So far when a bomb explodes in Pakistan or Afghanistan.... it is created more resentments towards the Government rather than the bombers. Governments have to find a way or get some effective propaganda machine to direct resentments of the people towards the Taliban and Co.
Maybe areas like Lahore and man others should be given a pratcial run of Taliban like regeemes for one month so that people have a first hand idea what it would be like living under Talibaan. The Pakistan Government should genuinely act like Talibaan for a month, cut a few people throats (mainly some of the Mullahs and politicians) and then ask (the people) is this what you want. _____________________________________ I do understand the complex situation for millions of people. They were living their lives and were called mujhaddin and allies of the west and now the very same people are someone who could bring an end to the world. Thats rubbish. But these people should understand taking the guns is acceptable only under a certain conditions (such as occupation). Taking guns just because things are not going as you like, leads to civil war which Afghanistan was in for years after the Soviets left.
Does the guy ever get around to telling us how to combat Muslim extremism? He seems to bash Bush more than he does the people who are responsible for these attacks:
4 September 1972 - Munich Olympic Massacre. 18 April 1983 - April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. 63 killed. 26 February 1993 - World Trade Center bombing. 6 killed. 24 December 1994 - Air France Flight 8969 hijacking in Algiers by 3 members of Armed Islamic Group and another terrorist. 7 killed including 4 hijackers. 25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded. 7 August 1998 - 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured. 11 September 2001 - September 11, 2001 attacks 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead. 13 December 2001 - Suicide attack on India's parliament in New Delhi. Aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. Allegedly done by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organizations, Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. 3 March 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured 9 March 2002 - Café suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured. 7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured. 24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured. 12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured. 16 May 2004 - Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Salafaia Jihadia. 11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda) 3 September 2004 Approximately 344 civilians including 186 children, are killed during the Beslan school hostage crisis. 2 November 2004 - Ritual murder of Theo van Gogh (film director) by Amsterdam-born jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri. 4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people. 7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground. 53 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured. 23 July 2005 - Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed. 29 October 2005 - 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus, just 2 days before the Diwali festival. 9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings. Over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on hotels in Amman, Jordan. Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved. 7 March 2006 - 2006 Varanasi bombings. An attack attributed to Lashkar-e-Toiba by Uttar Pradesh government officials, over 28 killed and over 100 injured, in a series of attacks in the Sankath Mochan Hanuman temple and Cantonment Railway Station in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi. Uttar Pradesh government officials.
Posts: 7494 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Originally posted by coldfuse: Does the guy ever get around to telling us how to combat Muslim extremism?
Well, the whole article could have been written by a Briton
The author understands, as British authorities do, that these outrages are criminal matters.
You do not control or detect criminals by alienating everyone who shares their religion or their neighbourhood.One day America will wake up to this obvious fact in Iraq. Oops, sorry...hold on, they have just done that three years and thousands of deaths too late
That seems to be the message and the complaint in that piece.
The Sudanese and Palestinians are displaying something which is maybe more nationalism than religious extremism, aren't they?
The protests in Sudan were (maybe) really about British sanctions and Britain's historical role in the region. The unfortunate teacher was just a trigger. Hamas supporters are living in what's been described as an 'open-air prison' in Gaza.
Cole is talking more about combating 'extremist Muslim networks' which are stateless, isn't he?
As he says 'American politicians should cease implying that Muslim nations and individuals are different from, or somehow more dangerous than, any other group of human beings, a racist idea promoted by the Christian and Zionist right. They should acknowledge that most Muslim nations are US friends and allies. A wise American policy toward the small networks of Muslim extremists would reduce their recruitment pool by the quick establishment of a Palestinian state and by a large-scale military drawdown from Iraq, thus removing widespread and major grievances.'
No, and no. There's no war on a religion and there isn't a monolithic 'Islam' waging war on the West, either. What we have are some terrorists and the need to deal with them. The terrorists we're discussing are Muslim, and claim to be inspired by Islam - but that's just a chance of history and geography. There have been, and will be, similar murderous groups or people claiming inspiration from just about any major religion.
That article linked to is ridiculous in its sweeping generalisations:
'...the adherents of Islam, following correctly its tenets, as expressed in the Qur'an and Hadith, and in the example of Muhammad set out in the Sira, have been making war, whenever and wherever possible, and employing whatever instruments at the time are available (combat, wealth, "pen, tongue," and now demography) to spread Islam, to prevent non-Muslims from setting up any obstacles to the further spread and ultimate dominance of Islam, and to ensure that any non-Muslims permitted to remain alive without being forcibly converted will, nonetheless, have to live lives of deliberate humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity...'
There are no qualifications - according to the article all Muslims are fanatic religious murderers...
'Muslims are at war with, and remain a permanent danger to, all non-Muslim societies. If some are not fervent in their Islam, we still do not know what might set off such fervency... ...Imaginary "Muslim moderates" who are then imagined to be a "majority" do not make the texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira change...'
What offensive and ignorant drivel. Islam is just another religion - in itself and its writings no more bloodthirsty or peaceful than Christianity for instance. We've had a number of threads on this board pointing out that the Koran is no more violent than the Bible. Either work can be mined for out-of-context propaganda points.
More garbage:
'Verify it yourself. Talk to Europeans. Walk around the streets of European cities. Find out the cost of monitoring Muslims, at train stations and bus stations, at metro stations and at airports, at chemical plants and at nuclear plants. At churches, and at synagogues, and at Hindu and Buddhist and Sikh temples. And parliaments. And city halls. And police stations. And fire stations. And schools..'
Is this actually an original piece of work, or has the writer merely updated some reds-under-the-beds scare piece and substituted 'Muslims' for 'communists'? It'd be funny if there weren't people taking it seriously.
Do you really subscribe to the idea that every Muslim is a kind of ticking time-bomb - whose 'fervency' might be set off at any moment? That there's an aim - on the part of Islam as a whole - to murder, humiliate or degrade all non-Muslims? That there are no moderate Muslims?
If so, maybe you could try to back up the outrageous claims of the writer you quote, and maybe enjoy the to-and-fro of debate - rather than jump to ad hominem attacks and complaints of bias.
Anyway, when did I ever pretend to objectivity, and shouldn't discussion-starters be biased or controversial? What would you prefer - threads that begin with carefully neutral comments about the weather?
I don't know if you will like another link to a Jihad Watch author (in fact, their director). According to Robert Spencer, in Most Muslims Reject Terrorism?, here are the results of various surveys:
*25% of Muslims in Britain approved of the July 7, 2005 jihad terror bombings in London
*44% of Muslims in Nigeria thought suicide attacks were “often” or “sometimes” justified, with only 28% rejecting them in all cases
*Roughly 14% of Muslims in France, Britain and Spain approved of suicide attacks against civilian targets
*45% of Muslims in Egypt considered terror never justified
*49.9% of the respondents of an Al-Jazeera survey avowed that they did indeed support Osama bin Laden
*the July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida
*26% of Muslims between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine affirmed that there could be justification in some (unspecified) circumstances for suicide bombing
Does anyone remember the dancing in the streets in Muslim nations after 9/11?
Maybe all of these surveys are wrong. But I really believe Mr. Cole has his head buried in the sand.
And the sting of the "Medals" thread shutdown, which I believe is symptomatic of a deeper problem at News and Reference, has likely driven my other comments. Did you mean to appear objective on that one?
Posts: 7494 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
The Medals thread was shut down because of insulting comments about a member's war service. I did the same before when someone made insulting comments about another member's war service. Since the political views of the two veterans in question are opposing ones, I am on safe ground here. If members want to insult another member's service to our country, they will have to go to another site.
Posts: 16178 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
One of the members has largely stayed away from this site for some time. So have others.
It has nothing to do with military service. One member insulted his own military service before the other one even showed up. The thread itself was an insult to David Petraeus's military service.
It's tough for the rest of us with moderate to conservative viewpoints to hang in here, but I'm trying. It would be nice to have some balance during an election year.
Go ahead and delete this comment but I needed to vent.
Posts: 7494 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
I've been looking at that Channel 4 poll at the head of the list above. The article in the link says 25% of Muslims 'approved of' 7/7. Another source - apparently talking about the same poll, says 23% believe the attack 'could/can be justified'.
I thinkthis is the actual poll. (You have to click on 'start survey' and then 'download pdf of topline findings'.)
The question was "To what extent do you agree that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?"
The answers were 11% 'strongly agree' and 11% 'tend to agree'. Shockingly high, yes.
But the next question asks for a response to "It is acceptable for religious or political groups to use violence"
The answer - 6% strongly agree and 3% tend to agree. Maybe we could agree that in any 1000 randomly selected people, you might get 9% oddballs, pranksters, and plain old dodderers who checked the wrong box. How many actual murderous fanatics would that leave? (As a comparison, there's a huge number of US citizens, it seems, that thinks shock-and-awe was justified because Hussein planned 9/11, or that Iran should be nuked just because. But almost every US citizen I meet seems perfectly sensible and likable.)
I found this, too:
'An ICM poll last year indicated that a fifth of Muslims had sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers in the July 7 2005 attack, although 99% thought they were wrong to carry out the attack.'www.guardian.co.uk
I could scratch around and find the truth behind the other numbers quoted, but that took quite long enough.
And I do remember the videos of dancing in the streets. Some were posted here. Suspiciously tight shots of small groups of youths - not the image at all conjured up by the phrase 'dancing in the streets.
On the bias thing - I agree it would be nice to have a more balanced selection of views in current affairs. Maybe some of us should switch sides and play Devil's Advocate. I tried it, with the "Good Things Bush Has Done" thread - but wow it's uphill work.
(Was that medal thread an insult to Petraeus' military service? I though it was more an insult to his sense of where to stop when it comes to displaying his gongs. Of all the things people could get worked up about, around the issue of how veterans and soldiers are treated, a relatively light-hearted poke at a General's excessive be-medalling seems an odd choice.)
Nothing wrong with venting, as long as site rules are followed. Anyone thinking that I edit or delete with regard to political view is just not looking at thing with both eyes, however. I suspended a member for saying what I was thinking, because what he said was against site rules. And Scotty may not remember, but it was an insult to his service that prompted my first closure of a thread because of such insults. As hard as it may be to believe, I take someone's service to our country very seriously. You see, those on the Right really don't own patriotism, they just act like they do. For me, Memorial Day and Veterans' Day are not just two days in the year.There are 363 days just like that, and I don't select just two to honor all service to our country. Those with good memories may remember that I have said that I am sorry that we need a military, but I am glad we have one. And it hurts me deeply to see it misused.
When AP first opened, the Conservatives were in the majority here. While I didn't participate, I read. Slowly, the Conservatives left, and the Liberals became the majority. That leaving more or less coincided with the increasing failure of US foreign policy, but that may have nothing to do with it. In any case, it is not the Liberals fault for the Conservatives' leaving. The Liberals stuck around when they were getting hammered in here, and I don't think they cried foul. (But I may be wrong about that.) Maybe Truman might have made an observation here. I did notice that a few started posting again now that the Surge is working. Read into that what you will.
Posts: 16178 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
But Nigerian Muslims and Christians are involved in a complex and bloody struggle.
'...At least 57,000 people fled their homes following sectarian violence involving Christians and Muslims in northern and central Nigeria. More than 30,000 Christians have been displaced from their homes in Kano, the largest city in northern Nigeria, which was racked by religious violence on Tuesday and Wednesday. A further 27,000 displaced people had sought refuge in Bauchi state in east central Nigeria following a massacre of Muslims by Christian gangs in neighbouring Plateau state earlier in May.
President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State in central Nigeria on 18 May 2004, following the Christian massacre of Muslims that in turn led to reprisal killings of Christians in the northern city of Kano. The bloodletting had claimed more than 2,000 lives since September 2001. Obasanjo sacked governor Joshua Dariye, accusing him of failing to act to end a cycle of violence between the Plateau State's Muslim and Christian communities...' www.globalsecurity.org
Of course you're going to get extreme views in such a situation, from both communities. It's not necessarily anything to do with how bloodthirsty "Islam" is, in particlar. It's just humanity as usual ganging up and fighting over resources.
"One member insulted his own military service before the other one even showed up. The thread itself was an insult to David Petraeus's military service"
No, you still don't get it. A member is entitled to insult General Petraeus or President Dumbo. You have no duty or right to retaliate by insulting another member. All members are entitled to be governed by the same rules. We do not have rankings in that some of our political favorites are above reproach or criticism. Where is the objectivity you boast of?
