Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Muslim extremists compared to Yankee revolutionariesFollow

#27 Sep 18 2006 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
If I was to go to class this week and start vocally insulting one of my classmates, I'd get called a ******** and told to shut the hell up. The other 25 people wouldn't just join in on my minority opinion.


If you were in a tribalistic society and had more power than everyone else and started insulting the dirty girl, people would be lining up to join you and be afraid that you would start on them if they didn't.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#28 Sep 18 2006 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
If you were in a tribalistic society and had more power than everyone else and started insulting the dirty girl, people would be lining up to join you and be afraid that you would start on them if they didn't.
If that's the case, then the moderates had better sack up and speak out before they die in the crossfire. I don't really see another solution.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 18 2006 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If that's the case, then the moderates had better get listened to by the news channels before they die in the crossfire. I don't really see another solution.
FTFY
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#30 Sep 18 2006 at 12:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Then they'd better work harder at getting their message out unless they're content to die saying "If only CNN had run that news piece on us..."

More to the point, they'd better work harder at it at home. What some guy in Boise thinks of the average Arab is a lot less important than what the average Arab is doing to reform the climate in his own nation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Sep 18 2006 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
#32 Sep 18 2006 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
**
448 posts
Kelv wrote:
I do not condone targeting civilians.

Kelv wrote:
Big nukey finger-type-flameball killin' 'em all


Just sayin ;-)
#33 Sep 18 2006 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
didn't say it was my solution.

I'm partial to Denis Leary's "Good Year Tit" idea.


Quote:
"Today President Leary sent the Good Year Tit over to the middle east and solved the problem"


____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#34 Sep 18 2006 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
**
448 posts
I like it! Maybe then they'll stop hoarding all the virgins.

I haven't seen a virgin around here in YEARS >.>
#35 Sep 18 2006 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
sulleih wrote:
I like it! Maybe then they'll stop hoarding all the virgins.

I haven't seen a virgin around here since Niobia >.>
FTFY
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#36 Sep 18 2006 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Even the Founding Fathers and firebrands of the revolution did not start out as saying "WTF? Stamp tax? That's it, we're starting our own nation." The early calls of the Revolutionary period were for representation within Parliament and equal treatment as "mainland" British subjects. I must have missed that phase in the modern Islamic terror movement.


While it's not a perfect analogy, the methodologies of ME terrorism over the last 40 years is kinda what you're asking about though. Most of them are "demands" for recognition. If you make the analogy of "West" to "England", and "ME leaders" to "Brittish colonial governors", then you're pretty close with the analogy.

And in that context, many of the terrorist actions we've seen prior to Al-qaeda's series of direct violence was similar to acts taken by colonists back in the day. It's one of the reasons things aren't as clear as they might seem. It's why we supported the Mujahadeen back in the 80s. Heck. It's part of why we supported Saddam Hussein as well. Both were seen as fighting against the establishment that was oppressing them. Of course, Saddam turned out to be as bad (worse really) then the other dictators in the region, and Bin Laden decided to turn his Mujahadeen against us in the 90s, but that's part of why the issue is a lot more complex. It doesn't totally invalidate the analogy.


I think where the analogy fails isn't with the situational issues. You do have a largish group of people with minimal "voice" in the world around them. This does result in a percentage of them joining extremist groups that oppose the status quo rule. Where the difference comes in is that while the US revolutionaries adopted an ideology of freedom and liberty, those who are fighting against oppression in the ME are typically just using the need for freedom of the people to replace the current leaders with themselves. They have no intention of making "the people" any more free of oppression then those people are today. But, of course, they don't tell them that, so they manage to get a degree of support anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Sep 18 2006 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but you think WWII/Terrorism analogies are solid as well Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Sep 18 2006 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's why we supported the Mujahadeen back in the 80s. Heck. It's part of why we supported Saddam Hussein as well.
Err

Wan't that because Russia was getting too close to the Oil that Uncle Sam needed?

{ Insert Rumsfeld/Saddam Snuggley Photo Here }
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#39 Sep 18 2006 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
King Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's why we supported the Mujahadeen back in the 80s. Heck. It's part of why we supported Saddam Hussein as well.
Err

Wan't that because Russia was getting too close to the Oil that Uncle Sam needed?


Sure. But the basic concept still stands. You're picking one form of leadership over another. The problem that the ME has had for the last half century or so is that most of the leaders who've stepped up have been powerhungry dictators. So while certainly a good portion of the blame lies on the Wests shoulders for putting them in power, some of that blame also has to lie with the people as well. As several people have pointed out in this thread and others, there seems to be a decided lack of the "good people" standing up and demanding good leaders.

Of course, at least part of that problem stems from the fact that for most of that last 50 years, their leaders have been chosen without their input and those leaders have been oppressive, meaning that standing up for something better has almost always resulted in imprisonment and/or death.

Which, just to toss a more current issue into the mix, is why whether you agree with the motives or method by which we got into the current Iraq situation or not, it's pretty important that we follow through with it. If we withdraw or fail, it'll be yet another in a long line of events where the West disrupts the region, replaces leaders, gets the people riled up and hopeful for something "better" only to abandon them to yet another oppressive regime.

Each time we do this, it gets harder. Certainly, if we fail this time, it wont be easier the next time it's tried...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Sep 19 2006 at 2:47 AM Rating: Decent
Kelv, There are lots of great points in your original post. Not only that, but it's rare to read something on these forums that goes a little deeper than the usual "They're all crazy so let's nuke them."

It should be completely obvious to anyone that Muslims and extremists are not born suice-bombers. That their violence is brought on by their condition. Trying to understand this does not mean that one condones it, or agrees with it. Simply that one is trying to understand what the bloody hell is going on.

And it's not easy because there are so many factors involved.

The economic system is one. But you have to add up lots of others: the lack of education, the state-controlled media, the poverty, the endemic corruption at every level, the lack of real opportunities, the stale political process, the effects of post-colonialism...

I do think the first step in this "war on terror" is to stop giving those fanatics propganda material. Sort out the fucking Palestinian problem once and for all. This has to be the very first step. Normalise Israel's relationship with its neighbours, and create a viable Palestinian state.

Until this is done, all the rest won't change much.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#41 Sep 19 2006 at 4:43 AM Rating: Good
The Dalai Lama has officially possessed Kelvy.




Edited, Sep 19th 2006 at 8:44am EDT by Elderon
#42 Sep 19 2006 at 6:13 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Elderon the Wise wrote:
The Dalai Lama has officially possessed Kelvy.






I prefer to think of it as channeling.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#43 Sep 19 2006 at 6:39 AM Rating: Decent
*
186 posts
If I may...I'll admit I've skimmed through a great deal of this thread after reading the "denouncement" of 9/11 and other attacks made by this muslim group or that muslim group, but I do think I need to just underline something...

Nobody is denying that most muslim groups do issue a condemnation of such actions...and the media certainly does not cover it up. In fact, the media in this country (thatb eing the UK) is so ridiculously politically correct that it rarely even mentions the word "Islam" and "terrorist" in the same sentance (probably incase they decide to demonstrate the peaceful nature of their religion with yet another violent riot :t).

The problem isn't a lack of reply...it's a lack of action. The second a muslim blows himself up, or chops up his daughter because she tried to marry a non-muslim, or gang rape a woman, the first cry that goes up from the Muslim community is "Islam is a religion of peace! These are not the actions of true muslims!" What you call a denouncement, I call an obvious attempt to distance themselves from what is a rather obvious underlying current in their religion, that they want to pretend doesn't exist.

It is a fact that the greatest terrorists threats in the world right now all origonate from Islamic groups. It is also a fact that there have been almost back to back riots as of late all across europe, perpetrated by Muslims. It is a fact that every few weeks something appears on the news about a Muslim "honour killing". Whether they like to admit it or not, there is an undercurrent of extreme, reationary violence in the Muslim community - whether it's a minority that actually perpetrate it or not - and they make no effort whatsoever to monitor or address it.

Surely someone in the muslim community knows who these bastards are (in fact, I have no doubt that their local religious authority would know them). However, it's been stated many times by muslims in this country that if they knew someone who was planning a terrorist attack, although they might try to talk them out of it, they wouldn't report them to the police...why? Because it would be considered a betrayal of Islam.

I take no comfort whatsoever from statements issued by the muslim community condeming terrorist actions. And I doubt I will take any comfort in them until I see muslims waking up to the fact that, whether they like it or not, their religion is causing far more trouble than its worth in the western world. Sooner or later there's going to be a massive public backlash against them, and it's in their best interests to remove the terrorists from their numbers...and by "remove" I mean "report to the authorities" not "sweep under the carpet and hope they go away".
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 228 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)