DrCaleb DrCaleb:
llama66 llama66:
Shit probably wouldn't be this bad if we treated events like this the same. When we lose our minds for one act of terror, but not another... it tends to send the message (rightly or wrongly) that one group is more important than the other and generally leads to the feeling of marginalization; which leads to general stupidity.
The same thing happens when we paint one group with the responsibility for one event by one of their group. We don't blame all white people for the Toronto van attack, or Christchurch massacre, and in the same respect not all Muslims are responsible for the Sri Lanka attacks.
But you'd never guess that from some comments in this and the Notre Dame threads.
So your problem is the "not all muslims" thing then.
Very well...but by saying "not all" you're admitting "some" are a problem.
So the solution is we find a way to separate the 'some' from the 'all.'
It can be done but you won't like it. There's more of the some than you think.
First you have to understand some basic history about Islam. It has to do with their leader - the warlord, Mohammed.
Mohammed wasn't always a warlord. He started his religion in Mecca. He had a hundred or so followers. At that time he was preaching a kind of Judaeo-Christian mix and spin. It wouldn't have been a problem except he mixed that with a healthy dose of "your religion sucks" and "boo hoo you're being mean to me" directed at the current population of Mecca. Eventually the powers that be there either kicked him out of Mecca or he just decided to leave because they were being mean to him - depending on who's telling you the story.
He went to Medina. A lot of Jews there. They took him in. Big mistake. In Medina Mohammed started preaching a different story. Basically it went like this: "OK, you know all that stuff I was telling you in Mecca about how there was 'no compulsion in religion' and such like that? Forget all that? Now it's about conquer the unbeliever, take their stuff, enslave their women."
All of a sudden he got more popular. And that was the end of the Jews of Medina and anybody in the future who made the mistake of believing "coexist" was the message of Mohammed of Medina.
So now you're up to speed I'll tell you how to separate the possible friends of the "Not all" Muslims from the enemies of the "Some" Muslims.
First you have to admit there was a problem embedded in the "conquer and subjugate" ideology the warlord Mohammed preached in Medina. Mecca not so much. No biggie.
Now your only problem is separating Mecca from Medina. Not easy but it can be done.
Done like this:
No Medinaites allowed in the West. A new koran to be written. All Medina verses edited out. No preaching involving Medina in Western countries. Only Mecca verses allowed. Trade with Medinaite nations ends. If they want to go to war or even talk like they want to get aggressive, they are put down mercilessly and a new Mecca centered government is put in their place.
That's how you could separate the "Not all" enemy Muslims from the "Some" possible friends in Islam.
Now none of that is going to happen in the present climate of course but if you actually wanted to end the "Islam" problem - and it is a problem that will only get worse - that's how you could do it.
But here's something to consider - once you did separate Mecca from Medina, how many "some" problem Muslims do you think you'd have to separate to be left with what you mean by "Not all." Admit it. More than you first thought, right?
CKA Moderator 
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
CKA Super Elite 
