I’ve already addressed my preferred realistic thinking, tomndebb. You are really asking a new question about actions, and it’s a good one:
Given the POV that Muslim terrorism is is an unified problem, what actions should be taken?
Because this is a separate topic, I have started a new thread here.
On a web site, I found a list of Muslim terrorist activities going on just during October, 2002. It’s appalling in the number and magnitude of the items and in the geographic spread.
You can quibble with some of these. Still, it would be impossible to find a comparable list for any other religion within just a month.
And, for apologists, like Eva Luna, who explain the terrorism in terms of American or Israeli mistreatment, would you claim that Muslims were also disenfranchised and dispossessed by the Sudan, Bali, the Phillipines, France, Indonesia, Algeria, Pakistan, Kashmir, Russia and Australia?
Yeah…that was the name that also popped into my mind when december first brought up his claim. And, one could also point out that there are Christian leaders in the U.S. whose preaching about the “murderous abortionists” have ended up encouraging wackos to murder people in the name of a Christian God (and one might note that this was really their clear motivation…they didn’t go around demanding $10 million dollars in ransom money).
Also, wasn’t that guy in the Israeli cabinet who was assassinated an advocate of “ethnic cleansing” (in an admittedly nonlethal form) by forceable expulsion of the Palestineans (and other Arabs?) in the Occupied Territories and Israel?
Now, one might argue that these folks aren’t quite as bad, but at some point I find that arguments that “our [Judeo-Christian] ignorant, racist, loony assholes aren’t as bad as your [Islamic] ignorant, racist, loony assholes” to be a bit silly. In the end, they are all assholes.
All I can say is, “Wow!”…AreYou sure you were reading this thread?
C’mon, december, how much ignorance do you have to demonstrate in one thread?
The Sudan situation is not one of terrorism; the government (which happens to be majority Muslim) is carrying out the atrocities.
In Algeria, the Islamists won an election and had it taken away by the military.
Kashmir is an ongoing dispute between Pakistan and India, regardless of religion.
The Philippine Muslims have been fighting for independence for over 100 years–ever since the U.S. threw out Spain and then refused to let them have the independence for which they had been fighting, following which the Philippine government began a program of resettlement moving Christians into Muslim lands. (When the Muslims could not find help elsewhere, they accepted aid from the Marxists, so the U.S. allowed Marcos to destroy democracy in that country to “fight communism.” Now that the Soviets are out of the patronage business, the same rebels are seeking aid from whoever will help–al Qaida. Then you come along and hint at an “Islamic conspiracy” ignoring the actual local history.)
Russia and the Chechens have been at it for 300 years. The Chechens are probably making common cause with al Qaida because no one else will help them.
The current Pakistani government has been cracking down on al Qaida types at the behest (and arm twisting) of the U.S., so al Qaida is certainly going to be resisting, there.
How many currently Christian, Buddhist, or atheist countries are being held against their will (Chechnya), overrun by government sponsored settlers (Mindanao and Kapatagan in the Philippines), deprived of the fruits of elections (Algeria), or fought over by larger countries desiring their resources (Kashmir)? The only ones that come to mind are the counties of Northern Ireland and the Basque region in Spain where surprise? there is terrorist activity. (Of course, there is also the former Yugoslavia where Christians (both Catholic and Orthodox) struggled to see who could be more ruthless than the Muslims.)
Addressing the particulars of al Qaida makes sense. Claiming that “segements” of Islam are just “bad” simply indicates a general ignorance of history and current events.
Really? I have not seen any thinking posted by you in this thread. What thought (other than general Muslim bashing) did you express?
politically incorrect facts must be untrue.
MEBuckner and Tamerlane, I call them “Muslim Extremists” because it’s an easy way to identify the group. It doesn’t make them Muslim.
If so I guess I can be a Muslim too. Oh sure, I’m Jewish and I’ve never fully read the Koran. But I’ve taken some neat pictures of the Dome of the Rock so that qualifies, right?
Clearly they’re not Mormons, right? But Al-Queda doesn’t work either because not every Muslim Extremist is part of that particular faction. If you’d like, I can just call them extremists. It doesn’t really identify who I’m talking about, though.
So maybe we can agree to call them Muslim Extremists but with a knowing wink that, yeah, they’re name probably isn’t the most appropriate. The KKK at least had the decency not to call themselves the CKK. They’re not Christian. Their outlook on society doesn’t reflect Christian teachings.
So to nitpick over a given name serves no purpose. As Matt Groening aptly pointed out “A puff adder neither puffs nor adds. It’s a snake.”
No cites but the BBC News reported that the guy and the car had been stopped on several occasions but because of the concealment compartment didn’t find anything.
Hmmm…I would have thought you’d have posted a few examples to follow that exclamation.
Coll wrote:
Why is that?
**december, ** darling, where do you see me behaving like an apologist? How many times have I said that I DO NOT condone violence, I simply comprehend the motivations of thse who engage in it under such circumstances?
I don’t know enough historical background to speak to any but he Russian situation, but yes, I do believe that Muslims (and many other ethnic/religious minorities in the Russian Federation) have been, and continue to be, disenfranchised and dispossessed. For the zillionth time, I believe that many conflicts that you characterize as religious in nature are actually primarily political, with a religious twist becuase at least one party to the conflict finds it politically expedient to work that angle.
Anyone else care to handle some or all of the other examples mentioned above?
The question is whether you really comprehend their motivations, or whether you just think you do. From your earlier posts, I would guess that you are not Muslim, you’re not an Arab, you don’t speak Arabic, and you’re not a specialist in modern middle east history.
Oh puh-leeeeeeze…
**Let me be the first to say it:
AND YOU ARE???
I DIDN’T THINK SO…
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Hmm… Interesting. The OP from Page 1:
December’s post of 10/27 9:28 p.m. above:
So, whassup, December dude? Is this a new Great Debates techniques–revise and repost the OP, so we can all rehash Page 1, where people already pointed out to you the fact that a number of things on your list don’t have anything to do with Muslim terrorism?
And with no link to indicate which–presumably anti-Muslim–website you found your list on… No link? You know better than that. Tsk tsk.
But then, since it’s probably from an anti-Muslim website, you know that that’ll be the first thing we’ll all say–“Er, your cite is from a heavily biased website”. So it’s much safer to leave the link out, eh?
BTW, I assumed that you had gone to a certain amount of trouble to compile your OP’s list, but now that I see that you evidently merely Copy and Pasted it from somebody else’s website, I’m afraid that you lose points for originality.
We already did. On Page 1.
Sorry, hit Submit too soon.
:wally
Well round and round the posy.
Accepted into the record.
Accepted into the record, caveats as raised per Tom.
As the last one was Hamas, fine. Otherwise as a general matter, rejected. Fatah contains both Xian and Muslim elements, height of dishonesty to pretend their use of violence against the Israelis is “Islamic.”
al-Qaeda, accepted into the record.
Rejected. Kashmir conflict is not inherently linked to any of this. If we are to enter this into the record, we have to enter Tamil (Hindu) terror into the balance (against Bhuddists in Sri Lanka, including suicide bombings etc.). Hindu against Muslim terror in places like Gujjarat and elsewhere (e.g. recent cases in south where low caste Hindu villages switched religions to escape the Hindu caste system, subject to Hindu extremist terror tactics.)
Ah, but of course, they’re not part of december’s phobia.
Rejected. Civil war. Xian southerners also engage in atrocities (for all that I sympathize with them) and Xian armies operating in Uganda use explicit terror tactics. No real link to the question.
See above.
Tchetchens: the bloodiness of the Russian response, including gassing their own civilians and trying to blame it on the Tchetchens (claiming higher death rate due to gunshots) rather illustrates what has driven the poor bastards to extremes.
Rejected. Beltway sniper shows no real indication, as noted, of any actual Islamic connexion.
Rejected. The civil war in Algeria is a dirty situation. For those who follow it, there are numerous items that suggest much “Islamist” violence is in fact inter-‘Pouvoir’ combat. Pouvoir being the term Algerians use to refer to the shadowy clique of generals that run the country behind the scenes, socialists all.
Shrug, shall we start with some searches on Russian atrocities againts civilians (if Sudan counts…), or Hindu Tamil attacks on Bhuddists and Hindu attacks on Muslims in India?
Rubbish.
As for the comprehension of motives, well I hardly think december is the person to challenge Eva on this matter.
I grow deeply irritated that the same ignorant bullshit is spewed forth again and again.
Chechens aren’t Arab or speak Arabic either, and while you might be able to consider Chechnya “the middle east”, it’s a stretch. What’s happening in Chechnya is fundimentally an independence movement, not a religious one.
You are correct in that I am not an Arab or a Muslim, I don’t speak Arabic, and I’m not a specialist in modern Middle East history. I am an American Jew, which most would probably assume would make my sympathies rather anti-Muslim. They’re not; I make decisions on an individual basis, according to the factual information available to me, and try to balance sources and filter out biases as best I can.
This is why I stuck to commenting on what I know somewhat more about than the average schmo on the street. I am fluent in Russian, have an M.A. in Russian & East European Studies, read the Russian domestic media on a regular basis, have personally known a number of North Caucasians of various ethnic backgrounds (all of them Muslims) personally, one of whom served with Spetsnaz in Afghanistan from 1985-87, and wrote my master’s thesis on the Soviet and Russian government’s treatment of the North Caucasus, drawing on a 5-page list of sources in Russian history, public policy, and Constitutional and international law, many of them in the original language. Wanna read it? I’d be happy to e-mail it to you.
So no, as I’m not a magician, I can’t tell you specifically what was going through the minds of each of the hostage-takers.
BTW, what, exactly, did you say your qualifications were that should make us take any kind of stock in the grand, expansive pronouncements you have made about the actions of over a billion complete strangers? What experiences have you had that qualify you to understand their motivations?
**My pleasure. 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/021025/168/2ip9e.html
Caption included in case Yahoo News takes it down and you need to go search for it somewhere else.
BTW, I can’t link directly to the darn photo of the Chechen woman’s hood with the Arabic writing on the front (it shows up as a separate pop-up window), but here’s some detailed coverage of the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/28/moscow.gas/index.html
If you scroll down the page a bit, there’s a sidebar with the hearing: “Gallery: Images from Moscow Theater Siege.” The 4th photo is the one I’m talking about. Arabic-English translation, anyone? Thanks in advance!
Allah Akbar, God is Great.
Thanks Collounsbury; pretty much what I expected.