Islamic terror: the solution

[sebbysteiny]

Owing to the success of my last post where I believe we finally nailed what exactly peace and justice are and how they interrelate, I thought I might try a more immediately relevant post to see if we all our brains and information can come up with any constructive way of stopping Islamic terror.

 

In this post, there are infact three questions asked.

1) What is Islamic terror?

2) What is the real root cause of Islamic terror?

3) How do you stop Islamic terror?

 

I think question 3 is impossible until we have answered questions 1 and 2 so we should focus on 1 and 2 until we reach a consensus and then move onto 3.

 

1) What is Islamic terror?

I believe Islamic terror is when people use the Koran and Islamic teachings but in a perverse way such as to justify killing 'infidel kuffar' (ie non muslim sc*m). I believe it is an entirely racist ideology based upon killing the 'enemies of Allah', 'the decendants of monkeys and pigs' who will all go to hell. They believe that were they to blow themselves up killing 'infidels', Mohammed will treat them well in the afterlife even though suicide is forbidden to Islam.

 

It is very similar to the crusades, except we are now in the 21st century and christian culture has developed significantly since.

 

According to fanatical doctrine, Britain, America, Spain, France, Israel, Russia, Austrailia and every other non muslim country is living on Muslim land. This is because they belong to 'allah' and not to the 'infidel kuffah' who live on it. The people of non muslim countries are thus all 'infedels' 'occupying' 'Muslim lands' and those 'Muslim lands' must be clensed of the 'infidels' by conversion or bloodshed so that the law of 'allah' will rule over the entire planet. Any Muslim that disagrees with this docrine has become a 'kuffar' himself and becomes a legitimate, or 'holy' target target.

 

Take nazism. Multiply it by 10. You get the mind of an Islamic terrorists.

 

However, what's more, fanatical Muslims have learnt to speak in a forked tongue. They say one thing to themselves and to other Muslims, but a completely different thing to outsiders. Some have even gone as far calling in English for co operation between Muslims and non-Muslims but then, when they are in privite and / or speaking Arabic, they try to pursuade otherwise moderate Muslims to dedicate their lives to killing 'infidels' for 'allah'.

 

2) What causes people to have such perverse views.

 

It is my view that there is something inherrent in moderate Islamic culture that allows fanaticism to breed like in no other culture.

 

My argument is based on many states having been poor, and many 'desparate', and many have had unthinkable human tragedies forced apon it. Yet in today's world, there is only one region in which anything like as dangerous and evil as Islamic terror results.

 

I don't like this conclusion because it is not politically correct, but I see no alternative conclusion from the evidence.

[Edella]

Where is the solution?I just see a description of the problem.Your title is misleading.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Maybe sebbysteiny wants possible solutions....

 

If that is the case, I do not really see any solution to the problem.

The problem is in fact, based on mass-Islamic ideologies. As long as these beliefs exist, so will the terror.

It is unfortunate, but true... Unless there is some freak reformation of the religion (and such ideologies), then the terror and hatred will continue. :evil:

[Probable Uncertainty]

problem is with Islamic doctrine itself. Koran teaches this things, so to be Muslim a man must do this things. and it is alway a man, because a woman in Muslim is not worth same as man, but is only half of one man.

 

only two way to stop this is to reform Islam, same as happen with Christian, or to kill all Muslim.

[Roadam]

I think that koran and its teachings are no worse than bible, but in islamic world a few individuals still have very high position, they tell what people must do and so on. It is like church thousand years ago. Maybe just a little diffrent.

 

And another thing, how is that they beleive in such things as dying for god. I myself doubt that god really exist, so how could I kill for him? I doubt that church has any role in modern soceity.

 

So undermine their church, let them develop to the same level as we, teach them equality.... I think that that would gradually stop any terror.

[Guest jamongo]

Some bit of light might be shed on this discussion if one takes a concentrated look at the people themselves. The balance of wealth in most Arab countries is very much lop-sided. If a man has little or nothing to live for, it should become easier to convince him that the afterlife would be a paradise if he died for his religious beliefs. In addition to this, many of the terrorists are assured that their families would be well taken care of. So, what does he have to lose?

An interesting statistic would be to assemble the names of those that have blown themselves up while murdering others. Then place alongside their names, their financial condition. I would guess, and I stress the word "guess", that there are very very few wealthy men on the list. If any at all.

So perhaps a possible solution might be to raise the standard of living across the board, by sharing the wealth of the planet more equally.

[Buffy]

I think that koran and its teachings are no worse than bible, but in islamic world a few individuals still have very high position, they tell what people must do and so on. It is like church thousand years ago. Maybe just a little diffrent.

I really don't see a distinction, and I'd disagree that its "Nazism times ten" as Sebby says above. Religion is like a gun, it can be dangerous mostly because of the way that people *choose* to use it (and I'll say right now, its probably not a good idea to bring up the "so lets ban religion" thead here: its been beaten to death and its not practical...). Radical Islamic Clerics may seem slightly more numerous now, but Christiandom has its own dark history of preachers advocating lynchings, Nazism, Aparteid, as well as Hindu Caste enforcement, etc. And of course there are the non-religious-religious movements like the 60s/70s radical Communist movements (that are still around in idyllic places like Peru and Nepal!).

 

Terrorism is Terrorism is Terrorism. To the extent that *dogma* of *any kind* is a radicalizing force, you can point fingers but miss the real cause, which almost always comes down to some sort of disenfranchisement or feeling (real or imagined) of persecution by "others."

 

Conservatives have been bashing this notion of "understanding" with great relish recently, lading to some pretty remarkably illogical conclusions (e.g. Bill O'Reilly saying that to solve the problems in Iraq, you need to run it like Saddam did, so why exactly *did* we invade?). Unfortunately, its not that we need to coddle and appease the radicals, what we need to do is steal their thunder by "winning the hearts and minds" of he folks in the middle. Radical solutions to radical problems often make things worse...

 

I'll come back with some "solutions" later, but I wanted to try to influence the direction this thread seems to be taking....

 

Crusade charade,

Buffy

[Edella]

A nice recent study from the Pew research center entitled,The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253

If part of the solution is changing peoples attitudes,we have a lot of work to do...

[Tormod]

Sebbysteiny, your post reeks of oneuppism and idiocy. It is nothing but racism and undocumented dribble - which is the same as fanaticism in my honest opinion.

 

So it's the 21st century and Christianity has developed? Into what, exactly? I suggest reading the Guantanamo Bay thread for a nice example of what a "Christian" country does.

 

Like Buffy says, terrorism is terrorism, no matter what. There is no justification for it. It has no color, really.

 

I recommend that you start backing up your claims with some documentation (multiply Nazism by ten? Man do you know no decency?).

 

Most Muslims are average joes and janes, just like the rest of us on this rocky outcrop of the solar system. They just happen to live in countries ravaged by dictatorship, religious fanaticism, and Western colonialism.

 

There is no excuse for terrorism. And there is no excuse for using terrorism as a case in point to generalize about a couple of billion people on Earth.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Most Muslims are average joes and janes, just like the rest of us on this rocky outcrop of the solar system. They just happen to live in countries ravaged by dictatorship, religious fanaticism, and Western colonialism.

 

Mhmmm. Tormod is right. It always seems to be the case that the behaviors of few, end up representing a group of people as a whole.

That idea is demonstrated many times throughout history... and it is very unfortunate.

[Vagabond -SC2-]

How can all the lands be muslim lands when there were no Muslims before Mohammed. Heck I am sure his parents were not Muslim. Sort of like there were no Christains until after Jesus died... Heck I'm pretty sure Jesus was a Jew. Not sure what Mohammed was growing up.

[Mercedes Benzene]

You are absolutely right Vagabond! So who do the lands "belong" to? Nomads? Atheists?

It seems like a good question to me:shrug:

[Probable Uncertainty]

How can all the lands be muslim lands when there were no Muslims before Mohammed. Heck I am sure his parents were not Muslim. Sort of like there were no Christains until after Jesus died... Heck I'm pretty sure Jesus was a Jew. Not sure what Mohammed was growing up.

 

it is because in Muslim belief sent down by Muhamot Islam is not new religion, but is return to religion of Adam and of Abraham that all other people have truned away from. so is said that new convert to Islam is revertion not conversion, because in Islam beleif all people is born as Muslim, and they are lead into error by parents and society.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Oh.

Thanks Probable!

 

I guess I'm just an ignorant Christian. :doh:

[Roadam]

Well everyone, well have to dig a bit into Koran. Wikipedia is the source. If there is any glich of the souce of terorism inthere.

 

Anyone knows a book named Alamut, written by Vladimir Bartol. About a castle Alamut in Iran in 11th century where one big islamic leader who pretends to have the key to the heaven. So he trains an army of assasins, sends a few of them into his preprepaired "heaven" an then they are ready to kill themselves for him without tought.

[sebbysteiny]

Wow, nice response. No shortage of views.

 

Where is the solution?I just see a description of the problem.Your title is misleading.

 

You're right. There is no solution yet, but this post is aimed at finding a solution. But as you can see there are hundreds of explanations for the cause of Islamic terror. There is no possible way we can find a solution if we don't even know what the problem is. Once we start forming a consensus, I would like to widen this debate to finding a solution.

 

Unless there is some freak reformation of the religion (and such ideologies), then the terror and hatred will continue.

 

I disagree. I have read many Islamic teachings and I'm not convinced there is anything worse than what is in the Christian bible (new and old). I don't think the problem is with the Koran nor with Islam as a religion per se. However, I do believe that there are no suicide bombers originating from any other culture / religion. This, I think is down to a massive difference in culture and /or the way a perfectly decent religion is sometimes tought.

 

Roadam gets the exact point I am trying to make.

 

I really don't see a distinction, and I'd disagree that its "Nazism times ten" as Sebby says above. Religion is like a gun, it can be dangerous mostly because of the way that people *choose* to use it

 

Once again, I am not challenging Islam or religion as a concept. I am saying that the perverse version of Islam addopted by Islamic terrorism is like Nazism 10 times over.

 

To the extent that *dogma* of *any kind* is a radicalizing force, you can point fingers but miss the real cause, which almost always comes down to some sort of disenfranchisement or feeling (real or imagined) of persecution by "others."

 

what does he have to lose?

An interesting statistic would be to assemble the names of those that have blown themselves up while murdering others. Then place alongside their names, their financial condition. I would guess, and I stress the word "guess", that there are very very few wealthy men on the list. If any at all.

So perhaps a possible solution might be to raise the standard of living across the board, by sharing the wealth of the planet more equally.

 

These posts both represent the popular view that an Islamic terrorist must be in some way desparate financially or socially to do what he had to do. Surprisingly this idea has been ruled out altogether by most academics studying this.

 

The statistic Jamongo has called for is this.

 

The belief that suicide bombers are poor, uneducated, disaffected or disturbed is contradicted by science. Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, found in a study of 400 Al Qaeda members that three quarters of his sample came from the upper or middle class. Moreover, he noted, "the vast majority--90 percent--came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that's usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways." Nor were they sans employment and familial duties. "Far from having no family or job responsibilities, 73 percent were married and the vast majority had children.... Three quarters were professionals or semiprofessionals. They are engineers, architects and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion."

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...F0104&colID=13

 

Also check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber

 

Sebbysteiny, your post reeks of oneuppism and idiocy. It is nothing but racism and undocumented dribble - which is the same as fanaticism in my honest opinion.

 

So it's the 21st century and Christianity has developed? Into what, exactly? I suggest reading the Guantanamo Bay thread for a nice example of what a "Christian" country does.

 

Whist your views are exactly the type of views I wanted to consider, you should make more efforts to understand the points being made before you leap to conclusions. You have somehow assumed that I am blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks as if the solution is to propose vigilante killings of them or something.

 

If you listened, you would realise all I have said is that

1) Islamic culture has a small minority of fanatical people prepared to be suicide bombers to kill as many 'infidels' for 'allah' for 'occupying' 'Muslim' land.

2) No other culture has had anything like this fanatical for hundreds of years.

3) There is no other conclusion that there is something about either Islam or Islamic culture that allows extreme fanaticism to exist with relative ease. Thus, although moderate Muslims are no danger to society and are infact 'average joes' as you say, there are some elements within moderate Islam that go at least partially the way to fanaticism even though going only that far does not yet make them a direct danger to us and our way of life.

 

One example could be the cartoons. Most people outraged by the protests were moderate Muslims. However, the degree of anger expressed from what was nothing more than freedom of speech went beyond what any other group would do. This inherrent anger, the overthetop self sensitivity, and the complete inability to understand the concept of 'freedom of speech', I am suggesting, is at least part of the way towards being a suicide bomber and killing people on busses in the streets of London. Moderate clerics even issued fatwa's against the author knowing full well that this would make the person a target for fanatics. Such moderates are entitled to their views, but I argue that moderate Muslims are not as moderate as moderate christians. Importantly, nowhere in the Koran does it suggest these actions are a justified response. The beating of women and 'honour killings' are another example that is wholy unjustified by the texts of the Koran, but in Muslim culture, this problem is alarming frequent particuarly in the Middle Eastern countries themselves. As is the unique violence and threats that gay Muslims and Muslims who have converted to Christianity have to put up with even in a country like the UK.

 

My conclusion is simply that there is a problem here and many of these traits, ESPECIALLY WHEN COMBINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME PERSON are not too different from fanatical Islam.

 

I would love it if I was wrong, but unfortunately, no matter how unpolitical the conclusion, I have never seen any arguments disputing this conclusions and I have seen plenty to support it. Please, if you disagree, explain why you think it is wrong and suggest an alternative explanation for the facts as I have laid out. (ie 1, the lack of such fanatisism in any other culture, and 2 the existance of an extreme and very dangerous fanaticism with Islamic culture).

 

Perhaps some more for you to add in your explanation? Do you know of any other culture that has burnt down embassies around the world owing to what some person printed in a local newspaper? Again, these moderate muslims are not a threat to anybody, but such a culture does make it easier for fanaticism to exist.

 

How can all the lands be muslim lands when there were no Muslims before

Mohammed.

 

As I said, their argument is that allah owns the world. It is not the property of those that live on it and is the property of Muslims, the 'servients of Allah'. Therefore, those non-Muslims living on the world, or even anywhere in the universe, are 'occupying' 'Muslim' lands.

[TheFaithfulStone]

2) No other culture has had anything like this fanatical for hundreds of years.

 

Right. Except for the Germans. And Italians. And Russians, and Japanese, and Chinese, and Fillipinos, and Tamil Tigers, and American Christian Crazies, and Basques, and the IRA, and the Shining Path.

 

It has nothing at all to do with "suicide bombers" which seem incomprehensible to us since it's such piss poor material management. (Seriously which costs your movement more, destroying a loyalist militant, or failing to destroy a bunch of random civilians. Suicide bombers are stupid.)) There have always been people willing to die in the service of a cause, on all sides of the line.

 

Suicide bombings don't even come close to making the current wave of terrorist unique.

 

The term "suicide mission" has been around for a loooong time.

 

TFS