zenith-nadir said:
These concepts are not unique to the Islamic faith, although since the words are Arabic then the words are probably unique.
These concepts are not unique to the Islamic faith, although since the words are Arabic then the words are probably unique.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have a specific goal, generally ethno-nationalism or religious ideology. The reason Islamic fundamentalists have really taken to this "form of expression" can be traced to the concept of martyrdom and the lure of posthumous rewards - see: (Surah an-Naba' 78:31-34) - gardens and grapeyards; and young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; and a full cup (of wine)" .Darat said:
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
My understanding was that the crusades were about freeing "Holy Places" from Mohammedan control. My understanding of jihad is that it can be a 'struggle' against all that is perceived as evil or an internal spiritual struggle. Those are the definitions I wander this thorny path with.Donks said:
IMO suicide bombing is a product of humans using psychological manipulation, brainwashing and religious control to unethically manipulate other humans. No rational-thinking human being would commit suicide to murder others. That person would have to be programmed to commit such an act.
zenith-nadir said:
Totally agree.
BPSCG:
"I'm sorry; you're right. There's no actual quotation of anything any imam actually said.
I'm sure the French are overreacting and that they are expelling the the teachers of the "religion of peace" for inciting to jaywalking and sticking bubblegum under the seats at movie theaters."
Well, that's me put in my place.
Assuming Sarkozy does have reason to expel these people, I'm still not entirely clear how this justifies your contention that some sort of global jihad, involving British Muslims (totally uninterested in Iraq, naturally), French Muslims, and Iraqi insurgents of all factions, is being directed against "western civilisation".
"I'm sorry; you're right. There's no actual quotation of anything any imam actually said.
I'm sure the French are overreacting and that they are expelling the the teachers of the "religion of peace" for inciting to jaywalking and sticking bubblegum under the seats at movie theaters."
Well, that's me put in my place.
Assuming Sarkozy does have reason to expel these people, I'm still not entirely clear how this justifies your contention that some sort of global jihad, involving British Muslims (totally uninterested in Iraq, naturally), French Muslims, and Iraqi insurgents of all factions, is being directed against "western civilisation".
Terrible, these people who spout hate and condone terrorism. But where would the US deport Ann Coulter and Tom Friedman to? Maybe they could just imprison them?
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (Coulter)
"Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does." ... "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation," ..."every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted." (Tom Friedman, in 1999, calling for the US to target civilian targets and commit war crimes).
"The squeeze will carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed."
Admiral Michael Boyce, Chief of the British Defence Staff, speaking about the Anglo-American bombing of Afghanistan, quoted in the New York Times, October 28th 2001.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." (Coulter)
"Let's see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does." ... "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation," ..."every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted." (Tom Friedman, in 1999, calling for the US to target civilian targets and commit war crimes).
"The squeeze will carry on until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed."
Admiral Michael Boyce, Chief of the British Defence Staff, speaking about the Anglo-American bombing of Afghanistan, quoted in the New York Times, October 28th 2001.
"Islamist global jihad" is perhaps redundant, unless you know of a Unitarian global jihad going on somewhere...Orwell said:
Anyway: Jihad: A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
Global: Of, relating to, or involving the entire earth; worldwide:
According to our friend, Osama, Allah's mission is to spread the one true religioin throughout the world. Islam will conquer the world when it is purified of flawed modern Western values, such as materialism and secularism.
As I asked demon, do you doubt there is such a thing?
Just because some bastard says that something exists, it doesn't mean that what he claims to exist actually exists.
Muslim extremists (like any extremists), like to exaggerate their power. You people must not forget that terrorism is the weapon of the powerless. How we react to their pin pricks is more important than the damage they inflict. As I said before, I think that one of their main objectives is to provoke the west into butchering innocent Muslims in response to a terrorist attack, in the hopes of driving more people in their true target audience (the Muslim world) to their extremist ideology. Muslim extremists want to radicalise the conflict.
The true enemy of one kind of extremism is not another opposing kind of extremism. It is moderation and clear thinking. We have to fight these guys with good counterintelligence, precise strikes and good actions, not with massive military bullying and blunt "if you are not with us you're against us" rhetoric.
Muslim extremists (like any extremists), like to exaggerate their power. You people must not forget that terrorism is the weapon of the powerless. How we react to their pin pricks is more important than the damage they inflict. As I said before, I think that one of their main objectives is to provoke the west into butchering innocent Muslims in response to a terrorist attack, in the hopes of driving more people in their true target audience (the Muslim world) to their extremist ideology. Muslim extremists want to radicalise the conflict.
The true enemy of one kind of extremism is not another opposing kind of extremism. It is moderation and clear thinking. We have to fight these guys with good counterintelligence, precise strikes and good actions, not with massive military bullying and blunt "if you are not with us you're against us" rhetoric.
Oh...kay...Orwell said:
Don't you find it hard to breathe with your head stuck that deeply into the sand?
Pin pricks. Oh...kay...
No, their true enemy is one who will fight them, at whatever cost, until they are destroyed. Clear thinking helps. "Moderation" only allows the extremists to dictate the terms of engagement. "Moderation" is fine - once the enemy who swears that he will kill you in fulfillment of God's will has had his back broken.
Flo
Illuminator
demon said:
Quite a large number of French and other continental muslims have been going to London to hear the radical imams and get indoctrinated further there. They then have been sent to the same training camps, Iraq being one of them now due to what I'll charitably call a miscalculation, unfortunately.
It's been a point of contention between France, Germany, Belgium on one side and the UK on the other for quite a number of years now, the formers asking London to put a stop to their policy of welcoming radical muslims from their countries.
Fanatic preachers have been capitalising on all the (real or perceived) sins of the West, from colonialism to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, from the support for Israel and Arabian autocraties to the abandonment of Bosnian muslims, etc.
If you really listen to what fanatics say, you'll notice they may at times differentiate between countries but the core of the matter is the same for all Western countries.
Flo
Illuminator
BPSCG said:
Extremely bad choice of words, I agree. However, you have to admit that every horror terrorists have inflicted on their targets have lead and will lead them nowhere without their "cooperation". I think Orwell is right in that terrorists do hope societies will over-react and somehow self-destruct.
But there are other and better ways of breaking their back than to fuel the anger of moderate members of their communities, or to raze whole countries like some people advocate, etc. Moderation might look unpalatable, but you have to admit it might also bring better long term results. And "fighting at whatever cost" can also translate into "Pyrrhic victory".
BPSCG said:
Oooo, in love with our own angry rhetoric aren't we?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Funny how the lives of western citizens seem to have so much more value than middle eastern lives...
BPSCG said:
Oh boy... I didn't intend to cause such a stir with the words "pin pricks". All I was saying is that the damage terrorists have done, although spectacular, isn't that great. I will stand by those words. So yes, pin pricks! Very spectacular and scary pin pricks, but pin pricks nevertheless. Your chances of dying from a terrorist attack are extremely small, specially if you don't live in a big city. I would worry more about drunk drivers. Personally, I think that overreacting idiots are a bigger threat to our way of life than Muslim extremists. In western countries, overreacting idiots seem to be more numerous than Muslim extremists, and their rhetoric more acceptable than that of fundamentalist Islam. Thank you for making my point about moderation abundantly clear!
Flo
Illuminator
epepke said:
Well, it is only reasonnable to posit that the recent bombings are linked to the British involvement in Iraq: it has certainly given one more incentive to radical muslims to strike there. I'm however pretty sure it would have happened anyway, just as it happened in France a few years ago (see my answer to Demon).
I do think the reasons the US hasn't been bombed on its soil since then have to do with improved safety in air travel, though immigration laws, the lack of common borders/proximity with the countries of origin of radical muslims, the lack of a base of frustrated second or third generation immigrants, the absence of a large influx of fanatic imams financed by Saudi Arabia with the goal of recruiting said frustrated immigrants, etc.
Muslim immigrants in Europe live 24/24 with the resentment due to the history of colonisation, and the way they (sometimes feel they are, sometimes actually) are treated as second-rate citizens, etc. A long historic memory is one of the characteristics of the muslim world, as you aknowledge here:
It is therefore very easy to manipulate a bunch of airheads to blow themselves in subways.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
It's not saying that at all, Darat. That's an interpretation you're placing on it.
There is no point in speculating if these people would be terrorists if they were not Muslims. That's just speculating that the world would be different if it were different. The world we need to understand and deal with is the world we live in, which includes fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
By the way, I'll remind you again this thread isn't limited to suicide terror, but covers all terrorism.
We've already covered this. The only thing unique to Islam is that right now it's the religion that's producing terrorists. Decades ago Christianity was producing (a few) terrorists, and back then it was a Christian problem. It could be decades in the future that Buddhists will produce terrorists.
But the issue right now is Islamic fundamentalist terror. Why does anyone need to prove it's unique to Islam before we discuss the relationship between Islam and terror?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Darat said:
The Christian concept of Martyr is someone who is killed for their faith by someone else. The Islamic martyr is includes those who seek their own death.
Donks said:
Perhaps, but one is centuries out of date. Can you guess which one?
I can venture a guess. I was just asking if the concepts were equivalent, because the word "jihad" was offered as evidence of Islam's uniqueness in producing suicide bombers. If the an equivalent concept also exists for Christians, I didn't quite see how the relevance.Mycroft said: