Islamic terror: the solution

[Lancaster]

Sebbysteiny, your post reeks of oneuppism and idiocy. It is nothing but racism and undocumented dribble - which is the same as fanaticism in my honest opinion.

 

So it's the 21st century and Christianity has developed? Into what, exactly? I suggest reading the Guantanamo Bay thread for a nice example of what a "Christian" country does.

 

Like Buffy says, terrorism is terrorism, no matter what. There is no justification for it. It has no color, really.

 

I recommend that you start backing up your claims with some documentation (multiply Nazism by ten? Man do you know no decency?).

 

Most Muslims are average joes and janes, just like the rest of us on this rocky outcrop of the solar system. They just happen to live in countries ravaged by dictatorship, religious fanaticism, and Western colonialism.

 

There is no excuse for terrorism. And there is no excuse for using terrorism as a case in point to generalize about a couple of billion people on Earth.

 

 

How can you compare Guantanamo Bay to Islamic Terrorism? Is maltreating prisoners worse than strapping a bomb to yourself and running into streets crowded with women and children just to kill an American Soldier? Is flying a plane into two office buildings filled with civilians the same as taking a picture of a naked terrorist? Guantanamo is there to put those people away, to protect others from them. Some people forget that. And Christian Churches have absolutley nothing to do with Guantamo. That was a desicion by a few soldiers to mistreat prisoners, no priests.

[sebbysteiny]

Buffy,

 

Please address these issues if you wish to be taken seriously here...

 

If you want to be seriously addressed, then being rude and slightly patronising is not a good method. However, I'll let you off this once.

 

You may also ask why I presented this view here. The reason is because I want it to be subject to scrutiny so that if there are any problems however slight, they will be exposed.

 

Unfortunately much of your post is more rhetoric than criticism. You say I hadn't dealt with your examples when infact I have. Further, I have had alot of arguements from all types of angles, and whilst I felt I have dealt with everything, by all means, if you want an answer to a particular question, just say so. Also, you say I havn't given 'evidence' but this is not a political scientific paper and I can't give detailed references to every point I make.

 

I have to assume that you are aware of the facts I state. If you wish me to support some facts with evidence, you will have to tell me which ones because I don't have the time to find evidence to every minute detail.

 

On that note, I'll try and deal with all the questions you posed as I see them.

 

The only issue I see you have made in your first post which I have not addressed is

Unfortunately, its not that we need to coddle and appease the radicals, what we need to do is steal their thunder by "winning the hearts and minds" of he folks in the middle.

 

However, I think this is assuming that 'the folks in the middle' have some kind of rational justification. Unfortunately, because 'the folks in the middle' have no real understanding of the concept of absolute truth, you are fighting an impossible battle. If we were to 'bomb them with food' they will not thank us. Some would see it as weakness and many would just dismiss it as a zionist plot to manipulate them. They would then cite the 'killings of Muslims' in London, Iraq, Afghanistan as a better source of revealing the true evil nature of the West's desire to crush Islam.

 

The reason is that all states will have weaknesses and will make mistakes. All it takes, for example, is one soldier to act beyond the strict controls of the Western army in which he serves in a criminal way and the Arab world (including the vaste majority of moderates) will leap to the rediculous conclusion that this is a deliberate Western plot to kill Muslims and that we cannot be trusted.

 

You could try to create a theoretically perfect society, but as long as men have guns and as long as shells cannot be fired with perfect accuracy, there will be deaths and there will be 'more evidence proving the dishonest intentions of the West'. This conclusion is clearly irrational and occurs because rumours and clerics are a more trustworth souce for many as a tribunal of fact and academic opinion.

 

Instead, we need to show miderate Muslims that simply because an accident of war happens, it does not make it a crime that proves a dishonest intention. These things would be clear if the concept of absolute truth was accepted by the entire moderate Muslim community in the same way as it has been by Western society.

 

Perhaps this is a better way of explain the problems with the 'hearts and minds' arguement. We the west quite clearly want nothing better than to live in peace without being bombed by a small minority of another community. We clearly have no interest in killing Muslims for fun. All rational evidence based arguments point to this clear truth. However, the irrational arguments are at least as effective for moderate Muslims and as long as we are fighting the PR battle on irrational grounds and irrational and sometimes fabricated allegations are believed by many, we will win few hearts and minds no matter what we do.

 

I've stated several examples above and you've ignored them. You need to explain why somehow the Revolutionary Guards in the Cultural Revolution were any different as terrorists.

 

In my previous posts I explained the main distinction between Islamic terrorism and other kinds of terrorism. Read that post. However, to summerise, essentially other terrorist orginsations aim to damage economic targests whist Islamic terrorists main aim is to kill as many 'infidel' 'enemies of Allah' as they possibly can to establish a global Muslim Calophate. Communism and other brutal regimes also do have some regard for the life of their representatives whilst Islamic terror believs argmigeddon needs to occur for the second coming of the profit so deterence will not work on them.

 

If you have any further questions after reading my posts, ask.

 

Moreover, you've definitely painted all Muslims as monolithicly radicalized which also does not seem to have any evidence to support it. You at least take as a given that all Muslims support the radical elements, possibly simply through their silence. It should be noted that many people in the world point at the "silence" with which moderate Christian groups do not very actively denouce neo-Nazis or murderers of abortion clinic employees, etc. etc. Why is this any different?

 

Firstly, as before, tell me evidence you wish me to provide.

Secondly, I have never claimed that most moderates support the fanatics at all. That is patently false. In a recent survey in Britain, only 6% support the fanatics and a large minority of moderate Muslims (24%) sympathise with the bombers. What I have said is that the belief system of moderates Muslims MAKES MODERATE MUSLIMS MORE VULNERABLE TO FANATICAL INDOCTRINATION THAN ANY OTHER CULTURE. This is my main reasoning why suicide bombing are an exclusively Islamic phenomina.

 

Also, I have not talked about solutions, but if I did, then the moderate Islamic community would play a large part. Since you raise the possibility of the moderate community being less silent about terrorism, I'll happily discuss it.

 

Essentially there are two reasons why the moderate community must not remain silent. Firstly, the Islamic terrorists believe that the religion of Islam justifies such attacks. Therefore, the moderate Muslim community should be aware of the implications that has on the image of them and, simply for PR reasons, make strong statements condemning the incident and disassociating their religion with the actions of those terrorists. This will help to allay reasonable fears from those who do not understand Islam. Secondly, the Islamic fanatics depend on the idea of being justified under Islam. Strong statements and actions from the moderate community could go some way to winning 'hearts and minds' in a way that any possible action by Western governments cannot.

 

Why is this different from abortionists? That's a good question and I'll give it some thought. My immediate instinct is that it is because abortion doctors are murdered in essentially Christian countries with a majority Christian population. Thus the message need not be sent because the message is already known and understood. The threat is also not against everyone and so it is not a potentially explosive matter that can cause mistrust and fear. Further, those comments would have no effect on the Christian fanatics.

 

Another way to look at it is the way all kinds of governments condemn suicide attacks against London, New York or Israel. These governments are not responsible for the suicide attacks, but their statements provide a well needed symbol of solidarity which will make a painful situation more dealable.

 

The only thing you seem to point to as different--the "advent" of suicide bombing--is painfully transparent. The Crusaders willingly charged to their deaths to "liberate" the holy land. While many more recent terrorists have had strategies that seem to indicate that they would like to fight another day, this is actually an outgrowth of the 20th-century notion of warfare in *general* that not getting your troops killed helps you win battles: the fact that these so called "terrorist generals" like bin Laden are *too stupid* to realize this, is only balanced by the fact that it is a good recruiting tool, but again not new: ever seen the opening scene of "All Quiet on the Western Front"? "Patriotism" and "willingness to die for the Fatherland" have been around for a long time! The only reason this all seems novel to you is that you seem to be insisting on ignoring history.

 

This arguement is one of your weakest. Of course people are willing to die for causes. People have set fire to themselves in protest to the WTO for example. Further, hero's in war have killed themselves to save the lives of their comrades. However, in none of these instances do people give their lives not to save lives but to take them from innocent civilians who posed no threat whatsover.

 

Your long list of questions are non-sequiter to your argument because the have nothing to do with Islamic beliefs. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims live in countries where there is no free press, and the ruling authorities have *intentionally* used misinformation is the reason for these "beliefs". And I'll have to ask you: is this really any different than the majority of American's believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

 

I have never claimed that Islam is responsible for the belief systems of most moderate Muslims. I believe it is mainly cultural and that simply picking up the Koran and believing it will not give you these beliefs.

 

As for your 'reasons' for these beliefs, I couldn't agree with you more. If, as I say, the solution to fanatical Islamic terrorism is to change the belief system of the moderates, then the causes you have identified will be essential considerations. However, I have not made any assertions about why these beliefs are prevailant in the Moderate Muslim community, only that they exist and are different to that of the Western moderate.

 

And to answer the question whether a large minority believing Saddam was responsible for 9/11 is similar to 9/11 being caused by a 'zionist plot' in which OBL is totally innocent, I say no. Saddam was undisputably a large destablising factor of the Middle East. This instability has led to the death culture that is provailant in many terror supporting nations (eg he actually funded suicide bombers in Israel). Therefore there is something to be said for Saddam's regime being a cause of 9/11. However, nobody believes that 9/11 was caused by Saddam's agents and that OBL is totally innocent. One is thus an academically interesting debate of socio-economic cause and effect, whilst the other is plain nonsense built upon a deep mistrust of the West.

 

Any more question?

 

To sebbysteiny

- Sorry if simplification is evil

- People when ignorant are more gullible than you think.

- The so called brainwash education given to the fanatics is normally not even believed fully by the 'educator'

- The reason that such fanatics are exclusive to muslims only is because for now the terror lords have recently found that religion is a powerful motivating factor when well manipulated.

- Muslim teachings in the Koran are what I talked about, not what the brainwashers spread.

I haven't said simplification is evil. I have said that your theory may rely on that simplifaction and your theory may not work if you dealt with the process of brainwashing in anything other than a simplified way and that it may only appear to work on a superficial examination because it RELIES upon the false simplification. Basically, expand on the brainwashing mechanism in a way that locking people up for a bit of time will give the brainwashes what they need to generate suicide bombers.

 

I also think you are wrong to say the fanatics themselves don't believe their brainwashing. I believe they do and I also believe that is a good logical argument that could be highly pursasive to the moderate Muslim to enter into fanaticism. These logical arguements rely upon the belief system of the moderate.

 

The point about the 'terror lords' only recently having discovered the influence of religion is a little odd. Regime leaders have realised the political power of religion for thousands of years, with the king of Israel (the original version) using Jeudism to make his population more subservient, and with the Roman empire using Christianity to unify it during times of deep devisions. Further, Crusades and Jihads of the middle ages are very similar to the actions of the 'terror lords'.

 

Also, yes, people when ignorent are gullable, but it is not the ignorent that is most prone to Islamic terror: it is the intellectual elite.

 

 

Lastly, I think we have reached a consensus on one point. The Quoran is not the cause of Islamic terror.

[pgrmdave]

Do you believe that 6,000,000 Jews died in the holocaust? A majority of moderate Muslims believe this is a fiction.

 

Do you believe that the 9/11 attacks was simply a zionist plot to frame Muslims? A large minority of Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that suicide bombings in cafes and night clubs in Tel Aviv (a town in Israel) is morally justified and that those commiting such acts of terror are 'martyrs' and heros? A majority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that women are inferior to men and that it is okay to hit them if they are not obedient? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that you should enforce your own religious law on all of mankind even those who reject your religion? A majority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that it is morally justified to disgrace, shun and even physically attack, any member of the Muslim community who is gay or changes religion? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that it is a very negitive thing for you or your family to have any non-business contacts whatsoever with those outside your religion? A majority of Muslims do.

 

And for all those moderate muslims that do not agree with any of the above, a large majority of them find these opinions very acceptable.

 

Show us your sources, show us the surveys taken, show us the credibility of those sources. Until I see some credible sources supporting all of those statements, they are nothing more than words on a page.

[sebbysteiny]

Show us your sources, show us the surveys taken, show us the credibility of those sources. Until I see some credible sources supporting all of those statements, they are nothing more than words on a page.

 

Sure. I'm not going to justify every one of those statements, because of research time. However, I think the following is a good justification for most of them.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/23_06_06_pew_global_attitudes_project.pdf

 

or if that doesn't work, go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/5110364.stm and click on the report.

 

The report is a very comprehensive study that is scientifically approved discussing Muslim and non-Muslim opinions. Although there are some parts I think are a little misleading [for example, many Muslims state that 'because all Israelis serve in the IDF at one time of there life and because they are all living on lands that they do not own, they are not civilians and so whilst suicide bombing against cililians is not okay, suicide bombings against Israelis is a noble act], most of it illustrates well many of the points I have made.

 

I couldn't urge you more strongly to read the following article in the BBC and, if possible, watch the whole Panorama program in which many of the statements I have made originate.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4166402.stm

 

A transcript of the program (if you can't watch it) is available here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm

 

You might also find the following article in Christian Science moniter interesting http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1106/p1s1-wogi.html

 

However, I agree further evidence may needed on some issues which I will provide if you ask me to.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sure. I'm not going to justify every one of those statements, because of research time. However, I think the following is a good justification for most of them.

 

A statement you won't justify is just noise.

 

I read your pew center research, and this is the only one that has ANY support in that document.

 

Do you believe that the 9/11 attacks was simply a zionist plot to frame Muslims? A large minority of Muslims do.

 

And the exact question was "do you believe the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Arabs?

 

Which I think is a little different from "zionist plot" but I'll grant you the disturbing on that result.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

A statement you won't justify is just noise.

 

I read your pew center research, and this is the only one that has ANY support in that document.

 

acchh, your giving me a headache. If you want me to provide evidence supporting any fact just quote the fact and I'll provide the evidence.

 

The survey also showed evidence for the mistrust that the Muslim Community has towards Westerns and how many dislike Western society. It also showed a large minority have sympathies for the terrorist strikes in London with a small minority actually supporting them. It showed that Muslims have a very negitive view of Jews and some populations had a negative view of Christians too.

 

The transcript of the BBC Panorama progam gives very strong evidence of the strong support from many Moderate Muslims have for suicide bombings in Israel along with the strong disrespect for the 'Kuffa' and the fact that those muslims disagreeing with such views nevertheless find them very acceptable.

 

Also, please note, i only wrote that post about an hour ago. I'm not a machine. I think I did damned well finding such strong evidence to support as many of the facts I have claimed in such a short time.

[sebbysteiny]

If you want to find evidence of all the above in the specific case of the moderate Muslim Palestinian population check out http://www.pmw.org.il/

 

This site also proves, contrary to what someone else said, that Yasser Arafat and 'Fatah' are not genuinely secular orginisations.

[sebbysteiny]

I have found overwhelming evidence of widespread holocaust denial in almost all middle Eastern countries.

 

However, no evidence either way as yet for holocaust denial in UK and other western moderate Muslim populations.

 

Nevertheless, much of my evidence comes from actually talking to Moderate Muslims, which I strongly recommend that you do if you are interested.

[pgrmdave]

The survey also showed evidence for the mistrust that the Muslim Community has towards Westerns and how many dislike Western society. It also showed a large minority have sympathies for the terrorist strikes in London with a small minority actually supporting them. It showed that Muslims have a very negitive view of Jews and some populations had a negative view of Christians too.

 

So, they don't like us, and many of us don't like them. We've engaged in two wars in the region and support Israel, a nation which has killed many muslim civilians. I don't blame them for thinking poorly of us.

[pgrmdave]

Do you believe that women are inferior to men and that it is okay to hit them if they are not obedient? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

There was nothing backing this statement up, I suspect you only wrote this out of personal experiance, which is a poor way to decide what a "large minority" of Muslims think.

 

 

Do you believe that you should enforce your own religious law on all of mankind even those who reject your religion? A majority of moderate Muslims do.

 

There were a few individuals supporting people who support this in that transcript, but nothing more. Definitly not a majority of moderate Muslims.

 

Do you believe that it is morally justified to disgrace, shun and even physically attack, any member of the Muslim community who is gay or changes religion? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

There are segments of all populations (excluding homosexuals and those who change religion) who believe that, it would only be something important if you were able to show that not only do a large minority of moderate Muslims believe it, but that a substantial percentage more than normal believe it.

 

 

Do you believe that it is a very negitive thing for you or your family to have any non-business contacts whatsoever with those outside your religion? A majority of Muslims do.

 

Yet another fact that is not backed up. Where did you originally get this information when you posted them, or did you just post what you felt was probably true without any real research?

[sebbysteiny]

So, they don't like us, and many of us don't like them. We've engaged in two wars in the region and support Israel, a nation which has killed many muslim civilians. I don't blame them for thinking poorly of us.

 

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern in your criticism. This is mostly leftist thinking in which we blame ourselves for every act done against us. I don't believe Muslims have a right (ie legitimate reasons) to think poorly of us as I suspect most people on this forum agree.

 

For starters, Israel isn't the only nation that kills Muslims. The sudanese Arab Muslims are committing genocide against black Muslims and the assylem seekers in other Arab countries from those countries are also very badly treated. But moderate Muslims don't care about this. Saddam Huissain himself killing thousands of Iranian Muslims and Palestinians (although he later become one of their supporters). No moderate muslims care. The only differences with Israel is that although Israel only deliberately kills people trying to kill innocent Israelis, it is not a Muslim nation and it has been used as a scapegoat in the Arab world for almost 70 years, if not more.

 

Do you believe that you should enforce your own religious law on all of mankind even those who reject your religion? A majority of moderate Muslims do.

 

There were a few individuals supporting people who support this in that transcript, but nothing more. Definitly not a majority of moderate Muslims.

Those few individuals just so happened to be the formost leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain and have been widely hailed as respected moderates and have even been on many occasions personal advisors to Tony Blair. Further, there has been no backlash or condemnation by the moderate Muslim community. If you cannot accept that as evidence, I don't know what you will accept.

 

Do you believe that women are inferior to men and that it is okay to hit them if they are not obedient? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

There was nothing backing this statement up, I suspect you only wrote this out of personal experiance, which is a poor way to decide what a "large minority" of Muslims think.

 

I have not had time to research everything to find the facts. Perhaps you can assist me by finding some evidence yourself (one way or another)?

 

Do you believe that it is morally justified to disgrace, shun and even physically attack, any member of the Muslim community who is gay or changes religion? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

There are segments of all populations (excluding homosexuals and those who change religion) who believe that, it would only be something important if you were able to show that not only do a large minority of moderate Muslims believe it, but that a substantial percentage more than normal believe it.

 

I agree with your criteria. Although it is very easy to prove in the Middle East Countries (eg Palestinian territories where homosexuals are lynched, driven from their homes and murdered regularly often having to rely on their enemy 'Israel' for some kind of protection), finding a survey or other smoking gun dealing with this procise point for moderate Muslim minorities in Western nations is hard and will take time. Perhaps you could assist?

 

Do you believe that it is a very negitive thing for you or your family to have any non-business contacts whatsoever with those outside your religion? A majority of Muslims do.

 

The transcripts showing the contempt of the 'Kuffer' explains this to a certain degree. If not, the actual program showed this in clear detail.

 

 

 

But on a general point, the evidence on which I have formed these views where accumulated with time. It is very difficult to show you every source I have read to reach these views. I have found the most compelling evidence from articles in newspapers (quotes of these people) often when they are not talking about this specific topic. I would suggest that you be aware of these suggestions and you will come accross some good evidence in time as long as you know what to look for. Also, try and talk to moderate Muslims on this topic if you can. Sometimes they will be on a stall encouraging Islam, or maybe in a chat room. Just remember to keep your questions to the point and not get distracted by a diversion (ie political style avoiding the question) and just keep asking the question until you get a clear answer. Then do this a few times and hey presto, you get a good idea of moderate Muslim opinion. Keep your enquisitive and challenging mindset but don't dismiss evidence just because it doesn't suit your conclusions.

 

 

 

Having said that, you have shown me no evidence that these statements are false.

 

What I will say is, if I am right, then any serious attempt to stop Islamic terror must have as a major focus an attempt to change the belief system of many moderate Muslims. Further, if you are right, moderate Muslims already have an identical belief system to us so trying the put moderate Muslim opinion at home and in the Middle East in line with ours should not be difficult. Clearly, my solution will involve regular studies of how prevailant the above beliefs are within moderate Islam compared to moderate Western citizens.

[pgrmdave]

I think I'm beginning to see a pattern in your criticism. This is mostly leftist thinking in which we blame ourselves for every act done against us. I don't believe Muslims have a right (ie legitimate reasons) to think poorly of us as I suspect most people on this forum agree.

 

I disagree - I think that they have as many reasons to think poorly of us as we do of them. (by the way for all you observers, notice that ad hominem attack, branding my post as "mostly leftist thinking")

 

For starters, Israel isn't the only nation that kills Muslims. The sudanese Arab Muslims are committing genocide against black Muslims and the assylem seekers in other Arab countries from those countries are also very badly treated. But moderate Muslims don't care about this. Saddam Huissain himself killing thousands of Iranian Muslims and Palestinians (although he later become one of their supporters). No moderate muslims care. The only differences with Israel is that although Israel only deliberately kills people trying to kill innocent Israelis, it is not a Muslim nation and it has been used as a scapegoat in the Arab world for almost 70 years, if not more.

 

[bold added by me]That's a rather blanket statement, don'cha think? None? Not a one of them? So, if I was able to find just a single muslim who cared I would refute that sentance. And I don't support any killing, of any human. Israel kills innocent people just like Palestine kills innocent people. It doesn't matter who kills who, or what either person did. The truth is that killing people is wrong, even if the person being killed has killed others.

 

 

 

 

Those few individuals just so happened to be the formost leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain and have been widely hailed as respected moderates and have even been on many occasions personal advisors to Tony Blair. Further, there has been no backlash or condemnation by the moderate Muslim community. If you cannot accept that as evidence, I don't know what you will accept.

 

Leaders of any groups don't necessarily represent the group in their thinking. I can think of certain prominent Christian leaders (Fred Phelps) who don't represent the community. So no, I don't accept what a few people, no matter how important they are, to represent the thoughts and feelings of millions.

 

 

 

you have shown me no evidence that these statements are false.

 

You are trying to shift the burden of proof.I don't need to provide evidence, you are the making claims. It is not up to us to find refuting evidence, but up to you to find supporting evidence. If I had said the opposite of what you say, I would have to support those statements.

 

What I will say is, if I am right, then any serious attempt to stop Islamic terror must have as a major focus an attempt to change the belief system of many moderate Muslims. Further, if you are right, moderate Muslims already have an identical belief system to us so trying the put moderate Muslim opinion at home and in the Middle East in line with ours should not be difficult. Clearly, my solution will involve regular studies of how prevailant the above beliefs are within moderate Islam compared to moderate Western citizens.

 

I think that any large religious system can be used for good or for bad, it depends on what parts of the texts you focus on. I believe that most humans in the modern world understand the need for tolerance.

[sebbysteiny]

You are trying to shift the burden of proof.I don't need to provide evidence, you are the making claims. It is not up to us to find refuting evidence, but up to you to find supporting evidence.

 

I believe that most humans in the modern world understand the need for tolerance.

 

Where is your evidence for this claim? In the 1930's not one nation understood the need for tolerance. After the holocaust, Western countries learnt and we have kept our lessons for 60 years. However, the idea that the whole world has learnt the importance of tollerance is patentaly false. The Middle East is one example of an area where such lessons have not been learnt. This I can back up with loads of evidence right now. Just take a spin on http://www.pmw.org.il/

 

Seriously, this is not a court of law and you are not suing me. The burden of proof exists on neither of us. We are simply pursuing truth. If you can't prove me wrong then you must acknowledge that what I say is a valid model of Islamic terrorism that deserves to be seriously considered and possibly acted upon. If I can prove everything right, then you can't dispute it it it must be acted upon. However, it is a practical impossibility for me to find evidence that represents a 'smoking gun' for every sentence I discuss. I have a life.

 

This is why if you are very interested in proving certain facts beyond all doubt, then you must help me out.

 

However the proof I have given has certainly given very strong evidence backing statements I have made.

 

Another fundamental piece of evidence is my understanding of the Arab Muslim mindset. I have seen many documentaries and spoken to many moderate Muslims in UK and throughout the world. Perhaps, since you are asking for proof for every conclusion my experiences have drawn, you could outline your experience with the moderate Muslim world.

 

Leaders of any groups don't necessarily represent the group in their thinking. I can think of certain prominent Christian leaders (Fred Phelps) who don't represent the community. So no, I don't accept what a few people, no matter how important they are, to represent the thoughts and feelings of millions.

 

Firstly, it is not just who these people are but how little backlash they have recieved that matters. Secondly, it is becoming clear when you dismiss what is frankly a genuine smoking gun outright as if it provides no evidence whatsoever, no amount of evidence is likely to change your rigid mind.

 

That's a rather blanket statement, don'cha think?

 

Fair enough. Change the word "no" to "very few".

 

The truth is that killing people is wrong, even if the person being killed has killed others.

 

This is a very common leftist statement. However I seriously dislike it because it equates purpertrators of crimes against humanity with their intended victims who try to defend themselves. Were you devestated by the injustice of Al Zarqawi's death in Iraq or does, like many on the Left, your equality between the murderers and the murdered, only apply to some countries but not to others? That particular view is also prevailant in the Middle East.

 

I think that any large religious system can be used for good or for bad, it depends on what parts of the texts you focus on.

 

As I have said before, every contributor has reached a consensus on that. The issue is not what the Quoran says, but what is the belief system of moderate Muslims.

 

WARNING!!

 

As much as I admire the academic necessity of finding evidence to support statements, this thread is getting a little silly. It is not about discussing the nuances of evidencial certainty. One cannot even prove that any person other than yourself exists and sometimes some people will never believe something no matter how much evidence you throw at them.

 

Instead, all attempts to put an unrealistic burden of proof on me will be ignored. If someone wants me to find evidence supporting a fact then I will only do so if they make such an effort themselves by providing at least some evidence challenging my statements.

 

Special note to pgrmdave

 

The reason I am suggesting my model is that it explains all the facts well. Nobody I have spoken to has come up with a model that explains things as well as this model. I came here to see if the highly intelligent people on this forum could give me new ideas and come up with a better alternative and, if you don't like my explanation, then I invite you to lay down your explanation so you can make a greater contribution than simply saying 'prove this, prove that'.

[Edella]

I came here to see if the highly intelligent people on this forum could give me new ideas and come up with a better alternative

Alternative to what?Your opinions on the matter? You've been given lots of alternatives.Solutions? If you offered one I missed it.

 

As much as I admire the academic necessity of finding evidence to support statements, this thread is getting a little silly

And that statement is probably the silliest of them all.

 

The reason I am suggesting my model is that it explains all the facts well.

What model?A series of generalizations does not a model make.

[sebbysteiny]

Edella, have you even read any of my original posts? I think not.

 

Please read them and then make a contribution. Anybody who does not know the model I'm suggesting that is the cause of Islamic terror has clearly made no effort to understand the problem. It is found on page 3 second post down. Further, if you are challenging my knowledge of the moderate Islamic community, perhaps you could explain from where you developed your insight?

 

And while your at it, prove that I exist beyond all doubt. Then, 100 years later you might see why I am cutting back on fivilous demands of my time to waste hours of my time in reasearch finding evidence which, no matter how convincing, will never be enough.

 

I'm sorry you find the ideas of finding an alternative idea so difficult. Must be tough coming up with original thought. However, the purpose of this post is to find solutions to Islamic terror. To do that, one must correctly identify the cause. The problem is, every other suggestion for the cause mentioned thus far fails to account for material and obvious facts and / or contains absurdities. Only mine explains all the material facts.

 

Now I admit that it does require a flexible mind to question political correctness in a way that does not overstep the mark into racism, but I find this better than the alternative: to let Islamic terror get worse and worse through willful blindness. Further, if the political mainstream is too scared to question the effects of unquestionable cultural differences, and therefore belief systems, then only the national front will do so and with horrific consequences.

 

Further, I do not tollerate disrespectful posts which make no attempt to understand the arguements I make. Another post demonstrating an unwillingness to read will be ignored.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Do you believe that women are inferior to men and that it is okay to hit them if they are not obedient? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Okay, just as an example. I assert that you this statement is actually true of people named "Franklin" as well.

 

Can you prove me wrong? If you assert something to be a fact it is incumbent upon you to prove it to be true, especially if you are going to later base your reasoning on it.

 

For the record, I tend to agree with you that there is something within Muslim thought that makes terrorism 'acceptable.' I disagree with your assertion that it is unique.

 

That said - you accusing people of being "close-minded" while you toss about facts that you "don't have time" to verify doesn't speak well to the rest of your argument.

 

You should really verify the statements you expect us to take as fact before you get pissed off when we won't. For the record, however, you have established that this -

A majority of surveyed Muslims in the Middle East any Europe do not believe the 9/11 attacks were the work of Arabs.

 

As a fact. The rest of it is just bull.

 

Which is fine - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you make an argument based upon it.

 

I'm just saying - manure makes a lousy foundation for an argument.

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

Where is your evidence for this claim? In the 1930's not one nation understood the need for tolerance. After the holocaust, Western countries learnt and we have kept our lessons for 60 years. However, the idea that the whole world has learnt the importance of tollerance is patentaly false. The Middle East is one example of an area where such lessons have not been learnt. This I can back up with loads of evidence right now. Just take a spin on http://www.pmw.org.il/

 

My evidence that most people are tolerant simply comes from the fact that the majority of people are not violent. There may be many people who are, but it's fewer than 50%. The middle east is a violent place and has been for millenia. I don't think that we could make it peaceful, although we can obviously make it more violent.

 

Seriously, this is not a court of law and you are not suing me. The burden of proof exists on neither of us. We are simply pursuing truth. If you can't prove me wrong then you must acknowledge that what I say is a valid model of Islamic terrorism that deserves to be seriously considered and possibly acted upon. If I can prove everything right, then you can't dispute it it it must be acted upon. However, it is a practical impossibility for me to find evidence that represents a 'smoking gun' for every sentence I discuss. I have a life.

 

This may not be a court of law, but it is a science-based website, where any 'fact' provided should have evidence behind it. It is not the way of science to produce a theory and force other people to disprove it, it is up to the person who provides the theory to support it with evidence. So far you have provided some evidence, but not much that seems to hold for majorities of moderate muslims. I understand that it is difficult to do research, and I don't expect you to have instant results. I originally assumed that you hadn't made up the things you posted and had sources behind them from the start.

 

it is not just who these people are but how little backlash they have recieved that matters

 

The same can be said of our leaders. President Bush led us into Iraq claiming that we knew where the WMDs were. Not that we thought he had them, but that we knew he had them and we knew where they were. He called North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'. And yet there wasn't massive backlash. Is it on the same level as the muslim leaders? Not quite, but it is the same principle - we entered a war under bad intelligence, and we are using rhetoric against entire nations without there being huge uprisings. In fact, he won the popular vote the second time.

 

This is a very common leftist statement. However I seriously dislike it because it equates purpertrators of crimes against humanity with their intended victims who try to defend themselves. Were you devestated by the injustice of Al Zarqawi's death in Iraq or does, like many on the Left, your equality between the murderers and the murdered, only apply to some countries but not to others?

 

I'll ignore the 'leftist' comment this time. Al Zarqawi was a terrible person who helped kill many innocent Iraqis and US Soldiers. As such, he deserved to be punished, but not killed. I mourn less for him than I do for the 9/11 victims, but that is more because he chose to be in war than because he killed others. I do not believe that anybody deserves death. Life in prison without parole, probably, but not death.