So then what do they both have in common that makes them extremist and violent? If you claim that they are very different, but the one thing they have in common is that they are both Muslim...hmmm. Your argument is problematic. That way, one has to bow to the lowest common denominator sensitivities of a religious group just because some other members of that group might be offended by something. THEY need to change. They need to become more tolerant. It's not right that the rest of the world should cater to their inferiority complexes and lack of tolerance.
Some A hole Spursfan on Spurstalk made a comment about "Timothy McVeighing the Thunder in OKC" This has had me reading and watching docs on the Bombing. What a ****ing tragedy. 19 Children killed in a day care. I don't ever what to see something like that happen ever again. Sorry for the rant.
As rocketsjudoka said, it's probably a mix. I am not going to pretend that I have the perfect solution. I'd say part of it is dropping bombs on terror camps, yes, but education and avoiding giving reasons to let the other side demonize you are also important. Basically, one should not do things which, as one thread title here stated, let "the world doubt the moral basis for our fight against terror" (torture = bad, no due process for captured opponents = bad, civilian casualties = bad, unnecessary provocation (like soldiers burning qurans) = bad, etc.). On the other hand, sometimes one has to fight fire with fire.
You're showing exactly what I was warning against. You believe Islam makes them violent and that colors your perception of them. It is really just the flip side of Al Qaeda saying this is a war on Islam and that Muslims need to band together to defend themselves. True, Islam is something that they share in common but they also have many differences. The problem though is that when they perceive that the West is out to attack Islam as a whole then they will be more likely to turn to extremists rather than when it might just be an attack on a small subset. Its essentially uniting to face what is perceived as a common enemy. Of course they need to change but peace is a two way street and largely what happens in the Islamic world isn't much in the control of Non-Muslims. Anyway you are still trying to look at the Islamic world as a whole rather than considering the diversity of it which is my point. Muslims in Saudia Arabia are very different from Muslims in Malaysia and Muslims in Malaysia is very different from Muslims in America. They are all three Muslim but it doesn't mean they are the same.
Nope. It is not the flip side. Look at your own argument: You say they are completely different, but they have two things in common: Islam and violence. Yet, you seem to say that it has nothing to do with Islam. What would you base that view on? If anything, stressing the differences between them would make it more likely that it does have to do with Islam. I understand what you are saying, but what is the consequence? You cannot criticize any member of a club or take actions against that member, no matter how badly that member behaves - because it might piss off other members of the club? That is bad logic. That means they would exercise power over others and "protect their own", even if they do bad things. So the problem here is on the side of those who solidarize with someone just because he shares the same religious beliefs. They need to learn. If someone prepares for terror in terror camps and incites hate against the West, they need to be dealt with. Bowing to them because it might piss off other members of the same religion if you deal with these aggressors is the wrong way. I don't say they are the same. But if they are not the same, then they need to realize and express why they are not the same, and distance themselves from the haters and extremists.
1. Mind USA's own business. 2. Make a policy working for people instead of the benefits of big cooperations. since there is no way USA can do 1 and 2, terrorism will not be stopped.
That's the problem - Islam always wants a perceived enemy. It does not matter what the West does, the West, and the US in particular, will always be seen as the enemy regardless of what we do. Islam needs a scapegoat to explain it's inferiority to the West and also to non-Western nations like India, China, S. Korea, etc.
The best way to fight terrorism is to strengthen homeland security with personnel highly trained in counter terrorism and withdraw all forces in foreign lands and not to interfere with regional hot spots(giving a **** ton of money to Israel). This creates a lower recruitment drive since these uneducated people who cling on to religion have a smaller reason to hate us.
Exactly my point made here. If we continue to think like this there will always be a reason for some uneducated poor kid to be easily influenced by some mullah.
I'm going to ask you a very simple question. Do you think our invasion of Iraq and our long unwarranted stay in Afghanistan increased or decreased recruitment of violent jihadists?
9/11 happened before Afghanistan and Iraq. People will find a reason to hate. Afghanistan and Iraq just serve the haters as a convenient excuse to label their hate as "just a reaction". Plus, if so many people in Afghanistan were not so ass-backwards, they would realize that the international troops were there to help them. But I guess some would rather be ruled by the freaking Taliban.
hmm... I guess the only way to truly stop terrorism is if these kids in countries like Pakistan can enjoy life. In other words strong educational reform and opportunities after they finish their education. Hopefully one day these kids will vent their frustration on the right people(their own government) and reform can be made from the inside.
and some would like to have their mothers, fathers, children, wife or husband alive and not dead from the crossfire between the Taliban and NATO forces.
Your diatribes on this topic are decidedly less academic and polite as of late, ATW. For what it's worth, I think Judoka is accurate to an extent. Islam is just a convenient rallying cry; it's not necessarily the instigator (although, I submit, it can be).
