http://www.break.com/index/arab-woman-takes-on-muslim-cleric2.html

I must say this woman who is arab but also claims to be secular has pretty much summed up my views better than anyone else has on this conflict and the muslim societys in the Middle East in general and that includes politicians

that guy calling her a heretic is a complete waste of humanity

sorry if this is [old] but at least someone new might see it

10/25/2007 2:44:42 PM

Wow. Just watched the entire thing. Thats some powerful shit right there.

10/25/2007 2:53:52 PM

She's so articulate!

LOL

10/25/2007 3:07:53 PM

And now they'll be calling for her assassination.

10/25/2007 4:24:20 PM

i posted this back in March of 2006 soon after it first aired on Al Jazeera and, presumably, she's still alive, and apparently writing a book called "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster"
message_topic.aspx?topic=394073

She probably dodged a bullet when that video aired 1.5 years ago. Hopefully she can be so lucky again when/if her book comes out.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan


[Edited on October 25, 2007 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2007 4:36:06 PM

Useful in her context, I'm sure, but not entirely accurate.

All sorts of groups defend their beliefs by killing people. It's absurd to argue the practice is limited to Muslims.

10/25/2007 4:44:31 PM

So why is secularism so good in the middle eastern world but demonized in the western world?

10/25/2007 4:54:08 PM

omg why are some people religious and why are some people secular

10/25/2007 5:02:04 PM

^^umm technically our government and society is secular and although christianity has some influence compared to the Middle East our government is quite secular

10/25/2007 5:05:56 PM

Quote :

"Useful in her context, I'm sure, but not entirely accurate. All sorts of groups defend their beliefs by killing people. It's absurd to argue the practice is limited to Muslims."

Start naming them. Do any of them approach the scale in number of wahhabist imams preaching the killing and the number of suicide bombers doing the killing?

10/25/2007 5:11:22 PM

^ yeah, and really - she has direct, 1st hand experience with Muslim extremists. Why shouldn't she be talking about them?
Is everyone who talks about Muslim extremists required to qualify everything they say with "i realize that various religious, secular, and tribal groups, now and throughout the history of civilization, are guilty of genocide, murder, and jihad-like actions. I, however, wish to only speak about what I have first hand, expert knowledge of."

10/25/2007 5:30:52 PM

Quote :

"All sorts of groups defend their beliefs by killing people. It's absurd to argue the practice is limited to Muslims. "

this is about societies as a whole, not individuals, I think you are overgeneralizing

and anyways what sort of groups have gone so far as to set up camps dedicated to terrorism and spending millions of dollars and decades of time to plan operations that involve hijacking aircraft and crashing them in to buildings?

as she said it was muslims that first used the expression to fight the people until they convert to Islam, not christianity at least not in the 21st century which is entirely this woman's point

and the american government doesn't support terrorism or simply the killing of arabs, if so they'd be dead by now

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 1:07 AM. Reason : k]

10/26/2007 1:04:53 AM

Quote :

" All sorts of groups defend their beliefs by killing people. It's absurd to argue the practice is limited to Muslims. "

Quote :

"Start naming them. Do any of them approach the scale in number of wahhabist imams preaching the killing and the number of suicide bombers doing the killing?"

Holocaust.

The Crusades.

Protestant Reformation.

Cortez discovers the Aztec Empire.

Trail of Tears

Japanese Occupation of Manchuria.

Conflicts in Africa (ongoing)

Cambodia

Laos

Chile


etc.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 1:20 AM. Reason : >.<]

10/26/2007 1:19:14 AM

^GoldenViper spoke typed in the present tense, dude.

So must of those aren't relevant.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 1:23 AM. Reason : sss]

10/26/2007 1:22:13 AM

I'm going to assume, for the sake of logical discourse, that both of you have enough intellect to understand the underlying point that Man's aptitude for violence doesn't require any particular belief structure.

10/26/2007 1:30:24 AM

Just go back to your clique of garage idiots SandVagina. I asked what other groups (present day should have been understood) are killing on the scale that muslims are?

10/26/2007 7:45:22 AM

In very modern history the catholics and protestants were fairly violent in Ireland. There's also the problem in Sudan which is a genocide. You could also argue that Israel's bombing of Lebanon constitutes a different group than muslims (Lebanon being one of the more ethnically diverse countries in the region, and Israel being Jewish.) There's also a pretty nasty civil war going on in Sri Lanka, though the scale isn't as large because the population isn't as large.

10/26/2007 8:06:36 AM

Look, just be honest with yourself. No other group since the Nazis (which wasn't a spiritual ideology) has or has had a very significant radical faction interested in taking over THE WORLD through violent measures.

10/26/2007 8:16:04 AM

To claim the Nazi's didn't have a spiritual ideology is completely ignorant. I suggest you study your history before you talk about this.

10/26/2007 8:38:25 AM

Quote :

"Nazism was not a precise, theoretically grounded ideology, or a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and groups, centered around anger at the Treaty of Versailles and what was considered to have been a Jewish/Communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany at the end of the First World War. It was not rooted in socialism but can be considered conservative in nature. It therefore consisted of a loose collection of positions focused on those held to blame for Germany's defeat and weakness: anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism,[7] eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic and political liberalism,[8] a racially-defined and conspiratorial view of finance capitalism,[9] and anti-communism. As Nazism became dominant in Germany, especially after 1933, it was defined in practice as whatever was decreed by the Nazi Party and in particular by the Führer, Adolf Hitler."

That just ooooozzeess 'spiritual'.

Which God or diety did the Nazi's pray to before committing their holy war?

10/26/2007 9:07:00 AM

Nazism was extremely nationalistic, they worshiped the country. They also colluded with the church in the late 30's and had all crucifixes replaced with the swastica and made attendance mandatory. There were also solid movements to create a national church of nazi germany.

10/26/2007 10:53:27 AM

Quote :

"Just go back to your clique of garage idiots SandVagina. I asked what other groups (present day should have been understood) are killing on the scale that muslims are?"

No, absolutely not. You worded your statement in such a way that an interpretation like that is not logically possible.

The original statement was this:

Quote :

" Useful in her context, I'm sure, but not entirely accurate. All sorts of groups defend their beliefs by killing people. It's absurd to argue the practice is limited to Muslims."

and you replied with this:

Quote :

"Start naming them. Do any of them approach the scale in number of wahhabist imams preaching the killing and the number of suicide bombers doing the killing?"

Not a hint of a timeline on either of those statements nor was there a hint of one in the context of the original post. You are using that argument because you think it helps you make a point in someway. Well what point exactly are you trying to make? And also, what do you mean by present day? The current day - 10/26? The last month? Year? Five years? X timeframe that you can use as fodder to argue?

You used this specific language

"Do any of them approach the scale in number of wahhabist imams preaching the killing and the number of suicide bombers doing the killing?"

Lets go ahead and add emphasis on the words that differentiate this statement from one with a neutral tone:


"Do any of them approach the scale in number of wahhabist imams preaching the killing and the number of suicide bombers doing the killing?"

This statement in no way reads "muslims are killing a lot of people in the present day" but rather reads a very Fox News style "People are being killed on an unprecedented scale by muslims!"

You asked if any group approached this scale, a scale which you haven't bothered defining by the way, and the logical answer to that question is "yes, quite a few."

10/26/2007 10:59:44 AM

Arab Woman Takes On Muslim Cleric - Watch more free videos



this needs an embed.



and she seems like a brilliant person.

10/26/2007 11:04:14 AM

Quote :

"You asked if any group approached this scale, a scale which you haven't bothered defining by the way, and the logical answer to that question is "yes, quite a few.""

I'm not bothering to refute a point you aren't clearly making. So, I'll ask you this.

Name some modern day groups that have spiritual/religious leaders preaching to them to go commit suicide bombing acts upon rival religious groups, and name the groups where suicide bombing is being employed on such a large scale.

10/26/2007 11:10:58 AM

why must it be current?


do you mean current as in "modern era"?



if so, holocaust and pearl harbor apply. (although i don't know how religiously driven kamikaze pilots were)

10/26/2007 11:19:37 AM

Current because we are discussing this video, where this lady is assailing muslims for blowing up statues of other religions, for using violence in the extreme way that they are.

What other spiritual group has a subgroup of nontrivial numbers of leaders teaching such extreme violence?

What Christian faction has leaders teaching this type of violence and executing it.

What Buddhist faction?

And so on?

10/26/2007 11:24:33 AM

none, today.



but you can't deny that in modern society there have been other situations that dilute some of her points.



she still makes a good point about the jews, but their religious teachings are less prone to conflict (from what little i know about the jewish faith).

10/26/2007 11:43:39 AM

Quote :

"none...today"

Well, that is what she is saying, and that is what I have been saying all along.

10/26/2007 11:47:04 AM

Quote :

"but their religious teachings are less prone to conflict"

yeah, that's the whole point. Almost all "religious teachings" other than Islam are less prone to conflict. That's why there's a problem with the teachings of Islam.

And anything that has happened in the past does not dilute her points. We can't change the past. What's done is done. We can only control our present and future. She sees the violent teachings of Islam as a threat to our future, so she's speaking to it.

10/26/2007 11:47:16 AM

I can't think of a monotheistic religion that doesn't lend itself to conflict simply because of the fact that the allow for no margin of error. What complicates itself even more is that 3 powerful religions all share the same base text and claim to have the same god while having many views that are opposed to each other. This combined with the fact that they all want to control their holy lands which are in the same place just leads to a cluster fuck of violence.


Just you wait until the Mormons get involved.

10/26/2007 11:47:43 AM

No, see now you're just trying to reframe your argument in a way so that its supportable on technical details (which it still isn't by the way).

The original statement, as stands by GoldenViper was this:

Quote :

"" Useful in her context, I'm sure, but not entirely accurate. All sorts of groups defend their beliefs by killing people. It's absurd to argue the practice is limited to Muslims." "

You replied with:

Quote :

"Start naming them. Do any of them approach the scale in number of wahhabist imams preaching the killing and the number of suicide bombers doing the killing?"

To be clear, this is the original idea presented:

Quote :

"All sorts of groups defend their beliefs by killing people."

Don't try to narrow that down by adding cases to the argument that weren't there at its inception, such as "Name Christians and buddhists" etc.



[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason : >.<]

10/26/2007 11:56:48 AM

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

don't be a facist




[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2007 11:58:55 AM

sandsanta: the woman explicitly says: "It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs in the 21st century"

her point was that all those events you mentioned belonged in the past and that arab society has not been allowed to progress past this

you can't argue that a society like America is allowed to progress a lot more than the society of Iran

essentially by using those horrible events from the past to justify that argument you are basically associating many mid east governments with them which I don't see how is going to help anyone look more favorably upon their society

and yes there are some killings still going on in the 21st century but they are from countries with the same story or probably worse and I doubt you want to lump them in with the middle east either

10/26/2007 12:54:48 PM

But I'm not arguing with the woman's point. In fact, I wouldn't argue with her point because I agree with it. My entire fuss is with the cheese that's followed the first post.

10/26/2007 1:42:04 PM

You could start by not trying to remove context where it needs to be.

10/26/2007 1:46:13 PM

darn it I was hoping to get this to two pages

10/26/2007 2:03:17 PM

I saw another woman on C-SPAN making a similar argument a few months ago. She also seemed to be of Arab descent.

10/26/2007 2:32:38 PM

A lot of her information is flawed, which is intriguing considering her audience and where she's making her claims.

Also, I think she's the antichrist

10/26/2007 2:41:50 PM

Quote :

"Start naming them. Do any of them approach the scale in number of wahhabist imams preaching the killing and the number of suicide bombers doing the killing?"

Communists, Marxists, anarchists, capitalists, imperialists, monarchists, mercantilists, democrats, republicans, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, racists, and nationalists.

That's a start, at least.

Quote :

"she has direct, 1st hand experience with Muslim extremists. Why shouldn't she be talking about them?"

She specifically claimed that other groups don't use violence. She's wrong. It's that simple.

She even used the Jews as her main example. She's right about Jewish scientists, though I suspect she's exaggerating a bit. But the Jews absolutely defend their beliefs by killing people. Take a quick look at the history of Israel and this becomes obvious. Furthermore, Jewish scriptures are at least as violent as Muslim scriptures. Some Jews use this to justify violence, exactly as Muslims do.

10/26/2007 3:00:49 PM

Quote :

"She specifically claimed that other religious groups don't use violence with the same level and voracity that muslims do. She's right. It's that simple. "

Fixed it for you.

Quote :

"Some Jews use this to justify violence, exactly as Muslims do."

What analogue is there for jihad in Judaism?

Which group of jewish have committed aggressive suicide bombings with the same magnitude certain groups of muslims are doing now?

Which jews took out 2 towers and sent 3000+ people to their deaths?

10/26/2007 3:08:42 PM

Quote :

"Fixed it for you."

So you're suggesting a translation error? I'll admit that's possible.

Quote :

"What analogue is there for jihad in Judaism?"

Indefinitely expanding the borders of Jewish state. Ben-Gurion even suggested the entire planet might eventually be insufficient.

Quote :

"Which group of jewish have committed aggressive suicide bombings with the same magnitude certain groups of muslims are doing now?"

None that I know of. But what we label as terrorism is hardly the only way to kill for your beliefs. War is another.

10/26/2007 3:23:07 PM

Quote :

"expanding the borders of Jewish state. Ben-Gurion even suggested the entire planet might eventually be insufficient."

so one overenthuiastic statement with absolutely no violence to back it up (beyond Israel) equals something written in holy scripture that is continually used as justification for thousands of recent deaths?

10/26/2007 3:36:43 PM

Isreali violence tends to be about border disputes, as you would expect.

I'm not saying it's exactly the same as Muslim extremist violence. It's quite different. But it's still violence.

Given the context, her argument is understandable. But it's not completely correct.

10/26/2007 3:41:32 PM

Quote :

"don't be a facist"

LOL, I'll try not to

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : once I figure out what that means]

10/26/2007 4:16:05 PM

Eye for an eye... facist...

I believe I see a connection!

10/26/2007 4:23:50 PM

If that was intended as a pun, it was one of the lamest ones I've seen here on TWW.

10/26/2007 4:29:45 PM

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=facist

10/26/2007 4:32:51 PM

Quote :

"1. facist The wrong way to spell FASCIST, you big dummy. "

10/26/2007 4:34:03 PM

Yeah, that's the most likely explanation.

10/26/2007 4:34:48 PM