More Islamic Violence... Sigh

[Brett327]

By the reason you use, which I agree with- you would have to say that the mistrust of the Middle East and Middle Eastern "values" are a result of ignorance and propaganda as well. Our Gubment used it in the Cold War and make no mistake, they/we are using it now even though nobody ever seems to bring it up. Oh sh*t, was that classified?

I hate propaganda but if one of them has to prevail, I'd like to see ours do so.

For better or worse, sometimes propaganda is the most efficient way of getting your point across to a mass audience who may not be able to appreciate/understand a more esoteric or reasoned approach to the issue at hand. It has its place in the political toolbox.

Brett

 

[Stubby]

Gee, I dunno. Why don't you provide some, and we'll test your theory?

Is that seriously the position you are going to take? Here is a list of terror attacks that occurred this week. How many "Christian attacks" during the same time frame can you come up with? Look, I'm not trying to endorse hatred or discrimination, but let's not be ignorant.

9/20/06 12 Religious extremists in Wardak Afghanistan attack three policemen, killing one and severing the leg of another.
9/20/06 Forty-two people in BaghdadIraq are killed in a suicide bombing and various acts of sectarian violence around the city.
9/20/06 A Fedayeen suicide bomber in Fedayeen Iraq runs his car into a house, killing a young boy and injuring twenty-six others.
9/19/06 Five women in Bajaur Pakistan are injured when Taliban terrorists bomb their car as punishment for working at a humanitarian agency.
9/19/06 The Taliban execute a Turkish engineer in HelmandAfghanistan taken prisoner three weeks earlier.
9/19/06 Muslim radicals bomb a gas station in BaghdadIraq, killing two civilians.
9/18/06 A dozen innocents in Afghanistan are blown apart by a Fedayeen suicide bomber on a motorbike.
9/18/06 At least five people are killed in Baidoa Somalia in a car bomb attack on the Somali president.
9/18/06 Islamic radicals kidnap and torture four women to death in MosulIraq.
9/18/06 Twenty-seven people are murdered in BaghdadIraq by Jihadis in various attacks around the country.
9/18/06 Sunnis gun down four members of a Shia family in Baquba Iraq.
9/18/06 Muslim radicals bomb a marketplace in Tel Afar Iraq, killing twenty-one innocent shoppers.
9/18/06 At least four people are killed in KabulAfghanistan in a suicide car bombing.
9/18/06 A tribesman is lynched in Laddha Pakistan by the local Taliban.
9/18/06 A suicide bomber blows himself up, taking more than a dozen others with him in Ramadi Iraq.
9/17/06 Two suicide bomb attacks take the lives of at least twenty-one civilians in KirkukIraq.
9/17/06 A 70-year-old nun working at a childrens' hospital and a guard are shot to death by radical Muslims in MogadishuSomalia.
9/17/06 A suicide bomber kills an innocent civilian in a blast along a city street in KandaharAfghanistan.
9/17/06 Two policemen are murdered by Taliban extremists in a roadside attack in HelmandAfghanistan.
9/17/06 Twenty-four tortured and executed victims are found in BaghdadIraq.

I even excluded a couple of examples because they could arguably be described as "military operations" rather than "terrorist attacks".

Look, you can argue that the terrorists aren’t necessarily our enemy because they are Moslem, I would largely agree. There are many Moslems in our own country and many other countries around the world who practice their faith peacefully and admirably. It is ignorant however, to try to assert that the majority of the terrorists are not Moslem. There is a connection between terrorism and Islam. Even if Islam is being mis-used to trick the poor, the desperate and the disenfranchised into doing the bidding of a powerful and political few, Islam is still the tool used to recruit them and control them. To deflect or minimize that assertion with “well Christianity is just as bad” is to refuse to attempt to understand your enemy. If you do not understand your enemy, you have no hope of defeating him.

 

[Stubby]

Good post Brett.

WRT the American resolve vis a vis the Cold War, you make an interesting point about people's trust in government that I believe has merit. Nevertheless, that attitude changed in the 1960's - a full 30 years before the Cold War was won.

That's true, but although the American mindset had changed the "enemy" had not. The United States is now in completely new territory. We have a new(ly identified) enemy with no definable border, no definable single leader, and an unshakable resolve. When you combine that with an inherent distrust of government by many in our own country and a widespread denial of a clear and present danger, we have a serious problem.

....the current administration has done a dismal job of communicating its vision both to the American people through the press, as well as to the other branches of Government. All this fuss over the years about issues like torture/interrogation techniques, FISA/wiretapping, USA PATRIOT Act, has been a cancer on the administration and a very tangible impediment to our prosecution of the GWOT. While I can understand the desire to preserve the institutional powers of the executive branch in our pluralistic system, the defiant and unilateral mindset from the Whitehouse (real or perceived), has damaged our Government's ability to move forward on important issues and has unnecessarily politicized the GWOT. Whatever you might think of the Congress, it has to be in the loop and part of the process for a great many of these things.

I absolutely agree that the government has done a dismal job of communicating it's vision or even accurately defining the threat. I don't however agree with the suggestion that the majority of the blame falls on the White House. If the President seems defiant and unilateral, it is because he must portray himself that way to our enemies, if not the world. Say what you will about a president with a low approval rating, but I'll take him over one that makes every decision based on opinion polls any day. There is a reason that America is a Democratic Republic and not a true Democracy.

I certainly agree that Congress is a necessary and appropriate check and balance to the Executive Branch. I question however, if national security is sometimes trumped by personal political gain. I think America would be better served if Congress reserved it's policy disagreements to Congress, and not the media. Such is American politics..... or rather American politicians. This kind of posturing only serves to divide the nation and undermine anything we do as a nation.

There are appropriate channels and committees where sensitive or covert matters can be addressed so that they don't become fodder for the NYT.

I think you are kidding yourself here. Obviously there are covert operations occurring everyday that you and I may never know about, but sensitive information will always be leaked for monetary or political gain to the press who will be only too willing to report it regardless of how "nice" the president is.

 

[Cate]

You didn't specify which of those acts were performed by Islamic fundamentalists in the name of Allah (may his breath always be minty-fresh) and which of them were performed by people who happened to be Islamic fundamentalists but committed acts of violence independent of that religious perspective. That's a crucial distinction in comparing said acts with Christian fundamentalists who commit acts of violence in the name of God (i.e. abortion clinic bombings, mosque burnings) and Christian fundamentalists who commit acts of violence independent of their religious perspective.

And I don't have to provide your statistics for you. You made the assertion, you back it up.

 

[Stubby]

I don't have to provide your statistics for you. You made the assertion, you back it up.

Nah. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument or if you legitimately cannot comprehend what I'm saying (I suspect the former). In any event, I don't see any reason to continue to demonstrate what you can not or will not see.

 

[Flash]

Nah. I'd rather just let you wallow in ignorance. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument or if you legitimately cannot comprehend what I'm saying. In any event, I don't see any reason to continue to demonstrate what you can not or will not see.

How about this?

Ever heard of Srebrenica?

Official US Imagery

Identified bodies of 335 [of approximately 7000] victims of Srebrenica massacre displayed in an abandoned hall near Srebrenica, on July 10, 2004. http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_lupe/0,,1644313_ind_1,00.html

http://balkansnet.org/srebrenica.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/675945.stm

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/cryfromthegrave/

Dr. Baruch Goldstein (Israeli who killed 30 Palestinians and wounded 150):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_4167000/4167929.stm

The infamous Sabra and Shatila massacre (Lebanese Christians killing Palestinian Muslims):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2255902.stm

Here an example of what the Thais did to some Muslims:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3954587.stm

Violence between Muslims and Hindus in India in 2002 (the Muslims got the worst of it, 1000-3000 killed):

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200062006?open&of=ENG-IND

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1856049.stm

Should I go on? How about Chechnya? How about the radical Kahanites in Israel? And that is in just in the past 25 years. Should I go back further?

 

[Brett327]

The Chief has, once again, failed to appreciate the nuance of this issue. He seems to want to limit the scope of comparison to the post 9/11 time frame. In that case, why not limit the scope of your cross-religion comparison to the exact time of the most recent Islamic attack (+/- 1 minute or so). Chief, the issue isn't that Christians are more violent today - that is clearly not the case. The issue is that over history, no one religion can claim a monopoly on peaceful acts or murderous ones. The idea that Islam is behind the bulk of terrorist acts in recent years is not in dispute, so why do you insist on arguing a moot point?

Brett

 

[pourts]

The idea that Islam is behind the bulk of terrorist acts in recent years is not in dispute, so why do you insist on arguing a moot point?

First of all:
moot1? [moot]
–adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
–verb (used with object)
4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
6. Archaic. to argue (a case), esp. in a mock court.
–noun
7. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.
8. an argument or discussion, esp. of a hypothetical legal case.
9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.

Second, before we make religion out to be the most heinous of human vices, remember it was an aethiest who killed the most in the 20th century. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml

Third, this issue is political (or maybe geographic?), more so than religious. The states with large muslim concentrations also happen to be some of the more backward states in the world. These countries are decidedly the opposite of "modern." They did lead the world in science and math until they were left out of the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, western countries-- which have traditions of Judeo-Christianity-- are more modern, secular, etc since the Renaissance and Reformation.

This has nothing to do with what the particular doctrines of Islam or Christianity. Christianity was barbaric in the past before its constituent states became secularized. Case in point: it is hip in modern liberal democracies like ours to say "Oh, I think all religions are bad, blah blah" as someone did on this thread earlier. The jihadis are fighting against the secularization of their states; they resist "westernization." In that sense, it is very easy for them (and Gman ) to see this as a war against their religion, because it sort of is. Telling them its OK to be muslims, just don't be quite so radical and don't try to reinstate the caliphate is like telling a Mormon its OK to believe in Jesus, but just give up all that Joseph Smith Crap.

 

[Stubby]

The Chief has, once again, failed to appreciate the nuance of this issue. He seems to want to limit the scope of comparison to the post 9/11 time frame.

No........

The jihadis are fighting against the secularization of their states; they resist "westernization." In that sense, it is very easy for them (and Gman ) to see this as a war against their religion, because it sort of is. Telling them its OK to be muslims, just don't be quite so radical and don't try to reinstate the caliphate is like telling a Mormon its OK to believe in Jesus, but just give up all that Joseph Smith Crap.

That is the nuance of the issue. (Thank you Pourts.)

The idea that Islam is behind the bulk of terrorist acts in recent years is not in dispute

Several of the posts in this forum would clearly suggest otherwise.

Look, let's set aside for a moment who is more violent than whom; If you wanted to understand why some Christian fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic or kills doctors who perform abortions(a practice which I abhor by the way), you may want to look at the doctrine that that fundamentalist claims “supported” his/her decision to commit that crime. If you want to understand why a 15 year old Moslem boy with his entire life ahead of him would strap a bomb to his chest, walk into a crowded market and kill any man woman and child who happen to be in his blast radius, you may want to look at the religious doctrine that "supported" that decision. That is what I call a nuance.

If you want to cling to political correctness and say "it couldn't have been Islam" that drove this boy to commit this act because Islam is a peaceful religion, or if you want to lump all religions together as "suspect" or "bad" (and GMan was accused of "oversimplifying"), Then you will never truly understand the motivation of the enemy with which you are currently engaged.

 

[scoober78]

"Oh, I think all religions are bad, blah blah" as someone did on this thread earlier.

I hope this isn't a paraphrase of what I was saying...I really didn't mean to give the impression that I think religion is bad...simply that it has been a very negative influence for a many, many people throughout history.

Telling them its OK to be muslims, just don't be quite so radical and don't try to reinstate the caliphate is like telling a Mormon its OK to believe in Jesus, but just give up all that Joseph Smith Crap.

This is a bit of an overstatement. There is tremendous dissension within Islamic society about what exactly the appropriate role of the caliph and consequently the caliphate are and in fact who they should be. This is one of the major stumbling blocks (theologically) between Sunnis and Shi'a. Further, there is quite a variety of opnion about what a restored Caliphate would look like even in the Muslim world.

Think of it this way....the Pope used to have an Army and be one of the more important heads of state in the world...clearly religious leaders and institutions evolve. While certainly, this evolution is not what fundamentalist Islam is calling for, there is within Islam, as with all human institutions, a difference of opinion and desire.

 

[Cate]

Nah. I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument or if you legitimately cannot comprehend what I'm saying (I suspect the former). In any event, I don't see any reason to continue to demonstrate what you can not or will not see.

Iiiiin fact, I'm deliberately encouraging you to not say stuff that you can't defend. I'm dead serious, and you can read into my motives whatever you like, but if you want me to follow your argument, you have to back it up. You can't just say, "Hey, Muslims are, like, way more violent than Christians," and then when I say, "In what terms, over what period of time, and let's see your sources," you say, "Well, if you're not going to just believe me, I'm not going to try to explain it to you."

 

[thull]

the crux of this seems to hinge on two Islams: Moderate and Radical. "Understanding the enemy" which seems to be Stubby's primary concern (and of course legitimate) requires looking at that divide between moderate and radical, understanding the forces that shift moderates to radical, and learning how to fight the radicals while minimizing the forces that push moderates to radicals. The confusion and debate of this thread arises when we do not see the difference between the two, and place every Muslim (or Christian, etc) into one broad category or another, as per Gman's original post (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[Brett327]

First of all:
moot1? [moot]
–adjective
9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.

Exactly. Is there a point here somewhere, or did you cut/paste that for your own edification?

Second, before we make religion out to be the most heinous of human vices, remember it was an aethiest who killed the most in the 20th century.

We're not arguing the merits of religion in general.

Several of the posts in this forum would clearly suggest otherwise.

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

This is like trying to herd cats.

Brett

 

[pourts]

I hope this isn't a paraphrase of what I was saying...I really didn't mean to give the impression that I think religion is bad...simply that it has been a very negative influence for a many, many people throughout history.



This is a bit of an overstatement. There is tremendous dissension within Islamic society about what exactly the appropriate role of the caliph and consequently the caliphate are and in fact who they should be. This is one of the major stumbling blocks (theologically) between Sunnis and Shi'a. Further, there is quite a variety of opnion about what a restored Caliphate would look like even in the Muslim world.

Think of it this way....the Pope used to have an Army and be one of the more important heads of state in the world...clearly religious leaders and institutions evolve. While certainly, this evolution is not what fundamentalist Islam is calling for, there is within Islam, as with all human institutions, a difference of opinion and desire.

Sorry, that was a bad paraphrase, but something like that had been said by you and Brett earlier in the thread. I don't know how to quote different people in one post.

I think we are essentially on the same page here regarding evolution of religious institutions. Your point about how the Pope used to have an Army meshes with what I said about the traditionally Christian states that have modernized and secularized. I know enough about the intricacies of Islam to know it gets very complicated. I think we can both agree that the radical militant muslims that are the terrorists resist modernization, westernization, and secularization. We are not trying to fight a war against Islam, but against some elements of violent radical Islam. These elements of radical Islam see it as a holy war against their religion--and rightly so, because it pretty much is (see earlier point referencing Mormons).

 

[pourts]

We're not arguing the merits of religion in general.

Yeah, but we had multiple examples of how religion had caused the deaths of many (thanks Flash for the good research, and scoober for the point about the Crusades) so I just wanted to put it all in perspective. Religion is sort of a modern whipping boy in America today--especially in crazy liberal land where I live.