A primer on Muslim "Anger"

[betsy]

If it bites us we lose a little blood but it will not really prevent us from living our lives the way we want.

I went to a government office situated in a highrise in the heart of Ottawa. The last time I was here was decades ago...with all its shops and restaurants at the ground floor. I hardly recognized it. With all the security I had to go through before people were allowed to get on elevators and escalators.

I guess it depends on individuals' perspectives how they define the lives they live....

[Argus]

You appear to have lived a very sheltered life. Time to get out of the library and into the real world.

I would say you have spent too much of your life watching action movies that you have forgotten how to be a human being. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are not our enemies, however, we will turn them into enemies if we treat them like enemies and bomb their countries because their leaders don't lick our boots.

I don't think refusing Iran the privilage of becoming a nuclear power constitutes making them "lick our boots".

I repeat - we are in a position of strength. We have the power. We can choose to not react.

How many times? And how warped do we become by cowering in fear of Muslim violence and defending their "right" to be violently angry while at the same time openly mocking other religions? Many on this site mock Christianity, and its believers, as do many throughout the West (especially on the Left). But now Islam is inviolate? As Rosie Dimano said in a recent column "Sling all the mud you want at the Church, slander the pontiff, excoriate Christians and Jews and Hindus, but speak delicately, with cotton in your mouth, when the subject is Islam, however qualified those remarks, because the blow-back will crush you. The imbalance is staggering."

More to the point, in speaking of the difference between "violent Islam" and those regular, everyday folks you say are not at all violent, she says "But I have difficulty reconciling this Islam to the other, the one that rampages and bludgeons. And I am dismayed by piety that hardly blinks sideways at barbarism."

[Argus]

But according to the extremists, the west is the evil incarnate. It is why we should be dealt with...because we lead by example. We corrupt them.

The extermists do not speak for all muslims -

Oh? How many DO they speak for? And what do "mainstream" Muslim leaders say? Are they all about peace, brotherhood, and interfaith dialogue?

Like, oh, say, Yousef al-Qaradawi? Now according to Salim Mansur in today's Sun:

Within the Arab Sunni world the Egyptian-born Sheikh Qaradawi, 80, of Qatar, is the face of institutionalized Islam. He is the closest to what might pass for a titular head of Muslims akin to the Pope. Qaradawi's words, now broadcast by television network al-Jazeerah, are taken as authoritative pronouncements of Islam. He is the "spiritual" leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement formed to repudiate freedom and democracy, and a defender of Islam's war against the West by any means, including suicide bombings.

Gee, and so mainstream too. The Muslim pope, and he's all about war and suicide bombing. How odd.

Well then, how about Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, the Saudi government appointed imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca? Surely he's about as mainstream as Muslim clerics get, right? Let us hear the softly spoken words of love and tolerance from Sheik Sudayyis.

Those whom Allah cursed, got angry with, and turned into monkeys and pigs, the tyrant worshippers among the Jewish aggressors and criminal Zionists. Their course is supported by the advocates of usury and worshippers of the Cross, as well as by those who are infatuated with them and influenced by their rotten ideas and poisonous culture among the advocates of secularism and Westernization.... The enemies of Muslims among the atheists insist on their arrogance and aggression against our people and our holy places in Chechnya? The idol-worshipping Hindus indulge in their open hatred against our brothers and holy places...in Muslim Kashmir, threatening an imminent danger and a fierce war in the whole Indian sub-continent?... O Allah, support our brother Mujahedeen for your sake and the oppressed everywhere. O Allah, support them in Palestine, Kashmir, and Chechnya. O Allah, we ask you to support our Palestinian brothers in Palestine against the aggressor Jews and usurper Zionists. O Allah, the Jews have oppressed, terrorized, and indulged in tyranny and corruption. O Allah, deal with them for they are within your power.

Free Muslim Coallition

Boy, kinda puts a tear in the eye, eh?

It's a good thing the mainstream Muslim leaders are so much more tolerant than the "extremists", right?

[Argus]

Never underestimate anyone.

What is the worst case scenario? A nuke goes off in Tel Aviv killing a few million? Tehran would be a radioactive dustbowl shortly after. The loss of life would be huge and cause regional disruptions but insignificant compared to the billions of people living in non-Muslim world.

As I understand it, Israel's basic plan if Tel Aviv got nuked is to nuke ALL the surrounding Arab capitols and their oil fields so to sow such chaos and terror that the Muslims will not be able to attack Isreal during its time of weakness. And for simple revenge, I'm thinking. Such attacks would kill millions, the chaos would kill millions more. The radiation clouds would kill millions more. The civil wars and violence would kill millions more. In the rest of the world, the lack of oil would lead to social upheavel and economic depression, which would kill a lot of people - don't know how many, perhaps millions eventually.

Muslims leaders and Mullahs are not that stupid or crazy.

It's odd you should say that, because every time I see one of these red-faced, howling, ranting nutbar mullahs and Muslim leaders on TV I say to myself "Is he stupid or just crazy?"

[jbg]

You definately have a generalized view about moslem people Borg.

I can't comment on middle east moslems, as I don't know any, but the south-east asian moslems (for the most part) are nothing like what you describe.

Yes, Indonesia was a bit mellower for a while. The Bali attacks, and the murder of Christians and Chinese, take some of the positive edge off the Indonesia story. The recently resigned PM of Malaysia made vitriolic anti-Jewish statements. The Muslim insurgency in the Phillipines is notoriously bloody. The Muslims' suppression of East Timor has been ruthless.

Which Southeast Asian Muslism do you mean?

[jbg]

We know from the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan that trying to kill the bull is next to impossible. It is time to step aside and let the bull run around. Eventually, the bull will get sick of the game.

How many smoldering buildings later?

[jdobbin]

How many smoldering buildings later?

The war in Iaq has not made the U.S. safer.

Attacks on the U.S. are planned in Pakistan.

[jbg]

How many smoldering buildings later?

The war in Iaq has not made the U.S. safer.

Attacks on the U.S. are planned in Pakistan.

And the US has had which attacks since September 11, 2001?

[jdobbin]

And the US has had which attacks since September 11, 2001?

How many were Iraq responsible for in the United States before September 11, 2001?

[jbg]

And the US has had which attacks since September 11, 2001?

How many were Iraq responsible for in the United States before September 11, 2001?

Hussein may not have participated in 9/11 but he did publicly praise it. There was also no question that he was building an arsenal. He ought to have been taken down much earlier.

[jdobbin]

Hussein may not have participated in 9/11 but he did publicly praise it. There was also no question that he was building an arsenal. He ought to have been taken down much earlier.

There were a few who publicly or privately applauded it. Doesn't mean they planned it, funded it or executed it.

Iraq does not make the U.S. safer.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

You definately have a generalized view about moslem people Borg.

I can't comment on middle east moslems, as I don't know any, but the south-east asian moslems (for the most part) are nothing like what you describe.

Yes, Indonesia was a bit mellower for a while. The Bali attacks, and the murder of Christians and Chinese, take some of the positive edge off the Indonesia story. The recently resigned PM of Malaysia made vitriolic anti-Jewish statements. The Muslim insurgency in the Phillipines is notoriously bloody. The Muslims' suppression of East Timor has been ruthless.

Which Southeast Asian Muslism do you mean?

Yes they had the Bali attacks... then again Oklahoma lost nearly an equal amount by a home-grown non-moslem terrorist...

Yes some Christians have been murdered by Moslems... and some Moslems have been murdered by Christians.

Yes some Chinese were killed during the riots of '98. I don't think that was much to do with religious differences, that was more based on economic disparity.

And anyway, you must have missed where I said 'for the most part'... the regular every day people... the people that I ate with, worked with, and travelled with. They were nothing but the friendliest people, and not comparable what-so-ever to the way that Borg described his Moslem experiences.

There is violence throughout the world... some of it is Moslem, non-Moslem related, some is not. You don't need to over-generalize.

[KrustyKidd]

There is violence throughout the world... some of it is Moslem, non-Moslem related, some is not. You don't need to over-generalize.

Jihadists seek to recreate the Caliphate. A bit more than localized violent groups or, the one hit wonder of Timothy McVeigh. Behind them is religion, politics, history and a movement. Big difference. And, to save postings, Jihadists are Muslim, all Muslims are not Jihadists. Jihadism is a strong force within Sunni and, particularly Wahabbist regions. While not all connected directly they share the same goal - disrupt the local government and keep on disrupting it until they can provide an alternative via political means.

[jdobbin]

Jihadists seek to recreate the Caliphate. A bit more than localized violent groups or, the one hit wonder of Timothy McVeigh. Behind them is religion, politics, history and a movement. Big difference. And, to save postings, Jihadists are Muslim, all Muslims are not Jihadists. Jihadism is a strong force within Sunni and, particularly Wahabbist regions. While not all connected directly they share the same goal - disrupt the local government and keep on disrupting it until they can provide an alternative via political means.

So, by this way of thinking, removing Saddam assisted those interested in Jihad?

[jbg]

Jihadists seek to recreate the Caliphate. A bit more than localized violent groups or, the one hit wonder of Timothy McVeigh.

Ther eis evidence tieing McVeigh's partner Nichols to Muslim insurgents in the Phillipines.

[Riverwind]

Jihadists seek to recreate the Caliphate. A bit more than localized violent groups or, the one hit wonder of Timothy McVeigh.

Ther eis evidence tieing McVeigh's partner Nichols to Muslim insurgents in the Phillipines.

That 'evidence' is as credible as the 'evidence' that shows the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition.

[Riverwind]

Jihadists seek to recreate the Caliphate.

Look up your history - the Caliphate was an Arab kingdom in the middle east. They could re-create if the want but it is no concern to those of us living outside the ME.

[Riverwind]

I don't think refusing Iran the privilage of becoming a nuclear power constitutes making them "lick our boots".

Your problem is you refuse to look at things from the perspective of an average Iranian. The average Iranian believes that they are responsible civilization and that they have as much right to nuclear power and nuclear arms as anyone else. Furthermore, the US has threatened to attack Iran on a number of occasions which means Iran has a legimate reason to acquire nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. In fact, the more the US pushes on this issue then more convinced Iranians will become about the need for nuclear weapons. The only option at this time is to accept Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons if it so chooses but then try to persuade Iran with incentives (not threats) to choose not to do so.

How many times? And how warped do we become by cowering in fear of Muslim violence and defending their "right" to be violently angry

We have neighbors which, frankling speaking, are frequently hypersensitive jerks with an inferiority complex. Unfortunately, we are stuck with them so the only practical option is to use a little bit of tact and diplomacy even if it means saying things that we don't believe or holding our tongues at times. The world has spouted the 'One China' garbage for decades in order to placate the Mullahs in Beijing - I don't see why we can't do the same with the Islamic world.

[Riverwind]

How many smoldering buildings later?

It is time to stop peddling fear and paranoia. The evidence to date clearly shows that the 'war on terror' has inspired people to commit terrorists acts that would have never considered it before. The bombings in London and Madrid are directly linked the Iraq war. The US spy agencies have also acknowlegded the fact that the Iraq war has made terrorism worse. So my question is: how many more smoldering trains will it take for you realize that bombing countries to fight terrorism is counter productive?

[betsy]

How many smoldering buildings later?

It is time to stop peddling fear and paranoia. The evidence to date clearly shows that the 'war on terror' has inspired people to commit terrorists acts that would have never considered it before. ?

When did Air India get bombed?

The cruise ship Achilles Lauro?

Munich Olympics?

How about those multiple hijackings of planes I remember as a teen? Doesn't this run along the same vein as the 9/11 hijacking? Only more evolved in the kind of terror it brings.

[betsy]

Human nature is quite simple: kick people around and they will kick back.

I don't disagree with you on that. That's how you naturally stand up to bullies.

[betsy]

In the long term it is a winning strategy because we lead by example.

How do you support your comment?

As I've mentioned before, it is the very fact that the West is considered the seat of evil...which is corrupting them.

How do we win by "leading an example"...when our way of life is what drives them mad?

[betsy]

I repeat - we are in a position of strength. We have the power. We can choose to not react. In the long run we can prevail without being thugs like the Muslims that are trying to provoke us. In fact, I beleive that is the only path to a peaceful future. If the US bombs Iran over this nuclear issue we will be heading towards a generation of upheaval and bloodshed. You are incrediblely naive if you believe you can create peace with war - especially 'preemptive' wars.

But isn't it naive to think that by just simply ignoring the thugs, peace will be achieved?

This is not simply about invasion because of wanting land and/or natural resources. This is about religious faith...embraced by zealots. The reward being what they believe to be martyrdom.

Peace will never be achieved if one side seeks the annhilation of the other.

[betsy]

When the terrorists took over those planes they could have flown them anywhere. If all they cared about was killing infidels then they would have flown those planes into the nuclear plants in the area. They choose landmarks like the WTC because they cared about the symbolism instead of the death toll. That example alone proves that the motivations of terrorists are much more complex than you want to admit.

They chose landmarks...at the time when they could kill as much innocent victims as possible. Orchestrated to strike simultaneously in different planned locations.

That alone may prove the motivations are more complex. It could just be for a simple "trial run." Testing the water.

Who knows the reason why they didn't go for nuclear places. Perhaps they also fear the retaliatory nuclear missiles. Perhaps they fear the knee-jerk reaction the US may employ....of nuking multiple target hotbeds and answering questions later. Maybe they just simply think it's not the right time yet.

BUT it does NOT dis-prove what we have come to believe so far (based on what the extremists are saying): the extremists wants the infidels dead.

[betsy]

Your entire thinking backwards. The Muslim terrorists are mosquitos - they cannot really hurt us but they can make life unpleasant. We are not lying down asking for mercy - we are ignoring the mosquito because it is irrevelant. If it bites us we lose a little blood but it will not really prevent us from living our lives the way we want.

But how do you know that they cannot really hurt us?

We've never dealt with religious zealots fueled by the vision of cleansing the world of infidels. Not as resourceful and patient and tenacious as this one.

Wanting to believe that they cannot really hurt us...is burying one's head in the sand and thinking what it does not see must not be really happening.

We are not ignoring the mosquitos....how can we when we feel the sting? Unless we ignore the pain.