Terrorism

[quixotically]

Today I watched CNN and caught part of an interview with a British muslim extremist. Essentially he said all non muslims are the devil, which is why they've waged war against everyone.

Essentially I believe he says that he hates all non muslims, because you don't kill random, innocent people unless you hate them, or unless you have serious mental issues.

Thus, what does it mean to hate a group of people? It means you cannot be associated with them in any way. I can't say I hate black people, I can't be a true racist, if I listen to hip hop. I can't hate Japanese people if I drive a Toyota. Why? It's because once you've decided to hate a group of people you cannot be associated with them. It's contradictory.

These terrorists are extreme. Let's take this argument to an extreme. If muslim terrorists truly hate all non muslims, then, first and formost, they can't be allowed to speak English, as English is the staplepoint of western democracy. Also, they can't drive vehicles because muslims don't make vehicles by and large. They also shouldn't step on non muslim soil. In short, stay in the middle east. However, they love coming to America, living in Britain, driving a nice Lexus. They do not feel true hatred.

In the early 20th century all black people were likely scared of the KKK because the KKK truly felt hatred for them. The KKK fit all the parameters of hatred. Now, however, who is truly scared of the KKK? Firstly, they're hardly around, but also they've changed their stance. It's now of inherant betterness, not utter hatred.

This is why, in the English language, there are numerous ways to describe not liking something. I hate fish. I dislike fish. I prefer not to eat fish....etc. These people need to understand that. Moreover, if they simply don't like non muslims, then perhaps check out the Koran and tell me it says to kill random people because you simply prefer that they aren't alive. Really the only philosophical justification for terrorism is unequivocal hatred, and the vast majority of terrorists just don't live up to the word.

 

[JimE]

Thus, what does it mean to hate a group of people? It means you cannot be associated with them in any way. I can't say I hate black people, I can't be a true racist, if I listen to hip hop. I can't hate Japanese people if I drive a Toyota. Why? It's because once you've decided to hate a group of people you cannot be associated with them. It's contradictory.

These terrorists are extreme. Let's take this argument to an extreme. If muslim terrorists truly hate all non muslims, then, first and formost, they can't be allowed to speak English, as English is the staplepoint of western democracy. Also, they can't drive vehicles because muslims don't make vehicles by and large. They also shouldn't step on non muslim soil. In short, stay in the middle east. However, they love coming to America, living in Britain, driving a nice Lexus. They do not feel true hatred.

The part of your post that I quoted applies only for the average strict muslim; not for the extremist and certainlly not for the terrorist.
Allow me to elaborate: A while ago I heard an interview on TV of a French muslim extremist. He said that their final goal was to invade/overtake the western civilisation and make it all muslim territory. To achief that they invade our countries by all means possible, they gladly take advantage of our permissiveness and democracy. They have to integrate temporarily to our customs to achieve these goals.
I'd call it the "Trojan Horse" principle.
I'm sure you've heard how perfectly some of the 9/11 terrorists where "integrated" to avoid suspicion ?
A real terrorist consideres this as a price he has to pay.

You are 100% right however when you take into account the behaviour of the average strict muslim. They are acting very contradictory too, but this time not "aware" they are doing so as opposed to the category I described above.

 

[mindido]

quixotically,

I think you and JimE are basically correct in your analysis of terrorists. I believe it has become clear that they will use whatever means necessary (including blending in to a targets society) to achieve whatever goal they have.

The problem is that our administration is trying to use a battering ram for a job that is much more suited to a scalpel. If they keep going on the present course, we will have to deal with all muslims, not just a few extremists.

 

[Iceberg]

The problem is that our administration is trying to use a battering ram for a job that is much more suited to a scalpel.

Despite having a slight problem with the NSA surveillance thing, I'd rather the "battering ram" usage than the "scalpel" if the battering ram eliminates the threat of all extremists while the scalpel leaves a handful to terrorise and leave hundreds dead. A "no stone unturned" process is better than one of a flip every third stone to see what's under it. Heck, many of these people the NSA were spying on weren't even citizens, so they have every right to do what they did.

 

[JimE]

Heck, many of these people the NSA were spying on weren't even citizens, so they have every right to do what they did.

Ice what do you mean by they weren't even citizens ? Is it like civilian ? Or inhabitant of the US ?

 

[mindido]

Ice,

Wish I had more time for a better response but I was thinking more of the Iraq situation as the battering ram (although the NSA program also certainly qualifies). In a "war" on terrorism, one of our principle objectives should be to win the "hearts and minds" of the general populace that is neutral overall. If you want to ensure that the ''war" doesn't go on forever, that MUST be a primary objective. It's interesting to note that Al Quaeda and Hizbollah understand that, but we don't. Until we do, we will lose.

 

[Iceberg]

Ice what do you mean by they weren't even citizens ? Is it like civilian ? Or inhabitant of the US ?

What I mean by "citizen" is one with American citizenship. Non-citizens do not have the same rights under the Constitution as those with citizenship.

In a "war" on terrorism, one of our principle objectives should be to win the "hearts and minds" of the general populace that is neutral overall. If you want to ensure that the ''war" doesn't go on forever, that MUST be a primary objective.

I agree. However, a huge number of people in the Middle East and the Islamic nations of Asia are already against the US and the West in general, so it is almost futile to try to get them on board. The best thing to make sure they don't join up with a militant group is to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible and allow them to maintain as much of their day-to-day routine as possible.

 

[mindido]

Ice,

I agree. However, a huge number of people in the Middle East and the Islamic nations of Asia are already against the US and the West in general, so it is almost futile to try to get them on board.

The key word in the sentence being "almost". It does appear that most muslims don't particularly like us, which, given some of the things we've done in the past, is somewhat understandable. However, few of these people are pissed off enough to become martyrs (at least at the moment). But if the US keeps things going as is, we'll continue to make more extremists.

The best thing to make sure they don't join up with a militant group is to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible and allow them to maintain as much of their day-to-day routine as possible.

Thats exactly what I mean by the "scalpel" approach. Keep civilian casualties to a minimun, allow locals to get to know and trust you, and your well on your way to winning the battle of hearts and minds. Pretty soon the locals will turn in the extremists, which is exactly what you want and the only way to "win" such an encounter.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Fuck we're making the extremists now!? It's more dangerous that you still don't get it than anything else. I'd bet we're the last democracy on earth who has to deal with the little gay ass liberal minds who cry over their own countries nsa program. I'm just waiting for the extreme left to join in the jihad now.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

Fuck we're making the extremists now!?

Uhhhh, yeah! Our policies in the present, and the past, certainly have something to do with this. Normal people don't just go out and decide to blow themselves and everyone around them to smithereens! That is usually defined as an act of desperation (or, rarely, insanity). If you don't understand a group of peoples motivations, then you understand nothing about your enemy, and are doomed to continue to repeat stupid decisions that get you nowhere. Pretty much exactly where we are now.

It's more dangerous that you still don't get it than anything else. I'd bet we're the last democracy on earth who has to deal with the little gay ass liberal minds who cry over their own countries nsa program.

No Duke, its much more dangerous when you continue to make the same stupid decisions over and over again. Go and study a bit of middle east history and you'll soon discover the people over there do have some legitimate gripes. And as far as the NSA fiasco, there is a reason that a judge recently ordered its demise. Its completely illegal!

 

[l3lasphemer]

Anyone watch the Inside 9/11 last nite on discovery? It was very hard for me to watch, not because anyone that I knew were in or around the towers, but because of the senseless murder of people that were living in the US. My wife and I stayed up until 2am this morning watching the show and the same feeling as the day it happened came up when I saw the towers fall.

I think the actions in Afghanistan and other countries around are very justified and should be pursued to the bitter end. Not because of revenge or some redneck sense of justice, to prevent these people from doing such a thing again to ANY country.

At the end of the program, they were showing the last interview that Bin Laden released before he went into hiding, the journalist asked him why he does what he does and he said, "We Love Death, the US loves Life" And something that roughly reads to me as we do this because we enjoy causing death to people that love life.

 

[Iceberg]

Normal people don't just go out and decide to blow themselves and everyone around them to smithereens! That is usually defined as an act of desperation (or, rarely, insanity).

Not in the case of 9-11, however. All 19 hijackers were from middle and upper classes in their countries. There was no desperation in this. It was pure and utter hatred for the US and the Free World in general. The same goes for the 7-7 bombings in London, the 3-11 bombings in Madrid, and the Bali nightclub bombing.

I know this sounds strange for you to hear this from me, but since my last flurry of activity here, my worldview has changed quite a bit. I've had it with the Anti-War Left who seem to be little Neville Chamberlains running off and appeasing extremists. Canadian political figures Jack Layton (NDP leader), MP Libby Davies, and former MP Svend Robinson are three guilty parties to this.

These people don't seem to get it, that these extremists can never be appeased enough to stop their campaign of terror. The only thing that will cause them to disarm and become peaceful is if the world were to become Shi'a and for all the "Infidels" (Christians and Jews) to be eradicated from this planet.

I say FUCK these extremist bastards! It's time for the entire Free World to eradicate THEM from this planet so the rest of us can live in peace! (I don't care if this gets me in trouble with the Canadian authorities for "advocating genocide." These Islamo-psychos are way worse.)

 

[mindido]

Not in the case of 9-11, however. All 19 hijackers were from middle and upper classes in their countries. There was no desperation in this.

Ice,

Correct. They were all middle or upper class arabs. The pilots were all (I believe) college educated and one (Atta) was an engineer. So what motivates such people to pull off such a stunt?? Hate? And hate alone? I don't think so. There is something far deeper. And unless thats figured out soon we're going to see lots and lots and lots more of the same. I guarantee it.

It was pure and utter hatred for the US and the Free World in general. The same goes for the 7-7 bombings in London, the 3-11 bombings in Madrid, and the Bali nightclub bombing.

There is no doubt that they hate us. But why??? Until you can answer that question, and do something about it, then the cycle of violence will continue. And probably continue to get worse.

I know this sounds strange for you to hear this from me, but since my last flurry of activity here, my worldview has changed quite a bit. I've had it with the Anti-War Left who seem to be little Neville Chamberlains running off and appeasing extremists. Canadian political figures Jack Layton (NDP leader), MP Libby Davies, and former MP Svend Robinson are three guilty parties to this.

These people don't seem to get it, that these extremists can never be appeased enough to stop their campaign of terror. The only thing that will cause them to disarm and become peaceful is if the world were to become Shi'a and for all the "Infidels" (Christians and Jews) to be eradicated from this planet.

I have noticed the change, which is generally OK. But do remember one thing about Neville Chamberlain. He was an idiot, but he also provided the one last line in the sand that Hitler finally wound up crossing. Chamberlain told the whole world about "peace in our time" while waving his piece of worthless paper. When Hitler finally crossed the line there was no doubt, on virtually anyones mind, that WW2 was finally upon them. Everyone was united and virtually all doubts about the "righteousness" of the war were gone. So, even though Chamberlain deserves the derision he gets today, he did provide the line in the sand that wound up uniting most of the world against the Nazi's.

I say FUCK these extremist bastards! It's time for the entire Free World to eradicate THEM from this planet so the rest of us can live in peace! (I don't care if this gets me in trouble with the Canadian authorities for "advocating genocide." These Islamo-psychos are way worse.)

Advocating genocide???? Ice, you have now really gone off the deep end and have lowered yourself to the same level as Hitler or Bin Laden. That is an extreme position that will only lead to more grief for everyone. I hope you wind up coming to your senses. There are other methods.

 

[Iceberg]

Advocating genocide???? Ice, you have now really gone off the deep end and have lowered yourself to the same level as Hitler or Bin Laden. That is an extreme position that will only lead to more grief for everyone. I hope you wind up coming to your senses. There are other methods.

I'm certainly not advocating genocide, but certain "Politically Correct" types may view it as such. There are many good Muslims in this world and I certainly would abhor their "elimination".

Secular Muslims (who tend to be Sunni) are generally fine upstanding people, examples include Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasrin, and Bat Ye'or. People who question not what the Qu'ran says, but how it is interpreted by many Mullahs and Imams, especially those in the Shi'a branch.

I only support the eradication of extremism (and if necessary, extremists). These Mullahs and Imams must be held accountable for the toxin they spread throughout their communities. It is these people who turn an ordinary law-abiding Muslim into a West-hating killer. It is these people who brainwash these Muslims into believing that they will reach Paradise with the 72 virgins if they sacrifice themselves to kill "Infidels."

In no way would I support the killing of Muslims simply because of their faith. I have friends who are Muslim and they are fine examples of Canadian citizens.

However, to paraphrase Neville Flynn (Snakes on a Plane): "I have had it with these motherfucking Islamic Fundamentalists on this motherfucking Planet!"

 

[JimE]

These Mullahs and Imams must be held accountable for the toxin they spread throughout their communities. It is these people who turn an ordinary law-abiding Muslim into a West-hating killer. It is these people who brainwash these Muslims into believing that they will reach Paradise with the 72 virgins if they sacrifice themselves to kill "Infidels."

However, to paraphrase Neville Flynn (Snakes on a Plane): "I have had it with these motherfucking Islamic Fundamentalists on this motherfucking Planet!"

That's a clear point of view that I can only support. There once was a politician in our country that said "enough is enough". He's still quoted many times over here.

There should be a representative of the government present while these Mullahs and Imams preach they're hatred. An immediate expell or close of the mosk would be the only apropriate thing to do.

 

[Iceberg]

A presentation showing fraudulent photography which was used to gain sympathy for Lebanon and Hezbollah against Israel:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Muslim extremist sympathy in exchange for what? Jewish hatred for what? What a virus.

 

[Iceberg]

A very disturbing set of photos showing what certain versions of Islam will do to a child who steals, even a loaf of bread:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/crushboy.asp

 

[upnorth17]

Ice,


I have noticed the change, which is generally OK. But do remember one thing about Neville Chamberlain. He was an idiot, but he also provided the one last line in the sand that Hitler finally wound up crossing. Chamberlain told the whole world about "peace in our time" while waving his piece of worthless paper. When Hitler finally crossed the line there was no doubt, on virtually anyones mind, that WW2 was finally upon them. Everyone was united and virtually all doubts about the "righteousness" of the war were gone. So, even though Chamberlain deserves the derision he gets today, he did provide the line in the sand that wound up uniting most of the world against the Nazi's.

You are giving Chamberlain MUCH too much credit here. The world drew a number of "lines in the sand" that Hitler continued to step over. He was simply a pawn in history's game. It is clear that, regardless of what the British might or might not have done, Germany would have taken Austria and Czechoslovakia one way or another, and the war would have followed mainly as it did.

 

[mindido]

You are giving Chamberlain MUCH too much credit here. The world drew a number of "lines in the sand" that Hitler continued to step over. He was simply a pawn in history's game. It is clear that, regardless of what the British might or might not have done, Germany would have taken Austria and Czechoslovakia one way or another, and the war would have followed mainly as it did.

Upnorth,

I realize that Hitler did cross every line placed before him but I still believe that Chamberlain did play an important role with that last "peace in our time" gambit of his. I'm not a fan of Chamberlain, I just believe that he played a role at a key time that was necessary for the Allies to unite.