Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You stepped in with the rhetoric right away, my friend, with your odious comparison.

Since the 9/11 pilots went to the States with the specific intention of gaining the necessary skills for them to carry out their mission, they cannot be compared to "the average Muslim". That being said--of course better economic status etc don't necessarily lead to moderate views. George W. Bush went to college, didn't he?

Actually, the 9/11 pilots were university students in Europe (and, IIRC, one of them was 2nd generation European Muslim) before they went to the States. At least one of them (the Jordanian - don't remember his name) came from a very wealthy and Westernised background (even had a Western girlfriend, IIRC).

I didn't compare them to the "average Muslim". It should be obvious that they (and the 7/7 bombers) are exceptions in the status quo. The question Hal is trying to debate here is whether they would remain exceptions.

Originally posted by Halitose
Oh, whatever. So now it's my article?!

As in, the article you posted. You still haven't stated your opinion of its merits.

bOriginally posted by lucifershammer
The question Hal is trying to debate here is whether they would remain exceptions.

Is that the question you are trying to debate, Hal?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As in, the article you posted. You still haven't stated your opinion of its merits.

I categorised the main points (which I'm sure you noticed are not easy to gauge) and highlighted what I thought was the weakness in the argument. What more do you want -- my denunciation of the author, the website, the ministry, Christianity? 😏 (*Keeping a stiff upper lip*)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As in, the article you posted. You still haven't stated your opinion of its merits.

I think he's already said he things #4 is the weak link in the argument. He's already said he's not in a position to make a well-informed judgment about it because of his geographical and cultural location.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is that the question you are trying to debate, Hal?

Indeed (amongst others).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
We need a Magic Decoder Ring for you, too?

Just common sense and an unbiased approach.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, the 9/11 pilots were university students in Europe (and, IIRC, one of them was 2nd generation European Muslim) before they went to the States. At least one of them (the Jordanian - don't remember his name) came from a very wealthy and Westernised background (even had a Western girlfriend, IIRC).

I didn't compare them to the "average Musli ...[text shortened]... atus quo. The question Hal is trying to debate here is whether they would remain exceptions.

Is there a point lurking somewhere?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Read my first two posts and figure it out. Or do you need someone else to do your thinking for ya?

I know what you're claiming, and I'm saying it's too simplistic.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I know what you're claiming, and I'm saying it's too simplistic.

You obviously don't have a clue what I'm saying. Presenting a few stray individuals and trying to claim that invalidates a sociological truth is even below your usual low standards.

EDIT: Thank goodness the original article isn't too simplistic!

Originally posted by Halitose
Indeed.

There I was thinking we were talking about the egg-and-sperm race presented in that article.

Fanatics are tough to fathom. Wealth and education are no barrier to extreme ideology. Think about Patty Hearst--not to mention US citizens attempting to join Al Qaeda. Do you understand the fanatic temperament?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is there a point lurking somewhere?

Yes. Poverty and illiteracy are not the only (or even main) factors driving extremism.

In the case of Muslims, my own experience tells me it has a lot to do with US (and other allies'😉 foreign policy. There's also the general backlash against perceived hedonism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why don't you just respond what I actually write instead of what you think I'm writing?

I may misunderstand the meaning of what you say from time to time, but how can I respond to anything but what I think you're saying? 🙄

If I misunderstood your example as a generalisation trying to point out that people don't loose their religion because of wealth and prosperity based on these few guys whom were obviously under the influence of heavy indoctrination (even in their "western" way of living), when in fact you meant something else, I apologise.

What, exactly, were you trying to get at?

Edit: Nevermind. You already answered that above. 🙂 And, for once, I agree. Poverty and lack of education are not sole factors in creating extremists since clearly there are wealthy, educated extremists. I stand corrected, then.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You obviously don't have a clue what I'm saying. Presenting a few stray individuals and trying to claim that invalidates a sociological truth is even below your usual low standards.

EDIT: Thank goodness the original article isn't too simplistic!

The Iranian Revolution of '79 would seem to invalidate your "sociological truth". The recent success of right-wing parties in Europe (and India, a few years back) would seem to invalidate your "sociological truth".

As I said, you're being simplistic.

Originally posted by stocken
I may misunderstand the meaning of what you say from time to time, but how can I respond to anything but what I think you're saying? 🙄

If I misunderstood your example as a generalisation trying to point out that people don't loose their religion because of wealth and prosperity based on these few guys whom were obviously under the influence of hea ...[text shortened]... ng extremists since clearly there are wealthy, educated extremists. I stand corrected, then.

See the post just before yours.