News Message to Terrorists: "You Don't Scare Me

[slugcountry]

Why do you think the thread was locked? We don't lilke talk about stuff like that.

yes in all honesty that's quite ridiculous - thread after thread about al qaeda et al, and no discussion allowed about the exact same tactics employed and supported by our own secret service agencies.

 

[Yonoz]

Thank you for posting that informative poll. I am curious about where it came from and what people were thinking in response to the question: Is suicide bombing in defense of Islam justifiable?

You're quite welcome. Here is some information about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center" , they are quite reputable:

The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan "fact tank" based in Washington, DC, that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the USA and the world. The Center and its projects receive funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Pew Research Center is a strictly non-advocacy organization, while the Pew Charitable Trusts supports advocacy and non-advocacy projects.

The Center's work is carried out by six projects:

* Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
* Stateline.org
* Pew Internet & American Life Project
* Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
* Pew Hispanic Center
* Pew Global Attitudes Project

And here's their http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165".

It seems like that could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I have been dismayed that even though so many Muslims don't advocate these actions, neither do they come out against it publicly.

I have a full stomach when it comes to western media. Don't get me started.

Out of my five closest friends, two are women originally from Iran, of Islamic faith, and they think (like me) that suicide bombing is unjustifiable craziness. We all want it to stop. But they seem to think that there can be no "meeting of the minds" in this problem. Obviously, they understand this much better than I do. What should we do if there is no hope of understanding each other? Or is it too soon to make that judgement?

The Muslim world is quite large and is composed of various religious factions (two of which you probably already know - the Shia and the Sunni) and ethnic groups in a myriad of states with regimes ranging from Turkey's secular democracy, through monarchies such as The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to theocracies such as Iran. It is a very diverse super-society. Before the Islamic revolution, Iran was very western-oriented, and the effects are still felt today. Tehran was the seat of a very modern secular Iranian elite. Many of them left during and after the revolution. Perhaps your friends are such exiles?
In any case, you must realize most Muslims around the globe never really get to know any westerners, and constantly hear of your evil ways in sermons and controlled or religious media - though that's changing lately thanks to the western-modelled Al-Jazeera. Opinions, of course, change much slower. If all Muslims were like your friends, I'm sure we'd have significantly less problems. Unfortunately, your friends and their likes pose a somewhat silent minority in significant parts the Muslim world.
IMO the best thing to do as an ordinary person is to try and learn as much as possible about the structures and dynamics of Muslim societies. It can be quite difficult for a westerner to form a good overview of the Muslim world, the media does not cover it well. When approaching a news report, be methodic: do some basic research on the net (I recommend Wikipedia), ask yourself basic question such as what parties are involved? What are their ideologies/motives? When I read an interesting opinion column by an unrecognised author I look them up. It's difficult to be critical and thorough, but the truth is hard to find.

 

[Anttech]

In any case, you must realize most Muslims around the globe never really get to know any westerners, and constantly hear of your evil ways in sermons and controlled or religious media - though that's changing lately thanks to the western-modelled Al-Jazeera. Opinions, of course, change much slower. If all Muslims were like your friends, I'm sure we'd have significantly less problems. Unfortunately, your friends and their likes pose a somewhat silent minority in significant parts the Muslim world.

What do you mean by "western:" Christian? American? European? White?

 

[Yonoz]

What do you mean by "western:" Christian? American? European? White?

People from western countries. "Getting to know" would also mean a deeper experience than a short conversation.

 

[Anttech]

Yonzo, you'll have to do better than that.

Theres a massive difference between people from:
Cuba to Greece,
Brazil to Canada
Peru to England...
Spain to Senegal

I am sure that Islamic sermons are not talking about those evil doers from Peru.

What would you classify people from New Zealand as? Asian? Easteners?

 

[ray b]

CIA roots of the current terror are something that needs to be discussed
the CIA trained osam beenforgotten and the CIA want you to forget that
locking threads about the CIA and the actions in its history
IS A VERY BAD IDEA
as are the locking threads about the religious part of terror
and the roll of state supported terror
the big picture is important
censorship is allway wrong
let the fools be seen as fools
debate is part of freedom without a free exchange of all ideas
the facts get glossed over
this board locks too much

 

[Kurdt]

Yonzo, you'll have to do better than that.

Theres a massive difference between people from:
Cuba to Greece,
Brazil to Canada
Peru to England...
Spain to Senegal

I am sure that Islamic sermons are not talking about those evil doers from Peru.

What would you classify people from New Zealand as? Asian? Easteners?

The term westerners can have many meanings but in this context I think it means the dominant culture in Europe and those whose culture derive from European culture. That is most European countries and countries in America have their own identity but are bound by a common root culture if you will.

 

[Astronuc]

What do you mean by "western:" Christian? American? European? White?

I think Yonoz was using "western" as most people do - meaning EU+UK and North America primarily, which are all predominantly Christian with a heavy W. European influence. It should be pretty straightforward given the context.

 

[Burnsys]

Westerns may be Countries with an imperialistic history?

 

[Kurdt]

In some applications of the definition western an imperialistic role is implied but in this one its obvious that its is mainly the collective common philosophy of European and some american countries.

 

[Anttech]

Anyway, I don't buy it. Someone in the ME only needs to turn their TV on for 30 mins to have 'our' culture beamed directly into their head. They are *not* as closed a society as Yonzo would have you believe.

We need to separate the "islamist" ideal and Islam!

Islamist ideology and neocon ideology are not so far removed. They both believe that "liberal" ideals are not healthy for society. Islamist believe they corrupt people and subconsciously make them turn their backs on the Koran. One of the first, if not the first *Islamist* group were the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood advocates the creation of Islamic government, believing that God has set out a perfect way of life and social organization in the Quran (as seen in the slogan, "The Quran is our constitution"). It expresses its interpretation of Islam through a strict religious approach to social issues such as the role of women, but also believes that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedoms as defined by the Islamic state. It has previously been and continues to be strongly opposed to colonialism, and was an important actor in the struggle against Western military and economic domination in Egypt and other Muslim nations during the early 20th century. Their goal as stated by founder Hassan al-Banna was the “doctrine of reclaiming Islam’s manifest destiny; an empire, founded in the seventh century, that stretched from Spain to Indonesia.”

Neocons believe that liberalism eventually will decay society until the political system becomes relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism. (Brutalism and gentle). A small peak into the mind of the grandfather of neoconservatism tells us this.

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism. [citation needed] The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. These ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics and moral standards and replace it by force with a supreme authority from which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered. [citation needed] The second type- the ‘gentle’ nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies- was a kind of value-free aimlessness and hedonism, which he saw permeating the fabric of contemporary American society. [citation needed] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this state. The resultant study lead him to revive classical political philosophy as a source by which political action could be judged.

Noble lies and deadly truths

Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are "myths" needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men and women dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche's language, those "deadly truths", flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately, and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth. Strauss has been interpreted as endorsing "noble lies;" myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society

The Islamists and the neocons tell their followers lies. The neocons make the big boogieman stories, like the USSR and now the Terrorists are out to get everyone, and we need to live our lifes in fear, yet they can save us from this threat, if only we will unite behind them. The Islamists believe the same, Muslims are not muslims if they don't reject all that don't follow the Islamist ideal, in the extreme case they then become a non-muslim and are thus not worthy to live. They both tell rather large fibs to cement their ideologies, one tells you "you are being subconsciously taken from the path to paradise", the other tells you "if you don't follow us you will all die, because over their everyone hates you, we must take them out first.

Who is worse? They are as bad as each other, and *need* each other to survive. However I tend to think the neocons need the Islamist more, because the neocons also are far more capitilisticly driven than Islamists

 

[Kurdt]

Why is philosophy not on the curriculum? If more people learned how to discuss ideas and draw conclusions from all experiences then we wouldn't have need for threads to this extreme. it really is depressing.

 

[Anttech]

Why is philosophy not on the curriculum? If more people learned how to discuss ideas and draw conclusions from all experiences then we wouldn't have need for threads to this extreme. it really is depressing.

The reason why having philosophy on the curriculum would stop the need for "threads like this" is because? Prey tell...

 

[Kurdt]

The reason why having philosophy on the curriculum would stop the need for "threads like this" is because? Prey tell...

I was in a mad moment of despair. Just thought if people were exposed to other ideas rather than being lied to or being told this is the only way then there would be a lot more tolerance and no terror.

But on the contrary threads like this are good because they are the discussion of ideas and the discovery of other ways of thinking or at least hopefully.

 

[Anttech]

I concur, discussion and open dialogue is a good thing...

 

[Astronuc]

I was in a mad moment of despair. Just thought if people were exposed to other ideas rather than being lied to or being told this is the only way then there would be a lot more tolerance and no terror.

But on the contrary threads like this are good because they are the discussion of ideas and the discovery of other ways of thinking or at least hopefully.

The last thing politicians and governments want people to do is to think (independently) for themselves.

 

[Kurdt]

I concur, discussion and open dialogue is a good thing...

Shame it has to wait till people decide to do it for themselves, because some never will. If discussion of ideas and open dialogue is not a fundamental educational right then I don't know what is. but then as you quoted a few posts ago its all about the states (any state) control.

Anyway this is miles off original topic I'm just ranting.

EDIT: Astronuc said it before me but just goes to show great minds think alike

 

[Yonoz]

Anyway, I don't buy it. Someone in the ME only needs to turn their TV on for 30 mins to have 'our' culture beamed directly into their head. They are *not* as closed a society as Yonzo would have you believe.

Is "your" culture beamed directly into their head because most of them don't speak English (or Greek in your case)?

 

[Evo]

Why do you think the thread was locked? We don't lilke talk about stuff like that.

No, the reason that particular thread was locked is stated in the thread, if you had bothered to read it, it was basically a repetition of another thread on the same topic.

 

[kyleb]

Yes, threads on that topic are considered done and locked, I read that and that is what I meand when I said we don't like to talk about stuff like that.

 

[Anttech]

Is "your" culture beamed directly into their head because most of them don't speak English (or Greek in your case)?

So they don't use subtitles in the Islamic world, or dubbing techniques, like the rest of the world does?

 

[Yonoz]

So they don't use subtitles in the Islamic world, or dubbing techniques, like the rest of the world does?

I was joking.
However, we receive ever major Arab channel here (it comes with the standard cable subscription) and I flip through them every once in a while to see what's on. I do this more frequently in tense times.
To screen western productions, a TV station need an audience that can relate to them. I think most Muslims would show little interest in "Desperate Housewives" and "Prison Break". The provocative content of western productions is another major obstacle.
Unfortunately, Muslim producers sometimes gain popularity the same way their leaders do. Take for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2409591.stm" .

 

[Anttech]

To screen western productions, a TV station need an audience that can relate to them. I think most Muslims would show little interest in "Desperate Housewives" and "Prison Break". The provocative content of western productions is another major obstacle.

I also have no interest in these types programs. Turkey for example has many "western" type shows, even some greeks soap operas are shown there, involving Thrace. Many other European type shows do indeed get into the Arabic countries as well. AL-Jazzera is basically a Western news show in Arabic, but from the point of view of Arabs...

 

[Anttech]

Take for example "Horseman Without a Horse", aired in almost every Muslim country (note BBC put "anti-semitic" in apostrophes - as if there's any doubt about it).

The BBC try and stay objective, and let you the viewer decide, thus the quotes.

 

[Yonoz]

Look who just woke up...


http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lebanonisrael-index-eng" - 2 reports on the same conflict, over a month's difference in the time they were published! Impartial my a**!

 

[Yonoz]

I also have no interest in these types programs. Turkey for example has many "western" type shows, even some greeks soap operas are shown there, involving Thrace.

Great for Turkey - they are, after all, the only secular Muslim democracy. What about the inhabitants of other Muslims states in North Africa, the Persian Gulf and Asia? Would they find any interest in "Eastenders" or say, a western talk show?

Many other European type shows do indeed get into the Arabic countries as well. AL-Jazzera is basically a Western news show in Arabic, but from the point of view of Arabs...

Indeed, Al-Jazeera is a based on a western news-channel model and is a mainstream news channel. However, I wonder what our friend Hans will have to say about these http://www.memritv.org/" NOTE: You can show only Al-Jazeera clips using the search function.

 

[Yonoz]

The BBC try and stay objective, and let you the viewer decide, thus the quotes.

It's a very minor point, but the use of apostrophes in BBC headlines is very selective.

 

[Anttech]

What about the inhabitants of other Muslims states in North Africa, the Persian Gulf and Asia? Would they find any interest in "EastEnders" or say, a western talk show?

Nobody with half a brain would find "EastEnders" interesting. However yes they do have interest in some western talk shows, for example News Night, but I would doubt Jerry Springer or any of circus type show. Morocco and Algeria are actually quiet diverse cultures and have a lot of "European" influence. North Africa's History is intertwined into Southern European history.

Anyway this is heading off topic. These "closed cultures" as you put it, arent actually as closed as *you* seem to think. Although you live in Israel, how far into North Africa, and the ME have you actually been? And how many people from these regions would you consider as good friends of yours?

 

[Anttech]

It's a very minor point, but the use of apostrophes in BBC headlines is very selective.

What are you basing this on, 1 quotation, or have you conducted a study into "quotations used by the BBC?" If you have, fancy sharing your finding?

 

[Yonoz]

Anyway this is heading off topic. These "closed cultures" as you put it, arent actually as closed as *you* seem to think. Although you live in Israel, how far into North Africa, and the ME have you actually been? And how many people from these regions would you consider as good friends of yours?

You're right, it is heading off-topic. Would you at least agree with the following statement:
"Muslim societies are less open than their western counterparts."

 

[Yonoz]

What are you basing this on, 1 quotation, or have you conducted a study into "quotations used by the BBC?" If you have, fancy sharing your finding?

No, I haven't conducted such a study. It's come up in a conversation I've had and since I began paying attention to the matter my impression is that the BBC use apotrophes to avoid criticism by people who, for example, would claim "Horseman Without a Horse" is not anti-semitic. There's at least one such person on PF.

 

[Anttech]

You're right, it is heading off-topic. Would you at least agree with the following statement:
"Muslim societies are less open than their western counterparts."

Its a matter of perception, our society is less open to Radical Islamic ideals than their society. Their society is less open to Christian Liberal ideals than "European" society... We have cultural differences...

 

[Yonoz]

Its a matter of perception, our society is less open to Radical Islamic ideals than their society. Their society is less open to Christian Liberal ideals than "European" society... We have cultural differences...

I think western societies have shown more understanding for radical Islamic ideals than Muslim societies have shown for Christian (?) liberal ideals, especially considering the violent nature of radical Muslims. Thus they are more closed than western societies.

 

[Anttech]

I think western societies have shown more understanding for radical Islamic ideals than Muslim societies have shown for Christian (?) liberal ideals, especially considering the violent nature of radical Muslims. Thus they are more closed than western societies.

ehhh? So why are we locking up Islamic clerics in London for preaching their radical view point? No Yonzo (I hate this term) Western societies show no tolerance for Radical Islam. As for violent nature, just look at Iraq for a rebuke. the USA invaded Iraq, they had violent intentions as a Government, a democratically elected government, what does that say about the people? Look at Murder rates as well there. Western society is juss as violent as Islamic society.

Its a matter of perception, for one who claims to be so open minded you can only see one side of the story. Its not your fault and I don't blaim you, you were born into the middle of it.

 

[Yonoz]

ehhh? So why are we locking up Islamic clerics in London for preaching their radical view point?

It is not because of what they preach, it is because of what they practice. If you recruit people to harm other people, you get locked up, whether you're a cleric or a mafioso.
I have to go now, I'll continue later.

 

[Anttech]

It is not because of what they preach, it is because of what they practice. If you recruit people to harm other people, you get locked up, whether you're a cleric or a mafioso.
I have to go now, I'll continue later.

Wrong Yonzo, they are locked up and sometimes expelled for "incitement to violence" a new Law in the UK, which prohibits people from *preaching* publicly about jihad and the likes... I agree with the law more or less, but it contradicts this "open" mind we all have to radical Islam.

 

[Yonoz]

Wrong Yonzo, they are locked up and sometimes expelled for "incitement to violence" a new Law in the UK, which prohibits people from *preaching* publicly about jihad and the likes... I agree with the law more or less, but it contradicts this "open" mind we all have to radical Islam.

Are you referring to Abu Hamza al-Masri?

 

[BobG]

I think western societies have shown more understanding for radical Islamic ideals than Muslim societies have shown for Christian (?) liberal ideals, especially considering the violent nature of radical Muslims. Thus they are more closed than western societies.

I don't think the that's an accurate generalization across the board, unless you're very specific about what you mean. I don't know how much understanding the average muslim in the Middle East has about life in the US, but it can't be less than the understanding of the average American about life in the Middle East.

I think Muslims in the Middle East are receptive to a relationship with western society and in importing as much western 'culture' as they can afford.

Regardless of Iran's government, the people are very receptive to western culture. In fact, one possible motivation for Ahmadinejad's rantings are to distract Iranians from economic problems like inflation and high unemployment. Iran's assistance to Hezbollah probably doesn't gain him much respect with Iranians, who would probably like to see the money being spent in Lebanon being spent on Iranians, instead. However, the issue of whether Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy probably does inspire a little more nationalism among Iranians. Quite a few people believe a closer economic relationship between western countries and Iran would make the nuclear issue go away, since that would have a much more direct impact on the average Iranian than nuclear weapons would.

Quite a few of the smaller Arab countries are also much more open to western culture than the traditional regional powers. Being small has forced them to adapt to improve their economic health. In fact, a close economic relationship with Europe is pretty much essential to the UAE, especially since the attitude in the US resulted in at least one of their business efforts being rebuffed.

The cultural changes happening in the richer Arab nations are part of what fundamentalists like bin Laden are fighting against. They've just realized it's easier to mobilize people against countries like Israel or the US than to get people to rise up and throw away their cellular phones.

In that sense, the position of a lot of Muslims isn't that different than white collar Americans decrying the outsourcing that has cost them their jobs as they drive their Toyotas and Hondas around town.

One of the biggest mistakes of the Bush administration has been its belief that a change in the type of government, alone, will result in an environment less conducive to terrorism. Democracy hasn't made Lebanon or the Palesinians any friendlier - it resulted in members of terrorist groups becoming part of the official government. Of course, better trade relationships, alone, haven't been that effective either, since better economic relationships with dictatorships has its own problems.

 

[Yonoz]

As for violent nature, just look at Iraq for a rebuke. the USA invaded Iraq, they had violent intentions as a Government, a democratically elected government, what does that say about the people? Look at Murder rates as well there.

I'd rather not get into the charged Iraq topic, it has been discussed exhaustively and I don't think we'll agree on the relevant aspect, i.e. what the US administrations' intentions and motives were in invading Iraq. As for the American people, I don't think they are violent, even if the worst claims about their government are true. They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies.
Looking at the murder rates may help form an opinion about the US military and administration's management of Iraq, but let's not forget who is doing the bulk of the killing.

Western society is juss as violent as Islamic society.

I strongly disagree.

Its a matter of perception, for one who claims to be so open minded you can only see one side of the story.

Aren't we are both one-sided? It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Its not your fault and I don't blaim you, you were born into the middle of it.

I think that puts me in a unique position to shed some light on matters that are being portrayed in what I perceive to be an erroneous fashion.

 

[Anttech]

They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies.

Electric chair anyone?

Although you wouldn't admit that going to war *is* at its very essence "advocating" killing, it actually is.

I think that puts me in a unique position to shed some light on matters that are being portrayed in what I perceive to be an erroneous fashion.

No I don't think it does Yonzo, it puts you on the defensive.

 

[Yonoz]

I don't think the that's an accurate generalization across the board, unless you're very specific about what you mean. I don't know how much understanding the average muslim in the Middle East has about life in the US, but it can't be less than the understanding of the average American about life in the Middle East.

True, however one need only examine the treatment of foreign ideals, values and customs by both groups. I think that despite ignorance and prejudice, western societies have tolerated much animosity and violence, and reacted to it in a very mild fashion - all the while, self-criticism and pluralism flourish. This is in sharp contrast to attacks on western targets that are supported by many Muslim societies, and actually raise more support for their perpetrators!

I think Muslims in the Middle East are receptive to a relationship with western society and in importing as much western 'culture' as they can afford.

That may be right, but keep in mind there are powerful entities that control what these people see and hear. It is difficult to persuade someone against the rhetoric they hear countless hours every week in anything from http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1261".

Regardless of Iran's government, the people are very receptive to western culture. In fact, one possible motivation for Ahmadinejad's rantings are to distract Iranians from economic problems like inflation and high unemployment. Iran's assistance to Hezbollah probably doesn't gain him much respect with Iranians, who would probably like to see the money being spent in Lebanon being spent on Iranians, instead. However, the issue of whether Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy probably does inspire a little more nationalism among Iranians.

I absolutely agree.

Quite a few people believe a closer economic relationship between western countries and Iran would make the nuclear issue go away, since that would have a much more direct impact on the average Iranian than nuclear weapons would.

Unfortunately, there is no time to try that route.

Quite a few of the smaller Arab countries are also much more open to western culture than the traditional regional powers. Being small has forced them to adapt to improve their economic health. In fact, a close economic relationship with Europe is pretty much essential to the UAE, especially since the attitude in the US resulted in at least one of their business efforts being rebuffed.

Though consumerism is the most dominant aspect of western culture, there is quite a difference between being major consumers of western products and services and being open to western culture and ideals. http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=uae", in the form of slavery.

The cultural changes happening in the richer Arab nations are part of what fundamentalists like bin Laden are fighting against. They've just realized it's easier to mobilize people against countries like Israel or the US than to get people to rise up and throw away their cellular phones.

I don't think they want people to throw away their cellphones. I think they want them to turn their backs on western values. In any case, can you stop these cultural changes? At what price? If a Muslim entrepreneur wants to open a modern nightclub, is it the someone in the west's job to stop that? If Arab teenagers want to wear provocative clothing, is it the west's fault? Should western firms turn away liberal Muslim businessmen, should we be complicit to the denial of liberties - is that not against our ideals?

In that sense, the position of a lot of Muslims isn't that different than white collar Americans decrying the outsourcing that has cost them their jobs as they drive their Toyotas and Hondas around town.

We are all paying a price for globalization, but only some of us are being violent about it.

One of the biggest mistakes of the Bush administration has been its belief that a change in the type of government, alone, will result in an environment less conducive to terrorism. Democracy hasn't made Lebanon or the Palesinians any friendlier - it resulted in members of terrorist groups becoming part of the official government. Of course, better trade relationships, alone, haven't been that effective either, since better economic relationships with dictatorships has its own problems.

I think such a grand scheme can't be judged this early, though the outlook is grim. We may yet see Lebanon return to its former beauty, and it seems the Palestinians are only beginning to realize now the power of the people in a democracy, and the responsibilities that come with it.

 

[Yonoz]

Electric chair anyone?

Are Iraqis being executed in electric chairs?

Although you wouldn't admit that going to war *is* at its very essence "advocating" killing, it actually is.

Yes but in traditional wars armies fight each other, and civilians stay out of harm's way. I don't think the American people advocated a war against Iraqi civilians, and I think they would rather see as little casualties for both sides, but you'll have to ask an American. On the other hand, I've already covered Muslim support for suicide attacks.

I think that puts me in a unique position to shed some light on matters that are being portrayed in what I perceive to be an erroneous fashion.

No I don't think it does Yonzo, it puts you on the defensive.

Are the two contradictory?

 

[daveb]

Yes but in traditional wars armies fight each other, and civilians stay out of harm's way.

In most wars, civilians were frequently treated with cruelty, their possessions taken, forced into slavery or sexually assaulted, or even killed.

Civilian populations have suffered in almost every war throughout history, despite enormous changes in the conduct and technology of warfare; in fact the ratio of civilian to military deaths in European wars ranges from 1:1 to over 10:1 [5].

http://www.aetheling.com/docs/Persistence.html"

 

[Yonoz]

In most wars, civilians were frequently treated with cruelty, their possessions taken, forced into slavery or sexually assaulted, or even killed.

Yes but did the US seek a civil war in Iraq?

 

[Anttech]

Are Iraqis being executed in electric chairs?

No it was a dig at capitial punishment in some US States. In reply to your, "They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies."

 

[Anttech]

Yes but did the US seek a civil war in Iraq?

How can a country seek a civil war by invading another country

 

[Yonoz]

No it was a dig at capitial punishment in some US States. In reply to your, "They certainly have not advocated any killing, which can't be said for many Muslim societies."

Sorry, I meant killing in the scope of the argument, ie the killing of Muslims because they are Muslims.

 

[Yonoz]

How can a country seek a civil war by invading another country

That's exactly the point. You made references to the war in Iraq:

As for violent nature, just look at Iraq for a rebuke. the USA invaded Iraq, they had violent intentions as a Government, a democratically elected government, what does that say about the people? Look at Murder rates as well there.

While I pointed out that the US sought a traditional war in which they would only engage the Iraqi military - thus they did not intend to harm Iraqi civilians. Civilians are killed in the civil war - except that is not and never was the US's intention.

 

[kyleb]

You can't drop piles of bombs in Baghdad without intending to harm Iraqi civilians.

 

[Yonoz]

You can't drop piles of bombs in Baghdad without intending to harm Iraqi civilians.

There is a difference between intention and consequences.