Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 152 of 152

Thread: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

  1. #151
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Modern and moderate Islam is discarding the use of violence as a practice. I agree that there is still a fundamental application of violence within the religion as it is practiced by some, but not the majority.
    If you have some empirical evidence of this then I might bite. Otherwise, all we have is your perception of Islam's reliance and promotion of violence. I mean, all over the world we see Muslim culture continuing to use violence whether it's to murder a couple hundreds thousand non-Muslims in Algeria, murder hundreds of people in Southeast Asia, punish Muslim women for being raped, etc. Hell, we even see honor killings here in the US (see recent case in Texas).

    This reminds me of the "liberals empower terrorists" rhetoric. Your logic is wrong. The root causes analysis, when done with honesty, expose the culpability of all involved. Western interventionism in the Middle East has, for decades, been anything but benevolent. It has consistently been focused on forwarding U.S. interests and very rarely been focused on interests of the citizens of the nation being intervened within. The west absolutely has culpability in this situation.
    See? What you're doing is removing the responsibility for violence from the perps to the victims. In essence, you are legitimizing the use of terrorism to redress political grievances.

    And, in doing so, you completely ignore the fact that I cited earlier...western interventionism ain't the cause of Islamic terror and violence in Africa or Southeast Asia. The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam's promotion of violence. This promotion of violence causes Muslims to respond violently to redress their grievances rather seeking political dialogue and diplomacy.

    Again I completely disagree with your. Your attitude is a prime example of the problem here. Complete denial of culpability in the face of decades worth of evidence to the contrary. Us against them, they are wrong, we are right.
    You're wrong. My attitude is that Islamic terrorism ain't justified by actual or perceived western injustices. You seem to hold the opposite attitude. Do you?

    I believe that Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam's promotion of violence which motivates Muslims to resolve their political differences with violence. You see, nation's that are not religious radicals resolve their disagreements politically and diplomatically. Nation's like China, Japan, the US, the EU, Russia, et al. It's only these Islamic nation's that are committing global terrorism to redress their political grievances.

    Their grievances may be legitimate or not. But Muslims decide to respond violently to redress those grievances. The US and other western nations do not choose for them.
    Not at all. You're dismissing western transgressions for apparently no reason at all other than you view Islam negatively.
    No, I am dismissing the absurd argument that Islamic terrorism is justified or caused by such transgressions. Muslims choose to redress their political grievances with violence.

    Why do you disagree?

    I understand this point, but you didn't make it clear in your first comment. I agree that some scholars and many politicians pin the reason for Islamic terrorism on the Palestinian problem, and some scholars and almost all politicians shy away from the history of violence as taught by many fundamentalists and extremists within Islam. And I agree that they are wrong to place such a limited view on the problem.
    Why do you insist that the promotion of violence within Islam is promoted by fundamentalists and extremists? You have no evidence for this. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly against this concept. We see islamic violence not only in Islamic-controlled nations but in nations where Muslims are not in control. We see Muslims in Britain attmepting to have sharia law run parallel to british common law with some success. We see honor killings throughout Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, and now the US.

    However I also think people with your mindset are also a big part of the problem as you seemingly refuse to recognize the west's culpability in the issue.
    The west has no culpability in the choice that Muslims make to wage war to redress their political grievances.

    Now, I would concede that the actions and behavior of western nation's may have caused those grievances to arise in the first place, but they ain't the cause of the Islamic violence wages to redress those grievances.

    The middle east, one of the most resource rich regions on the planet in terms of being able to produce monetary gain for the nations located there, is rife with economic disparity, corruption, and religious strife. Our interventionism in that region has had a direct impact on how the modern middle east has been shaped and how it's politics have played out.
    Okay, prove it. How has western interventionsim left the Middle East in squalor? We see Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the little oil sheikdoms doing fabulously well with oil profits benfitting the population and possessing modern institutions of governance. Meanwhile, Iran, Iraq, under Hussein, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc., squalor, poverty, violence, etc.

    Without western intervention, Hussein managed to crush a cosmopolitan and modern Iraq. Without western intervention, Iran has to import gasoline.

    Modernist practice of Islam, and moderate thinking is shunning violence and encouraging tolerance.
    Where? And how is it successfully overturning the promotion of violence of islam throughout the world?

    Answer: it is not. What you are referring to is a tiny minority of enlightened Muslims in the western world, not islamic leaders throughout the Middle East, east Asia, or Africa.

    And it's spreading not only in the Middle East but throughout the nation of Islam as a whole. Like Christianity, Islam is turning the corner...it's just taken a long time to get going.
    It ain't even approaching the corner. Where in the middle east is this supposedly spreading?

    Your attitude is the manifestation of intolerance and bigotry towards Muslims.
    No, a manifestation of my bigotry towards Islam's promotion of violence.

    No, the wests problem is it's inability to understand or care why there is such strife within the Muslim nations. Decades of oppression, repression, poverty, and dictatorial rule have a lot to do with why Islam has taken so long to modernize. Nobody argues that Islamic terrorism isn't associated with Islam. Your statement is absurd.
    Well, I'm glad that you finally conceded the point I have been long making...Islamic violence is caused by Islam.

    BTW - yes, the problems in the ME are caused by oppression, repression, and dictatorial rule. Notice how all three of these things reflect not western interventionism but Islamic governance.

    I'm out.

  2. #152
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,459

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    If you have some empirical evidence of this then I might bite. Otherwise, all we have is your perception of Islam's reliance and promotion of violence. I mean, all over the world we see Muslim culture continuing to use violence whether it's to murder a couple hundreds thousand non-Muslims in Algeria, murder hundreds of people in Southeast Asia, punish Muslim women for being raped, etc. Hell, we even see honor killings here in the US (see recent case in Texas).
    And what about all the places that is not occurring? How about all the Muslims in the U.S and Europe who don't engage in violence and abhor it? You like to stereotype and that's your problem. I never said it was a complete transformation. Quite the contrary. I said it in progress. And there very existence of these large communities of Muslims who don't subscribe to violent practices are prima facia evidence that you are absolutely wrong in your description of Islam as a disease.

    See? What you're doing is removing the responsibility for violence from the perps to the victims. In essence, you are legitimizing the use of terrorism to redress political grievances.
    I never removed responsibility from perpetrator, I simply acknowledged the culpability of the west in the geopolitical situation that has helped shape the situation we are in. There is no need to build straw men within this debate...I'm right here posting my opinions, those should suffice.

    And, in doing so, you completely ignore the fact that I cited earlier...western interventionism ain't the cause of Islamic terror and violence in Africa or Southeast Asia. The cause of Islamic terrorism is Islam's promotion of violence. This promotion of violence causes Muslims to respond violently to redress their grievances rather seeking political dialogue and diplomacy.
    Can you accurately describe the social and economic environments of the locales where this violence is occurring? Educations levels of the perpetrators in general, economic level, employment rates, etc. Hint: the word "trends" comes to mind. Undereducated, economically depressed, and politically repressed peoples are much more prone to manipulation and acts of violence than educated and at least somewhat economically and politically contented peoples. This is not about trying to place ultimate blame on a single source, this is about recognizing as many of the influencing factors as possible and countering them. Your only solution seems to be the eradication of the disease (Islam). Care to explain exactly what you are getting at?

    You're wrong. My attitude is that Islamic terrorism ain't justified by actual or perceived western injustices. You seem to hold the opposite attitude. Do you?
    Absolutely not. I never said it was justified, ever. Western interventionism has played a major role in shaping the region and it's current geopolitical environment. That environment contains within it several factors, devoid of religious connotation, that impact the people who are converting to militant practices. Those factors place them at risk and make them prime targets for manipulation and indoctrination by clerics who are perverting Islam and using it as a tool to proliferate religious intolerance and violence against non-Muslims as well as Muslims who they feel are corrupted.
    I believe that Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam's promotion of violence which motivates Muslims to resolve their political differences with violence.
    Some Muslims do in fact use literal interpretations of the Quran to promote violence. Not all.
    You see, nation's that are not religious radicals resolve their disagreements politically and diplomatically. Nation's like China, Japan, the US, the EU, Russia, et al. It's only these Islamic nation's that are committing global terrorism to redress their political grievances.
    That has not been the history of the world however. Those same nations you have mentioned have engaged in the unnecessary slaughter of thousands, even millions, to achieve their ends. What's worse, someone motivated to murder over religion or over land?

    Their grievances may be legitimate or not. But Muslims decide to respond violently to redress those grievances. The US and other western nations do not choose for them.
    No, some Muslims decide to respond with violence. Not all, just some. Your bigoted world view is disgusting to me.

    No, I am dismissing the absurd argument that Islamic terrorism is justified or caused by such transgressions. Muslims choose to redress their political grievances with violence.
    Nobody made the argument that Islamic terrorism is justified. Can you at least keep track of the arguments I'm making? How about you show me an instance, just one, where I ever said it was justified.

    Why do you disagree?
    Because you engage in broad stereotyping and I'm not a bigot. Muslims are not inherently violent and evil people.

    Why do you insist that the promotion of violence within Islam is promoted by fundamentalists and extremists? You have no evidence for this.
    I absolutely do. You can trace this newest cycle of terrorism directly back to radical Islamists, many of whom are clerics. Your either truly ignorant of the subject or you are playing a game.

    In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly against this concept.
    You are wrong. Post your evidence.

    We see islamic violence not only in Islamic-controlled nations but in nations where Muslims are not in control. We see Muslims in Britain attmepting to have sharia law run parallel to british common law with some success. We see honor killings throughout Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, and now the US.
    We see some Muslims doing this, many of whom subscribe to fundamentalist teachings. The modernists and moderates do not do this. Keep trying though.

    The west has no culpability in the choice that Muslims make to wage war to redress their political grievances.
    The west has culpability in how the Middle East was shaped and the years of economic class separation and political strife. Those factors influence the lives of people who live under years of depression, oppression, and repression. It's environmental. You live for years like this and you begin to act out. It's a personal decision yes, but if I were suffering under a system that I perceived to be bent on keeping me down, I would retaliate in some fashion. I would lash out. It's been seen throughout history in many nations and many cultures.

    Now, I would concede that the actions and behavior of western nation's may have caused those grievances to arise in the first place, but they ain't the cause of the Islamic violence wages to redress those grievances.
    Ummm...that makes them contributing factors. Which is what I've been saying. Our current strain of interventionism is doing nothing but adding fuel to the fire.

    Now I have to ask. Given your view of Islam, what is your take on the conflict in Iraq? We aren't converting them to Christianity or any other religion. Do you think that they are going to embrace democracy and become a peaceful people, or are they going to simply revert to their violent ways once we are gone because they are Muslims?


    Okay, prove it. How has western interventionsim left the Middle East in squalor?
    You've never studied the subject have you?
    We see Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the little oil sheikdoms doing fabulously well with oil profits benfitting the population and possessing modern institutions of governance.
    Yes, just ignore the class separation, nothing to see here.
    Meanwhile, Iran, Iraq, under Hussein, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc., squalor, poverty, violence, etc.
    All nations we have historically had a hand in via coups, rebellion, assassination, etc.

    Without western intervention, Hussein managed to crush a cosmopolitan and modern Iraq.
    It was western interventionism that led to Hussein's grasp for power. We helped topple the communist government led by Qasim and install the right wing Ba'ath party. Hussein was known to us and even trained by us when he was younger. We later backed him and facilitated many lucrative arms deals for Iraq with European quartermasters because he stood to contain the mess that was unleashed in Iran. All the while conveniently ignoring his repressive nature.

    Without western intervention, Iran has to import gasoline.
    It was western interventionism that led to a coup, ousting Mohammad Mosaddeq, and transferring absolute power to the repressive Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi. All because Mosaddeq was going to nationalize Iranian oil and cut off the U.K.'s control of Iran's most valuable resources. The potential profit loss was astronomical and that is why we intervened. The resulting repressive rule of the Shah led to the 1979 Revolution and the nation of Iran as it is today. We backed a man who oppressed his own people and was beholden to the west for his place in power. The people became susceptible to the manipulations of Khomeini and his his ilk because their only other alternative was political repression and economic despair for the masses. The backlash from the populace was the result and Iran nearly went into the dark ages.

    Those are just two modern examples of where we can see our handy work. We were active in Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere...manipulating politics and economic affairs with the intent to benefit our own national and corporate interests.

    Where? And how is it successfully overturning the promotion of violence of islam throughout the world?
    Throughout large communities in the U.S. and Europe, and among smaller groups within the Middle East especially in Jordan, Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
    Answer: it is not. What you are referring to is a tiny minority of enlightened Muslims in the western world, not islamic leaders throughout the Middle East, east Asia, or Africa.
    Answer: it is. There are those who still espouse violence. But there are many who abhor it. Islam is undergoing a painful transformation. A very clear indicator is that the extremists are lashing out with violence against those whom they perceive to be corrupting Islam as well as those Muslims who are taking up with the Kufar or infidels.
    It ain't even approaching the corner. Where in the middle east is this supposedly spreading?
    The new Velvet Revolution in Iran, Jordan, Egypt, the UAE...just to name a few. But thank God George Bush invaded Iraq so we could keep this shift in check.

    No, a manifestation of my bigotry towards Islam's promotion of violence.
    Whatever.

    Well, I'm glad that you finally conceded the point I have been long making...Islamic violence is caused by Islam.

    BTW - yes, the problems in the ME are caused by oppression, repression, and dictatorial rule. Notice how all three of these things reflect not western interventionism but Islamic governance.

    I'm out.
    I never conceded anything to you. And as I suspected, you really don't know your subject matter. You are contented to ignorantly stereotype all Muslims.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •