The Logic and Strategy of Suicide Terrorism

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Which bit? I might agree, I might not.

---

You mean of your post? The second line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

What the hell happened to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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*

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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:

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-...ct_description

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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....

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

Quote:

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

nvm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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

---

^- that

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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...

Quote:

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

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.

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.

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

Did get more prominent though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Hashashin were sufi? That is new to me

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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...

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

---

In all fairness so is the bible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

https://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5927/westboroo.jpg

---

What is a 'fag enabler' lmao :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

https://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5927/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:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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

Quote:

---

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.

completely unrelated but I had to http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/8904...gelovigen.html

lololol

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

completely unrelated but I had to http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/8904...gelovigen.html

lololol

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Quote:

---

because all the muslims have irrational fear of hell

---

Unlike Christians, Jews and Buddhists.

Quote:

---

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.

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.