How Do I Surrender [to Islam and/or Islamist terrorists]?

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Well you see the Cuban government supporting assassination teams aimed at some Cuban leader in Florida. (No cite. Can someone please confirm this?)

So Flying Dutchman is saying let them kill the homosexuals, enslave the women and destroy the religious minorities in their own nations and they will leave us alone? Do you really believe that? Do you think it would be a moral thing to do?

[Rune]

The latest terror scare in Germany was apparently partially inspired by the cartoons (posted in a Danish Newspaper - Islamist geography lessons a bit off). As far as I know Denmark is not “Muslim land” and no amount of withdrawing from “Muslim lands” the Middle East, disengaging from Israel, etc. would have prevented them from becomming enraged over something happening in Denmark.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]

So Flying Dutchman is saying let them kill the homosexuals, enslave the women and destroy the religious minorities in their own nations and they will leave us alone? Do you really believe that? Do you think it would be a moral thing to do?
[/QUOTE]

Strangely enough, after the dust settled on the Iraqi invasion it was my hope that a viable democracy addressing these issues could be accomplished. It certainly was one of the goals of the Bush administration.

I was naive. The Bush administration failed and no one else has come forward to suggest a different plan.

My earlier post was a suggestion for those who wish to surrender. I’m not in that camp. For some inexplicable reason, for me personally, the destruction of Israel would signal the end of my hopes for mankind.

(just in case, the last comment has nothing to do with end times or religion)

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

[QUOTE=Rune]
The latest terror scare in Germany was apparently partially inspired by the cartoons (posted in a Danish Newspaper - Islamist geography lessons a bit off). As far as I know Denmark is not “Muslim land” and no amount of withdrawing from “Muslim lands” the Middle East, disengaging from Israel, etc. would have prevented them from becomming enraged over something happening in Denmark.
[/QUOTE]

Well with Muslims at 5% of the population, Denmark just might qualify as Muslim land.

For some reason we don’t have the problems with Muslim citizens here in North America that you have in Europe. Besides the smaller relative North American Muslin population, I suspect that is do to the relative education levels of Muslim immigrants. Europe wanted cheap labour. North America opens it’s doors to professionals and their relatives.

[constanze]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Strangely enough, after the dust settled on the Iraqi invasion it was my hope that a viable democracy addressing these issues could be accomplished. It certainly was one of the goals of the Bush administration.

I was naive. The Bush administration failed and no one else has come forward to suggest a different plan.
[/quote]

No, it wasn’t a plan, it was a wish. The admin. had themselves deluded that conquering Iraq and toppling the statues of Saddam Hussein would be enough to make the citizens cheer (despite the civilians being bombed before, everybody loves the Americans, after all), and democracy would just happen.

Read more about the mess made in Iraq through incompetence here.Zompist's Rant Page

As for not coming forth with suggestions for alternatives - people who know a bit more about foreign countries have some ideas, but with the admin. running mad and not listening, this advice doesn’t do a lot of good. Besides, building a democracy requires building a civilised nation first, and that can easily take one or two decades - that means a commitment of money and personell (not only soldiers) for that whole time. The US doesn’t have a good track record in long-term comitment. And after Abu Ghraib, the US has lost all credibility for Human Rights in that region. Besides, the US would have to built up credibility that it wants to build a true democracy for the citizens and not a puppet regime for their own self interests, because that’s what the track record of the last 50 or 100 years show.

For some inexplicable reason, for me personally, the destruction of Israel would signal the end of my hopes for mankind.

(just in case, the last comment has nothing to do with end times or religion)

The best thing for Israel would be a lasting peace in that region. Unfortuanetly, with its one-sided, uncondiational backing of Israel, and demonification (in the media) of Muslim states nearby (painting all Muslims states as close to dangerous terrorist states, all that axis of evil stuff and so on), the US has lost all credibility as peace broker it had under Clinton. Which is sad, because as major arms supplier and otherwise supporter, the US has the strongest lever against Israel. And for a peace to work, both sides need to back down and concede something, and no matter how much Israel is on the defense, some lines have been crossed that a civilised democracy shouldn’t cross, and these righetous grievances add oil to the religious, warped, fires of hatred.

[constanze]

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
For some reason we don’t have the problems with Muslim citizens here in North America that you have in Europe. Besides the smaller relative North American Muslin population, I suspect that is do to the relative education levels of Muslim immigrants. Europe wanted cheap labour. North America opens it’s doors to professionals and their relatives.
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s much more because - at least in Germany - for the last 40 years, the govt. has always declared that “we are not an immigration country”, so no effort was made to actually integrate them. Yes, the workers who came in the 60s were uneducated rural people, who got low-level jobs over here. But a whole new generation has grown up and gone to school here, and if integration had been encouraged, we would have more educated Muslims now.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=jjimm]
Well you’re fine then, since the vast majority of Muslims feel the same way. It’s a shame you feel you have to capitulate to the murderous idiots rather than chill out with the nice ones.
[/QUOTE]
Salmon Rushdie might disagree with you on your concept of chillin with the Religion of Peace. Can’t be done. It should be obvious from the lack of integration exhibited by Muslims when moving to a new country.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=black rabbit]

@Shodan

You also forgot:

8. Force your women to wear burkhas
9. Eliminate secular government
10. Kill or imprison homosexuals
11. Outlaw alcohol
12. Eliminate the modern stock market

Any evidence that those are among the actual casi belli for aQ’s actions against the United States? Because I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re talking about.
[/QUOTE]

Well, as it turns out, you are “pretty sure” about something that turns out to be wrong.

The position of women:

@bin Laden

vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins.

Secular government:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

Gay rights:

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

Alcohol:

iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants.

The stock market:

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. . As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense;

All from his statement in 2002.

Next time, you might want to check the actual facts before being so “sure”, sonny boy.

Regards,
Shodan

[gonzomax]

Constanze that experiment is on running. I live outside Detroit in a community that is the largest Arab population outside rhe middle east… On my block I have 2 Pakistani falilies and 7 Arab. I talk to some of them with regularity. My mechanic is from Iraq.Gas stations and party stores are middle east owned.Sadly they own the Pizzeria closest to us.They make lousy pizza.
My new neighbor was jailed in Iraq under Sadaam. He was a poet and a college professor.He says that under Sadaam over half the professional positions were held by women. Over half the college students were women. They were not forced to wear burkhas.They all hated his looting of the treasury and his violence. They were hoping that when we came in the lights would be on and water would be available. They say what we do. They could put a man on the moon and can’t fix the lights.They feel it was and is not a priority.
We are in peace here and I do not feel threatened.

[Mince]

Sometimes I wish we were all the same color and sex, and no one worshipped mythological deities. Then, the principal vehicles of hate would not exist. Unfortunately, us humans, clever and resourceful as we are, would find other means of hate.

“I wear Nikes and you like Reebocks. I hate you. Let’s knife fight.”

Can someone push the reset button?

[Johanna]

You know, every time I read about Islam’s eternal burning hatred of all things Western, I remember Karen Armstrong’s book Islam: A Short History. She revealed a fact that has been lost in all these debates:

Muslim thinkers in the late 19th century loved and admired America, and proposed emulating us. Muhammad ‘Abduh traveled from Egypt to Paris and commented, “In Egypt I saw Muslims with no Islam. In Paris I saw Islam with no Muslims.” He meant that his Islamic ideal of how a republic of the people ought to be run was being put into practice in the progressive countries of the West. Armstrong says Muslims wanted to be friends with America until we started to intervene in their countries after World War II and treat them as inferiors.

[rickya]

Are we still under the delusion that terrorism is caused by a misreading of the teachings of Islam?

Terrorism is caused by being true to the letter and spirit of the Quran. It is caused by following closely to the example of their prophet - Muhammad.

Until we all recognize this, terrorism will continue to thrive.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=constanze]
Yes, I’m European. No, I don’t think I have a “provinical” attitude about America (if that word means that I’m un- or half-informed and follow stereotypes?). I know that America is not Europe (sadly), because I wish European enlightment, true democracy and real civilisation would finally reach the US.
[/QUOTE]
ahahahaahahahahah. Wow, if that doesn’t ping the needle on the arrogance meter I don’t know what would. We enjoy a level of free speech that few countries have. It’s covered under the 1st amendment along with freedom of the press, and religious freedom. Theses are the cornerstones of Democracy in the United States. Your opinion is duly noted (and filed).

The answer to the op question is simple. According to Adam Yehiye Gadahn all we have to do to avoid death is convert to Islam. To that end we can solve everything by eliminating the 1st Amendment. To save time we can start working on the PR necessary to make this happen: "Join the religion of peace or die”. We can run the ad 5 times a day. Just make sure your TV is pointed east.

[Gozu]

[QUOTE=rickya]
Are we still under the delusion that terrorism is caused by a misreading of the teachings of Islam?

Terrorism is caused by being true to the letter and spirit of the Quran. It is caused by following closely to the example of their prophet - Muhammad.

Until we all recognize this, terrorism will continue to thrive.
[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah? And what will happen when we recognize the veracity of your brilliant theory?

Err…well…I suppose if Islam causes terrorism, then Islam is the problem. Let’s convert them!

Don’t be an idiot. You can’t do that anymore that the japanese could convert the occidental world to shintoism.

Well…let’s keep them away. Let’s close our borders to all the citizens of muslim countries!

But what about the dozens of millions of muslims in europe and the U.S? Not to mention Asia…Should the borders be closed to Pakistanis? What about muslim indians? Muslim chinese maybe? Should we close the border with China? No, no, that will never do! This whole quarantine business is an obviously stupid and unfeasible idea. Kinda like the war on drugs.

Well then..let’s exterminate them! We’ve done it to the indians, we can do it again!

Over a billion of them, genocide not a good option.

So..what? we can’t kill’em, we can’t keep’em out. WHAT IS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE MUSLIM MENACE???SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!Do you want your children to be killed in a terrorist attack?

No comment.

Honestly Rickya. Sure, I might be sarcastic because I found your assertions stupid and irritating. I hope I will be forgiven for so blunt but I have been given no reason to spare your feelings given the nature of the post and my own background. However, that’s no reason for you, ricki, not to think critically about what you have said. If you really do it, and are open to admit your mistakes, and bright enough to see that you are mistaken, you will be better off for it in the end. Otherwise, well, too bad.

I can only hope that the rest of the SDMB members share my views in this matter. Thinking otherwise would be utterly depressing.

[Princhester]

[QUOTE=rickya]
Until we all recognize this, terrorism will continue to thrive.

[/QUOTE]

Clearly you know some things about the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber and the ETA that, well, quite a few of us are going to find surprising. Hit us with some particulars, dude.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Clearly you know some things about the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber and the ETA that, well, quite a few of us are going to find surprising. Hit us with some particulars, dude.
[/QUOTE]
Did the above individuals or groups demand that the United States (or the world at large) convert to Islam or die? What are you clearly trying to say? I don’t get the connection at all.

[Princhester]

Well read rickya’s post more carefully then.

[VarlosZ]

I’ve previously posted something very similar to this on the “terrorists want to kill us because we exist” meme, but it bears repeating every now and then. Basically, I see little reason to believe that it’s true. Surely there are some groups that would wish to do us harm no matter what, but they seem to be in the minority and would not have anywhere near the kind of support they currently possess if the U.S. were to pull back all troop deployments to Muslim countries, withdraw support for Israel, etc. I think that there is good reason to believe that terrorist attacks against the U.S. would virtually cease if we were to take these political steps.

This is not just some liberal fringe theory, either. To give you some idea of what I’m talking about, here are some selections from a Congressional Research Service report – Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology. All bolding is mine.

. . . [Bin Laden’s] exposure to the teachings of conservative Islamist scholars in Saudi Arabia and his work with Arab militants in Afghanistan provided the theological and ideological basis for his belief in the desirability of puritanical Salafist Islamic reform in Muslim societies and the necessity of armed resistance in the face of perceived aggression — a concept Al Qaeda has since associated with a communally-binding Islamic principle known as “defensive jihad.” After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden expressed these views in opposition to the introduction of foreign military forces to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden characterized the presence of U.S. and other non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War as cause for renewed commitment to defensive jihad and the promotion of violence against the Saudi government and the United States.

.

. . . In the early 1990s, Bin Laden emphasized his desire to secure the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops from Saudi Arabia at all costs. Bin Laden criticized the Saudi royal family publicly and alleged that their invitation of foreign troops to the Arabian peninsula constituted an affront to the sanctity of the birthplace of Islam and a betrayal of the global Islamic community.

.

. . . Bin Laden issued a declaration of jihad against the United States in 1996 that signaled his emergence as an internationally recognizable figure and offered a full account of his main critiques of an enemy he described as the “alliance of Jews, Christians, and their agents.” Adopting the sensitive historical and religious imagery of Islamic resistance to the European Crusades, Bin Laden condemned the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, criticized the international sanctions regime on Iraq, and voiced his opposition to U.S. support for Israel. The declaration also cited “massacres in Tajikistan, Burma, Kashmir, Assam, the Philippines, Fatani [as transliterated], Ogaden, Somalia, Eritrea, Chechnya, and Bosnia-Herzegovina” as examples of a growing war on Islam for which the United States should be punished.

.

. . . Although he possesses no traditional Islamic religious credentials or authority, Bin Laden issued a fatwa, or religious edict, in 1998 that claimed that the United States had made “a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims” 13 through its policies in the Islamic world. The fatwa made use of the principle of defensive jihad to argue that U.S. aggression made armed resistance and the targeting of American civilians and military personnel incumbent upon all Muslims.

.

. . . Following Al Qaeda’s bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998) and the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen(2000), Bin Laden refused to take direct responsibility for the attacks, but claimed that he approved of the strikes and shared the motivations of the individuals who had carried them out. Bin Laden argued that the bombings should be seen by Americans and the world as retribution for U.S. policy and compared them to alleged “massacres” of Palestinians in historic cases familiar to many Muslims and Arabs.

.

. . . Following an established pattern, Bin Laden acknowledged his support for the [9-11] hijackers and repeated his claim that strikes on American targets should be viewed by Muslims and Americans as a defensively motivated response to perceived American aggression in the Islamic world. Statements attributed to Bin Laden promised further attacks and sought to justify Al Qaeda’s targeting of American civilians by arguing that American society was morally corrupt and that American civilians should be held accountable for the policies of their democratically elected government.

.

. . . Bin Laden has addressed the governments and citizens of Europe and the United States directly in an effort to discourage support for their current policies in the Islamic world. In April 2004, Bin Laden offered Europeans a “truce” if they agreed to abandon their support for the United States and their military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The offer was resoundingly rejected by European leaders and their citizens. In October 2004, on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, Bin Laden made a similar statement in which he urged Americans to reevaluate their policies toward the Islamic world and threatened to bleed and bankrupt the United States. In late November 2004, Al Zawahiri stated Al Qaeda’s intention to continue its jihad against the United States indefinitely until its leaders deem “U.S. policy toward Muslims” to be non-aggressive.

.

. . . Recent statements from Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, and Abu Musab Al Zarqawi display the uncompromising commitment of Al Qaeda’s leaders and affiliates to a consistent ideological agenda focused on the expulsion of foreign forces and influences from Islamic societies and the creation of an Islamic state ruled by sharia law.

.

. . . Bin Laden’s earlier statements also addressed the American public in several instances that he since has characterized as attempts to explain his motives and outline steps he and his followers believed the United States should have taken in order to avoid Al Qaeda attacks.

.

. . . Over time, the cornerstone of Al Qaeda’s religious and political rhetoric has remained consistent: Muslims should view themselves as a single nation and unite to resist anti-Islamic aggression on the basis of obligatory defensive jihad.

These hardly seem like descriptions of an organization devoted to murder for the sake of murder. It seems to me that their terrorism has specific political goals.

In fairness, the last two sections of the report leave some uncertainty on this point:

Bin Laden has outlined specific political demands that support an image of Al Qaeda as a pliable, pragmatic political actor. Nevertheless, Al Qaeda’s operational record seems to indicate that its leaders’ commitment to specific national causes and strategic objectives are rhetorical tools designed to elicit support for their broader ideological agenda of confrontation with the West and puritanical reform in the Islamic world.

I should note, however, that the purpose of the referenced “confrontation with the West” is left vague – is it to destroy the Western, Christian, Jewish governments at all costs, or would complete Western withdrawal from Muslim affairs be sufficient? I’m not certain, and I’m also not clear on precisely what the report means to imply. However, given this statement in the final paragraph, I’m strongly leaning toward the latter interpretation:

. . . Overall, Bin Laden’s statements from the mid-1990s through the present indicate that he continues to see himself and his followers as the vanguard of an international Islamic movement primarily committed to ending U.S. “interference” in the affairs of Islamic countries and supportive of efforts to overturn and recast Islamic societies according to narrow Salafist interpretations of Islam and Islamic law.

This is all somewhat academic. I’m certainly not suggesting that we tailor our foriegn policies to appease Muslim terrorists – only that we should factor in the possible amelioration of terrorist hostility toward the West when trying to calculate the wisest course of action.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Well read rickya’s post more carefully then.
[/QUOTE]
You mean the one that was related to the thread?

[constanze]

[QUOTE=rickya]
Are we still under the delusion that terrorism is caused by a misreading of the teachings of Islam?

Terrorism is caused by being true to the letter and spirit of the Quran. It is caused by following closely to the example of their prophet - Muhammad.

Until we all recognize this, terrorism will continue to thrive.
[/QUOTE]

Are we still under the delusion that terrorism is caused by a misreading of the teachings of Christianity?

Terrorism is caused by being true to the letter and spirit of the Bible. It’s caused by following closely to the example of its prophet - Jesus.

Until we all recognize this, terrorism by Christian fundamentalist will continue to thrive.

Of course, we then have to reword this for the Hinduist fanatics who engage in terrorism, and the Japanese fanatics, and the … fill in blank fanatics.