You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message

Pages:  1    

Tresayre  (Level: 81.6 - Posts: 362)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 7:15 PM


The following was sent to me in an email, thought it might provoke some discussion.

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist.

A German's View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates.
When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
"Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care.
I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools.
So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen.
Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control,and the end of the world had come.
My family lost everything.I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that
Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant.
It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march.
It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.
It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor- kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the "silent majority," is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people.
The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist.
Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery.
Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and
many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts;
the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Collioure  (Level: 113.7 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 7:20 PM

I really don't think you can't compare "peace-loving Muslims" to the other go-along examples in your citation.

Most live under dictatorships and are easy prey for demagoguery. They aren't in a position to speak up even if they wanted to.

Tresayre  (Level: 81.6 - Posts: 362)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 8:55 PM

I'm not comparing anything, this is the whole email sent to me ... I haven't commented on it at all!... as I said it was sent to me and I thought others may be interested!

Caramel1  (Level: 135.0 - Posts: 21586)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 8:58 PM

I found it interesting, Judy, and thank you for sharing it-Linda

Godwit  (Level: 81.2 - Posts: 435)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 9:02 PM

You say it is the "best explanation," accurate and clear.
You also present it for discussion.
I agree, I don't agree with it.

Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 9:16 PM

"Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians..."

All those are nations or geographical entities, with people of common culture and experience; Islam is a wildly diverse religion. Moreover, a religion with no central organization and no leadership hierarchy, spread across every nation on earth. Law-abiding and peace-loving Muslims may feel little or no commonality with foreign terrorists, and why should they be expected to control them? They speak out against the violence, they write against terrorism, they serve in the military, what more would we have them do? Raise a holy army and hunt down terrorists around the world?.

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 9:28 PM

That part that begins with, "This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist", may not have been Judy's addition, for all I know it could've been a part of the e-mail. Certainly those who prefer not to fight are in a dilemma from that man's perspective, aren't they? The logical conclusion does seem to be, if we accept the premises, that violence is the adequate response to violence, since "peace loving" seems to do nothing....

Good question, what would you have them do author of the e-mail?? I sometimes loathe criticisms that don't present solutions.....

Godwit  (Level: 81.2 - Posts: 435)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 9:53 PM

yes, quite. Especially in times when solutions are desperately needed.
However I am reminded of the'll know the author it escapes me right now...that the deeper evil in life is "good men who do nothing." I think that is part of his point. That...we shouldn't let the "peace lovers" off the hook just because they are not directly involved, or because they choose to turn away and not get involved. When "evil" occurs--in the case of Nazi's that was an evil of no doubt--the everyday person who turns away perpetrates it. I believe he's saying that.

But even the US was not getting involved. We didn't get into the war for quite some time; and we had people/politicians and citizens who were sympathizers. Meaning, it wasn't just Germans who stood around trying to decide if they wanted to take any actions. Though he doesn't point out how many Germans, non-Jews, gave their lives and risked their lives to take action.
It's always that way, among any people. A certain percentage do nothing. A small percentage stand up and club the monster.

Anyway the real point was made, and I agree, to say an entire, world-wide religious group somehow has the same responsibilities and failures, as a masse, to take action against evil as the Germans did re the Nazi's, isn't a valid argument.

For me, even to put the word "terrorist" and the word "Muslim" together in a sentence invalidates the sentence. There have been many extremist terrorists who do great wrongs, calling themselves "Christians" when they have no resemblance to Christians at all. I feel it is the same with Muslims. We should separate the words.

Lucimoore  (Level: 192.1 - Posts: 1732)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 10:29 PM

Found this link interesting:

Name: Junker
Date: Saturday January 19, 2008
Time: 23:43:57 -0700

Just to clarify, the article in question was originally penned by blogger Paul of Celestial Junk here: It has subsequently been widely posted online, and often with no credit to the true author, or the credit going to someone else, although that issue has been resolved at many websites. Interestingly enough, it has also been picked up by several mainstream media outlets:{8CB42C7C-F9A1-4672-BA06-42DF76A1E2DC

Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2011)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 10:33 PM

To sum up Judy's post

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."...Edmund Burke.


Godwit  (Level: 81.2 - Posts: 435)
Mon, 2nd Feb '09 11:35 PM

Doesn't sum it up. But does make part of the point. Glad for the quotation, thanks.

Pages:  1    

Copyright © 2003-2017 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus