3 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesYou make a fair point. Let me explain why I do not accept this as yet.
on page 5 of this thread, Dasa said the following:When I say Muslim men........it goes without saying that I mean violent Muslim men who rape, plunder, bomb, murder and pillage in the name of Allah.
I admit I was not clear about this in my first post....... believing it would be obvious
rank outsider and avalanche - this does seem to be a retraction/apology - but it likely got buried and wasn't seen.
1) I, as do others, have had the advantage of having seen and being involved in the original post. The OP's entire premise is one of eradicating Islam from the earth. The execution of Muslim adult males is simply a means to an end.
2) One of the first responses to DASA's OP asks "I see you are for killing people of Islamic faith. Is that accurate?". This is DASA's first opportunity to confirm that he does not mean this. He does not respond.
3) A subsequent poster states that this amounts to genocide. Dasa again has the chance to correct the misunderstanding. His response "Islam is not a religion. It is a disease."
4) In RJHinds' second post he mentions that Dasa was referring to "criminal" Muslims. I have to be careful here as I did not see the post he is referring to, but in my view Dasa would see all Muslims as criminals for practising a false religion. He has, after all, called me a child abuser if I teach my child anything other than the Vedic ways, and also made it clear that, in Vedic society, all false teachings are outlawed with severe sanctions (not specified) if this is disobeyed. This suggests that teaching 'false religion' is a crime in Vedic society. As most Muslims would teach their faith to their children, it follows that Dasa may see them all as criminals in need of punishment, which may include execution.
5) Even with the supposed 'clarification' on page 5, I believe it is possible to read this consistently with the view that Dasa believes that all adult Muslim males should be put to death (as per above). No clear thinking person could do this, of course, but a person who can post that "all Muslim adult men should be put to death" and then argue that "it was obvious" this meant Muslim rapists etc, is not someone for whom clear thinking is an obvious character trait.
Put it like this, if you and I believed in the death penalty, and I said "Jewish murderers should be executed", you might raise an eyebrow as to why the reference to Jewish. If you then asked "But Jewish people who are not murderers are OK?" and I didn't respond, you would probably begin to wonder as to my motivations.
In Dasa's case, I am sure that he thinks that all Muslim murderers, rapists etc should be executed but he might also think (in silent brackets) that all other Muslims should be as well. If this is true, then his retraction is not a retraction, as much as a post-rationalisation which allows him to spread his vile message by narrowing the terms to something which his apologists would support and which, offensive though it still is, would not amount to a call for genocide.
That is why I have repeatedly asked him to make a statement along the lines of "I do not believe that all adult Muslim males should be put to death. I am sorry that I phrased the post in that way." I reminded him of the Vedic teachings of honesty and the need for a patient constructive approach in dealing with the likes of us.
So, for the sake of 20 secs of typing, he could confirm his view and doing this would be in line with the teachings he professes to follow.
So why not just do it, Dasa?
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI think he ought to go beyond just admitting he called for genocide (as everyone who has read the thread knows he did) and apologizing for it.
That is why I have repeatedly asked him to make a statement along the lines of "I do not believe that all adult Muslim males should be put to death. I am sorry that I phrased the post in that way." I reminded him of the Vedic teachings of honesty and the need for a patient constructive approach in dealing with the likes of us.
So, for the sake of ...[text shortened]... is would be in line with the teachings he professes to follow.
So why not just do it, Dasa?
I think Dasa should confirm that he wants ALL people who "rape, plunder, bomb, murder and pillage" to be punished and not just Muslim men that commit these crimes.
I think Dasa should be specific about the crimes for which he supports capital punishment, aside from murder and rape.
I think Dasa should clarify and/or confirm his support for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and the freedom for parents to raise their children as they see fit.
I think these, at a minimum, should be clarified, alongside apologizing for what he wrote on 19th December.
Originally posted by RJHindsDear RJHinds
Why can't you guys understand that Dasa had no intention of calling for
genocide and this was all drummed up by FMF. Dasa has already verified
that his belief that Muslim terriorist being terminated to bring peace was
his intention. When he said ALL MUSLIMS he meant ALL those that
believe in this radical, irrational, and violent form of Islam. It was ...[text shortened]... e does not have some
controversal ideas; but this was a misunderstanding that got out of hand.
Thankyou for your support in this matter.
You have understood correctly.
Others who are drumming up a storm over this issue.............do so because they are dishonest and are trying to discredit my comments because I have exposed them as dishonest in the past.
They have never got over the fact that I exposed them in the past for their dishonesty........and they remain dishonest for twisting my words now as well.
Their antics do not affect me.
There is a saying in India...........that when the caravans go past at night the dogs come out and bark - but the caravans still pass.
This will be my last comment about this subject.
The word Genocide means to systematically destroy the people of any race or culture or religion.
I have never used the word………and I have never had the thought.
But I have said that certain men who are violent – *and who are violent as a matter of religious views held and believed - should be removed from society just as there were millions of people in 1940 who wanted the SS Nazis removed from society as well for their violent atrocities and their beliefs and their oppressive doctrine.
There is not a person on earth that would defend the violence of the SS Nazis baby killers and would actually want then all removed from society as well - if they could go back to 1940 in a time machine.
Today we have a religious group who mutilate the genitalia of young girls, and cuts the throats of their mothers if they do not cover their heads when told to (there is more but it is too gruesome)
Now since my comments did not call for women and children to be removed – no one could say that I called for Genocide……..I did not.
My comments were very selective and there was no intent to destroy a race of people or anything of the likes.
If there is a particular religion - that as a matter of doctrine and law and belief are violent towards women and society as a whole…………….then just like in 1940 when millions of people wanted the Nazis to be removed – then why should this current group of violent persons (males) be allowed to exist among the civilized population…….WHY?
A crime of passion is one thing…………….but to systematically and as a belief system, be shockingly violent against women and children and society in the name of religion is another thing all together…….and such a pseudo religion should be removed from civilized society.
Originally posted by DasaI was with you all the way up to the sixth word. The rest disappointed.
This will be my last comment about this subject.
The word Genocide means to systematically destroy the people of any race or culture or religion.
I have never used the word………and I have never had the thought.
But I have said that certain men who are violent – *and who are violent as a matter of religious views held and believed - should be removed from soc ...[text shortened]... nother thing all together…….and such a pseudo religion should be removed from civilized society.
And, no, I don't believe you answered my question.
Originally posted by DasaI know of almost 40 posters who have read the deleted 19th December thread, because I have sent them a copy of it. No one has twisted your words. They have simply read them.
They have never got over the fact that I exposed them in the past for their dishonesty........and they remain dishonest for twisting my words now as well.
Originally posted by DasaNoone claimed you actually used the word genocide. But What you said certainly suggested that it's what you meant. The only person who felt otherwise did not see your post. Other words you did not use were"certain men who are violent". What you did say was" All Muslin men". This is very dishonest to change the words in such a way and then blame us for misunderstading you.
This will be my last comment about this subject.
The word Genocide means to systematically destroy the people of any race or culture or religion.
I have never used the word………and I have never had the thought.
But I have said that certain men who are violent – *and who are violent as a matter of religious views held and believed - should be removed from soc ...[text shortened]... nother thing all together…….and such a pseudo religion should be removed from civilized society.
I asked you in a previous post what was meant by " dealt with" where you said "Good government should deal with people who teach evolution". I will remind you that your religion tells you to be patient with people like me. All I require a simple trueful answer.
Originally posted by DasaDid you manage to comprehend the definition of genocide that you posted yourself ? How is the "removal" of all the males of a particular religion not covered by that definition (or was the Holocaust not genocide because some Jews were forced to work instead of being killed outright)?
This will be my last comment about this subject.
The word Genocide means to systematically destroy the people of any race or culture or religion.
I have never used the word………and I have never had the thought.
But I have said that certain men who are violent – *and who are violent as a matter of religious views held and believed - should be removed from soc ...[text shortened]... nother thing all together…….and such a pseudo religion should be removed from civilized society.
Dasa, it's OK if your in favour of genocide (well it's not, but it's doubtful you'll ever have the power to enact it and you haven't the rhetorical or intellectual skills to convince anyone of your ideas, so you're mostly harmless even if you like yourself some genocide), but be a man and admit it. Your stance right now is pathetic, "I want to kill 50% of all Muslims, but I'm offended if you call it genocide."
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by deennyI second this question, which I myself have also asked... twice.
I asked you in a previous post what was meant by "dealt with" where you said "Good government should deal with people who teach evolution".
I will remind you that your religion tells you to be patient with people like me.
All I require a simple truthful answer.
"Just to be clear...
How would people teaching evolution and or Atheists be 'dealt with' in Vedic society?
What kind of 'reprisals' would they expect from teaching children that we descend from apes?"
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaOn page 5 you said: "When I say Muslim men........it goes without saying that I mean violent Muslim men who rape, plunder, bomb, murder and pillage in the name of Allah."
If there is a particular religion - that as a matter of doctrine and law and belief are violent towards women and society as a whole…………….then just like in 1940 when millions of people wanted the Nazis to be removed – then why should this current group of violent persons (males) be allowed to exist among the civilized population…….WHY? A crime of passion is on ...[text shortened]... nother thing all together…….and such a pseudo religion should be removed from civilized society.
Can you be specific about the other crimes for which you support there being a death penalty, aside from murder and rape - and presumably genital mutilation [plus the others above]?
6 edits
Originally posted by DasaI think what Dasa is saying is that he is absolutely furious about certain extremist militant Muslims who adhere to a belief system that not only allows, but encourages and even requires terrible violence against those who fail to adhere to the belief system's rules.
This will be my last comment about this subject.
The word Genocide means to systematically destroy the people of any race or culture or religion.
I have never used the word………and I have never had the thought.
But I have said that certain men who are violent – *and who are violent as a matter of religious views held and believed - should be removed from soc ...[text shortened]... nother thing all together…….and such a pseudo religion should be removed from civilized society.
His post on page 5 indicated that he isn't talking about "all Muslims" - only the ones who adhere to a belief system that holds violently oppressive doctrines - unfortunately, he does give the impression that he believes that a large percentage of Muslims belong to this category. But I can't really say for sure. Perhaps Dasa will give us a specific number.
Now - assuming that we're talking only about militant violent Muslims - I fully understand why Dasa is furious. Any religious belief that calls for what happened on 9-11 is repugnant. And I can understand his desire to do everything possible to eliminate those beliefs.
The BIG problem is that doing this is very likely to lead to a more general genocide. People often become filled with rage in their effort to destroy the extremists, and then they tend to go overboard -- and you end up with indiscriminate slaughter of everyone who merely speaks the "wrong" accent or has the "wrong" skin color.
Further - the violent effort to "exterminate all the extremists" will merely pour gasoline on whatever it is that attracts people to extremist ideas. So you end up making the problem worse.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesNo one here opposes trying to eliminate terrorism, murder etc. Do they? When it comes to eliminating beliefs, what do you personally think "everything possible" means?
Any religious belief that calls for what happened on 9-11 is repugnant. And I can understand his desire to do everything possible to eliminate those beliefs.
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut there remains the issue of what he wrote in the deleted 19th December thread. What does what he wrote on page 5 of this thread have to do with the 19th December thread?
His post on page 5 indicated that he isn't talking about "all Muslims" - only the ones who adhere to a belief system that holds violently oppressive doctrines
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe problem is Dasa talks out of both sides of his mouth. He seems to think that when he says" all muslim men" we should understand that he means "certain men who are violent". That we cannot get this means we are dishonest. Perhaps Dasa could look at his own believes which seems to suggest violence towards people who do no more than teach evolution. I say seems because he refuses to say what he means by "dealt with". Perhaps you who seems to know what he means could help.
I think what Dasa is saying is that he is absolutely furious about certain extremist militant Muslims who adhere to a belief system that not only allows, but encourages and even requires terrible violence against those who fail to adhere to the belief system's rules.
His post on page 5 indicated that he isn't talking about "all Muslims" - only the ones ...[text shortened]... is that attracts people to extremist ideas. So you end up making the problem worse.
Originally posted by MelanerpesBeing furious is what leads to genocide instead of targeted killing.
I think what Dasa is saying is that he is absolutely furious about certain extremist militant Muslims who adhere to a belief system that not only allows, but encourages and even requires terrible violence against those who fail to adhere to the belief system's rules.
His post on page 5 indicated that he isn't talking about "all Muslims" - only the ones ...[text shortened]... is that attracts people to extremist ideas. So you end up making the problem worse.
"Kill them all, God will know His own."
footnote 21 at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade