Morality and the war on terror

[PrincepsAmerica]

Careful there with that "we" stuff. Neither you nor I nor anyone remotely in power today had anything to do with that.

Besides, what is or is not a democracy can certainly be argued. Should we now work along with the terrorist group Hamas since it is now part of the democratically elected gov of Palistine? I dont think so. Such "democracies" are such in name only and are truly more dictatorships in action and deed than government by the people.



If it was a barb, it was still the truth. Carter was weak and thats why Iran is now what it is. It is certainly not coincedence that the Ayatollah turned over the hostages immediately after Reagan became president. If he hadnt, direct military action would have ensued and the Ayatollah would have immediately lost his newfound power.

Though I understand and agree with many of your points your one about "we" seems a bit disingenuous. Most every citizen of any nation takes some degree of credit/blame for their nation's history and foreign policy. I would assume in a debate about the rightness of D-Day or somesuch you'd defend "our" noble actions just like almost any American would. And whether one says "we" or "America" if your a citizen of the U.S. you clearly will have a strong tendency to indentify with America and our past, good or bad.

More generally I think simply think we can't abandon our legacy as our own without taking responsibility for the less honorable or wise actions our past may have entailed.

 

[De Lorimier]

I don't think that anyone will argue that U.S. foriegn policies are perfect.
American foreign policies change with each new president. Some of those policies have been wrong. Those mistakes can be attributed to ignorance, paranoia and faulty intelligence but rarely to sheer malice.
The same could be said about the foriegn policies of other nations. The problems our world is facing today cannot be attributed only to the U.S., all nations have a dynamic impact on world events some more than others.
As I have stated previously Islam is the root cause for Islamic terrorism.
It is encumbant upon all Muslims to wage war to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim as mandated in the Islamic doctrine. This jihadi movement is not just some modern day phenomenon that is a direct result of U.S. foreign policy, this movement existed since the inception of Islam.
It loses momentum, gains momentum or lies dormant depending on the overall sentiment of the Muslim majority. This Jihadi movement is clawless without the support of the Muslim majority. This is not to say that all Muslims will actively engage in this Islamic fundamental movement, however world events that are dictated by political decisions such as the war on Iraq and afghanistan will inadvertantly cause moderate Muslims to support this movement. They will buy into jihadi propaganda that the West has waged war against Muslims, that that West has once again taken up the Crusades.
Unfortunatley this jihadi propaganda has been successful, it is successful only because one cannot deny what Islam demands of its followers.
Islam is the cause of Islamic terrorism,The political decisions of the U.S. or other nations only trigger this fundamental Islamic movement.

To be clear, I've posted about the West, about Western Civilization as a whole, not about the United States like you keep referring to.

The rest of your argument is based on the interpretation you make of Muslim holy scriptures and Muslim behavior and I don't agree with those assertions at all. People are fed propaganda all over the globe and current events dictates politics, we agree on that, especially since it's an obvious observation to make. But I can't agree that the average citizen of Egypt, Oman or Lebanon supports the killing of innocent people in the name of Allah, just like Joe from Boston, Sven from Göteborg or Lisa from Auckland don't support the killing of innocent people in the name of God. I work in an international environment and interact with people from all over the world, from all race, religion and walks of life and I seriously think that the immense majority of us human beings are good. Religious or not. I think we then might be at a breaking point in our conversation as this divergence of opinion on how we respectively perceive the Muslim world and its people appears to separate us greatly.

Edit: You can also add my voice to C~G's regarding his answer to you about the Muslim world and the behavior of its citizens in the Zarqawi thread.

 

[Mott1]

This is an absolutely crazy assertion. I have read the Quran (in English only), the Bible and a few other books. Saying terrorism is rooted in Islam is like saying slavery is rooted in Christianity. While I can look in both books and misquote passages to make such assertions, it doesn't make them true. Yes, Islamic extremists misquote and misrepresent Islam the same way Christian terrorists misquote and misrepresent Christianity.

Yes, at first it may seem a crazy assertion.
Have you truly read the Quran and the Hadith? How can you be so sure that the extremist have Islam all wrong? are you suggesting that you know Islam more than Osama Bin Laden or the other Imams and Ayatollahs?

Reading a passage of the Quran in context does not mean just reading it with the preceding and following verses. You have to also know the sha'ne nozool, i.e. the historic context, why and in what occasion Muhammad said a certain verse. That is why Islam has tafseer. Tafseer is the interpretation of the Quran. Tafseer means interpreting, clarifying, expounding. It is derived from "fasara", which means "to explain, to open or to unveil".

Many books of tafseer have been written. The reason is that the Quran per se is an obtuse book. The historic context of the verses must be explained so its real meaning becomes clear.

Ibn Khathir, arguably the most authoritative mofasser (commentator, interpreter) of the Quran wrote, read his synopes.

Christianity is at a different stage right now than Islam so we no longer have things like the inquisition, but it wasn't long ago the IRA was bombing across England and the KKK was killing and persecuting minorities in the USA all in the name of God. The problem is not in Islam itself, but in how these wackos interpret it. Right now Muslim extremists happen to be the biggest and baddest terrorists on the block.

It is a widespread notion that religious tradition are equally capable of giving rise to violence. This would have a lot of credibiltiy if fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were writing articles defending the stoning of adulterers, or calling for the execution of blasphemers (blasphemey is a capital offense in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world), or flying planes into buildings of those they considered enemies.
That fundamental Christians do not commit these acts is one clear indication that not all fundamentalism are equivalent. Contrary to the deconstructionist views that are heard on college campuses today(especially mine), religions are not simply raw material that can be made into absolutely anything by believers. There are overlaps in the behavior of religioious people in all traditions. For example, they pray, meet together, and perform certain rituals. Sometimes they even commit violence in the name of their religion. But the frequency and commonality of such acts of violence, and how close they are to each religions mainstream, is determined to a great degree by actual teachings of each religion.
People like to point out Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph as examples of christian terrorists, but there are three reasons why these criminals are not equivalent to OBL and Zarqawi:

-They did not attempt to justify their actions by reference to Chrsitian scriptures.
-They were not acting on mainstream Christian teachings.
-There are not large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.

Religious terrorist acts are more likely to come in greater numbers and frequency when they are encouraged and perpetuated by religious texts and those who teach from them.

The difference between Christianity and Islam lies in the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. This is the difference between day and night. Jesus was the insignia of goodness and Muhammad was the exact opposite.
In the words of an emnent atheist and philosopher Anthony Flew: "Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most empathically is not".