3 of 3
3
Islamic threat : how real is it ?
Posted: 19 June 2008 09:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1485
Joined  2007-12-10
Unbeliever - 19 June 2008 07:23 PM


My argument is not with that, I just think that you are giving a misrepresentation of things. Its one thing to say that there are surely political factors involved in islamic suicide bombings. But you are in several posts taking it quite a lot further by, if not intentionally then atleast unintentionally placing religion as at best a side effect.

What?  I know it’s one thing to say it is purely political.  That’s why I’m not saying that.  And I’m not suggesting religion is some sort of side effect of anything.

I think that religious motives are probably the root, the method of twisting peoples minds into ending their lives, and the cause for most of the radical leaders. But I think political events play their part in helping to recruit new people into the ranks.

The problem is you are twisting the process it seems.  You sound as if these ppl wanted to kill themselves to begin with and just had no reason to do so until politics came along.  But that’s not true at all, lest we’d have moderates becoming martyrs all day long.  We don’t see that though.

US foreign policy has created a lot of angry people that could be taken in to be terrorists. Generally though, thats not enough for the kind of behaviour we see from radical muslims. Especially since a lot of it is not even directed at the US.

I don’t think you fully understand how big of a deal 40 yrs of Isreali occupation is.  Violence is the natural reaction to that when you don’t have other ways to fix the problems in your society.  The colonists who fought a brutal war against he British Empire did so because the empire was dominating them economically.  And the Arabs have WAY worse economic conditions than the colonists had, as well as political conditions and social conditions that are WAY worse too. 

We should be careful though to differentiate between a terrorist and a run of the mill Arab fighting against US troops or Israeli troops.  One has a very good reason for doing wat they’re doing, the other doesn’t and has to use his religion to justify such actions.  We should be sure to remember that most of the insurgents in Iraq and most of the Arabs fighting against Israeli soldiers aren’t necessarily terrorists. 

And you are right, in terms of how the terrorists behave, that is’t sewn by poltics etc.  Which is exactly what I have been saying this whole time.  The decision to act that way (mrtyrdom) comes from religion.  But the HATRED comes from decades of the US abusing the region in every manner imaginable.

But I personally think, based on how these people act, and how they differ from other political activists that the religious reasons is what ultimately pulls in and turns angry people into murders in this case.

I agree…again.  I’m not saying otherwise.  Though they aren’t actually political activists as they have no political structure to work through thanks to the US.  There are some distincions maybe I didn’t do as good a job making as I had hoped.  I’ll try again:

There is a distinction to be made between the cause of the hatred, the motivation for a violent reaction, and the justification for martyrdom.  The cause of the hatred is PURELY political, economical, etc. 

Normally, such hatred can be expressed via a political structure or an economic structure.  But these places have neither of those in place, specifically because the US fght to control the natural resources and added sanctions all over the place, and dominated the economies by concentrating all the oil control into a handful of families while overthrowing any govt that looked to be gaining more ground than the US liked.  So, without any other way to respond to these problems, the only other tool was violence.  This isn’t to be condemned necessarily if directed at soldiers ad not civillians. 

So we have ppl who are willing to use some sort of violence to fight back, then we take into account the religious component.  Ppl tend to not want to just jump right into violence.  It usually is something that needs some sort of justification first.  With their religion, they can easily justify killing civillians if they do so thru martyrdom.  someone will be starving to death or have their family killed in Gaza by Israeli military terrorists or just get tired of liing n those conditions and next thing ya know they hear some radical preacher talking about killing the infidels and that shit resonates with ppl pretty hardcore.

So the root problem is the policies that systematically make them hate us, the force them into a position where they have to turn to violence if they want any reform, and then the religion comes into play and turns tho violent intentions in justified forms of terrorism in their eyes.  It’s a 2-3 step process depending on ya want to break it apart.  Steps 1 and 2 are purely political and economic etc.  Step 3 is religious, but it depends entirely on there bei the hatred and violent intentions to begin with.  Islam is used to get ppl to stop thinking about acting on the violence and actually participate in it. 

If you nix step 3 by somehow magically removing the religious component, which isn’t even possible most likely, you still have a huge group of ppl who want to at out violently against the US.  Ppl will use anything they can find to justify violent actions these days, especially when put in such shitty conditions.  They may not react by killing civillians or blowing themselves up, but we would still have problems either way.  So the answer isn’t to try the impossible and take religion out of the equation, it is to remove the hatred and violent intentions by altering foreign policy in a responsible way and trying to work with the muslim world to rebuild some economic and political structures to react from.  The convenient thing is these will build themselves without the help of the US if we stop trying to tear them down when the pop up and let them grow as they will. 

Now you could argue that 9/11 was mainly a retaliation based on US foreign policy in the middle east. But lets face it these people were no freedom fighters. They were not upset about the Talibans being given power in Afghanistan, they relied on the Talabans having power in Afghanistan.

They were mostly Saudis, not Afgans and they were upset, as was bin Laden, for there being US troops in Saudia Arabia and for the US’s unconditional support of Israel and the things th US has done economically and politically in the region. You can hear them tell you why they are doing these things.  Just watch any bin Laden video and he will tell you exactly why he is acting this way.  He even personally recommends reading Michael Scheuer’s book about why al Qaeda is doing such things in one of his videos! 

And whether you think of them as freedom fight doesn’t matter.  They thought of themselves as freedom fighters.  The fact they were educated and had money doesn’t mean they can’t be fully motivated to react violently by looking at what the US has done to the region.  That’s a fallacious argument Sam HArris often uses in this type of discussion.  He assumes that since the hickers weren’t dirt poor and illiterate, therefore their motivations for hating the US and seeking violen couldn’t have have anything to do with foreign policy.  As if ppl aren’t allowed to act on behalf of others less fortunate or something.  US history is full of characters who didn’t have to react with violence to a specific issue and could have let others suffer but didn’t.  That isn’t just an American miset ppl sometimes get, it pops up everywere ppl are being oppressed, dominate, and humiliated, especially by a foreign superpower.

And you make it sound as if I should be marveling at the fact al Qaeda got along with the Taleban.  As if al Qaeda was fighting all political structures the world over or something.  The Taleban was sympathetic to their cause, so al Qaeda enjoyed them being in power.

They might have been angry about the existance of Israel and through that on the US backing of Israel. But lets keep in mind that if the Israel Palestine issue were not at heart a religious one. It would be way less difficult to get a peace treaty working there.

You honestly don’t sound like you know much about that conflict.  The UN has been trying to push a peace accord thru for decades.  Every single year the US has used its veto power on the UNSC to strike the resolution down.  Every year it comes up and every year it is vetoed by the US.  The US is the ONLY nation to have ever voted ‘Nay’ on the resolution.

And every time ISrael makes an offer for a peace accord, their terms are so full of hit they know way ahead of time the Palestinians can’t agree to them.  For example, they never agree to give the Arabs access to East Jerusalem nor agree to return their land to them without thousands of secutiry checkpoints that cut off access to 90% of the land. 

There are lots of reasons treaties can’t be made that stick, but it’s alwas due to the US or Israel.  Just a few months ago Hamas offerd Israel a 10 yr peace treaty if they simply retreated back to their pre-occupation borders and they would agreto recognize Israel as a state and would not attack any Israelis for those 10 yrs without being provoked.  Israel refused on the basis of the claimed they didn’t believe Hamas would keep their word.  By assuming that, Isreal is now to the point where no deal will beaccpable to them no matter what the terms are.  Maybe it is a religious issue at heart, but certainly not on the end of the Palestinians.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2008 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1485
Joined  2007-12-10

Unbeliever,

Do you think that when Iran declares that Israel will be wiped off the maps, that it is a purely political cause? That Iran is just upset about the palestinian people being driven out?

NO. The palestinians are the most disciminated people in the middle east. When they flee their country. In Saudi Arabia and Iran they are third class citizens.
Iran and others doesn’t have a problem with a couple of people loosing their lands, they have a problem with jews on their turf and they got a problem with infidels in the holy city.


Ok, a few things here…

First off, Iran is a country with a foreign policy that is of no threat whatsoever to Israel.  They aren’t making any statements about wiping anyone off any maps.  You are referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who not only has absolutely no control over the military, any nuclear programs, or foreign policy, but he didn’t even say what you are assuming he did. 

You are just taking what the US media blindly reported to you without checking into what the man actually said in his October 2005 speech.  What he actually said was quite a departure from how the western bradcasting networks made it sound after rather selectively translating his words.  What heACTUALLY says is:

“The occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.” 

He was quoting the leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Secondly, now I KNOW you don’t know much about what has been going on in the West Bank and Gaza.  Sorry for sounding like a dick, but I can’t find a nicer way to tell you that.  Um…this isn’t about a “couple ppl losing their lands”.  These ppl aren’t just losing their property, they are being murdered, their homes leveld with them inside by mortar fire and tank rounds and explosives.  Regular neighborhoods that aren’t even home to the ppl Israel claims to be fighting are destroyed without regard for anyone who may die as a consequence. 

Only 40% of all the new homes being built on this occupied land are being used by Israelis too.  They can’t even fill up the homes.  The settlements are built entirely with the purpose to make it that much harder to force Israel to fall back to the pre-occupation borders because they hope to get soe many Jews living in the homes there the displacement would be too high for a practical withdrawl. 

Ppl are starving to death because they lose whatever jobs they are lucky enough to get inside the occupied land because said land is riddled with thousands of security checkpoints that restrict access to Arabs while Jews go wherever they like.  It takes an Arab 3 hours to go 60 miles because they have to catch a redirected flight to a nearby Island if they want to get into certain parts of the occupied land, their land, beyond the checkpoints.  It’s absolutely disgusting what is going on there and what has gone on there for 40 yrs.  And no, Iran has a problem with there being an oppressive, invading regime in the region weilding nukes and killing muslims. 

In fact, if you actually are lucky enough to read properly-translated speeches by Ahmadinejad, you’ll find he has a very specific strategy for removing Israel’s regime and it has nothing to do with violent actions.  His plan is to have the ppl there vote them out of power by changing the demographics of Israel over time to one that is more favorable to the Palestinians.  Why are you so desperate to assume that Iran is acting purely religiously here?  To portend that Iran is incapable of looking after their geopolitical interests here or incapable of identifying with the Palestinians cause with great sympathy as their ally is one helluva stretch on your part. 

My country has been a neutral state for a long time, it has no historical involvement in the middle east. My government strongly opposed the Iraq war. Yet, muslim radicals are just as eager to murder the artist who drew our mohammad cartoons as they were the danish artist.

Our flag and dolls depicting our prime minister were burnt just as much as danish flags were.

Yes, muslim radicals often will overreact to such things.  We are at a point where they see this as a “us vs them” type of conflict on all fronts.  The goal is to find ways to stopthem from being able to recruit.  It’s not a solution bit areound getting racidals to calm the fuck down about anything.  They are lost to us a this point.  At least once they strap bombs to their chest.  The mastermind typesare still thinking somehwat rationally though.  That’s anotehr distinction worth mentioning I think.  There’s a reason you don’t see bin Laden with bombs strapped to him.

Clearly, the drawing of a religious figure is far higher on the agenda than whether you support the Iraq war or have a history of colonialism in the region.

Or…maybe they are just radicals who are looking for any justification they can find to act out violently…?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2008 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2006-12-26
tavishhill2003 - 19 June 2008 06:24 PM

arildno,

That being the logic wheree you tried to justifiy the foreign policy

1. I have never “endorsed” US foreign policy.
I consider it largely irrelevant.
Islam is fighting a continuous war OF terror within its home countries against those who deviate from its precepts (adulteresses, religious minorities, human rights activists), and have done so since the 7th century.

That countries outside the Islamic countries are now getting the taste of what Islam really is like, bears little relation to those countries’ “foreign policies”.

we have by claiming that all 1.2 billion muslims are evil, disgusting, creatures (note: initially it was 600 million, bu then you changed that when you said the basis of your remarks in this way was due to them worshipping Allah, which ALL muslims do).

People who worship a disgusting, evil man are disgusting themselves.
I have said that that OUGHT to be the basis of policies towards Muslims, not that it is.
Nor does it anywhere follow that a person who is disgusting cannot change. The moment he sheds his evil beliefs, he has improved to the state of those who never shared those beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2008 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1485
Joined  2007-12-10
arildno - 22 June 2008 02:01 PM

1. I have never “endorsed” US foreign policy.
I consider it largely irrelevant.

That really shows your complete ignorance on the issue of terrorism if you imagine US foeign policy is in any way, shape, or form “irrelevant”.  There are at least 3000 families who didn’t find them irrelevant on 9/11.  Ppl who bth understand what our foreign policy espouses and how it is used to erode our civil liberties don’t find it “irrelevant”. 

Count-terrorism experts, intelligence officials, military leaders, and military historians don’t find it “irrelevant”.  Are you honestly claiming that US foreign policy plays no significant role whatsoever in shaping the danger of terrorism?!  There isn’t a single couter-terrorism expert alive who’d agree with that.

Islam is fighting a continuous war OF terror within its home countries against those who deviate from its precepts (adulteresses, religious minorities, human rights activists), and have done so since the 7th century.

You are blaming an entire religion for inter-Islamic sectarian violence.  It isn’t Islam vs the world you twit, it is Radical Islam vs Moderate Islam in the conflicts you are referring to.  And no, the violence in the region has NOT been as it is today since the 7th Century.  That’s just an ignorant assumption on your part.  One that history lends no credence to.  oudesperatly trying to paint this image of Islam where it is the only cause of all the stuff that happens there.  But that isn’t a reasonable assumption at all.  Those countries weren’t always so volatile.  And they weren’t terrorizing other nations outside the region either until very recently.

I agree Islam’s tennants are dangerous.  So are Christianty’s and Judaism’s.  The things you talk about hating in Islam are identical to what you can easily find in the OT.  The issue is how do those ideas that society had long since abandoned get drudged back up into somewhat mainstream tolerance.  This happens because other pressures convince ppl there they have to turn to such doctrines as literal problem solvers to help their dire situation in the region. 

That countries outside the Islamic countries are now getting the taste of what Islam really is like, bears little relation to those countries’ “foreign policies”.

And why didn’t this happen before foreign intervention in any significant capacity if your theory that it is all just Islam causing the problem which has existed for thousands of yrs?  you are disproving your own hypothesis.

People who worship a disgusting, evil man are disgusting themselves.
I have said that that OUGHT to be the basis of policies towards Muslims, not that it is.

So who they worship should be the basis of secular foreign policy?  Wow.  So what should the US do for foreign plicies in these nations then?  Kill them?  Destroy them econmically?  Try to start wars with them to overthrow their regimes so we can install dictators like we usually do?  What’s your answer?

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed