Fitna

[Chilly]

Sure I did. You simply don't have the moral courage to respond. Or is it that there is nothing you can reasonably dispute? Still want to talk about/change the subject to bad Christians when the subject is clearly bad Muslims?

 

I didn't think it was worth the effort quite honestly because of how mischaracterized my post was, but if you insist, I'll start out with the previous post.

 

 

Funny, once again, we see in Molson_Golden fashion, another shining example of an obvious liberal(not a real Democrat) changing the subject with a equally predictable and infantile "but Christians did it too" argument. What these terrorists do has nothing to do with what what anybody else does. McViegh has nothing to do with these people and I grow weary of you lames trying to justify the bad behavior of people you support by pointing out bad behavior by somebody else. Bad behavior is what it is. Grow up. "Just because little Johnny did it too, doesn't mean that what you(or somebody you like) did is ok."

 

This thread is about the effect of Muslim extremism on the rest of the Muslim population and how that effect is spreading. It has nothing to do with Christians. Even if it did, let me be "Mommy" here and remind you once again: two wrongs don't make a right. Moreover, a wrong conducted today based on a wrong conducted 700 years ago make: a retarded argument. Support for such retarded arguments merely demonstrate either the stupidity of the supporter, or the willingness of the supporter to subject themselves to retarded arguments, as long as they get to prove, however tenuously(or don't prove at all), that they are "right" or Bush/America is bad.

 

Unfortunately for you, all you are demonstrating here is why we should not let people who think like you be in charge of anything.

 

The reason to bring up Christianity (and that one batch of Jewish terrorism) was not to defend or attack anyone. It was to establish that there is a pattern of religions being used for good things (which you certainly see in all 3 major religions), and being used for violence (which you also see in all 3 major religions).

 

I established this pattern is to raise the possibility that religion is simply being used as a tool by terrorists for other goals, and that the actual root causes of terrorism are not religion itself (which seems to be what the filmmakers are trying to argue). The studying I have done on the subject lends much more credence to the root causes of terrorism being influenced by political factors, rather than by religious factors.

 

Well I don't know, you have consistently trumpeted Micheal Moore's beliefs on this board and he told us in no uncertain terms that "There is no terrorist threat". So, I don't think it's unreasonable for any of us to believe that you would agree with him on this issue as well. After all, Farenheit 911 was a "documentary". Right? And while you hesitate trying in vain to muster up your best smug response, remember that nothing in that movie has proven to be true. Nothing.

 

This might have some chance of being true if I actually knew what Michael Moore's beliefs were on something other than health care. The only movie I've watched by him was Sicko, mainly because I was curious about all the hype surrounding his movies and his name.

 

What I *do* believe is that having strong defense mechanisms and quick, targeted attacks (along with information warfare) works better for defeating terrorism longterm than occupying countries (one of the causes of terrorism in the first place).

 

How about telling us again that the way an ideology is USED i.e. how National Socialism was USED, is the only thing that's bad, not the ideology itself, i.e. National Socialism is not a bad idea, it was just used improperly. I'm sorry, that's simply retarded thinking no matter how you slice it. Defend it.

 

This is very similar to the dumbass socialists out there trying to tell us that the massive failure that is socialism/Communism, as evidenced by every country that has tried it, can be a good idea, it's just that those 50+ countries that did try it simply didn't USE it properly. And, if only they had let this new crop of "smart" people USE socialism properly, that this time it would work. dry.gif

 

I am curious how you come to the conclusion that all ideas are fundamentally good ones, and it is simply their improper use that give people the "impression" that they are bad.

 

I honestly don't have any idea where the heck you got this from, nor how to respond to it, given that it seems to be extrapolating one small instance into some type of philosophy that you are assuming guides my life.

 

Also, if there is a terrorist threat, should we be treating these scumbags as humans, never mind prisoners of war? Obviously our people don't get humane treatment when they are captured. I am curious to hear what standard, Christian or otherwise, you would apply. I am also curious to hear what your personal response would be if one of the people they cut up was someone in your family or one of your friends. How about this, what would you want me to do to the people who do this if their victim was you? If it was your head on a pike or whatever?

 

The issue here is about the long term effects such a response would have. Is it the potential negative PR in the information war to let some people receive personal vindication?

[OCinBuffalo]

I didn't think it was worth the effort quite honestly because of how mischaracterized my post was, but if you insist, I'll start out with the previous post.

So instead of responding you attempt to to obfuscate and hide behind my apparent "mischaracterization" of course as defined by you. Great.

1. Set your own standard

2. Meet your own standard

3. ???

4. Profit

The reason to bring up Christianity (and that one batch of Jewish terrorism) was not to defend or attack anyone. It was to establish that there is a pattern of religions being used for good things (which you certainly see in all 3 major religions), and being used for violence (which you also see in all 3 major religions).

 

I established this pattern is to raise the possibility that religion is simply being used as a tool by terrorists for other goals, and that the actual root causes of terrorism are not religion itself (which seems to be what the filmmakers are trying to argue). The studying I have done on the subject lends much more credence to the root causes of terrorism being influenced by political factors, rather than by religious factors.

This is a great argument! And, it would be nice if this is what you had posted earlier! But its not.

 

Instead, you post this now and try to cover for your, or "In a space no one cares about"'s, or both, earlier posts. And to further that effort, you try to cast an aspersion on me. Did you honestly believe that would work??

 

In fact you did say that the Islam was being USED improperly, and paid no attention to the whether the tenets of the beleif system itseld are fundametnally flawed. Look you can try to smugly brush me off all you want, and you have made a nice attempt to revise your position to make it appear as though you were merely "raising possibilities" all along. Do you really think anybody is buying that crap? Do I sound like your TA? Or some lame dick associate professor? Sorry, all of this is a nice try. But when confronted, you go from making definitive statements to "merely rasing possibilities" in an awful hurry. Why is that?

This might have some chance of being true if I actually knew what Michael Moore's beliefs were on something other than health care. The only movie I've watched by him was Sicko, mainly because I was curious about all the hype surrounding his movies and his name.

What a surprise, another punt! So, as a guy who regularly posts on this message board, has heard all of the Farenheit 9/11 hoopla, knew enough about Moore to watch Sicko, yet this whole time poor BlueFire has no idea about Moore's beliefs about 9/11, the Bush administration, or anything else but Healthcare. Hmmm. Help me understand why I shouldn't throw the largest of BS flags on this, please. But fine, you wanna punt, go ahead.

What I *do* believe is that having strong defense mechanisms and quick, targeted attacks (along with information warfare) works better for defeating terrorism longterm than occupying countries (one of the causes of terrorism in the first place).

Hint: each country and situation is different. Also, what you *do* believe is not effective about .5 the time. Sorry. The fact is that you can't be quick and targeted when half the population of a city/country is the enemy. How can you be quick when lots baddies see you coming in and going out? How can you be targeted when half the people are baddies? Who do you target? Lots of opfor like in Somalia(BlackHawk Down) = our small, quick forces get killed. Nobody is quicker and more targeted than Delta and the Rangers. Seals? Same/same. Look how "quick and targeted" Isreal has been year in and year out and what has it gotten them?

 

Your argument smacks of hindsight. Worse it doesn't apply to Iraq or Afghanistan. Worst, where exactly has it been proven that occupation, not the tactics, just the presence of foreign troops causes terrorism? Nowhere. In all cases, every single time, the terms of the occupation has always dictated the behavior of the occupied, not the occupation itself.

I honestly don't have any idea where the heck you got this from, nor how to respond to it, given that it seems to be extrapolating one small instance into some type of philosophy that you are assuming guides my life.

Well I do have all the posts I have seen from you since I joined the board now don't I? I also have my memory, which is pretty good too. So I guess my extrapolation isn't so bad now is it. More importantly, when I raise these questions, why are you changing the subject to me instead of answering them?

The issue here is about the long term effects such a response would have. Is it the potential negative PR in the information war to let some people receive personal vindication?

Agree with the statment. Don't get the question. Do you mean: Should we give ground in the PR war in order to let people recieve personal vindication?

[Booster4324]

This is a great argument! And, it would be nice if this is what you had posted earlier! But its not.

 

I am not trying to get in the middle of the fight. In fact Ocin you seem to be having a bad day. So don't let me intrude too much. I am not going into Bluefire's earlier posts in ANY other thread than this one. He replied to you.

 

I didn't think it was worth the effort quite honestly because of how mischaracterized my post was, but if you insist, I'll start out with the previous post.

 

 

 

 

The reason to bring up Christianity (and that one batch of Jewish terrorism) was not to defend or attack anyone. It was to establish that there is a pattern of religions being used for good things (which you certainly see in all 3 major religions), and being used for violence (which you also see in all 3 major religions).

 

I established this pattern is to raise the possibility that religion is simply being used as a tool by terrorists for other goals, and that the actual root causes of terrorism are not religion itself (which seems to be what the filmmakers are trying to argue). The studying I have done on the subject lends much more credence to the root causes of terrorism being influenced by political factors, rather than by religious factors.

 

I would disagree that he established the fact. I would also hesitate to make political factors the primary motivation. That was the tact he was taking from the beginning though,if you take his posts in totality. I would certainly agree with him that politics enter into any fantacism. The argument should be over how much.

 

They didn't have video cameras back in the middle ages.

 

And, in the US, Christian terrorism today doesn't rely on cutting off heads, but rather on the use of newer technology, like when Army of God uses bombs, or anthrax, or guns, or when Timothy McVeigh did the Oklahoma City bombing and identified himself as a member of the Christian Patriots.

 

Of course, groups like the Lord's Resistance Army still do the type of thing you are talking about.

 

There is even known jewish terrorism.

 

It shouldn't be a surprise that this exists.

 

Funny, I didn't know I was attacking Christianity, but pointing out that it is in the way that you use religion that is what matters.

 

Which is a result of the religion itself, or are there other factors involved?

 

Yes, over the long term. It determines what, exactly, you are trying to fight.

 

Short term you aren't going to change anyone who is already a terrorist away from being one. But, for the long term, are you fighting a religion (as many people seem to believe we should be), or are you fighting something else?

 

Fitna's argument is that the religion is causing terrorism.

 

I don't get where this response came from.

 

What does that have to do with anything that I posted? This is the part that I fail to see. What does that have to do with whether we are fighting a religion or not?

 

(And Fitna, a cheap film solely made to play on Emotion, wouldn't change anything about the statement you made)

 

 

 

Eh, the leaders of those Christian groups are (which would be the equivalent to Christian leadership like the Muslim heads are to their people). Joseph Kony is about on the same level of spiritual leadership as OBL.

 

Where the hell in any of my posts do you get the impression I don't think that terrorists are a threat?

 

My apologies for the long post for everyone else.

[Chilly]

So instead of responding you attempt to to obfuscate and hide behind my apparent "mischaracterization" of course as defined by you. Great.

1. Set your own standard

2. Meet your own standard

3. ???

4. Profit

 

This is why I figured it was pointless to respond.

 

This is a great argument! And, it would be nice if this is what you had posted earlier! But its not.

 

Instead, you post this now and try to cover for your, or "In a space no one cares about"'s, or both, earlier posts. And to further that effort, you try to cast an aspersion on me. Did you honestly believe that would work??

 

In fact you did say that the Islam was being USED improperly, and paid no attention to the whether the tenets of the beleif system itseld are fundametnally flawed. Look you can try to smugly brush me off all you want, and you have made a nice attempt to revise your position to make it appear as though you were merely "raising possibilities" all along. Do you really think anybody is buying that crap? Do I sound like your TA? Or some lame dick associate professor? Sorry, all of this is a nice try. But when confronted, you go from making definitive statements to "merely rasing possibilities" in an awful hurry. Why is that?

 

I was the one that posted "Which is a result of the religion itself, or are there other factors involved?" right after the post that sent you into attack BlueFire mode (the one about the way you use religion). I also posted this: "Short term you aren't going to change anyone who is already a terrorist away from being one. But, for the long term, are you fighting a religion (as many people seem to believe we should be), or are you fighting something else?"

 

What a surprise, another punt! So, as a guy who regularly posts on this message board, has heard all of the Farenheit 9/11 hoopla, knew enough about Moore to watch Sicko, yet this whole time poor BlueFire has no idea about Moore's beliefs about 9/11, the Bush administration, or anything else but Healthcare. Hmmm. Help me understand why I shouldn't throw the largest of BS flags on this, please. But fine, you wanna punt, go ahead.

 

How bout because I've never even watched the damned movie, and given how wide ranging (and sometimes contradictory) people's characterizations of him are, I don't know what to believe...

 

Hint: each country and situation is different.

 

I find it rather amusing that you tend to call me smug, given comments like these littered throughout your posts.

 

Also, what you *do* believe is not effective about .5 the time. Sorry. The fact is that you can't be quick and targeted when half the population of a city/country is the enemy. How can you be quick when lots baddies see you coming in and going out? How can you be targeted when half the people are baddies? Who do you target? Lots of opfor like in Somalia(BlackHawk Down) = our small, quick forces get killed. Nobody is quicker and more targeted than Delta and the Rangers. Seals? Same/same. Look how "quick and targeted" Isreal has been year in and year out and what has it gotten them?

 

You just laid the groundwork for my essay on why offensive strategies against terrorism are so hard to actually pull off, and why defensive strategies are so important.

 

Your argument smacks of hindsight.

 

More of a general comment about the way a GWOT should be fought, rather than any specific one.

 

Worse it doesn't apply to Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Wasn't meant to apply to either of those two wars. I'd also bet money that you would claim that I favor immediate and complete removal of troops.

 

Worst, where exactly has it been proven that occupation, not the tactics, just the presence of foreign troops causes terrorism? Nowhere. In all cases, every single time, the terms of the occupation has always dictated the behavior of the occupied, not the occupation itself.

 

I suggest reading this book

on the matter and deciding for yourself. It is a pretty convincing argument to me.

 

Well I do have all the posts I have seen from you since I joined the board now don't I? I also have my memory, which is pretty good too.

 

So I guess my extrapolation isn't so bad now is it. More importantly, when I raise these questions, why are you changing the subject to me instead of answering them?

 

Because it has nothing to do with the price of rice in China. You are claiming that I believe something and then telling me to defend it when I don't believe it in the first place.

 

 

Agree with the statment. Don't get the question. Do you mean: Should we give ground in the PR war in order to let people recieve personal vindication?

 

Yup, that is what I was asking, though I completely screwed up the wording in my rush to get this post done and a couple other things done before I left work.

[OCinBuffalo]

I was the one that posted "Which is a result of the religion itself, or are there other factors involved?" right after the post that sent you into attack BlueFire mode (the one about the way you use religion). I also posted this: "Short term you aren't going to change anyone who is already a terrorist away from being one. But, for the long term, are you fighting a religion (as many people seem to believe we should be), or are you fighting something else?"

And this means what, exactly? Remember, I'm not attacking you, just what you said. Well Ok, I guess I needed sleep earlier and I was a little over the top. For that I apologize. Good thing too because I slept through most of the Sabres game tonight. Allah is merciful!

 

Anyway, I am finding fault with 2 simple points you have made. The first is that it appears that you are saying that somehow it's possible to separate the "use" of an ideology, in this case Islam, from it's tenets. I guess the best way to put this is: how else can one "use" or "misuse" an ideology but by it's tenets, the very concepts it subscribes to? It's not like misusing a weapon or a tool. When these terrorist misuse Islam, they are doing so using the ideas contained WITHIN Islam, from the very words in the Koran, which has a hell of a lot more insidious content than even the Old Testament.

 

As far as the New Testament is concerned, it's clear that the life Jesus led was infinitely more in tune with the tenets of Christianity than Mohamed's, the pirate and conqueror, life is in tune with this "religion of peace". Comparing Christianity in this regard with Islam as though one is the same as the other is ludicrous, based on what is written in each book respectively, if we are to take each work as it is. What has been done outside the content of the books is not relevant to this argument, because we are talking about what is in the books themselves, their very ideology. As such, it's easy to conclude that it's a hell of a lot easier to "misuse" Islam than Christianity, because of what's in the book, the ideas put forward, are significantly more pre-disposed to violence. It is also easy to conclude that, all things being equal, the average practicing Muslim, again based on the ideas in the book, is by definition more inclined to accept violence as ok than the average practicing Christian. I'm not saying it's as simple as that, and surely there is no such thing as an "average" person, but in general if we are to believe that religion influences it's practitioners, then the two conclusions above are likely to be true.

 

My second issue is, given all of that, politics has nothing to do with this. Unless we are talking about blurring the line between political power and religion, but hey, where are the only current theocracies in actual operation? Muslim countries. Coincidence?

 

You're right about the smug thing = see not enough sleep. It's no excuse, and I apologize again.

 

"You just laid the groundwork for my essay on why offensive strategies against terrorism are so hard to actually pull off, and why defensive strategies are so important. "

?Que? You can't defend against terror, since terror attacks, by definition, come from unconventional forces = an unseen enemy. How do you defend against an entire populace some of whom can be your own citizens, who don't declare themselves your enemy publicly until right before they blow themselves up? Unless your defensive strategy is: everyone stay in your house, never travel, and hide under your bed in an air tight room, you have to attack terror where it lives. Also, in all cases, you can't win a war unless you fight the enemy on their ground. Unless your essay is humor piece on the hubris of people who don't understand military strategy and tactics trying to tell the rest of us how to fight wars, I suggest you keep this one to yourself.

 

I'd also bet money that you would claim that I favor immediate and complete removal of troops.

Nah, I wouldn't. It's pretty clear to me that you haven't sunk to the level of Molson stupidity. The only thing the "immediate and complete removal of troops" idea will win is the election for the Republicans if the Democrats are still dumb enough to stay with it. Only the fools who actually believed the Democrats would "end the war" in 2006 and were dumb enough to vote for them, and now are either too dishonest or too afraid to admit that all of their so-called moral superiority was an illusion, still believe that somehow Obama or Hillary will "end the war". It was a lie then, and it's a lie now. The only question that remains is where is all the moral outrage they showed with regard to Bush for "lying"? They were blatantly lied to by their supposed heroes, and now what, are they are ready to be lied to again? When does the hypocrisy end?

 

I suggest reading this book

on the matter and deciding for yourself. It is a pretty convincing argument to me.

Convincing that suiciding bombing is on the rise? Sure. Convincing that suicidal cowards ultimately win? Hardly. In fact, few strategies fail as consistently and as miserably as terrorism. Look at the IRA, PLO, Shining Path and the rest of the Communist terror organizations, the French in WWII. All failed to achieve any of their goals solely through the use of terror. It wasn't until politics/diplomacy/intervention from an outside conventional military power was employed that anything was achieved. Sure terror sucks, but it doesn't win unless you fail to fight it = why the original assassins were so effective. Once real military power was applied against them, regardless of the assassins' attacks, they were finished. We shouldn't listen to people who are unaware of that simple lesson from history.

[Andrew in CA]

And this means what, exactly? Remember, I'm not attacking you, just what you said. Well Ok, I guess I needed sleep earlier and I was a little over the top. For that I apologize. Good thing too because I slept through most of the Sabres game tonight. Allah is merciful!

 

Anyway, I am finding fault with 2 simple points you have made. The first is that it appears that you are saying that somehow it's possible to separate the "use" of an ideology, in this case Islam, from it's tenets. I guess the best way to put this is: how else can one "use" or "misuse" an ideology but by it's tenets, the very concepts it subscribes to? It's not like misusing a weapon or a tool. When these terrorist misuse Islam, they are doing so using the ideas contained WITHIN Islam, from the very words in the Koran, which has a hell of a lot more insidious content than even the Old Testament.

 

As far as the New Testament is concerned, it's clear that the life Jesus led was infinitely more in tune with the tenets of Christianity than Mohamed's, the pirate and conqueror, life is in tune with this "religion of peace". Comparing Christianity in this regard with Islam as though one is the same as the other is ludicrous, based on what is written in each book respectively, if we are to take each work as it is. What has been done outside the content of the books is not relevant to this argument, because we are talking about what is in the books themselves, their very ideology. As such, it's easy to conclude that it's a hell of a lot easier to "misuse" Islam than Christianity, because of what's in the book, the ideas put forward, are significantly more pre-disposed to violence. It is also easy to conclude that, all things being equal, the average practicing Muslim, again based on the ideas in the book, is by definition more inclined to accept violence as ok than the average practicing Christian. I'm not saying it's as simple as that, and surely there is no such thing as an "average" person, but in general if we are to believe that religion influences it's practitioners, then the two conclusions above are likely to be true.

 

Can you provide examples from the Koran? Have you read it? Also, when Bluefire and In space brought this up, that an ideology can contain elements of destruction and violence without actually advocating it, you attacked them here:

 

 

Funny, once again, we see in Molson_Golden fashion, another shining example of an obvious liberal(not a real Democrat) changing the subject with a equally predictable and infantile "but Christians did it too" argument. What these terrorists do has nothing to do with what what anybody else does. McViegh has nothing to do with these people and I grow weary of you lames trying to justify the bad behavior of people you support by pointing out bad behavior by somebody else. Bad behavior is what it is. Grow up. "Just because little Johnny did it too, doesn't mean that what you(or somebody you like) did is ok."

 

This thread is about the effect of Muslim extremism on the rest of the Muslim population and how that effect is spreading. It has nothing to do with Christians. Even if it did, let me be "Mommy" here and remind you once again: two wrongs don't make a right. Moreover, a wrong conducted today based on a wrong conducted 700 years ago make: a retarded argument. Support for such retarded arguments merely demonstrate either the stupidity of the supporter, or the willingness of the supporter to subject themselves to retarded arguments, as long as they get to prove, however tenuously(or don't prove at all), that they are "right" or Bush/America is bad.

 

And here:

 

Sure I did. You simply don't have the moral courage to respond. Or is it that there is nothing you can reasonably dispute? Still want to talk about/change the subject to bad Christians when the subject is clearly bad Muslims?

 

How about telling us again that the way an ideology is USED i.e. how National Socialism was USED, is the only thing that's bad, not the ideology itself, i.e. National Socialism is not a bad idea, it was just used improperly. I'm sorry, that's simply retarded thinking no matter how you slice it. Defend it.

 

If you're going to go crazy on people's posts, stick to one side of your own argument.

[Pete]

Radical Muslims are a threat to mankind:

True

False

[ieatcrayonz]

Radical Muslims are a threat to mankind:

True

False

I encourage people to give this some thought before answering. Use that head on your shoulders.

[K-9]

Radical Muslims are a threat to mankind:

True

False

 

Absolutely. I don't think anyone in this thread, from what I understand their posts to be about, disputes that.

 

Here's my question:

 

Is Islam a threat to mankind?

 

Radical factions of ANY group in history have proved to be threats to mankind. These radical groups tend to use religion and appeals to base prejudices to recruit and carry out POLITICAL agendas.

[Chilly]

And this means what, exactly? Remember, I'm not attacking you, just what you said. Well Ok, I guess I needed sleep earlier and I was a little over the top. For that I apologize. Good thing too because I slept through most of the Sabres game tonight. Allah is merciful!

 

I admit, I lol'd.

 

Anyway, I am finding fault with 2 simple points you have made. The first is that it appears that you are saying that somehow it's possible to separate the "use" of an ideology, in this case Islam, from it's tenets. I guess the best way to put this is: how else can one "use" or "misuse" an ideology but by it's tenets, the very concepts it subscribes to? It's not like misusing a weapon or a tool. When these terrorist misuse Islam, they are doing so using the ideas contained WITHIN Islam, from the very words in the Koran, which has a hell of a lot more insidious content than even the Old Testament.

 

The issue is with different interpretations. You seem to be arguing that what the terrorists believe comes from the Koran. What about the other people who practice the religion, who read the same thing, but come away with multiple different belief structures?

 

One person chooses to interpret and use the religion for positive, while the other looks at the same book with the exact same tenants and chooses to interpret it and use it as a justification for terrorism. How can this be, if they are both using the very ideas contained within the religion?

 

As far as the New Testament is concerned, it's clear that the life Jesus led was infinitely more in tune with the tenets of Christianity than Mohamed's, the pirate and conqueror, life is in tune with this "religion of peace". Comparing Christianity in this regard with Islam as though one is the same as the other is ludicrous, based on what is written in each book respectively, if we are to take each work as it is. What has been done outside the content of the books is not relevant to this argument, because we are talking about what is in the books themselves, their very ideology. As such, it's easy to conclude that it's a hell of a lot easier to "misuse" Islam than Christianity, because of what's in the book, the ideas put forward, are significantly more pre-disposed to violence. It is also easy to conclude that, all things being equal, the average practicing Muslim, again based on the ideas in the book, is by definition more inclined to accept violence as ok than the average practicing Christian. I'm not saying it's as simple as that, and surely there is no such thing as an "average" person, but in general if we are to believe that religion influences it's practitioners, then the two conclusions above are likely to be true.

 

My second issue is, given all of that, politics has nothing to do with this. Unless we are talking about blurring the line between political power and religion, but hey, where are the only current theocracies in actual operation? Muslim countries. Coincidence?

 

You seem to be arguing that it is easier to read a violent interpretation of the religion with Islam than with Christianity. Let's assume for a moment that this is indeed true.

 

The vast majority of Muslims don't read it that way, which begs the question: what are the factors for someone reading it that way versus someone not reading it that way? Are they cultural differences, political differences, economic differences, etc? And, more importantly, aren't these the true factors that we are fighting in the GWOT, not the religion itself?

 

Don't just take my word for it though, an August 2003 congressional report entitled "Terrorists and Suicide Attacks" put the percentage of religiously motivated terrorist attacks at around 3%. Pape's research in that book you so quickly dismissed also agrees with that number.

 

"You just laid the groundwork for my essay on why offensive strategies against terrorism are so hard to actually pull off, and why defensive strategies are so important. "

?Que? You can't defend against terror, since terror attacks, by definition, come from unconventional forces = an unseen enemy. How do you defend against an entire populace some of whom can be your own citizens, who don't declare themselves your enemy publicly until right before they blow themselves up? Unless your defensive strategy is: everyone stay in your house, never travel, and hide under your bed in an air tight room, you have to attack terror where it lives.

 

You can't defend against terror attacks? Have global governments been lying when they have said that they have diffused multiple terrorist attacks?

 

The defensive strategies also include realistic response plans to an attack, to limit the psychological impact of such an attack. It would have been nice if our media had done something about that after 9/11.

 

The idea is to significantly reduce the incentive to use terrorist tactics, which are cheap, effective, and have a decent success rate.

 

Also, in all cases, you can't win a war unless you fight the enemy on their ground. Unless your essay is humor piece on the hubris of people who don't understand military strategy and tactics trying to tell the rest of us how to fight wars, I suggest you keep this one to yourself.

 

I said more important, not that it was all that was needed, although you do bring up an important distinction here: is it the global war on terrorism, or the global war on terrorists?

 

Some more reading on the topic that I am drawing my arguments about how to handle terrorism from:

 

 

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/suicidebombers.ppt (particularly the last slide, the proposed model for dealing with suicide terrorism)

Mishandling Suicide Terrorism

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937083

 

Convincing that suiciding bombing is on the rise? Sure. Convincing that suicidal cowards ultimately win? Hardly. In fact, few strategies fail as consistently and as miserably as terrorism. Look at the IRA, PLO, Shining Path and the rest of the Communist terror organizations, the French in WWII. All failed to achieve any of their goals solely through the use of terror. It wasn't until politics/diplomacy/intervention from an outside conventional military power was employed that anything was achieved. Sure terror sucks, but it doesn't win unless you fail to fight it = why the original assassins were so effective. Once real military power was applied against them, regardless of the assassins' attacks, they were finished. We shouldn't listen to people who are unaware of that simple lesson from history.

 

Um, what? The book has nothing to do with that you are talking about.

 

It is a study of 188 suicide attacks and looks at the reasons behind the use of certain types of terrorism, examines the argument that it is religious motivations which cause it to happen, and finds patterns of political reasons behind the use of suicide attacks.

[Chef Jim]

Absolutely. I don't think anyone in this thread, from what I understand their posts to be about, disputes that.

 

Here's my question:

 

Is Islam a threat to mankind?

 

Radical factions of ANY group in history have proved to be threats to mankind. These radical groups tend to use religion and appeals to base prejudices to recruit and carry out POLITICAL agendas.

 

If a large number of people are interpreting a religion and using that interpretation to advocate wiping a whole group of people off the face of the earth and the religion does not have a true leader to dispute this charge, then yes that religion is a threat to mankind.

[Andrew in CA]

If a large number of people are interpreting a religion and using that interpretation to advocate wiping a whole group of people off the face of the earth and the religion does not have a true leader to dispute this charge, then yes that religion is a threat to mankind.

What is a "true leader"?

[Chef Jim]

What is a "true leader"?

 

Someone with the power and respect like the Pope.

[Andrew in CA]

Someone with the power and respect like the Pope.

How many religions have "true leaders" then? Catholicism and Buddhism in the Dalai Lama?

[Chef Jim]

How many religions have "true leaders" then? Catholicism and Buddhism in the Dalai Lama?

 

What religion is this thread about?

[Alaska Darin]

If a large number of people are interpreting a religion and using that interpretation to advocate wiping a whole group of people off the face of the earth and the religion does not have a true leader to dispute this charge, then yes that religion is a threat to mankind.

I don't know what "having a true leader" has to do with anything. The biggest difference between the 3 largest religions is two of them no longer have complete control of entire societal infrastructures.

[Chef Jim]

I don't know what "having a true leader" has to do with anything.

 

Obviously you haven't been following the Bills closely enough the past 10 years. Seriously my thoughts are that a leader tends to keep it's followers more in check when it comes to intrepretation of the religions original writings.

[Alaska Darin]

Obviously you haven't been following the Bills closely enough the past 10 years. Seriously my thoughts are that a leader tends to keep it's followers more in check when it comes to intrepretation of the religions original writings.

Except there is no interpretation of the Qu'ran because unlike the Torah or Bible, it's considered to be THE SPOKEN WORD of God.

[Chef Jim]

Except there is no interpretation of the Qu'ran because unlike the Torah or Bible, it's considered to be THE SPOKEN WORD of God.

 

And that spoken word is not open to interpretation? Or maybe the problem is some of it is taken too literally?

[Alaska Darin]

And that spoken word is not open to interpretation?

Nope.

Or maybe the problem is some of it is taken too literally?

That's certainly one part of it. There are many factors that lead to terrorism. It's of no surprise to me that organized "religion" is one of them. It's the foundation in this instance.