Happy Atheist Forum

In a recent post, pagan1 made some interesting, and all too common statements which should be addressed:

Quotewhat does religion have to do with it?pakistan is an ethnically divided,impoverished orphan of the british raj,desperate people will do desperate things.al qaeda,otherwise known as the worlds most recent boogeyman or praxis of evil is a symptom not the disease.when western nations send their children into harms way,isn't this a statement of how far they are prepared to go for their economic...otherwse known as religious beliefs?a suicide bomber or a combat soldier both spin the roulette wheel of fate,it is just that one has a more certain bet.until the wealth is spread more evenly,and until there is an awareness of what we share in common with each other rather than what divides us,there will always be prophets of doom and revenge.I think that religion is little more than a sickness,and that only after a long period of evolution will we be able to cure ourselves of the extremist disease.

This idea of moral equivalence is pretty common today, and is a favorite of liberal thinkers like Noam Chomsky. But the fact is that the suicide bomber is not morally equivalent to the soldier. And Muslim society is not morally equivalent to Western civilization.

Islam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th! It is morally and ethically retarded. We can demonstrate this by asking about the intention of the society. The intent is conveniently ignored by Chomsky and other liberal "thinkers." Here's how it works:

Can you say that the suicide bomber whose intent is to maim or dismember an infant or toddler in order to strike terror in its parents is morally equivalent to the soldier? Let's take the American soldier, since this is what is bandied about. How much effort does the American soldier take to avoid killing an infant or child, who might die while the American is trying to kill a baby-killing, life-hating, death-worshipping suicide bomber? It is stupid or evil to try to equate them. Stupid if you didn't realize the difference. Evil if you do and discount it. You decide.

From another tack, let's look at another nonsense assertion above.

Quoteuntil the wealth is spread more evenly,and until there is an awareness of what we share in common with each other rather than what divides us,there will always be prophets of doom and revenge.

The funny thing about those Muslim suicide bombers right up to Osama Pigfucking Bin Laden, is that they are not the poorest, most ignorant dregs of society, but generally educated far above the average in their society with a great deal more resources that those who ululate in the Arab street after they perform their "sacred duty" on unsuspecting and innocent bystanders.

So take your false and misleading excuses and peddle them elsewhere. We know why Muslims explode themselves. It's because they are Muslims.

Hey Chris - I don't want to bait this argument any, but I do strongly agree with the following:

Quote from: "Chris Johnson"But the fact is that the suicide bomber is not morally equivalent to the soldier. And Muslim society is not morally equivalent to Western civilization.

Islam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th! It is morally and ethically retarded.

So it seems to me as well.

There's always eventual equivalence. Under the same circumstances, many Americans would gladly suicide bomb a crowded market in response to Israeli bombings of a Hamas training ground, just as many Westerners were glad to leave their homes and travel thousands of miles in order to capture and defend a location that they had no claim to all along committing atrocities the likes of which are rare in history (though not as rare as they should be). I wonder how different the Christian spilling of Saracen blood is than the Lebanese's Hebollah's spilling of Israeli blood. That's two possessive contractions in one sentence, one right after the other, btw; a personal best.

If one wants to relate like occurrences in order to illustrate commonality, one cannot relate a soldier to a "terrorist". I'd think it would be more apropos to compare either terrorism because of displacement or terrorism because of religion. We can then draw from that two groups: Native Americans during the 1600-1700s and hatred-based radical Christian groups (the kind that burn crosses, are violent towards non-Protestants and non-whites, and that bomb or attack abortion clinics).

Terrorist is a very sketchy word to me. I don't quite understand the limitations of its use. King George III referred to American revolutionaries as 'terrorists', after all, and they did use some similar tactics. And it seems to me that Bush is or was using the word 'terrorist' in a very loose 1984 sense: THE ENEMY. It's out there! It's evil! It wants to ravage your wives, arrange your children's heads on picket fences and burn your homes to the ground! We don't know quite what it is because it's incredibly vague but that's all the more reason for you to be constantly afraid and suggestible! and so on.

Quote from: "Chris Johnson"Islam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th! It is morally and ethically retarded. We can demonstrate this by asking about the intention of the society. The intent is conveniently ignored by Chomsky and other liberal "thinkers."

Actually 7th century Islam was far more tolerant and enlightened than current "Christian" society.  In the case of 14th Century versions of Christianity and Islam I'd put them on equal footing of ignorance, and nearly equivalent to current Western and Middle-eastern societies, with the 21st Century Western World being slightly better than it's 14th Century counterpart, and Middle-eastern society being the reverse.


Secondly, your use of the word liberal does not make sense in the context you are using it.  Can you clarify what you mean by "liberal"?

Quote from: "Mister Joy"And it seems to me that Bush is or was using the word 'terrorist' in a very loose 1984 sense: THE ENEMY. It's out there! It's evil! It wants to ravage your wives, arrange your children's heads on picket fences and burn your homes to the ground! We don't know quite what it is because it's incredibly vague but that's all the more reason for you to be constantly afraid and suggestible! and so on.

Exactly.  It's a new Cold War except the Soviets actually had the capability of inflicting wide-scale damage on the "West".


Here's another question to ask ourselves:  In essence, is the religious Right in this country that is currently in power any different than the theocracies of the Middle-east?

Should I have used the phrase "left-wing?" Or "America Haters?" I know this is a fairly leftward leaning forum, but I defy anyone to show that the use of the word liberal is unclear. Chomsky is far left. You can call it progressive, if you like, but I don't know enough about his political views on other issues to use that word.

Willravel, would you kindly unkink your sentence about the crowded market? Not sure I follow you on that one. Is it a crowded market in a Hamas training camp? Will all the victims be innocent or waging war on innocents?

The fact is, in the name of faith, atrocities have always been committed. I do not single out Islam for this one. But to assume that Muslims love their lives the way we do is to ignore the bare fact of the religion they have sworn themselves to. They love death, because after death, "they are in a better place." And they get honor if they take infidels with them.

There is no moral equivalence between the soldier who goes to fight as part of an army and the teenager who straps on a bomb and blows up a bus full of schoolchildren.

Put aside how you feel about our current expedition in Iraq. I don't like it much either. And equating it with a war on "terror" is something Bush should be held accountable for.

But to claim moral equivalence in these cases is to betray a very abnormal, anti-life view of morality.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Here's another question to ask ourselves: In essence, is the religious Right in this country that is currently in power any different than the theocracies of the Middle-east?

I do see them as somewhat different, although more important is the shocking similarity.  I see the "religious Right" as "authoritarian evangelicals".  And I wonder if they could eventually become indistinguishable from the Islamic theocracies.  I think the answer is "yes".

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Actually 7th century Islam was far more tolerant and enlightened than current "Christian" society

Maybe.  Surely, Islam of the past was more enlightened and tolerant than it appears to be now.  And it has certainly gone downhill.  "Christian societies" don't holding honor killings, right?  Anyway, I wonder what would be considered a typical "Christian society"?  The US?  The UK?  I have a hard time imagining these societies as less enlightened than 7th century Islam, though....

Quote from: "Mister Joy"King George III referred to American revolutionaries as 'terrorists', after all, and they did use some similar tactics.

True!  Whenever I watch some history program about the "Sons of Liberty" I always think that in the modern age our own statesmen would label these people terrorists.  Haha!

Quote from: "Chris Johnson"And they get honor if they take infidels with them.

That's the problem.  And, Christians of the past did the same --- killing Saracens in the "holy land" made you a "holy" person (as Will points out).  Doesn't it seem reasonable to suggest that they adopt this ideology because of a combination of economic/political situation and religion?

QuoteActually 7th century Islam was far more tolerant and enlightened than current "Christian" society

I'll be glad to see you back it up with evidence. Muhammad's pals killed entire Jewish tribes for not embracing Islam and then took the wives and daughters of the Jewish men killed as concubines. Is there any equivalent in the current Christian society? No Christian society today allows people to be killed for apostasy. Muhammad excused a man who had murdered his wife cause he (the murderer) argued that she had apostatized.

 

QuoteThe fact is, in the name of faith, atrocities have always been committed. I do not single out Islam for this one. But to assume that Muslims love their lives the way we do is to ignore the bare fact of the religion they have sworn themselves to. They love death, because after death, "they are in a better place." And they get honor if they take infidels with them.

I wouldn't generalize that far. Islam teaches people to become militants and to die in the battle against the infidel. But to say that all Muslims believe in that is entirely wrong. Most Muslims don't even know much of the Quran and the hadiths. It won't be fair to say that all Muslims are out to blow themselves up in suicide attacks.

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I wouldn't generalize that far. Islam teaches people to become militants and to die in the battle against the infidel. But to say that all Muslims believe in that is entirely wrong. Most Muslims don't even know much of the Quran and the hadiths. It won't be fair to say that all Muslims are out to blow themselves up in suicide attacks.

Seconded. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of Muslims are not out to blow themselves up. There are extremists, yes, but there are also extremist Christians in the west who would gladly take out a school bus in the name of their lord. There are death-worshipping lunatics wherever you go. Also, while the Christian West isn't imperialistically dominating the rest of the world, it still does so financially to a large degree. McDonald's could easily buy a small country if there wasn't international law preventing it. I'm no socialist or anything, but I can see how that would provide a lot of motivation for people like that.

Quote from: "Chris Johnston"Willravel, would you kindly unkink your sentence about the crowded market? Not sure I follow you on that one. Is it a crowded market in a Hamas training camp? Will all the victims be innocent or waging war on innocents?

I was putting Americans into the shoes of Palestinians (something rather rare considering the Western media...). The idea was to suggest that if Americans tasted desperation and tragety like the Palestinians do on a daily basis, they'd likely become 'terrorists' (actually, a more correct term would be insurgent because the Israeli government is occupying Palestine; the AN/UN didn't have the authority to establish a state after the fall of the Ottomans considering that none of the countries were members of the UN).

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "Chris Johnston"Willravel, would you kindly unkink your sentence about the crowded market? Not sure I follow you on that one. Is it a crowded market in a Hamas training camp? Will all the victims be innocent or waging war on innocents?

I was putting Americans into the shoes of Palestinians (something rather rare considering the Western media...). The idea was to suggest that if Americans tasted desperation and tragety like the Palestinians do on a daily basis, they'd likely become 'terrorists' (actually, a more correct term would be insurgent because the Israeli government is occupying Palestine; the AN/UN didn't have the authority to establish a state after the fall of the Ottomans considering that none of the countries were members of the UN).

Well slap my titties hard and call me Britney! We agree on something. I think most of our problems involving the Middle East are rooted with our aid to Israel.

Israel would be a great state if it were in Europe. It's nothing but a match thrown onto Middle East oil right now, though. Jerusalem should be international territory, Palestine should be run by a parliamentary government, and the Hezbollah should be run out of Lebanon. Possibly into the sea.

I had a really good friend die in Lebanon not too long ago during a bombing campaign. That place needs a lot more atheists.

Quote from: "Willravel"Israel would be a great state if it were in Europe. It's nothing but a match thrown onto Middle East oil right now, though. Jerusalem should be international territory, Palestine should be run by a parliamentary government, and the Hezbollah should be run out of Lebanon. Possibly into the sea.

I had a really good friend die in Lebanon not too long ago during a bombing campaign. That place needs a lot more atheists.

Holy shit....we really agree! The world, my friend, needs more secular thinking.

Quote from: "Chris Johnston"Should I have used the phrase "left-wing?" Or "America Haters?" I know this is a fairly leftward leaning forum, but I defy anyone to show that the use of the word liberal is unclear. Chomsky is far left. You can call it progressive, if you like, but I don't know enough about his political views on other issues to use that word.

You can use whatever words you like, but the problem lies in your equivocating "left-wing" and "liberal" with "america-hating".  Liberal does not necessarily mean "left-wing" nor did your use have any clarity as to what you meant by "liberal".  I had a feeling you were using it in the perjorative, and useless, sense that liberal=left=anti-america.  If you mean left-wing in a socialist sense, then say that.  If you mean left-wing in a radical anarchist sense, then say that.  

There is a great problem with the misuse and overuse of "liberal" and "conservative" today in American politics, insofar as they have lost all explicit meaning.  Democrats are not necessarily liberals, nor are Republicans necessarily conservative.

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I'll be glad to see you back it up with evidence. Muhammad's pals killed entire Jewish tribes for not embracing Islam and then took the wives and daughters of the Jewish men killed as concubines. Is there any equivalent in the current Christian society? No Christian society today allows people to be killed for apostasy. Muhammad excused a man who had murdered his wife cause he (the murderer) argued that she had apostatized.

I was actually thinking of the 700s more so than the 7th century, where the Muslims were still conquering for no other reason than they thought they should like the US is doing today.  But, they actually cared about science and knowledge and education, and a somewhat limited religious freedom that enabled the spread of knowledge to reach Western Europe.  

So, I'd say current "christian" society, and by that I mean the Bush administration and its lackeys in the UK, is less enlightened than 8th and 9th century Islam in the educational sphere, and equal in the Imperialist sphere.

Quote from: "Chris Johnston"There is no moral equivalence between the soldier who goes to fight as part of an army and the teenager who straps on a bomb and blows up a bus full of schoolchildren.

Put aside how you feel about our current expedition in Iraq. I don't like it much either. And equating it with a war on "terror" is something Bush should be held accountable for.

But to claim moral equivalence in these cases is to betray a very abnormal, anti-life view of morality.

These statements are also at a disconnect.  If you ignore how you feel about the war in Iraq, then you can claim no moral equivalence.  But, if you disagree with the war, or think it illicit, then the soldier and the suicide bomber are equivalent.  Both sides are killing for no reason other than someone told them to do it, and they believe they are right.  Whether the number of "innocent" people is higher on one side or the other is irrelevant.  Both sides have been responsible for the killing and maiming of large numbers of "innocent" civilians.

If you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent.  You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

QuoteI was actually thinking of the 700s more so than the 7th century, where the Muslims were still conquering for no other reason than they thought they should like the US is doing today. But, they actually cared about science and knowledge and education, and a somewhat limited religious freedom that enabled the spread of knowledge to reach Western Europe.

I beg to differ. They cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state? I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I don't think it can even be compared to any Islamic state.

QuoteIf you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent. You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

I beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is  morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong.

Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.

Liberals aren't "America-haters", we're just critical thinkers who are capable of constructive descent in order to improve the problems in our country. I'm sure that many conservatives had constructive criticisms when Clinton was in office. That didn't make them America-haters, did it?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"These statements are also at a disconnect.  If you ignore how you feel about the war in Iraq, then you can claim no moral equivalence.  But, if you disagree with the war, or think it illicit, then the soldier and the suicide bomber are equivalent.  Both sides are killing for no reason other than someone told them to do it, and they believe they are right.  Whether the number of "innocent" people is higher on one side or the other is irrelevant.  Both sides have been responsible for the killing and maiming of large numbers of "innocent" civilians.

If you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent.  You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

Imagine as you say, the shoe on the other foot. What if we had the perfect weapon? How would most Americans use it? Would we use it to kill indiscriminately, or would we use it to take out the hatemongers and reality-deniers who want to rule the world?

Now imagine that perfect weapon in the hands of Hamas or Hezbolla or al-Qaeda. How would they use it?

What about human shields? Would we fire through them or use the perfect weapon to miss them and hit the guiltiest? What about them? And would we even use human shields?

To equate the two sides morally is to betray a woefully underdeveloped sense of ethics and morality. And I am sorry that I don't know all the nuances of "liberal" thought to distinguish as you would prefer. My bad.

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"

QuoteIf you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent. You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

I beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is  morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong.

Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.

I couldn't agree more. Why is it that the news footage of the Arab street showed women and children rejoicing and ululating in the streets immediately after 9/11? And why don't we see that footage any more?

Any religion that teaches a)religious war as holy and b) secured place in paradise sets itself up for this kind of thing. The problem is that the Muslims tend to believe it deep in their souls. Why else would they make costume baby-bomb vests? Why else would every suicide bomber be praised as a martyr throughout the Muslim world? Why else would there be such a dearth of Muslim voices raised against it?

Quote from: "Willravel"Liberals aren't "America-haters", we're just critical thinkers who are capable of constructive descent in order to improve the problems in our country. I'm sure that many conservatives had constructive criticisms when Clinton was in office. That didn't make them America-haters, did it?

I apologize for the America Haters thing, I just threw that in there for emotional impact like those great entertainers Bill O'Really and Rush Limburger. Also because I was annoyed that someone decided to take me to task on the word "liberal." Let's not parse ourselves to death.

I do believe that most folks I would disagree with politically do love this country, and I would hate for anyone to think I would look for political conformity.

I also believe, however, that there are fringe elements, especially in the anti-capitalist, anarchist, and perhaps other camps, who would destroy what has made America great. I have a problem with those who cozy up to dictators like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, as so many of our celebrities have done.

That's an aside, not meant to change the direction of the thread, which is that there can be no moral equivalence unless one decides that all moral distinctions capricious and self-ordained.

C'est la politique. Things are bound to become very impassioned when politics is on the menu.

As atheists we have the incredible benefit of being able to consciously and independently develop an understanding of what morality and ethics are and/or should be. What this also means, however, is that when one atheist compares morality to another, they will inevitably be comparing apples to oranges without much context and prefacing. I, for example, may place more responsibility on the individual US soldier for following illegal orders than you do. For example, a US soldier who's involved in torture would be a terrorist, in my humble opinion. That may not be the case in your opinion, though, so we'd need to explore why I believe this and you don't in order to move forward. Shoot, one of us may end up changing our minds because we find the reasoning of the other party to be superior to our own. Admittedly, someone changing their mind about something political may be rare these days, but when it does happen it's nothing short of a secular miracle. We need more of said miracles.

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"They cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state?

There was no theory of evolution then, so that's a moot point.  And, plenty of the stuff they studied should contradict their beliefs, just as with christian liberal arts schools, but they compartmentalize it enough so they are showing the beauty of god's design.  The same can be said of theistic evolutionists.

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong..

So, what you're saying is one is worse than the other, but both are "wrong".
Fair enough, but, ask yourself this, which side has killed more civilians?  Is this simply a numbers game?

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others

And there have been plenty of cases of oppressed people using violent tactics such as Jews in Polish Ghettos fighting back during the Holocaust, and the Algerians during French occupation.  That's all moot.  What's good, or works or doesn't work, for one group isn't always good for another.

Also, war is not a friendly competition.  You fight it with whatever tactics you can to be successful.  Muslims using suicide bombers and IEDs are the tactics they've found to be the most successful.


Finally, some new questions are the "terrorists" as much of a threat as they've been made out to be?

Why hasn't there been any attacks in the US since 2001?  Is it because of the early success in Afghanistan?  Or, because the threat isn't that great, meaning Al-Qaeda didn't/doesn't have the capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale? Or, has the "intelligence" community stepped up its game and really discovered "sleeper cells"?

How much "terrorist" activity would be taking place in Iraq if A) the US didn't invade, or B) the occupation hadn't been bungled beyond belief?


For the third question my answer is: The Bush Administration walked right into the dream situation for Muslim extremists.  They get to kill Americans and do it while the US makes itself look bad to the rest of the world.  The War in Iraq will go down in history as one of the greatest mistakes any nation has ever made.

QuoteAnd Muslim society is not morally equivalent to Western civilization.

Morality is purely subjective. I'm sure that Adolf Hitler considered himself as moral as you or I. Morality depends on where you stand. In a morality based war, all sides have the high ground.

Whether they be a brainwashed islamic suicide bomber or a brainwashed baptist abortion clinic bomber, they are both on the side of morality, and both are breaking the law. The comparison between a suicide bomber and a US soldier is not a fair one however. Suicide bombers are brainwashed to the point that they have relinquished their humanity and have become a weapon.

QuoteIslam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th!

Many muslims are very much that way. So are a great many baptists. Creationists, for example, are waging a war against intelligence the likes of which we haven't seen since Fox TV first came on the air.

QuoteHow much effort does the American soldier take to avoid killing an infant or child, who might die while the American is trying to kill a baby-killing, life-hating, death-worshipping suicide bomber?

I am sure the typical American soldier takes much effort to avoid killing a child. Though I think a great many infants and children were killed during the 'shock and awe' campaign the goal of which was to strike terror into the Iraqis. And we'll probably never know the number of infants and children killed since, the pentagon callously seems to have no interest in a body count.

QuoteThe funny thing about those Muslim suicide bombers right up to Osama Pigfucking Bin Laden, is that they are not the poorest, most ignorant dregs of society, but generally educated far above the average in their society with a great deal more resources that those who ululate in the Arab street after they perform their "sacred duty" on unsuspecting and innocent bystanders.

I don't think Bin Laden has personally done any suicide bombing, he has ignorant dregs to do that for him.

The real issue here is not religion but power. Religion is used as a catalyst by those who seek power to get their followers to do what they want done.

QuoteIsrael would be a great state if it were in Europe.

QuoteHoly shit....we really agree! The world, my friend, needs more secular thinking.

I don't think Israel should exist as a state at all. I am personally against theocracies, islamic, christian AND jewish, so this is in fact NOT secular thinking.

I do agree that Israel's placement in the Middle East has been perceived by many muslims to be yet another in a long history of western culture slapping islam in the face. They now feel obliged to slap back.

QuoteThey cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state? I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I don't think it can even be compared to any Islamic state.

This is much like the way the US leans. I agree that the US is very much a secular society, but more and more the christian right has been gaining power. Bush himself has said that he isn't sure whether he believes in evolution.

The christian right is fighting to have creationism taught in schools, to have prayer brought back to the classroom, the 10 commandments back to the courts and to take away the rights of atheists. This is a slippery slope into a second dark age. It is important they do not gain an inch in this battle.

QuoteThere are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.

I don't really know my history on the Kashmiri hindus, but the jews did attempt to fight back during the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It was tragically unsuccessful. Also, many jews were hidden during the war and became part of the underground resistance. The resistance carried out 'terrorist' attacks on nazi targets throughout WW2. This was of course a great and brave thing for them to have undertaken.

I am by no means accepting in any way of the act of suicide bombing. I think it is an appalling act of barbarous violence. What I am saying is that when people feel oppressed, they will fight back by what means they can. The key is to win the hearts and minds of people in islamic nations so these radical imams lose their power over their cult followers. This is of course much harder than blowing them up.

QuoteImagine as you say, the shoe on the other foot. What if we had the perfect weapon? How would most Americans use it? Would we use it to kill indiscriminately, or would we use it to take out the hatemongers and reality-deniers who want to rule the world?

The US would most definitely use it. But on who depends on who the US decided to label as hate mongers, then those hate mongers would be killed indiscriminately. I am guessing that a hate monger would be anyone who might stand in the way of any US corporate interests. Then, by denying this reality, the US could rule the world.

Maybe my imagination isn't that good, but I am having a hard time conjuring up a picture of Ronald Reagan on horseback wearing a white hat while waving this perfect weapon in the air.

 :?

QuoteSo, what you're saying is one is worse than the other, but both are "wrong".
Fair enough, but, ask yourself this, which side has killed more civilians? Is this simply a numbers game?

I think the difference here is not who has killed more civilians. What I said that the American army does not target civilians. We don't have weapons that can kill only terrorists. Islamic terrorists, on the other hand target civilians and that too not only of "enemy" countries. They have known to kill musicians and authors too in case they criticize their religion. I fully agree that certain powerful nations in this world are destabilizing the world, but I think an American soldier who is in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban is morally superior to a terrorist planning to blow up a movie theater.

QuoteThis is much like the way the US leans. I agree that the US is very much a secular society, but more and more the christian right has been gaining power. Bush himself has said that he isn't sure whether he believes in evolution.

The christian right is fighting to have creationism taught in schools, to have prayer brought back to the classroom, the 10 commandments back to the courts and to take away the rights of atheists. This is a slippery slope into a second dark age. It is important they do not gain an inch in this battle.

It is only after coming on this forum I came to know about the situation in US. A local Christian pastor told on the TV that US was, unlike India, a nation of atheists! He was arguing why the movie The Da Vinci Code should be banned in India, even though it was not banned in the USA.

QuoteThere was no theory of evolution then, so that's a moot point. And, plenty of the stuff they studied should contradict their beliefs, just as with christian liberal arts schools, but they compartmentalize it enough so they are showing the beauty of god's design. The same can be said of theistic evolutionists.

I think we are talking of different things here. Perhaps you are talking of Muslim civilizations and I of Islamic education. Islamic education has been the same over the centuries, but different Muslim rules have chosen to apply various degrees of Islamic law. At least that's what I know. And I was just giving an example that they wouldn't have taught anything like evolution. I don't remember reading much about these Islamic civilizations and thinking that this is entirely against the Islamic law, though some did choose a liberal interpretation.

Another point I'd like to make is that I am not trying to say that Islam is in any way worse than other religions. I think the problem is that it is only the Muslim community where the majority believes in literal interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths.

QuoteAlso, war is not a friendly competition. You fight it with whatever tactics you can to be successful. Muslims using suicide bombers and IEDs are the tactics they've found to be the most successful.

Ever since suicide bombings have increased the condition of Muslims have, if anything, worsened. The only thing the suicide bombings have achieved is buying them a ticket to heaven.

QuoteAnd there have been plenty of cases of oppressed people using violent tactics such as Jews in Polish Ghettos fighting back during the Holocaust, and the Algerians during French occupation. That's all moot. What's good, or works or doesn't work, for one group isn't always good for another.

There is a significant difference between the above comparisons and the case with Muslim terrorists. All the violent struggles were localized. But this is not the case with Islamic terrorists. There are terrorist outfits in Muslim countries like Egypt and Indonesia, which target Western interests in those countries AND also push for the implementation of Shariat in those lands.

Muslim terrorists all over the world act as a single body. Muslim terrorists from Pakistan attack their own country cause it has been co-operating with the US, which is supporting Israel against Muslim Palestine. It is as stupid as Christians of US attacking the US because of US' close relations with Saudi Arabia, which oppresses the Christians.

The conditions of Muslims in Muslim Indonesia is quite fine, but still an Indonesian Muslim finds reason to blow up a nightclub in Bali, thereby killing around a hundred people. Please tell me this, what connection does an Indonesian have with a Palestinian apart from his religion? And yet, some people say that religion has very little role to play in terrorism.

If you remember, two Lebanese students were arrested in Germany for planting suitcase bombs on trains in 2006 cause the West insulted Islam by publishing those cartoons. Fighting oppression, right?

QuoteFinally, some new questions are the "terrorists" as much of a threat as they've been made out to be?

Why hasn't there been any attacks in the US since 2001? Is it because of the early success in Afghanistan? Or, because the threat isn't that great, meaning Al-Qaeda didn't/doesn't have the capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale? Or, has the "intelligence" community stepped up its game and really discovered "sleeper cells"?

How much "terrorist" activity would be taking place in Iraq if A) the US didn't invade, or B) the occupation hadn't been bungled beyond belief?


For the third question my answer is: The Bush Administration walked right into the dream situation for Muslim extremists. They get to kill Americans and do it while the US makes itself look bad to the rest of the world. The War in Iraq will go down in history as one of the greatest mistakes any nation has ever made.

By Islamic terrorism do you mean only terrorist activities carried out against USA? The threat of terrorism is very real for people like us who live in a city where public buses and trains have been targeted by these fanatics. Coming back to USA, wasn't the very incident of 9 11 proof that the Al Qaeda was a huge threat to the Americans? Sorry if I sound rude, but how many more 9-11s would satisfy you that the Al Qaeda is dangerous?

Yes, the war on Iraq was a grave mistake by the Bush administration. But one does not need to justify the acts of the terrorists in order to criticize the Bush administration.

QuoteI don't think Israel should exist as a state at all. I am personally against theocracies, islamic, christian AND jewish, so this is in fact NOT secular thinking.

I do agree that Israel's placement in the Middle East has been perceived by many muslims to be yet another in a long history of western culture slapping islam in the face. They now feel obliged to slap back.

I don't support the establishment of Israel, but I am firmly against trying to relocate the Israelis or anything of that sort. Unfortunately, human history has many incidents where the native people of a country were forced to give up their land for invaders. It is not possible to undo all those actions, is it? What Israel should do is stop thinking of the Arabs as inferior and take concrete actions in the direction of peace. Hamas and Co. should do the same.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"For the third question my answer is: The Bush Administration walked right into the dream situation for Muslim extremists. They get to kill Americans and do it while the US makes itself look bad to the rest of the world.

I'm not going to stand here and defend the Bush administration, but I highly doubt this is a "dream situation" for Muslim extremists.  You honestly think they'd rather be fighting the American military in Iraq, rather than blowing up civilians in the States?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Why hasn't there been any attacks in the US since 2001? Is it because of the early success in Afghanistan? Or, because the threat isn't that great, meaning Al-Qaeda didn't/doesn't have the capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale?

The only way this makes sense is if Al-Qaeda isn't real, or wasn't actually behind the 9/11 attacks.  Otherwise, how could you say they "didn't" have the "capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale"?  I call ~3000 dead, a few giant office buildings destroyed and/or damaged (including the US Department of Defense headquarters!), and 4 airplanes crashed, all in one day at the same time, convincing evidence of a "terrorist attack on a large scale".

Anyway, its not like they aren't trying.  August 2006 wasn't that long ago (Remember, the bomb plot against airplanes traveling to the US?  Foiled in the UK?  This is why you can't take liquid on the planes anymore?  The clear plastic baggy business.....)

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"The US would most definitely use it. But on who depends on who the US decided to label as hate mongers, then those hate mongers would be killed indiscriminately. I am guessing that a hate monger would be anyone who might stand in the way of any US corporate interests. Then, by denying this reality, the US could rule the world.

Honestly, these statements were a tad hyperbolic, don't you think?  Its fine if that's your opinion, but how am I supposed to take this seriously?

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"Coming back to USA, wasn't the very incident of 9 11 proof that the Al Qaeda was a huge threat to the Americans? Sorry if I sound rude, but how many more 9-11s would satisfy you that the Al Qaeda is dangerous?

I am American, and I can assure you that 9/11 was clear and unambiguous evidence to me that Al Qaeda was (and most likely still is) a serious threat to Americans.  Not to mention a whole lot of other people.  The bulk of Al Qaeda attacks, and attempted attacks, actually occur outside the US (granted, most aren't as spectacular as 9/11).  MSNBC has a map of events that illustrates this point:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4677978/

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I think we are talking of different things here. Perhaps you are talking of Muslim civilizations and I of Islamic education. Islamic education has been the same over the centuries, but different Muslim rules have chosen to apply various degrees of Islamic law. At least that's what I know. And I was just giving an example that they wouldn't have taught anything like evolution. I don't remember reading much about these Islamic civilizations and thinking that this is entirely against the Islamic law, though some did choose a liberal interpretation.

Arab and Muslim scholars under Muslim rule added to the Greco-Roman knowledge base in such fields as chemistry, mathematics, and medicine from rougly the 600s-1300s.  They also indirectly contibuted to the Renaissance in Europe because of allowing Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars to work together and translate texts while in Muslim controlled Spain.  Look up the Islamic Golden Age for more info.

Quote from: "SteveS"The only way this makes sense is if Al-Qaeda isn't real, or wasn't actually behind the 9/11 attacks. Otherwise, how could you say they "didn't" have the "capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale"? I call ~3000 dead, a few giant office buildings destroyed and/or damaged (including the US Department of Defense headquarters!), and 4 airplanes crashed, all in one day at the same time, convincing evidence of a "terrorist attack on a large scale".

Anyway, its not like they aren't trying. August 2006 wasn't that long ago (Remember, the bomb plot against airplanes traveling to the US? Foiled in the UK? This is why you can't take liquid on the planes anymore? The clear plastic baggy business.....)

Ask yourself this: Why haven't there been more attacks?  I say its because Al-Qaeda as an organization described by the Bush Administration doesn't exist.  Are there terrorists? Yes.  But not in the way they've been described.

An attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993 before anyone heard of Al-Qaeda.  Al-Qaeda has the capabilities of any terrorist or terrorist "organization", which are the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK) and to conduct indeterminate attacks in "home" countries(read Iraq, Pakistan, Spain, Indonesia).

If Al-Qaeda is a "clear and present danger" to the US in the US then why, after all the news stories about how unprotected critical targets in the US are/were, haven't there been more attacks?  I say because they aren't capable of carrying out large-scale attacks at a rate of more than 1-2 a decade.

To look at that map would serve my contention better than yours.  The attacks are centered around the "muslim world" with the US attacks about a decade apart.  This also answers the question as to whether I think the Iraq war is a dream situation for Muslim extremists.  Also, can you honestly say that all those attacks are definately Al-Qaeda?

I suggest everyone watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares" and see whose description of Al-Qaeda is closer to the bullseye; the Bush admin. or Adam Curts(the guy who did the documentary).

QuoteArab and Muslim scholars under Muslim rule added to the Greco-Roman knowledge base in such fields as chemistry, mathematics, and medicine from rougly the 600s-1300s. They also indirectly contibuted to the Renaissance in Europe because of allowing Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars to work together and translate texts while in Muslim controlled Spain. Look up the Islamic Golden Age for more info.

There was never any prohibition in Islam against researching Chemistry, Mathematics or Medicine. Even today fundamentalist Muslims encourage the research in these fields for the welfare of the Muslim community. Islamic Golden Age is half myth and half reality. Non Muslims were treated well in Islamic countries only after they had accepted the status of a dhimmi, a second class citizen. And I am not even talking about the treatment of women and adultery laws.

QuoteAsk yourself this: Why haven't there been more attacks? I say its because Al-Qaeda as an organization described by the Bush Administration doesn't exist. Are there terrorists? Yes. But not in the way they've been described.

An attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993 before anyone heard of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has the capabilities of any terrorist or terrorist "organization", which are the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK) and to conduct indeterminate attacks in "home" countries(read Iraq, Pakistan, Spain, Indonesia).

And yet you somehow come to the conclusion that they aren't dangerous. Is it no big deal that 3000 Americans die, say once in a decade and countless Shias, Sunnis, Christians and Hindus die in the "home" countries like the ones you mentioned?

I don't know how Bush projected the Al Qaeda situation in the US, but Al Qaeda is an umbrella organization. It has contacts with many jehadi outfits all over the world but has not carried out all these attacks. Many were carried out by the local jehadi outfits.

QuoteIf Al-Qaeda is a "clear and present danger" to the US in the US then why, after all the news stories about how unprotected critical targets in the US are/were, haven't there been more attacks? I say because they aren't capable of carrying out large-scale attacks at a rate of more than 1-2 a decade.

1-2 attacks a decade will mean killing 6000+ people and that too only on the US soil. I wonder how anyone can say that's fine.

QuoteTo look at that map would serve my contention better than yours. The attacks are centered around the "muslim world" with the US attacks about a decade apart. This also answers the question as to whether I think the Iraq war is a dream situation for Muslim extremists. Also, can you honestly say that all those attacks are definately Al-Qaeda?

If anything, this supports the argument that US shouldn't have attacked Iraq. But that doesn't mean that Al Qaeda is not a danger to the world. I hope you don't think it is OK that these fanatics go on carrying out attacks in the "Muslim world"?

The points you have made argue that the Bush has bungled the war on terror, not that Muslim terrorist organizations are not a threat to the world and also not that a terrorist is morally equivalent to a soldier.

QuoteMuslim terrorists all over the world act as a single body. Muslim terrorists from Pakistan attack their own country cause it has been co-operating with the US, which is supporting Israel against Muslim Palestine. It is as stupid as Christians of US attacking the US because of US' close relations with Saudi Arabia, which oppresses the Christians.

I think that's being a bit paranoid. There is no proof to support this. The delusion that all muslims are unified under a common cause is the same as saying that all christians are the same. Ask any protestant if their beliefs are the same as that of a catholic.

QuoteThe US would most definitely use it. But on who depends on who the US decided to label as hate mongers, then those hate mongers would be killed indiscriminately. I am guessing that a hate monger would be anyone who might stand in the way of any US corporate interests. Then, by denying this reality, the US could rule the world.

Honestly, these statements were a tad hyperbolic, don't you think? Its fine if that's your opinion, but how am I supposed to take this seriously

Not at all. The question was 'if the US had a perfect weapon do you think they would use it indiscriminately.' My answer is 'yes.' No hyperbole at all.

The second phrase is hyperbolic to poke fun at the right wing fantasy about the US being a mythical hero righting all the wrongs in the world. A hyperbole is an exaggeration to make a point, but it doesn't remove any credibility from that point. Sorry you didn't get it.

Smarmy Of One:

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"Not at all. The question was 'if the US had a perfect weapon do you think they would use it indiscriminately.' My answer is 'yes.' No hyperbole at all.

Can you give me some reason for why you hold this opinion?  The reason I ask is that the United States, as a nation, has some truly impressive weaponry --- and yet I don't see the nation employing these weapons in an "indiscriminate fashion".  Perhaps we're going to argue over what a "perfect" weapon is, :lol:  .

For what its worth, I agree that the original statement:

Quote from: "Chris Johnson"Would we use it to kill indiscriminately, or would we use it to take out the hatemongers and reality-deniers who want to rule the world?

is equally "hyperbolic".  :wink:  

But - the important point is that the US (and other nations) have the capability to use immensely powerful weapons (i.e. Nukes) in an indiscriminate fashion and yet refrain from doing so.  If Osama Bin Laden could contrive to detonate a nuclear device within the boundaries of a nation like the US I sincerely believe he would do it.

If the terrorists are unwilling to kill indiscriminately, then why did they hijack airplanes with unknown passenger lists and use them to crash into buildings with unknown occupants?

If the US is willing to kill indiscriminately then why is it employing expensive precision munitions when any old cheap-arse bomb will do the job?  Why bother fingerprinting and identifying Iraqis so that it can be determined which ones are the insurgents?  Why not just kill 'em all, sort through the bodies later?

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"The second phrase is hyperbolic to poke fun at the right wing fantasy about the US being a mythical hero righting all the wrongs in the world.

Surely, that is a fantasy.  I certainly agree.

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"A hyperbole is an exaggeration to make a point, but it doesn't remove any credibility from that point. Sorry you didn't get it.

My point was that the statements were exaggerations (hyperboles), so what didn't I get?  :?  

donkeyhoty:

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Ask yourself this: Why haven't there been more attacks? I say its because Al-Qaeda as an organization described by the Bush Administration doesn't exist. Are there terrorists? Yes. But not in the way they've been described.

I have no doubt that the description of the terrorists as a large hierarchical organization (do they have an org chart?  :lol: ) composed of 1000's of agents in sleeper cells does not exist.  I agree - this is B.S.  But - the fact that the description is exaggerated does not mean there are no terrorist groups and that those terrorist groups are not dangerous.  Smarmy just illustrated that same point:

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"A hyperbole is an exaggeration to make a point, but it doesn't remove any credibility from that point.

Okay,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"An attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993 before anyone heard of Al-Qaeda.

Indeed - and people died of the flu before anyone heard of a virus.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Al-Qaeda has the capabilities of any terrorist or terrorist "organization", which are the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK) and to conduct indeterminate attacks in "home" countries(read Iraq, Pakistan, Spain, Indonesia).

We are in agreement on this point.  Isn't "the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK)" a worrisome ability to have?  Does this not constitute a clear threat to the US?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"If Al-Qaeda is a "clear and present danger" to the US in the US then why, after all the news stories about how unprotected critical targets in the US are/were, haven't there been more attacks? I say because they aren't capable of carrying out large-scale attacks at a rate of more than 1-2 a decade.

There are a few things that I object to here.  I don't really care about the qualifier "in the US".  Are they a clear and present danger?  I say yes.  Is this always a danger to the US "in the US"?  Who cares where?

If you're right, and the only reason there have not been further attacks is because it takes 5 to 10 years for them to pull another one off - then what should we be doing to prevent another attack?  Has anything done by the US and other foreign nations made any difference at all?

If the terrorist organizations have lost some of their ability to operate due to impact of US and multinational military, law enforcement, and intelligence activities, wouldn't this also explain why there have been less attacks in the US recently?  Isn't it possible that some of the actions taken by the US and other nations has had some effect on the terrorists?  Even if they weren't optimal?  

Anyway - since we both agree there are terrorists, even if they can only conduct a major attack every 5 to 10 years, I am in complete agreement with bitter_sweet_symphony when he says:

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"1-2 attacks a decade will mean killing 6000+ people and that too only on the US soil. I wonder how anyone can say that's fine.

About the map,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"To look at that map would serve my contention better than yours. The attacks are centered around the "muslim world" with the US attacks about a decade apart. This also answers the question as to whether I think the Iraq war is a dream situation for Muslim extremists. Also, can you honestly say that all those attacks are definately Al-Qaeda?

Just a reminder, my contention was:

Quote from: "SteveS"I am American, and I can assure you that 9/11 was clear and unambiguous evidence to me that Al Qaeda was (and most likely still is) a serious threat to Americans. Not to mention a whole lot of other people. The bulk of Al Qaeda attacks, and attempted attacks, actually occur outside the US (granted, most aren't as spectacular as 9/11). MSNBC has a map of events that illustrates this point:

Dude - I specifically mentioned that Al Qaeda is a threat to others as well - the bulk of the attacks (and attempted attacks) occur outside the US.

Also, to say the US attacks are about a decade apart seems erroneous to me.  There are 5 incidents on the map within the US that occurred (although not all were successful, they were still attempts, right?):

2 in 1993
1 in 1994
1 in 1999
1 in 2001

I make this 5 events of significance in 8 years.

Can I be 100% sure all these events were conducted by Al Qaeda?  Of course not.  Primarily because I agree with you that the description put forth by the administration, the "political propoganda", if you will, is not correct.  But - what difference does it really make?  I'll happily change my statement to:

"I am American, and I can assure you that 9/11 was clear and unambiguous evidence to me that terrorist groups were (and most likely still are) a serious threat to Americans."

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I suggest everyone watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares" and see whose description of Al-Qaeda is closer to the bullseye; the Bush admin. or Adam Curts(the guy who did the documentary).

I think a more fair comparison would be Adam Curtis vs. Rush Limbaugh or some other ridiculously partisan source.

My problem is that I can't really trust partisan sources.  They tend to be so transparently biased that I find a hard time drawing anything meaningful from their commentary.  Whether it appears in a documentary film or not.

I don't think you have to accept the extreme left's position to be critical of the position of the extreme right.  I don't think its wise to use the zeal of our dislike for the Iraq war to convince ourselves that Al Qaeda doesn't exist and/or isn't a significant threat.

I don't think its wise to use the ineffectiveness of the war in Iraq to convince ourselves that the awareness and cooperation in intelligence gathering and sharing has had no effect on the ability of the terrorist groups to operate.  If anything good has fallen out of the 9/11 attack, surely the increased willingness of nations to cooperate in their efforts to apprehend terrorists and foil mass-murder plots is that one good thing.

Well spoken, Steve.  :cheers:

Quote from: "Willravel"Liberals aren't "America-haters", we're just critical thinkers who are capable of constructive descent in order to improve the problems in our country. I'm sure that many conservatives had constructive criticisms when Clinton was in office. That didn't make them America-haters, did it?

Liberals are what makes Mann Coulter very wealthy. That's a lot, assholes! :wink:

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"And yet you somehow come to the conclusion that they aren't dangerous. Is it no big deal that 3000 Americans die, say once in a decade and countless Shias, Sunnis, Christians and Hindus die in the "home" countries like the ones you mentioned?

Where did I say terrorists aren't dangerous?


For clarity sake here's what i'm saying:  
1.Al-Qaeda as an "umbrella" organization doesn't exist in the way many people say it does.  Does it exist? Yes, but it's no more dangerous than Hezbollah or Abu Sayyaf, and probably much less so than those two.  When fighting terrorism there is no singular organization and to assume so hamstrings the entire fight.
2. The War in Iraq has done more to perpetuate muslim extremism than OBL ever did.
3. You might think the Islamic Golden age a myth, but advances made by Arab/Muslim scholars to the Greco-Roman tradition were transferred back to the "West" because of religious freedom in Muslim controlled Spain.
4. The War on Terror has been a complete failure because of its mismanagement.  There could have been advances made in Afghanistan, but the Bush Admin. decided to fight a war in a country with little, or nothing, to do with terrorists and 9/11.  
5. If there is to be a War on Terror, and not the attempt at economic imperialism which is at hand, it cannot be fought based upon nations or megalithic boogeymen like Al-Qaeda.  Every situation and organization is different and must be approached as such. - The US should have learned this lesson with the Cold War.  The Communists were not all working together to take over the world, and treating every situation where a government wanted to become more "socialized" led to countless problems, unnecessary deaths.  And it shouldn't be ignored that most of the "communist" countries today exist where the US opposed communism the most heavily, e.g. North Korea, Vietnam, China, and Cuba(although the last two were mostly support not direct action).

Quote from: "SteveS"I think a more fair comparison would be Adam Curtis vs. Rush Limbaugh or some other ridiculously partisan source.

My problem is that I can't really trust partisan sources. They tend to be so transparently biased that I find a hard time drawing anything meaningful from their commentary. Whether it appears in a documentary film or not.

A. What's the difference between Bush and Limbaugh?
B. Have you seen it?  If yes then I'll accept your criticism.  If not, then watch it(it's long) and make up your own mind.
C. Show me a true "bipartisan/non-partisan" source that proves Al-Qaeda exists in a way approximating the Bush Administrations contention.
C-2. What is a non-partisan/bipartisan source?
D.You already agree that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist as the boogeyman it's portrayed as making your opinion nearer to Curtis than you may know(unless you've seen the doc already)

Quote from: "SteveS"2 in 1993
1 in 1994
1 in 1999
1 in 2001

I'd say that's 2 attacks and 3 plots, one of which morphed into the 9/11 attacks. So, that's a roughly 50% success rate.  There was also two bomb attacks by non-muslim extremists in that time period: the Ok. City Bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing.  Al-Qaeda is no more dangerous than any other group, or person, determined to carry out an attack.  How has the War in Iraq affected "domestic" terrorists?


If, as you've decided to say, Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as any thing else, and the efforts against terrorism have been effective as you also contend, then how can you say that Al-Qaeda is still a clear and present danger?

To me, if the anti-terror efforts have been effective, and taking into account the 50% success rate of Al-Qaeda in the US, and their propensity for attacks in the "muslim world" it seems fairly clear that Al-Qaeda is not a clear and present danger to the US in the US. This supports no. 5 above.  

We are going about the War on Terror in completely the wrong way.  Any success in Afghanistan was erased by Iraq.  The War on Drugs also stops a lot of cocaine from coming into the US.  Some people would call that effective, I wouldn't.  What both these "wars" don't do is proactively reduce the causes for terrorism or drug use/cultivation.  If we are going to continue to fight the War on Terror the way we are, we will lose the same as the War on Drugs was lost.  Although, the War on Drugs was a mistake in the first place, unlike the War on Terror, it could have had success if fought correctly.  A lot of the same people were responsible for waging both "wars", so take that for what it's worth.

Quote from: "SteveS"Indeed - and people died of the flu before anyone heard of a virus.

This has nothing to do with anything, unless you want to continue using Al-Qeada as synonymous with terrorism.  And, since you are no longer using Al-Qaeda as a synonym with terrorism, what's your point?

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"not that Muslim terrorist organizations are not a threat to the world and also not that a terrorist is morally equivalent to a soldier..

Once again, I never said terrorists weren't dangerous, only that Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as its made out to be, and that terrorist organizations aren't as much of a threat to the US in the US as imagined.  And I use the "US in the US" because, unfortunately, that's what the War on Terror is about; making the USA safe from terrorism.  Helping the rest of the world is secondary to protecting American interests.  Saving the world only happens when there are American intersests at stake, or enough public outcry where there are no American interests.

Warfare is not a moral act.  You fight with whatever tactics serve you best(as I've said before).  It is more advantageous for the US armed forces to be selective in their use of lethal force, both for morale(of troops and citizens) and to accomplish the "mission" they were assigned.  The terrorists are using a different set of tactics to accomplish their "mission".  

You may support one side or the other, but chances are both sides will use "immoral/amoral" acts to win. e.g. torture.  Morality has nothing to do with war, but you at least hope there are applied ethics involved, i.e. no torture.


And since we've used the words Al-Qaeda and terrorism so much in this thread, let me be the first to say G.W. Bush for Emperor.

QuoteOnce again, I never said terrorists weren't dangerous, only that Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as its made out to be, and that terrorist organizations aren't as much of a threat to the US in the US as imagined. And I use the "US in the US" because, unfortunately, that's what the War on Terror is about; making the USA safe from terrorism. Helping the rest of the world is secondary to protecting American interests. Saving the world only happens when there are American intersests at stake, or enough public outcry where there are no American interests.

I partially agree with you here. I have always maintained that the Iraq war was absolutely unnecessary in safeguarding American interests and the only end it achieved was destabilizing a country. But I don't think this has much bearing on the topic is terrorists are morally equivalent to a soldier.

Secondly, since we are speaking about the "mission" of terrorists, let me point out that most unfortunately the "mission" of terrorists isn't just ending Western occupation in Palestine or Kashmir. It is the establishment of a state according to their interpretation of Shariat where all kinds of human right abuses take place. So it isn't just killing civilians, but many other factors too because of which I feel that terrorists with a religious agenda are the worst people on this earth.

Quote3. You might think the Islamic Golden age a myth, but advances made by Arab/Muslim scholars to the Greco-Roman tradition were transferred back to the "West" because of religious freedom in Muslim controlled Spain.

Religious freedom doesn't have much to do with the advancement of chemistry or medicine because nothing in Chemistry or Medicine contradicted the Quran in any way. I suggest you look up a few stuff about the status of the "people of the book" that is, the Xtians and Jews in an Islamic state and the rights of a dhimmi during the "Golden Age of Islam". The punishment for an apostate has always been death, unless he repents. I really can't see how you can credit the Islamic states with religious freedom.

QuoteCan you give me some reason for why you hold this opinion? The reason I ask is that the United States, as a nation, has some truly impressive weaponry --- and yet I don't see the nation employing these weapons in an "indiscriminate fashion". Perhaps we're going to argue over what a "perfect" weapon is,  .

Don't get me wrong, I think that ANY country would use this hypothetical 'perfect weapon' if they had it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In 1945 the atom bomb was close to what could be considered a perfect weapon at the time. A couple of pilots could bring an entire country to it's knees. The US used that weapon twice and both times on civilian targets.

So there is a history there.

There has very recently been discussion by various political pundits of tactical nuclear weapons being used in the middle east. I think the only thing that stops this is fear of repercussions. If the US was the only country in the world to have nuclear weapon technology, I have no doubt that they would use it. Again, I think this is true for any country.

QuoteLiberals are what makes Mann Coulter very wealthy. That's a lot, assholes!

The people buying her shit are the ones who are making her wealthy. And that IS a lot of assholes.

Hey Smarmy,

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"Don't get me wrong, I think that ANY country would use this hypothetical 'perfect weapon' if they had it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

(and the rest that followed)

Fair enough, dude.  I catch your drift and take your meaning.

donkeyhoty - cheers on the excellent response - It'll take me a bit to answer.  I am, regrettably, mired in "real world" concerns (i.e. work) over this weekend.

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I really can't see how you can credit the Islamic states with religious freedom.

I'm not crediting them all with "religious freedom", and freedom is probably the wrong word, "tolerance" is a better one.  Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other "thinkers" gathered in the muslim world during the "golden age" with many examining ideas that could be considered "secular" e.g. Al-farabi and Averroes.  Also, plenty of things in science contradict religion, i.e. logic.  All that is needed to ignore it is compartmentalization.  

Also, I've heard of dhimmi and it is religious tolerance.  And, during the "golden age" it is a much more tolerant practive than any in Christian society of the same time period.  And, the real discrimination of dhimmi didn't start until the Crusades started, and forced conversions took place about as much as christian society.

I think the reason for lack of acceptance of the Islamic Golden Age is a, well-earned, prejudice due to the actions of Islamic societies since then.  In essence, Islamic societies have gone backwards in terms of "enlightenment" and the Christian West has gone forwards(although were idling in neutral at the moment).  Christianity expanded and persecuted "pagan" religions.  But, that does not mean the Renaissance didn't take place or wasn't important just as the "golden age" is not erased by the actions of Muslim theocracies of today.  "Golden Age" is a relative term anyway meaning it was the best it ever was under Muslim rule, which historically is correct.

QuoteI'm not crediting them all with "religious freedom", and freedom is probably the wrong word, "tolerance" is a better one. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other "thinkers" gathered in the muslim world during the "golden age" with many examining ideas that could be considered "secular" e.g. Al-farabi and Averroes. Also, plenty of things in science contradict religion, i.e. logic. All that is needed to ignore it is compartmentalization.

I don't believe that saying that "I won't kill you if you admit you are inferior to me", which is what an Islamic state demands of a Christian or a Jew, is religious tolerance. It isn't just about the jizya, but the various other restrictions placed on them.

And we haven't even discussed the rights of a person following a non-Abrahamic religion.

I do agree that Islamic society at that time was better than many other contemporary societies, but that doesn't mean much. Just like it doesn't matter much if Saddam was a better dictator than Hitler.

QuoteI think the reason for lack of acceptance of the Islamic Golden Age is a, well-earned, prejudice due to the actions of Islamic societies since then. In essence, Islamic societies have gone backwards in terms of "enlightenment" and the Christian West has gone forwards(although were idling in neutral at the moment). Christianity expanded and persecuted "pagan" religions. But, that does not mean the Renaissance didn't take place or wasn't important just as the "golden age" is not erased by the actions of Muslim theocracies of today. "Golden Age" is a relative term anyway meaning it was the best it ever was under Muslim rule, which historically is correct.

Perhaps, but it isn't the case with me. It isn't that I don't accept the existence of the Islamic Golden Age. I just disagree that there was religious tolerance.


Peace.

Hey donkeyhoty, I've had a chance to digest your last response to me.  There is a lot I agree with, but some I disagree with.

About the 5 points:

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"1.Al-Qaeda as an "umbrella" organization doesn't exist in the way many people say it does. Does it exist? Yes, but it's no more dangerous than Hezbollah or Abu Sayyaf, and probably much less so than those two. When fighting terrorism there is no singular organization and to assume so hamstrings the entire fight.

You agree that Al Qaeda exists, but draw objection to the exact definition.  My point was that I agree that Al Qaeda is not a vast network of 1000's of sleeper cells with organized trained troops etc.  For example, when the news says that US planes bombed an encamped of "Al Qaeda troops", I find this hard to believe.  I don't think of Al Qaeda as having "troops".  Also, I think any so-called "insurgents" in Iraq are being lumped under the Al Qaeda umbrella, which also seems clearly wrong to me.

However Al Qaeda exists, though, it seems reasonable to me that they were instrumental in carrying out several terrorists actions over the past decade, and some of these were definitely on US soil.  Does Al Qaeda still represent a clear and present danger to the US in the US?  Maybe no longer to the same extent as they did.  But, I believe that they most certainly did, as evidenced by history.  So - if this has changed, why?  I have to accept that some of the actions of the war on terror have had an effect.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"2. The War in Iraq has done more to perpetuate muslim extremism than OBL ever did.

And yet, before the war in Iraq there were streets full of happy people shouting (or whatever that tongue-waggling thing is :wink: ) after the 9/11 attack.  And OBL seems to enjoy near folk-hero status in nations like Saudi Arabia.  While I certainly don't doubt that the war in Iraq has engendered animosity against the US, I think saying this war has done more than OBL is at best inconclusive, at worst exaggerated.  On the other hand, I don't know how much OBL "did" to "perpetuate muslim extremism" depending on how we read this.  I think a lot of extremism existed - perhaps OBL just gave it some practical application.  In which case he surely has done a damaging thing - he's inspired the extremists to believe that they can be successful - that they can kill Americans effectively with terror tactics.  So - did he "perpetuate muslim extremism" or just "encourage" it?  I guess I don't really know.  

Getting back to the "moral equivalence" point of this thread, I think it is foolish to view men such as OBL as anything other than tremendous threats.  Keep in mind that when the terrorists blow things up they don't really ask what your politics or religion are - they kill everyone within the blast radius.  How can this tactic be viewed as anything other than morally and/or ethically atrocious?  Surely none of us are ever going to agree on everything.  We can either find peaceful means of co-existing or working out our differences, or we can blow each other up until only one ideology remains.  I can't speak strongly enough against the terror tactics as moral outrages that endanger all civilized nations.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"3. You might think the Islamic Golden age a myth, but advances made by Arab/Muslim scholars to the Greco-Roman tradition were transferred back to the "West" because of religious freedom in Muslim controlled Spain.

Meh.  Sorry - I don't really care about this one.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"4. The War on Terror has been a complete failure because of its mismanagement. There could have been advances made in Afghanistan, but the Bush Admin. decided to fight a war in a country with little, or nothing, to do with terrorists and 9/11.

Agree and disagree.  I don't think the war on Terror has been a complete failure.  I think there was early success if Afghanistan, and I think the prevention of further mass murder plots speaks to the effectiveness of heightened awareness and proper respect of the threat of terrorism.

I agree that the connection between terrorism and the political leadership of Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) was either very weak or non-existent, and that invading Iraq to combat terrorism seems absurd.  Whatever the "real" reason for invading Iraq, it seems clear that the invasion was not conducted in accord with the stated reasons, and cannot possibly have a level of effect against terrorism to justify the tremendous consequences of the action.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"5. If there is to be a War on Terror, and not the attempt at economic imperialism which is at hand, it cannot be fought based upon nations or megalithic boogeymen like Al-Qaeda. Every situation and organization is different and must be approached as such. - The US should have learned this lesson with the Cold War. The Communists were not all working together to take over the world, and treating every situation where a government wanted to become more "socialized" led to countless problems, unnecessary deaths. And it shouldn't be ignored that most of the "communist" countries today exist where the US opposed communism the most heavily, e.g. North Korea, Vietnam, China, and Cuba(although the last two were mostly support not direct action).

I agree with the bulk of this block.  There are excellent points in here, and I take them to heart.  

I don't know how to feel about the accusation of "economic imperialism".  Certainly it doesn't help to have the Halliburton corporation so heavily involved in the Iraqi oil fields.  This seems either shameful or idiotic to me.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"A. What's the difference between Bush and Limbaugh?
B. Have you seen it? If yes then I'll accept your criticism. If not, then watch it(it's long) and make up your own mind.
C. Show me a true "bipartisan/non-partisan" source that proves Al-Qaeda exists in a way approximating the Bush Administrations contention.
C-2. What is a non-partisan/bipartisan source?
D.You already agree that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist as the boogeyman it's portrayed as making your opinion nearer to Curtis than you may know(unless you've seen the doc already)

The difference between Bush and Limbaugh is the same as between somebody like James Carville and Pres. Clinton.

The president has to make his case to the public (and world) at large.  If there are problems with what he says the opposition will be sure to call him out.

People like Limbaugh and Carville are primarily addressing people who are already biased.  They can say whatever these people want to hear without fear of assertive scrutiny.  The other side will bash them, but they'd bash them anyway, so they simply write the criticism off as biased criticism!  I find this entire process ridiculous.

The popular press has categorized this film as partisan film making and have drawn comparisons between it and the work of Michael Moore (although it appears the film maker is highly annoyed by this).  There has been strong critical reaction debunking the claims.  And, my problem with all these conspiracy-theory-type films is that they don't seem to obey rational sense - if a strong and compelling case, that stands to scrutiny and critical analysis, can be made that Al Qaeda either doesn't exist or isn't dangerous, then why isn't the powerful and well-funded political opposition to the Bush administration (i.e. the Democrats) using these facts to shred him?  Why is it coming from a documentary film maker?

I don't have any stronger desire to watch these films than I have a desire to read a book written by Bill O'Reilly.

I find the findings of the so-called 9/11 Commission far more credible.  For one, the Reps accused the Dems of exaggerating the mistakes made by the Bush administration while downplaying the mistakes made by the Clinton administration.  The Dems level the exact opposite charge.  Nobody really denied the mistakes were real.  If the commission was set-up to be biased by Bush, why so many accusations of lack of cooperation between the White House and the commission?  Why the hanky-panky over the White House withholding information?  Why would they do that if they had stacked the commission?  I find this sort of "controversy" normal and healthy, and far more likely to belie truth somewhere at the bottom of it all.

If you want to level the criticism that I haven't seen the film and therefore can't offer up any meaningful opinion - then I'll just have to accept that.

I would observe that this is not the first charge of this kind to be leveled - Michael Crichton and John Stossel argue that global warming isn't real, and that the environmental movement is either making the whole thing up or vastly exaggerating it for the same reason - control and power through fear.  

And no, I don't have any desire to attend one of their lectures either.  I find this idea just as ridiculous as the idea that Al Qaeda is nothing but a neo-con fantasy.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I'd say that's 2 attacks and 3 plots, one of which morphed into the 9/11 attacks. So, that's a roughly 50% success rate. There was also two bomb attacks by non-muslim extremists in that time period: the Ok. City Bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Al-Qaeda is no more dangerous than any other group, or person, determined to carry out an attack. How has the War in Iraq affected "domestic" terrorists?

Who ever suggested the war in Iraq would have an effect on domestic terrorism?  I don't mean any offense, but why would you expect me to argue that point?  I have no desire to do so.  Nor do I believe the war in Iraq would have any effect on domestic terrorism (sort of goes without saying - but I felt it best to be clear  :wink:  ).  Nor do I believe the war in Iraq has been particularly effective at combating/preventing terrorist attacks.  There is a difference, is there not, between the war on Terror at large and the invasion of Iraq?

I agree that "terrorism" and "Al Qaeda" are not synonymous.  Do you agree that the "war on Terror" and the "war in Iraq" are not synonymous?

Back to it, I think there are surely other dangerous groups besides Al Qaeda, and the ultimate danger is the source thinking that creates these sorts of actions (I'm not at all sure how to combat that  :wink:  ).  However, I think that there are credible ties between Al Qaeda and both attempted and successful attacks on US soil.  I think this demonstrates that they were a large danger - are they still?  I can't believe they've been destroyed, particularly given the continuance of attacks in other nations.  But, if they're less of a risk now, surely forgetting about them and calling them vanquished, even denying that they are a threat, is a tragic mistake?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"We are going about the War on Terror in completely the wrong way. Any success in Afghanistan was erased by Iraq. The War on Drugs also stops a lot of cocaine from coming into the US. Some people would call that effective, I wouldn't. What both these "wars" don't do is proactively reduce the causes for terrorism or drug use/cultivation. If we are going to continue to fight the War on Terror the way we are, we will lose the same as the War on Drugs was lost. Although, the War on Drugs was a mistake in the first place, unlike the War on Terror, it could have had success if fought correctly. A lot of the same people were responsible for waging both "wars", so take that for what it's worth.

I don't think the success in Afghanistan is totally "erased" by Iraq.  I don't think Iraq was a good idea, and I don't see it as helpful.  But I think some of the efforts in the war on Terror have been solid.  For example, I find it unlikely that US government officials will write off identified threats in the manner they did before 9/11.  I think other nations are the same.  I think the awareness of the world's nations, and the cooperation of intelligence and law enforcement to stop attacks, is a strong positive and is having the most useful impact.

The war on Drugs was a bust.  You know my feeling on drugs from our discussion on the Illegal Drugs (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic866-0-asc-0.html) thread.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"This has nothing to do with anything, unless you want to continue using Al-Qeada as synonymous with terrorism. And, since you are no longer using Al-Qaeda as a synonym with terrorism, what's your point?

My point was trying to humorously illustrate that just because nobody heard of the group before an action later linked to them doesn't mean that the group doesn't exist.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Once again, I never said terrorists weren't dangerous, only that Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as its made out to be, and that terrorist organizations aren't as much of a threat to the US in the US as imagined. And I use the "US in the US" because, unfortunately, that's what the War on Terror is about; making the USA safe from terrorism. Helping the rest of the world is secondary to protecting American interests. Saving the world only happens when there are American intersests at stake, or enough public outcry where there are no American interests.

The reason I believe in the threat of Al Qaeda is because I believe the link between the organization and some of the terrorist attacks that have occurred in the US and abroad is real.

If our interest is preventing terrorist attacks from gaining success, even though there are many terrorist groups, I don't understand how denying their existence is going to help.

For example, earlier you cited Hezbollah and Abu Sayyaf - although a clear and directed link may not exist between these groups and attacks that have occurred in the US, I think it would be equally foolish to proclaim them non-dangerous on the grounds that they have yet to accomplish any major attacks against the "US in the US".

One final blurb that goes back to the thread topic in a more direct fashion,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Warfare is not a moral act. You fight with whatever tactics serve you best(as I've said before). It is more advantageous for the US armed forces to be selective in their use of lethal force, both for morale(of troops and citizens) and to accomplish the "mission" they were assigned. The terrorists are using a different set of tactics to accomplish their "mission".

You may support one side or the other, but chances are both sides will use "immoral/amoral" acts to win. e.g. torture. Morality has nothing to do with war, but you at least hope there are applied ethics involved, i.e. no torture.

Citing warfare as amoral, and then proclaiming moral equivalence to all the actions that occur under the umbrella of "warfare", is not something I agree with.

I think the attempted military conquest of Europe by the Nazi government in Germany (i.e. WWII) was morally and ethically wrong.  I do not, however, find a moral equivalence between the actions of a solider in the Wehrmacht and an SS officer at Auschwitz.

Flip this around and the point stands equally well - I think it was morally justifiable for the United States to defend itself from the Empire of Japan  after the attack at Pearl Harbor.  However, I do not find a moral equivalence to an American sailor fighting in the navy and an American government official rounding up Japanese civilians into concentration camps.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"And since we've used the words Al-Qaeda and terrorism so much in this thread, let me be the first to say G.W. Bush for Emperor.

Dude!  Admitting Al Qaeda exists and is dangerous is equivalent to blind support of G.W. Bush?  Admitting terrorism exists and should be combated is equivalent to supporting an authoritarian government?

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"

QuoteI was actually thinking of the 700s more so than the 7th century, where the Muslims were still conquering for no other reason than they thought they should like the US is doing today. But, they actually cared about science and knowledge and education, and a somewhat limited religious freedom that enabled the spread of knowledge to reach Western Europe.

I beg to differ. They cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state? I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I don't think it can even be compared to any Islamic state.

QuoteIf you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent. You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

I beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is  morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong.

Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.

These are good thoughts. It wasn't just that science and mathematics didn't contradict their evil book, it's that their religion left them no arts except geometric ones. No representation of a living thing leaves very little but a compass and a straight-edge.

Also, with regards to unarmed civilians. In some cases, the unarmed "civilians" are operating as willing human shields and abettors to those who want to kill Israeli or American children and the aged. In this case those people have forfeited their "civilian" status and even though they should be legitimate targets, the United States puts its own citizen-soldiers at risk by going out of its way to avoid collateral casualties.

Compare that moral stance to blowing up a bus full of babies, old folks, women, etc. Hmmm. Equivalent?

You'd have to have a warped sense of right and wrong to think so.

If we were oppressed, who do you think Americans would fight? Do you think we'd try to murder kids? If you do, you need your head examined.