More Islamic Violence... Sigh

[Zilch]

100% I think it is equally clear that this works on both sides of the line...

I'm curious though, how effective we could be in an ideological battle. My point I guess is this... As far as a battle of ideologies goes, Communism ultimately lost the battle because of its failure as an economic system. People stopped believing in the Communist system because it didn't work in the end, and they didn't eat!

I'm not sure that we can hope to expect a similar result with hard-line Islamic fundamentalism. While I certainly think we can make headway here, it is one thing to convice someone that their government is ineffective when there is tangible proof of that. (Lack of food, hoarding by the Party elite etc...) It is quite another to prove to someone that their belief in a religion doesn't neccessitate the murder of those who don't share their beliefs. There is, I'm afraid, little to prove this.

Your point is well taken though...we can certainly make lots of headway among moderate Islam through some person to person understanding and compassion about what it is we do share...Kennedy said it pretty well a long time ago...

"Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself."

The religion thing makes things very complicated, as if politics alone weren't bewlidering enough.

A loose anology here: I'm good friends with a guy who is very smart, rational, and generally the kind of guy you want at your back when things go sour. But, I'm keen to avoid topics which cross religious boundaries with him. He's very passionate about his faith and such, and won't listen to anything that does not line up completely with his beliefs. I've had some great, intelligent conversations with this man, but the instant his beliefs are challenged in some way his rational brain shuts off and he starts spouting rhetoric.

That said, I fully support him in believing whatever he sees fit. It's a personal matter, after all. He thinks the same way, and he's never tried to convert me to his beliefs. We have mutual respect for eachother's beliefs, even though we do not agree on many important matters. This, I think, is as good of a relationship two differing parties can have.

I won't say this is a direct analogy or anything, but religion does weird things to otherwise rational people. Even so, said different people can and do co-exist if they want to.

No offense to anyone's beliefs here, I hope.

 

[Brett327]

I've had some great, intelligent conversations with this man, but the instant his beliefs are challenged in some way his rational brain shuts off and he starts spouting rhetoric.

That's alright. We can just get GMan to kill him for you and all your problems will be solved.

Brett

 

[Zilch]

That's alright. We can just get GMan to kill him for you and all your problems will be solved.

Brett

Aw, but then my analogy falls apart.

 

[Brett327]

Come on, GMan. All this effort to whine and get attention, then you won't even engage the discussion about what should be changed. Some of us would seriously like to hear your ideas.

Brett

 

[Stubby]

In the same respect, I challenge you to find ONE day over the last 50 years that there was no newspaper article on violence involving some Christian.

This analogy is something of a stretch. While I would certainly concede that there are Christians who commit atrocious crimes "in the name of God", the number of Moslems who commit atrocious acts "in the name of Allah" vastly outnumber their Christian counterparts. That is something of a stereotypical statement, I understand. But do you really think it is not supported by statistical fact?

I, for one, would like to see a return to the Cold War mindset...... it would seem as though our efforts in the range of psyops disciplines may not be being utilized to the maximum extent possible.

While I whole heartedly agree with you in theory, I don't see the United States having the ability to return to the Cold War mindset any time soon. There are a couple of reasons for this;

First and foremost, during the cold war, the US had a recognizable and undeniable enemy. There was a good guy and a bad guy. The US (and indeed the world as a whole) is unable to or flatly refuses to identify the enemy that we are currently engaged with.

The second reason is tied to the first; United patriotism and faith that our own government knows what is best is pretty much a thing of the past (This isn't my own view but one that I believe is portrayed in the masses). The mob of US citizens and the world in general do not trust widespread covert operations (not a totally unfounded view), this makes the pursuit of such operations political suicide. Even if a leader had the moral fortitude to do what was right for his/her nation, they would be replaced by someone more "trusted" and open.

Finally, and this is tied to the previous two, the US does not have the will or fortitude to relentlessly pursue victory. Sad, but true. If you don't believe me, watch a couple hours of news commentary about the Middle East.

I think many of you will agree that most of the hatred of the US and Western values are a result of ignorance and propaganda. The more effectively we can counter that, the better off we'll be.

I think this is unquestionably our best approach. Frankly however, we suck at it. Again, watch the news. If we can't win the hearts and minds of Americans, how are we going to win the hearts and minds of Socialist Europe and the Islamic extremists of the Middle East?

 

[Brett327]

This analogy is something of a stretch. While I would certainly concede that there are Christians who commit atrocious crimes "in the name of God", the number of Moslems who commit atrocious acts "in the name of Allah" vastly outnumber their Christian counterparts. That is something of a stereotypical statement, I understand. But do you really think it is not supported by statistical fact?

While I whole heartedly agree with you in theory, I don't see the United States having the ability to return to the Cold War mindset any time soon. There are a couple of reasons for this;

First and foremost, during the cold war, the US had a recognizable and undeniable enemy. There was a good guy and a bad guy. The US (and indeed the world as a whole) is unable to or flatly refuses to identify the enemy that we are currently engaged with.

The second reason is tied to the first; United patriotism and faith that our own government knows what is best is pretty much a thing of the past (This isn't my own view but one that I believe is portrayed in the masses). The mob of US citizens and the world in general do not trust widespread covert operations (not a totally unfounded view), this makes the pursuit of such operations political suicide. Even if a leader had the moral fortitude to do what was right for his/her nation, they would be replaced by someone more "trusted" and open.

Finally, and this is tied to the previous two, the US does not have the will or fortitude to relentlessly pursue victory. Sad, but true. If you don't believe me, watch a couple hours of news commentary about the Middle East.

I think this is unquestionably our best approach. Frankly however, we suck at it. Again, watch the news. If we can't win the hearts and minds of Americans, how are we going to win the hearts and minds of Socialist Europe and the Islamic extremists of the Middle East?

On balance, I disagree with the notion that Christian's have been less barbaric. You can make a case that it has been true during modernity, but if you look over the last 2000 years, I think you'd have a hard time saying that either religion was more or less violent. The reason Christianity is relatively pacific these days is because it enjoys the fruits of stability and modernity - something Islam lacks. I'm personally suspect of all organized religion. Their track record over history has been to perpetrate more harm than good - just my opinion.

More to follow about the resolve of the American people - time for class.

Brett

 

[scoober78]

I'm personally suspect of all organized religion. Their track record over history has been to perpetrate more harm than good - just my opinion.

Here here. Although I will concede that in modernity, alot of these tendencies have been minimized, let us not forget that organized, "pacifistic religions" have brought you, in no particular order, the Crusades (not just once...but 10 times!!!), ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, conflict in Northern Ireland, the present state of affairs in Jerusalem and Israel (with associated low-level and not so low level military conflicts), ethnic cleansing in Iraq, and so on.....

Although in many of these and in innumerable others, religion is used as an excuse to serve some other end (a desire to expand empire, or consolidate control within your country)...there is absolutely no question that religion is used consistently throughout history as a club to flog someone...or worse.

 

[Stubby]

On balance, I disagree with the notion that Christian's have been less barbaric.

I look forward to your next post. For now, I will clarify however, that I was not comparing the egregiousness of atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christianity to the egregiousness of atrocities perpetuated in the name of Islam as you have suggested. I was specifically addressing the frequency of terrible acts. I also wasn't extending my observation back 2000 years as you have. Both PU Grad and GMan set the timeline at 50 years in their original comments, and so it was that timeline that I was addressing.

You can make a case that it has been true during modernity, but if you look over the last 2000 years, I think you'd have a hard time saying that either religion was more or less violent. The reason Christianity is relatively pacific these days is because it enjoys the fruits of stability and modernity - something Islam lacks. I'm personally suspect of all organized religion. Their track record over history has been to perpetrate more harm than good - just my opinion

If I can "make a case", perhaps you agree with the factuality of my observation. I think that the reasons you list for temperence in modernity are valid, but not all inclusive. Further exploring the subject however would result in a religious discussion, and would probably get the whole thread deleated. I think the thread will offer other interesting views, so I'm not going to go into it.

 

[Stubby]

...there is absolutely no question that religion is used consistently throughout history as a club to flog someone...or worse.

I would unquestionably agree, although I think it is more accurately stated as "...there is absolutely no question that religion is MIS-used consistently throughout history as a club to flog someone...or worse."

 

[The Stinkster]

If you value your religion and your beliefs, you can not just sit back and watch what these people are doing and not speak out against that kind of behavior.

Would you not agree that from their point of view, that is exactly what they are doing in their protesting? It is dangerous and hypocritical to get into a mindset that based on your religious beliefs, you should condemn the beliefs of others. One of the more worrisome aspects of current political trend is the caampaign of organized religion trying to dictate policy and direction of the laws of our country. Our system is designed to allow freedom of all religions, freedom to all faiths or the freedom to have none. This being the case, the laws governing our lives and the policy decisions applied to our dealings at home and abroad should not be based solely on any religious doctrine, Christian or otherwise. Tolerance and equality are the fabric of what we defend, and freedom of choice. Our freedom, and our civil liberties equates to a dedication to defend a persons right to a belief that I may totally disagree with, and for my rational expectation that person will be respectful of my opposing view, so long as neither of us infringes on the civil liberties of the other and no laws are broken. I agree with Brett in that the over-influence of organized religion of any kind has suspect effects on the function of true democracy. Any time religion becomes the linchpin of a political system, you have replaced democracy with theocracy. On the world stage, basing your policy decisions this way would be hypocritical. You would in essence be condemning a people (in this case, Muslim nations) based on....your own religious beliefs.
In my opinion, the problem that we face in the middle east is promoting our system of democracy to nations and people whose culture and civil structure do not mesh well with it. Most laws that govern civic duty, day to day life, penal system, and government responsibility and interaction in muslim nations are in varying degrees of literal application taken directly from their religous text (the Koran). They have based their political system on their faith, and thus a system that is contrary to those laws is a tough sell. While I agree that some of the Islamic extremism is caused by the leader and foot soldier phenomenon, I would also argue that the abundance of new recruits to the "cause" is a direct effect of the view of the muslim world that their very faith is under attack and outsiders are trying to supplant their beliefs and culture with something else. In this mindset, it is not hard for them to see themselves at war and for fundamentalist leaders to promote them to extremist acts in a "war to save the faith". From thier point of view it could be seen as a guerilla war for the survival of their faith and culture. Obviously their are many other factors that go in to the creation of a terrorist, and by no means am I making excuses for their acts or justifying them. I am only presenting that it would be arrogant to not look at the issue from all sides to see where the problems and possible solutions really lie.
The majority of muslims in the world are not terrorists, and are not our enemies. I am a firm believer that we need to continue to increase our efforts at intelligence gathering and infiltration of the extremist and terrorist groups to destroy them from the inside, use the information to prevent attacks, and use our forces to point attack cells, terrorist leadership and training facilities. We should also sit down with the political and religious leadership of these mid east nations to hammer our a form of government that promotes more democratic and social (civil liberty) freedoms in a framework acceptable and in keeping with thier religious beliefs and traditions. Promoting and supporting a more moderate view of Islam, while giving them the security of knowing that we are not attacking and decrying Islam as a faith could be a step in reducing the amount of new recruits to the cause of a "holy war".
Much of this is happening now, much of it could be done better. This country is made up of millions of people of very differing religious views, many different faiths and many who choose to have no direct religious affiliation. Our laws and our domestic and foreign policy cannot be dictated to by one religious belief or we ostrasize large sections or our own population as outside the framework of what this country stands for and how it is governed. There is a good reason for the separation of church and state, another brilliant check estblished by those who built our nation.
Sorry this is so long........

 

[Carno]

the Crusades (not just once...but 10 times!!!)

This caught my eye... there were ten Crusades?

 

[scoober78]

MIS

-used

\

Absolutely...I think what most organized religion says, at their essence, is good. I mean, its hard to argue with "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "There is no compulsion in religion" etc...

Theory to practice and dogmatic belief and law is where organized religion falls down far too often.

This caught my eye... there were ten Crusades?

10-ish...some say 8, some say 12. These were just the first quick links I found...not neccesarily endorsing wholesale either one. Crusade history is a field unto itself. There is much more to it than, "Some knights went from England to the ME and laid seige to Jerusalem."...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm
and everyones favorite....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

 

[Mumbles]

These guys are nothing more than Hitler in a Burka....where are the so called moderate muslims when a fatwah is put on the pope??

 

[GMan1976]

How can you say Islam is a peaceful religion? In Islam, there is no room for a "moderate", to be a "moderate" would be to go against the very tenets of their holy book itself. So therefore, a moderate Muslim is not a Muslim at all (think outside the box and work with me on this...).

Here are some exerpts:
Koran Sura 9 Verse 5: fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem. (If you don't believe WE (Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc) are the pagans, then I don't know what to tell you).

Koran Sura 5 Verse 33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. (yeah, that sounds peaceful).

Koran Sura 5 Verse 51: O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (seems pretty specific to me)

Does this sound like Islamic fanaticism, or just people being faithful to the teachings of Islam?

Do Christians pick and choose which of the 10 Commandments are ok to follow? No, if they consider themselves to be Christian then they prescribe to the 10 Commandments as they are written. Does a Jew who studies the Torah say that I only like books 1 and 2, so that's all I'll beleive in? Of course not.

Listen to the Friday night sermons at supposed "moderate" mosques all over the Middle East. You can hear them at www.memritv.org. MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. You can hear for yourself the hate and violence preached by the mullahs.

If it's just militants, then why are they heroes to the general population of Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc, whose citizens danced in the streets in celebration of the 9/11 attacks?

How about the so-called "moderate" voice? American Muslim Siraj Wahaj, the 1st Muslim to deliver a prayer before Congress and winner of the American Muslim communities highest honors... One year after reciting the Koran before Congress (1991) he delivered a speech to a Muslim audience in NJ saying that they must "take over the US govt and replace it's Constitutional govt with a caliphate, elect an Emir and give allegiance."

Or how about Yale's chaplain Zaid Shakir who says that Muslims can't accept America as legitimate since it's very being goes against the orders of Allah?

I am not a religious person, but I know hate when I see it. Islam is based in hate where the other MAJOR world religions are based in Love.

I'm assuming many of you are going to wage an attack and call me ignorant... but I think the real ignorance lies in ignoring the facts when they all seem to point in the same direction. Don't let PC keep you from truth.

 

[Brett327]

^^ Once again ( I thought this was going to be the last time I asked), we get that you think Islam is bad. The question at hand is, what do you think we should do about it? After repeated attempts to get you to add substantively to the discussion, I'm afraid I must conclude that you ARE, in fact, just like the Democrats. Condemning the status quo serves no purpose unless you offer something in its place.

As for the rest of your post. You can cherry-pick scripture from ANY religion and show anything you want. I could do the same with the Bible, Talmud, or Vedas. It proves nothing and serves only to cloud the real discussion. As to your assertion that the only true Muslim is one who follows scripture to the letter is ignorant of the nature of religion. People practice their religion in a variety of ways and interpretation plays a huge role. Different sects of Islam (Shi'a, Sunni, Sufi, etc) all look at the same religion in fundamentally different ways. The same can be said of Christians, or Buddhists. If we adopt your standards of interpretation, nobody in the US could be considered a Christian, because nobody in real life follows the ideal example as set forth in scripture. There are Catholics who use birth control, Baptists who cheat on their spouses, and Mormons who drink Coca Cola. In reality, people choose to affiliate themselves with the system of beliefs which most suits their needs and the vast majority do not use it for anti-social purposes.

Again, by your standard, if I presented an Old Testament verse which hinted at violence, it would follow that every Jew and Christian in the world was a violent extremist. That's clearly not the case - give it a rest.

Instead of a long, defensive rebuttal, let's hear your plan for world peace.

Brett