The Logic and Strategy of Suicide Terrorism

[Lemur]

Fascinating speech linked here (http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2010/03/the_strategic_logic_of_terrori.html), which essentially makes the following point:


In contrast to the popular assertions that terrorists "hate freedom" or want to build a 21st century Caliphate, Pape documents the true driver of suicide attacks: to compel a democracy to remove combat forces from territory the terrorists prize and/or want to liberate. It is not primarily a function of Muslim extremism, even if Muslim terrorists have embraced the tactic. [...]

This doesn't mean that terrorists don't despise Western values or don't, in their minds, hope to restore Islamic rule, it just means that those things don't matter nearly as much as is presumed and don't figure centrally into the history of suicide violence.

I'd embed the video, but our new board software is quite picky about what it will accept. Old-timey link to video, just like they had in grandpappy's day. (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5496535)

[gaelic cowboy]

Very comprehensive talk I knew most of it allready but it was nice to see it all gathered together like he did gave a very good picture of whats really going on.

[KukriKhan]

So it isn't: "My religion compels me to attack the infidel, blowing myself up at the same time, to show my sincerity.", it's:
"Get off my property, you trespasser!".

Interesting. I've order his book Dying to Win.

Was it clear to anyone else (and I just missed it) exactly who Pape was actually addressing in the vid? I sure wish he'd quit with the nervous giggling while talking about dead people, whether bombers or victims. I understand he's excited about his database and the 'new' conclusions he has drawn from it - but the laughter was quite off-putting for me. Hence, I order the book, and check out his database at http://cpost.uchicago.edu/about.php

[gaelic cowboy]

I think he may have been giving the talk to these people it's on the board behind

NewAmerica.net (http://www.newamerica.net/)

[Fragony]

Sure you got the right link? I want to hear this but I can't see how long it is, and he's just been talking about a database for a while now

ah, 5 minutes ff

Not yet done, but this is impossible to dismiss. Very interesting a must see.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fascinating speech linked here (http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2010/03/the_strategic_logic_of_terrori.html), which essentially makes the following point:


In contrast to the popular assertions that terrorists "hate freedom" or want to build a 21st century Caliphate, Pape documents the true driver of suicide attacks: to compel a democracy to remove combat forces from territory the terrorists prize and/or want to liberate. It is not primarily a function of Muslim extremism, even if Muslim terrorists have embraced the tactic. [...]

This doesn't mean that terrorists don't despise Western values or don't, in their minds, hope to restore Islamic rule, it just means that those things don't matter nearly as much as is presumed and don't figure centrally into the history of suicide violence.

I'd embed the video, but our new board software is quite picky about what it will accept. Old-timey link to video, just like they had in grandpappy's day. (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5496535)

I don't buy it, not really. Groups only use suicide terrorism against those they also oppose ideologically. So while he may be right, I suspect the point is moot.

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't buy it, not really. Groups only use suicide terrorism against those they also oppose ideologically. So while he may be right, I suspect the point is moot.

Moot how is it moot policy is being shaped when obviously people don't have the full facts. And you say the word ideologically like it only applies to sucide terrorism all groups be they countries fighting regular war or terrorists oppose there enemy ideologically

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Moot how is it moot policy is being shaped when obviously people don't have the full facts. And you say the word ideologically like it only applies to sucide terrorism all groups be they countries fighting regular war or terrorists oppose there enemy ideologically

Islamic Terrorism does oppose the West Ideologically. They want the West out of the Middle eastern because we are Westernising (read: corrupting). The attacks in America, Britain, and Spain etc. come from an Imperialistic rhetoric which seeks to "conquer the infidel". This is different to, say, Northern Ireland where most people will prefer to give up violence when their living conditions improve. If you improve the living conditions of peoples in the Middle East the Islamists will fight harder.

As far as opposing enemies ideologically, that's not really true. Most wars are fought over material resources.

[Fragony]

I have been watching the video since it was posted, and it's not done yet. It's worth a look, maybe we I got it all wrong.

[gaelic cowboy]

Islamic Terrorism does oppose the West Ideologically. They want the West out of the Middle eastern because we are Westernising (read: corrupting). The attacks in America, Britain, and Spain etc. come from an Imperialistic rhetoric which seeks to "conquer the infidel".

You watched the video but you tuned out the bits that don't fit your view


This is different to, say, Northern Ireland where most people will prefer to give up violence when their living conditions improve. If you improve the living conditions of peoples in the Middle East the Islamists will fight harder.

Zero fact's for this people in Ireland before partition where better off than people say 50 years before therefore by your reckoning it should have lessened violence instead we kicked the empire out.


As far as opposing enemies ideologically, that's not really true. Most wars are fought over material resources.

Show me an example of a war where both countries involved fought over resources and said we don't hate each other we just want the gold it has never happened. The resources are often the reason for the war but the war is sustained by ideological means.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have been watching the video since it was posted, and it's not done yet. It's worth a look, maybe we I got it all wrong.

It's more a case of we may have focussed on the wrong things now the facts are there maybe the thing can actually be won now if there is such a thing as a win in all this

[miotas]

Wow, invading their countries make them angry. Who'd have thunk it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Zero fact's for this people in Ireland before partition where better off than people say 50 years before therefore by your reckoning it should have lessened violence instead we kicked the empire out.

The Irish were still demonstratably worse off than the English, though. Not to mention the English garrisons and the various casual depravities that soldiers might inflict upon young women. The song "Gentleman soldier" comes to mind.


Show me an example of a war where both countries involved fought over resources and said we don't hate each other we just want the gold it has never happened. The resources are often the reason for the war but the war is sustained by ideological means.

What material do we have that Bin Laden wants? Why is he waging war against the West?

[Cute Wolf]

Islamic Terrorism does oppose the West Ideologically. They want the West out of the Middle eastern because we are Westernising (read: corrupting). The attacks in America, Britain, and Spain etc. come from an Imperialistic rhetoric which seeks to "conquer the infidel". This is different to, say, Northern Ireland where most people will prefer to give up violence when their living conditions improve. If you improve the living conditions of peoples in the Middle East the Islamists will fight harder.

As far as opposing enemies ideologically, that's not really true. Most wars are fought over material resources.

Irronically True.... as they always think every of the western "donations and aid", are "tribute" mentioned in qur'an.... every fanatics here always think about that... :skull:

[gaelic cowboy]

What material do we have that Bin Laden wants? Why is he waging war against the West?

Well my own guess is from whats mentioned in the video and by Bin Laden himself he was basically telling the west to get out or else. After all we can see first comes the so called occupation of the Holy Place(Saudi Arabia) after the first gulf war then comes the declaration of the universal caliphate not the other way round.

[gaelic cowboy]

Irronically True.... as they always think every of the western "donations and aid", are "tribute" mentioned in qur'an.... every fanatics here always think about that... :skull:

Who told you that????? thats pure rubbish if aid was seen as tribute they would hardly go around killing and kidnapping aid workers now would they

[KukriKhan]

At least Mr. Pape's analysis provides a comprehensible motivation that, if correct, possibly suggests different, more productive "ways out". The trouble with the "crazy Islamist" theory of 'know your enemy' is that it was either un-actionable, or doomed to a lifetime's-long struggle to win; a direction it seemed more and more to me, we were headed.

OTOH, we must be careful to examine any end-game theories based on this motivational model, to be sure it isn't just wishful thinking driving our conclusions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Who told you that????? thats pure rubbish if aid was seen as tribute they would hardly go around killing and kidnapping aid workers now would they

Regrettably, foreign aid is all to often a way for the leadership cadre of a given state to feather their own personal nests; often therefore is connected with the corrupt powers that be (and therefore condemned with them); carries the implicit "we're better off than you are you poor pathetic souls" attitude that so many find galling; and actually provides some help to people in need.

Foreign Aid has purchased so much good will for the USA around the world over the last half century...er...strike that.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A few quick thoughts:


- Pape analysed all suicide terrorist attacks. (Did he?)
He did not analyse all those who wish to compel a democracy to remove combat forces from territory. I think we've yet to witness the first Argentinian blowing himself up for the Falklands.

Even so, just because most territorial demand does not know suicide teror, does not mean that suicide terror is not about territorial demand.


- Maybe a suicide terrorist attack only gets qualified as such if it is accompanied by some understood - if even unspoken - demand.


- Maybe private frustration, anger can find a 'meaningful' outlet in suicide terror in societies where there is a lingering grievance. Lots of people want to hate a group, want to 'shoot them all, that'll teach 'em'. I still think the suicide bomber is often close to the Western school shooter or 'man kills everybody at his office / home, then slains himself' type. These last two do not have a ready noble cause in which to cast their action.


- The thing with suicide terrorism, as contrasted to other terrorism, is that the perpetrator must have a group identity. One is by definition never a martyr for a particularistic cause. This explains why suicide terror is linked with, limited to, religion, nationhood or equally strongly felt group identities. Next to a shared identity, there must also be a common gain.
Some religions have a closer connection between teritorial demands and religious identity thanh others.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's an interesting point.

In purely methodological terms, he doesn't have enough of an n to assert that this factor is the dominant factor in decision-making in such instances. This is understandable, of course, as most of the population in this data-set is not readily available for research.

However, his point seems an interesting one. I have no doubt that territorialism is part of the motivation factors at play here. I strongly suspect, however, that it is only part of the set of factors (albeit his point that it is all too often a incorrectly dismissed is valid) at play in someone making such a choice.

I do think there is a cultural sense of the value of life at play here as well. In the West, we are taught that each individual matters. This does not obviate suicide attacks, nor suicidal/near suicidal efforts in certain circumstances -- and we usually pin medals on them. Nevertheless, we simply do not come from a culture where the worth of the individual is sublimated to that of the collective to the extent that I believe obtains here.

[KukriKhan]

Wow, invading their countries make them angry. Who'd have thunk it?

He's actually an advocate of "shock and awe" type air power, when it's accompanied by speedy land attack. I think what he is saying is staying in a country, once it has been militarily defeated, engenders or inspires suicidal martyrdom attacks by non-military occupants of that country, and their sympathizers.

My objection to his thrust is that it leads to the conclusion "Staying here just makes it worse... Just leave". I'll vote for that action when it's proved to be the ONLY recourse.

[miotas]

He's actually an advocate of "shock and awe" type air power, when it's accompanied by speedy land attack. I think what he is saying is staying in a country, once it has been militarily defeated, engenders or inspires suicidal martyrdom attacks by non-military occupants of that country, and their sympathizers.

Soooo, when they're naughty, instead of taking their toys away, you just give them a smack?

[Hax]

The attacks in America, Britain, and Spain etc. come from an Imperialistic rhetoric which seeks to "conquer the infidel".

There is zero basis for this in the Qur'an.

"Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error"

"He said, `O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me' I said, `No.' He said, `If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.' So I went back and did not fight.''' `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "It is as Allah has stated,"


I'm just saying this so that it may become obvious that there is no religious argument, just a political argument.

[al Roumi]

Guys, terrorism is a tactic. Not a damn ideology. If we can get past that and why some might see how anyone who kills civilians is a terrorist, then perhaps we can talk ideology and motivations more rationaly.

Terrorism is a tool of the weak, as guerrila warfare is the tool of the occupied. If Al-Qaida had a standing army at its disposal, I think it would use it rather than bomb plots. Bomb plots are a power magnifier, they don't usually do much serious damage in the way that an army can (scale) but they hit an enemy where they are weakest with a disproportionate impact.

[Fragony]

There is zero basis for this in the Qur'an.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.

Qur'an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.

Qur'an (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Qur'an (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but it also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).

Qur'an (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured and retreating enemy is not an act of self-defense.

Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Qur'an (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah."

Qur'an (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Qur'an (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Qur'an (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.

Qur'an (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Qur'an (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Qur'an (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Qur'an (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Qur'an (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Qur'an (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Qur'an (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Qur'an (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Qur'an (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

Qur'an (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

Qur'an (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?

Qur'an (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.

Qur'an (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed!

Qur'an (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Qur'an (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah

Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq: 990 - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern custom, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.


[b-b-b-b-b but teh Bible] <- insert leftist reflex here

did it for ya

[al Roumi]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The Qur'an: ...

[b-b-b-b-b but teh Bible] <- insert leftist reflex here

did it for ya

Well... in the same way as Christians are meant to turn the other cheek and don't, Muslims are meant to be warlike and aren't. Thank you Fragony, this is great as it shows that religion is not the centre of this debate.

[Hax]

[b-b-b-b-b but teh Bible] <- insert leftist reflex here

This is not about the Bible. If you want to find violence in religion, sure; the Kalachakra Sutra also refers to fighting, which is a Buddhist text. So what?

The verses you quoted refer to historical circumstances where the Muslims were attacked. They are not a ticket for every Muslim to kill people.

Read the Qur'an. I can get quotes from Harry Potter that condone the murder of people who don't share the same vision as you do. That doesn't mean the entire book is evil and a plague upon humanity.

[KukriKhan]

Just for fun, HERE (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?46933-What-Is-The-1-Contributing-Factor-That-Leads-To-Muslim-Terrorism) is a link to our discussion in 2005 about the same topic.

[al Roumi]

Just for fun, HERE (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?46933-What-Is-The-1-Contributing-Factor-That-Leads-To-Muslim-Terrorism) is a link to our discussion in 2005 about the same topic.

18% say Islam? Amazing to think people are still so ill-informed. To be fair, fracturing the reasons as the poll did is unhelpful as well over half of them do make up part of a fairly convincing narrative that Muslims are at once oppressed and exploited in their countries, whilst the West (self servingly) perpetuates the status-quo. Which, afaik, is Al Qaida's line.

For those who might like to know more, i'd strongly recomend this book (http://www.amazon.com/What-Terrorists-Want-Understanding-Containing/dp/1400064813)by Louise Richardson: "What terrorists want".

[Fragony]

The verses you quoted refer to historical circumstances where the Muslims were attacked. They are not a ticket for every Muslim to kill people.

Nope, by the time it was written the muslims were fighting an offensive campaign.

there's more

Ishaq:208 "When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances."
Ishaq:472 "Muhammad's Companions are the best in war."
Qur'an:8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
Qur'an:8:12 "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'"
Qur'an:8:15 "Believers, when you meet unbelieving infidels in battle while you are marching for war, never turn your backs to them. If any turns his back on such a day, unless it be in a stratagem of war, a maneuver to rally his side, he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge!"
Qur'an:8:39 "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam."
Qur'an:8:45 "O believers! When you meet an army, be firm, and think of Allah's Name much; that you may prosper."
Qur'an:8:57 "If you meet them in battle, inflict on them such a defeat as would be a lesson for those who come after them, that they may be warned."
Qur'an:8:58 "If you apprehend treachery from any group on the part of a people (with whom you have a treaty), retaliate by breaking off (relations) with them. The infidels should not think that they can bypass (the law or punishment of Allah). Surely they cannot get away." [Another translation reads:] "The unbelieving infidels should not think that they can bypass Islam; surely they cannot escape."
Qur'an:8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."
Qur'an:8:60 "And make ready against the infidels all of the power you can, including steeds of war [the Noble Qur'an says these are: tanks, planes, missiles, and artillery] to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy. And whatever you spend in Allah's Cause shall be repaid unto you." [Another translation reads:] "Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah's Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you."
Qur'an:8:71 "He will give you mastery over them."
Ishaq:204 "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'"
Ishaq:471 "We are steadfast trusting Him. We have a Prophet by whom we will conquer all men."
Qur'an:4:77 "Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?"
Qur'an:4:71 "Believers, take precautions and advance in detachments or go (on expeditions) together in one troop.'"
Ishaq:322 "Allah said, 'Do not turn away from Muhammad when he is speaking to you. Do not contradict his orders. And do not be a hypocrite, one who pretends to be obedient to him and then disobeys him. Those who do so will receive My vengeance. You must respond to the Apostle when he summons you to war."
Ishaq:544 "Hassan incited the men, reciting: 'This is the time for war. Don't feel safe from us. Our swords will open the door to death.'"
Bukhari:V5B57N1 "Allah's Apostle said, 'A time will come when a group of Muslims will wage a Holy War and it will be said,"Is there anyone who has accompanied Allah's Apostle?" They will say, "Yes." And so victory will be bestowed on them.'"
Ishaq:574 "In faith I do not fear the army of fate. He gave us the blood of their best men to drink when we led our army against them. We are a great army with a pungent smell. And we attack continuously, wherever our enemy is found."
Qur'an:9:5 "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:67:20 "Who is he that will send an army to assist you besides Ar-Rahman?"
Tabari IX:115 "The military expeditions (Ghazawat) in which the Messenger personally participated were twenty-six. Some say there were twenty-seven."
Tabari IX:118 "The armies and raiding parties sent by the Messenger of Allah between the time he came to Medina and his death (ten years) was forty-eight."
Qur'an:48:15 "Those who lagged behind (will say), when you marched forth to capture booty in war: 'Permit us to follow you.'"
Qur'an:47:20 "Those who believe say, 'How is it that no surah was sent down (for us)?' But when a categorical [definite or uncompromising] surah is revealed, and fighting and war (Jihad, holy fighting in Allah's Cause) are ordained, you will see those with diseased hearts looking at you (Muhammad) fainting unto death. Therefore woe to them!"
Tabari VIII:159 "The people began to throw dust at the army, saying, 'You retreating runaways. You fled in the Cause of Allah!' But the Messenger said, 'They are not fleers. Allah willing, they are ones who will return to fight another day."
Qur'an:9:25 "Assuredly, Allah did give you victory on many battlefields.... Allah did send down His forces (angels) which you saw not. He punished the Infidels. Such is their reward."
Qur'an:9:41 "March forth (equipped) with light or heavy arms. Strive with your goods and your lives in the Cause of Allah. That is best for you."
Ishaq:548 "The squadrons of the Messenger, composed of Emigrants and Ansar in iron armor with only their eyes visible, passed by. His company had become great. Woe to you, none can withstand him. It was all due to his prophetic office."
Tabari IX:20 "The Messenger and his companions went directly to Ta'if. They encamped there for a fortnight, waging war. The townsfolk fought the Muslims from behind the fort. None came out in the open. All of the surrounding people surrendered and sent their delegations to the Prophet. After besieging Ta'if for twenty days, Muhammad left and halted at Ji'ranah where the captives of Hunayn were held with their women and children. It is alleged that those captives taken numbered six thousand with women and children."
Tabari VIII:176 "The Prophet sent out his army in divisions. Zubayr was in charge of the left wing. He was ordered to make an entry with his forces from Kuda. Sa'd was commanded to enter with forces by way of Kada. Allah's Apostle said, 'Today is a day for battle and war. Sanctuary is no more. Today the sacred territory is deemed profane [ungodly and sacrilegious].' When one of the Muhajirs [Emigrants] heard him say this, he warned the Apostle, 'It is to be feared that you would resort to violence.' The Prophet ordered Ali to go after him, to take the flag from him, and fight with it himself."
Tabari IX:8 "The Messenger marched with 2,000 Meccans and 10,000 of his Companions who had come with him to facilitate the conquest of Mecca. Thus there were 12,000 in all."
Bukhari:V5B59N320 "Allah's Apostle said, 'When your enemy comes near shoot at them but use your arrows sparingly (so that they are not wasted).'"
Ishaq:572 "Muhammad is the man, an Apostle of my Lord. Evil was the state of our enemy so they lost the day. Fortunes change and we came upon them like lions from the thickets. The armies of Allah came openly, flying at them in rage, so they could not get away. We destroyed them and forced them to surrender. In the former days there was no battle like this; their blood flowed freely. We slew them and left them in the dust. Those who escaped were choked with terror. A multitude of them were slain. This is Allah's war in which those who do not accept Islam will have no helper. War destroyed the tribe and fate the clan."
Ishaq:580 "We helped Allah's Apostle, angry on his account, with a thousand warriors. We carried his flag on the end of our lances. We were his helpers, protecting his banner in deadly combat. We dyed it with blood, for that was its color. We were the Prophet's right arm in Islam. We were his bodyguards before other troops served him. We helped him against his opponents. Allah richly rewarded that fine Prophet Muhammad."
Ishaq:583 "Since you have made Khalid chief of the army and promoted him, he has become a chief indeed, leading an army guided by Allah. Firmly clad in mail, warriors with lances leveled, we are a strong force not unlike a rushing torrent. We smite the wicked while we swear an oath to Muhammad...fighting in the quest of booty."
Ishaq:586 "Red blood flowed because of our rage."
Ishaq:587 "Ka'b reacted to the Apostle's decision. He said, 'We put an end to doubt at Khaybar. If our swords could have spoken, their blades would have said, "Give us Daus or Thaqif. We will tear off the roofs in Wajj. We will make homes desolate. Our cavalry will come upon you leaving behind a tangled mass. When we assault a town they sound a cry of alarm but our sharp cutting swords flash like lightning. By them we bring death to those who struggle against us. Flowing blood was mingled with saffron the morn the forces met. They were taken by surprise and we surrounded their walls with our troops. Our leader, the Prophet, was firm, steadfast, and full of wisdom. He was not frivolous nor light minded. We obey our Prophet and we obey a Lord who is Compassionate [Ar-Rahman]. We make you partners in peace and war. If you refuse we will fight you doggedly."
Ishaq:602 "The Apostle ordered Muslims to prepare for a military expedition so that he could raid the Byzantines."
Qur'an:47:4 "When you clash with unbelieving Infidels in battle, strike and overpower them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, make them prisoners in bondage until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded. He lets you fight in order to test you. Those who are slain in Allah's Cause will never have their deeds go to waste."
Qur'an:61:14 "O Muslims! Be helpers of Allah...We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they prevailed."
Ishaq:441 "A sharp sword in the hand of a brave man kills his adversary."
Muslim:C34B20N4669 "The Prophet said: 'He who equips a warrior in the Way of Allah is like one who actually fights and he who looks after the family of a warrior in the Allah's Cause in fact participated in the battle.'"
Muslim:52B20N4711 "I heard the Messenger delivering a sermon from the pulpit: 'Prepare to meet them with as much strength as you can afford. Beware, strength consists in archery. Beware, strength consists in archery. Beware, strength consists in archery.'"
Muslim:52B20N4712 "I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Lands shall be thrown open to you and Allah will suffice you against your enemies, but none of you should give up playing with his arrows.'"
Qur'an:100:1 "I call to witness the (cavalry steeds), the (snorting courses), that run breathing pantingly (rushing off to battle), striking sparks of fire, scouring to the raid at dawn, raising clouds of dust as they penetrate deep into the midst of a foe en masse."
Qur'an:21:44 "Do they see Us advancing, gradually reducing the land (in their control), curtailing its borders on all sides? It is they who will be overcome."
Ishaq:322 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who reject Me. So strike off their heads and cut off their fingers. All who oppose Me and My Prophet shall be punished severely."
Qur'an:13:41 "Do they not see Us advancing from all sides into the land (of the disbelievers), reducing its borders (by giving it to believers in war victories)?"
Qur'an:33:22 "When the faithful saw the retreating allied armies this enhanced their faith and obedience...Allah drove the infidels back in their fury so that their resistance was futile."
Ishaq:404 "War has distracted me, but blame me not, 'tis my habit. Struggling with the burdens it imposes, I bear arms bestride my horse at a cavalry's gallop, running like a wild ass in the desert."
Ishaq:4503 "It is your folly to fight the Apostle, for Allah's army is bound to disgrace you. Leaders of the infidels, why did you not learn?"
Tabari VIII:12
Ishaq:451 "I have heard some stories about the digging of the trench in which there is an example of Allah justifying His Apostle and confirming his prophetic office. For example, Muhammad spat on a rock, sprinkled water on it, and it crumbled. Then the Apostle said, 'I struck the first blow and what you saw flash out was that Iraq and Persia would see dog's teeth. Gabriel informed me that my nation would be victorious over them. Then I struck my second blow, and what flashed out was for the pale men in the land of the Byzantines to be bitten by the dog's teeth. Gabriel informed me that my nation would be victorious over them. Then I struck my third blow and Gabriel told me that my nation would be victorious over Yemen. Rejoice, victory shall come. This increased the Muslims faith and submission."
Tabari VIII:13 "These cities were conquered in the time of Umar, Uthman, and others, Muslims used to say, 'Conquer for yourselves whatever seems good to you; for by Allah you have conquered no city but that Muhammad was given its keys beforehand.'"
Ishaq:475 "Allah commanded that horses should be kept for His enemy in the fight so they might vex them. We obeyed our Prophet's orders when he called us to war. When he called for violent efforts we made them. The Prophet's command is obeyed for he is truly believed. He will give us victory, glory, and a life of ease. Those who call Muhammad a liar disbelieve and go astray. They attacked our religion and would not submit."
Ishaq:489 "War is kindled by passing winds. Our swords glitter, cutting through pugnacious heads. Allah puts obstacles in our victims' way to protect His sacred property and our dignity."
Qur'an:24:55 "Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good work that He will make them rulers of the earth. He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them."
Ishaq:594 "The Apostle gave gifts to those whose hearts were to be won over, notably the chiefs of the army, to win them and through them the people."
Qur'an:5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption, making mischief in the land [those who refuse to surrender to Islam] is murder, execution, crucifixion, the cutting off of hands and feet on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. That is their degradation and disgrace in this world. And a great torment of an awful doom awaits them in the hereafter. Except for those who repent (and become Muslims) before you overpower them and they fall into your control."

[Hax]

Nope, by the time it was written the muslims were fighting an offensive campaign.

Then explain the fact that the killing of Ahl al-Kitab is a crime in Sharia?

[Lemur]

In fairness, that earlier thread was discussing the source of Islamist terrorism. The speech linked at the beginning of this thread is about the roots of suicide terrorism, which is not even slightly restricted to Islamists. So, informative, but not parallel.

P.S.: Frag, do you have an opinion on the the OP, or is it your intent to turn this into another Fragony-declares-Islam-the-root-of-all-evil thread?

[Cute Wolf]

The problem is just this thing... the suicide bombing was the most efficient method on bombing... if we count the resulting fatality, compared with the loss of the perpetator....
And they can doing it while infiltrating, and more importantly, they don't require extraction.....

According to the Jamaah Islamiyah's method of terrorism, they are fairly rare, but prized for their "shock" values... Yeah, outside of Islamic terrorists, historically, certain small nation that was recently rebelled from mine also employ suicide bombing, even if they are Catholics...

[Fragony]

How can you have this discussion without the Islam? It's impossible to deny the numbers he brings up, but there are different types of terrorism, he only looks into suicide attacks. To say that there is no religious motivation when looking at terrorism as a whole is being delusional.

P.S.: Frag, do you have an opinion on the the OP, or is it your intent to turn this into another Fragony-declares-Islam-the-root-of-all-evil thread?

yeahyeah

Then explain the fact that the killing of Ahl al-Kitab is a crime in Sharia?

I have absolutely no idea. Should I?

[al Roumi]

How can you have this discussion without the Islam? It's impossible to deny the numbers he brings up, but there are different types of terrorism, he only looks into suicide attacks. To say that there is no religious motivation when looking at terrorism as a whole is being delusional.

P.S.: Frag, do you have an opinion on the the OP, or is it your intent to turn this into another Fragony-declares-Islam-the-root-of-all-evil thread?

yeahyeah

Then explain the fact that the killing of Ahl al-Kitab is a crime in Sharia?

I have absolutely no idea. Should I?

Starting to look like a Troll...

[Fragony]

Troll.

Not my intention, we are discussing that there might be more to suicide bombings, I am being perfectly on-topic.

There is zero basis for this in the Qur'an.

^- biggest joke of the century. Simply not true. What Lemur posted is impossible to refute, but it's just one small aspect of a much bigger thing.

[Hax]

Allow me rephrase:

There is no basis in the Qur'an for the murder of innocent people. Which is what terrorism is, isn't it?

[Cute Wolf]

Allow me rephrase:

There is no basis in the Qur'an for the murder of innocent people. Which is what terrorism is, isn't it?

Actually the phrases on the Qur'an is as it has been written... they call for killing "Kaffir" when they are strong... but everyone must look to their background and hidden meaning of these words....

Oh yeah, and Qur'an treats everyone who doesn't believe in their faith as "infidel", and thereby NOT AN INNOCENT... Come on Hax... you never experience real fanatical muslims threatening your life, don't you... :wink:

[Lemur]

How can you have this discussion without the Islam? It's impossible to deny the numbers he brings up, but there are different types of terrorism, he only looks into suicide attacks. To say that there is no religious motivation when looking at terrorism as a whole is being delusional.
Epic reading/listening comprehension fail.

Allow me to isolate a relevant sentence, to minimize the chance of you misinterpreting it:


Before 2003, the largest perpetrator of suicide terrorism was the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist group. It's also used by the PKK, a Kurdish/Marxist terror outfit. Suicide terrorism is popular, Pape argues, because it is lethally effective.

This doesn't mean that terrorists don't despise Western values or don't, in their minds, hope to restore Islamic rule, it just means that those things don't matter nearly as much as is presumed and don't figure centrally into the history of suicide violence.

[al Roumi]

Actually the phrases on the Qur'an is as it has been written... they call for killing "Kaffir" when they are strong... but everyone must look to their background and hidden meaning of these words....

Oh yeah, and Qur'an treats everyone who doesn't believe in their faith as "infidel", and thereby NOT AN INNOCENT... Come on Hax... you never experience real fanatical muslims threatening your life, don't you... :wink:

Wrong, the Qur'an has a special place for "other people of the book": Jews and Christians, unlike polytheists and the other types of (non-monotheist) religions which existed on the Arabian peninsula in Muhamad's time.

[Fragony]

Allow me rephrase:

There is no basis in the Qur'an for the murder of innocent people. Which is what terrorism is, isn't it?

Depends on what they percieve to be a crime, not believing in Allah is a crime.

[al Roumi]

Epic reading/listening comprehension fail.

Allow me to isolate a relevant sentence, to minimize the chance of you misinterpreting it:


Before 2003, the largest perpetrator of suicide terrorism was the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist group. It's also used by the PKK, a Kurdish/Marxist terror outfit. Suicide terrorism is popular, Pape argues, because it is lethally effective.

This doesn't mean that terrorists don't despise Western values or don't, in their minds, hope to restore Islamic rule, it just means that those things don't matter nearly as much as is presumed and don't figure centrally into the history of suicide violence.

Can I just point out that neither the Provisional IRA or ETA included anything to do with Islam in their agenda? yet they use terrorism...

[Hax]

Depends on what they percieve to be a crime, not believing in Allah is a crime.

*sigh* again: "There is no compulsion in religion, Truth stands out clear from error."



Actually the phrases on the Qur'an is as it has been written... they call for killing "Kaffir" when they are strong...

This is based on the fact that Muhammed and his companions were threatened by the pagans of Mecca. This has very little to do with how Muslims nowadays should treat non-believers.


Wrong, the Qur'an has a special place for "other people of the book": Jews and Christians, unlike polytheists and the other types of (non-monotheist) religions which existed on the Arabian peninsula in Muhamad's time.

Which, in countries like Iran is extended to Zoroastrians, and in India to Hindus. In Samarkand, Hindus, Buddhist, Zoroastrians, Jews and Nestorian Christians lived together in peace. It's not impossible, people.


Come on Hax... you never experience real fanatical muslims threatening your life, don't you...

No, that's pretty normal. I've never once been threatened by Muslims, not here and not in Islamic countries.

[al Roumi]

Depends on what they percieve to be a crime, not believing in Allah is a crime.

As ever Fragony, you only remember what you want to. Look at this (http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/violentextremism/alqaida/), from a UK teaching website (of all things!), now this has obviously passed through the UK government's interpretation, but it's not like finding the root source would be a good idea on this.

Al Qaida strongly opposes western influences and ideas that it regards as 'un-Islamic'. Notably, it is explicitly opposed to democratic principles. It claims that democracy is a rival 'religion' and that principles such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion are equivalent to apostasy, punishable by death. Al Qaida's opposition to 'un-Islamic' ideas extends to condemnation of Muslim religious practices of which they disapprove. In particular, Al Qaida supports a narrow interpretation of Sunnism, the largest denomination of Islam, and is violently opposed to other Islamic denominations which it regards as 'infidel', as well as to Sunni Muslims whom it regards as insufficiently pious

Please don't make me point out to you again that this is Al-Qaida and not all Muslims Fragony.

[Fragony]

Hax yu take out one I take out hundreds. There is this dualism to Islam in it's historical context. There is the Mohammed of Mekka, the patient and spiritual leader, and there is the Mohammed of Medina, who is a cruel and savage warlord. Focus all you want on the first, but that doesn't make the latter just disappear. they are both aspects of the Islam. You can clearly read (did you actually read it?) how he reacted when he wasn't welcomed as the next messias. Some say Hitler went nuts when he was rejected from arts-school.

Please don't make me point out to you again that this is Al-Qaida and not all Muslims Fragony.

Please don't let me point out that I am not an idiot and very much aware of that.

[al Roumi]

Hax yu take out one I take out hundreds. There is this dualism to Islam in it's historical context. There is the Mohammed of Mekka, the patient and spiritual leader, and there is the Mohammed of Medina, who is a cruel and savage warlord. Focus all you want on the first, but that doesn't make the latter just disappear. they are both aspects of the Islam. You can clearly read (did you actually read it?) how he reacted when he wasn't welcomed as the next messias. Some say Hitler went nuts when he was rejected from arts-school.

Please don't make me point out to you again that this is Al-Qaida and not all Muslims Fragony.

Please don't let me point out that I am not an idiot and very much aware of that.

Well, you have and do continue to fool me.

[Hax]

they are both aspects of the Islam.

"The" Islam doesn't exist.

You are way too concerned with this tiny minority which is widely rejected by the majority of Muslims and you use this minority to condemn the 99 percent who have no intention of opposing anyone whatsoever. Worse than that, you are advocating a view which places all the Middle Eastern countries on one line, half of whom despise eachother and act like they have some shared collective with other Islamic countries to take over the world.

Iran has actively assisted the Northern Alliance in bringing down the Taliban regime, and yet people like you go so far as to believe that they somehow share the same opinion. Do I need to recount Osama bin Laden's statements on Shi'ites? Do I need to recount what Mohammed Khatami said about terrorism? Do I need to cite Muhammed al-Qudri?


Stop. Behaving. Like. There. Is. A. Pan-Islamic. Collective.

[Fragony]

Well, you have and do continue to fool me.

Just wait until I start to dislike you.

Iran has actively assisted the Northern Alliance in bringing down the Taliban regime, and yet people like you go so far as to believe that they somehow share the same opinion.

That's what you say I say, but I never said it. There are many Islams, sunni, soefi, shiite being the mainstream ones, that isn't exactly new to me.

[Viking]

Allow me rephrase:

There is no basis in the Qur'an for the murder of innocent people. Which is what terrorism is, isn't it?

Still no "zero basis". There is a basis.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well yes there is “some” basis in the Qur'an for “killing people”. There would be; considering much of it is an ill-disguised “hagiography of the first Arabic hegemony” if you will. Way back when people weren't as concerned with the theological/legal implications of inserting a chronicle of a series of petty wars and raids in the canon.

That, however, does not mean that Muslim theology of today states you can *use* it as basis to justify a murder or terrorist attack or whatever. So assuming that you stick with current interpretations; the statement that there is no basis in Qur'an for terrorism of any sort is still very much valid. (Because what the Qur'an justifies or not is subject to change to the interpretation of its content as well as of how applicable said content is to present day/moral dilemma.)

EDIT 2: Notice how at least according to Al Qaeda and co (the videos cited/displayed in the OP video) Islamic theology is at best tangential to the justification of terrorism. Their reasoning is very much political.

[al Roumi]

How can you have this discussion without the Islam? It's impossible to deny the numbers he brings up, but there are different types of terrorism, he only looks into suicide attacks. To say that there is no religious motivation when looking at terrorism as a whole is being delusional.

I actually agree with you on this point: religion (Islam) does play a role in the actions of Al-Qaida, Hamas and other Muslims groups that use terrorism. What gets me riled/frustrated is that you focus on this one element to the apprarent exclusion of all others. Typically, a particular interpretation of religion (in this case Islam) offers a legitimisation for action which actually serves less theological goals -e.g. the ejection of American troops from the Arabian peninsula or the defeat of Israel. Motivation for actions does not come from Islam.

[Fragony]

What gets me riled/frustrated is that you focus on this one element to the apprarent exclusion of all others.

I don't, I am perfectly capable of making that distinction. And I hate having to explain that to intelligent people.

[al Roumi]

I don't, I am perfectly capable of making that distinction. And I hate having to explain that to intelligent people.

And yet you do only really mention Islam. Going through the basics with me might be a safer bet :)

[Viking]

That, however, does not mean that Muslim theology of today states you can *use* it as basis to justify a murder or terrorist attack or whatever. So assuming that you stick with current interpretations; the statement that there is no basis in Qur'an for terrorism of any sort is still very much valid. (Because what the Qur'an justifies or not is subject to change to the interpretation of its content as well as of how applicable said content is to present day/moral dilemma.)

I do not think this message was the one intended. As long as you got a holy book, you got basis for things.

[Fragony]

And yet you do only really mention Islam. Going through the basics with me might be a safer bet :)

Islam is the only one worth mentioning because it's the only one that is subject of leftist cultural relativation. When christians do strange things they laugh at it and sabotage whatever they can find, but when muslims want whatever they want whatever it takes our government will talk Are you islamic yourself, because you can rest assure that there is 0% hostility coming from here.

[Viking]

Islam is the only one worth mentioning because it's the only one that is subject of leftist cultural relativation. When christians do strange things they laugh at it and sabotage whatever they can find, but when muslims want whatever they want whatever it takes our government will talk Are you islamic yourself, because you can rest assure that there is 0% hostility coming from here.

I don't know what it is like to live in the Netherlands, but you have no authority to speak so broadly.

[al Roumi]

Are you islamic yourself, because you can rest assure that there is 0% hostility coming from here.

No, I'm what you might call a pedantic (atheist) Left-wing relativist. :)

If your problem is not with Muslims and Islam, then it might help to articulate that more clearly.

[Lemur]

Islam is the only one worth mentioning because it's the only one that is subject of leftist cultural relativation. When christians do strange things they laugh at it and sabotage whatever they can find, but when muslims want whatever they want whatever it takes our government will talk Are you islamic yourself, because you can rest assure that there is 0% hostility coming from here.
I've looked at these two sentences several times, and I still can't puzzle out that they mean. What is "relativation"? Can anybody diagram the following: "when muslims want whatever they want whatever it takes our government will talk"? It looks like a sentence, but it really isn't!

Frag, are you drunk?

[Fragony]

I don't know what it is like to live in the Netherlands, but you have no authority to speak so broadly.

Perfectly fine where I live. But yes I can absolutely speak broadly.

[Fragony]

I've looked at these two sentences several times, and I still can't puzzle out that they mean. What is "relativation"? Can anybody diagram the following: "when muslims want whatever they want whatever it takes our government will talk"? It looks like a sentence, but it really isn't!

Frag, are you drunk?

I guess it must be something I spelled wrong(ly) but you understood anyway. No I am not drunk, are you perfectly sure you aren't either.

[Lemur]

I guess it must be something I spelled wrong(ly) but you understood anyway.
Why would you assume that I understand? The second sentence could mean any number of things, and I haven't the foggiest of where you were going, besides "Islam is bad, mmkay?" I'm guessing that "relativation" is meant to be "relativism" with a 80% confidence of being correct.

[Viking]

Perfectly fine where I live. But yes I can absolutely speak broadly.

I thought that required knowledge rather than wild assumptions.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just for fun, HERE (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?46933-What-Is-The-1-Contributing-Factor-That-Leads-To-Muslim-Terrorism) is a link to our discussion in 2005 about the same topic.

Wow, talk about a blast from the past. Those were the good old days in the Backroom, to be sure. Very much enjoying reading myself from 5 years ago. I had a lot more passion and a lot less cynicism, to be sure. It is a bit melancholy remembering all those who have faded away, though. :shame:

[Meneldil]

Allow me rephrase:

There is no basis in the Qur'an for the murder of innocent people. Which is what terrorism is, isn't it?

Except that terrorists don't think their targets are innocent...

I don't want to sound like a troll, but what you think about the Qu'ran is highly irrelevant, as long as people justify terrorism with it. You can claim "the Qu'ran doesn't condone the murder of innocents" (which it does) as much as you want, but then what? What happens next? Since you're neither an authority among muslim scholars nor Al-Qaeda mastermind, your opinion, while respectable, is worthless.

Now, that's slightly OT, but why do you feel the need to defend islam whenever the topic pops up? It's the only religious that is even more reactionary, conservative, violent, untolerant and totalitarian than christianism. I mean, being worse than Christianism should be an achievement in itself. Yet the same people who - rightfully - bash christians whenever possible raise shields as soon as the buzzword Islam appears...

[Fragony]

Why would you assume that I understand? The second sentence could mean any number of things, and I haven't the foggiest of where you were going, besides "Islam is bad, mmkay?" I'm guessing that "relativation" is meant to be "relativism" with a 80% confidence of being correct.

Well it's pretty straightforward in a 'there is more to it and it is pretty hard to deny that there is a religious factor' kinda way. It was in English how did you not read it.

[Hax]

Because there is widespread anti-Islamice sentiment nowadays.

That and I won't stand aside and do nothing when people are harmed, verbally or physically.


Now, that's slightly OT, but why do you feel the need to defend islam whenever the topic pops up?

Because Islam is being blamed by some people for the actions of a few lunatics. That, and the fact that I wager that I know more about Islam in both historical and theological contexts than most other people do on this forum.

[Fragony]

Cool, gimme that defensive war, historically speaking.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Most Muslims are normal tolerant people. Literal Islam is not a tolerant or peaceful religion. But as with Christianity, people pick and choose so it's all good.

[ajaxfetish]

Can anybody diagram the following: "when muslims want whatever they want whatever it takes our government will talk"? It looks like a sentence, but it really isn't!
Well, I'll give it a crack. It is fairly opaque, but I like a good challenge. I'm going to assume that 'when muslims want whatever they want' is an adjunct with an adverbial role, setting up the conditions under which the main clause verb operates. I'll assume also that 'whatever it takes' is another adjunct, expressing the limitless nature of the main clause verb. This leaves 'our government will talk' as the main clause. I'm assuming this means something along the lines of our government is willing to negotiate or adapt. The overall meaning could then be roughly paraphrased as 'whenever Muslims want something (whatever it happens to be that Muslims want), our government is willing to accommodate them, no matter what it takes to do so.' I think this meaning is in line with the usual kinds of statements Fragony makes, so I consider it a reasonably likely meaning. I think at least part of what makes the sentence difficult to comprehend is the two left adjuncts in a row before you even get to the main clause. Here's a rough attempt at a diagram.

https://i336.photobucket.com/albums/n337/ajaxfetish/FragonySentenceDiagram.jpg

Ajax

[Louis VI the Fat]

Genius, awesome and downright hysterical. :bow:



Brevity is an artform:

'My government accomodates any Muslim demand'.

[Hax]

Cool, gimme that defensive war, historically speaking.

Fine.

"[...]this seems to have marked the end of the period when Muhammad's activities had b een tolerated, and his followers now found themselves under increasing pressure. This mostly took the form of ostracism, verbal attacks, commercial santcions and, in the case of lower-class Muslims of actual physical violence. Against this background a number of Muslims left Mecca to settle in Ethiopia, probably in 615, where they enjoyed the protection of the Christian ruler." - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.32

"Muhammad, with a much smaller force of 857 muhajirun, and 230 Ansar, was waiting for them [the relief force] for them by the wells at Badr" - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.35

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fine.

"[...]this seems to have marked the end of the period when Muhammad's activities had b een tolerated, and his followers now found themselves under increasing pressure. This mostly took the form of ostracism, verbal attacks, commercial santcions and, in the case of lower-class Muslims of actual physical violence. Against this background a number of Muslims left Mecca to settle in Ethiopia, probably in 615, where they enjoyed the protection of the Christian ruler." - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.32

"Muhammad, with a much smaller force of 857 muhajirun, and 230 Ansar, was waiting for them [the relief force] for them by the wells at Badr" - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.35

Might this be after the period when the Muslims had begun to expand militaristically. Oh, and what happened to Ethiopia?

Islam is a religion whose scriptural narrative is one of conquest, that makes it quite difficult to bit the religion into a culturally subserviant place; which is where it has been for at least 400 years.

[Fragony]

Fine.

"[...]this seems to have marked the end of the period when Muhammad's activities had b een tolerated, and his followers now found themselves under increasing pressure. This mostly took the form of ostracism, verbal attacks, commercial santcions and, in the case of lower-class Muslims of actual physical violence. Against this background a number of Muslims left Mecca to settle in Ethiopia, probably in 615, where they enjoyed the protection of the Christian ruler." - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.32

"Muhammad, with a much smaller force of 857 muhajirun, and 230 Ansar, was waiting for them [the relief force] for them by the wells at Badr" - The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, p.35

Are you really sure this is your argument

[Hax]

This is an argument I'm not the least interested in; as any historical observations are cast aside by political agendas; it's a bit like the crazy Romanian nationalists who insist that they are somehow descended from the Romans.

Alright; you are all debating on a different level. We're not talking about the condoning of warfare in Islam, but terrorism; horrible as they both are, I think we should distinct the two; we could otherwise suggest that all warfare is terrorism and vice versa.

About warfare in Islam, of course there is a basis for this in the Qur'an. Terrorism is something entirely different though. As demonstrated:


Do no betray or misappropriate any part of the booty; do not practice treachery or mutilation. Do not kill a young child, an old man, or a woman. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. You will meet people who have set themselves apart in hermitages; leave them to accomplish the purpose for which they have done this.

A quick glance at Wikipedia also turns up this:


The Hanafi school of thought holds that war can only be launched against a state that had resorted to armed conflict against the Muslims. War, according to the Hanafis, can't simply be made on the account of nation's religion

See, I bolded the important thingie!

I also advise you to read this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_Islam).

[Centurion1]

but they have roman in their anems that means something right?

:clown:

[The Wizard]

Might this be after the period when the Muslims had begun to expand militaristically. Oh, and what happened to Ethiopia?

Islam is a religion whose scriptural narrative is one of conquest, that makes it quite difficult to bit the religion into a culturally subserviant place; which is where it has been for at least 400 years.

To be fair, many Christians feel exactly the same about the past 40 years in Western society.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be fair, many Christians feel exactly the same about the past 40 years in Western society.

Which bit? I might agree, I might not.

[Centurion1]

To be fair, many Christians feel exactly the same about the past 40 years in Western society.

speak for yourself i regret nothing, ever. except the inquisition. but almost all religions have their bad points.

[Fragony]

@Hax, Abu Bakr is the first of the 5 'good caliphs', the descendants of Mohammed, has nothing to do with the Qu'ran.

[Cute Wolf]

Wrong, the Qur'an has a special place for "other people of the book": Jews and Christians, unlike polytheists and the other types of (non-monotheist) religions which existed on the Arabian peninsula in Muhamad's time.

I Know that... but in the practice, they always think that:
1) The Christians are worshipping 3 gods (they got very wrong interpretation on trinity), and their bible had been modified by men, so they are no more "people of the book"... because they reject one god.
2) Jews are... *soory no offense, you could found them on their website*.... liars, pigs,, and monkeys.... and god has abandoned them, and their rejection to the prophet's teaching made them "kaffir"

Yeah, and I know about that first hand.... just ask everybody that was my friend on facebook, as my former girlfriend was muslimah (Hax and Hooahguy, both of you are still tagged on my note when we've broken up and I get down, thx for your support that time BTW... so don't confuse her with my current girl...), and we did going along well at the start, but when the fanatics start harassing us.... yeah... and everything is accumulated when a she got threatening blackmail... and her parents *sigh*, eventually told her that she must sever all ties with me, or she won't be accepted as family again..... :wall: --> from that time, you can look that my viewpoint towards them was changed....

And I also had a friend who was a former muslim, he got worse eperience with the fanatics when he was *still* a muslim... and for that very reason, now he become an atheist...

No, I don't say that muslims are bad.... there was fanatical muslims who literally translate their quran is the bad guys... and those moderate, always checked the background content and philoshopical meaning (instead of literal meaning) on the qur'an...

[Hax]

1) The Christians are worshipping 3 gods (they got very wrong interpretation on trinity), and their bible had been modified by men, so they are no more "people of the book"... because they reject one god.
2) Jews are... *soory no offense, you could found them on their website*.... liars, pigs,, and monkeys.... and god has abandoned them, and their rejection to the prophet's teaching made them "kaffir"

That's really funny.

1) The Iranian constitution (of all) protects Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians and maintains a free seat in Parliament reserved just for those three minorities. And Zoroastrians were not even included in the "original" Ahl ul-Kitab
2) I didn't know Islam had a website. You shouldn't pay attention to what a few nutjob Indonesians have to say, but rather analyse the position of Jews throughout Islamic history ..in which they weren't treated as eh.."liars pigs and monkeys", with a few exceptions. I can think of just one, at the moment.



@Hax, Abu Bakr is the first of the 5 'good caliphs', the descendants of Mohammed, has nothing to do with the Qu'ran.

Oh really?! I had no idea.

I think your statement is irrelevant, we were talking about Islamic views on terrorism here, not about the Qur'an.

[Fragony]

Oh really?! I had no idea.

I think your statement is irrelevant, we were talking about Islamic views on terrorism here, not about the Qur'an.

Tou said there is no basis for all that crap in the Qu'ran, and then you use a quote from Abu Bakr who has nothing to do with the Qu'ran. That, is epic fail. I know my stuff Haxie.

[Cute Wolf]

2) Jews are... *soory no offense, you could found them on their website*.... liars, pigs,, and monkeys.... and god has abandoned them, and their rejection to the prophet's teaching made them "kaffir"

That's really funny.

1) The Iranian constitution (of all) protects Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians and maintains a free seat in Parliament reserved just for those three minorities. And Zoroastrians were not even included in the "original" Ahl ul-Kitab
2) I didn't know Islam had a website. You shouldn't pay attention to what a few nutjob Indonesians have to say, but rather analyse the position of Jews throughout Islamic history ..in which they weren't treated as eh.."liars pigs and monkeys", with a few exceptions. I can think of just one, at the moment.




Oh really?! I had no idea.

I think your statement is irrelevant, we were talking about Islamic views on terrorism here, not about the Qur'an.

just translate this (I read the Indonesian version), and you'll see what's the point of what I talk.... they even treat "Syiah/Iranians" as Kaffir because they are following "As Sunnah Wal Jamaah"
www.arrahmah.com

EDIT: Wrong website...

[The Wizard]

Which bit? I might agree, I might not.

You mean of your post? The second line.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You mean of your post? The second line.

You mean this?

"Islam is a religion whose scriptural narrative is one of conquest, that makes it quite difficult to bit the religion into a culturally subserviant place; which is where it has been for at least 400 years."

Then you have misunderstood my point, Islam has a scriptural narrative of conquest. The story in the Koran is of a man who becomes a King/Warlord and subjugates the surrounding peoples with a divine mandate. There is no comprable nattative in Christianity. That story is about a carpenter's son who spends three years wandering from town to town preaching to the masses, mainly the poor astracised and dispossesed.

My point was that Christianity is designed to function under political and cultural presures, it flourished as such until it was taken up by Constantine. In fact, Christianity has a historical problem with being "in power", the priests etc. never quite know how to act when people actually start listening and giving them nice curches to preach in and nice houses to live in.

Islam has the opposite problem, it is a religion that understands how to be politically dominant and has trouble being subserviant.

[Don Corleone]

Perhaps this has been covered already, but since you've changed the skin of the forum, I'm finding it painful to read more than a page of posts. Sorry...

Nobody ever told me that Lower Manhatten belongs to the Saudis and the Yemenese. Guess those 19 guys knew something about land rights the rest of the world didn't.... assuming the point of the O.P. was correct in the first place.

[Don Corleone]

Oh right, my bad, it was a Haliburton missile cause steel will never melt, cause Rosie O'Donnell says so, and George Bush needed a war and Mossad cleared all Jews out of Manhatten that day and Dick Cheney needed to raise Haliburton's share price...

Right, my bad. Sorry about all that.

[Lemur]

Well, even if you have utter disdain and contempt for this entire thread of conversation, it's still nice to see you back, Don.

[Don Corleone]

Wrapping up my thesis and thought I needed to reintroduce myself in appropriate form. Glad to be back, thank you sir.

[Strike For The South]

The koran is a moot point. The main goal here is to weaken the west not spread Islam.

The book is the excuse not the catalyst

And Don when do you make it down the mason-dixon line again...Im still waiting on that cold one ~;)

[Meneldil]

Because Islam is being blamed by some people for the actions of a few lunatics. That, and the fact that I wager that I know more about Islam in both historical and theological contexts than most other people do on this forum.

Fine Hax. I'll make sure to send you a notice whenever a group is being blamed for the actions of a few lunatics.

As for myself, your whole knowledge about Islam seems to be the kind of knowledge we've been taught at school cause of PC policies: "Islam was a tolerant and open-minded religion", "Jews were better off living in Al-Andalus than in medieval France". All this is pretty much a big myth that has little historical reality.

That doesn't change the fact that Islam as a whole is an extremely conservative (and nowadays, reactionnary) religion, with a strong totalitarian aim. You simply can't support Islam on the first hand, and then support women or gay rights, or the separation of church and state on the other hand.

The whole reason why a part of the left keeps supporting islam is because islam is the current main opponent of the "western world" and of its flaws. Just like people supported Stalin because he was the leader of the Workers paradise, you support a deeply violent and untolerant religion, on the basis of "anti imperialism", "anti racism", anti colonialism" and "freedom to the people".

At least, communism pretended to be a progressive force, attempting to liberate men and women, to create equal rights for all. Islam has no such intention.

Edit: Glad to see you back Don.

[Fragony]

What the hell happened to you

[Cute Wolf]

Fine Hax. I'll make sure to send you a notice whenever a group is being blamed for the actions of a few lunatics.

As for myself, your whole knowledge about Islam seems to be the kind of knowledge we've been taught at school cause of PC policies: "Islam was a tolerant and open-minded religion", "Jews were better off living in Al-Andalus than in medieval France". All this is pretty much a big myth that has little historical reality.

That doesn't change the fact that Islam as a whole is an extremely conservative (and nowadays, reactionnary) religion, with a strong totalitarian aim. You simply can't support Islam on the first hand, and then support women or gay rights, or the separation of church and state on the other hand.

The whole reason why a part of the left keeps supporting islam is because islam is the current main opponent of the "western world" and of its flaws. Just like people supported Stalin because he was the leader of the Workers paradise, you support a deeply violent and untolerant religion, on the basis of "anti imperialism", "anti racism", anti colonialism" and "freedom to the people".

At least, communism pretended to be a progressive force, attempting to liberate men and women, to create equal rights for all. Islam has no such intention.

Edit: Glad to see you back Don.

Very well summary of the points.... if Hax still want to defend them, he should consider swapping place with me, I go to Netherland, and he going to Indonesia :grin:... no, no, not in a typical "urban" population, but try to experience "university" here, the breeding ground of anti-western, anti-jewish, anti-christian, and strict sharia law... as well as (considering he's a buddhist), daily scolding from some fanatics is inevitable everyday...

If you can endure that for 1 year (without either converting to islam or avoiding social contact at all), I will really appreciate you...

[Louis VI the Fat]

try to experience "university" here, the breeding ground of anti-western, anti-jewish, anti-christian, and strict sharia law... as well as (considering he's a buddhist), daily scolding from some fanatics is inevitable everyday...

If you can endure that for 1 year (without either converting to islam or avoiding social contact at all), I will really appreciate you...Ouch!


Can I send you some lefties? :laugh4:

[Cute Wolf]

Ouch!


Can I send you some lefties? :laugh4:

Yes, just sent them to my university, "Institut Tekhnologi Bandung", and made sure they not only socializing at the skin level, and had much time past their "initial warm welcome period" (approx 2 weeks)... after that, they'll experience some fanatics will try to convert them to their cause... :wink:

[Hax]

Fine Hax. I'll make sure to send you a notice whenever a group is being blamed for the actions of a few lunatics.

Excellent!


As for myself, your whole knowledge about Islam seems to be the kind of knowledge we've been taught at school cause of PC policies: "Islam was a tolerant and open-minded religion", "Jews were better off living in Al-Andalus than in medieval France". All this is pretty much a big myth that has little historical reality.

The kind of knowledge that is directly opposite to people like Edward Gibbon, perhaps, but while I concur that the kind of history that was taught at school is..lacking in its objectivity, it is not necessarily false. Incorrectly phrased, perhaps, but not necessarily incorrect. We have to realise that saying "Jews in Al-Andalus/Andalucia fared batter than Jews in Medieval France" is assuming that Jews in France had horrible lives, all the time. There are a number of things that we cannot deny, however.

- The standard of living in Al-Andalus under the Ummayads, the Almoravids, the Almohads and the Taïfa states was better than the standard of living in most parts(?) of Medieval France.
- Jews were generally not subject to discrimination from Muslims or Christians in Al-Andalus, apart from a few minor incidents.

The concerns of the European leaders were different from those of Muslim leaders at the time; when Tahir al-Sulami called for Jihad in the early eleventh century, he was largely ignored by his contemporary Muslims. Jews, non-Arabs and non-Muslims could also reach high positions within Islamic societies; we know ibn Musa or Ben Maimun, better known as Maimonides, who became the personal physician of Saladin Ayyubi, who was a Kurd, during the 12th century.

While Medieval Europe is not my strong point, anti-semitic sentiment was largely due to the wealth of the Jews, I believe. In the Islamic world this was much less of a problem, since everyone had to pay taxes; zakat being higher than jizya, generally. And to end with a quote by Ibn al-Arabi, a Muslim poet living in the twelfth century:

"My heart has been adopting manyfold appearances
It is the monastery for Christian monks, or the temple for idols, or the Ka'aba for the circle of Pilgrims
The tablets for the Tora or the pages for the Qur'an
But wherver the caravan may bend its steps
Love is my religion"


That doesn't change the fact that Islam as a whole is an extremely conservative (and nowadays, reactionnary) religion, with a strong totalitarian aim.

Islam as a whole doesn't exist, I hope that is quite clear. Shi'ites are generally known to be less conservative than mainstream Sunnites, and mainstream Sunnites are more liberal than Wahhabists. Sufis are sometimes regarded as heretics by the latter. So what is this Islam as a whole you speak of? It is quite unclear to me where the basic sentiment of all Muslims combined lie.

If we look at most Maghribi countries, Tunisia to Morrocco, we will notice a large liberal movement. The same goes for Iran, as we can see. While it does not go for everyone, I outright refuse to condemn moderate Muslims (which make up a huge part of the Muslim population; the vast majority is not even remotely interested in stabbing everyone who says "well I disagree".

As for this "totalitarian aim", I had a long discussion with my father (being a Muslim and all) about this, and he said that nothing is less true, basically. When a Muslim resides in one country, and another country attacks that one, it is a Muslim's duty to defend the country he lives in. Even if it comes under the attack of other Muslims. He said that the best thing you can do in such a situation, as a Muslim, is to make a decision based on common sense (which is something lacking with the conservative Iranian ayatollahs and the Wahhabi ascetics).


You simply can't support Islam on the first hand, and then support women or gay rights, or the separation of church and state on the other hand.

Interestingly, the first person to ever speak out against discrimination of women was a Muslim. We know him as Averroës, but his Arabic name was Ibn-Rushd. Of course, the position of gays is a whole lot more delicate, and the same goes largely for seperation of church and state, although I do think that most Muslims would just shrug when they hear that their nation is no longer there in God's name; something that most Americans do seem to have more trouble with, however.

While gay rights and the seperation of religion and state should be discussed, as often as possible, it is useless to do things as firing Tariq Ramadan or condemn all Muslims, basically saying they follow a backward and barbarous religion and regard a paedophile mass-murderer as a prophet. Do tell me, how does that solve anything? It's an irresponsible message with no value.


Also, the fact that Islam is somehow interchangeable with anti-western or anti-christian sentiment is pretty weird. It's based on a false assumption.

A: People in the Middle East dislike America
B: People in the Middle East are Muslims

C: Muslims dislike America.


The whole reason why a part of the left keeps supporting islam is because islam is the current main opponent of the "western world" and of its flaws. Just like people supported Stalin because he was the leader of the Workers paradise, you support a deeply violent and untolerant religion, on the basis of "anti imperialism", "anti racism", anti colonialism" and "freedom to the people".

I have no intention of defending abstract objects like "religions". I do have an intention which includes a right to happiness for all people, regardless of their religion.

As for Cute Wolf, one of our forum members whose knowledge of Islam goes no further than the ravings of some mad lunatics who probably can't even discern the exact meaning of the Takbeer, you mentioned it yourself:


try to experience "university" here, the breeding ground of anti-western, anti-jewish, anti-christian, and strict sharia law... as well as (considering he's a buddhist), daily scolding from some fanatics is inevitable everyday...

Some fanatics. Exactly. They do not represent the majority of Muslims.

[Cute Wolf]

first hand experience with them is worth more than a thousand words... *leaving Haxios in his defense, as he never face the real things about that*

[Hax]

first hand experience with them is worth more than a thousand words...

No, it's not. And it's not accepted when it comes to debating. Personal experience does not constitute truth.

[drone]

Perhaps this has been covered already, but since you've changed the skin of the forum, I'm finding it painful to read more than a page of posts. Sorry...Good to see you back Don. :bow: You Are you blinded by the new Guild skin, or the default blue/white of the upgrade?

Edit-> Good discussion. Hax seems to be exactly what Frags is against in the Netherlands. It's like Peter and the Chicken. :yes:

[Fragony]

As for Cute Wolf, one of our forum members whose knowledge of Islam goes no further than the ravings of some mad lunatics who probably can't even discern the exact meaning of the Takbeer, you mentioned it yourself

At least I use quotes that are actually in the Qu'ran, the holy book for all muslims, instead of the musings of an individual. How did I know that really, maybe I know what I am talking about after all.

So does Hans Janssen http://www.bol.com/nl/p/nederlandse-boeken/islam-voor-varkens-apen-ezels-en-andere-beesten/1001004005964403/index.html#product_description

translation 'Islam for pigs, monkey's, donkeys and other animals'

[Cute Wolf]

No, it's not. And it's not accepted when it comes to debating. Personal experience does not constitute truth.

When you debating with purely theoritical sources, you should know that in the real life, the truth is really different :wink:

[Hax]

When you debating with purely theoritical sources, you should know that in the real life, the truth is really different

Yes, and I think this clearly shows, as the vast majority of Muslims I have encountered in my life are not the least interested in converting other people. You mentioned fanatics; but you should realise this constitutes only a small part of the Muslim population.

[Cute Wolf]

Yes, and I think this clearly shows, as the vast majority of Muslims I have encountered in my life are not the least interested in converting other people. You mentioned fanatics; but you should realise this constitutes only a small part of the Muslim population.

yeah, and in Netherland they are still a minority... imagine a place when they are almost everywhere, and generally had some kind of social grudge against another religion... truth to be told, muslims are pretty docile when they are few, but will demand for more if they are huge...

BTW: well, you should consider my offer to swap our place :grin:

EDIT:
if you can't take tropical climate, you could look on my friend's list, take a look at the lists and count how many of them wearing hijab :grin: another orgah (romaioktonoi one), once even said that he can't believe that my univ friends are mostly hardliners having seen the evidence (count how many of them are the fan of hardline movements)... and don't forget that one of my friends was allready an ex-muslim, who suffer significant abuse when he was still one of them... yeah, you could always argue that the fanatics doesn't represent the entire religion... but they always influencing them as whole....

[Meneldil]

Hax, I respect your fight against discrimination and racism. I trully mean it.

But in your wish to support "oppressed people" (in this case, muslims), you're not seeing the whole picture. What I see is that, no matter how much you try to distort the fact, Islam is an intrusive religion, that leaves no room for freedom of opinion or freedom of thought, that abuses women, that is profoundly intolerant and violent. It is also totalitarian because it's not willing to admit that there's a public sphere different and independant from the religious sphere.

Of course, if we look at the bigger picture, it's not that different from 19th century catholicism. But while the European left and progressive movement fought catholicism bitterly, a large part of the same left is now raising shields whenever Islam is criticized. While trying to fight racism, the left protects a religion that it would have despised seventy years ago, when the memory of intolerant catholicism was still vivid.

Maybe that's not your case, maybe you're simply defending Islam in good faith. But a large part of the european left now navigates in dangerous waters, precisely because they make the assumption that

A: People in the Middle East dislike America
B: People in the Middle East are Muslims
C: Muslims dislike America.
You can also add to that the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. I've been a member of the french youth socialist party for two years (only party I've joined so far, I'm 23) and left when I realized the only clear-cut international stance was to support Palestinians and to criticize Israel (which more often than not ended up in criticizing Jews rather than Israel). Mind you, I personnaly think that Israel is behaving like a colonial state regarding Palestine, but I don't think the one and only policy of young socialists should be to wave palestinian flags around and criticize Israel/the US.
And the further left you go, the more antisemitism and philo-islamism you hear usually. USSR flags have been replaced by Palestinian flags, Stalin has been replaced by Arafat, so on and so on.

We can argue about history endlessly (such as the way Jews lived under Almoravid or Almohad rule, which wasn't any better than how they lived in France or Germany), or about the theological backgrounds of Islam (I maintain that violence is rooted in Islam), but that's pretty much useless.
Fact is, Islam is not any better than Catholicism, and while Catholicism has been seen as a conservative and reactionnary force in Europe (and has subsequently been trampled into the ground, and is hopefully being kept in check nowadays), the same people who one century ago fought catholicism now run around supporting a religion that is just as bad.
Fact is, antisemitism violence is on the rise (again), censorship is on the rise, because the a large part of our political leaders forgot their values. This kind of things (http://www.ivyparisnews.com/2010/01/text-and-images-sarah-braaschrayhana-a-french-algerian-playwright-and-actress-was-attacked-last-week-in-front-of-the-thea.html) will keep happening as long as it's not clearly stated that militant islam is a danger, and that islam as a whole has no place in public society.

I still consider myself a leftist. I support women and gay right, I'm all for a fair distribution of wealth, for universal healthcare and for a strong welfare state. I oppose nationalism, chauvinism, unbridled capitalism, but I also oppose oppressive religions, and that includes (among other things) Islam.



Yes, and I think this clearly shows, as the vast majority of Muslims I have encountered in my life are not the least interested in converting other people. You mentioned fanatics; but you should realise this constitutes only a small part of the Muslim population.
Saddly, of all the muslims I know, all who stood up against the wrongs of Islam (women regarded as second rate citizens, violence, obscurantism) abandonned the religion altogether. They're also quite often the first ones to criticize it.
Even my moderate friends have stupid behaviors sometimes. One of my university best friend, who doesn't practice her religion, still asked her boyfriend to convert before marrying. Obviously, he refused, and they broke up. Arguably, she did it because her parents asked, but that doesn't make it any less stupid. This kind of thing has no place in Europe. People never should be required to convert to a religion to marry someone else. Note that if she had asked him to convert to catholicism, I'd find it just as unacceptable.

[al Roumi]

yeah, and in Netherland they are still a minority... imagine a place when they are almost everywhere, and generally had some kind of social grudge against another religion... truth to be told, muslims are pretty docile when they are few, but will demand for more if they are huge...

BTW: well, you should consider my offer to swap our place :grin:

Erm, beyond the slightly sinister undertones in what you say, don't you think that a majority requesting greater attention and rights is natural and indeed truly democratic??

EDIT: Isn't this discussion now rather wildly off topic? This thread is about the logic and strategy of suicide terrorism. Not Muslims, Islam or other religions.

If people feel the need to, they should open a seperate thread where the forumites' angst, ignorance and bigotry on Muslims and Islam can be pooled -lest it be passed off as anything else.

[Viking]

nvm

[Cute Wolf]

Erm, beyond the slightly sinister undertones in what you say, don't you think that a majority requesting greater attention and rights is natural and indeed truly democratic??

EDIT: Isn't this discussion now rather wildly off topic? This thread is about the logic and strategy of suicide terrorism. Not Muslims, Islam or other religions.

If people feel the need to, they should open a seperate thread where the forumites' angst, ignorance and bigotry on Muslims and Islam can be pooled -lest it be passed off as anything else.

Yeah, but they should know that their "rights" also means that they didn't violate other's rights... but apparently, they didn't know about that...

Did try to undermine democracy on the guise of "majority voice", and installing anew system which minority was opressed was a kind of democracy? :grin:
If you want some example how... "Irrational" that can be: (all happened here)
-> Try to Changing the constitution with Sharia, and clearly said that another religion will be second rate citizen is democratic? (NOTE : Utterly failed)
-> Try to ban Women run on presidency is democratic? (NOTE : Failed)
-> Try to Made Islamic religion compulsory on all students is democratic? (NOTE : Rejected)
-> Try to close down churches and temples is democratic? (NOTE : Rejected by govt, but this case even ends up with church and temple bombings)
-> Try to limit school acess for non muslims is democratic? (in Aceh, it happened!)
-> Try to force every women to wearing hijab is democratic? (NOTE : they speak about rights in Western worlds, but here, they didn't even considering another faith's rights)
-> Try to ban mixed religion marriage is democratic? (NOTE : Partially granted, but about a year revised and rejected)
-> Try to kill every ex muslim is democratic? (NOTE : Rejected, but in reality, every ex-muslim must be very2 cautious here, I know a lot of them)
-> And the last is personal, attacking my relation with a muslim girl on the ground of religion, and when I out-spoke them in public, start resort to blackmaill threatens... is democratic?

ADD:
-> Try to press Internet cencorship... (failed)
-> Try to relase the bali bombing prisoners (failed)
-> Try to made the gov't declares war on Israel (that was just happened 2 days ago, failed)

[Fragony]

Why don't you proof Cute Wolf wrong, is he lying? Is he making things up? What are you saying exactly? I know it's normal lefties start about angst and bigotry when they can't defend their position, Islam not violent? Islam doesn't call for violence against non-muslims? Read any of the quotes? Can you read them or does your worldview cause mental blockage? Suicide are only a small part of terrorism and as it seems they are not ideologically motivated, but again it's only a minor aspect. Murder plot on cartoonists, not ideologically motivated? Murder on van Gogh, not ideologically motivated? Outrage over a teddybear, not ideologically motivated? Murderplots on Ayaan Hirschi Ali and Salman Rushdie, not ideologically motivated? If you are just looking at suicide attacks you are cherry-picking.

[Cute Wolf]

Why don't you proof Cute Wolf wrong, is he lying? Is he making things up? What are you saying exactly? I know it's normal lefties start about angst and bigotry when they can't defend their position, Islam not violent? Islam doesn't call for violence against non-muslims? Read any of the quotes? Can you read them or does your worldview cause mental blockage? Suicide are only a small part of terrorism and as it seems they are not ideologically motivated, but again it's only a minor aspect. Murder plot on cartoonists, not ideologically motivated? Murder on van Gogh, not ideologically motivated? Outrage over a teddybear, not ideologically motivated? Murderplots on Ayaan Hirschi Ali and Salman Rushdie, not ideologically motivated? If you are just looking at suicide attacks you are cherry-picking.

Let me give one minor nitpick in tis... Islam is a religion of peace... when they know the philoshopical meaning written in their quran... and consider philoshopical archievement was more worthy than literal archievement... (who was the majority attitude for now, but the fanatics always try to impose literal meaning over philoshopical meaning, that's why we didn't have the WW3 yet) - I appreciate all of your action to defend them, but in fact, you spur the growth of terrorism in the guise of "tolerance".

CW - NOTE : that was the words of my muslimah ex-girlfriend, that said that so I won't hate her religion as a whole...

[Fragony]

I appreciate all of your action to defend them, but in fact, you spur the growth of terrorism in the guise of "tolerance".


^- that

[Hax]

Yeah, but they should know that their "rights" also means that they didn't violate other's rights... but apparently, they didn't know about that...

I hope you have outgrown this illusionary thought you have about democracy. The "rights" of one person often mean that the "rights" of another are infringed. This is why mutual responsibility is much more important than rights, which are an abstract concept.


Islam is a religion of peace... when they know the philoshopical meaning written in their quran... and consider philoshopical archievement was more worthy than literal archievement...

And I wager that way over ninety percent of the Muslims share your opinion.

The defense of Muslim people does not constitute the growth of terrorism. You should hear yourself talking, it's utterly disgusting; and it's actually the result of the mediacracy that we seem to live in nowadays. You prefer the death or deportation of thousands if not millions of citizens over dialogue with other people just for this illusion of safety. Nationalism has become useless in this era where one can reach the other end of the world within 24 hours. Even if we deport those people, would this stop anything? Your message is one that is completely useless as it immediately refuses to negotiate with anyone.


When a crazy Saudi imam says that the west is Satanic, everybody goes :daisy: insane, but when King Abdullah subsequently demotes this imam; nobody says a word.

When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadineajad says idiotic things about the Holocaust, the newspapers are full of them, but when the pragmatic Ali Akbar Rafsanjani or the liberal Mohammed Khatami or even the conservative Mohsen Rezaie go against his statements, nobody says a word.

When an Egyptian imam says that the use of Facebook is haram, everybody shouts "Islam is an intolerant religion", but when Ali al-Sistani calls upon women to vote in Iraq, where is the right wing gone?


Your constant violent attacks on "the left", Fragony, are based solely on the negative information you repeatedly hear in the media. When they want to ban christmas trees in the University of The Hague, how many Muslims do you think support that? Wait no, how many Muslims would actually care about that?

[Cute Wolf]

And the exact opposite is happened here, in the eastern part of the wolrd... when a Mosque was bombed, palestinians was killed, a cartoonist draw a pic of muhammad, veil and hijab was forbidden in western world... everyone here take a lot of outrage and demonstration.... and put the blame on the Christians and Jews...

But when the attack was confirmed from another "muslim factions", Palestinians rocketting Israeli school bus, the cartoonist ask for forgivement, and the western gov't give greater religious degree for a practice that even most muslim from birth hate to use because that was outdated.... they don't said any word....

That was just a matter of public opinion Hax... rather try to help the one who you think "opressed", but you are not included there... you should think of someone who actually had the "oppresion" and said about that...

[Fragony]

Your constant violent attacks on "the left", Fragony, are based solely on the negative information you repeatedly hear in the media. When they want to ban christmas trees in the University of The Hague, how many Muslims do you think support that? Wait no, how many Muslims would actually care about that?

What negative information, only De Telegraaf calls things by the name, and I don't read De Telegraaf. My constant (violent que?) attacks on the left are because of the unrelenting Islamphilae and pre-emptive clientism of the left. Christmas tree is a good example, see that is where my aversion for the left comes from, that down with us mentality, sooooo eager.

edit, we are deranging Lemur's thread now though, let's leave it at this

[al Roumi]

Let me give one minor nitpick in tis... Islam is a religion of peace... when they know the philoshopical meaning written in their quran... and consider philoshopical archievement was more worthy than literal archievement... (who was the majority attitude for now, but the fanatics always try to impose literal meaning over philoshopical meaning, that's why we didn't have the WW3 yet) - I appreciate all of your action to defend them, but in fact, you spur the growth of terrorism in the guise of "tolerance".

CW - NOTE : that was the words of my muslimah ex-girlfriend, that said that so I won't hate her religion as a whole...

This is the crux of this matter. Not all Muslims stand for the same thing, in the same way as not all Christians, aethiests or whatever else stand for the same thing.

Personaly, I have a big problem with the denial of equality for women and the favorisation of any group (religious or other) over another. So I deplore the instances where such has been attempted as you describe above. Similarly, I abhore the situation in Saudi on this matter.

Not all Muslims stand for these things, and those that do, I would have issue with. The problem is that there is a tendency to label the whole of Islam and all Muslims as intolerant fanatics -which they aren't!

Extremism and militancy are the problems, not a religion.

Labeling the whole of Islam and Muslims as terrorists actually plays into the hands of Al-Qaida -by rejecting and ignoring the non-extremist Muslims. It focuses more attention on Osama as the supposed voice of all Muslims -which is completely wrong. The more polarised views become, the more likely a conflict -intolerance breeds conflict.

[Lemur]

edit, we are deranging Lemur's thread now though, let's leave it at this
I appreciate the thought, Frag, but this thread is permanently derailed, and nothing's ever going to bring it back. Carry on.

[Cute Wolf]

This is the crux of this matter. Not all Muslims stand for the same thing, in the same way as not all Christians, aethiests or whatever else stand for the same thing.

Personaly, I have a big problem with the denial of equality for women and the favorisation of any group (religious or other) over another. So I deplore the instances where such has been attempted as you describe above. Similarly, I abhore the situation in Saudi on this matter.

Not all Muslims stand for these things, and those that do, I would have issue with. The problem is that there is a tendency to label the whole of Islam and all Muslims as intolerant fanatics -which they aren't!

Extremism and militancy are the problems, not a religion.

Labeling the whole of Islam and Muslims as terrorists actually plays into the hands of Al-Qaida -by rejecting and ignoring the non-extremist Muslims. It focuses more attention on Osama as the supposed voice of all Muslims -which is completely wrong. The more polarised views become, the more likely a conflict -intolerance breeds conflict.

But ironically, what Hax have done... will almost spur their growth, because they install some sense of security barrier in the western wolrd, by saying that quran doesn't order killing of kaffirs... and such denial of any harmful ideas...


My Translation From Ulil Abshar Abdalla (the president of Liberal Islamic Network of Indonesia) :

But the truth is just simple, quran did have the killing of infidels... but that was more for philoshopical tought, and you should inspect their "background story", before interpreting them towards today's live... and inspect ourself, what can we do to improve the wellness of others, wellness of our family, and the wellness of ourself?

[al Roumi]

But ironically, what Hax have done... will almost spur their growth, because they install some sense of security barrier in the western wolrd, by saying that quran doesn't order killing of kaffirs... and such denial of any harmful ideas...

Ha! Al-Qaida and other extremists are only too pleased to see people saying that the Qu'ran says it is Muslims' duty to kill non-believers -it's exactly what they go around saying themselves.

[Cute Wolf]

Ha! Al-Qaida and other extremists are only too pleased to see people saying that the Qu'ran says it is Muslims' duty to kill non-believers -it's exactly what they go around saying themselves.

I said that was really written, and they should interpret it philoshopically, not literally... and yes, radicals interpret that quite literally. You could always read it was written... or did you ignorant enough to ignore the real facts that it's textual proof had a lot of violence and hatred if we took LITERAL INTERPRETATION? I said LITERAL INTERPRETATION, but in actuality (and what moderate muslims said), the quran is meant to be learned on PHILOSHOPICAL INTERPRETATION...

[al Roumi]

I said that was really written, and they should interpret it philoshopically, not literally... and yes, radicals interpret that quite literally. You could always read it was written... or did you ignorant enough to ignore the real facts that it's textual proof had a lot of violence and hatred if we took LITERAL INTERPRETATION? I said LITERAL INTERPRETATION, but in actuality (and what moderate muslims said), the quran is meant to be learned on PHILOSHOPICAL INTERPRETATION...

Er, yes but only on every 3rd Friday? I'm not sure what you mean. I know the Qu'ran even says there can be only 1 religion on the Arabian peninsula, but that does not mean much to most Muslims these days -except Al-Qaida, as they want US troops (and the Saudi Royal family they are "protecting") out of Arabia.

This argument about what Islam stands for is almost over the body-politic of Muslims. Al-Qaida want faith in Islam to equate to their violent extremist beliefs, the more that view is promoted by everyone else (as well as by Al-Qaida themselves), the stronger Al-Qaida are.

The real problem is that there is no non-extremist rival of equivalence to Osama, non-violent Islam does not have the same strength of message -or resonance in the media.

[Cute Wolf]

Al Qaeda (and every fanatical muslims) didn't want to rule only middle eastern world, their aim is the entire world (just translate the website I give before, browse, and you'll soon understand).

[Fragony]

I appreciate the thought, Frag, but this thread is permanently derailed, and nothing's ever going to bring it back. Carry on.

I disagree with you there, the very nature of this thread is the nature of terrorism. How do you want to discuss that without the Islam, things aren't as straightforward as they seem to be at first glance and suicide attacks shouldn't be seen as normal terrorism apparently. Quite the destinction, and it's worthy of some discussion some more if someone cuts of the dead weight.

[Cute Wolf]

suicide attacks shouldn't be seen as normal terrorism apparently. Quite the destinction, and it's worthy of some discussion some more if someone cuts of the dead weight.

Suicide attack is not only used by Islamists or religion - based terrorists, it was historically used by almost all "suicidal-minded" groups of terrorists, while the bombing parts was just a recent invention due to explosives available, (and in medieval times, we could see soldiers carrying explosives and explode that in hope of running before that thingies explode - which often cause them to dead as well), suicide charges and suicidal ambush are used against far superrior troops, and this does constitute "suicide terrorism" on the eyes of the "victim's faction"

EDIT : Correct me if I was playing Age of Empires too much... :clown:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Suicide attack is not only used by Islamists or religion - based terrorists, it was historically used by almost all "suicidal-minded" groups of terrorists, while the bombing parts was just a recent invention due to explosives available, (and in medieval times, we could see soldiers carrying explosives and explode that in hope of running before that thingies explode - which often cause them to dead as well), suicide charges and suicidal ambush are used against far superrior troops, and this does constitute "suicide terrorism" on the eyes of the "victim's faction"

EDIT : Correct me if I was playing Age of Empires too much... :clown:


Case A: My woefully over-powered force, faced by a vastly superior enemy, fixes bayonets and does the David Niven forward into the mists of glory. They know they're dead, so they take as many with them as they can. Suicidal? Yes. Terrorism? No.

Case B: Jannie is filled with the spirit. He knows that those loathsome Portugese are oppressing his noble dutch family, friends, neighbors etc. He also knows that the Dutch military would be mopped up by the dreaded and effecient Portos. He decides to avoid attacking such difficult military targets in favor of blowing up hundreds of Portugese civilians -- this will horrify and punish the Portugese. Checking security, he decides that planting a bomb for remote detonation or even placing it near enough to the target would be difficult and likely not to succeed. Being true to his beliefs, he decides to strap the bomb to himself, knowing that he can probably get most of the way through security once -- but would never get back out even if he did plant a bomb -- and that he cannot be prevented from detonating it. Suicidal? Yes. Terrorism? Yes.

Terrorism is attacking un-armed civilians in order to horrify members of that polity and related individuals. The goal is to make the oposing nation/group so sick of the situation that they quit or, failing that, punish them as harshly as possible. It presumes that there are no innocents, and that ANY person from the opposing group is an appropriate target (a.k.a. "The only good injun is a dead injun." and "Nits grow into lice.").

Suicidal tactics can provide a force multiplier in combat -- eschewing survival allows for all of a limited resource to be devoted to offense -- but that it true irrespective of whether it is used against an opposing military or against the innocent.

[The Wizard]

Those damned Portuguese had it coming!

AFAIK the first suicide bombers were Black Tigers, the suicide brigade of the Tamil Tigers (or LTTE). The first time the West encountered terrorism was Hizballah's 1983 Beirut barracks bombing -- which, ironically enough, was not an act of terrorism.

EDIT: Oops, wait, the Tamil Tigers were the first to use them on a large scale. The 1983 attack was the first instance.

[Hax]

The Wizard is quite right. Both suicide terrorism as well as Islamic fundamentalism have only quite recently (±50 years) become popular. Before the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it wasn't really such a big deal.

[Fragony]

Not true t http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Political-Professor-Gilles-Kepel/dp/0674010906 <- best book on the subject I know

Did get more prominent though

[The Wizard]

The Wizard is quite right. Both suicide terrorism as well as Islamic fundamentalism have only quite recently (±50 years) become popular. Before the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it wasn't really such a big deal.

Shi'a/Sufi militant groups like the Hashshashin pioneered it way back in the 12th century, though...

[Fragony]

Hashashin were sufi? That is new to me

[The Wizard]

The distinction between the two, when it comes to medieval religious orders/groups, is less clear-cut than it may seem. Take for example the Safavids, who began life as a Sufi order, became militant, conquered a country and instituted Shi'a Islam because it separated the monarch from the plebs 'cause it made him special. The country (Iran), until then overwhelmingly Sunni, then converted to Shi'a Islam en masse.

[Fragony]

To be honest I don't know all too much about the history of the Islamic world, I don't know who the Safavids are. Got any source for me to chew on? Wiki doesn't say all that much, I got full library acces so any suggestion will do.

[Hax]

To be honest I don't know all too much about the history of the Islamic world,

I think this is obvious. The Safavids were a Persianate dynasty in Iran.

[Fragony]

Oh excuse me for not knowing every bloody dynasty, I guess I really have no right to enter a discussion on anything Islam. If I don't know I ask, and read up. So thx Da Wizard for suggestions on articles.

[Beskar]

So what is the best way to counter Suicide Terrorism then? The average opinion would be "Nuke them".

[al Roumi]

The first time the West encountered suicide terrorism was Hizballah's 1983 Beirut barracks bombing -- which, ironically enough, was not an act of terrorism.

Fixed.

[al Roumi]

So what is the best way to counter Suicide Terrorism then? The average opinion would be "Nuke them".

Good question. Why not start with Northern Ireland - how were the opponents moved towards peaceful/non-violent resolution systems?

[Beskar]

Good question. Why not start with Northern Ireland - how were the opponents moved towards peaceful/non-violent resolution systems?

indeed, that is what I meant, I wasn't seriously suggesting "nuke them" but I hear this a lot from people when they talk about the Middle East "Just nuke them all, then they can't get us!" mentality.

[al Roumi]

indeed, that is what I meant, I wasn't seriously suggesting "nuke them" but I hear this a lot from people when they talk about the Middle East "Just nuke them all, then they can't get us!" mentality.

or: "send in the troops!" that'll sort them out...

[The Wizard]

Nah, we can't bleed for those savages. It'll be better if we turn it all into a huge shiny glass plate... ~;)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I only read the last couple pages, but it seems to me like Hax is trying to say "the people who are fanatical and devout and live the religion are not the real muslims, the real muslims are the ones who follow a more secularized faith and aren't as religious". That seems weirdly backwards, but besides the point. There is no need to make a blanket statement in the firstplace (especially when, as he pointed out, there's no single thing that we could call islam). And since most people intuitively know that some muslims are fanatical and many aren't, quoting some sort of statistics would settle that as far as it can be settled, I assume.

[Fragony]

"the people who are fanatical and devout and live the religion are not the real muslims, the real muslims are the ones who follow a more secularized faith and aren't as religious"

But that simply isn't true, for a muslim to be moderate he must ignore certain aspects of the Islam. The Qu'ran is kinda schizophrenic on certain things, the Mohammed of Mecca is the guy you want to have a cup of tea with, but the Mohammed of Medina is a savage warlord. Both of these aspects of the Islam are true for all muslims. The schism in the Islam is not because of interpretation, it's bloodline, Ali was the last true descendant of Mohammed and not everybody recognized the authority afterwards. Islam is Islam, there is only one. But people are people and most people happen to be good people. There are many wonderful things about the Islam, but also bad, and if you look for either of them you will of course find them. But it's stupid to deny either of these aspects imho.

[Strike For The South]

The Qu'ran is kinda schizophrenic on certain things, imho.

In all fairness so is the bible

[Rhyfelwyr]

In all fairness so is the bible

But it does at least make it clear what it means to follow it nowadays. With the Bible, the New Covenant replaces the Old One, with it's more peaceful message. With Islam, you just have the Koran, and it's up to you whether you follow the peaceful or violent way.

[Fragony]

In all fairness so is the bible

Yes but in my opinion one thing is criminally overlooked, and that is grammar. There is plenty horrible stuff in the Bible, but it's in past-present, it is god who punished, pretty brutally by the way. But the Qu'ran is written in imperative, you must do this and that. That is a difference no matter how subtle it may be in language, it is really a difference in consequences.

[Strike For The South]

But it does at least make it clear what it means to follow it nowadays. With the Bible, the New Covenant replaces the Old One, with it's more peaceful message. With Islam, you just have the Koran, and it's up to you whether you follow the peaceful or violent way.


Yes but in my opinion one thing is criminally overlooked, and that is grammar. There is plenty horrible stuff in the Bible, but it's in past-present, it is god who punished, pretty brutally by the way. But the Qu'ran is written in imperative, you must do this and that. That is a difference how subtle it may be in language, but it is really a difference in consequences.

Fair enough points, but how many of us are as fimilar with the Koran as we are the bible?

Many of these verses you are pulling off websites and I could do the same with the bible, many of these interpatations are left up to people with an agenda.


https://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5927/westboroo.jpg (https://img12.imageshack.us/i/westboroo.jpg/)

Now I'm not trying to downplay the severity of terrorism or the role Islam and the Koran play in these different groups, however if I were a betting man the koran would not be my root of exteremism nor a driving force. More like a convient readily avalible tool

[Fragony]

Now I'm not trying to downplay the severity of terrorism or the role Islam and the Koran play in these different groups, however if I were a betting man the koran would not be my root of exteremism nor a driving force. More like a convient readily avalible tool

I could not agree more really, but the problem is that the lefties have respect. Say anything realistic and they start clawing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Now I'm not trying to downplay the severity of terrorism or the role Islam and the Koran play in these different groups, however if I were a betting man the koran would not be my root of exteremism nor a driving force. More like a convient readily avalible tool

I think this pretty much sums things up.


https://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5927/westboroo.jpg (https://img12.imageshack.us/i/westboroo.jpg/)

What is a 'fag enabler' lmao :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

https://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5927/westboroo.jpg (https://img12.imageshack.us/i/westboroo.jpg/)



That group of no more than 100 people, mostly of the same family, has become the go-to example for people who want to relativize Christianity with Islam. There are real questions about their true motivations, with some suggesting that they incite hatred and violence to profit from the resulting lawsuits. In any event, it completely ignores the reality that Islam faces systemic issues not only with terrorism and violence, but also with human rights for women, Jews, homosexuals and others that have been purged from all but the most fringe elements of Christianity. To pick up on Sasaki's comment, the "moderate" Muslims in America and some parts of Europe are the exception to the rule. Certainly the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but I would argue the vast majority in the Middle East and Indonesia (and possibly even Europe) have views, supported by both the Koran and the religious establishment, about how society should function that are contrary to 21st century norms and that do contribute to the incitement to radicalization in a small minority.

(I'm not saying this is what you are doing, I just wanted to point it out. :bow:)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Certainly the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but I would argue the vast majority in the Middle East and Indonesia (and possibly even Europe) have views, supported by both the Koran and the religious establishment, about how society should function that are contrary to 21st century norms and that do contribute to the incitement to radicalization in a small minority.

No doubt, but more often this means they are simply a bit backward, and not political radicals. Like with Cute Wolf's examples, the experiences he is telling us about are with a small number of university educated radicals, and he said himself that the educated environment is what breeds these extreme views. In Indonesia in particular, the majority of Muslims are 'Abangan' Muslims, meaning they practice local Pagan traditions as much as they do Islam, and are so loose in their beliefs that they will eat pork, drink alcohol etc. There is a divide between the educated urban 'santri' Muslims that often turn to radical Islam, and the uneducated, backward 'Abangan' quasi-Pagan Muslims.

This is why I disagree with the notion that education will cure all the ails that religion causes. Far from it, instead education often lifts people out of their naive, superstitious local practices, and turns it into a consolidated, politicised worldview like with the Jihadists. In a way the same thing happened in Christianity. Religion was relatively docile and a good means for social control before the Reformation, but after Protestantism took off you got all kinds of political radicalism and less nice and therepeutic religious doctrines, with the likes of Puritanism etc emerging.

[Hax]

"the people who are fanatical and devout and live the religion are not the real muslims, the real muslims are the ones who follow a more secularized faith and aren't as religious".

Which is also quite near to the view of Islam that Omar al-Khayyami propogated in the 12th century AD.

[Strike For The South]

rabble rabble rabble
(I'm not saying this is what you are doing, I just wanted to point it out. :bow:)

I'm aware, I was just pointing out that people use holy books for there own ends

[Hax]

but I would argue the vast majority in the Middle East and Indonesia (and possibly even Europe) have views, supported by both the Koran and the religious establishment, about how society should function that are contrary to 21st century norms and that do contribute to the incitement to radicalization in a small minority.

The Middle East? Where?

Saudi Arabia? Yes.
Syria? No.
Lebanon? No.
Jordan? No.
Egypt? Perhaps.
Iran? Not anymore.
Iraq? Perhaps.

In all these countries, especially in the cities (as Rhyfelwyr) pointed out, Muslims are way more secularised than we (like to) think.

[Fragony]

completely unrelated but I had to http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/890441/abf774ee/lol_met_gelovigen.html

lololol

[Hax]

Hahaha, that's pretty hilarious! It's something Nasredin Hoça would've done!

[al Roumi]

completely unrelated but I had to http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/890441/abf774ee/lol_met_gelovigen.html

lololol

That's on a par with Jaques Tati :beam:

[Cute Wolf]

The Middle East? Where?

Saudi Arabia? Yes.
Syria? No.
Lebanon? No.
Jordan? No.
Egypt? Perhaps.
Iran? Not anymore.
Iraq? Perhaps.

In all these countries, especially in the cities (as Rhyfelwyr) pointed out, Muslims are way more secularised than we (like to) think.

Half true, half false hax... Muslims are now partly secularized, but due to their lack of central authority, any kind of movement that hope to gain an authority will always get huge response... no matter how wrong... because all the muslims have irrational fear of hell

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Half true, half false hax... Muslims are now partly secularized, but due to their lack of central authority, any kind of movement that hope to gain an authority will always get huge response... no matter how wrong... because all the muslims have irrational fear of hell

Hah, that's exactly what [famous muslim] once said back in the [x]'th century.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hah, that's exactly what [famous muslim] once said back in the [x]'th century.Oh is it now, Sasaki?

I've been reading the koran, and verse 25-12 in wahabist interpretation clearly proves you wrong.

[Hax]

because all the muslims have irrational fear of hell

Unlike Christians, Jews and Buddhists.


Hah, that's exactly what [famous muslim] once said back in the [x]'th century.

Tahir al-Sulami, late 11th century. He was largely ignored when he tried to convince the Muslims to wage war against the Christians in the Holy Land, however.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From suicide terrorism we have drifted into a discussion of Islam. As there appears to be another thread actually titled along those lines, this one may now take a nap.