Message to Terrorists: "You Don't Scare Me

[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.

 

[kyleb]

Yeah, intention is what you have when you drop the bombs and consequences are what you try to deny responsibility for that after the fact.

 

[Smurf]

Seriously, why hasn't this thread been locked?

 

[daveb]

There is a difference between intention and consequences.

Yes, you are right in that respect for most things. However, in pretty much every war the number of civilian casualties is equal or greater than soldier casualties. I doubt that those who plan and execute war are unaware of this. Intentionally targeting civilians and targeting military targets knowing that civilian casualties will result as well is pretty much the same in my book. I'm not saying that it's wrong to target military targets (nor am I saying it's right either). I'm only saying that the end result is the same. We can argue the morality of such action in the philosphy forums.

 

[daveb]

Back to the actual OP (this thread has gotten way off topic), what would I say to any terrorist?

First, you need to define a terrorist (and no, not the dictionary term). Terrorists seek to terrorize, dehumanize, and eradicate. So I tell them:

The only thing you can do to me is imprison me, kill me, cut off my limbs, torture me, try to frighten me, or treat me as if you think I am less than an animal.
Even if you kill me I am free in my mind.
Even if you kill me the consequences f my actions in life live on, and in some small manner, so do I.
Even if you cut off my limbs, I will still run through fields in my mind and hold my family in the arms in my mind.
Even if you torture me, I will go to place in my mind where there is no pain.
Even if you try to frighten me, I will not give into the terror you seek to inspire.
Even if you try to treat me as if you think I am less than an animal, I am and always will be human, regardless of your attempts to make me otherwise.

That being said, for me, no one is a terrorist unless I allow them to terrorize, dehumanize, and eradicate.

 

[Burnsys]

I could say somenthing like this:You can train our military to torture kidnap and murder, you can sabotage our democraticaly elected goverments, you can kidnap and control our media, you can punish us for not aplying your economics reforms, you can control our politicians, you can steal our resources, you can polute our rivers, you can invade my country but each time you do that, you are forcing us to adopt more and more extreme and violent meassures, until one day we will be corneded with no choices, then you will cry and ask, why do they hate us?

 

[slugcountry]

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.

I suppose if this thread were named: "To: The American Terrorists" it would be locked too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The thing to realize is that Americans support this sort of thing when they are told and believe that we [the US] are saving other people from evil dictators. You can be sure that with extremely rare exceptions, our soldiers join up believing that the war is just - be is so or not. They do not desire to kill innocent people.

On the other hand, many of us [with increasing numbers] completely reject many of Bush's policies. We know that it was a huge mistake to attack Iraq as we did.

IMO, and many would agree, the Bush administration and their policies go against everything that we wish ourselves to be as a nation.

But now we are stuck. As United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said this week: “...the US has found itself in the position where it cannot stay and it cannot leave.”

Thank you Mr. Bush.

 

[Kurdt]

This is the danger of voting in people on single policies or promises. However it is happening all over the democratic world. You get MP's and some leaders appealing to a fanatical minority by pledging one thing they want to hear and they take power, and of course things go wrong because they're not prepared for the other responsibilities of power. Hopefully people will see the errors in this current trend of voting and the intellectual voter will win through.

Although from what I have seen the general public are very quick to jump on a band wagon at the minute with little or no knowledge of what they're for or against.

 

[jiriya]

Islam is not a terrorist way of life -
.
islam is the truth.
People think that Islam is something new that was made up for political purposes(as do people thnk also for christianity).
Well islam is not like that.

Terrorism is rejected in Islam.
In The Islam- Killing one person is the same as killing the whole of mankind.

Murderers are of the worst on the Day Of Judgement (the people of Bloodshed)
.
Islam is peace.

And to all who think that iraq people or any muslim is a terrorist .
You ever heard of self defence?

I mean you look it this way.
If you were american, and the british starting bombing your country , slaughtering your people, stealing your resources (say usa had oil ). wat wud u do??

watch them kill your family infront of you like the current U.S trops are doing in iraq??


And then you would get called terrorists for defending your own people and resourceS?

Thats not logic people!

wake up!

USA are the biggest terrorist in thsi world!

They set up 9/11(yes september 11) in order to get justification to invade iraq and '' remove saddam hussein'' yet it was for the oil because saddam is long gone now , yet they are still in iraq, for what purpose?? three letters people!


Oil

Islam is what Jesus teached.
But What does the word of Islam mean?

Islam means to submit to the one god , and someone who does this is called a Muslim.
So 'Anything or Anyone' who follows god and believes in one god and submits to him and fears him(i.e is just and kind etc) is a Muslim!'

So a muslim isn't something new !

Abraham, Moses, Jacob and all of the messengers of God were muslim!(they submitted to the one god , i.e practicing ISlam hence they are Muslims!)


And as for those people who dno't believe in God . There is proof of the existence of God.



the Quran!

*********************************************************************************************************

Do not believe what you watch on T.V or the media. Its all a lie !

The us set up september 11 ! so get that
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose






thanks!


Thanks!

IN

 

[jiriya]

Muslims do not suppor the killing of people-

People just believe what they see on the Media.

When the Prophet Muhamad(Peace be upon him) went to battle - he told us to nto :
-Chop a tree
-to not kill the farm people
-to not kill the women
-to not kill the children
-to not kill the people of the church(I.e Christians)
-do not damage the land


So this (hopefully) clears up your idea of Islam being a terrorst nation of peopel(which is totally false and against islamic teachings!)


thanks

 

[jiriya]

Muslims do not support the killing of people-

People just believe what they see on the Media which is all lies in order for us to hate the muslims so people can forget that USA and Britain are invading their lands and stealing their oil (at the same time slaughtering the people like dogs!)

But islam is a peaceful way of life.


When the Prophet Muhamad(Peace be upon him) went to battle - he told us to not :
-Chop a tree on enemy lands
-to not kill the farm people or ' harvesting people'
-to not kill the women
-to not kill the children
-to not kill the people of the church(I.e Christians)
-to not damage the land


So this (hopefully) clears up your idea of Islam being a terrorst nation of peopel(which is totally false and against islamic teachings!)


thanks

 

[chroot]

Well, I'd say this one has gone on long enough, yes?

- Warren