[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Alright, let me be more clear in what I am trying to say.

1. The majority of muslims around the world don't really care about Israel;However, when discussing Israeli policies they will be more inclined to treat those policies with hostility(and anger).
2. Those muslims are not the ones that determine the foreign policy of their countries around the middle east.
3. • Saddam Hussein's dream(Iraq)- end to the Zionist nightmare.
   • Ahmadinejad(Iran)- Israel should be eradicated off the face of the Earth.
   • Nasrallah(leader of Hezbollah, Lebanon)- Israel was “a cancerous growth” that had to be wiped out, he said. “The only solution is to destroy it without giving it the opportunity to surrender.
   • Haniyeh(leader of Hamas)-Goal is destruction of Israel in stages.
4. The muslims that happen to hold the weapons in their hands and use them, are the ones saying the above statements.
5. Until the muslim world starts publicly condemning such statements, and actively fighting against those policies I consider them to support them. Have you noticed how easily such proclamations are just shrugged off?!
6. Just like the proclamations, missiles towards Israel seem to get overlooked to for some reason, just because the other side has more losses? The missiles are even justified just because they don't do as much damage...
7. So yes a generalization of all muslims are wrong. It is done because passive support of terrorist actions is still support. Think for yourself how often do you actually publicly condemned the shootings of rockets toward Israel without the word BUT at the end(and without trying to explain or justify it).

It's amazing that you continue to post in a manner laden with generalizations, then end it by saying generalizations are wrong. And then you try to make the case for generalizations by saying that you're doing it to prompt a response?

And this concept of "passive" support is nonsensical. People don't say anything specifically (which is their right and raison d'etre in a "passive" stance), so you impugn their character by assuming their silence is consent of a horrible action. You have just as much evidence for their silence being consent as you do their silence being a reflection of the obvious: that no one supports violence and they're disgusted by it. You don't have the right to generalize what is in peoples' heads. Stick with trying to articulate the thoughts in your own.

And now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to scour the off-topic thread history to search for your active condemnation of Darfur, senseless drone killings, school shootings, and any other horrific crime I can think of... I really hope you spoke up in each instance, because we'd hate for some posters to make generalizations about what your "passive" silence implies.