Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Sure they like to put on a show of fighting terrorism and such, but that's because it's the best cover for underhandedly funding the actual thing.

Inclined to agree.

My opinion- whatever the Saudis do to fight Al Qaeda is due in large part to pressure from America.

Also my opinion- the denunciation of terrorism by the Islamic world is not enough.

They, too, need to realize the threat to life and prosperity that these terrorists pose upon anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a mistake to think that Islamic terrorism is caused by the "American guilt" that Ariana and others of you seem obsessed with.  Consider the list of Islamic terrorism directed at non-American targets. (my bold)

For the record I haven't alluded to any 'American Guilt' as the cause of 'Islamic terrorism'. Al Queda is quite clearly carrying these attacks out with a view to their vision of global theocracy and out of irrational hatred.

Islamists suicide bomber killed 42 on a train in Southern Russia in 2003.

Islamist suicide bomber killed 41 on Moscow metro February 6, 2004.

Islamist suicide bomber killed 5 in front of a Moscow hotel in 2003.

Islamist suicide bomber killed 3 at a market in Cairo on April 7, 2005

Islamist suicide bomber killed 10 at a subway entrance in Moscow, August 31, 2004.

etc etc.

When I see these lists and accusation, as I often do in some papers, I think its like describing a lynching spree in a southern state as 'white people hang to death X number of black Texans on June 17th 1923'. Which is totally offensive to any half reasonable white man. The incident would more accurately be described 'Klu Klux Klan members hung to death X number of black Texans on June 17th 1923'*

The term Wahabist might be more appropriate for Al Quada Muhajdeen, and more generally just plain 'Fundamentalists' or better still 'Jihadists', although even that term has a much more sanitary use in Islamic texts (simply meaning moral crusade, the emphasis being on winning the Jihad against yourself before turning to others). I think the people here bent on using military force would do well to try and understand Islamic culture, and the social infrastructure of essentially Islamic nations before urging conflict. If you have philosophical problems with Islamic values and their applications then I suggest you use ideas rather than weapons.

* This is hypothetical, I have no idea what happened on June 17th 1923!

Edited by Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short and sweet.  :) Since the West is so bad at teaching and implanting freedom abroad, we should just devastate their tyrannical leaders and their high infastructure. But NO follow-up occupation. If a new dictatorship rises to replace the old, we should attack again. And so on. Let anyone who serves in the police, military, party, and government know that they are subject to overwhelming attack at our will. Especially the evil leaders--who should be systematically targeted. :thumbsup:

Your strategy is both logical and militarily sound. That's why we should get out of Iraq now, but leave a warning for any future governments there and current regimes in other middle east countries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wake up call? Not if the BBC has anything to say about it.

BBC edits out the word terrorist

By Tom Leonard

(Filed: 12/07/2005)

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

 

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.

A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I see these lists and accusation, as I often do in some papers, I think its like describing a lynching spree in a southern state as 'white people hang to death X number of black Texans on June 17th 1923'. Which is totally offensive to any half reasonable white man. The incident would more accurately be described 'Klu Klux Klan members hung to death X number of black Texans on June 17th 1923'*

"Islamist" and "white man" are fundamentally different types of terms. The former denotes someone who, by choice, holds certain views and who claims, by choice, that those views justify his acts. The latter refers to someone who, without choice, possess a certain characteristic and who does not use that characteristic to justify his acts.

I think the people here bent on using military force would do well to try and understand Islamic culture, and the social infrastructure of essentially Islamic nations before urging conflict.
How will an understanding of "Islamic social infrastructure" prevent terrorist attacks? And aren't the terrorists already doing a great deal of "urging conflict"?

If you have philosophical problems with Islamic values and their applications then I suggest you use ideas rather than weapons.
What ideas, other than conversion and surrender, will influence terrorists acting from "irrational hatred"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have philosophical problems with Islamic values and their applications then I suggest you use ideas rather than weapons.

So do you think the death of over three thousand innocents, for example, consists of "having a problem with Islamic values and their applications"? And if so, do you not think decimating Islamists from the air with insane bombing is an appropriate response with ideas (the idea that freedom is worth defending)? Are you an Islamist sympathizer, Charles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Islamist" and "white man" are fundamentally different types of terms.  The former denotes someone who, by choice, holds certain views and who claims, by choice, that those views justify his acts.  The latter refers to someone who, without choice, possess a certain characteristic and who does not use that characteristic to justify his acts.

This is a fair point in so much as there is a difference between the two terms. If you like, replace white man with 'Christian' - a lot of Christians would be deeply offended to hear themselves implicated in these hypothetical lynchings when it was a radical protestant sect, the KKK. I think you get the point I'm making.

How will an understanding of "Islamic social infrastructure" prevent terrorist attacks?  And aren't the terrorists already doing a great deal of "urging conflict"?

What ideas, other than conversion and surrender, will influence terrorists acting from "irrational hatred"?

Im not even attempting to solve the problem of terrorism in itself - I'm addressing the problem of sympathy with terrorists in some disillusioned Muslim youths and the problems misused terminology causes when people blame all Islam for terrorism. I do however think the US government solutions for dealing with terrorism must be slightly misguided if recent campaigns like Iraq create more terrorists and more sympathy for them.

----

So do you think the death of over three thousand innocents, for example, consists of "having a problem with Islamic values and their applications"?

No - I resent the very notion, and would think you might actually read & understand what I said before replying. Your attempted point is non-sensical anyway, and you misquoted me - I said "If you have philosophical problems with Islamic values and their applications then I suggest you use ideas rather than weapons."

You evidently believe Islamic values are what killed 3000 people on September 11th and that all Islamic peoples carry the blame.

And if so, do you not think desiccating Islamists from the air with insane bombing is an appropriate response with ideas (the idea that freedom is worth defending)?

Not if its a totally useless strategy and is aimed at the wrong people/indiscriminate.

Are you an Islamist sympathizer, Charles?

Im not going to dignify the notion that I'm be a terrorist sympathiser with an answer. If your genuinely asking whether I sympathise with actual Islamic values then the answer is a clear no - I have numerous problems with their ethics/philosophy/cultural attitudes, as I do all mainstream religion I've come across. I don't, however, think that gives me the right to kill them, as you seem to.

Edited by Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of the quote-counterpoint style, so bear with me. I'll be more direct than around the bush so that you don't misinterpret my point and claim I don't understand you, because I understand you too well.

Islamic "values," their "philosophy," are precisely what leads to the destructive, barbaric actions they carry out. Granted not all Muslims are Islamists, most either are or sympathize with them; this is indisputable.

So then I think it is quite ironic to claim that one must fight ideas only with ideas when the ideas of the enemy drive them to kill and maim us. Thus, I asked, do you think 9/11 consists of having a problem with the "values" of Islam? If the answer is yes, than you want to have your cake and eat it too by on the one hand claiming that Islamic values are strictly an ideological problem (thus striping us of the moral grounds to fight them with force), yet acknowledge that ideas are the root of the violence directed against us.

Either way, I think it would help if you defined what you mean by the word Islamist. Here's what I say it is:

-Advocacy of the view that Islam is the only good religion, along with it's Sharia-type views, and all whom don't see this must be either converted or killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Islamic "values," their "philosophy," are precisely what leads to the destructive, barbaric actions they carry out.  Granted not all Muslims are Islamists, most either are or sympathize with them; this is indisputable.

It is disputable. The values do not necessarily or inevitably lead to destructive barbaric actions. The majority of Islamic people (known as Muslims) are not interested in violent conquest. Also your using a tautology here - to be a Muslim is to follow Islam. So what you've just said is Most muslims either are or sympathise with terrorists. Think again.

Either way, I think it would help if you defined what you mean by the word Islamist.  Here's what I say it is:

-Advocacy of the view that Islam is the only good religion, along with it's Sharia-type views, and all whom don't see this must be either converted or killed.

I was going to ask you following the first point; needless to say I disagree - Islamist does not mean killing or converting all who don't follow the doctrines, though granted their are sects within that broad category that do believe that. Similar to the fundamentalist Christians who bomb abortion clinics. This really is a debate about terminology - I think pointing the finger at Muslims for terror attacks its counterproductive. I'm not arguing there is no link between Islam and the terrorists - the Islamic teachings may well give the actual terrorists the basis for a warped interpretation underlying these kinds of acts but it doesn't render all Muslims terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An understanding of Islamic philosophy and history leads to the conclusion that draconian measures are needed. The only person in history to deal effectively with Moslems was Ghengis Khan.

In every country where they are a majority, they oppress minorities.

In most countries where they are a minority, they engage in terorism.

In countries where they are a minority, it is a place where someone can nurture whatever hateful baggage that they bring to the table.

While their total obliteration has problem, some understanding with respect to future terrorist activities must be reached with this international death cult that acts through these suicidal operatives. (And anyone who dances in the street or sits around the coffee house or dinner table romanticizing these terrorists is providing the funding or payoff: post mortem renown in the Moslem community. Concern over base of operations and funding tends to evade this issue.)

This should be similar to the Mutually Assured Destruction (Unilaterally Assure Destruction) that effects the entire Islamic community. That, clearly, would be nuking Mecca if any of these freaks actually pull off a dirty bombing.

One thing is certain, the effort to give these critters the gift of modern civilization is pointless; they are only fit live under brutal dictatorships and setting up a democracy is simply casting pearls at swine.

It is our fault though, for pretending that this religion is the same as the other nuetered religions that clutter up this world.

Of course, one would have to have a teeny tiny little mind to not realize all of this.

Edited by Rob Bradley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They seem to say "slaughter 'em all--let's massacre millions"

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to kill all Muslims, but it is necessary to kill enough Muslims to make them believe that we are ready kill them all if we have to.

Objectivism maintains that a threat of force IS a form of force. Correspondingly, a threat of retaliation IS a suitable form of retaliation--provided it's a credible threat. One that our enemies take seriously. The decades of appeasement have taught our enemies that there is NO serious threat of retaliation from America--that they can attack us with impunity because, although we have the means, we lack the will to strike back. THIS is why they have dared to attack us in the first place. THIS is why the only way to stop their attacks now is to retaliate with overwhelming force.

The longer we procrastinate, the more Muslims we'll have to kill to achieve peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I consider it accurate to say that those who believe in the prophet Mohammed and his teachings are Muslim, while those who believe in violent conquest and conversion of non-Muslims are Islamists. Do you disagree with this? I think the equating of Islamist with Muslim is a tool to dilute the barbarism of what people like OBL advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point Felipe, but living where I do (London), I know a lot Muslims take offence to the terrorists being identified as Islamist. They would say that to a live a life in good accordance with the word of Mohammed, is to be Islam. However much I may disagree with that word, it alone is no mandate for such a level of violence as has been supported here. I think there needs to be a clearer distinction, and I suggest people look into it to understand what makes a terrorist (of the 911 variety), what makes a Muslim/Islamist, how these differ and what are the nature of the links between the two.

Edited by Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I wouldn't mind if someone snuck in Mecca one night and blew up that damn rock when no ones around! That might hurry up the demise of religion without violating any rights - after all 'Allah' owns it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps Islamofacsists? I too get your point that many people paint in very broad strokes and advocate the death of Muslims as such. Obviously the common denominator should be that the individual should represent a threat.

What "a threat" consists of depends on context. This is with regard to the use of force. On the other hand, with regard to fighting the ideas that brew Islamofascists, I think undoubtedly it has much to do with indoctrinization during youth, perpetrated by the adults.

Either way, in the immediate moment, those who pose threats must be eliminated, and those who continue to breed youths that become Islamofacsists can only be fought by providing them with a shinning example of how life should be. Irrationality, after all, breeds a psychologically suffocating state of mind, and at least at an implicit level, providing a good example, if alluring and strong enough, will make something click and give them a thirst for the good life.

Nevertheless, since the West has rotted ideologically, we've reached a time where the immediate threat is one of force and not of ideas, and so force is required immediately, while in the long term a war of ideas must be waged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles, the term "Islamist" -- as distinct from, say, "Muslim", has been used for quite some time to denote a radicalized, violence-advocating Muslim. "Islamism" is a synonym for fundamentalist (or radical) jihadist Islam, whereas mere "Islam" is the broader concept that includes all degrees of adherence to/interpretation of Islam.

An Islamist is, by definition, violent. (A Muslim, on the other hand, is only violent to the extent he is consistent.) [only semi-joking there]

P.S. Earlier you mentioned the notion that "jihad" refers only to an internal, spiritual struggle, not to armed conquest. Could you cite the Koran or other Muslim sources to support this intperpretation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose I consider it accurate to say that those who believe in the prophet Mohammed and his teachings are Muslim, while those who believe in violent conquest and conversion of non-Muslims are Islamists.
The term "Islamist" is an well-established, existing "technical" term refering to a contemporary (post-Ottoman) political movement of Muslims, exemplified by Deobandi, Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad, among others. I don't believe that they actually advocate conversions and conquests: rather, they emphasize purification of "Islamic lands" by eliminating all non-Muslim and secular influences (dirt apparently has a religion). In other words, they don't care about the US, but they do care about the perceived apostacy of Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia etc. Needless to say, that includes the territory of Israel as well. The fundamental political principle of Islamicism is that it is an abomination for a Muslim to be rules by a non-Muslim, and secondarily, to be ruled by secular Muslims. I'd stick with the term "Islamist", since it is widely know and more likely to be taken seriously as compared to Islamofascist (which is descriptively accurate, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would you call those that want to conquer all of the world?
I used to call them commies, since that's who they were. Now, I don't know. I'm more worried about those who want to destroy the world. The Islamists don't have that as their main goal, but if that turns out to be necessary to their goal of pure Islamic isolation, that would the will of Allah, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way, in the immediate moment, those who pose threats must be eliminated, and those who continue to breed youths that become Islamofacsists can only be fought by providing them with a shinning example of how life should be.  Irrationality, after all, breeds a psychologically suffocating state of mind, and at least at an implicit level, providing a good example, if alluring and strong enough, will make something click and give them a thirst for the good life. 

With this I could not agree more.

I have just found out it is now official - the terrorists who hit London were British (of Pakistani ancestry). Apparently these were youths (possibly as young as 19) from West Yorkshire - in Bradford & Leeds. The racial atmosphere is very tense around there and there have been some very violent riots in the last few years (the British National Party is also very active there, white British facists). Its saddening that they should bring their hatred to perhaps one of the world's most racially integrated and culturally diverse cities - London.

I love London for its sense of purpose - some people criticize what they recognise as a social taboo not to talk on the tube - the truth is everyone is busy getting on with their lives. There is a constant buzz of innovation in the air.

Last week I went to hear the Conservative Party's new Shadow chancellor deliver his first speech in the Citigate Marketing suite. (The speech was an improvement on previous Conservative policy, but thats another thread!) I got a chance to see this massive architectural layout model of what Londons going to look like in the next 5-10yrs, with over 10 new skyscrapers going up (2 already well under way) and now the Olympic developments in the East end. Four angry teenagers from the darkest corners of British society aren't going to stop 7 million Londoners from going about their daily lives. Its sad to imagine those depraved suidical fools probably never even visited the city they bombed until the day they did it.

Edited by Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for that, David.  Good point on the Islamofascist.  What would you call those that want to conquer all of the world?

Anti-capitalists.:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] those who believe in the prophet Mohammed and his teachings are Muslim [...]

Muhammad, as you indicate, was a prophet -- and only a prophet, that is, a conduit for God, not a god himself. (Christians believe Christ is/was God incarnate, here on earth.) So, a Muslim worships Allah and reveres Muhammad.

In Arabic, "mu-" (as a prefix) can mean "people who" or "person who." For example, the mujihadeen (in various English spellings) means "the people who [engage in] jihad," that is, Holy War.

"Islam" means "submission." To whom? To God, that is, Allah.

The word "Allah" means "the god." The prefix al- in Arabic means "the." For example, al-kitaab, means "the book" (the thing written) and al-kutubii means "the bookseller."

A Muslim is a "mu-Islam," that is, a person of Islam.

[Caution: My Arabic is very crude, so don't take me as a source. I highly recommend Cyril Glasse, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, as a source for serious students of Islamic culture.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a fair point in so much as there is a difference between the two terms. If you like, replace white man with 'Christian' - a lot of Christians would be deeply offended to hear themselves implicated in these hypothetical lynchings when it was a radical protestant sect, the KKK.  I think you get the point I'm making.

If there were thousands of people being lynched around the world by people calling themselves Christians, and if the lynchers explicitly claimed that Christianity justified their actions, and if there were thousands of Christian preachers hailing the lynchings and calling for more in their Sunday sermons, and if the Christian Bible contained the statement "lynch the infidels at every chance" -- then I think it would be entirely appropriate to call the lynchers Christians.

There are two assumptions in this discussion that should be examined:

1) One is the notion that the terrorists, their supporters and sympathizers are a very small percentage of the total Muslim population. I have never seen any evidence in support of this notion. What I have seen are massive pro-terrorists demonstrations in the streets of Muslim-dominated countries any time there is an attack on American interests or on Israel

What I have seen is the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) -- an organization described by the media as a "moderate, mainstream group of Muslims" -- refuse time and time again to condemn organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

I have also heard the anecdotal statements that "most of the Muslims I know are opposed to terrorism". However, given the fact that Islam explicitly allows its followers to lie about their true intentions in order to deceive infidels, and in view of the other evidence, how can these statements be trusted?

No, I do not think this justifies killing them all. But I think it means every Muslim is a potential enemy combatant in their war against the west -- and it makes no sense at all to allow them to continue immigrating.

2) The second assumption is the notion that OBL and the Jihadist's interpretation of Islam is warped or improper. If this is the case, why have so few imams or other Islamic spokesmen condemned OBL or issued fatwas against his activities? If Islam forbids terrorism, why aren't these imams marching in the streets in protest and damning OBL during prayers? As near as I can tell, the sympathetic imams vastly outnumber those that condemn terrorism.

The fact is the Koran contains statements supporting the jihadists as well as statements condemning them. Thus, there is no basis for the contention that either interpretation of Islam is "more correct" than another. All faith-based claims are equally valid.

Im not even attempting to solve the problem of terrorism in itself - I'm addressing the problem of sympathy with terrorists in some disillusioned Muslim youths and the problems misused terminology causes when people blame all Islam for terrorism.
Are you saying that referring to the terrorists as "Islamic" increases the sympathy for the terrorists among Muslims who would otherwise not be sympathetic?

I do however think the US government solutions for dealing with terrorism must be slightly misguided if recent campaigns like Iraq create more terrorists and more sympathy for them.
If the destruction of two of the most hideously evil regimes in recent history -- namely the Taliban and Hussein -- has increased the number of Muslims willing to become terrorists and increased the sympathy for them -- what does that tell you about the nature of Islam? Why aren't Muslims happy about the destruction of two regimes that brutally terrorized their own Muslim populations?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An understanding of Islamic philosophy and history leads to the conclusion that draconian measures are needed.  The only person in history to deal effectively with Moslems was Ghengis Khan.

The armies of Genghis Khan are said to have shouted "Allahu Akbar" while attacking Muslim armies.

At least they had a sense of humor. Anyways, I think our war on terror should look and act more like a Mongol horde, instead of this happy sappy crap we're doing.

It is disputable. The values do not necessarily or inevitably lead to destructive barbaric actions. The majority of Islamic people (known as Muslims) are not interested in violent conquest. Also your using a tautology here - to be a Muslim is to follow Islam. So what you've just said is Most muslims either are or sympathise with terrorists. Think again.

I think the right thing to say that all FAITH leads to destructive and barbaric actions. If these "peaceful" "moderate" muslims don't go out killing people its not because of islam, its inspite of Islam. . . where would we be without inconsistent religious people. . . ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...