God is With them? That is utterly disgusting. I am a muslim, yet instead of simply listening to cleric's (which by the way are illegal in Islam, each of us is just as close to God as the other, no religious caste) words and rage, if you read the religion it is a lesson in humility, serenity and peace. WOMEN IN ISLAM The Final Prophet of Islam, Muhammad ( After such Prophets as Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc) met his wife through his business, and she was a thriving businesswomen. She was educated, respected and they were friends and companians before they got married. She dressed Modestly, as is the way muslim women AND MEN are supposed to carry themselves, and never covered her face like the women in Afghanistan are meant to do. Women in Early Islamic Arabia c. 700 AD were some of the first women ever to be given the right to vote, as well as that of inheritance. WAR IN ISLAM Muhammad, in regards to war, had very strict disciplines in which the people were to fight. No one would be killed if he was surrendering. No women, children, elderly are to be killed in battle. It is illegal to kill even prisoners of war. JIHAD The term Jihad literally means "Struggle." The prophet once stated after a war, that the true Jihad now begins as Muslims strive to be better people, more educated, Godly people. Jihad seems to be a phrase used frequently simply as a call to arms and it seems in Afghanistan its being used as a rally to uneducated, impoverished people. I feel organized religion here and abroad can be an opium to the masses in order for them to stay in line and not revolt because this life is but a drop to the sea of what is Paradise. Now thats something nice to cling to if you are starving and living a wreched, war-torn life. I compare this brand of "Islam" and these "Muslims" to a cult similar to David Koresh's regime. Their entirely skewed beliefs are insane to 99% of muslims in the world. MEDIA I am not a conspiracy theorist and please do not have preconcieved notions because I believe the media plays a negative role in the perception of muslims in the USA. But 95% of people in this nation recieve most/ if not all of their info from the Televisions and Newspapers. I see the fact that Islam is the Fastest growing religion in the world and there are 1.6 Billion people, yet I have to justify that I'm a good muslim. It angers me and upsets me. If the KKK states is good Christians job to kill african-americans and jews, then do we assume they speak for the masses? Far from it. Its just strange how the media seems to see these wreched individuals as spokesman for 1.6 BILLION People. Its the second Largest Religion in the world by a longshot fellas. This is just what I feel most muslims would like to relay to other people. WHAT I FEEL SHOULD BE DONE I don't think the intelligent thing to do is Nuke Afghanistan, or send in ground troops. The Afghan people have gone through enough attacks in that they have nothing else to lose and it might just compound the problem. The suspects they found so far have been Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and from UAE, ALL US ALLY COUNTRIES. But with the dictatorial rule of the Taliban, they are allowed to roam and train there. The US must fund with money and weapons the Northern Alliance, an anti-taliban Afghan movement that has been gaining strength and popularity. The US funded a small portion of fanatics in Afghanistan 20 years ago, and now they use those weapons and training by the CIA and the US to rule a country in which 90% of the inhabitants don't want them there. So caution is necessary. If Afghanis win against the Taliban, the US backlash will be minimal, troop casualties will be next to none, and they will hand over Bin-Laden and you've destroyed the haven for Terrorists, instead of making it even more wild and a greater haven for terrorists if a war happened. I am 100% Pro American and I feel this is the solution that will limit future problems instead of compounding them, and will not force the US the lose lives and kill innocents creating more anti-US sentiment in an already volatile part of the world.
F. D. Khan, Your post is excellent. Thank you for the insights into Islam. A few items I would like to get your perspective on: We keep hearing about other Islamic nations that have to be careful about their support of the US against these terrorists, because of the opinions of their Muslim populations. It appears that a sizable portion of Muslim are not willing to allow us to defends ourselves against attack, because the attackers are other Muslim and we are not. Maybe you could help me understand that. Branding 'Afghanistan' an enemy seems simple-minded with what we know. The problem appears to be that we are getting conflicting reports about what is going on in Afghanistan. If the people really believe that we want to fight Islam, and they are signing on with the Taliban, what option will we have but to fight them? That does not mean targeting civilians, but just like in Iraq, no doubt that some of our enemies there will put civilians between themselves and US forces for PR's sake. Already, the Taliban leader has 'instructed' Afghanis to return to the cities. I think that the US has not publicly stressed the point that we will not target civilians so the masses will leave so bin laden and his wackos will have nowhere to hide. The quicker this is accomplished the better, so everyone there can return to their homes before winter and UN aid can resume 100%. It is distressing that we are somehow being portrayed as a country that hates Islam, when in actuality, few here understood it and most, unfortunately, simply ignored it. You have never seen a movement here to condemn Islam, yet a very noticable amount of Muslim condemn our way of life. You mention radical 'white' groups in your logic, which is an effective analogy. But let me take it a step further, if the KKK bombed a building in Saudi Arabia, we would not stand for it. You would not hear many people hear saying, 'yeah, they're radical, but still fellow Christians'. Also, why doesn't the Muslim press ever mention Bosnia? There is a fellow Muslim population. We intervened only on their behalf, no 'sphere of influence' argument could be made there. Similarly, we try to help feed Somalians, but are attcked because it appear that more Muslim are agreeable to bin laden's suggestion that we were invading, not trying to help. It does not appear that only America is alone in having difficulties with bigotry. No?
FDK- thanks for sharing that. And a good response by Cohen- I'm curious about the same things. Probably the most burning question in my mind is, just exactly what percentage of the islamic population is militant extremist? Small, obviously, compared to one and a half billion. But not as small as I would like. How many aren't militant extremists, but they're far enough on the right wing that they might pick up a gun in what they see as defense of their religion? In contrast, what percentage of the muslim population is moderate or liberal in thought, and how many of them live in the ME? Parallels exist with the Koresh thing and KKK, yes. But the more I read, the more it appears that social and economic factors have contributed to a very large population of fundamentalist extremists in the ME. Impoverished countries with masses of uneducated people, theocratic church-states or dictatorships feeding their people hate and lies about the west from the time that they can walk. I mean, the western media is biased, no doubt; but the dogmatic propoganda that passes for news in many countries over there is ridiculous. And please don't get me wrong- I'm not at all trying to say the west is better or stupid crap like that. I'm really just curious, scared really, how many thousands, (millions?) of people will hear Bin Laden's inevitable call to jihad and obey? Are there enough in Pakistan to overthrow the government (and gain control of tactical nuclear warheads?) And BTW, I really think that backing the northern alliance with just money and arms isn't going to cut it. They've got 15,000 troops. Taliban says they've got 300,000 of their own, realists estimate them at around 45,000. I agree that if the Afghanis could take their own country back, that would be great- but they just don't have the manpower. And another question- can anybody tell me what these guys in the northern alliance are like? I read somewhere that if they had power, they would only be a little bit less extremist than the Taliban, but still not great at all.
Thanks for the comments guys, In response to your questions from my experiences I feel it is just as Nolen stated an economic and social problem that has led to a puritanical sect of Islam. With the economic depravity of a majority of these newly sprung, post-colonial nations, illiteracy is rampant. Therefore people are suffering and cannot learn the Koran and the will of God themselves so they are dependant on others. Economics often plays a role in religious or nationalistic/religious fervor. When an individual cannot do what all of us want in life (irrespective to national origin Iraq, US, China, etc) and that is to raise a family, provide for that family and live a normal life because of economic impoverishment that leads to questioning whether life is more than suffering. That leads many to the path of God. I do feel that in the last 20 to 30 years there has been a growing sentiment of religion in the Middle East more because of the economic shortcomings of these nations. Whenever you have a growth of this magnitude in religion you will have similar to the West in the 1700-1800, a movement in which extremes such as the Puritans are frequent. With the example of the KKK bomb in Saudi Arabia, and that people here would be horrified. What do you think would be the reaction if the KKK bombed a bastion of terrorists in Afghanistan today? I think many more than expected would cheer the action. This is based on what we all saw two weeks ago and the anguish, horror and fear we all feel from that day on. Now compound that monumentally and you will feel what an Iraqi feels against the US after seeing their country destroyed. And how Arabs feel about how the US is supporting Isreal's actions. In terms of the Northern Alliance Number of Troops Nolen, I feel that its not about numbers of troops but about technology and weapons. For example, how does a country with a population the size of Israel control a group 10 times larger than itself? Or better yet those technological weapons allowed the Taliban to rule when only 10% of the population wanted them in power. I think if people in Afghanistan saw that they had a chance to rid themselves of the Taliban, then they would. The suicide rate for women is close to 25%, obviously they are not happy. But look at how the bombing has brought the US together. I see more solidarity in this country than I ever have in all my life. I don't want the masses to support the Taliban because there is an outside force, we will simply be helping the Taliban gain support from other muslim nations. I want the Afghanis to stand up and fight, with our help and hand us Bin Laden. That would be the course of Action that I feel would give us a longer stabilizing situation there, cost us less lives, and actually help the poor people of Afghanistan and ourselves at the same time. I truly do think this is what is happening currently. I'm sure the US intelligence knows all this and more and have probably already deployed weaponry. I just don't want to attack a muslim country and have the Taliban use it as a call to arms against the "great satan" and have the ramifications continue. I want peace....
Best thread in a long time on the issue. Congratulations, Khan, Cohen and Nolen. I wonder if the Bin Laden and if needs be the Taliban could be removed in six months or less of fighting by the Northern Alliance, perhaps aided by some special forces would it be enough to satisfy those who want to do a big war to eliminate all terrorists in the world? I'm afraid that it would not, given the expectations that have been created by President Bush in his speeches.
I think ground troops are imperative to the success of the mission. Watching one interview with a Taliban official, he said that Americans were afraid to die, afraid to get hurt, because we live a pampered life. He said we are cowards because we live thousands of miles away and send our cruise missiles in to fight for us. I think if we had troops in there, and they were professional and offered aid to those in need, that would send a more important message to many Muslims in the Middle East who only hear the anti-American propaganda day in and day out. Seeing an American fight terrorists, but remain friendly and helpful to civilian Muslims would have more of a long-term impact than merely funding local opposition to the Taliban.
Khan: Your post is great, but I do have this one question: IF the US goes in with ground troops as opposed to arming and training The Northern Alliance, won't it just get over quicker? Agreed it would be best if it appeared that the Afghani people had the most to do with rooting out the Taliban, but isn't some expediency called for as well? How to best balance those two needs of 1. a domestic Afghani solution and 2. swift, sudden, and decisive action when the strike begins?
I think Khan brings up a really important issue in terms of how Muslims are portrayed in the media. How many times do you read or hear the phrase "Muslim Terrorist?" Virtually every time, right? Doesn't that seem weird when you take a step back? That's like saying "Jewish baseball player Sean Green" every time you reference him, or giving me the qualifier of "Christian college student" anytime you address me. The difference is "Muslim terrorist" is so much worse since terrorist has such a horrible ring to it.
I think terrorist is almost always preceeded with an adjective. 'IRA terrorist', 'PLO terrorist', 'Domestic terrorist'. It's one of those things were it is quite relevant to know how they define themselves. Adding 'Jewish' to 'baseball player' is rather meaningless.
fd khan, that is a very informative and well thought out post. I would enjoy a more thorough examination of Islam as a religion of peace.
Thanks for the Support Guys, In regards to the numerous individuals that want to send in US troops, I am very much against it for a few reasons. 1.) The land in Afghanistan is a killer in itself to American Troops that have to go through it. They are salt mountians that tear your skin up, and are not flowing hills, they are jagged mountains and the Afghanis know every hole, crevass or cliff. 2.) Why do we want American Troops to die when it can be accomplished without it? We must learn to get others to do our bidding for us. Give them weapons, lives cost us more than weapons. 3.) By sending American Troops, we will be making Afghanis and other groups come together to fight an outside force. Outside dangers creates unity in the country whereas now there is chaos and almost civil war.
But the problem is, the Northern Alliance aren't exactly an ideal force. In fact, they're not too much better than the Taliban. Before the Taliban took over, Afghanistan had a corrupt, oppressive regime. The Taliban eliminated some of the corruption, but made it even more oppressive. I think the best solution is a UN force that leaves the Saudis or Jordanians as the primary occupying force. The Northern Alliance is: 1. Extremely small and probably incapable of winning a war. 2. Not much better than the enemy. We've tried the arms-aid tactic before, and it hasnt' worked particularly well in the past. Why would it in the future?
Like Cohen, Nolen, and Art, glynch, cson, Rich, and rf1962, I have to say I really enjoyed reading your thoughs, Khan. I can see the argument for funding the northern alliance. Give them weapons and money and they can defeat the Taliban. But we've made the mistake so many times of backing a revolutionary group, only to see them turn on us later. I fear that the Alliance and its leaders will do the same, given what I have read about them and their similarities to the current regime. Sending in our own troops and ultimately installing a democratically elected leadership in Afghanistan is a much more difficult option, but IMO the only one that has the potential to result in a positive outcome for both the Afghans and our own future interests in the region. Barring that, I would support returning the exiled king to power before I handed control of Afghanistan to another Middle-Eastern country (if there was even one that wanted it).
Allowing another country to Rule Afghanistan is not what will solve the problem I believe. All the Terrorists so far have actually been Saudi, Egyptian or from the UAE. Osama bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, they just house in Afghanistan. Its a very complicated problem.
As far as the US or UN coming in and setting up a new govt... How would we like it if we were a small, torn country and we had a govt we didn't much care for but couldn't do much about. Let's say some big country like "Iran" comes in and cleans out the old govt and sets up a govt like thiers to "help us out". Even if it were better, I don't think we'd see it that way. The revolution must come within in order for it to stick and be even remotely accepted. The moment we step foot in that country, we will incite more terrorism from radical muslems from all over the world - this is what obl wants. To defuse the situtuation, we need to show restraint and "help" the revolution against terrorism - start in obl's home. I think funding, newer (but not the latest - you never know when we may have to do this again) weapons, training and every kind of spy intellegence we have will help them defeat the Taliban. I still have a concern with the Pakistans churning out US haters. The Pakistan leaders need to find a way to stop that.
After reading mr gootan's thread on scriptures from the Koran, I can see how easily it would be for extremist's to interpret and enact a terrorist attitude. To specifically call out a group of people for their beliefs is easy ammo!
