Fitna

[Alaska Darin]

You need to address the root causes of terrorism in order to wipe it out, not just the people who are currently using it.

Nah. Let's just kill us some more brown people. Eventually the ones we leave alone will get the message. I mean, who doesn't just shut up and color when someone in their family gets murdered by invading foriegners? I know I would.

[Pete]

A list of 36 names/attacks is not proof of a "large percentage" of anything.

ever watch Al Jazeera?

www.english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

[Booster4324]

See now this is a decent discussion, well comparatively. My question is how much are the radical leaders like Osama influenced by their own religion? How much of this is a political power play and how much of this is brought on religious fervor? I somehow doubt it is all of one or another, I could be falling prey to my shades of grey tendencies though.

[erynthered]

I'm not buying that article. He tries to select a pool of candidates, and then says "1 in 100" without giving any justification or research backing that up, outside of saying that he's done some.

 

Other things seem worded to mislead on purpose, which make me believe that this isn't a fair-handed look at the matter:

 

 

 

The final popular vote was 44%-42% throughout the entire election.

 

 

 

This landslide victory was made up of a 34% popular vote for the party that the candidate runs.

 

 

 

In the first round, the one he is referring to, Ahmadinejad also garnered less than twenty percent of the support.

 

 

 

It is? Attacks on an invading force is impossible to justify outside of religion? WTF.

 

 

May, answer some of your questions.

 

There's other sites out there. I'm just not going to link on them while at work. I really dont think thats a good idea.

 

If you really want to know. Ask NJ Sue.

[erynthered]

See now this is a decent discussion, well comparatively. My question is how much are the radical leaders like Osama influenced by their own religion? How much of this is a political power play and how much of this is brought on religious fervor? I somehow doubt it is all of one or another, I could be falling prey to my shades of grey tendencies though.

 

 

!@#$ off.

[/dev/null]

I thought this thread was gonna be about Ed's Honda

[ieatcrayonz]

You need to address the root causes of terrorism in order to wipe it out, not just the people who are currently using it.

The good news is the longer you let these guys get away with this crap, the better chance you'll have to examine the root causes.

 

Know why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because when your head is rolling down a dirt road you'll get an up close look at lots of roots.

[Wacka]

The good news is the longer you let these guys get away with this crap, the better chance you'll have to examine the root causes.

 

Know why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because when your head is rolling down a dirt road you'll get an up close look at lots of roots.

 

 

You're making a lot of sense today- what did you do, have some of that silica gel with Sammy?

[Booster4324]

You're making a lot of sense today- what did you do, have some of that silica gel with Sammy?

 

 

Oh poor Crayonz, he posts several serious posts...and the only one that identifies with him is Wacka.

[UConn James]

I'd just be interested, how many of those who watched the film have had trouble wrt sleeping and such?

 

I remember at the time of the Daniel Pearl murder, I saw a picture and had kafka dreams for a few weeks including some where it was me. Then again, I realize that some people here are pretty hardened against stuff like this and have seen worse in real life.

 

As I wrote upthread, I have no intention of watching the film. I have read about many of the like things and that is enough for me to base an opinion. A picture/video can't be unseen and isn't just a mass of black text once its viewed. It forces you to look at it, forces you to feel a certain way, and with that comes the power of the image.

[Helmet_hair]

You need to address the root causes of terrorism in order to wipe it out, not just the people who are currently using it.

 

The root cause of Islamic terrorism is that you are not Muslim and you still breathe, end of story!

[Andrew in CA]

The root cause of Islamic terrorism is that you are not Muslim and you still breathe, end of story!

Please run for public office. This country needs this type of expertise and insight into complex issues.

[Pete]

The American reporter who quit Al Jazeera tells why he quit today on NPR

[In space no one can hear]

Please run for public office. This country needs this type of expertise and insight into complex issues.

 

 

We've had almost had 8 years of that kind of expertise running this country.

[ieatcrayonz]

Oh poor Crayonz, he posts several serious posts...and the only one that identifies with him is Wacka.

Identifying is good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless you're identifying a severed head at the morgue.

[Chilly]

The root cause of Islamic terrorism is that you are not Muslim and you still breathe, end of story!

 

You mean because over history those religions haven't committed terrible atrocities in the name of their God?

 

The fact of the matter is ANY entity, if given such societal control, is going to create such people. Those guys have been brainwashed since they were old enough to understand anything (kinda like children of hardcore Democrats/Republicans, but I digress). Add to that the fact that there's little social mobility, opportunity, or hope in those societies, and you have a recipe to create people who ain't afraid to die for a cause BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO LIVE FOR.

 

Continuing to try and place blame on a single factor is retarded and VERY American. As if terrorism in human history started and ends with the Muslim religion.

 

(Thanks AD)

 

Oh, and read this: http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_atran.pdf

 

Pete: I wonder if NPR will post a link?

 

Boston: lolz

[ofiba]

I thought this thread was gonna be about Ed's Honda

 

I never knew John Fina was such a terrorist.

[ieatcrayonz]

If you woke up and your room was on fire would you

 

1. Run to safety

2. Fight the fire

3. A combination of choices 1 and 2

4. Analyze the root causes of the fire while you were transformed into ash

 

?

[OCinBuffalo]

Can you provide examples from the Koran? Have you read it? Also, when Bluefire and In space brought this up, that an ideology can contain elements of destruction and violence without actually advocating it, you attacked them here:

Yes, of course, and of course. I unlike some here, always do the reading and get familiar with the material before I randomly post whatever comes into my head. I actually read the Koran in High School, as part of my G&T stuff. Before I give examples, please familiarize me with your knowledge of the Koran so I know how detailed I should be.

 

The key element I am pointing out is that clearly the life of Jesus = serve mankind the whole time, and the life of Mohammed = serve himself exclusively, gain power, suddenly have an epiphany, use that to form an army, use that army to conquer, later in life try to say that Islam is about peace, well, only an idiot couldn't see the difference between the two men. I assume you are not an idiot. Further, only an idiot can't see the difference between what I am saying and that "an ideology can contain elements of destruction and violence without actually advocating it". The fact that historical details and anecdotes are contained in the bible has ZERO bearing on the fact that there are entire sets of detailed instructions on how to kill, main, torture and subjugate non-believers in the Koran. Again, only an idiot cannot see the difference between the two things in terms of degree. Many, many Muslims believe in these rules and that's why we have documented evidence of "honor"(the worst bastardization of a word ever) killings in the thousands worldwide each year, even here in the USA.

 

So here's my questions for you: Is a father killing his daughters as in here an example of not following the rules clearly stated in the Koran? Or are you saying that even though the rules regarding honor killings exist in the Koran, in detail, somehow this guy wasn't following them, or following them properly? Incidentally, apparently the son in that article isn't aware of the time-tested axiom "if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, ...". Also, where is the similar example of those specific rules in the Bible?

 

Also, this is a matter of rule vs exception. Their points are based on finding a few exceptional quotes and phrases = cherry picking, and trying to use that as a basis of comparison. In contrast, the entire theme of the Koran is "us vs. them". Whole sections are devoted to the handling of non-believers as opposed to a couple of quotes here and there, cherry picked from the Old Testament. So, again, I am merely pointing out to them and you the sheer weakness of their argument.

If you're going to go crazy on people's posts, stick to one side of your own argument.

I have apologized for my earlier screed. Perhaps saying sorry once is not enough for you? Ok, I'll do it again. What I posted was uncalled for and it actually detracted from what I was trying to say, and I am sorry. In all cases, I highly doubt I will be taking what you say as instructive any time soon.

[OCinBuffalo]

The issue is with different interpretations. You seem to be arguing that what the terrorists believe comes from the Koran. What about the other people who practice the religion, who read the same thing, but come away with multiple different belief structures?

 

One person chooses to interpret and use the religion for positive, while the other looks at the same book with the exact same tenants and chooses to interpret it and use it as a justification for terrorism. How can this be, if they are both using the very ideas contained within the religion?

Nope. This is the fundamental concept you are missing: the instructions to kill/maim/torture believers and non-believers are clearly stated, in multiple ways, over and over, in the Koran. There is no where near the amount of rules, punishments, and pre-ordained judgments in the Bible. In an effort to quantify: for every 1 instruction that prescribes violent behavior in the Bible, there are around 50 in the Koran. This is not subject to interpretation and is a matter of fact.

 

Also: would you classify a father who kills his daughter for being too forward, as I posted above, a terrorist? I wouldn't, since a terrorist is generally about killing strangers for political purposes. How do you resolve the prescription for killing one's daughter, clearly stated rules, in the Koran? Moreover, when a man follows these rules as clearly detailed, in this country, this year, how do resolve that behavior as merely an interpretation?

You seem to be arguing that it is easier to read a violent interpretation of the religion with Islam than with Christianity. Let's assume for a moment that this is indeed true.

 

The vast majority of Muslims don't read it that way, which begs the question: what are the factors for someone reading it that way versus someone not reading it that way? Are they cultural differences, political differences, economic differences, etc? And, more importantly, aren't these the true factors that we are fighting in the GWOT, not the religion itself?

Sure there are definite causal differences for why one guy kills innocent people, as defined clearly in the Koran, and why one guy chooses not to. I would suggest that politics, economics, and culture all are significant factors. However, my point continues to be that the rules are stated clearly in the Koran that provide the nut every "justification" he needs to make the choices he does. There are nowhere near the same instructions in Christianity. Again, this is a matter of fact.

 

OBL and the rest of his tools have clearly stated their objective on multiple occasions: To establish an Islamic, theocratic, caliphate similar to where the borders were drawn around 1300 AD. In fact they want to control everything from Spain to Indonesia. That is what we are fighting against. The simple fact is that you cannot separate the religion from the political when your enemy is using the religion as justification and more importantly as a weapon itself. As long as they are choosing to bastardize Islam, that forces our hand to suppress, or at the very least keep in check, the spread of that weapon. We had to do the very same thing with Communism and Nazism, because our enemies were hiding their base grabs for power and wealth behind an "ideal" = "the only reason we have to kill people is that they don't subscribe to the ideal and therefore will do harm to us all". Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Idi Amin, all used that same "I'm fighting for an IDEAL, not personal gain" BS. In order win the wars of the 20th century, we had to separate those "believers" from the average joe, or cause the average joe to declare himself a "non-believer", and annihilate the nuts.

Don't just take my word for it though, an August 2003 congressional report entitled "Terrorists and Suicide Attacks" put the percentage of religiously motivated terrorist attacks at around 3%. Pape's research in that book you so quickly dismissed also agrees with that number.

I don't remember dismissing it. I do remember saying that terror in general fails miserably, so what does his analysis, valid as it may be, change about what I am saying? I think we agree that most of this is an vain attempt at grabbing power, hiding behind a religious "cause". IF that is the model that we use for determining what is strictly religiously motivated vs. what is motivated by religion AND OTHER THINGS, then sure, I bet that 3% is very accurate. In all cases, this work does not detract from my basic point that Islam is clearly not the "religion of peace" to the degree it is being spun as, compared with other religions. It is clearly the least "peaceful" religion, save Satanism and Scientology, because of the rules contained in the book.

You can't defend against terror attacks? Have global governments been lying when they have said that they have diffused multiple terrorist attacks?

Clearly it has been stated over and over by every terror expert that if a guy wants to do a terrorist act, and is suicidally committed to it beyond all doubt, he has a decent chance to succeed. There is no defense for that brand of crazy. The only thing you can do is: go find the bastard on his ground and stop him there, at his house, before he gets here. That is not defense, that is offense. It's as simple as that. Diffuse means go get them, not try to stop them during the act or punish them after the fact. This is why this is a war and not the crime prevention activity Clinton characterized it as = you don't have to check with the Attorney General before you kill a guy, as Clinton did with OBL, if you are looking at this as a war. IF only he had looked at this as the war that had been declared on us since Somalia, things might have been better. But, it's not like anybody thought any differently than he did. I didn't see it for what it was, that's for sure. If I had, I might still be in the Army.

The defensive strategies also include realistic response plans to an attack, to limit the psychological impact of such an attack. It would have been nice if our media had done something about that after 9/11.

Agreed. Instead of doing something useful, all we heard was "what did he know, when did he know it" quotes from Democrats over and over, which did nothing but provoke the overreaction that is now the Iraq war. In essence, it's pretty clear that in hindsight, the Bush administration was so unfairly vilified by the Democrats, who apparently had their reason and sensibility take a vacation after 9/11, that they went so far the other way as to have their reason and sensibility take a vacation. This is what happens when ideology is allowed to supplant common sense and reason. This is also what happens when you have the level of incompetence and/or bias, take your pick, that is rampant in the media today.

The idea is to significantly reduce the incentive to use terrorist tactics, which are cheap, effective, and have a decent success rate.

As long as we are fighting them on their ground, then yes. Look the Vietnam War was going terribly for the North, to the point that they were talking about quitting, and the Tet OFFENSIVE was basically their last hope. It worked because of one thing: They were fighting us on our ground for the first time--> the U.S. embassy and/or our bases that supposedly were impregnable. Once again, you don't win war on defense, ever. Edit: Before anybody brings up the Revolutionary War, please understand that we went on offense: Canada, the Iroquois, trapping Cornwallis, all the time. We took the ground the enemy was defending, and that's why we won.

I said more important, not that it was all that was needed, although you do bring up an important distinction here: is it the global war on terrorism, or the global war on terrorists?

Great question. I would say the latter. Why? Because terrorists come from the terrorism ideology. You aren't going to win until you kill the idea, and the masters of the idea, just like killing Hitler essentially killed the Nazi ideal, but getting Germans to openly state that they are not Nazis was what ultimately ended the conflict. There will always be a few nuts that remain, but they won't do anything because they know that their activity will gain nothing, once a large majority of the people have rejected their ideology as false.

 

My problem with what you are posting is this: by that very definition, and since terrorist attacks continue, clearly the ideology is still supported by many Muslims. As such, clearly a large population of Muslims HAVE NOT rejected this Islamic Fascism ideal as false. As long as that remains to be the case, then those who do not publicly state and behave in a manner that demonstrates that rejection, must be looked at as enemies. Most importantly, as long as they derive their moral basis for support of terror from Islam, and not something else, then Islam is a weapon that must be neutralized. The trick is to get the reasonable Muslims to use their own book: in essence to use the very rules for non-believers against the terrorists, since they keep saying that terrorists are non-believers.

 

I covered the rest of this above.