Can the Clash Between Islam and Western Religions be Resolved?

[jbg]

Five years ago today, four airplanes were commandeered by Radical Muslims. Three of them were piloted into tall buildings, with lethal results. One of them was heroically taken town in a Pennsylvania field, the passengers knowing that they may die so others may live. Similarly, in New York City, police and fire officers rushed into the collapsing h*ll of the World Trade Center, again knowing that they may die so others may live. To paraphrase Rudolph Giuliani, truly the best of humanity fighting the worst of humanity. But the question is, was this the first time, the last time, or neither. Sadly, I conclude the answer is “neither”.

Those who know me know I am not particularly religious. I am certainly not a Bible thumper. But one must go back to the beginning, prior to the invention of Islam, and back to the very dawn of Judaism. The tribes surrounding the Hebrews practiced wicked rituals of torture, child sacrifice and homosexuality. The roots of the word “sodomy” come from somewhere, and that somewhere is Sodom and Gomorrah. The Hebrew dedication to innocent life was made obvious with Abraham’s plea that if Sodom and Gomorrah had righteous people that it be spared. First G-d said 50 would be enough, but G-d stopped at ten. Similarly, G-d made Abraham spare his son Isaac from being ritually sacrificed, while the neighboring people made a regular practice of it. Now, the neighboring people call the same phenomena “jihad” or “martyr bombing”.

Skipping forward thousands of years, one can now contrast the ineffectual though brutal methods of fighting employed by radical Islam, with the surgical methods employed by the West. Is there always collateral damage when the West strikes? Almost always. But the numbers of innocents lost is usually miniscule, when one bears in mind that Radical Islam deliberately fights from the midst of civilians, in order to make targeting the “fighters” impossible. But the West usually gets the job done. Think Yasin, killed by an Israeli missile in his wheelchair, with his guard the only other casualty. A major terrorist leader gone, many operations existing only in his head disrupted, many lives saved. The contrast to Lockerbie, World Trade Center I, the 1998 Embassy attacks, and of course, the September 11, 2001 attacks could not be starker. The Radical Muslims butchered thousands. What did they get for their people in terms of benefit? Zero.

I have two sons, one 10 1/2, one 9. Do I want them eventually to go to war, and make the ultimate sacrifice? Of course not. But I know that “peace” is not an option, until Islam decides that it is time to live, let live, prosper, and allow progress and learning. If not, they are doomed, and properly so. Though I am not religious, I can say with confidence that that is not what G-d wants, or will allow to happen.

[theloniusfleabag]

Wacky. Though you claim to be non-religious, your writing indicates that you are still somewhat a 'practicing Jew'. But, perhaps you mean you are not a 'hardliner'. I found something interesting while trying to see if you wrote this post...

http://listserv.shamash.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=...;T=0&P=2604

Years later I perceived a marvelous diyuk of a far different

sort, in the intricate legal arguments that Avraham was engaged in over

the fate of Sodom. Avraham said to G-d, "Perhaps there are fifty

tzadikim in the cityÅ", and G-d agreed that in that case, He would spare

Sodom. Avraham then continued, "What if five of the fifty tzadikim would

be missing (ulai yachsarun chamishim ha tzadikim chamisha)?" and G-d

agreed, "I will not destroy [sodom] if I find forty-five."

The question arises, why did G-d not answer Avraham with the

same language as Avraham phrased the question, i. e., "I will not

destroy Sodom if five of the fifty tzadikim are missing"? The reverse

can also be asked, why did Avraham himself use the unwieldy construct

"fifty-minus-five" and not simply say "forty-five", as G-d did?

I explained this as follows: after G-d agreed to fifty

tzadikim, Avraham probed what was meant by "fifty": Must they be exactly

fifty, or perhaps "fifty-minus-five" is close enough to fifty to qualify

as fulfilling the agreement?

G-d answered categorically: fifty meant fifty and not a

single tzadik less. G-d, however, was prepared to renegotiate the

agreement itself to specify forty-five, but not to interpret fifty as

"fifty-minus-five." An agreement must be clear, unambiguous and then

carried out to the letter.

This explains how Avraham had the seeming temerity to haggle

over numbers after he had explicitly agreed to fifty. At first, it never

entered his mind to try to get better terms; but only to clarify whether

the number fifty was exact or open to interpretation. But when G-d

Himself raised the possibility of a renegotiated forty-five, Avraham

understood that he, too, could try to change the agreement, as long as

this was done by mutual consent. Avraham therefore bargained down to

forty, to thirty, to twenty and finally to ten (see Chibah Yeteirah as

to why he stopped at ten).

Yehuda Henkin

[jbg]

Wacky. Though you claim to be non-religious, your writing indicates that you are still somewhat a 'practicing Jew'. But, perhaps you mean you are not a 'hardliner'. I found something interesting while trying to see if you wrote this post...

Interesting find there. By the way, on neoconplanet, another site (link) I was also challenged as to whether I was the original author. Indeed I am.

Why am I beling challenged on this post?

[M.Dancer]

I find amusing that a poster who says he ain't religious would spell god, g-d. Myself I call him Phil.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear jbg,

Why am I beling challenged on this post?

No offence intended, but it isn't your usual writing style. Further, there have been tons of 'cross-posts', plaigiarism and trolling on this forum recently, which has left me a bit skeptical. Otherwise, a good post.

[Black Dog]

Skipping forward thousands of years, one can now contrast the ineffectual though brutal methods of fighting employed by radical Islam, with the surgical methods employed by the West. Is there always collateral damage when the West strikes? Almost always. But the numbers of innocents lost is usually miniscule, when one bears in mind that Radical Islam deliberately fights from the midst of civilians, in order to make targeting the “fighters” impossible. But the West usually gets the job done. Think Yasin, killed by an Israeli missile in his wheelchair, with his guard the only other casualty. A major terrorist leader gone, many operations existing only in his head disrupted, many lives saved. The contrast to Lockerbie, World Trade Center I, the 1998 Embassy attacks, and of course, the September 11, 2001 attacks could not be starker. The Radical Muslims butchered thousands. What did they get for their people in terms of benefit? Zero.

This is typical of the way the media has distorted the western view of warfare, depicting our way as clean and efficient, ready for prime time. First, I would dispute that the western way of war "gets the job done". Hell, if it did, the neo cons wouldn't be crying about us being too nice and demanding more blood. Western war isn't clean (btw: 10 people were killed in Israel's assasination of Yassin: Yassin, his bodyguard and eight bystanders), but it's different. Western warfare tends to be derived from the interstate conflicts of the past century: manuver tactics, clear and hold, and of course a reliance on overwhelming firepower and technology. Fourth Generation Warfare as practiced by terrorist groups and non-state militaries like Hizbullah, is designed not to defeat the enemy in battle, but force a political resolution.

[M.Dancer]

Generally, wars are to force political solutions...diplomacy by other means. Rarely is total war waged with the goal of unconditional surrender.

Terrorists wage their war mainly becasue they are too stupid to realize they have lost the battle or don't have the popular support for political change and are unwilling to work peacxefuly for change or negotiate a peace. Killing woman and children substitutes as martial courage...but rarely forces a political solution.

Shining path, bader mein hoff, Red Army come to mind......

[Black Dog]

Terrorists wage their war mainly becasue they are too stupid to realize they have lost the battle or don't have the popular support for political change and are unwilling to work peacxefuly for change or negotiate a peace. Killing woman and children substitutes as martial courage...but rarely forces a political solution.

Sure it does. How about the Irgun, Viet Mihn, Hizbullah and the Tamil Tigers as examples of organizations that have used terrorist tactic to their benefit?

[M.Dancer]

Explain to me how the lebanese, the Tamils have benefited by Hezbollah or the Tigers.

The Viet Minh are a special case, a national liberation army with vast popular support fighting against colonial occupation who refused to leave

And Irgun? Irgun was the smallest of the guerilla groups. Haganah fits better with your question.

[Black Dog]

Explain to me how the lebanese, the Tamils have benefited by Hezbollah or the Tigers.

Both have managed to successfuly resist attempts by a state to destroy them and have suceeded in creating quasi-state entities within the boundaries of an existant state.

The Viet Minh are a special case, a national liberation army with vast popular support fighting against colonial occupation who refused to leave

Hardly a special case. How about the Afghan mujahedeen? The Algerian FLN?

And Irgun? Irgun was the smallest of the guerilla groups. Haganah fits better with your question.

Be that as it may, both undermine your contention that terrorism "rarely forces a political solution."

[M.Dancer]

I would say a couple of examples, a few which I consider dodgy does little to prove that it isn't a rare instance.

[M.Dancer]

Hardly a special case. How about the Afghan mujahedeen?

Okay...how about the Mujahhedeen? Did they establish an afghan national gov't? Did the negotiate with the Soviets?

[Black Dog]

Okay...how about the Mujahhedeen? Did they establish an afghan national gov't? Did the negotiate with the Soviets?

You're moving the goalposts.

[M.Dancer]

Am I? I asked how they benefited the people....and did they force a political solution....

Your goal posts are I assume

have managed to successfuly resist attempts by a state to destroy them and have suceeded in creating quasi-state entities within the boundaries of an existant state

[Higgly]

What a load of crap. How about this one: Christians believe in turning the other cheek while Jews believe in an eye for an eye? What a bigot. Sodom and Gomorrah. I can't believe it. How about Abraham sacrificing his son? Go back to the mountain Moses.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear M. Dancer,

Okay...how about the Mujahhedeen? Did they establish an afghan national gov't? Did the negotiate with the Soviets?

Actually, this is an example of very successful 'terrorism', for the Soviets were forced to leave. The 'Muj' didn't really want a state, they just wanted an end to foreign occupation.

As to the Tamils, guess which country in the region had both trained, and sold arms to, both the Sri Lankan Gov't and the Tamil rebels simultaneously?

[myata]

Hi jbg,

you're making a very common mistake of personalizing the truth, i.e. identifying all that is right, true and good in this world with yourself (and your people) and, obviously, the direct opposite with your opponent. While very common and respectable point of view, it nevertheless does not always reflect the factual side of the matter, and even more importantly, is a very poor position from which to search for a resolution (if that latter is what actually being sought).

[Black Dog]

Am I? I asked how they benefited the people....and did they force a political solution....

Then you asked:

Okay...how about the Mujahhedeen? Did they establish an afghan national gov't? Did the negotiate with the Soviets?

As though forming a national government or forcing negotiations are a prerequiste of a political solution. A political solution, in the case of Afghanistan (or Lebanon) simply entaile dteh withdrawl of the invader.

[M.Dancer]

Lets look at some terrorists over the past 50 or so years......I admit before hand my list is incomplete

FLQ

Symbanese Liberation Army

Aum Shinrikyo

ETA

New People's Army

17 November

Kurdistan Workers Party

ELN

Real IRA

Shining PAth

Armenian Secret Army

Japanese Red Army

GRAPO

Kahane Chai

Red Army Faction

Red HAnd Defenders

Tupac Amaru

Army of God

God's Army

Lord's resistance Army

Action Directe

and dozens more. For every terrorist group that finds it's way into the mainstream there are dozen that fail

[yam]

terrorist according to whom, where and what. . . . dominant forms of understanding history.

All very important questions what!

A list does not cut it.

[M.Dancer]

Well, if they primarily attack civilians, with no thought of military tactical or strategic goals, they are not the Red Cross.....

[yam]

That was silly.

You have just listed to the forum 21 different social movements. You need 21 different explanations. I did a thesis on the shining path which ran into a few of what you listed. Even so, it was fairly unique though responding to similar conditions from about half of what you have listed.

Anyway in making the list of these diverse social movements what was your specific point (no im not being sarcastic)?

[daddyhominum]

terrorist according to whom, where and what. . . . dominant forms of understanding history.

All very important questions what!

A list does not cut it.

A terrorist is any person who engages in an act of terrorism. The dictionary defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=terrorism)

As you see, the meaning depends on the act and the purpose of the act.

OTOH, the term,” state -terrorism", is used in a number of different ways that seem to depend primarily on the opinion of the world community for acceptance. Events such as the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad by the USA that are intended to intimidate or result in unnecessary civilian casualties are often referred to as "state-terrorism" as is the 'disappearing' of opponents during the Argentine Junta's rule. There appears to be no agreed usage for the term, which makes it practically useless in communication.

So, I think M. Dancer's list provides examples of recognized terrorist according to the dictionary meaning of terrorist. It does not refer to state-terrorism so it is not subject to the indefiniteness of that term

Social movements are usually the source of terrorism and terrorists. While not all social movements include terrorism theones liste did and/or do.

[Charles Anthony]

Slow down.

The dictionary defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence

There is the rub. UNLAWFUL is arbitrary.

Who ever writes the history books is on the side of the law.

I could tell you that ALL uses of force or violence are unlawful but I do not write the history books.

Evil despotic governments could change laws to permit violence they themselves commit.

Defining terrorism just becomes a circular argument no more profound than saying: "You are either with us or against us."

[daddyhominum]

Slow down.

The dictionary defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence

There is the rub. UNLAWFUL is arbitrary.

Who ever writes the history books is on the side of the law.

I could tell you that ALL uses of force or violence are unlawful but I do not write the history books.

Evil despotic governments could change laws to permit violence they themselves commit.

Defining terrorism just becomes a circular argument no more profound than saying: "You are either with us or against us."

Written history and written law is not the same thing. Law is written before the fact. The law may be international as the Geneva Convention, military as in the courts martial of offenders at Abu Graib, or national as in the trial of General Pinochet but terrorist acts must break existing law.

To communicate about terrorism we need to agree on the meaning of the word. If the word means only what the Red Queen (Alice in Wonderland) says it means, nothing less and nothing more, the word has no purpose in communication because each of us will mean something different.

The whole point of law is that it is not arbitrary and that happens to be true of the meaning of words as well.