Mumbai Attacks

[OUSOONER]

Points well made and well taken. That said, if they are not speaking out against terrorism because they want to see the US taken down a notch or two what does that say about their sense of humanity? The great majority of people being killed are not American citizens anyway.

That is exactly where the hate stems from....they view us as arrogant. "If you are not with the USA and want us to fail , then you have no sense of humanity."

Ummmm I hated the New England Patriots during their dominance, I'm not a Yankees fan. Look at it that way, when you're on the top and you're running things, its only natural for some to want the big dog to take a fall...that doesn't mean they are inhumane. You have to look at it from all angles...How can we defeat our enemies if we can't even understand them?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I enjoy watching USC suffer too.

 

[Rocketman]

That is exactly where the hate stems from....they view us as arrogant. "If you are not with the USA and want us to fail , then you have no sense of humanity."

Ummmm I hated the New England Patriots during their dominance, I'm not a Yankees fan. Look at it that way, when you're on the top and you're running things, its only natural for some to want the big dog to take a fall...that doesn't mean they are inhumane. You have to look at it from all angles...How can we defeat our enemies if we can't even understand them?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I enjoy watching USC suffer too.

I hear you and don't disagree that our arrogance (perceived AND actual) hurts us all over the world.

My point was not "If you are not with the USA and want us to fail , then you have no sense of humanity" it was "If you don't like the US and are willing to stand by and watch innocent people die because of it, you have no humanity" I believe that.

 

[OUSOONER]

"If you don't like the US and are willing to stand by and watch innocent people die because of it, you have no humanity" I believe that.

We didn't fight the Civil War over slavery. We didn't go to war with Japan because of the rape of Nanking nor did we fight the Nazis because of the Holocaust. Did we send troops to go take out Pol Pot or Edi Amin?

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Really? Are you honestly comparing disliking a sports team and wanting to see them lose with attacks that, this time, have killed 125 people so far (more to come I'm sure).
--
OUSooner: Germans WERE interned in WWII BTW. This guy has a myths section you should check out: http://www.foitimes.com/
--

 

[OUSOONER]

Really? Are you honestly comparing disliking a sports team and wanting to see them lose with attacks that, this time, have killed 125 people so far (more to come I'm sure).
--
OUSooner: Germans WERE interned in WWII BTW. This guy has a myths section you should check out: http://www.foitimes.com/
--

I'm not so much as comparing the two..I'm comparing the feeling of wanting to watch the guy at the top take a tumble. Many people outside of the USA think we are too powerful and want to see us challenged..or lose our status as the super power...and many think we should not even have super powers. That's a fact.

I'll be back later..gotta go eat some fried turkey. Happy Thanksgiving all, and prayers to the innocent victims over in India.

 

[Flash]

RIIIIIIIGHT!!!

Because all of the terrorists would be running lemon-aid stands and working in the peace corps if not for the Madrassas they attended and their devout Muslim faith.

You are embarrassing yourself as usual.

Are you certain about that?

As others have already so well articulated, radical Islamic terrorism is the 'flavor of the month', soon enough it will be something else.

Flash....

are these A-holes fighting over Kashmir?? Or are they a splinter AQ group???

The possible seaborne element is a new one and the sophistication, complexity and 'suicide' element definitely point to a more well developed terrorist group that has pretty significant resources, not some 'new' group. If I were to take an educated guess I would say they were of the 'Kashmiri persuasion/influence', much like these guys:

Attack on Indian Parliament

BBC Report

Wikipedia

But we will likely not know for a little bit just who did it, the situation is still obviously very chaotic and the Indian government is not known for its efficiency.

 

[srqwho]

The people who commit these atrocities in the name of Islam are not true Muslims in any sense. They're nothing more than batshit insane radicals who execute horrible atrocities and through some contrived, maligned sense of dogmatic approval they attempt to explain their actions to the uneducated masses by appealing to the Qu'ran and religion. They're not Muslims, just like militant evangelicals and the Westboro Country Baptist Church aren't Christians (yet picket funerals in the name of religion), either.

I think m0t has it right here. These radical groups are just that... radical, and not the majority. While western news outlets point out (and understandably so) the fact that Brits and Americans were targeted in any way, some times this radical violence has actually been targeted at Muslims... at the moderate 'part' of the faith that 'waters down' Islam... or the lukewarm straddling the fence between the West and Islam. In the book "No God but God" the author Reza Aslan gives examples of some of the bombings that these groups orchestrated, and that some of them targeted areas that are predominantly Muslim. The author (a Muslim) suggests that this was to voice that it is not acceptable to be any less than radical.

 

[Flash]

OUSooner: Germans WERE interned in WWII BTW. This guy has a myths section you should check out: http://www.foitimes.com/

So were some Italians, but both were targeted internments of only a small portion of their American populations. Almost the entire population of Japanese-Americans and Japanese on the West Coast were interned, it was impratical to do in Hawaii, and their treatment was generally much more harsh than the Germans or Italians that were interned. Apples and oranges.......

 

[Bevo16]

See, it's the same old intellectually lazy and dishonest partisan crowd (I'm looking at you Bevo - AGAIN) who chooses to see Islam as a monolithic entity because it fits their self-serving world-view. Take the blinders off and educate yourselves, people.

It sure is lazy to talk about Muslim terrorists when Muslim terrorists are blowing themselves up and killing innocent tourists. Yup, you are right. Lazy me. "OOOOOOHHHH Bevo, you so stupid!!!!" I get it.

Better yet, let's bring up some centuries old examples of Christian "terrorism" as some sort of moral equivalence.

"educate yourself"

I am educated enough to call things what they are and know self righteous bullshit when I see it.

 

[BlackBearHockey]

I've read the Qu'ran cover to cover in two different languages and it says nothing of the sort.

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

I don't want this to turn into a scripture quoting contest, because it's not the point of the thread. I just wanted to pull three out to show you that you're wrong. I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have its verses of violence. The point is, most Christians will admit to the violence in the Bible and disregard it, where Islamists will refute it is even in the Quran.

In my experience Islamic apologists have pulled the peaceful quotes of Muhammad when he was in the peaceful stage of preaching before his violent turn in Medina. What they usually neglect to mention is that anything written in the Quran supersedes anything written prior: aka, post-Medina Muhammad erases everything said in Mecca.

I'm not trying to make blanket statements. I hate to paint the picture that I believe every Muslim prescribes to the beliefs of... orthodox?... Islam, because I don't believe it true. But I find difficulty in being routinely told of the "religion of peace," and then seeing inherently violent scripture being paired with the majority of the most violent terror attacks.

 

[m0tbaillie]

I am educated enough to call things what they are and know self righteous bullshit when I see it.

But sir the point you're making smacks of the same narrow jingoistic vitriol that one would expect from someone who doesn't care to keep up on current events outside the US. None of it comes off as anything new, insightful, or even well thought-out.

 

[m0tbaillie]

I don't want this to turn into a scripture quoting contest, because it's not the point of the thread. I just wanted to pull three out to show you that you're wrong. I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have its verses of violence. The point is, most Christians will admit to the violence in the Bible and disregard it, where Islamists will refute it is even in the Quran.

In my experience Islamic apologists have pulled the peaceful quotes of Muhammad when he was in the peaceful stage of preaching before his violent turn in Medina. What they usually neglect to mention is that anything written in the Quran supersedes anything written prior: aka, post-Medina Muhammad erases everything said in Mecca.

I'm not trying to make blanket statements. I hate to paint the picture that I believe every Muslim prescribes to the beliefs of... orthodox?... Islam, because I don't believe it true. But I find difficulty in being routinely told of the "religion of peace," and then seeing inherently violent scripture being paired with the majority of the most violent terror attacks.

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=267454

[8:12] And when He caused sleep to come upon you as a sign of security from Him, and He sent down water upon you from the clouds, that thereby He might purify you, and remove from you the uncleanliness of Satan, and that He might strengthen your hearts and make your steps firm therewith.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=8&verse=10

12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran/8-spoils-of-war.php

Hani Rabbin meleklere, "Ben sizinle beraberim. İman edenlere sebat verin. Ben kafirlerin kalplerine korku salacağım. Şimdi vurun boyunlarının üstüne. Vurun, onların bütün parmaklarına" diye vahyediyordu.
("And thence it was said to me by Him that "I am with you. Those who believe shall reign in security. And into the hearts of those who are not believe I shall strike fear. At this moment their necks shall be stricken, and their fingertips [shall be stricken] as well.")

http://kuran.gen.tr/?x=s_main&y=s_middle&kid=1&sid=8


You know, translating things from Arabic to English (or Arabic to any other language) requires a bit of flexibility. There is a reason that Islamic scholars will tell you that the Qu'ran is meant to be read and understood in its native Arabic and that anything else is not truly the Qu'ran. If you want to cherry pick phrases out of the book all day that paint it in less than a flattering light and then use a few sentences to try and portray and entire religion as violent then go ahead, it doesn't make you any more right.

 

[Flash]

It sure is lazy to talk about Muslim terrorists when Muslim terrorists are blowing themselves up and killing innocent tourists. Yup, you are right. Lazy me. "OOOOOOHHHH Bevo, you so stupid!!!!" I get it.

Better yet, let's bring up some centuries old examples of Christian "terrorism" as some sort of moral equivalence.

If these guys weren't worked up about Islam it would be somethign else. Ethnic greivances, politics or just plain anger. Just because Islamic terrorism is in 'vogue' now doesn't make the religion bad, it just makes the idiots who use it as an excuse bad. The current wave of Islamic terrorism has more to do with it providing an 'alternative' or an outlet to the largely despotic regimes of the middle eastern region than it does the Islamic religion, with spliover reaching as far as Indonesia.

And who says you have to go back a few hundred years to find 'Christian' terrorism? Or 'Jewish'?

Srebrenica

Cave of Patriarchs

The single worst terrorist attack involving aircraft before 9/11 was done by 'religious' terrorists, but they weren't Islamic.

Air India Flight 182

I am not looking for moral equivalency but every religion has its idiots. The South Asian region itself is home to a large number of terrorist groups comprising of political, ethnic and religious extremists. So to single out a single religion, that is practiced by the vast majority of it's people peacefully, is a much too simple way of looking at things.

Terrorism is much more complex and complicated than just a religion, if you don't realize that then you rally are 'lazy'.

 

[Bevo16]

But sir the point you're making smacks of the same narrow jingoistic vitriol that one would expect from someone who doesn't care to keep up on current events outside the US. None of it comes off as anything new, insightful, or even well thought-out.

I am not trying to win a fucking scrabble tournament here.

Which one of my points are you taking issue with exactly? Is it the "72 virgins" reference? That's called humor. Or maybe it was my poking fun at Flash for defending the Muslim terrorist groups who claimed responsibility? I'll give you the fact that there is not much new or insightful about that. He goes out of his way to play devil's advocate here, (I refuse to believe that he is as obtuse and foolish as he comes across) so he is used to being on the short side. Maybe I could score some points for being insightful if I compared Muslim terrorism with pro-football rivalries or called it the "flavor of the month". Wow. My synapses were barely able to process such genius analogies.

You have been reading the College Football thread. You know I am a betting man (and the Cowboys are a lock to cover 11.5). When the news broke that there were terrorist attacks going on in India, what kind of odds would it have taken for you to bet AGAINST there being Muslim extremists behind it. It would have top 50-1 for the odds to approach reality. I don't really give a fuck if it is their economic situation, religion, or their zodiac sign that causes them to be a terrorist. I just want to hunt then down and kill them. If they are state sponsored terrorists, then go after the state. It's that simple.

 

[Flash]

Which one of my points are you taking issue with exactly? Is it the "72 virgins" reference? That's called humor. Or maybe it was my poking fun at Flash for defending the Muslim terrorist groups who claimed responsibility? I'll give you the fact that there is not much new or insightful about that. He goes out of his way to play devil's advocate here, (I refuse to believe that he is as obtuse and foolish as he comes across) so he is used to being on the short side.

Quite a leap to say that I am defending terrorists. And if you really think that someone claiming resposiblity makes them the perpetrators, you are a lot dumber than I thought you were.

It is true I play devil's advocate, but taking such a simplistic view towards terrorism, 'Islamic' or otherwise, as you do makes countering and defeating it that much harder.