The main problem is the madrasas that teach heretical ways. Where is the money being funneled in from? Saudi Arabia.
Islam is part of the problem, because it is the current religion that is being twisted around to create terrorists. Imans have not come out and categorically denied what organizations like Al Queida are saying. Sure some have, but not a universal decree...... People don't want to think their religion is being used, but there is no denying that almost all of the terrorism in the world is connected to Islam. And that makes it culpable to a point. DD
1. Once we invade Pakistan, then what? Make everyone there renounce Islam? 2. If Afghanistan is a cluster-****, what do you think an invasion of Pakistan would look like? 3. They have nukes.
This shows a real lack of knowledge about the history of the Kashmiri conflict. Did you know in the Early 1980's there was no conflict? No human rights violation, no Islamic terrorism in India, no Indian army in Kashmir even! Did you know back then Kashmir was approximately 50-50 Muslim Hindhu as well with just a slight Muslim majority. What happened was Pakistan sponsored an insurrgency to try to wreast control of Kashmir. It caused the Hindhus to flee, and the Indian gov't clamped down, which lead to Kasmiri Muslims protesting. Today, Kasmiri Muslims just want peace. I don't think you will find many that want to be part of Pakistan though. The entire conflict is a proxy war wages by fighters trained in Pakistan... Kashmir was peaceful up until then. Learn the facts!
Pakistan is a big part of the problem...but invading it is not the answer. First, we need to force pakistan to dismantle all of these groups (not just ban them) and bring them to justice. It has to end it's support for insurgencies, adn take a hard line against extremists. If it does not do that, then the U.S. and India should start bombing the camps and trying to take out terrorist leaders. But we can't invade Pakistan - you have to let it's gov't stay in tact or you allow the extremists to take control. Also, might make sense to destroy their nuclear arsenal as well.
I fail to see how the religion itself is culpable here. Islam does not advocate suicide bombers, terrorism, etc., even if certain radical leaders do, and other leaders passively condone it. Was the Inquisition Christianity's fault, or the fault of some of its "teachers?"
The contradictions all through the Koran make it very easy to manipulate to fit a terroristic agenda. Yes, it was, the same thing, where the Old Testement was manipulated to mean something completely different. The Teachers are the main problem but the lack of the other powerful people standing up to bad teachings was also a problem. What is going on with Islamic militants is the same thing that allowed Hitler to rise to power...people not speaking out against an obvious bastardization of their faith. DD
DD- the material in the koran isn't blowing anyone up. the people who are manipulated by wacko teachings from the koran are. and i'm with you that others have a duty to stand up and say, "this isn't our faith...this has to stop." so when we say Islam is responsible...do we mean Islam, as an organized group of people...or do we mean Islam as the teachings of Muhammed as recorded in the Koran? I don't know about the Inquisition...but I know during the Crusades the Church was literally lying to people....they weren't just manipulating what was in the text...they were telling a ton of illiterate folks that there were texts in the Bible where Jesus called them to spill Muslim blood...which is interesting, because Islam didn't come around until centuries after Jesus walked the earth. It wasn't merely a twisting of what was in the Bible...it was also adding stuff to it.
I'm not one to object to all use of Hitler comparisons, but I'm not really understanding this comparison. Hitler wasn't a religious leader and didn't primarily capitalize on religious rhetoric to attain power.
true. in fact hitler created his own faith based on norse myths. the aryan myth is that those people were literally sons of gods who were dominant physically and mentally. the imagery of the nazi party is largely born out of those myths.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I am saying the lack of other people standing up to Hitler and basically going with the flow, allowed him to grab even more power. The lack of a consistent opposition. That is what is happening with radical Islam these days, they get some resistence but for the most part most Muslims don't want to stand up to them. It is not an apples to apples comparison at all, just a mob mentality one I guess. DD
This is exactly what is going on with militant Islam. A distortion of the meaning of Muhammed's words. It is the duty of the rest of the leaders to stand up and go...."Uh, no, that is not what he said or meant".... DD
Yes, but the Imams who are doing this are in select countries for the most part. Particularly Pakistan. Islam isn't the problem. It's Pakistan. You want to know the root of all terrorism? why it's the U.S.'s best friend in the region for the past 30 years - Pakistan. Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Laskhar - all of them were constructed through Pakistan's Intelligence Agency.
encouraging: http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSTRE49T54420081106 Catholics and Muslims to fight terror and defend faith By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Catholic and Muslim leaders at unprecedented Vatican meetings vowed on Thursday to jointly combat violence committed in God's name, to defend religious freedom and to foster equal rights for minority faith groups. After three days of meetings, the 58 scholars and leaders -- 29 from each faith -- issued a joint declaration that also appealed for respect for religious figures and symbols. The meetings came two years after the pope gave a speech hinting Islam was violent and irrational, sparking angry protests in the Middle East. The Muslim participants formed a group to challenge that and seek better mutual understanding. The joint manifesto, A Common Word, called for dialogue based on shared principles of love of God and neighbor. "We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all," said the statement describing the talks as "warm and convivial." Religious minorities were "entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subjected to any form of mockery or ridicule," it said.
Amazing. The Palin prank call seems weak by comparison. The new standard is if your prank call doesn't nearly start a nuclear war, it isn't worth talking about. Story from the LA Times: [rquoter] 'Hoax' call during siege put Pakistan on alert Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and New Delhi -- A hoax caller claiming to be India's foreign minister spoke to Pakistan's president in a "threatening" manner during the final hours of the Mumbai attacks, prompting Pakistan to put its air force on its highest alert for nearly 24 hours, a Pakistani news report said today. Meanwhile, authorities in India reported the first arrests since the end of the siege in Mumbai, which killed more than 170 people. Two men in the eastern city of Kolkata, formerly Calcutta, were detained by police and accused of providing the mobile phone cards used by the attackers. The hoax call and subsequent air force alert reported by the English-language Dawn newspaper underscored the volatile atmosphere between the nuclear-armed neighbors during the 60-hour rampage by gunmen in India's commercial capital that began the night of Nov. 26. The report also seemed certain to raise new questions about the competence of Pakistan's civilian government, elected less than a year ago. The civilian leadership has already been criticized for initially promising to send the chief of its main spy agency to help in the Indian probe, then hastily reneging after objections from the political opposition and the security establishment. The newspaper's account said it took intercession by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other diplomats to establish that the Indian foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, had not made the call to President Asif Ali Zardari on the night of Nov. 28. A U.S. Embassy spokesman, Lou Fintor, said he was unaware of any such incident having occurred, and a Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Sadiq, referred calls to the Information Ministry, which said it would be making a statement later on what it described as the "so-called" hoax. However, a Western diplomat and a Pakistani security official confirmed the broad outlines of the Dawn account. India has blamed Pakistan-based militants in the attacks but not the Pakistani state. Pakistan has denied any official involvement, and there is widespread public anger over the fact that India accused Pakistani elements even while the attacks were still unfolding. During the air force alert, Pakistani warplanes carried out patrols while carrying live weapons, Dawn said. Senior intelligence officials also suggested to reporters during that interval that Pakistan might shift tens of thousands of troops from the border with Afghanistan to the Indian frontier. The incident reportedly began when a caller who identified himself as Mukherjee urgently requested to speak with Zardari. The two had earlier been in phone contact, and because the situation was so fluid at that point, presidential aides bypassed normal identification checks and put the call through, the newspaper's account said. Most analysts believe a Pakistani group could not have carried out the Mumbai attacks without the help of local Indian accomplices, and the two arrests reported today by authorities could help support that thesis. However, a police official in West Bengal, the state where Kolkata is situated, cautioned that the two men did not necessarily have direct links with the attackers or prior knowledge of the plot. Authorities said the arrested pair had bought large batches of cellphone SIM cards that included one later used by the gunmen during the attacks. How the SIM cards came into the attackers' possession remained unclear. Police say the gunmen were in touch by mobile phone with handlers in Pakistan while the siege was taking place, allegedly seeking guidance on how to proceed and on whom to kill and whom to spare among their hostages at luxury hotels and other sites. Police have already released details of another Indian national who they say was recruited by the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba to scout out possible target sites in Mumbai, including some of those that were hit during the recent attacks. Police say the man was found carrying hand-drawn maps of the sites. Although it has not been established whether the man was directly connected to the attacks that eventually unfolded, public outrage in India has grown over the perceived failure of authorities to act on intelligence pointing to an imminent strike on Mumbai. On Friday, India's new home minister admitted that there had been "lapses" in security. [/rquoter]
Seems like a bias one-sided Indian version of the Kashmiri situation. From my understanding, Kashmiris have always wanted self-determination. What about the plebiciste that the international community and Pakistan have agreed should take place to determine Kashmir's future? In three resolutions, the UN Security Council and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan recommended that as already agreed by Indian and Pakistani leaders, a plebiscite should be held to determine the future allegiance of the entire state. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1766582.stm India is the roadblock to this plebiscite actually happening. Also, are you saying India isn't guilty of severe human rights violations in Kashmir for many years now?
This is an article about how Indian Muslims are worried about a backlash. I also wanted to post this article for another reason as I've seen it cited a few times before how the burning of the train in Gujarat is an example of Islamic terrorism yet according to this article that wasn't necessarily the case and extremist Hindus might've scapegoated the Muslims. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28115680/ From the AP India's Muslims hope to avoid backlash Try to show solidarity with Hindu majority in wake of Mumbai attacks MUMBAI, India - The cleric stood before dozens of bearded men who had gathered on a crowded Mumbai street corner to honor the 171 people killed by Islamic militants. "Many innocents were killed by these terrorists," said Ibrahim Tani, president of the Muslim Council of India. "Those who were martyred are our family." The men raised their fists in the air and cried out: "Long live mother India!" The speech was part of an aggressive campaign by Mumbai's Muslims to show their solidarity with India's Hindu majority in the wake of last month's attacks. Muslim groups have held community meetings and peace marches, brought tea and cookies to hospitalized victims, and organized blood drives. Leaders have asked people to tone down festivities for the Muslim holiday of Eid, and the city's largest Muslim graveyard refused to bury the nine slain gunmen. But behind these efforts at unity lie fear and suspicion. Reactions to the attack show that despite the talk of all Indians standing together against a common enemy, in many ways the Hindu and Muslim communities remain ill at ease and view the world differently. Mutual distrust While thousands of protesters called last week for war with Pakistan, Muslims on the streets near the Minara mosque said they weren't convinced by Indian government claims that Pakistan-based militants were responsible for the attacks. Here, in the narrow alleys of Mumbai's Muslim's neighborhoods, the fear is that the mutual distrust could explode in bloody attacks by Hindu mobs, as it has in the past. Even as Tani called for unity, he warned his street-corner disciples of the possibility of a backlash by Hindu radicals. "It might be our turn to die tomorrow," he told them. "There are some Hindus who call Muslims 'Pakistanis.'" Although Muslims say relations with the police have improved since the early 1990s, when some police joined mobs on anti-Muslim rampages, the trust is fragile. Some say they still don't feel protected by local authorities. There have been few signs so far of a backlash against India's 150 million Muslims in these early days of collective grief and rage at a government many feel failed to protect them from a foreign enemy. But many Muslims worry the peace may not hold. "For now, everyone is united," said Sarfaraz Arzu, editor of the Hindustan Daily, an Urdu-language paper read largely by the Muslim community. But, he added, "You cannot say this is a permanent change. Things might get out of hand if there is a minor trigger." A history of tension India has a history of Hindu-Muslim tensions that at times erupt into violence. Mumbai itself was the scene of riots in 1992-93 that claimed at least 900 lives. Soon after, a terrorist attack in Mumbai killed more than 250 people — an attack the government says was masterminded by Muslim gangster Dawood Ibrahim. He was one of 20 suspects that India asked Pakistan to hand over last week. Pakistan denies that Ibrahim is in its country. More recently, Hindu mobs killed 1,000 Muslims in the state of Gujarat in 2002 after Muslims were accused of burning a train car full of Hindus. Who set the train on fire has never been established. "Whatever happens in India, everyone is pointing at Muslims," said Parvez Khan, who runs a shoe shop on Muhammad Ali Road, a heavily Muslim neighborhood in Mumbai. "Even if Mother Nature does anything, we are blamed. So far, everyone is blaming Pakistani Muslims, not Indian Muslims." He fears that distinction could easily blur. "When you go to sleep and get up the next day, it's always a new thing," he said. World in chaos A few doors down is a bakery where police gunned down five Muslim workers in the 1992-93 riots. "Times are bad. The whole world is in chaos now," said a man sitting at a table outside, drinking sweet milky coffee. He would not give his name for fear of stoking tensions. "We really want peace and harmony now. You pray for that," he said. So far, right-wing Hindu groups, which have targeted Muslims and other minorities in the past, have directed their ire abroad over the attacks. "Pakistan is responsible, definitely. Internal security we are not concerned about at all," said Shishir Shinde, a spokesman for the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, an offshoot of the Shiv Sena, a Hindu fundamentalist group. Neelam Gorhe, a spokeswoman for the Shiv Sena, said India's own Muslims were victims of the terror attacks. "There is going to be a united reaction to the terrorists," she said. "People who died were also Muslim. Why should there be a reaction against Muslims?" Terrorism and religion The government's early fingering of Pakistanis as the likely culprits has helped take the heat off India's Muslims, said Arzu, the newspaper editor. "Had there been some confusion as far as the identity was concerned, things might have been different," he said. Arzu added that he has seen a list of the dead and about a quarter were Muslims. Across from him sat Sayyed Mazhar, his left hand bound in a bright blue cast. Mazhar said he was shot outside Mumbai's main train station on the first night of the attack. His friend, he said, was shot in the thigh. He held up a wad of bloodied 100 rupee notes with a bullet hole at the center pulled from his friend's pocket. "The anguish is ours, too," Arzu said. A few miles to the south, thousands of protesters thronged outside the burned-out Taj Mahal hotel, setting up candlelight shrines and calling angrily for political change and war with Pakistan. One man held a sign that read: "Terrorism doesn't have a religion ... Or does it?"
