab, one must oppose Israel, and to oppose Israel, one must hate Jews? And Islam is also mixed into all, although you've not really been specified where. So what reason do we have to believe this?

Exactly. No one said it was rational.

J

 

[Arakhor]

Exactly. No one said it was rational.

And if that's what he meant, it's still extremely racist.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nobody really follows any religious teaching except for a tiny minority and even they do so on a very selective basis- when it benefits them.

Bull and honkey.

 

[warpus]

That's sort of how things work in Europe, even in relatively heavily religious Poland. Cultural Christianity is a bit different over there than here.

 

[Takhisis]

↑I love how 'Mericans appear to be completely incapable of admitting that people do things in a manner different from theirs (beyond deviants and terrorists and perverts, I mean). Apparently we religious people are eeeeevul, even those of us who do not live in the US or Europe or the Middle East.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not following Tak.

 

[Takhisis]

The general perception of 'the left' by the OP is far from what is in other countries considered to be leftwing, and also some comments on 'religious people™' appear to be based on incredibly localised versions of US pastors or TV-broadcast perception of evil Mooslems.