This week in Islam

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

They were a group of officer cadets touring (not patrolling) a peaceful civilian, scenic area. It was a terrorist act whoever did it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably of that particular breed which says that all Israelis are legitimate targets since they are required to serve in the military. And all Jews are legitimate targets since they support Israel.

 

I always took the position that uniformed personnel were legitimate targets in a conflict where the sides were drawn.  For instance, I would never have considered the IRA's attempts to kill British soldiers in the same way I considered their attempts to incinerate civilian restaurant goers.

(That's why I could never understand their whining about the "shoot to kill" policy.  Tossers!)

So had this been Hamas I would consider it a more legitimate action than I do given ISIS has been identified as the culprit.

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

Point being, the grievances against Israel are justifiable - always have been and always will be.

[Argus]

52 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I always took the position that uniformed personnel were legitimate targets in a conflict where the sides were drawn.

Well since the other said wears no uniforms does that make all of them legitimate targets? Because this is the kind of behavior which is inclining more and more Israelis to believe so. You can be certain the instinctive response of many will not be "oh, let's try to negotiate a peace with these people" but "They're scum who can't ever be trusted! Let's force them all out of Jerusalem!"

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Point being, the grievances against Israel are justifiable - always have been and always will be.

Actually that's not the point at all. Terrorism has nothing to do with the justifiability of a grievance.  Terrorism is about killing people who have nothing to do with the grievance in order to move towards addressing it.  That's why a uniform makes a difference to me. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well since the other said wears no uniforms does that make all of them legitimate targets? Because this is the kind of behavior which is inclining more and more Israelis to believe so. You can be certain the instinctive response of many will not be "oh, let's try to negotiate a peace with these people" but "They're scum who can't ever be trusted! Let's force them all out of Jerusalem!"

Sure, it's never cut and dried under these circumstances.  Certainly, the perpetrators of this kind of action carry them out with hatred as their motivation, not any kind of peaceful solution or justice for any group.  I don't think that even enters their minds. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Actually that's not the point at all. Terrorism has nothing to do with the justifiability of a grievance.  Terrorism is about killing people who have nothing to do with the grievance in order to move towards addressing it.  That's why a uniform makes a difference to me. 

Terrorism is the result of grievances being ignored and exacerbated by ongoing repression/oppression or whatever you want to call that.  The uniform thing doesn't make that much difference to me in the case of democracies that keep voting in governments that refuse to recognize or deal with the grievances people hold against them.  I take it as an absolute that people are responsible for the actions of the government they elect.  Our governments don't just exist to represent us to ourselves, they also represent us, and in fact ARE us on the global stage.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Terrorism is the result of grievances being ignored and exacerbated by ongoing repression/oppression or whatever you want to call that.  The uniform thing doesn't make that much difference to me in the case of democracies that keep voting in governments that refuse to recognize or deal with the grievances people hold against them.  I take it as an absolute that people are responsible for the actions of the government they elect.  Our governments don't just exist to represent us to ourselves, they also represent us, and in fact ARE us on the global stage.

There's no real disagreement there.  I said terrorism has nothing to do with the justifiability of a grievance, not that it has nothing to do with a grievance.  The uniform just speaks to the legitimacy of a target.

I do disagree that anyone is responsible for the actions of the government they elect.  It's something they have no control over.

[DogOnPorch]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Why should this be considered a terror attack when the targets are wearing uniforms?

 

Why not drive-over a group of Canadian soldiers and see what we end-up calling you.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, bcsapper said:

There's no real disagreement there.  I said terrorism has nothing to do with the justifiability of a grievance, not that it has nothing to do with a grievance.  The uniform just speaks to the legitimacy of a target

How does a uniform make one a 'legitimate' target? Especially given conscription.

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Why not drive-over a group of Canadian soldiers and see what we end-up calling you.

Why not? It should be obvious why not.

[eyeball]

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

There's no real disagreement there.  I said terrorism has nothing to do with the justifiability of a grievance, not that it has nothing to do with a grievance.  The uniform just speaks to the legitimacy of a target.

 

Lets put it another way then, terrorism occurs when the reasons for ignoring the grievances cannot be justified.  Obviously defining what passes for justification is going to be a very subjective exercise - as we often hear one side's freedom-fighter is just the other side's terrorist.

Quote

I do disagree that anyone is responsible for the actions of the government they elect.  It's something they have no control over.

Perhaps in the case of a new party or politician that appears out of the blue and lies their way into power and then abuses it but not when the abuse goes on over several election cycles and especially when different governments just carry on with the same policies.  After years and years of this freedom-fighters/terrorists likely start concluding we're all fundamentally okay with the things our government's do in our name. 

Your unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility sure doesn't square with the weight of opinion expressed around here when it comes to explaining how to address the deficiencies of our democracy and especially from conservatives about the responsibility of voters to join political parties and become engaged and vote. I recall the number of times I've heard conservatives describe themselves as being more responsible than progressives when it comes to our governance, but responsible for what exactly? Unquestioning compliance with the governments authoritah?  Screw that.

Your abdication of responsibility in this case is just too convenient and I don't buy it for one minute.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Lets put it another way then, terrorism occurs when the reasons for ignoring the grievances cannot be justified.  Obviously defining what passes for justification is going to be a very subjective exercise - as we often hear one side's freedom-fighter is just the other side's terrorist.

Perhaps in the case of a new party or politician that appears out of the blue and lies their way into power and then abuses it but not when the abuse goes on over several election cycles and especially when different governments just carry on with the same policies.  After years and years of this freedom-fighters/terrorists likely start concluding we're all fundamentally okay with the things our government's do in our name. 

Your unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility sure doesn't square with the weight of opinion expressed around here when it comes to explaining how to address the deficiencies of our democracy and especially from conservatives about the responsibility of voters to join political parties and become engaged and vote. I recall the number of times I've heard conservatives describe themselves as being more responsible than progressives when it comes to our governance, but responsible for what exactly? Unquestioning compliance with the governments authoritah?  Screw that.

Your abdication of responsibility in this case is just too convenient and I don't buy it for one minute.

 

I don't know why it's so difficult.  I don't have any say in what a government does once it is elected.  The very worst I can do t them is refuse to vote for them next time, which I might well do, if I felt they had misled me.  I don't know about conservatives expressing opinions about the responsibility of voters to join political parties and become engaged and vote.  If you say so, of course, but I've never noriced it.

I'm curious.  What do you do?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

How does a uniform make one a 'legitimate' target? Especially given conscription.

I would have thought that was obvious, explained better by stating that the lack of one indictates that a target is not legitimate.

Except in the case of an enemy who doesn't wear a uniform, of course.  Then you just have to play it by ear a bit.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'm curious.  What do you do?

I certainly don't surrender to it. I keep myself aware of it, vote against it, speak against it and pray my family doesn't fall victim to anyone retaliating against it.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I certainly don't surrender to it. I keep myself aware of it, vote against it, speak against it and pray my family doesn't fall victim to anyone retaliating against it.

Yeah, so it's not your fault if it happens then.

[eyeball]

I'm still liable.

Edited January 10, 2017 by eyeball

[Argus]

18 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I would have thought that was obvious, explained better by stating that the lack of one indictates that a target is not legitimate.

Except in the case of an enemy who doesn't wear a uniform, of course.  Then you just have to play it by ear a bit.

It's not obvious. There is no war going on, for one thing, which means there are NO legitimate targets. As to to conscripts who are in a tour group, why are they a more legitimate target, given they have no choice, than, say, a guy in a suit and tie who works for the justice department, or a garbageman, or a nurse? And if every Israeli is a legitimate target doesn't that mean every Arab is too?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Argus

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

It's not obvious. There is no war going on, for one thing, which means there are NO legitimate targets. As to to conscripts who are in a tour group, why are they a more legitimate target, given they have no choice, than, say, a guy in a suit and tie who works for the justice department, or a garbageman, or a nurse?

There is a war going on, and that's why I made the point of stating that I was talking about Palestinians in the original post.  And given that, a soldier is a legitimate target.  I would not expect them to refuse to shoot the enemy if so directed.

[eyeball]

So if the war is being prosecuted by a democratically elected government then why shouldn't the people who voted for that government be considered legitimate targets?

How do terrorists/freedom-fighters tell us voters apart if we don't wear uniforms? 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So if the war is being prosecuted by a democratically elected government then why shouldn't the people who voted for that government be considered legitimate targets?

How do terrorists/freedom-fighters tell us voters apart if we don't wear uniforms? 

I suppose we could wear some kind of paint on our foreheads that indicates how we voted. 

It would have to be indelible though.  I like the occasional shower.

[eyeball]

Well as I said, we've been electing governments that have been prosecuting this war for decades now so it's easy to see why differentiation is just about impossible. Collateral damage is what it is, an unfortunate reality for all.

[DogOnPorch]

Apparently, MI5 are busy looking for a 'rogue scientist' that has connections to chemical weapons attacks in Syria in regards to a discovered plan to attack resort towns like Brighton with nerve agents.

Scary...Sarin and VX have both been deployed in recent battles in Syria.

[dialamah]

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) held a conference in Tunisia on the role of Imams and Mosques in preventing terrorism; Tunisia is interested in preventing their citizens from joining terrorist groups.   The conference itself was in Arabic, but here's a link to summaries of the various speakers.   The summaries are translated, so a bit difficult to follow, but it seems that a few of the speakers suggested that government has a role to play in ensuring that Imams focus on the moderate teachings of the prophet, and that it's as much a social issue as a religious one.   

Anyway, for anyone who doubts that leaders in the Muslim world aren't speaking out against terrorism, or that there is no hope for Islam to progress, the CSID disputes both those ideas.   Their main site is here, and they have held recent conferences on Equality and Justice in the Muslim Family, Mechanism for Addressing Radicalsm, Standards for Engaging with Political Islamists, among others.

 

 

[Argus]

This week in Islam a brave warrior of Islam executed a transit police officer in Denver by walking up to him while he was talking with someone and shooting him point blank in the neck. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4180820/Man-shot-killed-Denver-contract-transit-officer.html

And another noble warrior of Islam attacked soldiers outside the Louvre in Paris.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38853841

Also, more than a thousand German police raided a variety of mosques and homes to thwart an impending terrorist attack.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-german-police-raid-homes-and-mosques-arrest-tunisian-suspected-of-planning-attack-2017-2

In Canadian news, Aarron Driver, Canadian ISIS supporter, agreed to a peace bond - like those have proven so useful in the past.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/aaron-driver-peace-bond-terrorist-isis-1.3430287

 

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

I still don't see a value in pointing out crimes and acts by individuals.  Even less so now that we have a government in the US who is actually acting to suppress Muslims.  Do you feel that the level of dialogue has been elevated as a result of these new actions ?

I sure don't.