NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This article suggests that the cognitive dissonance between what young muslims are taught about the superiority of Islamic culture and what they see as the ascendency of other cultures makes them easy prey for Jihadists. I have suspected this might be true for some time now. If you are constantly told that your society/culture is the "truly superior" one, yet your people are poor, disrespected and alienated, it just makes sense this would give rise to rage. I'd love to know what others on here think about this.


A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15friedman.html?th&emc=th)

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 15, 2005

A few years ago I was visiting Bahrain and sitting with friends in a fish restaurant when news appeared on an overhead TV about Muslim terrorists, men and women, who had taken hostages in Russia. What struck me, though, was the instinctive reaction of the Bahraini businessman sitting next to me, who muttered under his breath, "Why are we in every story?" The "we" in question was Muslims.

The answer to that question is one of the most important issues in geopolitics today: Why are young Sunni Muslim males, from London to Riyadh and Bali to Baghdad, so willing to blow up themselves and others in the name of their religion? Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers; it would be ludicrous to suggest that.

But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry Africans. Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?

Neither we nor the Muslim world can run away from this question any longer. This is especially true when it comes to people like Muhammad Bouyeri - a Dutch citizen of Moroccan origin who last year tracked down the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a critic of Islamic intolerance, on an Amsterdam street, shot him 15 times and slit his throat with a butcher knife. He told a Dutch court on the final day of his trial on Tuesday: "I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion."

Clearly, several things are at work. One is that Europe is not a melting pot and has never adequately integrated its Muslim minorities, who, as The Financial Times put it, often find themselves "cut off from their country, language and culture of origin" without being assimilated into Europe, making them easy prey for peddlers of a new jihadist identity.

Also at work is Sunni Islam's struggle with modernity. Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam. Islam's self-identity is that it is the authentic and ideal expression of monotheism. Muslims are raised with the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism is God 1.0, and Hinduism is God 0.0.

Part of what seems to be going on with these young Muslim males is that they are, on the one hand, tempted by Western society, and ashamed of being tempted. On the other hand, they are humiliated by Western society because while Sunni Islamic civilization is supposed to be superior, its decision to ban the reform and reinterpretation of Islam since the 12th century has choked the spirit of innovation out of Muslim lands, and left the Islamic world less powerful, less economically developed, less technically advanced than God 2.0, 1.0 and 0.0.

"Some of these young Muslim men are tempted by a civilization they consider morally inferior, and they are humiliated by the fact that, while having been taught their faith is supreme, other civilizations seem to be doing much better," said Raymond Stock, the Cairo-based biographer and translator of Naguib Mahfouz. "When the inner conflict becomes too great, some are turned by recruiters to seek the sick prestige of 'martyrdom' by fighting the allegedly unjust occupation of Muslim lands and the 'decadence' in our own."

This is not about the poverty of money. This is about the poverty of dignity and the rage it can trigger.

One of the London bombers was married, with a young child and another on the way. I can understand, but never accept, suicide bombing in Iraq or Israel as part of a nationalist struggle. But when a British Muslim citizen, nurtured by that society, just indiscriminately blows up his neighbors and leaves behind a baby and pregnant wife, to me he has to be in the grip of a dangerous cult or preacher - dangerous to his faith community and to the world.

How does that happen? Britain's Independent newspaper described one of the bombers, Hasib Hussain, as having recently undergone a sudden conversion "from a British Asian who dressed in Western clothes to a religious teenager who wore Islamic garb and only stopped to say salaam to fellow Muslims."

The secret of this story is in that conversion - and so is the crisis in Islam. The people and ideas that brought about that sudden conversion of Hasib Hussain and his pals - if not stopped by other Muslims - will end up converting every Muslim into a suspect and one of the world's great religions into a cult of death.

Yes. Being told your society/culture is "the truly superior one" is indeed bad. Mmkay..?

Yes. Being told your society/culture is "the truly superior one" is indeed bad. Mmkay..?
It's worse when that's a lie.

I'm not sure. I mean look at christi(ins)anity, they've had it pretty good for a very long time now (remember Constantine?) and they still have a fringe of people who believe that they're oppressed. Look at those crazy assholes that shoot doctors and blow up buildings.

Well I remember when Christianty could have been considered a cult of death. The Inquisition in general was a demonstration of ignorance and fanatasism at its best. Not to mention the number of scientists and philosophers whose teachings were kept silenced by the church held society back for centuries.

In other words, not intending to sound like a generic parent but, maybe it's just a phase :D

I'm not sure. I mean look at christi(ins)anity, they've had it pretty good for a very long time now (remember Constantine?) and they still have a fringe of people who believe that they're oppressed. Look at those crazy assholes that shoot doctors and blow up buildings.
That's a much smaller minority of Christians than Jihadists are of Muslims, IMHO. Fundamentalists, of whatever stripe, irritate me.

I'm not sure. I mean look at christi(ins)anity, they've had it pretty good for a very long time now (remember Constantine?) and they still have a fringe of people who believe that they're oppressed. Look at those crazy assholes that shoot doctors and blow up buildings.
The clinic-bombing segment of the Christian community has the same thing going. They are following the word of god as revealed by his son, yet the world is following the path to hell and thriving while the angry Christians feel insulted and abused. The psychology is similar.

I'm sorry, what I was referring to was the negative influence religion has over "some" people. It reminds me of an old quote.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that requires religion.”

--Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg.

Well I remember when Christianty could have been considered a cult of death. The Inquisition in general was a demonstration of ignorance and fanatasism at its best. Not to mention the number of scientists and philosophers whose teachings were kept silenced by the church held society back for centuries.

In other words, not intending to sound like a generic parent but, maybe it's just a phase :D
Perhaps. One can hope, anyway. :)

Darn Eutrusca.. Beat me to it.. But just to add, another article..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/opinion/08friedman.html?incamp=article_popular

I personally do believe this new level of fanaticism is becoming a cult of death. But a good question is also, whether the muslim community is doing anything or enough about it.

It's worse when that's a lie.
So there are cases when it is actually true..?

So there are cases when it is actually true..?
I don't know. You tell me. :)

I don't know. You tell me. :)
I really don't know. You lost me there. I was under the impression you can't really judge one culture from the viewpoints of your own. Cultural relativity and all that. Being told your society/culture is "the truly superior one" is not bad in all cases..?

Perhaps. One can hope, anyway. :)

I see good and bad in everything and Islam is no different. Regardless, in 50 years this entire mess will be nothing more than another chapter in our history books. Just like every major conflict that has threatened society thus far.

What? Don't be ridiculous. Islam is no danger of becoming a "Cult Of Death" The political/ideological movements os some middle-eastern Islamists are already Cults of Death, as most Cults of Personality become (Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc.)

The vast majority of muslems are far to peace loving and intelligent, like most people, to fall for that shit. The danger lies in idealogues brainwashing young people and taking advantage of them to advance their own political cause and hiding behind religous doctrine as a justification. The religion itself is no ore or less susceptable to this kind of BS than are other religions.

I see good and bad in everything and Islam is no different. Regardless, in 50 years this entire mess will be nothing more than another chapter in our history books. Just like every major conflict that has threatened society thus far.
You are a far more optimistic man than I.

More elitist propaganda. Within the first two paragraphs it gets specific enoguh to destroy your, as usual, inflammatory topic statement. The article talks aobut SUNNI muslims being the majority of those who are bombing things and going rogue, then proceeds to dicuss this point. The article is not about Islam but about a Sunni fringe group with a general slant against Islam.

So there are cases when it is actually true..?
I think so. I think cultures that embrace concepts like free speech, freedom of religion, and equality are superior to ones that don't. The terrorists' cultures certainly don't embrace those virtues.

I think so. I think cultures that embrace concepts like free speech, freedom of religion, and equality are superior to ones that don't. The terrorists' cultures certainly don't embrace those virtues.
Oh, quite. You could describe terrorism a culture. My bad.

You are a far more optimistic man than I.

These are probably the most peaceful times in a century (disturbing I know). I just cannot see this conflict being the downfall of global society. America may be on a steady decline, but that was going to happen anyway.

Oh I dunno ... every American child is raised on the stringent belief that America is the greatest country that ever has or ever will exist and it doesn't turn into a slobbering murderous monster when it sees others coming into power and .... oh wait ... damn ....

These are probably the most peaceful times in a century (disturbing I know). I just cannot see this conflict being the downfall of global society. America may be on a steady decline, but that was going to happen anyway.
I just think we'll be fighting the extremist Muslim terrorists for way more than 50 years. A century or two is more likely in my estimation. I hope you're right, but I don't have that much faith in humanity.

Oh I dunno ... every American child is raised on the stringent belief that America is the greatest country that ever has or ever will exist and it doesn't turn into a slobbering murderous monster when it sees others coming into power and .... oh wait ... damn ....
Case in point, the Americans who commited suicide attacks in Beijing. Oh, wait, damn...

I really don't know. You lost me there. I was under the impression you can't really judge one culture from the viewpoints of your own. Cultural relativity and all that. Being told your society/culture is "the truly superior one" is not bad in all cases..?
I've never been a great fan of "political correctness," one tenet of which seems to be that "all cultures are equal." If "all cultures are equal," then using terrorism and mass muder of innocent civlians is an acceptable thing, and insuring freedom of religion, speech, etc., is just another "cultural value" no better than any other. I obviously disagree.

Oh I dunno ... every American child is raised on the stringent belief that America is the greatest country that ever has or ever will exist and it doesn't turn into a slobbering murderous monster when it sees others coming into power and .... oh wait ... damn ....

Really? I live in America and those sure as hell arn't my views nor the views of anyone I know. You are nothing more than a stereotypical "America Basher" with a perspective as wide as a straw.

I've never been a great fan of "political correctness," one tenet of which seems to be that "all cultures are equal." If "all cultures are equal," then using terrorism and mass muder of innocent civlians is an acceptable thing, and insuring freedom of religion, speech, etc., is just another "cultural value" no better than any other. I obviously disagree.
I think I now get what you meant. And in no way does cultural relativity suggest "all cultures are equal".

I just think we'll be fighting the extremist Muslim terrorists for way more than 50 years. A century or two is more likely in my estimation. I hope you're right, but I don't have that much faith in humanity.

Well my faith now rests in China and India to lead the world. Hopefully they can learn from our mistakes, America, and better society. Although I'm not too confident in China.

Really? I live in America and those sure as hell arn't my views nor the views of anyone I know. You are nothing more than a stereotypical "America Basher" with a perspective as wide as a straw.

Mmm ... and where, pray tell, do I live? Perhaps, also, it is essential that you look at the difference between one's "views" and what one "was taught".

However, carry on with your assessment and assumptive attitude. Very American of you.

Anyhoo, as to the thread topic, no. Simply no. A death cult of 1.5 billion people, while it would be something to behold, isn't going to happen.

Ihatevacations']More elitist propaganda. Within the first two paragraphs it gets specific enoguh to destroy your, as usual, inflammatory topic statement. The article talks aobut SUNNI muslims being the majority of those who are bombing things and going rogue, then proceeds to dicuss this point. The article is not about Islam but about a Sunni fringe group with a general slant against Islam.

It also points out that there is still often a lack of condemnation from other Muslim groups - and most people who are not Muslim don't know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a Shi'ite Muslim. To those outside, they are all Muslims.

The article is making a point of demonstrating that these facts could lead to all Muslims being suspect - which would probably lead to more terrorism and violence - which would lead to more suspicions, and so on.

Personally, I've seen plenty of Muslim condemnation of terrorism, so I wonder if some people simply aren't looking for it, but that's me.

I just think we'll be fighting the extremist Muslim terrorists for way more than 50 years. A century or two is more likely in my estimation. I hope you're right, but I don't have that much faith in humanity.

Not that it makes much of a difference. As soon as the terrorist threat is eliminated, something new will come along. Look at history:
1. American Revolution - 1770s
2. Pseudo-war with France - 1800s
3. War of 1812 - 1812 to 1816
4. Mexican-American War - 1840s
5. American Civil War - 1861 to 1865
6. Spanish-American War - 1890s
7. World War I - 1914 to 1918
8. World War II - 1939 to 1945
9. Korean War - 1950s
10. Vietnam War - 1960s
11. Cold War - 1945 to 1990
12. Operation Just Cause - 1989
13. Operation Desert Storm - 1991
14. Dozens of small, regional conflicts - 1990s
15. War on Terrorism - 2001 to ?

We've been involved in warfare our entire history. Our longest continuous period of peace was from 1918 to 1939, during most of which we suffered from the Great Depression.

Mmm ... and where, pray tell, do I live? Perhaps, also, it is essential that you look at the difference between one's "views" and what one "was taught".

However, carry on with your assessment and assumptive attitude. Very American of you.

It depends on where in the US you live, I hail from good ol' New Jersey and was taught far differently than what you described earlier.

I do assume many things as do all people whether they admit it or not. However, I'm more vocal about my assessments. Also mind you, I am easily offended when someone generalizes an "American" in that manner, so a brief lapse of curtesy should have been expected.

What's so bad about death cults anyway?

It depends on where in the US you live, I hail from good ol' New Jersey and was taught far differently than what you described earlier.


Not necessarily. I'm sure ya'll in New Jersey stood up in elementary school and pledged to the flag every day just like we did in Texas. Especially if you grew up during any part of the Cold War.

Most world religions have at least one sect of blood-thirsty maniacs. Whether they're flying planes into skyscrapers or bombing abortion clinics, they're all the same murderous nazis using religion to justify feeding their lust for carnage. You'd think these groups would get along, considering how much they have in common, but then who would they kill?

But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. I haven't been wrong in a long time, so I'm probably overdue.

It also points out that there is still often a lack of condemnation from other Muslim groups - and most people who are not Muslim don't know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a Shi'ite Muslim. To those outside, they are all Muslims.

But isn't that true of all religions? Do Muslims or Jews understand the various denominations of Christianity and why they disagree? Do Christians understand the divisions of Judaism or the sects of Buddhism? That generalizing result, while unfortunate, is to be expected.

Not necessarily. I'm sure ya'll in New Jersey stood up in elementary school and pledged to the flag every day just like we did in Texas. Especially if you grew up during any part of the Cold War.
The pledge doesn't include anything about the US being the best nation in the world.

Your argument was that we're taught to think the US is superior to all other nations. Actually I think we are taught that, not by the pledge or by the school, but by entertainment media.

Not necessarily. I'm sure ya'll in New Jersey stood up in elementary school and pledged to the flag every day just like we did in Texas. Especially if you grew up during any part of the Cold War.

Actually I missed out on the Cold War (18 years old), but yes we do salute the flag everyday. I also imagine Texas is slightly different than New Jersey.

The pledge doesn't include anything about the US being the best nation in the world.

No, but it is where enforced nationalism starts. Get 'em young, get 'em often. Combine that with Euro-centric history textbooks and the little dog and pony show has some staggeringly amazing effects.

Not the least of which is the startling amount of people who are willing to volunteer themselves to go shoot and blow up people who are not now, nor ever have been, in any way a threat to the US.

I also imagine Texas is slightly different than New Jersey.

I think we have an extra cow or two. :D

I think we have an extra cow or two. :D

I also think you have a few more Republicans/Christians than we do. Although I have trouble seeing a difference between them and cows. ;)

I've never been a great fan of "political correctness," one tenet of which seems to be that "all cultures are equal." If "all cultures are equal," then using terrorism and mass muder of innocent civlians is an acceptable thing, and insuring freedom of religion, speech, etc., is just another "cultural value" no better than any other. I obviously disagree.

Culture is a subjective matter. If anybody claims that every culture is equal they'll have problerms balancing various cultural conflicts. Few will rate the Nazi culture as equal to many other cultures.

No, but it is where enforced nationalism starts. Get 'em young, get 'em often. Combine that with Euro-centric history textbooks and the little dog and pony show has some staggeringly amazing effects.

Not the least of which is the startling amount of people who are willing to volunteer themselves to go shoot and blow up people who are not now, nor ever have been, in any way a threat to the US.

Startling amount? The U.S. military is 500,000 strong, in a nation with 300 million people. That means that .002% of America serves the military. Only startling in that only .002% of people think that defending their country is a worthy cause.

Well I remember when Christianty could have been considered a cult of death. The Inquisition in general was a demonstration of ignorance and fanatasism at its best. Not to mention the number of scientists and philosophers whose teachings were kept silenced by the church held society back for centuries.

In other words, not intending to sound like a generic parent but, maybe it's just a phase :D

Indeed. The Crusades happened around the time when Christianity was as old as Islam is now. Perhaps later Muslims will tone it down a bit, however, the scary thing is:

Christianity never taught to kill for religious sake...people just came up with that. Islam does teach this in the "sixth" pillar. The trouble is, the "sixth" pillar is defined as "struggle." While some Muslims see this as a personal struggle, such as getting better grades or whatnot, the fanatics see this as a military struggle, or holy war.

No, but it is where enforced nationalism starts.

Enforced nationalism? Hardly. Americans should be more patriotic than they currently are. Many Americans, usually alot of the liberals comparing Bush to Hitler and whatnot, have no clue what other nations are like and how good they have it here. Flying flags on veteran's day isn't real patriotism, love of one's country is.

Indeed. The Crusades happened around the time when Christianity was as old as Islam is now. Perhaps later Muslims will tone it down a bit, however, the scary thing is:

Christianity never taught to kill for religious sake...people just came up with that. Islam does teach this in the "sixth" pillar. The trouble is, the "sixth" pillar is defined as "struggle." While some Muslims see this as a personal struggle, such as getting better grades or whatnot, the fanatics see this as a military struggle, or holy war.

It's always been about interpretation. Fanatical warlords see struggle as kill innocents. Fanatical popes see "Thou shall not kill" as "Thou shall not kill unless they worship another invisible man".

Twisting religion's original message of hope, love, and peace into greed, lust, and power has been an art long practiced by major figure heads.

It's worse when that's a lie.

As opposed to those time when it's true? <sarcasim alert>

But isn't that true of all religions? Do Muslims or Jews understand the various denominations of Christianity and why they disagree?

Hell, do CHRISTIANS understand that?

I've talked to just about every Christian there is and I still have no idea about their denominations. Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Lutherin, etc, etc.

I'm not sure. I mean look at christi(ins)anity, they've had it pretty good for a very long time now (remember Constantine?) and they still have a fringe of people who believe that they're oppressed. Look at those crazy assholes that shoot doctors and blow up buildings.

Yes, there are crazy Christians but their religion does not teach them it is OK to blow up buildings and kill doctors. The Muslim fundamentalists are being taught that it is OK to do those things, in fact the will be rewarded for doing so.

Yes, there are crazy Christians but their religion does not teach them it is OK to blow up buildings and kill doctors.

Neither does Islam. Suicide bombings and slaughtering the innocent have nothing to do with Islam any more than they have to do with Christianity.

Christianity never taught to kill for religious sake...people just came up with that. Islam does teach this in the "sixth" pillar. The trouble is, the "sixth" pillar is defined as "struggle." While some Muslims see this as a personal struggle, such as getting better grades or whatnot, the fanatics see this as a military struggle, or holy war.

Ummm ... Islam only has five pillars. Jihad is not a pillar. It is an institution, but not fundamental. The only jihad is the jihad with the self. No military struggle can be called "jihad".

Just because a few nuts are deluding themselves and lieing to the public doesn't make it truth.

But isn't that true of all religions? Do Muslims or Jews understand the various denominations of Christianity and why they disagree? Do Christians understand the divisions of Judaism or the sects of Buddhism? That generalizing result, while unfortunate, is to be expected.

Expected? Perhaps.

That doesn't mean it is a good thing, however.


Startling amount? The U.S. military is 500,000 strong, in a nation with 300 million people. That means that .002% of America serves the military. Only startling in that only .002% of people think that defending their country is a worthy cause.

I find it more startling that you think you can back up the assertion that anyone not currently in the military thinks that defending their country is not a worthy cause.

Enforced nationalism? Hardly. Americans should be more patriotic than they currently are. Many Americans, usually alot of the liberals comparing Bush to Hitler and whatnot, have no clue what other nations are like and how good they have it here. Flying flags on veteran's day isn't real patriotism, love of one's country is.

It's all well and good to stereotype. However, the vast majority of those waving flags think that they are really patriotic - but don't know anything about this country and don't really care about it at all. They care about having other people think they are really patriotic.

Meanwhile, dissent is not unpatriotic. "Having it good" does not mean it can't get better.

Enforced nationalism? Hardly. Americans should be more patriotic than they currently are. Many Americans, usually alot of the liberals comparing Bush to Hitler and whatnot, have no clue what other nations are like and how good they have it here. Flying flags on veteran's day isn't real patriotism, love of one's country is.

"Love of one's country" does not equate to "sucking on the government's collective penis and taking it up the ass without question." If the government is doing something questionable or making a possible mistake, you raise a ruckus about it before it's too late. How the Busheviks have subverted the meaning slapped the label of "Patriotism" on Nationalistic Jingoism and "Treason" on Dissent was not what this country was formed for in the first place. If anything, it was why the colonists rebelled.

Neither does Islam. Suicide bombings and slaughtering the innocent have nothing to do with Islam any more than they have to do with Christianity.

That is not what the books I have been reading say. To say the suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam is ludicrous.

The only jihad is the jihad with the self. No military struggle can be called "jihad".

Not all Muslims believe that. If they did they wouldn't be calling for a jihad against the West.

I'm not sure. I mean look at christi(ins)anity, they've had it pretty good for a very long time now (remember Constantine?) and they still have a fringe of people who believe that they're oppressed. Look at those crazy assholes that shoot doctors and blow up buildings.

When their bombings can come close to the same numbers, you will have a valid point.

That is not what the books I have been reading say. To say the suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam is ludicrous.

I think I read that too

History of Islam
by Christian Whitey

Chapter 1

Islam is a religion of war, Islam bad, you go fight now ,or they come and bomb your family!

Chapter 2

Vote for George W. Bush in 2008, screw the consitution, he should serve as commander for life!

I'm not sure. I mean look at christi(ins)anity, they've had it pretty good for a very long time now (remember Constantine?) and they still have a fringe of people who believe that they're oppressed. Look at those crazy assholes that shoot doctors and blow up buildings.

they're doing it to save the lives of unborn babies, ostensibly. they're still nuts, but it's a somewhat noble cause, even though killing one or two baby killers (being melodramatic here; don't get pissed) isn't going to stop abortion from happening.

terrorists are killing to kill... not to save anything.

Really? I live in America and those sure as hell arn't my views nor the views of anyone I know. You are nothing more than a stereotypical "America Basher" with a perspective as wide as a straw.

I agree with you. A statement like that is shameless liberal America bashing at its best.

I've talked to just about every Christian there is and I still have no idea about their denominations. Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Lutherin, etc, etc.

main divisions (how i understand it):

Protestant
Roman Catholic
Orthodox (EG, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.)
LDS

Protestant:
Baptist
Lutheran
Methodist
Episcopal
Presbyterian
Nazarene
Evangelical Free
Church of Christ
Quaker (Friends)
Wesleyan
7th Day Adventist
Pentecostal
and probably a few I'm forgetting.

That is not what the books I have been reading say. To say the suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam is ludicrous.

There is only one authority on what is Islam. Qur'an.

You show me in Qur'an where suicide bombing (hell ... just suicide!) is condoned. To say that the slaughter of the innocent has anything to do with Islam is ludicrous. Confound not the truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.

Anyhoo, as to the thread topic, no. Simply no. A death cult of 1.5 billion people, while it would be something to behold, isn't going to happen.

I agree with your statement here. But I don't think the author of the article was trying to say that Islam will actually BECOME a cult of death. If the actions of a few extremists continue for years and years, people will (and obviously have already started to some degree) stereotyping the religion as a fountain from which these dangerous extremists spring. You can say what you want about America, Christianity, etc. But Nowhere is such a propensity to create such violent extremists so prevailent in a religion or cultural group that it prompts profiling in airports, and stereotyping by the world public at large.

That's where the jokes about old ladies in wheelchairs being searched in airports instead of muslim males between the ages of 18 and 35 comes from.

I agree you can't judge a whole religion and I'm not doing so here. I'm just saying that this religious group seems to be the place from which many extremists and suicide bombers originate.

Not all Muslims believe that. If they did they wouldn't be calling for a jihad against the West.

Not all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus - such as the Jehovah's Witnesses - and mainstream Christendom says they're not True Christians(tm). Jehovah's Witnesses will say otherwise.

Yet, when a mainstream Muslim says (and proves) that the terrorists are not Muslim, some folks say that's false ... that the terrorists are true Muslims.

Hypocrisy abounds.

main divisions (how i understand it):

Protestant
Roman Catholic
Orthodox (EG, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.)
LDS

Protestant:
Baptist
Lutheran
Methodist
Episcopal
Presbyterian
Nazarene
Evangelical Free
Church of Christ
Quaker (Friends)
Wesleyan
7th Day Adventist
Pentecostal
and probably a few I'm forgetting.

Ahhh that clears a few things up for me, thanks.

Cause knowlege is power!

Most world religions have at least one sect of blood-thirsty maniacs. Whether they're flying planes into skyscrapers or bombing abortion clinics, they're all the same murderous nazis using religion to justify feeding their lust for carnage. You'd think these groups would get along, considering how much they have in common, but then who would they kill?

But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong. I haven't been wrong in a long time, so I'm probably overdue.


But you don't see it with the frequency in the other sects as you do in the Muslim world.

Muslims are not violent people. I agree with that statement. I do not believe they are bad people. But most suicide bombers and terrorists today do happen to be Muslims (or WERE muslims and CLAIM to be muslims, depending on your own view of what a muslim is, but that isn't the point of my argument here), even if they do make up a very small part of that religious group. But my point is that these extremists damage the perception of the religion for people who themselves are NOT muslim and don't claim to be.

The danger is not that Islam will become a cult of death. The danger is that if the terrorism continues for the long term, enough people will SEE it as a cult of death for it to become an issue.

Not all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus - such as the Jehovah's Witnesses - and mainstream Christendom says they're not True Christians(tm). Jehovah's Witnesses will say otherwise.

Yet, when a mainstream Muslim says (and proves) that the terrorists are not Muslim, some folks say that's false ... that the terrorists are true Muslims.

Hypocrisy abounds.

the fact that JWs don't believe in the divinity of Jesus precludes them from being Christians... such belief (that he is God) is among the cornerstones of the Christian faith.

Ahhh that clears a few things up for me, thanks.

Cause knowlege is power!

cool beans

the fact that JWs don't believe in the divinity of Jesus precludes them from being Christians... such belief (that he is God) is among the cornerstones of the Christian faith.

The fact that certain terrorist groups slaughter the innocent precludes them from being Muslim. Respect for all peoples is among the cornerstones of the Islamic faith.

the fact that JWs don't believe in the divinity of Jesus precludes them from being Christians... such belief (that he is God) is among the cornerstones of the Christian faith.
no oen gives a rats ass because that is not the point

It's worse when that's a lie.The fact is, no one religion is better than any other, they ALL RIGHT about some things, and WRONG about another. The Christian and Islam religious texts are contradict themselves constantly and many morals in there are outdated.

Islam and War (a quick overview):

Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, had Ten Rules of warfare: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Don't kill any of the enemy's flock except for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone..."

From the outset the Prophet declared that "All people are as equal as the teeth of a comb". Muhammad said, "There is no virtue to an Arab over a non-Arab nor white over colored except by the fear of God". The words of the Qur'an say: "Behold ..all people.. We have created you from a male and a female and made you nations and tribes so that you may get to know one another ..Indeed the noblest of you before Allah is the best in conduct."

And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors. - Quran 2:190

If any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people. - Quran 5:32

Not all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus - such as the Jehovah's Witnesses - and mainstream Christendom says they're not True Christians(tm). Jehovah's Witnesses will say otherwise.

Yet, when a mainstream Muslim says (and proves) that the terrorists are not Muslim, some folks say that's false ... that the terrorists are true Muslims.

Hypocrisy abounds.

That is because the terrorists claim to be Muslims, just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Christian. Just as you find no basis in the Koran and Muslim theology for the actions of terrorists, they use the same book and theology to justify their actions.

Just as the IRA is an Irish Catholic terrorist group, the Muslim terrorists are Muslim. I would prefer deny the IRA is Irish Catholic but I cannot. Similarly, you cannot deny the terrorists who bombed London and the insurgents in Iraq etc. are Muslims. It is time Keru to admit to the facts and start speaking out loudly and often against these radicals.

The fact is, no one religion is better than any other, they ALL RIGHT about some things, and WRONG about another. The Christian and Islam religious texts are contradict themselves constantly and many morals in there are outdated.

Nods. All religions are true and false and meaningless. I dub thee Pope Funkdunk presuming you are not already a Discordian pope (you clearly think like one, i.e. you think for yourself) and do not have a holy name you prefer.

http://www.poee.org/images/pope_cards/old_pope_card.gif

European nations are struggling immensely, more so than the US, with the practical issues of stopping terrorism versus religious intolerance.

I have held the position for some time on these boards and elsewhere unless the Muslim community denunciates terrorism better, there will be a significant societal and legal backlash - one that should and could be avoided.

I've posted a link below to an interesting piece I found. At stake is religious freedom.

The bombing in London again raises the issue of home-grown terrorists nurtured in a Muslim community. The Netherlands, France, and Germany are considering surprisingly draconian action against Muslims and mosques. Take a look at how the European countries are coping with this debate:

"In the Netherlands, in the aftermath of 9/11, the weekly magazine "Contrast" took a poll showing that just under half of Dutch Muslims were in “complete sympathy” with the attacks. Many expressed the desire to turn to terrorism. In October 2004, Dutch newspaper readers were riveted by the story of a quiet married couple who had been harassed to leave their predominantly Muslim Amsterdam neighborhood of Diamantbuurt by gangs of Muslim youths."

"The Dutch were shocked. Indeed, prior to the van Gogh murder, the government had actively encouraged immigrant children to speak Turkish, Arabic or Berber in primary schools rather than insisting that they learn in Dutch. In the 1980s, the government even encouraged the establishment of Muslim schools. It poured public money into the construction of mosques, and funding was provided for “ethnic diversity projects” including seven hundred Islamic clubs. (13)

But, the van Gogh murder was a wake-up call, and even the Dutch realized that for tolerance to work, it had to be reciprocal and that to intolerant jihadists, tolerance was just another word for an opportunity to exploit European culture. As one editorialist noted in the aftermath of the van Gogh slaying - “Unilateral tolerance in a world of intolerance is like unilateral disarmament in a world of armed camps: It regards hope as a better basis for policy than reality.” (14)

As a result, Dutch MP Geert Wilders has launched a new political party demanding a halt to non-Western immigration into the Netherlands for five years and a tougher line towards Islamic radicalism. He has warned that many of the more than one million Muslims who live in the Netherlands “have already opted for radical Islam” and he has urged closing extremist mosques. Wilders has since gone into hiding in response to numerous threats on his life and he travels under armed guard when he travels at all. (15) Some Dutch national opinion polls already put his party in second place. Holland has just become the first country in Europe (perhaps in the world) to declare a four-year moratorium on any new immigration, including “asylum seekers.” In fact, the Dutch parliament recently voted to expel 26,000 such individuals - mostly from the Third World. It is also considering a new anti-terrorism law that parallels the USA Patriot Act and, in recent months, the government has imposed new laws requiring anyone over the age of fourteen to show identification to authorities if asked. In addition, the Dutch have directed their attention to their marriage laws where it has become a custom for young, marriageable Muslims to return to their homelands to find a bride or groom and bring them back to Holland. Foreign spouses marrying Dutch citizens must now be twenty-one and speak Dutch, and their eligibility for welfare is not immediate. Education in foreign languages has also been phased out, so the Dutch can concentrate on teaching their own endangered language. (16)"

The Germans and French are considering more drastic measures.

http://syfyportal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=15823&sid=db78608ee7b230674d4a7864d7b95242

Ummm ... Islam only has five pillars. Jihad is not a pillar. It is an institution, but not fundamental. The only jihad is the jihad with the self. No military struggle can be called "jihad".

Just because a few nuts are deluding themselves and lieing to the public doesn't make it truth.
Um, wasn't there something about Muhammad upon returning from battle saying that he's returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad? Wouldn't that make war a form of jihad?

Startling amount? The U.S. military is 500,000 strong, in a nation with 300 million people. That means that .002% of America serves the military. Only startling in that only .002% of people think that defending their country is a worthy cause.
If I thought I'd be used to actually defend the country and not the countries corperate intrests or the dogma of a politician with a bug up his ass I'd be more for it. Instead I'll use free speech and assembly to try and make sure that the soldiers are defending that instead of having thier gift and sacrafice dishonored by those here that would silence dissent and use those soldiers for the gain for themselves or thier corperate backers.

Sounds pretty dirty hippie, doesn't it?


Fuck it, I don't care. I have friends in the military, I believe in the why that they joined up for. I'm proud of them, and angry at anyone who would throw them away on agenda and not what they are there for, defence. I love my friends and I want them back. If they die doing what they thought was thier duty, the person who sent them better have had a damn good reason. I'm fucking tired of those being anti-war being painted with the anti-soldier brush. You love the soldiers? They can't question thier bosses so you have to. Love them, don't send them to die because it makes good television or because your political party said it was good so just accept it. I don't see cheering them on to die without checking the work of those who sent them as loving the soldiers. I see that as neglect.

If I thought I'd be used to actually defend the country and not the countries corperate intrests or the dogma of a politician with a bug up his ass I'd be more for it. Instead I'll use free speech and assembly to try and make sure that the soldiers are defending that instead of having thier gift and sacrafice dishonored by those here that would silence dissent and use those soldiers for the gain for themselves or thier corperate backers.

I have friends in the military, I believe in the why that they joined up for. I'm proud of them, and angry at anyone who would throw them away on agenda and not what they are there for, defence. I love my friends and I want them back. If they die doing what they thought was thier duty, the person who sent them better have had a damn good reason. I'm fucking tired of those being anti-war being painted with the anti-soldier brush. You love the soldiers? They can't question thier bosses so you have to. Love them, don't send them to die because it makes good television or because your political party said it was good so just accept it. I don't see cheering them on to die without checking the work of those who sent them as loving the soldiers. I see that as neglect.
In all honesty, I tend to agree with you on most of the above. I only have one or two comments.

During Vietnam, the majority of those most vociferously against the war were also against the soldiers. I know this to be a fact, and I know it at a very personal level. Perhaps what some are doing is reacting today to many of the anti-war people as though the Vietnam paradigm still existed. ( I am not one of those, BTW. )

Additionally, there are actually some who believe the war in Iraq is justified.

And beyond that, there are those who truly believe that to support the soldier, you have to support his mission ( and perhaps those who determined the mission ) as well.

In all honesty, I tend to agree with you on most of the above. I only have one or two comments.

During Vietnam, the majority of those most vociferously against the war were also against the soldiers. I know this to be a fact, and I know it at a very personal level. Perhaps what some are doing is reacting today to many of the anti-war people as though the Vietnam paradigm still existed. ( I am not one of those, BTW. )

Additionally, there are actually some who believe the war in Iraq is justified.

And beyond that, there are those who truly believe that to support the soldier, you have to support his mission ( and perhaps those who determined the mission ) as well.
I'm going to cry bullshit and slight bullshit, maybe in that order.

First is the Vietnam thing (okay, reverse order.) It certainly happened, that I'm not going to dispute. I will not conciede the 'most' part because that is perception and ancedote, useless. To assume that all war protesters are the 'spitting on soldiers' type is to make the same error they are making, guilt by association. Just because some soldiers did commit atrociaties does not mean all or even most did, same in reverse. Hold that torch and you are the same fuck in a different suit.

Believe the war in Iraq is good, thats fine. Have that debate-that one. Prove it, and do it without accusing me of hating soldiers, freedom, or America. Prove your cause, don't shift the topic. I find it hard to believe that the soldiers are being used to protect me from a nation that had no ability to defend itself against it's neighbors at this point.

Muslims don't have a pope or Pat Robenson that comes on FOX everyday, I don't know how I'm supposed to hear one way or the other about a clutch of clerics condeming one thing or another. The news has to make plenty of room to go BOOOOOOO! THEY'RE GONNA GET YA, BETTER STAY TUNED/BUY THIS MAGAZINE/BOOK/DOGMA!!!!! that I don't know where that's gonna fit in.

And yes, there are those who believe that you have to support everything soldiers are sent to do and the people who send them. I think I was very clear in calling those people negligent and doing a diservice to the soldiers.


Sort of firing off randomly because I have to leave soon before the Kinkos people kick me out.

It is time Keru to admit to the facts and start speaking out loudly and often against these radicals.

I already do that all the time. You clearly have some sort of blinders on.

What I will not do, however, is admit that they're Muslim. They are *not* Muslim.

Um, wasn't there something about Muhammad upon returning from battle saying that he's returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad? Wouldn't that make war a form of jihad?

The lesser jihad is the external struggle. The greater jihad is the internal struggle. Jihad is defined as "The struggle to promote the acceptance of God's will."
War can be a part of jihad, when the people are threatened by internal or external forces. But, jihad is not the sixth pillar. As Keruvalia said, there are five,

Salah-Five daily prayers.
Zakah-Charity to those less fortunate than you, or to the community. This includes money, food, volunteering, educating, etc.
Shahada-Declaration of the Faith.
Hajj-Pilgrimage to Makkah, only if it won't be a burden to your family or those around you.
Sawm-fasting during the daylight hours of the holy month of Ramadan.

Um, wasn't there something about Muhammad upon returning from battle saying that he's returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad? Wouldn't that make war a form of jihad?

Yes and yes.

I'm fucking tired of those being anti-war being painted with the anti-soldier brush.

Son, I served during the Vietnam War. I know what the anti-war crowd did. There is no way you can be "for the troops" and "against the war." You have no idea what affect the anti-war protests have on the moral of the troops. You have no idea the boost the anti-war protests give to the enemy. It gives the enemy the idea that they can go on and given enough time they can win. In the mean time more American and allied military die. The anti-war movement contributes to your "friends" in the military being killed.

What I will not do, however, is admit that they're Muslim. They are *not* Muslim.

How sad. Maybe I should take the position the IRA are not Irish Catholics. Should I bury my head in the sand or should you face reality? Give it some serious thought my friend.

How sad. Maybe I should take the position the IRA are not Irish Catholics. Should I bury my head in the sand or should you face reality? Give it some serious thought my friend.

By breaking tenets of Islam, you become a non-Muslim. As the Qur'an specifically prohibits the harming of non-combatants, to include the old, young, sick and animals, they have broken the faith. Of course, they see themselves differently, but what Keru is pointing out is that terrorism is not Islam, and that many Muslims (myself included and the very large majority of those I know) do not see these guys as part of the faith.

And about your other post, many of the guys (self included) in my old Marine unit and now in my NG unit are oppossed to the war, but we still do a damned good job fighting it. We should give serious pause to any conflict that is fought for the reasons that we are fighting now. And, as we all swear that oath upon enlistment to support the Constitution, we guarantee people the right to excersize that voice. Vietnam was a whole different boat though, we have it alot easier now. I look at our casualty figures v. yours, and it is astounding. Thanks for serving!

How sad. Maybe I should take the position the IRA are not Irish Catholics. Should I bury my head in the sand or should you face reality? Give it some serious thought my friend.

You demand I accept that the terrorists are Muslim, but you refuse to accept the Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian?

Hypocrite. I'm done with you.

You demand I accept that the terrorists are Muslim, but you refuse to accept the Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian?

Hypocrite. I'm done with you.

That wasn't me it was Frangland in post #67. I don't know what the JW beliefs are so I do not know if the are or are not Christian. I always thought they were.

Son, I served during the Vietnam War. I know what the anti-war crowd did. There is no way you can be "for the troops" and "against the war." You have no idea what affect the anti-war protests have on the moral of the troops. You have no idea the boost the anti-war protests give to the enemy. It gives the enemy the idea that they can go on and given enough time they can win. In the mean time more American and allied military die. The anti-war movement contributes to your "friends" in the military being killed.
Great, we're using the Vietnam protests to determine the attitude and action of all protesters. I think then I'll judge the military on the handling of the Bonus Army then and insist that the Army can not be for the freedom of the people or even for the veterans of thier very service. Thats wrong, of course-but it's the logic presented.

Here's the thing-Vietnam was a bad idea. As noble as the efforts of the individual soldiers where, they where being wasted-in essence the protesters where right (not the ones spitting on the soldiers, the ones against the war). Vietnam fell and yet communism didn't spread like wildfire across the land. So-who has more blood on their hands, the people that sent soldiers in to die in an ill-concieved war or the people who tried to call that bullshit? On is esoteric and 'implied,' the other has their signature all over it.

The reality is, the founders knew that you couldn't have a government you couldn't question and still be able to call it 'for the people.' And nothing requires a more serious scrutney than sending young men off to die. Sorry Bob, not going to sit on my hands and 'hope' they know what they are doing. I owe my friends more than that.

Bullshit, and irresponsable bullshit at that. That attitude only washes in military dictatorships.

That wasn't me it was Frangland in post #67. I don't know what the JW beliefs are so I do not know if the are or are not Christian. I always thought they were.

D'oh! I'm really sorry. See what happens when I let my emotions get the better of me?

D'oh! I'm really sorry. See what happens when I let my emotions get the better of me?

No problem. Here, you need this :fluffle:

Additionally, there are actually some who believe the war in Iraq is justified.

You have to question their sanity, though. It isn't biased to say that Iraq lacked much justification; after all, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and the commission of inquiry on 9/11 stated that the regime of Hussein had no al Qaeda dealings we claimed. Perhaps they did without us knowing, but that's speculation, without any basis.

I wish people would just watch the news sometimes, and watch more than one source.

You have to question their sanity, though. It isn't biased to say that Iraq lacked much justification; after all, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and the commission of inquiry on 9/11 stated that the regime of Hussein had no al Qaeda dealings we claimed. Perhaps they did without us knowing, but that's speculation, without any basis.

I wish people would just watch the news sometimes, and watch more than one source.

I won't argue over whether or not we should have gone to war because we are all entitled to our opinions regarding this. But here is an interesting article regarding people's thoughts on why it was right or wrong and with the US decision to attack Afghanistan as well.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507150804.asp

I think it will go 2 ways in the history books 100 years from now

Either terroism will grow, and grow, and more muslims will become fanatical, until one western country finally snaps, and deports ALL muslims and potentially launches a full scale war agains't the middle east (this may sound rediculous from where we are sat in time now, but what would the US government do if say, 500,000 americans were killed in the space of a year by Islamic extremists)

Or Terroism will slowly start to fade, and everyone will get on happy as bunnies in a field (i seriously doubt option 2 will be the one)