Solution to Suicide Bombings

[system]

I have begun to despair on this subject, but in the interest of the public good, a correction.

Let me preface the correction by noting that I actually know something about the religion and region as I have lived and worked here for about a decade and speak (and read and write) Arabic.

In short, first hand, learned observations:

*Originally posted by Magiver *
You have to look at the religion of Islam to understand why they breed terrorists.

Perhaps, although it is helpful to have something of an informed background on the religion in mind.

-It is a fundamentalist religion. Challenging any aspect of the religion is a death sentence.

No, it is not. Apostasy, utterly renouncing the religion traditionally has a capital crime, but as well traditionally one had to do so formally, get up and denounce Islam entirely.

In the modern MENA region only a few states continue to carry apostasy as a capital crime.

Challenging aspects of the religion, go right ahead. Passively, plenty of people (Muslim Arabs) don’t pray the ful five prayers, apply their own interpretation to duties and the like. Challenges to recieved interpretation are further out there.

-Its dogma is reinforced by prayer, which is repeated 5 times a day, 365 days a year.

Dogma reinforced by the Salaat? 5 minutes five times a day of kneeling and reciting some memorized passage of the Quran is hardly reinforcing “dogma” - I can report first hand that plenty of perfectly liberal folks pray five times a day, no big deal. One’s interpretation is not changed by simply praying (except for Fridays, alone).

-There are no specific requirements to become a religious leader.
-Once you are accepted as a leader, any challenge to your authority is considered blasphemous and subject to a death penalty.

The first is correct, the second is pure crap. Pure and utter crap. Of course, there are leaders who claim the right to pronounce death sentences, but infallibility is not part of the orthodox ulema’s claims.

[quote]

-If you renounce Islam it is a death sentence.

See above.

-Anyone not of the religion is considered an infidel, and are not given the same consideration of basic rights. The exception are the “people of the Book” (Christians, Jews)

Distortion in large part, the Dhimma by the way was extended to Zorastrians and eventually even Hindus in India. Flexiblity in interpretation.

With these characteristics you have the ability to control people without question.

That’s complete and utter crap. Every believer has the right to come up with his or her own interpretation, if you don’t like what one mosque says, change mosques. Hardly a recipe for unquestioning control when the religion builds in “shopping for fatwas” behaviour and a set of clear calls for the believers to understand their own religion on their own.

I find it amusing the kind of wildly distorted images the arise from this half-baked understanding.

Add to that the Islamic requirement to give to the poor and you now have a financial source to fund the Taliband (religious schools) where you can train people to do your bidding.

First, Taliban means students not religious schools, Medresa being the typical term. Just means school of course.

Second, the tithe to the poor is again an individual believer’s personal duty. Some states have it organized as a tax, others do not. Religiously motivated charity is hardly so sinister, and the imagery of the religious schools is wildly overblown.

It is certainly true that in Pakistan there is a serious problem of religious schools – to which poor parents send their children for lack of money to send them to other places – have in some areas become infected with some real radicalism. Similarly the Saudi system, by its own peculiarities, is entirely in the hands of extreme Wahhabism, and in Yemen, another place of state failure, some religious schools, seminaries if you will, are real centers of radicalism.

That does not mean all Muslim religious schools are. I know plenty of folks who did them, came out perfectly normal – nothing worse than Sunday school and learning by rote all the stories and like.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

*Originally posted by Finagle *
**I dunno, MC. According to the statistics page on that site, based on Palestinian casualities, the late 1990’s were relatively calm. It was only after the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada” that the death rate soared.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_start.php

Don’t know what bias, if any, is presented by the above page, but it presents the intifada as a deliberately provoked act of violence on the part of the Palestinians. In which case they really should be asking themselves some searching questions about whether they’re better off now than they were then. **

I was talking about strictly within the time frame of the al-aqsa intifada, there have been several periods, notably just before the end of last year where there have been no suicide bombings, but Israeli operations have stepped up.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

*Originally posted by Ben Hicks *
**Kalt

I’m sorry Kalt, but assuming you are not a resident of a muslim country and saw only what the rest of us did then you most certainly didn’t see a “vast majority” of muslims celebrating 9/11. What you saw were a few dozen zealots handpicked by the TV companies for maximum impact. **

In fact Ben Hicks, I was in a Muslim country (one of the largest Muslim countries too) when the bombings took place and I can indeed confirm that Kalt is speaking drivel.

[Zoe]

Geeeez Louise!

Osama bin Laden is to Islam as
Jim Jones is to Chrisitanity.

Psssst! Kalt! You use the expression vast majority too often for anyone to take anything that you say seriously. Your comments are riddled with cliched thinking, unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, propoganda and grinding ignorance. Try reading some unbiased sources for your information.

Did you really think that you could get away with saying that there was a “vast majority” of Muslims dancing in the street on 9/11? Did you really think that the rest of us weren’t watching that day?

For all practical purposes, your reasoning isn’t all that different from the terrorists themselves.

I will listen to a good debate any day with substantiation and cites. but your arguments have no foundation and you have indicated that you are unwilling (or unable) to provide any. Consider your sources! We do!

[Kalt]

Zoe: my use of “vast majority” was in response to someone else who had said it.

For all practical purposes, your reasoning isn’t all that different from the terrorists themselves.

My reasoning doesn’t cause me to blow things up.

So you guys are telling me that that entire village where everyone was dancing in the streets was one of maybe 3 or 4 muslim villages in the entire world celebrating 9/11? Ok.

Note: were it just fox news showing the dancing, I’d take it with a grain of salt, but CNN and the 3 major networks showed it too. And there were lots of 'em.

As for the Koran

“O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed.” (Koran, 9:73)

“When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended.” (Koran, 47:4)

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and genitals cut off, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror.” (Koran, 5:33-34)

“When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah’s word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly.” (Koran, 17:16-17)

“In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [all non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost.” (Koran, 8:37)

“How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples.” (Koran, 21:11)

“Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them.” (Koran, 8:12)
But those are all just mistranslated, eh? They really mean love and peace for everyone. Even if they DO (which they don’t) it’s irrrelevant as long as it is so easy to mis-read and mis-translate.

[athelas]

For all practical purposes, your reasoning isn’t all that different from the terrorists themselves.

Ahh…good ol’ disproof by association.

(Not to say, of course, that cites wouldn’t be nice…)

[Mtgman]

Originally posted by Kalt
My reasoning doesn’t cause me to blow things up.

So that part about taking over all those countries and America becoming an Imperialist state. You think that can be accomplished without blowing things up?

Enjoy,
Steven

[Kalt]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**So that part about taking over all those countries and America becoming an Imperialist state. You think that can be accomplished without blowing things up?

Enjoy,
Steven **

Not necessarily, and even if it did it would be apples and oranges. We wouldn’t be blowing up things indiscriminately just for the sake of killing people. If the imperialism requires, for some reason, something to be blown up, then get the civilians out and level it. I can tell you that taking over all those countries would not require a single american suicide bomber. How many American suicide bombers were needed to get rid of Saddam? None. You have to distinguish between terrorism and military objectives. Making the world a safer place is a valid military objective. Blowing up a shopping center full of civilians because you don’t want “zionists breathing your air” (what the hamas guy said yesterday… although I’m sure it was mistranslated and he really said he loves all zionists and wants to share oxygen with them) is not… that is terrorism.

[Mtgman]

Ok, so bombing someone into submission and imposing your own morality and values on them is ok if you can afford to do it with cruise missiles but bad if you are broke and your only delivery mechanism is a suicide bomber?

Just checking.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Arfur]

Stupid answer by me.

Muslims can’t die with a pig and go to allah.?
Give them all pig livers, or make them eat hot dogs at the border.

(common, relax, I laughed typing this…)

[Kalt]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**Ok, so bombing someone into submission and imposing your own morality and values on them is ok if you can afford to do it with cruise missiles but bad if you are broke and your only delivery mechanism is a suicide bomber?
**

No, it’s not the delivery method per se that makes it wrong. If suicide bombers were blowing up legitimate military targets (not shopping malls and public buses), it would be no different than using cruise missiles.

But we all know, and they’d gladly admit it, if Hamas, et al. had cruise missiles, they’d be launching those at israel’s civilians instead of using suicide bombers.

[Mtgman]

Actually, if Hamas et. al. had cruise missiles I’d guess they’d be launching them at “legitimate military targets.” The targeting of civilians comes when one side is so much weaker than the other that their weapons would have no noticable effect on the military of their opponent. It is quite hard to take out a tank with a suicide bomber and few dozen sticks of dynamite. It is a function of using your weapons on the targets which they are most effective on.

If a Hamas et. al. had weapons which would allow them to take out military targets(as opposed to simply annoying them) I’d bet they would use them against military targets(at least until all the military targets were destroyed and then I’d guess hatred of the Israelis would turn some of them on civilians, but that is a seperate issue). It would be foolish to launch a cruise missile into a market intentionally. You’ve hurt some civilians, but you haven’t weakened your opponent’s ability to kick your ass in retribution and you’ve used up a cruise missile. Now the IDF is still every bit as capable of rolling right over you as they were before you used up your cruise missile. Wouldn’t it have been wiser to hit a tank or a couple of planes with that missile? Thats one less tank or a couple less planes they can use to kill you with.

Terrorism is not typically driven by hatred of civilians(although such hatred is undoubtedly present in some terrorists, a large part of the rhetoric of Bin Laden was pointing out how each civilian of the US was culpable for the actions of their representative government and that no one who propped up such a government via their taxes or other forms of support was “innocent”). Terrorism is driven by desperation and lack of resources/imbalance in the military power of the combatants making effective conventional strikes against “legitimate military targets” impossible. What targets are left? Civilians.

Enjoy,
Steven

[GoHeels]

Islam (like Christianity) within the context of political repression and economic crisis is one thing. (see Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.)

Islam (like Christianity) within the context of a somewhat decent government is quite another (India, Bangladesh).

The question should NOT be what has Islam done to Muslims. The question we - and they - should ask is what have (a minority) of Muslims done to Islam?

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**I
No, it is not. Apostasy, utterly renouncing the religion traditionally has a capital crime, but as well traditionally one had to do so formally, get up and denounce Islam entirely.

In the modern MENA region only a few states continue to carry apostasy as a capital crime.

ONLY A FEW? Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia…etc…Where do the terrorists come from? Your point of disagreement is? The fact that you have to renounce it FORMALLY does not reduce the severity of the punishment.

**I
Challenging aspects of the religion, go right ahead. Passively, plenty of people (Muslim Arabs) don’t pray the ful five prayers, apply their own interpretation to duties and the like. Challenges to recieved interpretation are further out there. **

By all means, write an article slamming a religious leader while you’re over there and be sure to include a return address. You will be my hero.

**I
Dogma reinforced by the Salaat? 5 minutes five times a day of kneeling and reciting some memorized passage of the Quran is hardly reinforcing “dogma” - I can report first hand that plenty of perfectly liberal folks pray five times a day, no big deal. One’s interpretation is not changed by simply praying (except for Fridays, alone). **

Religious reinforcement IS the definition of dogma. It is not the prayer that alters the concept of the religion. It is the dogma of the prayer that allows religious leaders to incite hate. It is easier to drive human emotion using blind faith than it is to use logic.

**I
The first is correct, the second is pure crap. Pure and utter crap. Of course, there are leaders who claim the right to pronounce death sentences, but infallibility is not part of the orthodox ulema’s claims. **

It is not crap in the countries listed above. You cannot go to the top dog, point your finger, and tell him he is full of religious shit. You will die. There are dissidents in Iran who face the death penalty NOW.
http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/westkeepslowprofile15november.htm

**I
Distortion in large part, the Dhimma by the way was extended to Zorastrians and eventually even Hindus in India. Flexiblity in interpretation. . **

Well I feel better. They have lowered their standards to that of Hindu. I asked a local Muslim leader about the Buddha statues that were blown up in Afghanistan and his actual response was “those were pagan artifacts”. I pointed out the Egyptian pyramids were also a vestige of a pagan religion and his look of total perplexity said it all.

**I

That’s complete and utter crap. Every believer has the right to come up with his or her own interpretation, if you don’t like what one mosque says, change mosques. Hardly a recipe for unquestioning control when the religion builds in “shopping for fatwas” behaviour and a set of clear calls for the believers to understand their own religion on their own. **

Really. Every believer in Saudi Arabia has the right of dissent? A woman can’t walk down the street without a personal escort AND a black sack over her entire body. The right of dissent?
Salman Rushdie would disagree. So would Pat Robertson. So would the 5 dead people in India that resulted from the riots that occurred from Pat Robertson’s statements.

**I

I find it amusing the kind of wildly distorted images the arise from this half-baked understanding.

First, Taliban means students not religious schools, Medresa being the typical term. Just means school of course.

Second, the tithe to the poor is again an individual believer’s personal duty. Some states have it organized as a tax, others do not. Religiously motivated charity is hardly so sinister, and the imagery of the religious schools is wildly overblown.

It is certainly true that in Pakistan there is a serious problem of religious schools – to which poor parents send their children for lack of money to send them to other places – have in some areas become infected with some real radicalism. Similarly the Saudi system, by its own peculiarities, is entirely in the hands of extreme Wahhabism, and in Yemen, another place of state failure, some religious schools, seminaries if you will, are real centers of radicalism.

That does not mean all Muslim religious schools are. I know plenty of folks who did them, came out perfectly normal – nothing worse than Sunday school and learning by rote all the stories and like. **

Thanks for the dictionary meaning of “Taliban” found on every website I’ve visited. However, it has become the icon for a political organization in Afghanistan that evolved out of religious SCHOOLS.

And whether you like it or not, it WAS the tithing aspect of Islam that was subverted to the training of terrorists. The whole point of my remarks was to point out the ability to abuse the nature of the religion, not the religion itself.

You took a wonderful opportunity to avail us of your knowledge abroad and pissed it away on a series of “yes but not every Muslim does this”.

I’m sorry if I sound angry but it’s because I think you’ve cheated me out of a useful dialog.

[Guinastasia]

You know Kalt, what you propose is almost exactly what England did to Ireland for centuries, and what would ultimately bring about the creation of the group that would become the IRA.

So you’re only going to breed more terrorists, not less.

But you do what you want.

[Kalt]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**If a Hamas et. al. had weapons which would allow them to take out military targets(as opposed to simply annoying them) I’d bet they would use them against military targets(at least until all the military targets were destroyed and then I’d guess hatred of the Israelis would turn some of them on civilians, but that is a seperate issue). **

They’ve said over and over that they will not rest until every last jew is dead, and that goes for the jew-supporters (america) too. So yes, they would use the cruise missiles where they could get the highest jew:missile ratio.

Now, if you want to say jews are, per the koran, a “legitimate” military target to muslims, I guess you’d win the argument on semantics.

Guinastasia, england did a half-assed job at it.

Anyway, I see we’re on “higest alert” (on the cute, worthless little color chart). High muslim threat. After a few more 9/11’s you guys will start to see things my way. When there are islamic-induced explosions in other countries killing innocent civilians, americans don’t seem to care – American Idol is much more important. When it happened here, we cared. Imagine if it happened here practically every day, even if only a dozen or so americans die in each explosion.

Then I’d be a moderate.

[tomndebb]

You took a wonderful opportunity to avail us of your knowledge abroad and pissed it away on a series of “yes but not every Muslim does this”.

Alternatively, you are ignoring the fact that such actions only affect fewer than 140 million people out of a world-wide population of .7 to 1.2 billion people, and claiming “I bet I can find someone somewhere who does bad things.” The statements to which Col replied were not couched as “Islamists do…” or “Wahhabists do…” but as “Islam does…” Now that you are aware that Islam is not responsible for the problems you note, you are in position to ask about the particulars of various practices: where they do occur? how frequent or absolute are the laws? what is the reaction of the man on the street to such laws? etc. You still have an opportunity for dialogue; you are simply starting off from a position of better information.

[tomndebb]

After a few more 9/11’s you guys will start to see things my way.

Nah. Mindless, ignorance-embracing hatred is pretty boring. I survived the attempts to indoctrinate me with the silly nonsense that godless communism was a single monolithic cancer, trying to devour the world. I doubt that I will put aside my intelligence to pretend that Islam is the new goblin in the closet.

[Guinastasia]

Kalt-England shouldn’t even have BEEN there in the first place!

:mad:

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
** You still have an opportunity for dialogue; you are simply starting off from a position of better information. **

I can accept that.

I have an acquaintance who has access to Al Jaseera so I have a rough idea of Mid East/Muslim perspective (doesn’t do me any good to watch because I don’t speak the language).

I’ve been watching the situation since the Iranian hostage incident. The complexity of it all was apparent from early on. I see the solution to Mid East terrorism as having many levels and they ALL have to be addressed.

Without making a book out of an opinion, it will require the establishment of a non-violent movement from within the core Mid-East Countries. It will require a Palestinian State that is self sufficient as well as an Iraqi and Afghanistani State. The United States will have to transition away from oil to eliminate any compromising trade arrangements. Oil exporting states will have to transition to other income generating ventures. (Saudi Arabia is already seeing a steady rise in unemployment)

In short, people with jobs and a free society will spawn fewer terrorists.