NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I the only that's noticing this?

That muslim organizations and religious leaders are condemning the London attacks more quickly than they've condemned previous attacks. Is this because the muslim community has finally learned its lesson regarding vocally supporting Al Qaeda and its allies?

In previous terrorist attacks there was no condemnation forth coming from muslims. Since Thursday, thousands of muslim groups, for the first time, were quick in their condemnation of the attack on London.

Any response from Muslims? If there are any on this board?

perhaps its because there are a lot of muslims living in London.

but no i am not really noticing this - the Muslim Council of Britain (i think thats what its called) has spoken out against all sorts of terrorist activity, etc.
as for international organisations i don't know

Perhaps the sources of media you pay attention to are finally paying attention to the muslim condemnations of such attacks.

Didnt the attacks actually take place in what is considered Muslim neighborhoods?...I'm pretty sure that could be fair grounds for condemning these attacks, if the hundreds of innocent civilians who were wounded/killed in them wasnt enough already.

Yeah. They've condemned every civilian contractor execution in Iraq as and when those have been happening. Perhaps your thumb slipped off the FOX button. :p

Public condemnations of terrorism are nice, but cheap. They don't require serious debate among the faithfull. Hell, Yassir Arafat publicly condemned terrorism. What matters is what's being preached when non-muslims aren't around. I hope that all muslim clerics are stressing to their people that terrorism isn't the way foreward, but I suspect that most are avoiding the issue and some are encouraging the terrorists by providing excuses and justifications.

perhaps one of the areas attacked was a heavily populated muslim area?

The British Muslim communities have been dealing with this for a lot longer than the Muslim communities in the US, so it's no surprise to me that they made the statements they did, nor that Londoners are handling this with a great deal less panic than most of the people in the US dealt with the 9/11 attacks.

Public condemnations of terrorism are nice, but cheap. They don't require serious debate among the faithfull. Hell, Yassir Arafat publicly condemned terrorism. What matters is what's being preached when non-muslims aren't around. I hope that all muslim clerics are stressing to their people that terrorism isn't the way foreward, but I suspect that most are avoiding the issue and some are encouraging the terrorists by providing excuses and justifications.

Saw an interesting reality show where they take someone who's depressed or whatever and give them some religious-type things to practise (Pagan drumming, Tai'Chi, all sorts of stuff.). This one dude was asked to say Islamic prayers, not to Allah but just... prayers, I guess. Well, it helped with creating a sense of structure, but that's not the point. Point is, he attended a sermon given by the Imam - and this was in Britain, mark you - and the Imam was all about how evil and corrupt the West is and how the influence must be resisted. Now I don't know how widespread it is, or if it was just because there were TV cameras around, or what, but it lowered Islam somewhat in my eyes.

Saw an interesting reality show where they take someone who's depressed or whatever and give them some religious-type things to practise (Pagan drumming, Tai'Chi, all sorts of stuff.). This one dude was asked to say Islamic prayers, not to Allah but just... prayers, I guess. Well, it helped with creating a sense of structure, but that's not the point. Point is, he attended a sermon given by the Imam - and this was in Britain, mark you - and the Imam was all about how evil and corrupt the West is and how the influence must be resisted. Now I don't know how widespread it is, or if it was just because there were TV cameras around, or what, but it lowered Islam somewhat in my eyes.

Someone should tell Mr. Imam not to bite the hand that feeds you. If he has so much against the "West", maybe he should move back to the Middle East. Cretin.

Yeah. They've condemned every civilian contractor execution in Iraq as and when those have been happening. Perhaps your thumb slipped off the FOX button. :p
Therefore its OK for terrorists to attack military people? While soldiers can expect to be attacked, it doesn't make it right. Therefore, they have just admitted they support the terrorists and insurgents against British people, as long as the're military. Very loyal to their country aren't they, those muslimes?

I was referring to the unusually large number of muslim groups around the world condemning the terrorist attacks.

Perhaps the Muslim world doesn't despise the UK as much as they do the US.

Is this because the muslim community has finally learned its lesson regarding vocally supporting Al Qaeda and its allies?

Muslims don't have to apologize for a single thing. It's not their fault they have extremists in their ranks. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Yeah, I didn't see the American people apologizing to themselves for his extremism. :rolleyes:

That muslim organizations and religious leaders are condemning the London attacks more quickly than they've condemned previous attacks. Is this because the muslim community has finally learned its lesson regarding vocally supporting Al Qaeda and its allies?
Maybe the Mulsim community is indeed MULTIPLE Muslim communitIES.
And maybe these specific communities find it important to distance themselves from the extremists. Because they know that half of the western population view them as a monolithic bloc. Because even the most peaceful, honest Muslims are looked with suspiscion, and frowned upon, when they walk in the street.

Muslims don't have to apologize for a single thing. It's not their fault they have extremists in their ranks. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Yeah, I didn't see the American people apologizing to themselves for his extremism. :rolleyes:

I'm really concerned about the perception that the Moslem community is not outraged enough over the killings which have gone on for some time now in numerous countries, always targeting innocents. There are hundreds of Christian churches burned and Christians killed also in several countries over several years.

I don't see a comparison to McVeigh here - consider the difference in scale, and actually avoids of discussing the obvious and unpleasant fact that a subset of a major religion is organizing violence against people it hates. On a large scale. I see here a real potential for ugly backlash at Moslems that has so far been held in check and must be avoided.

It's been discussed on this board before, these are not new thoughts. They're unpleasant to discuss, but look back in the last hundred years and you'll see parallels to this - Krystallnacht, for instance.

I suspect that more attacks or a significant attack like a bio-weapon will turn ugly quickly. There will be a backlash against innocent people, mosques burned, etc. Governments will consider rounding up Moslems, mass deportation will become a possibility. New and very intrusive anti-terror laws will be passed. I don't advocate this - anyone who has studied history knows that these things can and do happen. The potential for these actions is here now - let's stop it now, whatever that takes..

This would be a good time for Moslems to show the west that they distance themselves from these terrorists - declare them apostate, demonstrate in the streets in outrage, socially punish the outlaws, etc. I do not in any way place the onus completely on that community - the west has plenty of things to contribute - but right or wrong I think the perception is that these people are connected to the Moslem faith. While it is a good thought that people of faith apologize for criminals in their ranks, it isn't really necessary - how can you apologize for the actions of another, really.

Actions do speak louder than words. Highly place religious leaders and leaders of Islamic nations have steps they can take to correct perceptions in the west, and I think it would be responsible for them to do it at this time. Western leaders of similar staure should meet with them and arrange to calm this down.

I think we should realize the potential of harmful perceptions, discuss them frankly without natinalism, religious, or pc motives. That goes for terrorists of any religion or cause, in my view.

-snip-

How about people get off their high horses and stop being ignorant towards the fact that Muslims are not terrorists? They have nothing to apologize for, they shouldn't have to apologize or condemn terrorist attacks.

I don't see the US apologizing for what it's doing in Iraq, considering there are people over there who see it as a terrorist attacks. Should I have to apologize to an Iraqi who feels are entire country is against them? No. I shouldn't.

Why do we hold Muslims to a different standard? It's simple. Americans, for the most part, are ethnocentric - just like a majority of cultures - and unfortunately, many are too ignorant to change that fact.

If a Imam wants to condemn a terrorist attack, he should do so because he genuinely condemns it. He shouldn't do it for fear of backlash from the American people or from anybody else for that matter. I suspect the latter is being done quite frequently which cheapens the condemnation.

Because the Muslim community doesnt want to be painted with the same brush as these extremist. Which by definition are not muslims. Also I would think that to lower the chances of hate crimes against innocent muslims such as these:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F2872A81-804C-40A0-BE39-076D7EF63B0D.htm

Because the Muslim community doesnt want to be painted with the same brush as these extremist. Which by definition are not muslims. Also I would think that to lower the chances of hate crimes against innocent muslims such as these:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F2872A81-804C-40A0-BE39-076D7EF63B0D.htm

The link you supplied exactly illustrates what I'm saying - people will blame innocent Moslems.

"British police have reported about 70 incidents against ethnic minorities since the Thursday bombings.

There were reports of suspicious fires at a mosque in the northern English town of Leeds and a Sikh temple in the southern town of Kent, and police said that tension around the country is increasing."

I'm suggesting their community could help reduce the perception that they're involved by taking more public action. And non-Moslem spiritual leaders and western governments can try and calm their people down. And not just in the UK - Indonesia comes to mind.

How about people get off their high horses and stop being ignorant towards the fact that Muslims are not terrorists?

<snip>

If a Imam wants to condemn a terrorist attack, he should do so because he genuinely condemns it. He shouldn't do it for fear of backlash from the American people or from anybody else for that matter. I suspect the latter is being done quite frequently which cheapens the condemnation.

I agree with you. I'm saying there's a perception, obviously an incorrect one, and not one I share. But it's a dangerous one. Unless you disagree, which in light of fact seems difficult to do, how then would you suggest to improve the situation so that the next time there's an attack there won't be another backlash? You no doubt noted that I think leaders from many viewpoints should confer as well.

It is indeed the responsibilty of spiritual leaders to promote the welfare of their constituents.

Point is, he attended a sermon given by the Imam - and this was in Britain, mark you - and the Imam was all about how evil and corrupt the West is and how the influence must be resisted. Now I don't know how widespread it is, or if it was just because there were TV cameras around, or what, but it lowered Islam somewhat in my eyes.

Are you claiming that the west isn't evil and corrupt?

how then would you suggest to improve the situation so that the next time there's an attack there won't be another backlash?

I think the problem lies in with how non-Muslims view the situation. They're the ones that need to open their eyes and stop profiling all Muslims; there's not much that can be done about that as you'd have to pretty much reprogram an entire population to see passed their stereotyping, y'know? Until then, I can understand why Imams and the Muslim community must come out and condemn these attacks in the strongest language possible to protect themselves. It just shouldn't be that way.

I think the problem lies in with how non-Muslims view the situation. They're the ones that need to open their eyes and stop profiling all Muslims; there's not much that can be done about that as you'd have to pretty much reprogram an entire population to see passed their stereotyping, y'know? Until then, I can understand why Imams and the Muslim community must come out and condemn these attacks in the strongest language possible to protect themselves. It just shouldn't be that way.
Thousands of Americans protested in the streets in the run-up to the Iraq war, making it perfectly clear that they did not view Bush's actions as representing their true opinons.
Iranian clerics have called for the death of people that criticize Islam. Osama wants to kill millions of Americans, half children, in "retribution" for the Iraqi sanctions.
If I were a Muslim Cleric or head of state, knowing perfectly well that these people were bringing a bad name to my religion and not practicing it properly, I would issue my own Fatwah calling for their deaths.
No action like this is forthcoming right now.
Why not?

Thousands of Americans protested in the streets in the run-up to the Iraq war, making it perfectly clear that they did not view Bush's actions as representing their true opinons.

And... what does that have to do with anything?

Iranian clerics have called for the death of people that criticize Islam. Osama wants to kill millions of Americans, half children, in "retribution" for the Iraqi sanctions.
If I were a Muslim Cleric or head of state, knowing perfectly well that these people were bringing a bad name to my religion and not practicing it properly, I would issue my own Fatwah calling for their deaths.
No action like this is forthcoming right now.
Why not?

Because. It. Is. Not. Necessary.

(Go back and read what I've posted, I've already gone over this.)

And... what does that have to do with anything?
QUOTE]
That we make our viewpoints publicly known in very noisy fashions. This "sit from the side and cheerlead" stuff doesn't cut it; it seems like they just don't want to fix their problems for fear of rocking the boat.

[QUOTE]Because. It. Is. Not. Necessary.
Why not? These people are destroying the religion and bringing the deaths of many, many innocent Muslims. Why aren't moderate Muslims in the US and Europe crying out for the blood of people like Bin Laden, the same way extremists cry out for the blood of Bush and Blair?

[QUOTE=Tuesday Heights]And... what does that have to do with anything?
QUOTE]
That we make our viewpoints publicly known in very noisy fashions. This "sit from the side and cheerlead" stuff doesn't cut it; it seems like they just don't want to fix their problems for fear of rocking the boat.


Why not? These people are destroying the religion and bringing the deaths of many, many innocent Muslims. Why aren't moderate Muslims in the US and Europe crying out for the blood of people like Bin Laden, the same way extremists cry out for the blood of Bush and Blair?
I have to agree with you there.
After all, it is not the peacemakers who bring the peace. It is those who fight wars.
It is not the protestors who bring justice. Rather it is those willing to engage in war for what is right.
Those who sit on the side while events unfold, are not the ones who determine either history or the outcome of current conflicts.
But rather it is those who are willing to pick up a gun, those who are willing to actually stand up and back their words with actions who decide the fate of all mankind.
It is not those who say "don't do this, don't do that" who decide the fate of the world. Rather the people who decide the world's fate are the one's willing to say screw political correctness. Why, because they know that PC always gets people killed. They know that PC is what ultimately brings civilizations crashing down.
It is the brave and the bold, and those who have conviction whose names are remembered. Those who sit on the side, protest war, cry about this and that, have have never been remembered very kindly by history. In fact, their names do not appear in history at all. And as in the past, the cry babies of today, will fade into oblivion. For ever to remain unknown to future generations, while men like George W. Bush and Tony Blair who dared to look evil in the face. Who dared to take the fight to the evil ones go down in history as the men who changed the world for the better. While their opponents fade into oblivion. Bush and Blair will go down as the two most important men of the first half of the 21st Century.
If the muslims really wanted to have an impact they would not be hiding in their mosques apologizing for shit they didn't do. They would be calling for the heads of the terrorists who claim to be killing in their name. Many muslims may not be terrorists, but in my view, they are really cowards.
Do you think Muhammed would have hidden from evil? Seems to me he would have attacked it head on. While they claim to follow their prophet, today's muslims hide out of fear. They fear the retribution that the terrorists actions will bring on the muslim community yet they are unwilling to do anything except apologize except make their own people apologize for something they didn't do.
They say the terrorists don't represent the muslims. Bullshit. If that was true then why don't the world's muslims stop apologizing and start doing something about it. Until they start doing something against the terrorists, muslim apologies won't mean squat.
The world demands actions not words. For the muslims words, that the terrorists don't represent them, to mean anything, the muslims must be willing to take up arms against the terrorists and join the holy war against the evil that is Al Qaeda.

I think most of the problem is xenophobia and ignorance. To a lot of people, all the muslims look similar, act similar, and are reasonably easy to identify as muslims. Thus they generalise, but it is not really any different to what happened to the Japanese and other asians in WW2

[QUOTE=Tuesday Heights]
Why aren't moderate Muslims in the US and Europe crying out for the blood of people like Bin Laden, the same way extremists cry out for the blood of Bush and Blair?

Thats why their moderate and not extreme in the first place. :p

Why not? These people are destroying the religion and bringing the deaths of many, many innocent Muslims.

Ummm ... why should we apologise to non-Muslims for extremists attempting to hijack our religion? That makes no sense. Most of us are more concerned with showing you that what these people are doing is not Islam nor sanctioned by Islam. I will apologise if I should ever be directly responsible for such things.


Why aren't moderate Muslims in the US and Europe crying out for the blood of people like Bin Laden, the same way extremists cry out for the blood of Bush and Blair?

Because that would make us no better than the people crying out for the blood of Bush and Blair. You want "moderate" (your term, not mine) Muslims to go to "extreme" measures to appease the non-Muslim community?

Right.

Am I the only that's noticing this?

That muslim organizations and religious leaders are condemning the London attacks more quickly than they've condemned previous attacks. Is this because the muslim community has finally learned its lesson regarding vocally supporting Al Qaeda and its allies?

In previous terrorist attacks there was no condemnation forth coming from muslims. Since Thursday, thousands of muslim groups, for the first time, were quick in their condemnation of the attack on London.

Any response from Muslims? If there are any on this board?

Why should the leaders of the Muslin community have to condemn it. That they do is enough. I cant see why there's a furore about the speed at which they condemn it. There wouldnt be the same crap if the Pope took his time. Al-Qaeeda isnt backed by Islam or the majority of the Muslim world so why should Muslim leaders have to come out annd condemn these attacks so quickly????

Am I the only that's noticing this?

That muslim organizations and religious leaders are condemning the London attacks more quickly than they've condemned previous attacks. Is this because the muslim community has finally learned its lesson regarding vocally supporting Al Qaeda and its allies?

To be honest I think most are probably just worried they're next.

To be honest I think most are probably just worried they're next.
I agree to an extent. Because Al Qaeda, while claiming to speak for all muslims, is, ironically, targeting Muslims. Particularly in Iraq. Look at all the people they killing. If you look at the stats, most of the people the "insurgents" are killing in Iraq are Iraqi muslims for example.


That is why I think the muslim community needs to do more than it has. Because if the west falls, the muslim community will be Al Qaeda's next target. The only way to prevent that is for muslims to join westerners in waging a war to destroy Al Qaeda.

That is why I think the muslim community needs to do more than it has. Because if the west falls, the muslim community will be Al Qaeda's next target. The only way to prevent that is for muslims to join westerners in waging a war to destroy Al Qaeda.

You show me a Western nation that allows its citizenry to take up arms and storm another country and I'll agree with you. In the US, however, that's not possible. It requires Muslims to join the armed services, but even then there's no guarantee you'll be out in the field actually shooting at folks.

Like so many politicians, you have the solution, but no plan. You tell me exactly how my 70 year old Imam can "join westerners in waging a war to destroy Al Qaeda".

You show me a Western nation that allows its citizenry to take up arms and storm another country and I'll agree with you. In the US, however, that's not possible. It requires Muslims to join the armed services, but even then there's no guarantee you'll be out in the field actually shooting at folks.

Like so many politicians, you have the solution, but no plan. You tell me exactly how my 70 year old Imam can "join westerners in waging a war to destroy Al Qaeda".
He can be a chaplain for muslims in the military. And that is precisely what I propose, that they join the armed forces to support the war against terror.

He can be a chaplain for muslims in the military. And that is precisely what I propose, that they join the armed forces to support the war against terror.

You mean to imply there're no Muslims already in the US Armed Forces? And that there's no other way to support the war, if, in fact, they even support this "war"?

He can be a chaplain for muslims in the military. And that is precisely what I propose, that they join the armed forces to support the war against terror.

The Army takes 70 year olds? Wow.

The Army takes 70 year olds? Wow.
Hell. I wish they would take just this one 62-year-old! :(

Hell. I wish they would take just this one 62-year-old! :(

Bah! We'd miss you too much.

Why should the leaders of the Muslin community have to condemn it. That they do is enough. I cant see why there's a furore about the speed at which they condemn it. There wouldnt be the same crap if the Pope took his time. Al-Qaeeda isnt backed by Islam or the majority of the Muslim world so why should Muslim leaders have to come out annd condemn these attacks so quickly????

They shouldn't have to but it is a matter of correlation. Al-Qaeeda claims to be representing Islam. In the same way when some radical Christian, Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, ect group commits an atrocity they, the public, expect the mainstream of that religion to identify themselves as not part of it.

Unfortunately once will not do. It will have to be said many times. Which is very frustrating to those who do not condone it. Not fair in the least... but as it is said life is not fair.

Hell. I wish they would take just this one 62-year-old! :(

If you are a Doctor... they would find a way to take you in a blink of an eye... I think the cut off might but 60...but I could see a waiver being done.

Well these are from the Air Force and Navy sites... couldnt find the age requirement on the Army page

Navy

Requirements are fairly straightforward: You must be a U.S. citizen under the age of 40 (although age limits can be waived), you must pass the Navy’s physical fitness standards and you must complete certain minimum levels of training and education. Your time requirement will be at least three years of active duty depending on the program under which you receive your commissioned

Air Force

Qualifications:
• Must be a U.S. citizen between the ages of 20 and 47
• Must have obtained or be in the process of obtaining an M.D. or D.O degree
• Fully qualified physicians should have at least one year postgraduate training and a license to practice medicine. A board certification in your specialty is preferred but not required

From Navy.com and Airforce.com respectively

Just in case Eutrusca decides the need to get back in uniform :)

If you are a Doctor... they would find a way to take you in a blink of an eye... I think the cut off might but 60...but I could see a waiver being done.

Well these are from the Air Force and Navy sites... couldnt find the age requirement on the Army page

Navy

Requirements are fairly straightforward: You must be a U.S. citizen under the age of 40 (although age limits can be waived), you must pass the Navy’s physical fitness standards and you must complete certain minimum levels of training and education. Your time requirement will be at least three years of active duty depending on the program under which you receive your commissioned

Air Force

Qualifications:
• Must be a U.S. citizen between the ages of 20 and 47
• Must have obtained or be in the process of obtaining an M.D. or D.O degree
• Fully qualified physicians should have at least one year postgraduate training and a license to practice medicine. A board certification in your specialty is preferred but not required

From Navy.com and Airforce.com respectively

Just in case Eutrusca decides the need to get back in uniform :)

Army age requirement is around 31.
US citizenship not required. By serving in the US Army, those foriegners seeking citizenship will get it almost automatically, due to laying their lives on the line for this nation.

Thank you for the info Whittier :)