Now please explain to me how that is not the same as "indiscriminately bombing innocents."

I have to call you two on this right now.

I absolutely understand "These acts need to be answered with grotesque responses of might" as "We should indiscriminately bomb innocents."

Now, in explaining to me the subtle differences, BaphometsAdvocate advocates doing exactly that.

Where have I made my error?

And why, BaphometsAdvocate, is there the disconnect I described above, where you would advocate one course of action as a US Citizen, and a completely different course of action as a citizen of Anywherestan?

Please be specific.

Thanks!

I posted this up thread, but maybe it needs to be shown again:

As for the reasons for these attacks we could, with a grain of salt (perhaps,) consider this:

And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?

1-Not surprised, 2-someone wanted to give Tony Blair a violent send-off, 3-Scotland Yard and MI5 are very, very good at what they do, 4-the British public is far more civilized than we are in the way it handles these incidents, and 5-happy that the new PM has a much cooler head than his predecessor.

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?

I don’t believe that London has become a “bigger” target, but it does have the disadvantage of proximity. The reasons are the same; our actions in Iraq, and the view that westerners are killing Muslims. Britain is paying the price for supporting Bush’s war. The persons responsible for the attacks are not British. So far, I’ve heard that two are doctors, one Palestinian, the other Iraqi, one is the Palestinian doctor’s wife, but that they have 7 suspects total, and more are being tracked down.

3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?

Yes.

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?

I suppose it could be characterized as luck. I think the war activities in Iraq have drained a lot of their resources. And, after all, why risk travel to America to kill Americans when they can do it right in their own back yard?

This is overly simplistic. Peace to a devout Muslim absolutely means the same thing as peace to a non-believer. Peace is the absence of violence. It is what it is. There are not multiple definitions in play. Fanatics come in all nationalities, and religions.

As to any Christian terrorists being a "threat" to our country, I guess it depends what you consider a "threat." I consider car-bombings to be a threat.

Try THIS Link

This man is David Robert McMenemy. He freely admits that on the morning of September 11, 2006, after scouting clinic locations in Midwestern states for several weeks, he used his car as a weapon in an attempt to fire bomb an abortion clinic. Luckily, on this September 11, events did not unfold as planned.

Based on what he told police, David McMenemy's plan to destroy an abortion clinic worked out much differently in his head from what played out Monday in Davenport, Iowa.

McMenemy ... admitted dousing the interior of his silver 2004 Saturn with gasoline he had in a Gatorade bottle and plunging the vehicle into a women's health clinic early that morning. And he told police he planned to die in the ensuing fire.

But the clinic whose lobby the native Detroiter drove into -- the Edgerton Women's Health Center -- doesn't perform abortions or even provide referrals for them. And the impact wasn't enough to cause a fire, so McMenemy had to pour more gas on the car. And once it was ablaze, he scratched his plan to kill himself when he realized it was going to be painful.

Aside from those minor quibbles, McMenemy's attack on the Davenport clinic would have made Eric Rudolph or Clayton Waagner proud. But according to an agency spokesman, the FBI couldn't care less.

Well, for starters, only bombing airports is, by definition, a form of discrimination.

Secondly, bombing Anywhereistan national airport at 3AM probably wouldn't result in many innocents being killed. Especially if they just took out the runways.

Just a thought. Not saying it'd be my first choice, just saying that it's not indiscriminate murder of innocents. Cheers.

Because it's an attack on a specific place, with military importance. Because it's intention is not kill as many civilians as possible. It is actually designed and carried out to kill as FEW civilians as possible.

Nearly everywhere. When Jihadist bomb a night club, a market place, the Twin Towers, etc they are trying to kill as many civilians as humanly possible with no regard for innocence. When the US bombs a building the intent is to kill someone specific and to minimize "collateral damage". The enemy, of course, will produce the "green helmet guy" or similar to decry the indiscriminate killing of innocents. However, civilized nations really do try to minimize civilian deaths. Of course when your army is standing behind innocents and shooting at a civilized nation, or lobbing rockets from places of worship or from behind Red Cross facilities there's going to be some civilian deaths. Who should take the blame there?

I didn't advocate any course for any American citizen. YOU did. In fact, I didn't (in that example) advocate anything. I asked YOU to advocate something. Since you're stringing several responses together from me I'll answer in that spirit.

Nutshell, Anywherestan has no ability to attack the US and therefore Anywherestan should take great care and forcefully deal with their citizens who would harm a military giant like the USA. Anywherestan should offer up their Jihadists for US Prosecution or Prosecute them themselves. Anywherestan should be much more proactive in its Jihadi round ups.

Questions for Debate:

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?
Not surprised. Bet Mercedes isn't happy. What will it take for folks to get their heads out of the sand?

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States? Two reasons regarding this particular attack: Londonistan and Gordon Brown. Not to knock GB, but he's the "new kid" and the terrorists have decided to see if the can Madrid his gov't.

3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?
Well, the immediate reaction has been a law enforcement one, and rightly so, as the car bombs are a static element. I'm not exactly sure what sending a squadron of the Royal Scots Guard through The City would accomplish in this instance. I'm more interested to see how they deal with the culprits when they are caught. I hope that they take an approach that results in a} intelligence that allows the Brits to roll up any organizations involved and b} the culprits death.

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?
"Lucky"? Somewhat, but also the dearth of successful attacks by organized terrorists groups is due to the vigorous efforts of our military overseas and our intelligence/counter-terrorism organizations. The UK was lucky that the London attacks were unsuccessful.

That sounds like useless qualifiers to me. Bombing airports that may have civilians is indiscriminately bombing civilians. Saying that what the intent is makes a difference is ludicrous, when the result is the same. Moreover, how any of that falls into the category of "grotesque responses of might" has completely escaped me. Bombing airports at three am, and only bombing runways is an example of "grotesque responses of might?"

I am afraid I am unable to follow the logic being presented here. I am beginning to feel a bit like I'm being played.

Well you're either intentionally being dense or you really can't see a difference between actually indiscriminately killing civilians and destroying infrastructure that has military significance.

BTW, I'm not just for bombing runways, take the towers and hangars out too.

When a country has the ability to destroy your infra structure and you have the ability to blow up a Mercedes now and then you as the Mercedes destroying country must become fully aware that your adversary has the ability to lay your entire populace to waste. So when the country is attacked by the Mercedes Jihadists and responds by wiping out all of the airports in the Mercedes Jihadist's country it's a pretty clear sign that Anywherestan needs to take care of business in regards to it's more homicidal citizens or face more destruction.

The difference between the US and Anywherestan in this case is that the US has chosen to destroy infrastructure where there will be collateral damage not blow up a Mercedes in front of a store. I'm having a hard time believing you don't se the difference between the two scenarios.

Again I have to ask what YOU think the proper response to being attacked by suicidal Jihadists is? Perhaps you should apologize?

You referenced the Pew polls question on Islamic Identity and nationality whilst you defined the "norm" as the law.

The question the Pew Poll asked in your quote had nothing to do with law.

It's actually a fundamental element is most of the major faiths, I'm not sure about Hinduism.


Or expressed in a more modern context.


So you believe most Muslims are wrong in claiming they themselves are not extremists?


The myth of Muslim support for terror

And here is where it gets tricky. From the early reports, we have a Jordanian-born doctor. That's a tough one. What is our response? Bombing the Amman airport probably doesn't affect this, despite the fact it's highly likely that was the good Doctor's route to London.

Let's say for sake of argument that the other two principals involved are another two doctors, one Iraqi, and one Pakistani. Rumor already has it that Musharraf allows our armed forces to work within Pakistan, and wants to crack down even more on extremists. We obviously are working on Al Qaeda in Iraq. What else should we do?

I understand your point BA, and to some degree I can agree with the underlying conclusions that statement provokes, but at the same time I am sensible to the fact that that quote is only one man's justification. That other Muslims, perhaps the majority, or perhaps not, do not share that point of view. The way I see it, Muslims are not the problem. Their ideology is. The paradox in my perspective is you can't really have the one without the other...





You are gravely mistaken. There are indeed multiple definitions at play and peace to the devout Muslim mind is a matter of submission to Allah. It has nothing to do with an absence of violence. The word 'Islam' translates to 'submission'. Thats what Islam is about. Attaining a state of peace by total sumbission to Allah's divine will.


I am not an American. I could not care less what Americans do to other Americans.





I see. You appear to be mixing two seperate points here. The reference to 'the norm' was in response to the definition of the word 'extremist'. It had little to do with the points raised in the Pew poll. At least not directly.


Yes. This is why I wrote that I consider religion to be a form of extremism. Religion, as opposed to faith.


Much as I respect ML King, I do not agree with the contention that there are two types of laws: 'just and unjust'.

Laws are not morals, though they may act as morals for a society. Laws can never be right or wrong. They simply are. Right and wrong are completely subjective and depend entirely on the perspective of the individual. One mans justice is another mans injustice just as surely as one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

The law is raised above such considerations. It is the reflection of the nation, whether the nation is defined by a democracy or by the will of a tyrant it makes no odds. The law is the last line. There is nothing beyond it but anarchy. Putting your religious ideology before the law is equal to putting yourself before the law and thus before the nation.

When men and women swear allegience to nations they are making a contract to abide by the law. They are entering an agreement which places upon them an obligation to put the will of the nation before themselves. In other words to obey the law. Any one who does not do so, who acts from a personal motive against the law is a criminal, regardless of how 'right' they think they are or how popular their justifications may be.

Laws are not perfect and never will be, but unlike religious ideology, they can be adapted to better serve the interests of the nation.


Yes, I'm afraid so. If they define themselves by an ideology that justifies violence and oppression, then by my understanding, they are extremists.

I've read that denial is a big part of Islamic mind...
Link.
I'm not sure if I give full credence to the idea, but I think there is something in it. Denial is present in all human beings to some extent or other and it stands to reason that an unwillingness to confront the violence being done in the name of Islam could stem from denial.


Another poll...

What I'd like to read turnea is accounts of actions, not words. What some poll indicates is ambiguous. Yes, perhaps right now, there is a large proportion of the American population willing to mouth off about killing civilians for the greater good, or maybe they really mean it and we're about to see the fourth Reich spring into existence. Some how I doubt it. A poll can be made to mean all kinds of things all depending on how you frame it. Context is everything.

I'm seeing a lot of polls and opinions with regards to the Muslim world and its stance regarding the wave of terrorism comitted in the name of Islam. What I am not not seeing is a counter surge of Muslims standing up to the violence. Show me the grand Ayatollah's who are taking a stand against violent jihad. Show me the Sheiks and Imams who are standing up for womens rights, risking death or arguing for moderation. The only Muslims I ever see who do this are ostracized women like Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ghada Jamshir.

For example, the recent anti Islamist protests in Turkey did more to raise my opinion of the Turks than any pro Turkish argument I have ever read. Actions speak louder than words and they always will. If only the rest of the Islamic world would demonstrate the same defiance of religious extremism. Thats the proof I want. Not polls or journalistic opinions. I could spout hundreds of those all day long demonstrating Islam is the end of the world if that constituted evidence of anything worth considering.


edited for spelling

But that would imply a self-contradictory assertion.

How can a majority of the world be extremist?

Those who are not religious are perhaps 15% at most of the world's population.

..but that's just it.

Either one is a terrorist or not. A law when enforced becomes action. Actions are either right, wrong, or neutral and very few laws are neutral.

A fundamental disagreement. To me nothing is above right and wrong.


Yes, Dr. King was a criminal and often admitted to being one. Ghandi was quite the criminal mastermind too.

..but they did the right thing regardless.

It's a long list but here it is.

So I guess the only form of debate available to you is namecalling and personal attacks?

There is nothing dense about my question. You said "grotesque response of might." When I called you on it, you amended it to something as militarily sensible as bombing airports at night, and only the runways. There is nothing "grotesque" about that. Then you add you would take out hangars and towers too. I guess I fail to see how some of these distinctions came about in this discussion.

Your claim that there is a difference between "collateral damage" and purposely targeting civilians is not going to fly here. Intention: different. Result: same. The death of innocents.

You are going to ask again what I think the proper response is to being attacked by suicidal Jihadists? Why do you need to ask me that again, when I made it quite clear in prior responses? I will repeat for you, but just this once.

The attackers are dead. D-E-A-D. You can't retaliate against the dead. You can't intimidate people willing to commit suicide to hurt you. And if you retalitate in kind, by letting them know you will kill their population, then you ARE a terrorist, and therefore, you have no right to fight terrorism. If you know who orchestrated the attacks, you find them, and you either kill them, or bring them to justice. I could have sworn I laid this out before. You use the other nations of the world to help you to do this, so they have nowhere to hide. You need strategy. What kind of fool asks if you "should apologize?" Why do you insult me, by pretending I have offered up that kind of argument? I have offered nothing of the kind. If you go and bomb all their airports, and kill more of their people, then more of the ones left see the need to become suicide bombers. If they are going to die anyway, they might as well go out in a blaze of glory, right?

Let me make this perfectly clear: The United States has the greatest Military in the world, backed by a nuclear arsenal that could destroy the planet. No one on Earth doubts this. your idea that these people need to learn that we could lay their entire population to waste is beyond silly. They know. Believe me, they know. They fear the United States, and with good reason. We could "nuke 'em to glass" any time we wish. Oh, there would be consequences, but we certainly have the means. This whole "they attack us because they think we're soft" line of argument just isn't going to wash. They attack us because they're desperate. Suicide attack is the last line of attack available to anyone! If you do it enough, you run out of attackers, for God's sake! Don't you think they'd rather just send a missile? I think they would. Care to explain where I'm wrong about that.

You have already made clear that if you were a citizen of the mythical "Anywherestan," you would take a different course of action than if you were the real you, in a real place, in the real world. I don't see where you can recover from that one. You are saying "do as I say, not as I do," and do you know what? No one will ever listen to that line of argument. What would be their incentive?

"Either convince your countrymen to stop attacking us, or we'll kill you" breeds only contempt. We're not training dogs not to pee on the rug here. We're conducting ourselves as a civilized society, and showing the world what a leader, the greatest nation on Earth, does under duress. I am an American. I am proud of what my country stands for, and one thing it stands for is rule of law.

Collateral damage is an antiquated way to fight wars. It is the firebombing of Dresden. It is the atomic bomb over Nagasaki. This is the 21st century, and this world is a lot smaller than it has ever been before.

Maybe it's time we all started getting with the program.



Excuse me? I am not "gravely mistaken." You are simply not in a position to lecture anyone about "the Muslim mind." That is a blanket statement. I could have sworn that I joined this debate site to be above blanket statements. There are over a billion Muslims worldwide, and each and every one of them is an individual, with his or her own viewpoints about life, the world, and Allah. Islam is in fact a religion that promotes peace and understanding among people of all faiths, and it strongly prohibits all forms of violence and aggression against all people regardless of their faith or race. That Islamic leaders choose to pervert that religion, for their own wicked gains changes none of this.

What you are promoting here is called religious bigotry. It is inaccurate, and wrong. Islam most certainly does not promote murdering non-believers any more than Christianity does. If you want to take portions of text out of context, and pretend that Islam promotes murder of non-believers, that is your business, but I'm going to call you on it here.

If I were going to do the same in regards to Christianity, I could. It would be just as wrong, but here are some examples:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Need more examples?

I provided you with an example of a Christian in Iowa doing a car bombing, and you simply answered that you do not care what Americans do to other Americans. That is not the point. The point is, he killed in the name of his religion.

In the early 1990s, anti-abortion extremists concluded that murdering providers was the only way to stop abortion. The first provider was murdered in 1993. Since then, there have been six subsequent murders and numerous attempted murders of clinic staff and physicians, several of which occurred in their own homes.



Extreme Violence

The following are incidents that were reported to or obtained by NAF. Extreme violence has the potential to destroy clinics and harm the lives of clinic staff. More



Murders and Shootings

Anti-abortion extremists perpetrated an unprecedented level of violence in 1993 with the first murder of an abortion provider, Dr. David Gunn. Since that time, anti-abortion extremists have murdered or attempted to murder others involved in reproductive health care. More



Arsons and Bombings

Arsons and bombings at clinics can cause widespread destruction. Over two hundred of these crimes have been committed against reproductive health care clinics since the mid-1970s. More



Butyric Acid Attacks

Butyric acid is a clear, colorless liquid with an unpleasant, rancid, vomit-like odor. Anti-abortion extremists began using butyric acid as a weapon against abortion facilities in early 1991. Butyric acid disrupts services, closes clinics for clean-up, and harasses patients and staff. More



Anthrax Threats

From 1998 through 2002 letters threatening to contain anthrax were used as a tool to intimidate clinics. Over 650 letters have been received, causing clinics to be closed and staff to be subjected to decontamination procedures and placed on unnecessary medications. None of the letters ultimately contained real anthrax. Clayton Waagner was convicted of sending 554 of the letters, but no arrests have been made in the remaining 100 cases. More

You have not made the case that Islam is a religion of murder. That is simply not true. You can say it all you want, but it isn't true. The great majority of the world's followers of the Islamic religion are peaceful people. Many of those who are not live in deserts, under the rule of despots, many of them put there during the Cold war, under artificial boundaries established by the US, Britain, and the USSR.

Christianity is not a religion of murder, but followers of it murder people. Islam is not a religion of murder, but followers of it murder people. These people all have one thing in common: They are criminals. And criminals are best dealt with through prevention, apprehension, and punishment. That is what the United States court system operates under, and that is how we live here in America.

There are many civilized nations who share this system, and hopefully, that is what we would want to see happen in the Middle East, and all over the world.

Man you do get hung up on words. I don't know why you're not getting this. You seem fairly bright. Hence "intentionally dense" which isn't even a little calling you a name but whatever... You have that fight by yourself.

When you are attacked in one place that is localized... say a building and you retaliate by destroying every airport in a contry that is "grotesque response if might". There's a few definitions of grotesque out there we're clearly not useing the same one. It happens. Would "overwhelming" suit you better? Any word you like is OK by me.

All I can say about your ideas on fighting terrorists is that your way has been tried and, uh, you might notice it's not working very well.

Words mean things. That's why we have them. Without words, we cannot communicate.




I don't see what there is to "get." You said



Now, to me, that is fairly specific. That is saying you want us to use overwhelming force to inflict horrifying, painful death. I believe, (not being the least bit dense,) that I have this exactly on the head, and am deadly accurate in understanding precisely what it is you are trying to say. It is you who has appeared to back down, if only slightly, from "grotesque responses of might" to "inflict horrifying death upon them." I mean, that paints a very clear picture to me, and to almost any reader, because these words, most certainly mean something.




How is destroying an airport the same as "inflict horrifying death upon them?"

You said



That sounds like terrorism to me. That sounds like the exact same tactic the terrorists are trying to use upon us. (which appears to be working on you, but not on me) The tactic of terrifying people, in hopes of getting said people to respond in the manner in which you would like them to respond. Like training a puppy not to pee on the carpet. "BAD BOY! Bad Islamic people! No!" Except we don't have a giant rolled up newspaper; we have bombs and troops, and Depleted Uranium, and tanks, and humvees, and missiles. I am saying categorically that the United States is the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and there is no reason for us to be intimidated by terrorists, period. And for us to stoop to these tactics? Over my dead body, pal.



No it hasn't. Tried by whom, and when? Which president got the cooperation of all the world's leaders to flush terrorists out of their countries; to help law enforcement of each region or nation apprehend and/or kill the terrorists operating there? When was that tried? I am saying you are absolutely incorrect in that statement, and that it was never tried. I am going to go one step further, and state that your method was tried, and it failed. Have you ever heard of a little nation called Afghanistan? It's not mythological; it's quite real. The Soviet army rolled in there with all the might and force you could ever want, and do you know what happened? A little organization called the CIA trained the Mujahadeen to fight them, and those same fighters became the terrorists you now call Al Qaeda.

That's right, not only is your way insanely ineffective at fighting terrorism, it actually creates terrorists. There is a need for balance and sense in this world. This isn't a video game. This isn't an Arnold Schwartzenneger movie. This isn't playtime, fellas. It's time to get serious, and get real, and understand that brute force cannot work on an enemy who can hide among any population, any time they want. You have this stereotypical image of a dark-skinned, turbaned Muslim extremist, and I'm here to tell you that it's a big, wide world, and if the terrorists want to be truly effective, they can hide right in your backyard, and you won't see them.

No amount of spying, blowing things up, and acting like fascists can stop them; and to reiterate, if you continue that sort of activity, then more and more formerly ordinary people will become desperate enough to become terrorists themselves.

You are boldly stating that you wish to fight fire by pouring gasoline on it, and I am suggesting that a better way to fight fire is to starve the fire for fuel and oxygen. My way makes more sense. My way doesn't involve killing innocent civilians. My way is not military.

We've been bombing the holy heck out of Afghanistan and Iraq for years now, and it has done no good.

Your method has been tried, and is being tried now, and it can't work.

My method is the method George W. Bush claimed he would use after 911, which he immediately abandoned after only a few months, and replaced with the insane tactic of invading Iraq, which wasn't attacking us.

Logic is on my side in this "battle."



Peace, brother.

As has been pointed out, those arrested in the aftermath of the attempted London and Glasgow bombings are primarily not British-born Muslims - something which I didn't know when I made my last post here. However, I still think the argument I made in it holds water.

As to the timings - I think this is some sort of attempt to test whether Gordon Brown is prepared to capitulate more than Tony Blair had been.

As I have posted before, this demonstrates nothing so much as a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature; certainly of British nature. You won't make us do what you want by trying to kill us. All that has ever achieved is the following:

1. We try to kill you first, and
2. Lots of people end up dead

Well done, fanatics. Way to bring on the ummah

I agree with moif contention - posted several times on (though not, I think, here yet) that there are parallels with Nazism here. However, what worries me is not that "Muslims are the new Nazis", much as there are ideological parallels. No, what worries me is that their ideological cutting edge risks provoking Europe, or even just the whole non-Muslim world, into looking on them as the new Jews, and into instigating a new Holocaust, this time with not just a few million potential victims, but 1.6 billion.

Make no mistake, if the much mooted "clash of civilisations" comes to real blows rather than the shadow-boxing we've seen so far (even 9-11 - a terrible peacetime disaster - is little more than a skirmish in war terms; ask the people of Dresden or Coventry if they'd have preferred an attack on a single building rather than a whole city, or a casualty toll from a single raid in four figures.), the Muslims would lose. Maybe that's what the Jihadis want - to die fighting so they can imagine they'll go to paradise as martyrs, rather than just rotting like the rest of us.

And it bothers me more what that turns us into...

Fbwc and aren't likely to agree very soon on one aspect of this topic. Let's try another.

It has been suggested that disaffected youth, the oppressed and down-trodden are the culprits of this type of attack. People with nothing to live for who therefore cannot be frightened by returned violence.

However, as it currently stands 6 doctors have been found to be in on this - if they are found guilty - does this change the way you think about terrorism and terrorists at all?

First. I'd like to know how you reached that number. I'm guessing some statistic somewhere that adds up all the religious people by country and adds them together...? Something like that?

Let me offer you an example of why I do not accept the premise: Denmark is nearly always described as being 'predominently Lutherian Christian'. I've seen Denmark listed as being 95% Christian on many occaisions. The truth however is some what different. Most Danes are not particularly, or not religious at all. In fact, its probably safe to say that only around 15% of Danes are religious. Most Danes are baptized and confirmed because that is the custom, and confirmation is usually followed by a party and a hang over. I personally do not know a single person who goes to church. Not one. Yet, we are all described as Christians. I bet I am included in the 95% of Danes described as Christians even though I am an agnostic.

One of the reasons why I regard religion (as opposed to faith) as extremism is exactly because of the way religion has been/is pushed onto the rest of us by assumption and proxy. Its like the figure of 1.3 billion Muslims that gets bandied around so much. How many of those Muslims are Muslims by choice? I bet a significant proportion of Muslims are only Muslims because they cannot leave:
Link.

How can a majority of the world be extremist? Maybe it can't, but we are not debating the world, we are debating terrorism in the UK, and having grown up in Britain I contend the attitudes with regards to religion in the UK are a lot closer to the attitudes in Denmark than, say Tony Blair would like. Blair being a good example of how even a devout Christian in British politics prudently kept his personal religious belief's well out of focus. Religion is not 'the norm' in the UK. It is merely a facet of British society. 'The Norm', that which all Brits are subject to, and which I would argue the vast majority believe in, is the law.


I'm not sure I follow your point so forgive me if I jump to the wrong conclusion.

In the eyes of the law, there are no 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists'. These are subjective descriptions. Any one who breaks the law by murdering large numbers of people, or even just a few, for religious or political reasons or any other reason is a criminal.

The law is not action. Action follows the law, but if the action is wrong, i.e. illegal, then it is just as punishable as the original crime. The police are as beholden to the law as any one else. No one has the right to break the law.


Wonderful. Now all you have to do is find a unversal understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

I am convinced you are a good person turnea and most likely your definition of right and wrong would satisfy me, but that I might agree with your idea's of what is right and wrong doesn't change the fact that your perspective is still only your own.

In other words, your own opinion counts for nothing in the eyes of the law (which is why justice is traditionally depicted as being blind) because the law must protect every one, even those whom we might think of as wrong.


Again, this is a highly subjective perspective. Ghandi's 'right thing' left India in a state of contant conflict with Pakistan for example.


Yes, its a long list, but its still not what I asked for. What you've offered here might address the desire to see individuals risking death or arguing for moderation, but it still doesn't show the majority of Muslim's being either for or against violent jihad. Looking through the list I also see a lot of familiar names. The Council on Islamic American relations seems to be at the fore, and last year I read this article with regards to CAIR:
Link.
We've seen much the same ambiguity in Denmark too. Prominent Muslims said one thing when asked about terrorism, or anti western sentiments, then were later seen to contradict themselves when speaking to Muslims. Abu Laban, the now deceased, imam of the Danish Muslim Faith Society, was often caught out saying one thing to the Danish media and quite another to his Muslim Bretheren.

Again, its the ambiguity of it all that draws my attention. That and the unstinting criticism of any opponent of Islam even by people who ae claiming to be condeming terrorism; an example from your list of 'Muslims Condemning Terrorist Attacks':

...is she condemning terrorist attacks or is she having a go at people who fear Islam?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If I am mistaken, then by all means prove it.

Show me the evidence that Islamic leaders have 'perverted the religion', that Osama Bin Laden and his jihadist friends have 'misunderstood' their religious texts. Having read some of the justifications they have offered for their violent jihad, I find they are filled with references to the Quran and the life of Mohammed. I see nothing to suggest that they have misunderstood anything at all. Having read the passages they quote, I agree with their analysis. Their religion obliges them to kill the kuffar and 'liberate the world'. Show me the evidence that this man is wrong.

I cannot see, in the face of so much aggression and oppression by Muslims, against any and every one else, how any one can deny this except through some misguided wish to pretend Islam is compatible with western democracy.

A pie graph someone wiki'ed from the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica.
It puts the non-religious and atheists at about 15% as a correction let's just add the whole population of Europe (11%) of the world for a 26% total.

Still trouble for defining religion as extremists when the religious are 3/4 of the world.

Is religion still extremism?


Not really true. Terrorism is in fact defined in the laws of many, if not most, nations.

Link


Law without action is ink. There are many unenforced laws on the books. Do they still represent the "will of the majority"?


Let's take his most famous illegal action the Salt Satyaghra. Right or wrong?

Black students stage a sit-in at the segregated Woolworth's in Greensboro? Illegal. Wrong?

Africans and Indians in the Purple rain Protest? Criminals again.


The polls did that. You asked for Islamic leaders, there are many on the list.

turnea. I like debating with you, but could we please stay on topic? I don't mind nit picking, but within moderation. I may not be the most accurate writer and prone to waffling some what but a lot of the time your focusing on minor detals in my posts that don't have much to do with the points I'm making. Whether or not religion is extremism is irrellevent. I made it clear from the start that it was my personal point of view and as such has marginal impact on the topic being debated.
Well yeah, just because a lof of people have faith doesn't mean they put a religion before the law, which ever law. And as I just said, how can the person who drew up that chart vouch for its accuracy? Faith is not the same thing as religion. A lot of people get characterized as being religious when they are not, and I don't just mean aetheists and agnostics. I'm talking about people who believe in God, but get classed as belonging to this, that or the other religion when the truth is they pay very little mind to such human institutions.

Religion is a curse. It is an attempt to usurp faith. I see it as extremism because it tries to use faith for purposes of control. There is far to much politics involved in religion for it to be considered as anything but extremist political ideology. The only difference between the Pope and Osma Bin Laden is one of method.


Yes, but as an aspect of crime. The point was not about legal definitions but about the differences between right and wrong. Terrorists are not held to be either right or wrong. Terrorists are criminals because they break the law, not because they are 'wrong'.

And do me a favour turnea. Please don't refer to the EU as a nation. You'll bring me out in hives.


Good question. I can only say (repeat) that the law can be ammended. It can be changed to suit the morality and wishes of the people, something which cannot be said about the so called 'will of God'.


I don't understand your point. Surely these individual examples are already covered in what we've discussed? I don't see they change anything at all.


The polls are ambiguous, the Pew report even makes contradicting points. The leaders on your list, are again ambiguous. I can't accept condemnation of terrorism by people who suppport and are supported by terrorists like Hamas and Hizb'Allah. Such condemnation is not worth the paper it is printed on.

I want to see Muslims, real life Muslims, every day people, coming out in protest against violent jihad, just as we saw in Turkey against the threat to their secular state. That is the evidence I want to see. The majority of Muslim opposing the violent jihad which is being carried out in their name by a multitude of Muslim terrorists.

What your offering; polls, CAIR press releases and personal statements of opinion, is damage control.



edited to add a missing word

I find it baffling that so many of the UK bombers are doctors (by the way, the doctor count stands at 4 – 2 Indians, 1 Palestinian and 1 Jordanian. From what I’ve read, this is the first time an Indian has been involved in a terror plot.

What a waste. How can a doctor justify killing people, when their entire profession is based on the premise “first do no harm�? And it’s disturbing that educated people are jumping on the jihad bandwagon. Generally, the bombers are not well-educated, and their personal and financial situations are fairly bleak. This plot is so bizarre, it defies explanation.

So these doctors are advertising for potential terrorist recruits through medical journals? How can UK residents be sure that their hospitals are safe now, when you have to worry that your doctor might be a terrorist?! That's what I find most disturbing about this. Do any of our UK residents have any more insight as to what investigators are doing about the potential threat to the public from doctor/terrorists (man, that was weird to type)?

Well, not all are doctors, but 8 terrorists are apparently all medical professionals according to the BBC.



Really? Do those with bleak financial situations and poor education make it into America and gain entry into flight school?
Here is an old Detroit Free Press article that discusses a CIA finding on this.
The guy quoted was a CIA case officer in Afghanistan in the late 80's, when Al Q were just forming.

Think about it - isn't Ayman al-Zawahiri the poster boy for terrorists - Osama's main man? He's Egyptian upper-class, father was a professor, he has a masters degree in surgery, yet the Muslim Brotherhood was able to convince him to give his life for the jihad.

Remember this when the Muslim Brotherhood's front groups are all being courted and called "moderate" by our politicians. CAIR, the MAS, Islamic Society of Boston, Islamic Association for Palestine. It's all connected, and it's all leading to jihad.

You're right about the number. I was walking past the Newspapers this morning on the way to work and the Headline read Sick! Six Docs lead UK Terror Ring but in reading the AP article they name 4. Must we even question the ability of newspapers to count?

Having to worry about doctors who aren't terrorists is enough for me... this is beyond bizarre. If the Jihadists are truly recruiting people like this then there are very large problems coming the West's way.

UPDATE:Are we at 7 now?

Sooner of later, Arab terrorists will nuke a major US or British city with a stolen bomb in a car, or truck, or ship, and the citizenry will insist--ney, DEMAND--that we of the large nuclear arsenals and good delivery systems vaporize whole nations in the Middle East. A pity. At that point, this foolishness will have become truly shameful.

Just keep at it, Jihadists....

Yeah, tick us off enough and we'll become terrorists too!

We, after all, have no core values.

I hardly think statements like this are nit-picking.

A large part of this debate revolves around defining the meaning and scope of religious extremism.

I believe you cast an extremely large blanket over all religion and it makes arguing that Muslims are not extremists downright impossible.

I mean, Muslim demonstration against terrorism aren't enough. Statements denouncing terrorism aren't enough (despite you asking for them, it was merely fulfilling a request for evidence).

If we keep moving the bar I'm sure we can make them all fall short, but then that really isn't helping anyone.


I didn't, my point was that the EU comprises some of the "many" nations I was referring to.


My point is as follows.

There are values held higher than law, always have been. From Ghandi to King to Mandela we all recognize that law cannot be the end to all debate. I hardly think it fair to call Muslims who recognize this fact in their own way extremist.

It results in chaos, yes. The free world is a chaotic place, freedom and chaos are inseparable.


Not really. there is nothing contradictory about holding one's religious values in high regard and yet not being extremist in what those values are and how they are applied.


Many do, but just like Europe and agricultural tariffs, not everyone takes to time to take to the streets over issues they may be genuinely concerned about.

I for one think it is entirely unfair to the majority of Muslims to call them extremists for not carrying out our protest/outrage wish list.