[QatzelOk]

If they could, they would kill a hundred thousand also

You mean, like the West does?

and sleep without any problem the next night.

Like Westerners do?

Wow. Those evil terrorists are just like us, except with much lower casualty figures, and a fraction of the military budgets.

[Ter]

You mean, like the West does?

No, no, no. There is no equivalence.

They are the bad guys, we are the good guys.
They aim for our civilians, we kill some of their civilians as collateral damage.
Not the same.

I wonder.
If ever I decide to convert to Islam, and claim that Allah is my God and Mohammed is his prophet,
will I have to defend terrorism as well as you do ?

Ter

[BassHole]

If ever I decide to convert to Islam, and claim that Allah is my God and Mohammed is his prophet,
will I have to defend terrorism as well as you do ?

It definitely seems to come with the territory. I have never seen a major Muslim group genuinely come out and unequivocally denounce violence in the name of Islam.

[Pants-of-dog]

It definitely seems to come with the territory. I have never seen a major Muslim group genuinely come out and unequivocally denounce violence in the name of Islam.

What is a major Muslim group?

Islam is not divided up into neat little denominations with popular figureheads like the Pope, so even if Muslim leaders did denounce violence, it would not get the same airplay as if the Pope did it.

But Muslim groups have been denouncing violence for a while:

http://www.ghazali.net/archives2004/htm ... ounce.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/12/mu ... enouncing/

CAIR would probably be the most "major Muslim group" in the USA, and it has denounced the violence many times:

CAIR, at its press conference, passed along this message: "We denounce the terrorist attacks. They don't reflect the behavior and thoughts of the majority of Muslims. And ... we are Americans, too."

Nahid Awad, the group's executive director, said, "There is no place in Islam for acts of terrorism and violence against innocent people."

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-17/us/g ... p?_s=PM:US

It may be that those who are not aware of Muslims denouncing terrorism and violence are simply suffering from some sort of observer bias.

[Igor Antunov]

It's safe to say 99% or perhaps even 100% of islamic terrorism directed at western soil is funded by the wahabist sect, a uniquely Saudi phenomenon. Just a small tidbit for your digestion. The wahabis represent a tiny, very rich and influential segment of the 1.7 billion muslim population, and are not even targeted by this western 'war on terror' at their source, i.e Saudi Arabia because they play a two faced game. On the one hand they provide america with all the oil it can suckle, on the other they use the earnings from this to finance attacks against this fat piglet.

[Fasces]

The Wahabist certainly is rooted in Saudi Arabia, and in fact the dominant expression the Sunni faith in that country. However, the tradition from which the Wahabist originate is not one exclusive to Saudi Arabia, and in fact is but an expression, though an extreme one, of Salafism. Salafism is highly fundamentalist and literal in its interpretation of Islam, and the result of many centuries of a tendency by Islam to move away from the rationalism that defined its Golden Age. This is largely the fault of the Ottoman Caliphs (and they ultimately paid the price for it when Europe finally began to grow), but was by no means unique to them, and occurred in every region Islam today is found, from the corner of southeast Asia to Gibraltar.

Wheras Islam was liberal, and grew extreme, Christianity began extreme and grew liberal. This is fact, and agreed upon by most Islamic scholars themselves, who take pride in their fundamentalism.

[Rich]

I was a victim of terrorism. When I was 5 years old I told my parents that I didn't want to go to Sunday school. They said I had to go to church or Sunday School, so I chose to go to Church to maintain some distance. There I was led to believe from the Bible that the world was ruled by an immature, capricious, evil psychopathic God and that if I didn't give him total love, sycophancy and respect I'd burn in Hell for eternity. That was terrorism pure and simple. Correct me if I'm wrong but are not 100's of millions of Muslim's children still being taught the same basic message? This is the really serious terrorism, from which all the rest of the terror and barbarity of the Muslim world flows. And it is Muslims who are its biggest victims, psychologically and physically like the school girls who were pushed back into a burning school building by the Saudi religious police.

Islam needs to be eradicated ,or needs to emasculate itself like Christianity has done, where at least in Europe hardly anyone really believes in the traditional doctrines any more.

However the West has been thoroughly hypocritical, for example, turning a blind eye to the barbarity of the Saudi regime, even when Saudi Princes murder our own citizens, or backing Saddam's murderous war against Iran, even trying to blame his use of Chemical weapons on the Iranians. Bush Senior called on the Iraqi people to rise up and then sat back and watched while Saddam slaughtered between 100 and 400 thousand Shia, because a revolution was no longer convenient. Madeline Albright when asked about the alleged a half a million children that had died due to sanctions declared that it was worth it. We've never had any problem with terrorism as long as it didn't threaten our oil supplies and its victim's were not westerners.

[Imperial Spaghetti]

Islam needs to be eradicated ,or needs to emasculate itself like Christianity has done, where at least in Europe hardly anyone really believes in the traditional doctrines any more.

Yes, but it isn't doing that for now. If anything it has only gotten worse.

However the West has been thoroughly hypocritical, for example, turning a blind eye to the barbarity of the Saudi regime, even when Saudi Princes murder our own citizens, or backing Saddam's murderous war against Iran, even trying to blame his use of Chemical weapons on the Iranians. Bush Senior called on the Iraqi people to rise up and then sat back and watched while Saddam slaughtered between 100 and 400 thousand Shia, because a revolution was no longer convenient.

Madeline Albright when asked about the alleged a half a million children that had died due to sanctions declared that it was worth it. We've never had any problem with terrorism as long as it didn't threaten our oil supplies and its victim's were not westerners.

What should have been done in your opinion? I always read "hypocrite" around here, but no real alternative to what has been done and what is continuing to happen.

[QatzelOk]

If ever I decide to convert to Islam, and claim that Allah is my God and Mohammed is his prophet,
will I have to defend terrorism as well as you do ?

The opposite will happen. You will no longer be able to look the other way when the West incorporated terrorizes one of its Muslim resource colonies.

As a Muslim yourself, you will realize that the people living in those countries have a good relationship with their environment/other people/the poor, and this will put into question the motives of the West.

As a Muslim, you will no longer be able to find comfort in the warm embrace of corporate media's anti-Muslim racism.

[Rich]

What should have been done in your opinion? I always read "hypocrite" around here, but no real alternative to what has been done and what is continuing to happen.

We should have removed Saddam.

Which of course is what we did in the end. The invasion of Iraq looks like it might succeed way beyond my wildest hopes. I thought Iraq might have to pass through an Iran like partially democratic, theocracy stage. Europe didn't go from Feudalism to Liberal Democracy without a few hiccups on the way, like the thirty years war, the Napoleonic wars, Nazism, the Soviet Union, to name just a few. I don't know why anyone demands that Iraq must be some perfect Liberal, uncorrupt, brother lee love, utopia right off the bat, except they haven't bothered to spend two minutes thinking about history.

I'm not asking for perfection from America or Europe. The US did a fantastic job defending the free world against the Communism. It was a hard struggle and the US couldn't afford to be to choosy about who it allied with in the Struggle against totalitarian Communism, in the same way that we had to pally up with good ole Uncle Joe Stalin to defeat Hitler. But I remember Reagan used to suggest that if we ever faced alien invasion from another world, we might put aside our differences with the Soviet Union. Yes, fair point. But unpleasant as the Iranian Islamic regime may have been it wasn't anything comparable as a threat to a bunch of high tech aliens, it wasn't justification for joining with the Soviet Union in backing Saddam's war of expansion against Iran. Which is what we did.

We're in the process of leaving Iraq and attention is turning towards Iran. But, the same basic principle applies, Either we intervene to try and help the development of the Middle East towards democracy, tolerance and prosperity, or we should get the fuck out of there. America would have to be insane to try and go into Iran over throw the Islamo fascists and hold free election, but insane or not I'm happy to support them in such a venture. If we're not going to do that, then when we pull out of Iraq we should pull out of the whole of the Middle East. There's no justification for keeping troops in Qatar or Kuwait, They ain't defending liberty or democracy.

[Pants-of-dog]

The invasion of Iraq looks like it might succeed way beyond my wildest hopes.

The OP seems to say that the West is fueling suicide attacks against itself by continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do your "wildest hopes" include motivating people to become suicide bombers?

[Imperial Spaghetti]

We're in the process of leaving Iraq and attention is turning towards Iran. But, the same basic principle applies, Either we intervene to try and help the development of the Middle East towards democracy, tolerance and prosperity, or we should get the fuck out of there. America would have to be insane to try and go into Iran over throw the Islamo fascists and hold free election, but insane or not I'm happy to support them in such a venture. If we're not going to do that, then when we pull out of Iraq we should pull out of the whole of the Middle East. There's no justification for keeping troops in Qatar or Kuwait, They ain't defending liberty or democracy.

Wait, are you saying, either the US invade Iran now or pull out of Qatar, Kuwait, and might I add Bahrain? It's still essential that the US bases stay where they are in the Middle East--it's a matter of military strategy! Imagine that wacky Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Co. finally realizing their nuclear program, and here you are saying "invade or leave." People always say "it's not about democracy, it's about the oil." Can't it be about both? What harm do you think is being done by the troops staying where they are right now? More jihadists? I think not. In the case of Islamic terrorists, I believe that the best strategy is to hold one's ground, and if necessary, show force. Pre-emptive attack? Why the hell not? But all in due time. These things have to be planned.

The OP seems to say that the West is fueling suicide attacks against itself by continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do your "wildest hopes" include motivating people to become suicide bombers?

Do you really think that US military strategy should be affected by a bunch of hate-soaked sheeple who will voluntarily turn into suicide bombers if you so much as fart? Those lunatics will grab at any excuse, any excuse to strap themselves with C4s and gain an entrance to heaven. It's not because the US is "invading them" but because they want a one way ticket to Allah's sensual paradise.

How does your logic explain the killings among Shiites and Sunnis, for example? You think that if you leave these people alone they'll leave YOU alone? You live in an Asperger bubble, buddy.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you really think that US military strategy should be affected by a bunch of hate-soaked sheeple who will voluntarily turn into suicide bombers if you so much as fart?

I think Western foreign policy has to take blowback into consideration more than it does, or else suicide attacks against Western targets will continue.

Those lunatics will grab at any excuse, any excuse to strap themselves with C4s and gain an entrance to heaven. It's not because the US is "invading them" but because they want a one way ticket to Allah's sensual paradise.

You didn't even read the article quoted in the OP, did you?

EDIT: Actually, I meant this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 4413.story

How does your logic explain the killings among Shiites and Sunnis, for example? You think that if you leave these people alone they'll leave YOU alone? You live in an Asperger bubble, buddy.

When US forces left Lebanon, Hezbollah stopped suicide attacks against US targets. That seems like evidence for the idea that if we pull our militaries out of the Middle East, we should see a reduced number of suicide attacks against Western targets.

[Imperial Spaghetti]

You didn't even read the article quoted in the OP, did you?

Oh, right, that "99.6% of European terror attacks are not by Muslims." Sounds like an add for toothpaste. And since you seem to believe this nonsense, then that would even be more reason to support the bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. There really is no reason to withdraw the troops from the Middle East, then is there? After all, they are NOT attacking us, according to the article that you accuse me of not reading which you subscribe to and I don't. See how being rigid leads you to a rat hole?

When US forces left Lebanon, Hezbollah stopped suicide attacks against US targets. That seems like evidence for the idea that if we pull our militaries out of the Middle East, we should see a reduced number of suicide attacks against Western targets.

But you said so yourself, 99.6% of terrorists are not Muslim!

Nice dodge, by the way, of the Sunni-Shiite violence independent of Western occupation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh, right, that "99.6% of European terror attacks are not by Muslims." Sounds like an add for toothpaste. And since you seem to believe this nonsense, then that would even be more reason to support the bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. There really is no reason to withdraw the troops from the Middle East, then is there? After all, they are NOT attacking us, according to the article that you accuse me of not reading which you subscribe to and I don't. See how being rigid leads you to a rat hole?

Please read my edit. Thank you.

But if so many of these terror atacks are not commited by Muslims, then we can safely say that a literal belief in Islamic theology is not the motivating factor for most terrorist attacks against Europe.

But you said so yourself, 99.6% of terrorists are not Muslim!

Nice dodge, by the way, of the Sunni-Shiite violence independent of Western occupation.

Is the Sunni-Shiite violence part of terror attacks in Europe? No. Thus, it is irrelevant to the OP, but I will address it anyways.

In my opinion the violence between these two sects is a product of two things: cultural mores created by the economic and geographic demands of being nomadic tribesmen in a resource scarce environment, and the whole "divide and conquer' thing by European imperialists who carved up the Middle East for their own policial aims.

[Imperial Spaghetti]

Is the Sunni-Shiite violence part of terror attacks in Europe? No. Thus, it is irrelevant to the OP, but I will address it anyways.

In my opinion the violence between these two sects is a product of two things: cultural mores created by the economic and geographic demands of being nomadic tribesmen in a resource scarce environment, and the whole "divide and conquer' thing by European imperialists who carved up the Middle East for their own policial aims.

European colonial guilt...you are dripping of it. I am technically a "colonized"... since I am not white. So, you know, get over it, I forgive you.

Addendum: The LA Times writer is a garden-variety leftist idealist. I don't subscribe to his opinion.

[Pants-of-dog]

European colonial guilt...you are dripping of it. I am technically a "colonized"... since I am not white. So, you know, get over it, I forgive you.

You focus on the one irrelevant part of my post and use it to insult me.

Instead of discusssing my actual arguments.

I see.

[Imperial Spaghetti]

You focus on the one irrelevant part of my post and use it to insult me.

Instead of discusssing my actual arguments.

I see.

You call this insulting you? My god, lighten up. I have far better things to do than to insult you. I already added my opinion on the LA Times article. It's a cliched anti-US occupation article. It's like saying, "we pissed them off, so now we should stop doing so." It doesn't work that way, and this is what you obstinately refuse to see.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already added my opinion on the LA Times article. It's a cliched anti-US occupation article. It's like saying, "we pissed them off, so now we should stop doing so." It doesn't work that way, and this is what you obstinately refuse to see.

Great. Now we know your opinion. You have made the very first step in constructing an actual argument. I am ever so proud of you, but you are not done yet.

You still have to support your argument with evidence, and provide some sort of source for that evidence.

You say it doesn't work that way. Prove it.

[Imperial Spaghetti]

Great. Now we know your opinion. You have made the very first step in constructing an actual argument. I am ever so proud of you, but you are not done yet.

You still have to support your argument with evidence, and provide some sort of source for that evidence.

You say it doesn't work that way. Prove it.

You cite an LA Times OPINION PIECE, and ask if I read it. I tell you I don't subscribe to it and now I have to prove what? You're really a funny guy. Every time you ask for evidence and I provide you one, you turn to autistic mode and use ridiculously rigid categories to filter words in what basically serves nothing other than to prove a very tangential line of argumentation that you subscribe to--which takes the focus completely from the main argument and muddies up the topic trail. You completely miss my point every single time, and communicate to me with nothing but either cold and asocial writing style or outright Rain Man antics. In fact, I have no idea what you are trying to tickle me into proving.