Let's talk Terrorists.

P

Postmaster

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,312
Reaction score
3
Points
0
After what we seen in London, suddenly I get flash backs of what happened in



New York

Bali

Madrid

Beslam



These acts can not be justified what so ever, so I won't sit here and say well we provoked them. However I will ask, if we in west have done anything to provoke these wrong attacks? I must admit I did have some sympathy for Muslims but after seeing what happened so close to home and fellow people of mine, it has totally changed my views on Muslims and had made me more angry towards Islam as a whole. These people are not doing themselves any favours by murderering innocent people. We have had ETA in Spain and the IRA in the UK but these are not as extreme as what we have seen. ETA AND THE IRA try to make a statement more then anything but these attacks that we have witnessed recently by Islamic extremists have really set out to cause as much harm as they can to innocent people. Also there phenomenon of suicide bombers is not so a phenomenon anymore because there are so many people doing such acts, which I'm affraid to say is they must really see something in there faith to justify the acts.

 
It is true what you say, the only discernable effects of these attacks is to turn people against muslims, therefore making life harder for muslims.

Something that occurred to me while watching the London attacks on the news is this: 9/11 was the worst (most successful) terrorist attack ever, did it make america stop supporting Israel? No. It made america attack two muslim countries, Afganistan and Iraq. Why on earth would the Terrorists think that more attacks would have any other effect?

Do they really believe that the British people will say,

"Well, that's us told, we better stop supporting america, pull out of iraq and convert to islam"?

NO. We will say screw you! We're more determined than ever.

I think that the occupation of iraq, which has always been controvertial in Britain will gain a lot more support now.
 
I would not dare defend violence against innocent lives, for whatever purpose or with whatever motivation ... so in that, we are in total agreement.

However, I would like to make two points:





  1. The US has been practicing colonialism now for too long. To a certain extent, I believe that what we are seeing is karmic. We rountinely invade whatever 3rd-world nation we like in order to secure some particular resource (oil in this case) or achieve some kind of dubious political goal. We prop up dictators like Hussein only in order to come in and knock them down again ... and gee, although we easily overpower them, we suffer many casualties (and cause ten times as many) thanks to the weapons we've sold them. This disgusts me. What hypocrisy!
  2. But let's skip the political slant, if that makes some people uneasy or if it might provoke some kind of knee-jerk reaction about America being God's wet dream ... or if folks really can't get past the "you're either for us or with the terrorists" crap. AS IF life were really just a bunch of ridiculous dualities. No, the second point I'd like to make is that -
We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater! For us to judge, condemn, and declare open war on Islam (as some, rather ignorant members of the current political administration are so wont to do) ... is to show our utter ignorance of what this religion is really about!!! It is also to ignore the fact that most Muslims are rather nice, pleasant people ... with no axe to grind against the US or anyone else - let alone violent tendencies. Just because a handful (and that is what they amount to, relatively & numerically speaking) of extremists are messing up the original message, intentions and methods of the Founding Prophet ... does not mean that the entire religion has gone to hell in a handbasket. That would be akin to saying, Christianity is an abomination because of these holy rollers that go around spouting & spewing nonsense about being saved while the rest of the world is damned. It would be like condeming anyone & everyone who continues to receive inspiration from Christ's example ... just because of the hypocrisy and blasphemy of the minority. Granted, I know a lot of bible-thumpers, and it has thoroughly disgusted me over the years to see that kind of crap - but what's with Kill the Messenger? Hmmmm.

Let's remember, in case we have forgotten, that the JIHAD which Mohammed spoke of referred to the exact same internal warfare - within the human heart, between what some Christians call the `sin nature' (or simply, vice ... our shortcomings as imperfect humans) and our inherent, natural Christ nature, or the tendency to strive towards GOOD (vide St. Paul). Islam does teach that we must take the bull by the horns and wrestle with this internal evil, but who's to judge when another individual has given too great an expression to such tendencies and therefore, by definition, also becomes an enemy. Again, I am disgusted by the tendency so many Christians have to hang the blame for their own weakness or iniquity on some mythical Satan, confessing in one breath their shortcomings while exhonerating themselves in the other by simple psychological projection. Just as abominable is the false doctrine of vicarious atonement - the notion that rather than accepting responsibility for our weakness and earnestly committing to walking the path of purity and discipline ... we might simply cry `Jesus' and instantly be freed of obligation. What utter nonsense!!! Yet, does this mean that all of Christianity is crap? Well, no, that would be taking things too far. After all, Christ never taught this tripe that gets bandied about in His name!

​
So, though I may go too far in my examples & parallels, unintentionally offending some I suspect, I hope that my point will stand. Whether or not you agree that our foreign policy is lacking, you must at least acknowledge that anyone attacking Islam (on the whole) due to the atrocities of the misguided minority ... is in the wrong. Esotericists may even be familiar with the notion that Mohammad's spiritual inspiration (this is to say direct communication & instruction, while fully conscious) was none other than that of Jesus of Nazareth (from `Heaven,' or whatever you choose to call it). As long as you can reconcile that with your understanding of Islam, then so be it. Also, Muslims come in many different flavors - though I'm sure not the 25,000+ registered sects as is the case with Christianity. Then again, it's not quite as old, so maybe that's what's different. Regardless, I distinguish very little in my own mind between the Islamic terrorist who sets a car bomb to draw attention to the wrongful occupation of his country ... and the fundamentalist Christian freak who firebombs an abortion clinic because `God told him it was the right thing to do.' Both have passed the point of negotiation and psychological stability; both are religious in no sense of the word.

Apologies to anyone who feels offended, though not for my heated defense of Islam as a world religion with every bit as much legitimacy, honor and right to exist (as well as be practiced, here in our great country, Amen) ... as any other.

Salam Alaikum,

protokletos
​
 
Taijasi-
I find it interesting that after so vehemently opposing "ridiculous dualities" you give in to just that mindset. All of your attacks on Christianity do nothing to support Islam, just as a Creationists attack on Evolution do not make Creation any stronger. Tearing down one group does not elevate the other, it simply lowers the group attacked.


The idea that Islam is an entirely "peaceloving" religion is ridiculous, in the same way that to call Judaism "peaceloving" is ridiculous. Both religions, and many many others, include commandments to defend the faith through violence if nessecary. Many world religions have long histories of wars and intrigues carried out to further their faith. Islam is no exception.

Of course the West has provoked the attacks that are carried out against it, no one sacrifices their own life and the lives of others over something that is unprovoked. Are the attacks justified? That is an entirely different question. Personally, I think that any attack, by any group, that kills those not responsible for the conflict is wrong. That would include any boming whether the source of the explosion is a dynamite vest, or a 15 million dollar war plane.
 
Islam teaches that all life is sacred and that suicide is a great sin. I fail to see how suicide bombers fall into that - dying in defence of your people and what you believe is honourable, sure, but that doesn't nessecarily have anything to do with wearing a vest of C4.
 
If my analysis is correct, two more to go. First one "Cub", then the "Lion"...two more "Cubs" to go...
 
Quahom1 said:
If my analysis is correct, two more to go. First one "Cub", then the "Lion"...two more "Cubs" to go...
Click to expand...

I am totally not getting that. :confused:

Care to elaborate?

lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
I am totally not getting that. :confused:

Care to elaborate?

lunamoth
Click to expand...
Great Britan, The United States, Canada and Australia. All four based on common law, and hence truly democratic and capitalistic principles. The very antithesis of totalitarian concepts of rule. Three are the direct result of one.

Instead of Facisim, or Socialism, or Communism against the democratic fort, we now have totalitarianism rising up against the democratic fort.

Lessons learned: Can't beat democracy in an all out affront, so use subterfuge and terror to break up the cohesiveness (or attempt to). If that doesn't work, skip the classic war games, and go right to mass panic. If that doesn't work, use WMD.

This isn't a game of I win, you lose, we move on. This is a game of I win, you die (from the totalitarian perspective).

This is the beginning of a war for keeps. Winner takes all, from one side's perspective, while the other side just wants to maintain the status quo. (guess who?)

And it isn't Islam against the west, not by a long shot. Islam is the scape goat, to be used and discarded as the totalitarian powers move forward.

This isn't a recent development either. It has been in the making for a century, if not longer.

There is however, one error that the terrorists have made about the west, should the west choose to act on that error. And that basic error may prove to be the totalitarian's undoing...time will tell.

v/r

Q
 
While undoubtedly there is a catalystic effect of US and UK foreign policy in the Middle-East, it's hard not to see these as much as an excuse rather than prime motivation in radical ideology.

And though the current events are on a larger scale than individual bombing campaigns by the IRA, they too set out to cause as much damage and suffering as possible with their bombing campaigns. In addition, you also have to remember the less reported sectarian violence that has consistently gone on behind the scenes, especially in Northern Ireland itself.

The UK and Spain have a long history of having to deal with callous terrorist acts, carried out by Christians - but it has long been recognised that, no matter how they justify themselves religiously, they are in effect involved in political campaigns with no real spiritual authority. I'd suggest similar in the instance of these recent bombings with regards to Islam.
 
How come British born Muslims are using suicide tactics when the IRA and eta don't use these tactics? As political as these acts are influences of religion does seep in. One British born Muslim from Derby attempted a suicide bomb attack in Tel Aviv with a companion, his failed but his companions was successful, later they found him dead in a river. This very person used to come and eat fish and chips at our shop. He went to the local school too. We were shocked to see his face all over the news and papers.

With the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq imagine all the soliders raping the women in front of there husbands and children (invevitable things we don't hear about in the news ;)).

Nothing but a battle ground of animals on both sides.
 
I don't know any Muslims personally-small town in the muddle of Kansas, USA, don't get the opportunity. I know little re Islam, though my limitied understanding of jihad is as mentioned above: is more about the internal spiritual warfare of keeping the faith. As I understand it, so many terrorist have been recruited form sociopolitical circumstance related to impoverished desperation that most terrorism seesm really about that despite how it's packaged. Certainly, the only thing that serves "God"/the Ultimate is what serves Life and violence certainly does not do that, nor as a result does it defend and honor the "faith"-so first "demon" to battle is our own. I do tend to believe that the vast majority of Muslims condemn such violence. Perhaps, though, some of our Muslim co-inhabitants of this forum could address my question/concern: may be it's just american media that tend to report only what's wrong not what's right and I have therefore not heard it. but what troubles me most about "islamic" terrorism is the apparent nearly universal silence by the world's major Islamic clerics. If that's so, why? Even though I do not believe "Lslamic" terror is really about Islam, it is used as overt justification. If the world's major Islamic clerics stood shoulder to shoulder with other world religious leaders in condemning violence as an appropriate expression of Islamic faith, it would at least poke a hole in their justification. I'm not sure what would be worse to consider: silence due to a host of fears including all the baggage that goes with institutionalization of any religion, (just ask Catholics etc about that) or agreement. :confused: Bless us all, Earl
 
earl said:
but what troubles me most about "islamic" terrorism is the apparent nearly universal silence by the world's major Islamic clerics. If that's so, why? Even though I do not believe "Lslamic" terror is really about Islam, it is used as overt justification.
Click to expand...
Here you put your finger on what is so troubling to many non-muslims. On that topic, Thomas Friedman makes the same point, in an article in the New York Times, and notes that no important Islamic cleric has yet issued a fatwa against Osama Bin Laden. At the same time we all know about Salmon Rushdie. Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/opinion/08friedman.html?th&emc=th

But I would like to throw in another point, that is the West's unwillingness to directly face what the motives of this terror really are. We keep talking about the terrorists as if they're merely derranged and had no method to their madness. And we keep talking as if their aim - if crazy people can have one - is to destroy our way of life, and topple western civilization. In fact, the serious elements of the terrorists are carrying out a gureilla war on a global scale with very specific ends in mind. Here's an article making that point: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/opinion/09pape.html?th&emc=th
An interesting side point he makes here is where the terrorist come from: virtually all from so-called allies, none from the "axis of evil", Syria or other usual suspects of the U.S. administration.
 
Almost a sub-thread of this one-politics of religious institutions. Several months ago, some prominent clerics of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam came together in Jerusalem to publically castigate homosexuality. When was the last time you heard of such a show of public unity to address "religious" violence?! What priorities-spend time in homophobic intolerance while the world erupts in violent intolerance. These folks are the kind that give religion a bad name. Let's hope that the mass of humanity get more of the kind of people leading their religions that they deserve-who should be leading whom? Bless us all, earl
 
OK-1 last parting thought on this topic. I'm no Catholic, but the recently deceased pope, John Paul II, was widely revered by Catholic & non-Catholic alike for 1 principal reason: he was a tireless world ambassador for universal love & peace. The current Dalai Lama has long been universally revered by Buddhist & non-buddhist for 1 principal reason: he's been a tireless world ambassador for universal compassion & peace. World religious leaders, do we see a theme here? May we all awaken to Love & Peace, Earl
 
earl said:
OK-1 last parting thought on this topic. I'm no Catholic, but the recently deceased pope, John Paul II, was widely revered by Catholic & non-Catholic alike for 1 principal reason: he was a tireless world ambassador for universal love & peace. The current Dalai Lama has long been universally revered by Buddhist & non-buddhist for 1 principal reason: he's been a tireless world ambassador for universal compassion & peace. World religious leaders, do we see a theme here? May we all awaken to Love & Peace, Earl
Click to expand...

I hear you, earl.

peace to you and this troubled world,
lunamoth
 
I'd like to add a "hear hear" to Earl's post also. In my humble opinion, these terrorists are not "true Muslims" anymore than members of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremist groups are "true Christians." Whatever one's faith, I believe this old world would be a better place if we all loved God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves.
 
Whatever one's faith, I believe this old world would be a better place if we all loved God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that sound more like Christianity? Like love your enemies and forgiveness. Islam can't tolerate other faiths in fact the Islamic empire started off by Mohammad and his army of followers killing and converting pagans originally. And his face was so sacred that in all pictures they used a head scarf to cover his face, he might have done it in life too. Spainish attacks were due to Spain being an ex Islamic country and also because they totally hate what the west stands for, they try to destroy it because they see it as a threat to Islam.. Democracy and Islam are like chalk and cheese. Whereas Christianity and democracy fit like a glove both products of the Greeks :)
 
No, Islam has some great peace teachings too - by looking at past history you're seeing politics in action as much as anything. Before the end of the 11th century Islam reached a general Golden Age of peace, prosperity, and learning. But the events of the Crusade - an effectively political campaign intended to target outisde third-parties to distract from internal dissent within European politics - helped shatter that in relation to its place in the outside world.

Extremists are extremists, and inhabit the political spectrum.
 
No, Islam has some great peace teachings too - by looking at past history you're seeing politics in action as much as anything. Before the end of the 11th century Islam reached a general Golden Age of peace, prosperity, and learning. But the events of the Crusade - an effectively political campaign intended to target outisde third-parties to distract from internal dissent within European politics - helped shatter that in relation to its place in the outside world.

Extremists are extremists, and inhabit the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
What trigged off the Crusades which never really ended up victoriously was to get back the Christian holy lands from muslim domination, which was called for by the vatican. At this point in history the Muslims used to harbour the Jews ;) It was pretty discusting how the Crusaders were going round killing, raping and looting in the name of Christ, I suppose this can be a comparison to the Muslim attacks on the west..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top