# New Name for the War on Terror



## michaeledward (Jul 26, 2005)

From the New York Times...



*U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War*


By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, July 25 - The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday. 

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign. 

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

​Several thoughts come to mind.


If it is no longer a war, are soldiers no longer dying for it?
I thought this administration told us they never launch a marketing campaign in the summer.
Don't blame me, I'm from New Hampshire.
The Bush Adminstration has finally got around to understanding there is a diplomatic element to September 11.
So much for finding Osama bin Laden "Dead or Alive"
This article makes me very sad.


----------



## still learning (Jul 26, 2005)

Hello, " Violent Extremism"  name change is OK,  but we are still forcus on the words " War on terrorist"  and it doesn't mean US armys to fight them!  

 Only in America we get caught up with words...........Aloha


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 27, 2005)

The war on terror implies a target...terrorists.  A "global struggle against violent extremism" is a far broader definition.  For the Bush Administration, whose policy is to "reform" Islam by force and reshape the middle east, this change is absolutely neccessary.  There are alot of people who practice radical forms of Isalm _and most of them are not terrorists_.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The war on terror implies a target...terrorists. A "global struggle against violent extremism" is a far broader definition. For the Bush Administration, whose policy is to "reform" Islam by force and reshape the middle east, this change is absolutely neccessary. There are alot of people who practice radical forms of Isalm _and most of them are not terrorists_.


What it means is that at least a couple western leaders have developed the moral courage to call this what it is...a war against violent islamic extremism.  It isn't Osama Bin Laden building these terrorists, he and Al-qaeda (and Hamas, and Hezbollah, etc, etc) just gave them name.  It's violent sects of Wahhabist and Shiite Islam that is cranking out these terrorists.  It is the clerics and immams.  It is the madrasas' that are indoctrinating these folks.  These may be the foot soldiers, but those "people who practice radical forms of Islam 'and most of them are not terrorists'" that are producing these individuals.   They are teaching their sons (and even their daughters) that they should sacrifice themselves to this struggle, while in the mean time feigning innocence by denying that they are supporting these acts with their money and their teachings.  This is a war against the violent sects of Wahhabism and Shiite Islam, and without winning that, we will be fighting this for decades more.


----------



## modarnis (Jul 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The war on terror implies a target...terrorists.  A "global struggle against violent extremism" is a far broader definition.  For the Bush Administration, whose policy is to "reform" Islam by force and reshape the middle east, this change is absolutely neccessary.  There are alot of people who practice radical forms of Isalm _and most of them are not terrorists_.



Can you direct me to a legitimate primary source of information that provides evidence that most people who practice radical forms of islam are not terrorists?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 27, 2005)

For what it's worth, in case any one thinks this is descriminatory, the US government seems willing to engage against extremist forms of Christianity as well.  I'm thinking particularly about the Branch Davidians.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 27, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Can you direct me to a legitimate primary source of information that provides evidence that most people who practice radical forms of islam are not terrorists?


This is just common sense.  Check the populations of the countries where forms or radical islam is widely practiced.  Next imagine if 50% were terrorists?  25%?  How about 1%?  Even at 1% we are still in the multi-million range.  If this were true, we would be seeing terrorism throughout the world on an absolutely nightmarish scale.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 27, 2005)

Define "radical islam"

 There are forms of Christianity that would seem 'radical' by most that view the US government as evil and don't want to have anything to do with it.  Then there are *really* radical Christians who would advocate, and engage in,  armed, violent resitstance against or action against the US government.  There are not many in the US in that last group because the US government works fairly actively to stop them.  All the US is doing now is taking that abroad. "Radical Islam" is not a problem until it gets violent.  Of all those who practice something one would call 'radical islam', very few get violent


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What it means is that at least a couple western leaders have developed the moral courage to call this what it is...a war against violent islamic extremism.


That is a peice of the puzzle, but not the only peice and not even the largest peice...

This is taken from...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
<B>[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]​


> *[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]June 3, 1997[/font]*​[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. [/font]
> 
> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
> [/font]
> ...


​​This "new" war will put the US's hand in the bag of Middle Eastern oil above all others.  It satisfies US "interests" to do so at this time.  And, in fact, we really have no other alternative if we want to maintain our current standard for the American Way.​​[/font]</B>​


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is just common sense. Check the populations of the countries where forms or radical islam is widely practiced. Next imagine if 50% were terrorists? 25%? How about 1%? Even at 1% we are still in the multi-million range. If this were true, we would be seeing terrorism throughout the world on an absolutely nightmarish scale.


Terrorists are mere foot soldiers of their ideology.  They require the support, teachings and financing of a far larger group of believes in order to wage the violent jihad.  Without the madrasas to crank out new jihadist and a large number of true believers to provide financial support and a new generation of foot soldiers, along with aid, comfort and intelligence information, they could not operate.


----------



## modarnis (Jul 27, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is just common sense.  Check the populations of the countries where forms or radical islam is widely practiced.  Next imagine if 50% were terrorists?  25%?  How about 1%?  Even at 1% we are still in the multi-million range.  If this were true, we would be seeing terrorism throughout the world on an absolutely nightmarish scale.



You seem to have avoided the question.  When those of us who are right of center post an opinion that relies on common sense, many on this board look for validation from sources.  To properly make your argument, you need to:
 1.  Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam
 2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study  quantifying practioners of radical Islam 
 3.  Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

Without the data, its just conjecture


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 4, 2005)

Apparently, the senior advisors were not communicating well with the 'Senior' advisor. Either that, or the polls that the President doesn't listen to, were saying a faux pas has been made.


*President Makes It Clear: Phrase Is 'War on Terror'*

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: August 4, 2005
GRAPEVINE, Tex., Aug. 3 - President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the "global struggle against violent extremism," the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.

In recent public appearances, Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers have avoided formulations using the word "war," and some of Mr. Bush's top advisers have suggested that the administration wanted to jettison what had been its semiofficial wording of choice, "the global war on terror." 

In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, said that the conflict was "more than just a military war on terror" and that the United States needed to counter "the gloomy vision" of the extremists and "offer a positive alternative."

But administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy. At the same time, Mr. Bush, by some accounts, told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy.

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Mr. Bush said in his address here, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

Mr. Bush made a nod to the criticism that "war on terror" was a misleading phrase in the sense that the enemy is not terrorism, but those who used it to achieve their goals. In doing so, he used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech, most of which was about domestic policy.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives," he said.

Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on July 18 in an address to the National Press Club that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." 

General Myers said then that the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

On Wednesday, in its efforts to hammer home the point that the "war" phraseology was still administration policy, the White House sent e-mail messages to reporters after Mr. Bush's speech with some excerpts of an address delivered Tuesday by Mr. Rumsfeld. In that speech, Mr. Rumsfeld backed away from the new language he had been employing in recent weeks.

"Some ask, are we still engaged in a war on terror?" Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no mistake about it. It's a war. The president properly termed it that after Sept. 11. The only way to defend against terrorism is to go on the attack."

In a telephone interview on Wednesday evening, a spokesman for the Pentagon, Lawrence Di Rita, sought to play down any disagreement between Mr. Rumsfeld and the president, citing the secretary's speech on Tuesday, in Dallas. 

"The secretary doesn't feel this is push back," Mr. Di Rita said. "He feels it's an important clarification."

In introducing the new language, administration officials had suggested that the change reflected an evolution in the president's thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks and had been adopted after discussions among Mr. Bush's senior advisers that began in January. 

The new slogan quickly become grist for late-night comics and drew news coverage that linked it with the emergence of a broad new approach to defining and attacking the problem of Islamic extremism through diplomacy and efforts to build closer ties to moderate Muslims, as well as through military action. 

Mr. Bush arrived in Texas on Tuesday, and is spending the rest of the month at his vacation home in Crawford. After winning a string of legislative victories before Congress recessed for the summer, Mr. Bush also used his appearance here to try to build support for the issues that will be at the top of his agenda when he returns to Washington. 

He said that he would continue to push to overhaul Social Security and that he would press ahead with his call for a new approach to immigration despite the deep divisions it has exposed in his party.

​


----------



## Marginal (Aug 4, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> You seem to have avoided the question.  When those of us who are right of center post an opinion that relies on common sense, many on this board look for validation from sources.  To properly make your argument, you need to:
> 1.  Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam
> 2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study  quantifying practioners of radical Islam
> 3.  Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists
> ...


Ah. So until you provide proof that right wing christians aren't all violent terrorist abortion clinic bombers, then I'm perfectly safe in making such an absurd claim, and I'm also free to treat it as a valid point?


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 4, 2005)

Wording is always important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

 And I can't help but think that this new phrase is just to make it a little more vague.  "No, they weren't terrorists, they haven't commited acts of terrorism.  But they are still violent extremists in there beliefs..."

 I also wonder what this looks like from the other side, especially with this new wording.  Could the west not be seen as violent extremists by the middle east?  We are bombing them, occupying areas, forcing our beliefs and government structures on them by force.

 As extreme as we see there views, isn't it likely they see ours as just as extreme?

 Terrorism can be defined fairly well, a act of terrorism can be identified.  But "extremism" is not see easy, because what counts as extreme depends on where you look at it from.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 4, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Ah. So until you provide proof that right wing christians aren't all violent terrorist abortion clinic bombers, then I'm perfectly safe in making such an absurd claim, and I'm also free to treat it as a valid point?


 That's an easy one. Lets figure out the number of abortion clinic bombings, and subtract them from the total number of christians.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Wording is always important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
> 
> And I can't help but think that this new phrase is just to make it a little more vague. "No, they weren't terrorists, they haven't commited acts of terrorism. But they are still violent extremists in there beliefs..."
> 
> ...


 I think we can safely call anyone who specifically targets innocent people for political or religious purposes a terrorist.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 4, 2005)

S, first you'd have to:

1. Define Radical Right Christianity vis a vis regular Right Christianity
2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical radical Right Christianity 
3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

Otherwise I get to make up whatever the heck I want to say about right wing Christians.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 4, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> S, first you'd have to:
> 
> 1. Define Radical Right Christianity vis a vis regular Right Christianity
> 2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical radical Right Christianity
> ...


 Go for it, if it makes you feel better. Who really cares.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 4, 2005)

Marginal,

I believe the point Modarnis was making is that *certain* members of this board *insist* on that type of information anytime someone presents a viewpoint opposite of theirs...

And he's now trying to use the same tactic to see if they will play the game by their own rules.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 4, 2005)

I understand the intent. 

The alternative is straight out retarded however. Just say whatever you want with no need to validate it, or support the opinion? 

Works for *some* members (well, not really, but they engage in that superficial discourse,) generating locked threads by the boatfull in their wake. Can't see how that's condusive to discussion, friendly or otherwise.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 4, 2005)

Speaking of new names ... or not so new names ... it seems the President can't keep it all straight in his head. 


*NY Times falsely reported Bush had "consistently used" term "war on terror" since 9-11*






In an August 4 article by reporter Richard W. Stevenson, _The_ _New York Times _falsely reported that President Bush has "consistently used" the phrase "war on terror" since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In fact, Bush twice said in 2004 that the administration "misnamed" the war on terror and suggested alternative terms for the effort.

According to the _Times__, _after top administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Stephen Hadley, adopted the new term "global struggle against violent extremism," Bush reportedly "told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording *he had consistently used* since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" [emphasis added].

But, as_ The New York Sun _documented on August 1, Bush himself "expressed skepticism about the 'war on terror' formulation" during an August 2004 campaign speech, when he said that "it ought to be [called] the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

From Bush's August 6, 2004, remarks to the UNITY: Journalists of Color convention in Washington: 

We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. [laughter]

No, that's what they do. They use terror to -- and they use it effectively, because we've got good hearts. We're people of conscience, they aren't. They will cut off a person's head like that, and not even care about it. That's why I tell you, you can't talk sense to them. 
​The _Sun_ reported that the audience laughed at Bush's remark but that "the president made it clear he was not joking." In a September 6, 2004, column, United Press International homeland and national security editor Shaun Waterman wrote that "Bush seems to have intended the remark as a joke"; but Waterman also noted that, in a September interview with _Time _magazine, Bush "repeated it, stripped of hyperbole, in all seriousness."

From the September 6 edition of _Time: _

TIME: Is the war on terrorism something our generation and the next generation are just going to have to get used to?

BUSH: Yes, I think it is a long-lasting ideological struggle. Frankly, the war on terror is somewhat misnamed, though. It ought to be called the struggle of a totalitarian point of view that uses terror as a tool to intimidate the free. 
​During the 2004 presidential campaign, both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for his purported reluctance to use the term "war" to describe the struggle against terror.
​


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> You seem to have avoided the question. When those of us who are right of center post an opinion that relies on common sense, many on this board look for validation from sources.


My what a cross to bear for the rugged individualist. Seems like a lot of victimhood. Atlas Shrugged didn't he? 




			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> To properly make your argument, you need to:
> 
> 1. Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam
> 2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical Islam
> ...


It seems as if common sense is the least common some times, so I'll do my best...

1. Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam

Islam 


*



Islam 

 listen? (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1573;&#1587;&#1604;&#1575;&#1605; al-isl&#257;m) "the submission to God" is a monotheistic faith, one of the Abrahamic religions, and the world's second largest religion.

Click to expand...

 
Radical Islam




			The phrase Islamic fundamentalism is primarily used in the West to describe Islamist groups. However, usage of the term is often expanded to include all of the following aspects of Islam and the modern Muslim world:

It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal and traditional interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith (since they view these as "fundamental" to their religion). By extension, fundamentalism may include a variety of religious movements and groups in Muslim communities which may be entirely apolitical. An example is the Tablighi Jamaat, a missionary-like organization whose main goal is to increase the personal piety of its members. Islamic fundamentalism thus describes a religious conservatism which forms part of the spectrum of modern Muslim societies.

It describes Muslim groups which advocate Islamism and the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law, also known as Shari'a.
The above perspectives are generally opposed by liberal movements within Islam to varying degrees; in fact, fundamentalism and liberalism often define the two poles of public opinion in Muslim society. This indicates that fundamentalism may best be regarded as a kind of conservatism which finds expression in a religious context.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, this seems familiar...a cross cultural example pops to mind.

2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical Islam.

There are 1.48 billion Practioners of Islam in the world. Most believe and actively follow sharia. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all have significant portions of their populations that practice sharia. Wahabbism, which is practiced in Saudi Arabia, is one sect that teaches fundamentalist islam. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Demographics

We are talking about over 20,000,000 practicioners of fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia alone! Therefore, I think that it is safe to estimate that 100,000,000 practioners of fundamentalist islam live in countries were sharia is strictly enforced. (This is probably low.)

3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2002/08/21o03.htm

Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. They are the proven terrorists that have a proven track record of targeting americans. Their numbers are estimated to be between 20,000 and 60,000.

Most fundamentalist Islamists are NOT terrorists. Oferchrissakes, its common sense, der hey.
*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> My what a cross to bear for the rugged individualist. Seems like a lot of victimhood. Atlas Shrugged didn't he?
> 
> 
> It seems as if common sense is the least common some times, so I'll do my best...
> ...


I'm sorry, I missed the strawman that posted, purporting to support what you are arguing against.  I don't recall anyone claiming that the majority of fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, that's an argument you clearly invented to beat up on.  

It is clear, however, that Wahhabism and Shiite Islam are terrorist generators in the sense that they have created a religious environment that encourages, condones and supports the use of terrorism as a means of religious and political gain.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 5, 2005)

Maybe we should all get this book, and a copy of the qur'an and then debate it.


> *The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)*
> by Robert Spencer
> Exclusive hardcover edition -- not available in stores!
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I missed the strawman that posted, purporting to support what you are arguing against. I don't recall anyone claiming that the majority of fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, that's an argument you clearly invented to beat up on.
> 
> It is clear, however, that Wahhabism and Shiite Islam are terrorist generators in the sense that they have created a religious environment that encourages, condones and supports the use of terrorism as a means of religious and political gain.


Maybe you missed the part where people claimed that Islamic Fundamentalism was the problem...

I suggest that you take a look at the Project for the New American Century and some of the writings of individuals in that group.  This new name for the "war on terror" fits right in with their agenda to "reform Islam by force if neccessary".  

The bottom line is that "the war on violent extremism" targets states that use _sharia_ to inform their morality.  The vast majority of people who live their lives according to _sharia_ are innocent and peaceful.  Why should they be "reformed"?

I have no problem with taking the fight to the people that hurt and killed our citizens.  However, by broadening the target and the scope of this war we have decided to attack the culture that "produced" the terrorists.  My point is that if you look at the numbers, the "culture" of Islamic Fundamentalism has produced damned few terrorists.  

I would posit that blaming islamic fundamentalism for producing terrorists is akin to finding a scapegoat.  It is a highly visible target that shifts the burden of guilt from "other more real" causes of terrorism.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe you missed the part where people claimed that Islamic Fundamentalism was the problem...


 No, I didn't miss that part.  I missed the part where someone claimed that all Islamic Fundamentalists were terrorists.  The rest is a strawman that you invented.  "Islamic fundamentalism is the problem" and "All Islamic Fundamentalists are terrorists" are two completely different statements.  The former is clearly supported by the facts, where the later is an attempt to distort the argument for the sake of making it look absurd.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I suggest that you take a look at the Project for the New American Century and some of the writings of individuals in that group. This new name for the "war on terror" fits right in with their agenda to "reform Islam by force if neccessary".


 It's unnecessary to read the work of Neo-Conservatives to come to the conclusion that Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that "the war on violent extremism" targets states that use _sharia_ to inform their morality. The vast majority of people who live their lives according to _sharia_ are innocent and peaceful. Why should they be "reformed"?


 Because sharia is used as a primer to create terrorists.  Fundamentalist Islam has become a terrorist generator.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I have no problem with taking the fight to the people that hurt and killed our citizens. However, by broadening the target and the scope of this war we have decided to attack the culture that "produced" the terrorists. My point is that if you look at the numbers, the "culture" of Islamic Fundamentalism has produced damned few terrorists.


 Yet, it is Fundamentalism Islam itself that supports, finances, recruits, and endorses terrorist activity.  The fact that only a small faction actually carry out the attacks does not negate fundamentalist islams role as a terrorist generator.  The culture of Fundamentalist Islam has produced a large number of terrorists.  Moreover, whereever fundamentalist islam meets the non-islamic world (or even a different sect of Islam) terrorism, war and attrocity are the rule, not the exception.  From New York and London, to the Sudan, to Iran, to Afghanistan, to the Phillipines, to Thailand, all across the Islamic world, among different cultures and different races, the one common denominator is Islamic Fundamentalism.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would posit that blaming islamic fundamentalism for producing terrorists is akin to finding a scapegoat. It is a highly visible target that shifts the burden of guilt from "other more real" causes of terrorism.


 In reality it shifts the burden to the one common denominator.  Other core causes that you list aren't generating terrorism all over the planet, the one common denominator is fundamentalist islam.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Maybe we should all get this book, and a copy of the qur'an and then debate it.


 If you live in the US feel free to talk like that.  Statements like that, however, in Europe can get you shot down on the street.  The assassins of Fundamentalist Islam have a long reach that extends well in to the Europe.  Iran has been assassinating political enemies in Europe for years.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

Terror is not the enemy. Terror is a tactic. The enemy is radical Islam. But for PC reasons we cant call it a "War on radical Islam".


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, I didn't miss that part. I missed the part where someone claimed that all Islamic Fundamentalists were terrorists. The rest is a strawman that you invented. "Islamic fundamentalism is the problem" and "All Islamic Fundamentalists are terrorists" are two completely different statements. The former is clearly supported by the facts, where the later is an attempt to distort the argument for the sake of making it look absurd. .


When one says that in order to fight terrorism, we must reform islam by force, that is as good as treating anyone who practices a strict interpretation of _sharia_ as a terrorist or a conspirator.  Changing the name from the "War on Terror" to the "War on Violent Extremism" broadens the target to include entire states whose laws are informed by _sharia_.  The truth is that very few of the millions who practice a strict form of _sharia_ actually terrorism.  Most people just go about their daily lives and attempt to be happy.  The question then becomes...why do all of these societies need to be reformed?  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's unnecessary to read the work of Neo-Conservatives to come to the conclusion that Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem..


I would suggest informing yourself with some neoconservative writings in order to understand how the Bush Administration answers the above question.  This goes for anyone and everyone.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Because sharia is used as a primer to create terrorists. Fundamentalist Islam has become a terrorist generator.


No its not.  Sharia is used to inform the laws of a civilized muslim society.  Sharia is being used by the West as a scapegoat so that it can interfere in the Islamic world some more...terrorism comes from something different.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yet, it is Fundamentalism Islam itself that supports, finances, recruits, and endorses terrorist activity. The fact that only a small faction actually carry out the attacks does not negate fundamentalist islams role as a terrorist generator. The culture of Fundamentalist Islam has produced a large number of terrorists. Moreover, whereever fundamentalist islam meets the non-islamic world (or even a different sect of Islam) terrorism, war and attrocity are the rule, not the exception. From New York and London, to the Sudan, to Iran, to Afghanistan, to the Phillipines, to Thailand, all across the Islamic world, among different cultures and different races, the one common denominator is Islamic Fundamentalism..


Islamic fundamentalism is about as responsible for terrorism as catholicism is for supporting the IRA.  People usually resolve their differences peacefully, even in the Islamic world, if you can believe that!  Do you want to know what causes terrorism?  Ask the terrorists.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In reality it shifts the burden to the one common denominator. Other core causes that you list aren't generating terrorism all over the planet, the one common denominator is fundamentalist islam.


Terrorism can be caused by poverty.  Terrorism can be caused by imperialism.  Terrorism can be caused by many other gross injustices, for instance, taxation without representation.  The attempt to pin the blame on islamic fundamentalism is nothing more then creating a scapegoat, an easier target.  The reality is a hell of a lot more complicated because it deals with a negative interplay between American society and islamic society that has gone on for over 40 years.  And the dirty little secret is that we helped _create_ the terrorists.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No its not. Sharia is used to inform the laws of a civilized muslim society. Sharia is being used by the West as a scapegoat so that it can interfere in the Islamic world some more...terrorism comes from something different.


Sharia part of a "Civilized" society?? Please....

http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=41

This is a Muslim source.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

Terrorism is "caused" primarily by Islamic clerics who fear a secularization of Islamic countries and their fear of the influence of western nations who desire that exact aim.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html


> The rise of religious extremism in South Asia and the Middle East has to do primarily with four factors: the absence in much of the Muslim world of democratic, accountable governments, and, indirectly related to this, disputes over contested territory; the failure of governments in some Islamic countries to address problems arising from rapid social, demographic, and economic changes in the last century; financial, logistical, and moral support provided by external actors; and the breakdown within Islam itself of ijtihadthe established tradition whereby religious clerics independently interpret the Koran in order to apply Koranic law to diverse and changing circumstances.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

While I am not naive enough to believe that American policy and history is in no way related to the terrorism problem, I am also not self loathing enough to bear the lions share of the "blame". I also dont quite buy the fact at we are in some way "responsible" for people flying planeloads of innocent people into civilian buildings. Do our actions make us a "target" for others anger? Sure. Does that equate to "blame" or thinking we somehow "deserve" to be attacked? NO. The nature of politics (and most leadership and decision making) is that any action you take is going to have a good effect on some and a bad one on others. If we are to avoid making enemys and upsetting people at ALL COSTS then we might as well do nothing at all.

I find this quote interesting. It does place some blame on US policy but describes the causes of Terrorism in less partisan (read liberal "It all Americas fault") and more educated terms.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html



> While many religious extremist groups in South Asia and the Middle East share common organizational features, the circumstances that give rise to them and that motivate their actions vary widely from one setting to another. Among Palestinian groups, for example, the struggle against Israeli occupation is paramount. Egyptian groups, by contrast, are focused primarily on questions related to the social code and to internal governance of the country. Pakistani groups are motivated by a variety of goals, including the desire to control Kashmir.
> 
> There is no single cause for the rise of religious extremism in the Muslim world. *It reflects, perhaps most of all, the failure to date of secular modernism to develop good governance in most Muslim countries. *All the speakers agreed that the struggle against extremism will not be won until the countries in which extremists thrive become truly democratic, and until Islamic activists are no longer humiliated and oppressed for their beliefs. In the case of the Palestinian territories, extremists groups will continue to be influential so long as the struggle against Israel continues. "Law and order approaches" to the problem of extremism generally are ineffectual because they offer no positive alternatives to the disaffected young who swell the ranks of extremist groups.
> 
> ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> While I am not naive enough to believe that American policy and history is in no way related to the terrorism problem, I am also not self loathing enough to bear the lions share of the "blame". I also dont quite buy the fact at we are in some way "responsible" for people flying planeloads of innocent people into civilian buildings.


 I think that American history and policy is why America has become a target, in fact I have no doubts about that.

 But the simpathy for the cause of these people dissapears due to the nature of there tactics.  If they where attacking military targets that would be one thing, but seeing as the current tactics favour civllian targets and using "terror" that changes matters. 

 Now I could also imagine they could make an argument that far more civillian casualties have been taken on the muslim side then the western one, and maybe that will work for some of the people in that area.  But by using terror tactics they toss any outside sympathy for there cause out the window, and they should be punished.

 But terror is a pyshchological weapon, and the only way it can really work for them is if we let it.  By blaiming all Muslims for the actions of a few, by making them feel like the extremists claim we do.  If every time a Muslim looks to the west all he sees is discrimination and hate for him and his religion, then even the civillians become enemies.

 I'd say it is simillar to some of the "cop watch" stuff that has gone on in North America, minority groups that have had been on the brunt end of racism and unfair treatment by some cops.  A group of them gets together and starts blaming all cops, monitoring radios and going to any scene that cops are called to and video taping everything to watch for racism.

 Then they wonder why cops don't want to help them...  Even the ones that weren't racist are now being video taped, monitored and living in fear that anything they do could be misinterpreted or misrepresented to get them in big trouble.

 Islam is a religion of peace, just as much as Christianity.  Which has also had its extremists over the years that did some horrible things.  We can't stop people from hating us and our beliefs by hating them and theres, that just makes things worse.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jul-18-Sun-2004/opinion/24295897.html

http://somebodycares4u.com/islam.htm



> Two Sides to Islam
> But where does the truth lie? Does Islam sanction such terrorist acts? Or is it truly a religion of peace? That is the question. The answer, however, is not so simple. The truth is that both tendencies exist in Islam-in conflict with each other. There are two sides to Islam so to speak, two faces.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Sharia part of a "Civilized" society?? Please....
> 
> http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=41
> 
> This is a Muslim source.


That is from a very liberal muslim source.  Yet, it is still muslim.  Many wish to be muslim, but they do not want to strictly follow sharia.  Is this any different then all of the denominations of christianity?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Terrorism is "caused" primarily by Islamic clerics who fear a secularization of Islamic countries and their fear of the influence of western nations who desire that exact aim.
> 
> http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html


That report was written in order to justify our position.  Yet, there is some truth to it.  I think that most muslims would want to live with a more liberal interpretation of sharia.  I certainly would.  If you ask the normal average what they do not like about the US, you get our support for isreal, our continued psuedo-colonial dealings with ME countries, and oil policy for answers.  PBS did a great segment on this a few nights ago.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> While I am not naive enough to believe that American policy and history is in no way related to the terrorism problem, I am also not self loathing enough to bear the lions share of the "blame". I also dont quite buy the fact at we are in some way "responsible" for people ...flying planeloads of innocent people into civilian buildings. Do our actions make us a "target" for others anger? Sure. Does that equate to "blame" or thinking we somehow "deserve" to be attacked? NO. The nature of politics (and most leadership and decision making) is that any action you take is going to have a good effect on some and a bad one on others. If we are to avoid making enemys and upsetting people at ALL COSTS then we might as well do nothing at all.
> 
> I find this quote interesting. It does place some blame on US policy but describes the causes of Terrorism in less partisan (read liberal "It all Americas fault") and more educated terms.
> 
> http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html


I agree.  We do not in anyway share the lion's share of responsibility for this problem, yet, I think that accepting _our share_ of responsiblity will go a long way in solving the problem.  Further, I think that accepting _our share_ will make a few changing in our policies in the ME.


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 6, 2005)

A lot of this blowback is because of things the Europeans decided in Paris in a closed door meeting at the end of WW1.We're the johnny come latelys' and seem to be taking most of the heat for it. Then there's Iran and Iraq. We'll be experiencing blowback from this for a few decades.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050711.shtml



> In the U.K., The Sunday Times carried a front-page story exploding the myth of a causal relationship between terrorism and poverty among Muslims. The newspaper reported on leaked Whitehall documents that show "Al-Qaeda is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks" in Britain. The targets of the "extremist recruiters" are students with "technical and professional qualifications."
> 
> These are not Muslims without a future. These are bright and educated students who, if they wished, could be productive and prosperous members of British society. But many are embracing a false theology and a god who requires them to kill "infidels."
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...g20-29.pdf+religion+is+the+cause+of+terrorism



> Poverty is not an excuse for terrorism: On the other hand, there are also many who argue that the link between terrorism and poverty is too weak to be considered causal, because the one does not necessarily lead to the other. Michael Radu, for instance, argues that the search for &#8216;root causes&#8217; of terrorism is futile. He argues that this search leads too easily to the usual suspects: &#8216;poverty&#8217;, &#8216;injustice&#8217;,&#8216;exploitation&#8217; and &#8216;frustration&#8217;, even though the data does not fit this model. Radu points out that Osama bin Laden is a multimillionaire and that the backgrounds of the 11 September 2001(9/11) hijackers indicate that they were, without exception, privileged. In fact, he argues that terrorism, as one form of revolutionary violence, has always been the purview of the relatively privileged: &#8220;Terrorists have been middle class,often upper class, and always educated, but never poor.&#8221; To support his argument he refers to the South American Tupamaros and Motoneros of the 1970s, the German Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Italian Red Brigades, France&#8217;s Action Directe, the Sandinista leader-ship in Nicaragua and Fidel Castro&#8217;s Cuban revolutionaries. He also predicts that the middle-class, prosperous and self-righteous composition of the anti-globalist groups will lead to a new wave of terrorism in the West.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/03/Perspective/US_Israel_policy_not_.shtml



> In his column, Bill Maxwell referred positively to a new course on terrorism offered at the University of Florida. As course instructor and supervisor, respectively, we appreciate his endorsement of the course. However, we are concerned that the placement of the paragraph may mislead readers about the content of the course.
> 
> Specifically, Maxwell's complimentary remarks follow immediately his assertion that U.S. support for Israel and Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, which provoke enormous anger in the Muslim and Arab world, are chiefly responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Maxwell's references to the course in the next paragraph seem to imply that the course supports his argument.
> 
> ...


----------



## KenpoEMT (Aug 6, 2005)

I saw a report about a wife who became a suicide bomber. They interviewed the husband and children.  Her family had no idea that she was going to blow herself up in an attempt to murder innocent people.  To say that her husband was shocked is an understatement.
On a video that the wife taped immediately before her 'mission', she described how she had always desired to make her living body into "pieces of shrapnel"  to  "kill the infadels".

What exactly did anyone do to this woman to make her desire to murder others?

Quite frankly, I think that this is nothing more than the effect of the environment in which she was raised.  If America had never existed she would still have blown herself up in service to ala.

At least, over the centuries, the Christians outgrew their murderous tendencies. It seems the Muslims have not progressed beyond the Dark Ages.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

And for those who like to blame the Terrorism trouble on out "support of Israel", what other option do you propose there? To not support Israel? Is that how we want to treat our Allies?

http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/beres/sept02-03.htm



> To fully understand current conflicts in the Middle East, history must be recalled. Acknowledged by the United Nations and the civilized community of nations, Israel became a recognized and sovereign state on May 14, 1948. Immediately, the five armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (which was renamed Jordan one year later, in 1949), Lebanon and Iraq invaded the fledgling country. Their combined intention, celebrated enthusiastically all over the Arab world, was expressed plainly and publicly by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."





> Egypt's Gamal Abd el-Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw. After the withdrawal of UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, on May 18, 1967: "As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the U.N. about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
> 
> Two days later, a jubilant echo came from Hafez Assad, then the Syrian Defense Minister: "Our forces are now entirely ready... to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland.... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
> 
> ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 6, 2005)

Christianity and Islam have different circumstances surrounding them.

 At one point the Christian church basically ruled the western world.  Chrisitans also had the idea that giving ones life to kill infidels was a good thing.



> All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!


 ~ Pope Urban II (Fulcher of Chartres account)

 Christianity has also found itself in much more isolated territories, with few others at there borders.  The middle east has always had many countries, and almost always had a war of some kind going on there.  Whether it was being fought by Christian, Muslims, Soviets, Americans or anyone else, the area has never had a chance to stabalize.

 They also have all of the oil, and that is a lot of money.  And where there is a lot of money there will be a lot of fighting over it.  All the more developed countries try to manipulate things to get the better deal for themselves.  Backing the armies they want to win.  So the fighting within the area is being pushed on by outside forces.  When the English and the French where at war no one was giving them weapons and money that exceeded there own capabilities.  No one stepped in and gave them more money to keep fighting when they ran out.  

 Christianity has also had a lot longer to grow, It's 800(?) years older or so, and the horrible acts done in its name have only ended how long ago?  Residential schools in North America where in the 20th Century, there has been some fighting in the recent past too.

 "I believe that I am acting in accordance     with the will of the Almighty Creator: _by defending myself     against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord_.."      
    ~ Hitler 

 Charles Manson springs too mind.

 Too blame Islam for the terrorists is like blaiming all of Christianity for the Nazi's, the inquisition, the Crusades and all sorts of other nasty stuff.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

But to deny the relationship between radical Islam and terrorism is like putting blinders on.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002425.php



> The root cause of terrorism is an ideology called &#8220;political Islam.&#8221; Political Islam is a desire by extremist Muslims to create a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam and the idea that the Muslim community has strayed from God and if they were to return to a strict interpretation of Islam based on Sharia (Islamic Law) that the problems in the Muslim world would be solved. It is this exact mentality spurned of paranoia, ignorance, fear, and a rejection of secularism that inspired the beheading of Kim Sun-il, Paul M. Johnson Jr., and Nicholas Berg.
> 
> Political Islam has been growing at turbo speed since the 1980s.
> Similar to the spread of communism, the call for Islamic states has gained substantial following among the poor, unemployed, enfranchised and those who are disillusioned in believing that the creation of  Islamic states and the implementation of Sharia will solve all their problems. In fact, every modern example of an Islamic state, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, or Nigeria has resulted in war, terrorism, inequality for women and non-Muslims, poverty and a slippery slope into the dark ages.
> ...



I cant figure out how Muslim nations following Sharia is somehow OK while if any western nation would somehow decide to form a "Christian government".....well need I paint a picture?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

Crusade Myths:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp



> Since the 1970s the Crusades have attracted many hundreds of scholars who have meticulously poked, prodded, and examined them. As a result, much more is known about Christianity&#8217;s holy wars than ever before. Yet the fruits of decades of scholarship have been slow to enter the popular mind. In part this is the fault of professional historians, who tend to publish studies that, by necessity, are technical and therefore not easily accessible outside of the academy. But it is also due to a clear reluctance among modern elites to let go of Runciman&#8217;s vision of the Crusades. And so modern popular books on the Crusades&#8211;desiring, after all, to be popular&#8211;tend to parrot Runciman. The same is true for other media, like the multi-part television documentary, The Crusades (1995), produced by BBC/A&E and starring Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. To give the latter an air of authority the producers spliced in a number of distinguished Crusade historians who gave their views on events. The problem was that the historians would not go along with Runciman&#8217;s ideas. No matter. The producers simply edited the taped interviews cleverly enough that the historians seemed to be agreeing with Runciman. As Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith quite vehemently told me, "They made me appear to say things that I do not believe!"
> 
> So, what is the real story of the Crusades? As you might imagine, it is a long story. But there are good histories, written in the last twenty years, that lay much of it out. For the moment, given the barrage of coverage that the Crusades are getting nowadays, it might be best to consider just what the Crusades were not. Here, then, are some of the most common myths and why they are wrong.





> Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.
> 
> This is as wrong as wrong can be. From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor, and most of Spain. In other words, by the end of the eleventh century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities: These were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core. And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest. The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 in response to an urgent plea for help from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. Urban called the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of their eastern brethren. It was to be an errand of mercy, liberating the Christians of the East from their Muslim conquerors. In other words, the Crusades were from the beginning a defensive war. The entire history of the eastern Crusades is one of response to Muslim aggression.
> 
> ...





> Thomas F. Madden is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is author of A Concise History of the Crusades and co-author of The Fourth Crusade.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I saw a report about a wife who became a suicide bomber. They interviewed the husband and children. Her family had no idea that she was going to blow herself up in an attempt to murder innocent people. To say that her husband was shocked is an understatement.
> On a video that the wife taped immediately before her 'mission', she described how she had always desired to make her living body into "pieces of shrapnel" to "kill the infadels".
> 
> What exactly did anyone do to this woman to make her desire to murder others?
> ...


The correct reference is 'Allah'.

Also, during the time period often referred to as the 'Dark Ages', some report that Islam was in its Golden Age; a very modern civilization spreading from Spain, across North Africa, to the Middle East and as far as the South Pacific. Commerce, Literature, Education, Medicine all flourished under Islam during the 'Dark Ages'. 

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

That spread via religious conquest. And apparently some want to do so again.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> That spread via religious conquest. And apparently some want to do so again.


Define Irony:  Leftists spend most of their time fighting the Christian "phantom menace" that they claim wants to turn America away from a secular society and in to a religious one where women can't get a free abortion. 

Then, they turn around and defend a group of loons who want to return the middle east to the 12th Century and install a new Caliphate, spread to it's neighbors, and put a burkha on every woman, all on the grounds of RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE?! 

Now, how can you hold both philosophical positions, except for the most base political opportunistic reasons. Oh, it's enough to make my head spin.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 6, 2005)

It's really very simple.

 They are here, they want there country to be a certain way, but accept that other countries might not want to live the same way.  Those countries should be free to live the way they want to, same as we should be over here.

 Over here we are a democracy, seperation of church and state, multicultural, many religions, huge area with many subcultures, technology driven, huge entertainment inustry.  Our needs are going to be different then a smaller less technical country where law and morality are based on religion.

 Neither is better or worse, just better or worse for the people there.

 Same as martial arts.  Different arts do things different, different sorts of people are draw to them.  Doing Judo in a TKD class is gonna be wrong, doing it in a Judo class is right.

 We do TKD, they do Judo.  Neither is better or worse, but we like our TKDand don't want it to turn into Judo.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 7, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> It's really very simple.





			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> When ever a claim is made about something that is "very clear", it should be apparent that the claim is anything but that.





			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> They are here, they want there country to be a certain way, but accept that other countries might not want to live the same way. Those countries should be free to live the way they want to, same as we should be over here.
> 
> Over here we are a democracy, seperation of church and state, multicultural, many religions, huge area with many subcultures, technology driven, huge entertainment inustry. Our needs are going to be different then a smaller less technical country where law and morality are based on religion.
> 
> ...


 So what if Texas wants to execute prisoners but New York doesn't? Or what if Kentucky wants to make homosexuality illegal but California wants to allow gay marriage? I mean, Texas isn't the same as New York, so what applies in New York won't apply in Texas, by your argument. Texas should be free to make whatever laws they want in Texas, as long as New York is free to make it's laws, is that what you're saying? 

Seems you're applying your political views in a pretty arbitrary manner. 

On the one hand, when it's politically expedient, you argue that people who live in a certain area should have the right to do whatever they want, no matter how distasteful, to include dictators...on the other, you claim that discrimination is absolutely wrong when you happen to disagree with that particular discrimination, so it must be completely outlawed...even if the place you are attacking it has nothing to do with you, such as another state. 

And your argument is that it's happening in your country? Not really, state law varies from federal law, and if you live in a state that isn't doing this, it really doesn't have anything to do with you, right? 

Unless of course there is a such thing as right and wrong, and discrimination is universally wrong. In that case, it's as wrong in Texas as it is in New York as it is in Iraq as it is in Kosovo.

Of course then you'll make the argument that Iraq is a different culture, while other states are part of the same culture. 

Not so fast. 

You really can't claim that Texas is the same culture as Maine, they are two entirely different cultures. So, to apply your argument, applying Maine standards to Texas, for example, is intolerance. People in Texas should have the right to discriminate against people of other religions, races, and cultures if that is their culture right? I mean, who are you to intervene (all this according to your argument).

I happen to see it this way...there is a universally acceptable standard of human behavior, and dictators don't fall in to that acceptable category anymore than discriminating against someone because of their race, ethnicity or any other uncontrollable reason.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 7, 2005)

How long should we tolerate despots and barbarism for the sake of "peace in our time"? How far is too far?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> How long should we tolerate despots and barbarism for the sake of "peace in our time"? How far is too far?


 I think the answer is "Until it's their idea."


----------



## Tgace (Aug 7, 2005)

So let me get this straight...conflicts within my memory. 

Grenada (?) was that good or bad? 

Panama: Similar to the Iraq issue. We "put him in there" so I guess we became no longer eligible to take him out once he became a problem. But as it was quick, nobody cares much anymore.

Bosnia: Didnt get there soon enough.

Somalia: Didnt get there soon enough. Didnt supply enough manpower/material when we did. Couldnt get out of there fast enough after the "Blackhawk Down" incident.

Rawanda: Didnt do anything. But is implied we should have.

Desert Storm 1: War for oil, but was "good" because we won quickly and got out.

Iraq War: Wrong

May have missed a few..but I just cant figure out what qualifies for a righteous removal of a barbaric dictatorship or solution of a humanitarian crisis, and which is not. As long as its quick its OK, if it requires a long commitment its not?

Unless its like Sgtmac said.."when its their idea".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 7, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> It's really very simple.
> 
> They are here, they want there country to be a certain way, but accept that other countries might not want to live the same way. Those countries should be free to live the way they want to, same as we should be over here.
> 
> ...


 


"It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect. "James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833​ 


"The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice. "Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775​


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 7, 2005)

I came across this quote from a meeting between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and a muslim diplomat pertaining to the Barbary Pirates.


*We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.*
*                                                                                                  Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 8, 2005)

Lest anyone think the above is a misinterpretation of Islam, I leave it to the judgement of the reader. Attached are two websites, neither website is biased against Isalm, in fact BOTH are pro-islamic english websites. The reader should simply research the issue themselves. Keep two terms in mind:

Dar-al Islam (Abode of Islam) Dar al-Harb (Abode of War)

In the teachings and minds of radical Islamics, there are only two abodes on earth, the abode of Islam and the abode of war. If you truly believe in fundamentalist Islamic teachings as the literal word, not as a tradition, then you believe that there are only two abodes. The Abode of War is everything controlled by unbelievers. There is no place for peace with any nation that does not accept Islamic rule. Muslims are fair in the sense that they don't really care what you as an individual believe, christianity, judaism, buddhism, are all tolerated (to some extent) as long as they reside in the Abode of Islam and abide by Islamic law (under Muslim rule). 

Now, those who would presume to claim that "fundamentalist Islam is not the problem because most Islamic fundamentalists aren't terrorist" should keep in mind that it is fundamentally core to believing in the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran to believe in this dichotomy. 


"(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. " (Qu'ran 9:4)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. " (Qu'ran 9:5)

"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." (Qu'ran 9:29)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html
http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryCD.html

Feel free to read for yourselves. I don't quote those verses to condemn all Muslims. A significant majority of Muslims believe that the Qu'ran, while a holy book, should not be taken literally (as do many christians believe the bible should not be taken literally), they take what is written with an understanding of the historical context and try to draw guidance from what sections apply to their life.

To a minority of muslims, however, the literal interpretation of these texts would lead them to believe that they should be in a constant state of war with unbelievers. As I illustrated in a previous post, this type of fundamentalist interpretation has been haunting western civilization for centuries. Long before 9/11, Modern Israel, or even the 20th Century, Islamic fundamentalists have been using this type of literal interpretation to justify all sorts of acts of war and terrorism.

Now, before someone says, "Well, yeah, but the bible can be interpretated the same way." Yeah, that may be so, but who cares. The fact is that most christians don't interpret the bible literally. Those that do, at least don't have the command that they should be in a constant state of war with all non-believes. What's more, western society is an increasing secular society.  You'd be hard pressed to find many truly fundamentalist christians in the US, much less Canada and Europe.

What's more, even among true Fundamentalist Christians there's a bit of a contrast between "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" and "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" Taking one literally just leads to annoying people showing up at your door with tracts and an invitation to church, the other leads to a belief that strapping on high-explosives and detonating a bus is a good idea.

It isn't the religion of Islam I take exception with. Reasonable believers of Islam who understand that many of the passages of the Qu'ran applied in another era, but no longer, are always welcome. But saying that fundamentalist muslims who literally interpret this type of stuff aren't dangerous is pretty much wishful thinking. 

I'll be expecting another anonymous post asking me if I "do much discriminating". 

Discrimination isn't the issue, it's religious beliefs of all types that encourage the believers to commit violent acts. This includes certain sects of christianity and judaism.

The above will no doubt be a lightening rod, as it seems to be a taboo topic. I really don't understand what has happened to leftists. They attack christians who believe homosexuality is wrong as superstitious, homophobic, bible thumpers, and have no problem attacking their religious beliefs. They then turn around and label taboo mentioning that a few tenants of fundamentalist Islam is the belief that all non-believers need to be attacked until they submit to Islamic rule. 

Seems to me that if one is superstitious BS, the other one is too. I have to wonder if the defense of Islam by the left is nothing more than the fact that Fundamentalist Christians are voting Republican, so they are the enemy, but Muslims are a potential political ally, so they get a free pass. If it's based on silly superstition, it's based on silly superstition. And if it's causing people to strap on bombs and blow up other people (Be they abortion clinics are train stations) it's maybe time to point out the absurdity. Politics sure does make strange bed-fellows.


----------

