# One simple fact that gets overlooked

1. Aug 10, 2006

### ptabor

I hear lots of talk (especially on the left wing nut websites) about making concessions of land for "peace" in the middle east (wrt Israel, of course).

This is sheer lunacy. This is not a conflict over land. If that were the case, the Israeli pullout from Gaza would've had a positive impact (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4235768.stm). Instead, Hezbollah launches rockets at their civilians and kidnaps their soldiers (which is a valid tactic in my mind). So what is it, then? It is a jihad with the intention of murdering every last jew in Israel (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm).

Furthremore, It is stupidity to think that one can reason with these people. Even dumber to think that if we (the united states) were more "sensitive" to their needs that the violence would simply stop. There is very little reason in religion, even less reason in the act of strapping a bomb to yourself and running into a cafe to blow up innocent civilians. Therefore, there can be no peace with these people. They will come at us with every last man women and child until either they're all dead, or we're dead. It's that simple.

That being said, I'd also like to come out and say I do not support the war in Iraq. I think W's running of the war on terror is abysmal, as the only things we have accompilshed is to remove two enemies of our true enemy, Iran. Granted Hussein was a brutal dictator, but I don't think shelling out hundreds of billions of dollars just to bring "liberty" to a people is a valid strategy in prosecuting the war on Islam at large.

In summary, there can be no peace with a people who are obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life.

Just my $0.02 2. Aug 10, 2006 ### 3trQN That should be corrected to: There can be no peace between people with western ideals and those obsessed with the destruction of the western way of life. Which isnt much of an opinion really, more a self validating statement. I dont agree with that. Maybe the slaughter of 6Million jews is a valid tactic to you also? It depends what you call a valid tactic. To me a valid tactic means "A possible action or stratergy that we can use" not "A possible cause of action, but not one we would consider using". ermm, ok... I hope you dont actually beleive what you wrote.....please try and think a little more. Remember the definition of Extremism: any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies You seem quite uncompromising in your policies, perhaps extreme? Last edited: Aug 10, 2006 3. Aug 10, 2006 ### ptabor Don't distort my words, what I actually said is the kidnapping of soldiers is a valid tactic - that's what they signed up for. the attack on civilian targets is certainly not a valid tactic. By the way, there aren't 60 million jews. and please explain to me how you can reason with someone who thinks that by strapping a bomb to himself and killing people he's going to go to heaven in the afterlife? 4. Aug 10, 2006 ### ptabor I call it like I see it. Hamas has said it themselves as well as the palestinian people for electing them, there can be only one course of action - the destruction of the zionist state. 5. Aug 10, 2006 ### 3trQN Ok, my mistake i thought you were saying that the Hezbollah tactics were acceptable, not the kidnapping specifically. er, 6 i meant.......but its just a matter of time Last edited: Aug 10, 2006 6. Aug 10, 2006 ### ptabor Look, I don't like the situation. I have never deliberately caused physical harm to someone in my life. But my desires and personal values do not change the situation at hand. We ARE in a state of war with an extremist enemy, an implacable foe. It is a harsh but undeniable fact that there can be no peaceful outcome. There is an exception to that, on second thought. If the islamic community itself were to mobilize to stop the behavior of their "extremist" bretheren then perhaps there could be a peaceful outcome. Let's face it, the vast majority of muslims in the world got their panties in a bunch over a satiric description of their prophet - going so far as to take to the streets. Do they take to the streets over the intentional murder of innocent civilians? To the best of my knowledge (please, PLEASE, if I am wrong on this point correct me) no. On the other hand, as much as I may dislike the Catholic church I have to give it to them that when the allegations of molestation surfaced many catholics protested to signify that they in no way support the actions of a few bad apples (even if their church does). I simply don't see that with the muslim community (of course, this could be due to media bias in the US. Again, if anyone has information to the contrary please enlighten me). 7. Aug 10, 2006 ### tiyusufaly You are quite wrong ptabor. First of all, it was not a majority of Muslims that took to the streets following the offensive depiction of Muhammad, and indeed many Islamic leaders around the world called for peaceful resistance to the cartoons. Here's just one article scratching the surface: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/10/ap/world/mainD8FM08HG0.shtml . And you could not be more wrong about the fact that Muslims don't condemn terrorism done by a few loons acting against Islam. They do, and they do a lot. But guess what? The western media doesn't feel like reporting that. Just read this to skim the surface again: http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm . And finally, I cannot find words to express my disgrace that you are calling this a "war on Islam". There are over a billion Muslims in the world, most of them peaceful and urging restraint, as I showed you. Go against those that ugly the name of the religion, but calling this a war on Islam itself is completely unjustified. 8. Aug 10, 2006 ### ptabor I call it a war on islam because to declare war on "terror" is nonsensical. You cannot declare war on a tactic. You can, however, declare war on a religion. Thank you for providing information that contradicts my statements, I shall amend my position accordingly. 9. Aug 10, 2006 ### Hurkyl Staff Emeritus Just because you think a "war on terror" is nonsensical doesn't mean you can (justifiably) call it a war on Islam. It has to be a war on Islam for you to call it that. Anyways, the thing you forget is that these "sensitive" people are trying to combat the reasons people support and join terrorist organizations, rather than going after the organizations directly. 10. Aug 11, 2006 ### Smurf The same way you reason with anyone? Lots of people believe in going to heaven and lots of people put themselves in deadly situations all the time. These people are not necessarily unreasonable. I don't see the problem frankly. 11. Aug 11, 2006 ### Smurf I think that if you are unable to find such examples in Islam, it is not from lack of examples but from lack of trying. 12. Aug 11, 2006 ### TuviaDaCat well actully i think u should know, that here in israel, when the missiles kill arab israelis, those close to them blaimed israel for their death. and yes they embrace hizbullah. and arabs never go agains the extemists, never, whether the majority is peacful or not, they never struggle. hibullah and hamas use civil areas as launching grounds, just so israel will think twice before using full power, and oh god we have lots of it, and before lebanon, we were foolish enouth to use infantry instead of heavy cannons... so they use civs as a sheild, instead of shielding civs, yet i have not seen any force of resistance.... it is not racism to say "war against terror", just watch the new, what is the origin of those planning major massacures in the western world... 13. Aug 11, 2006 ### TuviaDaCat was bombing north israel reasonable? or is the hamas goverment, in which many times sent its man to bomb buses loaded with people reasonable? was arafat rasonable when barak offered him all he could ask for, yet he refused by making up a new demands in the end of a negotiation of a long long dispute... is iran reasonable? have u heard of his intentions of nuclear options, and the speeches on a new holocaust, to both israel and americans? its a sad thing, a very sad thing, that when arab countries can be called reasonable only when the country is controlled by dictator, or a fake democracy. lybia, egypt, jordan, are good examples... reason has left the house if u ask me 14. Aug 11, 2006 ### DaveC426913 Actually, that's Bush's$0.02.

So, way to think for yourself.

15. Aug 12, 2006

### alexandra

This is a very simplistic (though popularly believed) myth of why suicide bombers do what they do. Detailed studies have shown otherwise, as discussed in the article (published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 2006) I'm quoting from and referencing to below:

And why is this important? Well, because unless one accurately identifies the source of a problem one has no hope of solving it

alex

Last edited: Aug 12, 2006
16. Aug 12, 2006

yep, its not the 72 virgins in the sky that made the twins fall...

yet im not sure wether it is: vengence, a fanatic dream to relive the saladin era, bombing stuff as a well versed political arguement, or brainwashing made by a greedy leader, or maybe they blame the western world for their poor situation... i pretty much should find a time for such subject, i never gripped the source of their behaviour since there are no arabs where i live...

though i think that the most resonable thing is, that they live very poor poor life, and religion doest make it any better with all the restrictions, so they gather furstration, and one barking charismatic man could give them a reason for this furstration, and manipulate people by hate, and myth about bloody monstrous christians and jews...

but maybe im wrong. and also it cant be a collective explanation to all communities, because there never is, but sometimes there is a main one.

17. Aug 13, 2006

### Smurf

Yes I have heard the speeches by the dictators and the terrorists. I've also heard the American government make similar speeches. They're all the same, really. Whoever is speaking declares the evilness of their enemy and that they won't rest until they're destroyed. Sometimes colorful illiteration are used such as proclaiming a new holocaust or what have you. It's your basic we-good-they-bad-let's-go-kill-them speech that's been in use by leaders worldwide since before the alphabet was invented. Only the sides have changed.
As far as I can see, it's a lot simpler than any of that. They fight because there is a conflict. The only question is the choice of weapon. However, None of your suggestions address this Brainwashing? Vengeance? Fanaticism? Build up frustration plus charismatic leader? These suggest reasons to fight - But they explain nothing of the method, suicide bombings, of which we should be (and I thought we were) speaking.

18. Aug 13, 2006

about the americans, bush's speeches are a good laugh, not many here in israel talks about forces of evil and the prevail of democracy, though many are not very fond of arabs, but its only natural in such a condition...
the majority of this country just want the best practical solution to stop being threatened in the street...
though, the americans with all the jibbering, are the only ones with the balls to actully do something about the terror threats. its not like they massacure all those who deny democracy. u cant compare them in any way, to the arab world.
imagine israel shutting all its guards down, what whould happen? will they just take the golan, and yehuda, and shomron(semaria?)?

its much worse in europ, where they talk about poor children dying. the UN rejects all kind of wars, it is always evil and unnecesery to make war for them. when the war with hizbulla started, they say we overreacted. ovvereacted? did we need to wait so more would die and then we could strike back hard?
being passive can have bad results, and WWII is the perfect example.

all leaders has this stupid black and white speeches, its always that way, but the way things really work is different.

about the second part of ur post:
it has to do a lot with suicide, a man who is poor, and doesnt have much to live for, can be easly used a pawn to die for the king.

Last edited: Aug 13, 2006
19. Aug 13, 2006

### Schrodinger's Dog

I still can't believe so many people think that what the US has done in the Middle East has had positive repurcussions, it's a bit of a disaster. Civil war, civil war, and provoking Iran. This is political ineptitutde on another level. Why do people get so enamoured of shooty shooty kill kill? It's scarey ,well at least they go in there without a clear plan for post war Iraq/Afghanistan and then it all goes pear shaped would be a better summation of actions so far by the US. It's plainly an incompetent series of events, and my country has to trail along behind like some ever loyal lap dog. Bugger!

20. Aug 13, 2006

### Smurf

The part in bold is the most important sentence in your post. You're correct of course, it is only natural in such a condition. What we so often forget is that it's natural for them as well. Not just us.
But again that's not really the argument. It could be argued (and is argued from time to time) that the poor, who don't have much to live for, are used by the US as pawns to die for their country. I've even heard someone argue that it's a good thing, because the is helps class mobility or some whatnot. But they don't go turn into suicide bombers. I think this is still a reason for why they fight. Not a very good answer for why they use suicide bombs in particular.