9/11, the terrorists, the response, the response to the response.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Breaking off from the "What is the future of Islam" thread.

September 11 2001, two passenger planes filled with people and jet fuel are hijacked and fly into the Twin Trade Towers. 3000 people died.

When the news reaches palestine, we see live TV pictures of muslims there dancing in the streets. Happy Days!

We are told that it was Bin Laden and his Al Quaida (sp) group who are based in afganistan, we go to war. Revenge. The we are told that Saddam and Iraq were involved as well so we go to war again, a little more relucantly this time, but we go. But weren't most of the hijackers from Saudi Arabia, why dont we attack them too? Oh, they are George Bush's friends.

It is undoubtably true that Islam is a peaceful religion. All major religions are peaceful. But Islam seems to be the only big religion which actually teaches that violence is acceptable in certain circumstances.

It seems that there is anger in Islam today, why? Was an attack justified? Did the counter attacks on Afganistan and Iraq have the desired effect? Why is it that Muslim countries seem to have such poor human rights? Or is this just a Western media generated myth?

The floor is open....

 

[path_of_one]

It is undoubtably true that Islam is a peaceful religion. All major religions are peaceful. But Islam seems to be the only big religion which actually teaches that violence is acceptable in certain circumstances.

As much as it pains me to say this, Christianity is often teaching that violence is acceptable in certain circumstances as well. This is not in the teachings of Jesus, but many churches support the current war and capital punishment. Somehow "Love thine enemies and pray for those who persecute you" is lost in the immediacy of fears about loss of life, freedom, even material possessions. I truly believe Jesus' teachings are non-violent, but Christianity has been used to justify: the expansion of Rome and decimation of indigenous peoples of Europe, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the forced conversion of many of the indigenous people of the New World, slavery, the burning and hanging of thousands of "witches"... Unfortunately, the most recent war and its association to a Christian president is only the latest in a long, long string of violent action supported by Christian churches.

Also, I don't know about Judaism now, because most Jews I know are very much non-violent, but the Torah contains stories that support violence supported by God. And doesn't Hinduism also support violence if it is a part of one's duty, one's station in life?

 

[Cerealkiller]

All religions have supported violence under the "proper" circumstances, and most of those religions have at some point decided that proper meant expansionist. I think the reason why we are seeing this element in Islam right now, is at least partially because Islam is a young religion. Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity and if you look at what Christians were up to 600 years ago, current Muslim violence pales in comparison. I think that every religion goes through a period of violence which is eventually calmed as the more philosophic and mystical voice of that religion mature.



As to the counter attacks and desired results. The Afghani war was an actual counterattack, and yes it did have the desired result. The Taliban was defeated and Al Queda lost a significant amount of their ability to make war. Iraq was a war of agression, and, though I'm not sure what the desired result was, its pretty safe to to say it has not been achieved.


Muslim countries have poor human rights records because the countries are poor. Also, many Muslim countries are former Soviet countries, meaning that they had the worst of the worst as their model for human rights. It doesn't help that the US and Britain want to teach them about human rights by bombing them.

 

[KnightoftheRose]

It seems that there is anger in Islam today, why?

I wouldn't say there is anger in Islam, rather, there is anger in Muslims. It has to do with the fact that their countries are corrupt and poor. And there is an entire generation of Muslims outside of the Middle East who have been brainwashed to hate everything Western (despite the fact that they many of them live in the West.)

Was an attack justified?

I believe so. First of all, Afghanistan was completely justified. Osama bin Laden was being sheltered there, he was intent on killing innocent people, we've put him on the run (and as a plus, we have replaced Afghanistan's old thugocracy with a more representative and fair government.)

Iraq was also justified, I believe. First of all, it was Reagan who put Saddam into power (I think it was Reagan, anyways, trying to counteract Russian domination in the Middle East - I might be mistaken). If it was America that put this mass murderer into power, then it is our duty to take him out. If America didn't put Saddam into power, then it is still our duty to take him out, because he was such a monster. However, we probably could have handled Iraq a little better. Abu Ghraib should've never happened, and we've been a little too trigger happy. And now that we have given the Iraqi government some autonomy, we need to pull most of our troops out (so as not to appear as conquerors.)

Did the counter attacks on Afganistan and Iraq have the desired effect?

I'd say yes, but we still have some loose ends. Osama is still on the run, and the new Iraqi government's future is still uncertain, but other than that, we ousted two terrible regimes, which was ultimately our original goal.

Why is it that Muslim countries seem to have such poor human rights?

Poverty. Corruption. Downright evil leaders.

Or is this just a Western media generated myth?

No. I lived in Bahrain for three years, and even that relatively "Westernized" and "liberal" country had some serious problems with human rights. The poor were fair game for the rich. Indians were practically slaves, and were treated as poorly as dogs. If you had the last name Al-Khalifa or al-Jhazeera, you were exempt from the law. Women weren't treated decently at all. If you said something particularly bad about the Amir, you might end up at the bottom of the Gulf.

I can only imagine how much worse this is in poorer nations.

But as I said before, this has nothing to do with Islam - its the people, and their corrupt governments.

 

[human1111]

When the news reaches palestine, we see live TV pictures of muslims there dancing in the streets. Happy Days!

Every religion, every country has their own bad apples.

It is undoubtably true that Islam is a peaceful religion. All major religions are peaceful. But Islam seems to be the only big religion which actually teaches that violence is acceptable in certain circumstances.

People change, some people use religion and political situations to their advantage. A historical fact, Muslims used to treat Jews better than Christians in the middle ages (spain). Another historical fact, christianity cause much more deaths (Hitler used Xtianity, crusades, etc).

It seems that there is anger in Islam today, why?

Because some clever people used religion and bad circumstances to their advantages. Since many of muslims live in poor countries, it is easy to make those people fanatics.

 

[bloodnf]

I wouldn't say there is anger in Islam, rather, there is anger in Muslims. It has to do with the fact that their countries are corrupt and poor. And there is an entire generation of Muslims outside of the Middle East who have been brainwashed to hate everything Western (despite the fact that they many of them live in the West.)

The anger is against the policies of the US including creating the state of Israel on Arab land, supporting dictators and oppressive regimes in Muslim nations.

I believe so. First of all, Afghanistan was completely justified. Osama bin Laden was being sheltered there, he was intent on killing innocent people, we've put him on the run (and as a plus, we have replaced Afghanistan's old thugocracy with a more representative and fair government.)

Afghanistan was not completely justified. The Taliban government asked the US to provide proof of Al-Quaida's responosiblity of the 9/11 attacks before they would give up Bin Laden. If the US cared about the Rule of Law they would have brought the evidence to the Taliban and given them the opportunity to accept it or reject it. However we went with the Rule of Might. We didn't need to prove anything to the Taliban since they were week and friendless in the world. We have not replaced the Taliban except with puppets of our choosing. Karzai has no authority outside Kabul and without the backing of the US military he would have no backing at all.

Iraq was also justified, I believe. First of all, it was Reagan who put Saddam into power (I think it was Reagan, anyways, trying to counteract Russian domination in the Middle East - I might be mistaken). If it was America that put this mass murderer into power, then it is our duty to take him out. If America didn't put Saddam into power, then it is still our duty to take him out, because he was such a monster. However, we probably could have handled Iraq a little better. Abu Ghraib should've never happened, and we've been a little too trigger happy. And now that we have given the Iraqi government some autonomy, we need to pull most of our troops out (so as not to appear as conquerors.)

We have no right to attack countries who have not attacked us. Saddam was a bad man but it was the responsibility of Iraqis to change their own government. Besides we were told we had to invade Iraq because of WMD, not because Saddam was an evil dictator.

I'd say yes, but we still have some loose ends. Osama is still on the run, and the new Iraqi government's future is still uncertain, but other than that, we ousted two terrible regimes, which was ultimately our original goal.

Poverty. Corruption. Downright evil leaders.

No. I lived in Bahrain for three years, and even that relatively "Westernized" and "liberal" country had some serious problems with human rights. The poor were fair game for the rich. Indians were practically slaves, and were treated as poorly as dogs. If you had the last name Al-Khalifa or al-Jhazeera, you were exempt from the law. Women weren't treated decently at all. If you said something particularly bad about the Amir, you might end up at the bottom of the Gulf.

I can only imagine how much worse this is in poorer nations.

But as I said before, this has nothing to do with Islam - its the people, and their corrupt governments.

 

[bananabrain]

The anger is against the policies of the US including creating the state of Israel on Arab land

excuse *me*. the US did not "create" the state of israel. the state of israel was established by its people and then recognised as legal under internation law through a vote of the united nations. if you're going to make the "arab land" argument i would say that by that criterion, spain would also have to disappear. is that what you're saying? secondly, as far as we're concerned it was our land before there were any arabs there and it was given to us by G!D. thirdly, i notice that certain arab states are not exactly averse to stealing the land of other arab states (iraq invading kuwait, syria colonising lebanon, etc) so don't give me that.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Postmaster]

Yeah I'd have to agree with that... I mean it's not that much land anyway? The ethnic Jewish community is massive and Israel was originally there home land anyway.

Maybe though some of the way business is being done is wrong but sometimes there is politicians don't want to compromise and force is in need.

 

[bloodnf]

excuse *me*. the US did not "create" the state of israel. the state of israel was established by its people and then recognised as legal under internation law through a vote of the united nations. if you're going to make the "arab land" argument i would say that by that criterion, spain would also have to disappear. is that what you're saying? secondly, as far as we're concerned it was our land before there were any arabs there and it was given to us by G!D. thirdly, i notice that certain arab states are not exactly averse to stealing the land of other arab states (iraq invading kuwait, syria colonising lebanon, etc) so don't give me that.

b'shalom

bananabrain

You're right. The US did not establish the state of Israel. It was a creation of the West, primarily England and France and the US eventually took over the backing of Israel from those two nations. Still Israel was created on Arab land by dispossing the inhabitants that were then living there.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Another historical fact, christianity cause much more deaths (Hitler used Xtianity, crusades, etc).

Did Hitler use Christianity?