You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 11:52:51 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?  (Read 3689 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2009, 09:30:07 PM »
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but over recent history nearly all terrorists have turned out to be Muslim.

Note: Nearly all doesn't mean all.

But of course narcissistic radical leftists believe Christians are terrorists too.

Bottom line in my book is, everyone is responsible for their own actions, regardless of their race, creed or religion.

Is there a reason we don't see Muslims here in America shooting AK-47s in the air and burning flags in protest? Hmmm.

Offline Lavaske

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2009, 10:16:45 PM »
Is there a reason we don't see Muslims here in America shooting AK-47s in the air and burning flags in protest? Hmmm.
Well, those niches are filled.  We have the so called 'narcissistic left-wingers' burning the flags, and the NRA shooting the AK's, so we're pretty much set.

Offline Merlyn

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2009, 11:00:58 AM »
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but over recent history nearly all terrorists have turned out to be Muslim.

That part I disagree with, that.  When you consider the IRA, along with many others including Hitler (Yes he often claimed to be doing gods work).

As for getting intelligence from other countries, it is often a bad thing.  The US is disliked by many, and as such often gets bad/false intell.  Which is actually how the war in Iraq started. 

And as for profiling it is an necessary evil, which helps narrow down suspects. 

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2009, 01:38:53 PM »
But of course narcissistic radical leftists believe Christians are terrorists too.

Do you mean to say that Christians can't be terrorists? Because if you do, I've got 20 years of growing up in Northern Ireland that would beg to differ.

Offline Serephino

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2009, 02:38:57 PM »
I got a few words for that;

Spanish Inquisition
Crusades


And then there was the English Lord that thought there was a witch in his village because the crops failed.  Well rather than trying to find the witch he executed the entire village, including children.

The only culture with a bloodier history than Christianity is the Romans.  The Muslims were fine until their land was invaded by Christians during the Crusades for no other reason than the Pope felt that the 'Holy Land' should be in Christian hands.

There was a terrorist attack in London a few years back when they were trying to decide where the Olympics would be held.  Something about a bomb in the subway system.  I'll bet Muslims didn't have anything to do with that.

If Harry grew up in Northern Ireland he can probably explain it better, but terrorism has existed in Britain for quite some time because there are hard feelings over England taking over Scotland and Ireland. 

Anyone can be a terrorist.  Terrorism has existed as long as society has.  The rest of the world has always been dealing with it.  The US hasn't seen terrorism since the Civil War so we fell into a false sense of security.  All Al-Queda did was take advantage of that vulnerability.  So now we're all freaked out and overreacting.  Just do some research into what was done to Japanese Americans during WWII.   

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2009, 03:22:00 PM »
I got a few words for that;

Spanish Inquisition
Crusades

And then there was the English Lord that thought there was a witch in his village because the crops failed.  Well rather than trying to find the witch he executed the entire village, including children.

I can't say I know that story. It's possible, but I would have thought the Lord would have settle for burning a few old women, who tended to be the main focus of witch hunts.

The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are both nasty parts of history, but I don't think they fit the bill of terrorism.

The only culture with a bloodier history than Christianity is the Romans.  The Muslims were fine until their land was invaded by Christians during the Crusades for no other reason than the Pope felt that the 'Holy Land' should be in Christian hands.

I'm not sure you can call Christianity a culture. Not in the same way you can have country or ethnic cultures.

There was a terrorist attack in London a few years back when they were trying to decide where the Olympics would be held.  Something about a bomb in the subway system.  I'll bet Muslims didn't have anything to do with that.

If you're refering to the 2005 London tube bombings, those were by British muslims, in response to Britains involvement in Iraq.

If Harry grew up in Northern Ireland he can probably explain it better, but terrorism has existed in Britain for quite some time because there are hard feelings over England taking over Scotland and Ireland. 

To my knowledge, there hasn't been any Scottish nationalist terrorists. There were a handfull of Welsh ones, believe it or not, but they settled for blowing up a few English holiday homes. In that situation it was nationalism on its own ... religion wasn't a component.

While there is a strong component of nationalism in the Troubles, that was seen to go hand in hand with religion. If you were a catholic, you were therefore a nationalist; if you were a protestant, you were therefore a unionist. What you were perceived to be would land you in trouble, regardless of whether you were anything or not.


Offline Zakharra

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2009, 03:38:30 PM »
I got a few words for that;

Spanish Inquisition
Crusades


And then there was the English Lord that thought there was a witch in his village because the crops failed.  Well rather than trying to find the witch he executed the entire village, including children.

The only culture with a bloodier history than Christianity is the Romans.  The Muslims were fine until their land was invaded by Christians during the Crusades for no other reason than the Pope felt that the 'Holy Land' should be in Christian hands.

There was a terrorist attack in London a few years back when they were trying to decide where the Olympics would be held.  Something about a bomb in the subway system.  I'll bet Muslims didn't have anything to do with that.

If Harry grew up in Northern Ireland he can probably explain it better, but terrorism has existed in Britain for quite some time because there are hard feelings over England taking over Scotland and Ireland. 

Anyone can be a terrorist.  Terrorism has existed as long as society has.  The rest of the world has always been dealing with it.  The US hasn't seen terrorism since the Civil War so we fell into a false sense of security.  All Al-Queda did was take advantage of that vulnerability.  So now we're all freaked out and overreacting.  Just do some research into what was done to Japanese Americans during WWII.

 *coughs* Excuse me? Have you read the history of the Muslim faith? It started out in bloodshed and still walks that path to a great extent. Christianity has left it's violent past behind to a very great extent.

 The Japanese were not tortured, starved, beaten and mutilated, just mostly held captive.  It was an overreaction to the surprise attack by ther Japanese Imperial navy, but understandable in a sense. It was nothing on par by any means what has happened before to prisoners though. Especially compared to what the Japanese did to their prisoners.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2009, 05:04:21 PM »
That part I disagree with, that.  When you consider the IRA, along with many others including Hitler (Yes he often claimed to be doing gods work).


Do you mean to say that Christians can't be terrorists? Because if you do, I've got 20 years of growing up in Northern Ireland that would beg to differ.

I got a few words for that;

Spanish Inquisition
Crusades


What part of 'recent history' and 'nearly all' did any of you not understand? Seriously.

You know very well what I mean.

Offline SilkTopic starter

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2009, 05:52:16 PM »
I got a few words for that;

Crusades

You mean the crusades that were started by the byzantine empire (christian) calling for aid of the pope because they were on the brink of extinction due to the turks (muslim)?

After the first crusade it was mostly christian agression yes, but the second and third crusade were not as agressive. And even in the first one it was more down to nobility doing powerplay in byzantine that went to far not the christian knights.

then between those crusades, christians allowed muslim pilgrims into the holy land still, but the turks continiously ambushed the christian pilgrims which lead to the formation of the knights templar and a larger solidification of knights hospitalliar. Don't forget the countless assasination attempts on christian forces from the turks also.

Don't go forgetting the persian empire also. However there is this really amusing thing... Much of christian "agression" was more "powermongering" of respective lords and alike under the guise of religion, not the religion itself. The war in iraq was a war for land and alike. just because two sides were majoritally different religions did not make it a religious war. Al-quieda and other "muslim" terrorist groups are waging a "holy"(holy being a epitome of religion) war on the west.

No not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists in the middle east are muslim. Its a common denominator that you can use to filter out a good few billion people on your search worldwide.

This sort of veiw in the uk is really irritating me. "aww police shouldnt have tasers because they will scare us and might cause issues with people that have a heart condition!" Sorry but what the f*** if your not breaking the law what do you have to be afraid of! The fact they have weapons acts as a deterrent! A armed criminal isnt about to just roll over and be cuffed for a unarmed policeman is he!

And on the profiling here is another way to look at it. Look at the brazilian guy who got shot by the police in the london tube. There was one hell of a upraw, official heads rolled the police involved lost their jobs ect. But i still stand by this saying to this day several years later

"What if he was a terrorist and that officer did'nt shoot?"

I'm not saying that christianity or muslim or whoever else wearing pink slippers and a white nighty are innocent of bloodshed. Because humanity as a whole is just one well oiled war machine that if aliens were to ever land, they would be the ones who will get shafted royally
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 05:54:26 PM by Silk »

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2009, 05:59:52 PM »
This is what you said.

Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but over recent history nearly all terrorists have turned out to be Muslim.

Note: Nearly all doesn't mean all.

But of course narcissistic radical leftists believe Christians are terrorists too.

As an example, the REAL IRA were responsible for shooting dead 2 unarmed soldiers collecting a pizza delivery in March. Is that recent enough for you? Unless things have changed, I'm reasonably sure they're not Muslim.

I'm fairly sure I could dig you up an alphabet soups worth of other terrorist groups, splinter groups, offshoots and cover names, and their activities in the North in recent years.

Or don't those count?

How about the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), which was formed in December 1989 for the purpose of seceding from India in order to create an independent Christian fundamentalist state of Tripura. In 2004 they were responsible for a triple bombing in which 44 people were killed and 118 wounded.

Do they count?

There are Christian terrorists.

There are Muslim terrorists.

I believe there are Hindu terrorists.

For all I know there may even be militant Buddhist terrorists.

Terrorism did not start when America was hit by it. To say that 'nearly all' terrorists are Muslims is demonstratable false, and if you insist on making such claims, I will argue against them.

If you go with the attitude of muslim = terrorist, then you will be creating the next generation of terrorists by those actions. I can see parallels in how the Troubles developed in the 70s. Unless you feel like dealing with say 40 or so years of terrorist attacks, I'd suggest learning from the mistakes of others.

Offline The Overlord

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #35 on: May 26, 2009, 06:09:52 PM »

No not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists in the middle east are muslim. Its a common denominator that you can use to filter out a good few billion people on your search worldwide.


I believe a key point here to make is that all Middle Eastern terrorists profess Islam to legitimize their claims and aims. It’s been done before in the name of religion; a divine manifesto or legitimizing dogma to justify anything. I consider them no more legitimate to Islam than I do Jerry Falwell to Christianity; in the end they’re all crackpots.

On a smaller scale it was done in 1997 by the Heaven's Gate cult as a means for Marshall Herff Applewhite, Jr. to get 39 souls to commit mass suicide so they could spiritually catch up with an alien spacecraft hidden in the tail of Comet Hale-Bopp…admittedly about as fruity and culty as fruitcake cults get.

I would say by the entrance of the third millennium A.D. that we’d all be smarter than this…apparently not.


Unfortunately, yes, various terror groups we’re at war with are flying Islam’s banner, but what we should all know by now is that Islam is at least as factionalized as Christianity. We cannot blame an entire global faith for the heinous and barbaric behavior of a minority. I didn’t dislike any of the Muslims I worked with or went to school with…many are level-headed people. Unfortunately they’re caught in the middle of all this crap.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 06:11:49 PM by The Overlord »

Offline Vandren

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2009, 06:26:37 PM »
Unfortunately our enemies are of, mainly Middle Eastern decent. So it's normal  and proper procedjure to profile on that basis alone for a start. Then the religion as you clear people off the suspect list.

Good point . . . let's make sure Baptists can't move around without being closely watched in our cities, seeing as a handful of Baptists have committed terrorist acts on U.S. soil (bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors, oh and attempting to bomb the Olympic village).  Oh, and the Catholics.  Because all of the IRA members are Catholics.

Quote
99% of all members are men of Middle Eastern decent

Sadly, that's a b.s. statistic.  In the last two decades, Al-Qaida and related groups have stepped up their recruitment of Caucasian males and Middle Eastern females.

Quote
What I'm saying and Lavaske  seems to be missing is that 99.9% of the terrorists are Middle Eastern Muslim men.

See the above two statements.

Quote
Because there is only 1 major religious that is being used to promote the murder and violent killing (by any means) of it's enemies. Islam.

So, Pat Buchanan is Islamic?  And Pat Robertson?  And Jerry Falwell?  And the other half dozen or more fundamentalist preachers who called for Hugo Chavez's assassination just because they don't like his politics?

Sorry, Christianity's promoted more "murder and violent killing" in its name than any other faith to date.  As I recall, the Gospels say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Quote
But of course narcissistic radical leftists believe Christians are terrorists too.

Aside from the "narcissistic" term (which is misused) . . . look at our own history: Timothy McVeigh, the dozens of people who've bombed abortion clinics, the dozens who've shot at doctors, the Olympic Village (Atlanta games) bomber . . .

Quote
Have you read the history of the Muslim faith? It started out in bloodshed and still walks that path to a great extent.

Actually, yes.  Not only that, but I've read the Koran (or Qu'ran).  The reality is that Mohammad stated that Muslims were "not to make war upon other people of the Book" (meaning the Torah, or Old Testament), except in self-defense.  The imposition of Israel upon the Middle East, combined with our treatment of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran in the 1950s-1980s is seen by many as a Christian attack upon Islam, perhaps even as a new Crusade.

Moreover, I'm pretty well versed in Christianity's early to middle history as well as Judaism's.  Both of which are also either founded on violence or quickly turned to violence - the Jews fought their way across the Middle East to "retake" the ancestral homeland they'd left centuries before (see the Old Testament/Torah); the bloodiest period of Roman history "coincidentally" occurs just after Christianity becomes the state religion, the same goes for religious persecution which previously only really occurred under a handful of short reigning emperors and even then only for brief periods, assuming we look at the historical record, not the highly biased Biblical record (before conversion, the Romans adopted the gods of conquered lands as additions to their own pantheon in order not to offend any divinity).  Not to mention the Crusades, Inquisition, White Man's Burden, conversion of most of Europe and the New World at the point of a sword, etc.

Quote
Christianity has left it's violent past behind to a very great extent.

Always glad to have a good laugh.  Thanks.  :)

Quote
You mean the crusades that were started by the byzantine empire (christian) calling for aid of the pope because they were on the brink of extinction due to the turks (muslim)?

That whole, one maybe two Crusades.  Out of several.  Most of which were started at the behest of the Pope in Rome, at the behest of nobles in France, England, and Italy who wanted control of the trade routes from China.  Sorry, the case presented doesn't work with actual history (medievalist here, with several Crusade texts at his disposal).  Of course, the reason the Byzantines were in trouble in the first place was because they too attempted to expand into Turkish territory.

Quote
but all terrorists in the middle east are muslim

Tell that to the hundreds, if not thousands, of Palestinian women and children who died in the last two decades because the Israeli government decided that the best way to capture/kill a PLO leader was to fire a dozen missiles into an inhabited apartment complex.  This, of course, is completely justified as collateral damage . . . until one realizes that in the 1970s, a team of Israeli commandos flew to an African nation, freed hostages on a hijacked El-Al plane, took no losses to themselves or the hostages, eliminated the entire terrorist team, and returned to Israel before anyone knew they'd even left Israel.  Yet, they apparently can't do this just a few dozen miles from their base of operations.  Go figure.
________________________________________________________________________

One of the other problems, at least in the U.S., is that people in general aren't that bright, especially in groups.  For example, after the Trade Center attack, numerous Sikh temples were attacked "because they looked foreign and Muslim".  In fact, one of my former students (an extremely bright British student of Indian descent) who is Sikh was the victim of some of this stupidity as well, largely because he "looks foreign" and wears a turban-like head covering.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2009, 03:52:22 PM by Vandren »

Offline Indigo

  • Sui Generis
  • Deverified
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Location: ¤ Sui Generis ¤
  • Gender: Female
  • I am a law ønly for my kind, I am nø law før all.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2009, 10:18:13 PM »
*sigh*

Let's see... the 'heathen godless masses' right?

How history proves what fucktards people are when it comes to pointing their 'mighty, god-righted finger' at yon enemy.

"Terrible, heathen, godless, murderess barbarians"

How wonderful, that at every opportunity when 'the righteous, perfect, people' are faced with an enemy that is foreign, that these titles are continually used.

I don't believe in any of it.  Just as the American Indians were considered 'heathen, godless, barbarians', so it was 'Okay!' to take their land and drive their people into reservations.  If they fought!  OMG!  Terrible Enemies Who Want To Rape And Degrade Our People!"

There is no difference now, because people always want to view their enemy as 'lesser beings', no matter what the hell you want to call it, it's the truth overall.  But who wants to actually admit that?  Heavens No!  Not Me!'

Same o Same o.  Call it what you will... At least I'll respect those who admit their prejudice, rather then those who huff and puff and claim none at all in the face of their blatant stupidity.

Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2009, 11:08:54 PM »
In the summer of 2001, I made an overnight stop in London on the way back to the US.  Before that, I passed through Dubai for a couple hours on the way out of Pakistan.  Before leaving Heathrow, I was taken aside along with half a dozen others, all Middle Eastern looking (I wouldn't claim with certainty they were all Muslim, there are a few religious minorities around).  They made a careful search of all of us.  It seemed roughly like the usual procedure all theoretically get at a concourse gate in the US today.  Except, they searched through bags physically and waved the scan wands under the women's long robes, generally being slow and careful about it.  This was a little amusing in my case, because my "carry on" consisted of a flimsy plastic shopping bag holding a few pamphlets and a paperback novel.  British security at least had the forethought to have a woman there to search the women, and that search did not simply throw stuff out of order as some do...  However, I had the impression that the Middle Easterners in the room were not very happy about being singled out and body-scanned so closely.

In a sort of general preventive sense, I understand the logic of searches like that.  However, there is a general problem that the US has taken the whole notion of "preventive war" to an extreme.  If you apply power as a blunt object toward too many people, surprise: backlash. 

It is feasible enough for a government to search six Middle Easterners (plus me), whether the standard happened to actually be stopover time or originating flight/country or whatever.  After thousands of such simple "precautionary" profilings, I imagine said government ends up with a substantial bit of resentment out there that did not exist before, as some of those people searched lower their approval ratings and tell their acquaintances about it.  That's all predictable enough. 

More complicated, I suspect there are too many Middle Easterners to canvas them all thoroughly at every airport.  And way too many Muslims, many of them not Middle Eastern.  Now who is the war on?  Blacks?  African Muslims?  Anyone who wears a head scarf?  Now, making a jump and setting that aside... 

Do regular, semi-random searches of Middle Eastern folks foil a few bombing plots?  Perhaps if the only would-be bombers in the friendly skies are Islamists and not shoe bombers, militia, racial extremists, radical American cultists, regional separatists, etc.  (Your outcomes for airports, v. government buildings may vary.)  While that happens to hold, I would grant they can have a chance

That is, provided that the nature of searches is actually such that they will find the sort of devices that constitute threats, even with focus on "the right" profiles.  9/11 is always cited as the justifying example -- not the lone Caucasian shoe bomber who failed to detonate.  I am not fully convinced the blanket search will always be up to date with the nature of any specific threat.  I am more concerned that 9/11 represented a failure of intelligence gathering and general lack of organization about who was who in the world.  Searching more Muslims is not very likely to overcome that.  It only takes a few pilots with very small blades.  Add an air marshal, and maybe they at least need some combat training too. 

They can get some combat training, though.  And get away with coming along to use it, if you don't pay attention to where they're coming from.  You also have to pay attention to all the many things you're doing to make people upset there.  Whether it's waving your armies around their country with extra attention to oilfield maps, or making a great political show of searching everyone who looks like them in your airports.  "Look, real men, so tough on 'terror'" and real because we're not "sneaky" like them...  Your own public is not the only one listening to CNN.     

This is not efficient as a publicity strategy or support for war efforts: More morally offended people (especially internationally mobile, relatively wealthy ones) means more diffuse support for anti-imperial, regionalist, and explosively radical agendas in so many places.  It sends the message that the government in question has organized its affairs so that it cannot distinguish what specific groups or movements contain its likely enemies.  Instead, we've positioned ourselves historically such that those groups are not all fringe elements, but some of them have obvious moral appeals to their societies compared to what we have offered (Hamas is a fair example, it offers social services where Israel is better known for bombs and embargoes. Our general proxy warfare through historically abusive Afghan warlords is another: how to rate Taliban-style stability against this...) 

From an egalitarian perspective and a longer-range strategic one, it should be an obvious warning sign when so many people are justly alienated and angry, that you need to consider millions of people as a "more likely" pool for antagonists at all.  Unfortunately, the US has effectively set up its policies such that it generally behaves as if a whole vast range of people across a cross-section of the whole Middle East are likely enemies.  Policies on wealth, on what states are allowed to have nukes, on oil, on immigration and trade rules.  Stuff Americans often take for granted as why they are so "obviously" number one.  As long as those policies are taken seriously as a context demanding "prevention" through ethnic profiling, it is just feeding a broader base for long-term antagonism. 

« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 11:10:47 PM by kylie »

Offline Vandren

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #39 on: May 27, 2009, 03:41:46 PM »
Two other things that occurred to me today:

1) A question to the British folks in the thread who've favored racial or religious profiling: the British authorities have been exercising racial and religious profiling against Irish terrorists for over nearly two centuries.  How'd that work out? 

(Seeing as the "war" was lost for all intents and purposes the day that Irish independence was granted by Parliament and the Northern Irish IRA only stopped bombing and such, recently, at the behest of its political arm.)

2) Racial/religious profiling loses the PR war that is essential to any attempt to stamp out terrorism.  How, you ask?

a) It reinforces exactly what fundamentalist radical terrorist leaders tell their "troops" (that all Muslims look alike to the "dirty Westerners" and that Westerners have no respect for anyone else or anyone else's faith).

b) This in turn drives up the number of new recruits that the organizations can draw to their cause (witness the major increase in numbers of terrorists in the Middle East after the U.S. invaded Iraq under false pretenses, which 'proved' exactly what bin Laden and his cronies claimed would happen, e.g. that Westerners see all Muslims as being the same and have no respect for Muslims; incidentally, we know from various records that there were no Al-Qaida forces in Iraq pre-invasion, but because we destabilized the country, it is now a major Al-Qaida training region).

c) This also means that, when we're dealing with a Western power especially the U.S., the terrorist organization has won because we've let our values (everyone is created equal, innocent until proven guilty, freedom of religion, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc.) drop by the wayside at the first sign of trouble, which means both that we didn't really believe in those values to begin with and that we've significantly changed our culture/society out of fear, which is one of the primary goals of any anti-Western terrorist organization.

To think that purely military/police power can defeat terrorism is to be naive and to fall into a trap that leads only to losing in the long run.  As Kylie also alluded, there has to be a conscious effort to change one's reputation and one's treatment of the population in which the terrorists (or insurgents) are hiding.  Quite frankly, the U.S. should have learned this after Vietnam and the British should have learned this after losing most of Ireland.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2009, 04:06:06 PM »
As someone who grew up in Norn Iron, I probably have a fairly good perspective on this.

Do you know when the British army was sent in to Northern Ireland at the start of the Troubles they were welcomed by the nationalist / catholic side? It was thought that they would keep the peace, and protect them from unionist violence. Unfortunately the heavy handed approach to the catholics, and the kid gloves approach to protestants managed to turn the catholics against the army in a very short time. That anger and resentment was used by the nationalist terrorists as recruitment tools.

Why do you think in all the years that the Troubles went on that the arch bigot of unionism, Ian Paisley, was never killed? Because he was the best recruit sergeant the IRA could ask for. Every time he opened his mouth he sent one more angry young idiot into the IRAs arms.

And as another point, you can't talk about the IRA as one body. The Official IRA stood down in the 70s I think. Most of the Troubles it was the Provisional IRA that was fighting. When they stood down ... because the people that they were allegedly representing no longer wanted them fighting in their name ... hardliners split to form the Real IRA, and one or two other groups. As well as the IRA you had the INLA and probably a couple of other splinter groups, and as many on the unionist side.

And before anyone gets onto the 'freedom fighters' line, just for reference, the terrorists on both sides of the political divide in Northern Ireland are responsible for almost all of the organised crime. They have been for decades.

One rather amusing (at least from the Norn Iron perspective) side effect of the Troubles was that Belfast was one of the safest cities in Europe, where street crime was concerned. Because if the cops didn't get you, the paramilitaries would .. and their notions of justice is why the Royal Hospital in Belfast has either the 2nd or 3rd best gunshot trauma team in the world. Or had at least.

Getting back to the main point in hand, the Troubles did not end through military means on either side. They ended because the people eventually had enough. Enough of killing being done in their name, by those who answered only to themselves.

I grew up thinking it normal to see heavily armed soldiers on the roads, and occasionally walking through my backyard. There was a military base the next field over. It was mortar bombed twice while I lived there. A car bomb killed a police officer who lived at the entrance to my estate. I've heard bombs go off a street or two away. I'd consider myself to be fairly untouched by the Troubles, comparatively speaking.

Terrorists will not be defeated as long as they have a population to support them, hide them, and provide them with new members and resources. You are not going to win over that civilian population by hostility, and treating them as though you already believe they are terrorists. That is a self fullfilling prophecy right there. Treat someone like a terrorist, and don't be surprised if you end up making them one.

Learn the lessons of history that others have paid blood for already.

Offline SuperHans

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2009, 04:46:27 PM »
There's been a massive comparison made between the IRA and Islamic terror, which I don't think is entirely apt when you consider the styles of the two groups. With the IRA, for example, their main priority was secrecy to act. The army and the authorities in Northern Ireland carried out massive inflitration campaigns of republican paramilitaries at the time, and trust became an increasing issue. The IRA would recruit soldiers that they knew were trustworthy, which meant already involved in criminal/nationalist activity, which meant prior jail time or police knowledge. With many Islamic splinter groups, they ensure secrecy differently. They recruit from moderate ranks, indoctrinate young men and women who have no prior form and lead respectable lives. Many attend training camps and return without any knowledge that they are now trained for action. Others get caught in the net, and end up in Guantanamo Bay. But when the operatives return to their country, they are on paper still that respectable doctor, fireman, law student. It's only when their mission is complete are they known. Thus, as much as the system is used as a defense of frankly racist systems, there does need to be a double standard. You don't know that your potential flyer has strayed from his usual life and is planning to cause mass of life.

But it is a puzzler. Once you condone such profiling, it's a slippery slope.

Online Doomsday

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #42 on: July 12, 2009, 05:00:08 PM »
I can't remember where I heard this, but there are approx. 200 members in Al Qaeda in the entire world, and there are approx. 250 members of the KKK in Saskatchewan.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #43 on: July 12, 2009, 06:07:19 PM »
When push comes to shove it's not really religion that's to blame it's simple human greed and general nastiness. Religion just makes a nice front to sucker in the poor guy who really believes. You don't see (For examples' sake) Osama Bin Laden blowing himself up for his cause do you?


Offline Jude

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #44 on: July 12, 2009, 07:45:30 PM »
When push comes to shove it's not really religion that's to blame it's simple human greed and general nastiness. Religion just makes a nice front to sucker in the poor guy who really believes. You don't see (For examples' sake) Osama Bin Laden blowing himself up for his cause do you?
That's like saying you can't blame the gasoline for the fire.  Sure, gasoline wouldn't start a fire on its own, but the fire wouldn't be so damn easy to spread without gasoline.

Religion is dangerous because it goes around your defenses.  You cannot apply critical thinking to it if you are a powerful believer, which leaves you vulnerable to being convinced to do, say, and believe dangerous things.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #45 on: July 12, 2009, 08:29:05 PM »
That's like saying you can't blame the gasoline for the fire.  Sure, gasoline wouldn't start a fire on its own, but the fire wouldn't be so damn easy to spread without gasoline.

Religion is dangerous because it goes around your defenses.  You cannot apply critical thinking to it if you are a powerful believer, which leaves you vulnerable to being convinced to do, say, and believe dangerous things.
Not a powerful believer an ignorant one. Like I tell some people the Bible isn't just that little black book with the gold filigree and red tassel that I pull out whenever the preacher comes 'round. 

Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #46 on: July 12, 2009, 08:31:48 PM »
Quote from: Inkidu
When push comes to shove it's not really religion that's to blame it's simple human greed and general nastiness. Religion just makes a nice front to sucker in the poor guy who really believes. You don't see (For examples' sake) Osama Bin Laden blowing himself up for his cause do you?

As far as "making a sucker" of people, that would depend on what you consider a legitimate source of religion.  There are so many points of reference.  I think that's a pretty arbitrary call.

Quote from: RandomNumber
Religion is dangerous because it goes around your defenses.  You cannot apply critical thinking to it if you are a powerful believer, which leaves you vulnerable to being convinced to do, say, and believe dangerous things.
That's quietly applying very narrow readings to a lot of terms.  The presumption would be that we all adopt the same interpretation of what is (unspoken) improperly "dangerous" and backtrack from there to associate it with religion by mere correlation.  "Are you a fan of mass murder?  No?  All these people claimed to believe in a religion, so religion must have been the mechanism that duped them." 

Correlation is not necessarily causation.  We don't attribute mass murder on a daily basis to violent video games (or even attending soccer matches).  Nor do we wish to see mass prosecutions (I hope) for writing NC stories on the web.  Lots of people do these things.  They/we do not all perform school shootings, join Al Qaeda, or join the US military for that matter.  Your approach may make a general point about some people.  However, it doesn't address with why some "religious" people do "dangerous" things and others do not.  Setting aside: who shall decide the meanings of stuff in quotes. 

I do believe that in many cases, the rhetoric of religion has been fused tremendously with nationalist or class ends. 

For example:  In Palestine as I understand it, militant ends of organizations like Hamas offer prospective suicide bombers promises to take care of families financially, and to maintain a community that will remember these individuals as having died for a just cause.  When you're soaked in poverty, run down by US-supplied armored vehicles every so often, and constantly being watched and searched all on the basis of your politics, there are both practical and symbolic incentives here.  Naturally, some people will express their desperation in terms of religion. 

Islam just happens to be the religion of many oppressed in that particular region.  Of course, that is not the only type of project done "in the name of Islam."  On the flip side, religions at large are not the only kind of rallying banner for symbolic violence.  (Although, some are awfully popular among the various banners.)  Nor is all violence performed under a religious banner, necessarily by people who share a common view of the religious aspects.
 

{Edit: Oops, I think the second quote goes to Random.}
« Last Edit: July 12, 2009, 08:42:24 PM by kylie »

Offline SuperHans

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #47 on: July 13, 2009, 01:17:45 AM »
Quote
I can't remember where I heard this, but there are approx. 200 members in Al Qaeda in the entire world, and there are approx. 250 members of the KKK in Saskatchewan.

Which would be the definitive point of the argument, if Al Qaieda was the be all and end all of Islamic paramilitary organisations. They're the most well known because they pulled off the most devastating attack, but there are thousands of splinter groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria...the scale of those being recruited into terrorism is much greater than what happens in Al Qaieda.

Online Doomsday

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #48 on: July 13, 2009, 01:22:43 AM »
True, but neither is the KKK the only predominately-Christian radical group. Look at the Christian Identity, and arguably the Neo-Nazi's, definitely the WBC.

Offline Mnemaxa

Re: Why are you singleing out those of islamic faith!?
« Reply #49 on: July 13, 2009, 01:27:20 AM »
Let us not forget that when terrorist attacks are made, hundreds of groups - including radical Islamic, IRA, White Power, Christian Extremists, and many, many others all lay claim to these incidents. 

They do this because it makes their constituents a new target for discrimination, which makes more people turn to the extremist groups, which means more effort goes into watching them, which....the cycle is endless and obvious.