The BBC is now reporting that a rabbi and his family are being held hostage in their apartment. Responsibility has been claimed by a group called the "Deccan Mujahadeen."
I am well aware that there are vast numbers of peaceful Muslims throughout the world. To pretend, however, that this is not Islamic-extremist terrorism is, I think, naive in the extreme.
Would you and/or Occupationalhazard define Islamic terror, Muslim terrorism, Islamic-extremist terrorism, and like terms? I'm serious.
Would that be akin to the KKK committing Christian terrorism, or the Irgun committing Jewish terrorism?
Terrorism is terrorism. It has many roots. To tarnish an entire religion because 0.01% of its adherents commit acts of terror is absurd.
Last edited by Gandhi90s; Nov 26, 08 at 10:50 pm.
Reason: clarification
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Would you and/or Occupationalhazard define Islamic terror, Muslim terrorism, Islamic-extremist terrorism, and like terms? I'm serious.
I'd be happy to. "Islamic-extremist terrorism," is terrorism committed because of the belief that it is a religious imperative. The term "extremist" suggests that it is only fanatic adherents who are behind it.
Quote:
Would that be akin to the KKK committing Christian terrorism, or the Irgun committing Jewish terrorism?
I don't know about the KKK, but things like abortion-clinic bombings and the lilke (and OKC) are Christian-extremist terrorism. I disagree that the Irgun were terrorists. However, the JDL's bombing of an Arab office in the U.S. is an example Jewish-extremist terrorism, as is the slaughter in the mosque on the Dome of the Rock by that lunatic Israeli a decade or so ago.
Quote:
Terrorism is terrorism. It has many roots. To tarnish an entire religion because 0.01% of its adherents commit acts of terror is absurd.
I believe I said very clearly in my post that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, good people. However, to say that what motivated 9/11, the Madrid subway bombing, and the current Mumbai catastrophe is anything other than extremist religious belief is absurd. Most Muslims are not terrorists, just as most Christians, most Jews and most Hindus are not terrorists. Some, however, are and they are motivated by their specific religious belief.
Historically, religion is not benign. Quite the contrary, more people have been killed in the name of religion than by any other cause. Most people find a way to maintain their religious faith in a constructive and positive manner. Some people do not. The current attacks are not motivated by a concern for the environment, an opposition to slavery, a demonstration against the economic crisis or anything similar. It is motivated by some few who have twisted religious belief into a warped and perverted ideology.
to say that what motivated 9/11, the Madrid subway bombing, and the current Mumbai catastrophe is anything other than extremist religious belief is absurd.
...
The current attacks are not motivated by a concern for the environment, an opposition to slavery, a demonstration against the economic crisis or anything similar. It is motivated by some few who have twisted religious belief into a warped and perverted ideology.
Most terrorism is rooted in the perception of disenfranchisement and powerlessness. Some is also caused by wide economic disparities and/or social discrimination. Religion often has very little to do with it.
9/11 didn't happen because Muslims hated the primarily (Judeo-)Christian US. It happened because of resentment in the Arab world against the US for its unqualified support of Israel, which is rightly or wrongly seen as an oppressor by most Arabs. Religion was, as it often is, used merely as a tool by bin Laden and his ilk to whip up the undereducated foot-soldiers into a frenzy, so that they would carry out their suicide missions.
I think it is simplistic to label and dismiss something as religion-based when the real causes are far more complex and nuanced.
Most terrorism is rooted in the perception of disenfranchisement and powerlessness. Some is also caused by wide economic disparities and/or social discrimination. Religion often has very little to do with it.
Follow Gandhi's path.
Quote:
9/11 didn't happen because Muslims hated the primarily (Judeo-)Christian US. It happened because of resentment in the Arab world against the US for its unqualified support of Israel, which is rightly or wrongly seen as an oppressor by most Arabs. Religion was, as it often is, used merely as a tool by bin Laden and his ilk to whip up the undereducated foot-soldiers into a frenzy, so that they would carry out their suicide missions.
But religion was used as an excuse for these acts and therefore they chose to associate their religion and all others who believe in their religion with their insanity.
Quote:
I think it is simplistic to label and dismiss something as religion-based when the real causes are far more complex and nuanced.
Gandhi's methods only works if there is a government susceptible to being shamed into reforms. I don't think the Indian government is at that point, nor the governments of other countries in which Muslim minorities feel oppressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_happiness_store
But religion was used as an excuse for these acts and therefore they chose to associate their religion and all others who believe in their religion with their insanity...
That does not excuse those who make bigoted statements about that religion.
I note one poster has qualified his initial bigoted statement. Unfortunately, the bigotry will flow freely again the next time there is an incident. Some people cannot, or are unwilling to, change their mindsets.
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Most terrorism is rooted in the perception of disenfranchisement and powerlessness. Some is also caused by wide economic disparities and/or social discrimination. Religion often has very little to do with it.
First, I disagree. Most terrorism is rooted in a perception of righteousness and divine mandate. It is fed by a perception of disenfranchisement and powerlessness. These are two different things.
Quote:
9/11 didn't happen because Muslims hated the primarily (Judeo-)Christian US. It happened because of resentment in the Arab world against the US for its unqualified support of Israel, which is rightly or wrongly seen as an oppressor by most Arabs.
According to bin Laden, 9/11 happened because of U.S. support for Israel AND the U.S. maintaining bases in Saudi Arabia AND western influence on the Muslim world. Bin Laden, however, doesn't speak for all Muslims, or even most of them (though surveys I've seen suggest that roughly 30% of Muslims support his actions). Nonetheless, bin Laden isn't Che Guevara, or even Mao -- bin Laden is convinced that he has a mandate from Allah to commit violence against the west.
Quote:
Religion was, as it often is, used merely as a tool by bin Laden and his ilk to whip up the undereducated foot-soldiers into a frenzy, so that they would carry out their suicide missions.
I don't agree. Bin Laden is a true believer, as are the people who carried out the attacks in Indonesia and, now according to the BBC, the unspeakable acts in Mumbai -- one of the attackers was captured and said that these actions were undertaken to protest (!!) suppression of Muslims in India.
Again, I am well aware that these despicable criminals do not speak for India's Muslims, much less for Islam. However, to say that this is anything other than another religious extremist is to misunderstand both the nature of religion AND extremism.
Quote:
I think it is simplistic to label and dismiss something as religion-based when the real causes are far more complex and nuanced.
Well, sorry. I think it is naive to think that Christian-, Jewish- or Muslim-extremist terrorism could occur without Christianity, Judaism or Islam.
A lot of people, including some locals, are talking about this on Twitter. The scary thing is that there is a rumor (some say it is confirmed) that the terrorists are reading Twitter as well.
__________________
FlyerTalk supports hate speech.
If the adherents of the "Religion of Peace" were a little more, y'know, *PEACEFUL*, then maybe it wouldn't' be the first thing everyone thinks of when sh#t like this goes down.
Multiple simultaneous attacks are a hallmark of al-Qaeda, although it is apparently not yet known who the perps are this instance.
Does everyone remember how the early assumptions in these cases:
9/11, Khobar Towers, Achille Lauro, Berlin Disco, Pan Am 103, that TWA 847, London Tube bombings, Madrid train bombings, Bali Nightclub bombings, Embassy bombings in Africa, Iran Hostage Crisis, multiple suicide bombings in Israel, Abu Sayyef bombings and kidnappings in the Philippines, Daniel Pearl, the beheadings in Iraq, the Russian airline bombings, Moscow theater hostage crisis begins, the school massacre in Beslan, the Australian embassy bombing, the suicide bombing at the marine barracks in Lebanon, the Lebanon kidnappings, Richard Reid, USS Cole, the Millenium bomber, Theo Van Gogh's murder, Pim Fortuyn's murder, WTC '93, the Danish Cartoon embassy burnings.
There's a *reason* that people tend to think it's Islamic nutbags when this sort of thing happens....
Multiple terrorist attacks in Mumbai and your reaction is to castigate evangelical conservatives? That's just plain stupid.
O/H
Absolutely asinine.
The Islamic terrorists know only murder and suffering. The more the better.
__________________ Analise It is high. It is far. It is GONE !!!!!
"We play today; we win today. Das it."
I think we agree on many things, but our interpretations are very different:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
Most terrorism is rooted in a perception of righteousness and divine mandate. It is fed by a perception of disenfranchisement and powerlessness. These are two different things.
I agree that these are two different things. Terrorism by those in power (such as the old KKK or, as many would say, the current Administration) finds its justification in the former. Terrorism by the relatively powerless (such as the Palestinians, the South Moluccans, and the Irgun) is rooted in the latter. In the latter case, the cloak of religion may be used to gain more adherents, who are typically poor and uneducated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
According to bin Laden, 9/11 happened because of U.S. support for Israel AND the U.S. maintaining bases in Saudi Arabia AND western influence on the Muslim world. Bin Laden, however, doesn't speak for all Muslims, or even most of them (though surveys I've seen suggest that roughly 30% of Muslims support his actions). Nonetheless, bin Laden isn't Che Guevara, or even Mao -- bin Laden is convinced that he has a mandate from Allah to commit violence against the west.
Again, and these are just personal opinions, I seriously doubt if 300 million Muslims approve of bin Laden's actions. And the pretense that he is convinced of his mandate from Allah is put on to gain more and more converts to his cause under the cloak of religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
Bin Laden is a true believer, as are the people who carried out the attacks in Indonesia and, now according to the BBC, the unspeakable acts in Mumbai -- one of the attackers was captured and said that these actions were undertaken to protest (!!) suppression of Muslims in India.
Muslims in the poor and rural parts of India are indeed "suppressed" and discriminated against, as are women and those of low caste. As I said, they have strong feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement, as did blacks in rural white America 50 years ago. Religion is incidental in the first case and irrelevant in the second. The proof lies in the fact that educated Muslims in India (and blacks in the US) are part of the mainstream and the majority of them do not go around preaching hatred and violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
Again, I am well aware that these despicable criminals do not speak for India's Muslims, much less for Islam. However, to say that this is anything other than another religious extremist is to misunderstand both the nature of religion AND extremism.
Well, sorry. I think it is naive to think that Christian-, Jewish- or Muslim-extremist terrorism could occur without Christianity, Judaism or Islam.
And again I disagree. Terrorism is usually unhyphenated and can occur even in the absence of religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analise
Absolutely asinine.
The Islamic terrorists know only murder and suffering. The more the better.
I am left speechless by your usual penetrating analysis.
Last edited by Gandhi90s; Nov 28, 08 at 4:43 pm.
Reason: typo
Religion is incidental in the first case and irrelevant in the second. The proof lies in the fact that educated Muslims in India (and blacks in the US) are part of the mainstream and the majority of them do not go arund preaching hatred and violence.
I think you are oversimplifying though. Note that the last terrorist attack in the UK was perpetrated by a group of very well educated (doctors), British Muslims. While attacks in India may have more to do with the disenfranchisement of Indian Muslims, it doesn't automatically follow that more education leads to greater inclusiveness. I'm not sure what does though, since neither Indian or UK society is going to suddenly become devoutly Islamic.
I am left speechless by your usual penetrating analysis.
While I do think the quote you're referring to is a bit of a knee jerk reaction, we do seem to have an expanding body of evidence (evidenced by an expanding number of bodies) that elements within the radical Islamic movement resemble a cult of death. But..... I digressed there.....
The important thing to understand is where these people came from and what their political aims are (assuming they even understand what their political aims are). Communal violence is part and parcel of life in India and while the tactics these people use resemble the underlying philosophies of Al Qaeda; how allied to Al Qaeda they are remains to be seen. It is even possible that these people might be Hindu extremist but this seems unlikely given the focus on Western targets.
The good news is that the Indian authorities seem to have captured some live ones who should yield some good information (depending on the effectiveness of the techniques used to extract the information).
The important thing to understand is where these people came from and what their political aims are (assuming they even understand what their political aims are). Communal violence is part and parcel of life in India and while the tactics these people use resemble the underlying philosophies of Al Qaeda; how allied to Al Qaeda they are remains to be seen. It is even possible that these people might be Hindu extremist but this seems unlikely given the focus on Western targets.
The good news is that the Indian authorities seem to have captured some live ones who should yield some good information (depending on the effectiveness of the techniques used to extract the information).
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA (Recently of San Francisco)
Programs: UA-1P,SPG-Gold,Marriott-Silver
Posts: 10,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
I think we agree on many things, but our interpretations are very different:
I agree that these are two different things. Terrorism by those in power (such as the old KKK or, as many would say, the current Administration) finds its justification in the former.
There is a difference between the current administration and the Mumbai terrorists. The former is, in my opinion, a war criminal -- he used the power of the U.S. to invade a sovereign nation for, as best as I can tell, the economic interests of his corporate buddies. He did not set out to kill innocent civilians, nor was his goal to cause collateral casualties (though that was the result). The Mumbai terrorists are just criminals, and of the lowest sort -- their goal was to kill as many innocent people as possible, they are not, nor do they represent, a legal government and, as such, they do not deserve the dignity of being tried as war criminals. They are merely murders and should be dealt with as such (how does India punish murder?).
Quote:
Terrorism by the relatively powerless (such as the Palestinians, the South Moluccans, and the Irgun) is rooted in the latter.
I know little about the South Moluccans. The Palestinians who commit terror do so in the belief that it is a Jewish/Islamic war and are convinced that they have a religious mandate to prevail. I don't know much about Hamas, except that its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, a legally-constituted sovereign nation. I do know that Yassir Arafat was incredibly corrupt, and channeled billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians to his own personal wealth. I suspect that Hamas is doing the same. That the Palestinians are being exploited by their own for selfish economic ends is despicable, but doesn't change the fact that those who commit the actual acts of terroris, which are aimed solely and exclusively at civilian populations, are doing so in the name of holy Jihad.
Quote:
In the latter case, the cloak of religion may be used to gain more adherents, who are typically poor and uneducated.
I don't necessarily disagree about the Palestinians. However, the terrorists who committed 9/11 and the British tube bombing were not poor, oppressed people. They were educated, middle-class and upper-middle class people engaged in a religious crusade against the Britain, the U.S. and the world.
Quote:
Again, and these are just personal opinions, I seriously doubt if 300 million Muslims approve of bin Laden's actions.
I can only go by the surveys that I have read. Unfortunately, I have far too few Islamic friends and acquaintances in the world to be able to form a subjective opinion. Most of the Muslims I've met outside the U.S. were Moroccan or Chinese. I found them to be warm, peaceful, friendly and devout people. I cannot, however, forget the images of celebrations in some Muslim countries as the World Trade Centers fell.
Quote:
And the pretense that he is convinced of his mandate from Allah is put on to gain more and more converts to his cause under the cloak of religion.
Sorry, but that is personal opinion as well.
Quote:
Muslims in the poor and rural parts of India are indeed "suppressed" and discriminated against, as are women and those of low caste. As I said, they have strong feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement, as did blacks in rural white America 50 years ago.
We're not talking about women and those of low caste because none among their numbers are committing mass murder through terrorist acts. If, in fact, Muslims in rural parts of India are oppressed, then perhaps you can explain why the current attacks have targeted U.S., British and Jewish targets. No one from these three groups is responsible for any oppression of anyone in India. Neither the Indian government nor Indian Hindus were targeted in the attacks on the Taj, the Oberoi, the Leopold, or Chabad.
Quote:
Religion is incidental in the first case and irrelevant in the second.
I'm sorry, but I don't accept that for a moment. If someone yells, Inch' Allah! (or "Praise Jesus!" or "God is one!") before engaging in a suicidal act, you cannot possibly describe religion as incidental to their actions.
Quote:
The proof lies in the fact that educated Muslims in India (and blacks in the US) are part of the mainstream and the majority of them do not go arund preaching hatred and violence.
Yes, but . . . Mohammad Atta was educated Muslim. The Australian doctors were educated Muslims. What they had in common was not simply Islam, but attendance at specific mosques that most certainly did, indeed, preach hatred and violence. Again, it's not all Islam, or even most Islam, but the philosophy of hate and violence is being preached by extremist imams in the name of Islam, perverted though their views may be.
Quote:
And again I disagree. Terrorism is usually unhyphenated and can occur even in the absence of religion.
I would respectfully challenge you to provide an example of unhyphenated, non-religious terrorism from the past 50 years.
It is high. It is far. It is GONE !!!!! 
