Islam, Violence, Liberalism, and the West

[robrecht]

@ robrecht, Scrawley,

justify killing innocent civilians---Consider, ...The U.S. attacked Iraq and justified it by saying they wanted to "spread democracy"---does this mean that all democracies are violent extremists who want to "rule the world" by force? Does this mean that the U.S. soldiers who killed in the name of "democracy" are heinous criminals?

I suspect most of the soldiers probably wrongly believed they were fighting a defensive war against a government that was in collusion with terrorists who had attacked civilians in New York City. The Bush administration was certainly wrong to create this false impression. Nonetheless, many Iraqis celebrated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein at the time. As you perhaps recall from a previous discussion with me, I was never in favor of the invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. has callously dismissed its killings of innocent civilians as "unavoidable collateral damage"---because its in a "war" ---well a war has two sides and if the other side kills "your" innocent civilians---why is this not "unavoidable collateral damage"?

Because the acts of terror under discussion here were not unavoidable collateral damage. Are you seriously unaware of this fact? Terrorist acts specifically and intentionally directed against innocent civilians cannot be defended as unavoidable collateral damage. Not in any world where truthfulness and honesty have any meaning. Do you honestly claim, for example, that the terrorists who attacked the twin towers on September 11, 2001 were not specifically and intentionally attacking innocent civilians? I know several families who lost fathers in that attack. None were military.

---There is something very wrong with the way your politicians and media are framing this narrative---there are moral discrepancies...

Sure, US politicians and media have many biases and blind spots. Do you honestly intend to claim that Muslim terrorists who killed 3,000 people in their attack on the twin towers only unintentionally committed collateral damage?

It was OK for the U.S. to believe in a myth (non-existent WMD) and attack and destroy another country---but when someone else believes in a myth (God)---its not ok?

You are making a false equivalency here. First, I have never claimed that it is OK for anyone to believe in a myth of nonexistent WMDs and you should know that I opposed the US invasion of Iraq. Again, if you want to have a conversation with me, try to be more careful and honest about what my positions are.

The U.S. has around a 1000 military bases around the world---if anyone can be accused of "world domination"---it is most certainly the United States of America.
The article may be biased---but it is one opinion---
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-wor...ary-bases/5564
"The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.

Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.

The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities."

One could say, the military and foreign policies of the U.S. are not only in opposition to Christian values---but those of the constitution and the sentiments expressed in the U.S. declaration of independence....which were against oppression and exploitation....

...also...The problem of glory-seeking youth is not just a Muslim concern---it should be of concern to everyone....consider...

U.S. youth (some of them mercenaries) are joining the Kurdish Peshmerga and various other organization in the Iraq/Syria region...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...104739660.html
....and....
Private military and securities companies (mercenaries) are booming (apparently a U.K. company is leading the market)....(are these "terrorists"? or murder for hire does not qualify?)

If these paramilitary organizations are intentionally targeting civilians noncombatants, yes, they are terrorists.

Some opinions from other articles---
https://www.theguardian.com/business...y-says-charityhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pri...ies-pmsc/21826

I agree that Muslims and others need to do better, but that is such a bland generalization that it fails to substantially contribute meaningfully to this discussion. A much more specific contribution to this discussion would be for you as a Muslim to specifically condemn acts of Islamic terrorism rather than try to defend it as merely unintentional collateral damage in a time of war. If you cannot yet bring yourself to do this, at least you could start by trying to answer either of the two questions I asked you in my last post, both of which you completely avoided. I've answered your questions put to me, why do you avoid mine?

[siam]

If I have given the impression I am defending terrorism to any degree---I apologize. I do not defend any type of terrorism---either individual or state sponsored. This also includes the excuse of "collateral damage". To kill large numbers of civilians and call it "unintentional collateral damage" means the war strategy was inept, dishonorable and unjust.

If the "collateral damage" excuse was legitimate---then the U.S. military would have decimated Boston at the time the two terrorists were holed up there---they did not. Those "terrorists" were caught without substantial loss of civilian lives.

There has been a lot of effort in the West to differentiate crimes committed by "Muslim" from every other crime---a crime is not a crime if a Muslim is involved---why such propaganda? why such hysteria?

[robrecht]

If I have given the impression I am defending terrorism to any degree---I apologize. I do not defend any type of terrorism---either individual or state sponsored. This also includes the excuse of "collateral damage". To kill large numbers of civilians and call it "unintentional collateral damage" means the war strategy was inept, dishonorable and unjust.

If the "collateral damage" excuse was legitimate---then the U.S. military would have decimated Boston at the time the two terrorists were holed up there---they did not. Those "terrorists" were caught without substantial loss of civilian lives.

There has been a lot of effort in the West to differentiate crimes committed by "Muslim" from every other crime---a crime is not a crime if a Muslim is involved---why such propaganda? why such hysteria?

Why do you always refuse to answer a question directly? Do you, as a Muslim, unequivocally condemn acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam? Do you condemn the attack on the twin towers by Muslim extremists?

There was loss of civilian life in Boston. A policeman was also killed. Do you condemn those acts of terrorism? Collateral damage in military attacks in foreign lands is not at all equivalent to a police dragnet in a domestic city--that is an absurd argument.

Hysteria is the intended reaction by those who plan acts of terrorism against civilians. It would be far better for us to avoid such hysteria, but there's no great mystery about why such hysteria exists.

[Spartacus]

I'm still not ready to dive back in to the discussion, but I have a grenade to lob-- or, rather, the Pope said something in a plane interview, so I guess it's really the Pope dropping a bombshell? I don't know if it's a particularly novel sentiment. Call it what you will, but here it is:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...-poland-70432/

If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence

[Mountain Man]

And here's a comment I posted on another website in response to this:

Without any due respect, Mr. Pope, you're an utter moron. Islam is a cancer on the free world. It always has been, ever since it was founded by a pedophile warlord. To excuse centuries of systemic Muslim brutality by saying, "Catholics are occasionally violent, too," is simply stupid.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State has flatly rejected the Pope's attempted whitewash of Islam:

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...religious-war/

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

And they say this isn't a religious war:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...lave-of-allah/

[Scrawly]

And they say this isn't a religious war:

Yes, and I wonder if Muhammad were around today, would he more closely align himself, not only doctrinally, but also behaviorally, with ISIS or would he side with the faith as espoused by siam and other modern-minded, well-adjusted Muslims?

I think our Muslim friends ought to really reflective on this.

[seer]

Yes, and I wonder if Muhammad were around today, would he more closely align himself, not only doctrinally, but also behaviorally, with ISIS or would he side with the faith as espoused by siam and other modern-minded, well-adjusted Muslims?

I think our Muslim friends ought to really reflective on this.

Well just look what Muhammad actually did - he was a warrior, through and through.

[Spartacus]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/mu...darity-n620521

In a gesture of solidarity following the gruesome killing of a French priest, Muslims on Sunday attended Catholic Mass in churches and cathedrals across France and Italy.

For any and all sides of this discussion: how do y'all explain the above news story? That is, how does it fit into (or challenge?) your narrative about the compatibility of Islam and Western society?

[Mountain Man]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/mu...darity-n620521

In a gesture of solidarity following the gruesome killing of a French priest, Muslims on Sunday attended Catholic Mass in churches and cathedrals across France and Italy.

For any and all sides of this discussion: how do y'all explain the above news story? That is, how does it fit into (or challenge?) your narrative about the compatibility of Islam and Western society?

As always, there's more to the story:

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...apostate-sect/

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

... With respect to their stated goal-- reducing terroristic violence-- each policy direction is fundamentally plausible, at least at first glance. By making Muslims full and productive participants in liberal society, the sociopolitical motivations for undermining that society are substantially diminished. By isolating and monitoring Muslims, the opportunities to engage in violence are substantially diminished. These are also mutually exclusive solutions. If we set them apart form society, we cannot expect them to perceive themselves as full and productive participants in the liberal order. If we try to assimilate them into our society and grant them all our customary liberties, we will inevitably allow them more opportunities to commit violence. ...

Mutually exclusive if either approach is followed in an all-or-nothing manner, but there's no reason to follow only one approach to an extreme degree to the exclusion of all others. I'm struck by the approach favored by Khizr Khan. He favors a stricter approach to vetting Muslim immigrants while at the same time being a shining example of patriotic integration into some of the highest ideals of American life and culture and has exposed for many people some of the uglier aspects of Donald Trump's candidacy.

[Spartacus]

Sorry for abandoning the thread and leaving so many interesting thoughts hanging. If anyone is interested in picking it back up, I think I'll be able to join back in at the end of the week. In the mean time, I'll drop this: http://discover.economist.com/?a=216...BR-LIT&cid3=UM

It resonates with a lot off what's been said, and the observation about sexual assaults by immigrants being rooted in cultural misogyny raises the familiar question about the line between religion and culture.

Sorry, y'all deserve more substance than that, but if this gets the thread moving again...