Yuku free message boards

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07232008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_american_honor_killing_121118.htm

"I simply don't believe that a sincere, honest and truthful belief in a martyr's paradise is the prime motivation for Islamic terrorism." - rambo, post 84

"The men who committed the atrocities of September 11 were certainly not "cowards," as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith-perfect faith, as it turns out-and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be." - Sam Harris.

So Sam Harris is wrong here?

Tell me why. - gb, post 85

What's your point? You keep saying that, but you never go anywhere with it. I mean why not try and develop an argument of some sort, instead of just repeating your statement that if you look back throughout history, other people have used similar means in order to achieve entirely different ends ... er, so what like? What we're trying to deal with here - once again - is Islamic terrorism.

And once again - if you want to deal with Islamic terrorism today the same way we dealt with other suicide bombers, then look at what we did to defeat the Japanese kamikaze threat: we killed as many of them as we could, no questions asked, and dropped nuclear bombs on their families and friends. You really want to go down that road?

Note also that Islamists are not restricted to one single method of achieving a political goal, should they feel "aggrieved" about something. Look at the uproar following the publication of a few cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark recently. Those protestors did not get all pis$ed off and only then, after they were pis$ed off, become Muslims. The "grievance" that arose in those people's minds was inevitably bound up with their already-existing Islamic beliefs. Their religion, in both senses of the word, came first. That is to say, the people who were "offended" by drawings of Muhammad were already Muslims, and their protests, flag-burning, building-burning, anti-freedom of speech statements in the media etc. - that all arose afterwards, and was a direct consequence of their holdng a fundamental, not especially extremist, Islamic worldview. Their proposed resolution to that whole situation would be in accordance with basic Islamic beliefs as well. (Nonbelievers - like us - must accord respect to their "prophet".)

You mentioned earlier our government changing the laws in this country, and I've always thought that this is a real danger here - that our political leaders would kowtow to an alien religous belief system, and we would all end up living under some kind of legally enforced dhimmitude, afraid to speak up and say what we believe to be true in our own country. (Or possibly in all of Europe.) So the issue is not just restricted to a few religious wingnuts blowing themselves up, it encompasses our whole political future. This could go very badly indeed, for all of us.

"..so what's you point?" - rambo

My point would be the one I made in the post. Read it.

Also, you continually insisted that people got all pis$ed off (got themselves a "grievance") and only then decided to become Muslims, so that they could express their pis$ed-off-ness. I asked you several times why on earth being a Muslim (as opposed to being, say, Scottish) would allow one to express a "grievance" in a violent way, and you ignored that question.

And I already mentioned (you ignored this too - what a surprise) the riots that occurred following the publication of the Danish cartoons. (During which people did not get aggrieved and only then become Muslims, but were already Muslims, and only then became aggrieved.) This shows that your chain of reasoning is incorrect. So that would be another point. I guess you'll ignore that again though.

And here's another thing - Islam has been around hundreds of years, and except for short periods in the 12th and 18th centuries, suicide attacks were never part of their culture. - rambo

Islam has been around for hundreds of years, and although until recently they didn't have planes they could use to fly into buildings full of infidels, jihad has always been part of their culture (as you put it). As has been suicidal attacks: the Janissaries used to say that "the body of a Janissary is only a stepping stone for his brothers into the breach". (Read Ernle Bradford's "The Great Siege" and Roger Crowley's "Empires of The Sea" for a crash course on this topic - I found them both excellent.) - post 121.

"Islam is not just a religion. Islam is a way of life. Islam transcends political boundaries. Young (Muslim) men are willing to go to war to preserve their freedom, their way of life, their identity, their nation. They are willing to die for that cause, and always have been." - rambo, post 115

Nation? If Islam transcends political boundaries, then ..

"Muslims are not supposed to be nationalists. The belief in one God binds us to the umma (the global community of Muslims.)" (Dilowar Kahn, director of the East London Mosque, quoted in Zachary Shore's "Breeding bin Ladens", JHU Press, page 16.)



"Note also that Islamists are not restricted to one single method of achieving a political goal, should they feel "aggrieved" about something. Look at the uproar following the publication of a few cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark recently. Those protestors did not get all pis$ed off and only then, after they were pis$ed off, become Muslims. The "grievance" that arose in those people's minds was inevitably bound up with their already-existing Islamic beliefs. Their religion, in both senses of the word, came first.

That is to say, the people who were "offended" by drawings of Muhammad were already Muslims, and their protests, flag-burning, building-burning, anti-freedom of speech statements in the media etc. - that all arose afterwards, and was a direct consequence of their holdng a fundamental, not especially extremist, Islamic worldview. Their proposed resolution to that whole situation would be in accordance with basic Islamic beliefs as well. (Nonbelievers - like us - must accord respect to their "prophet".)" - gb, post 127.


Killing for religion is justified, say third of Muslim students. (Daily Telegraph, 27^th July 08)

"Islamic terrorism is hardly new - so why are western countries (and indeed, western muslims) the new focus of it?" - rambo, post 39.

"New" focus?

"Back in the eighteenth century, the Muslim states of North Africa were attacking American ships in the Mediterranean. Future American presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson investigated the matter:

"We took the liberty to make some enquries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." - Adams & Jefferson, Quotes from the Founding Fathers." (post 40)

"Hasan al-Banna completely rejected the Western model of secular, democratic government, which contradicted his notion of universal Islamic rule. "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations, and to extend its power to the entire planet," he wrote." (Lawrence Wright, "The Looming Tower", Penguin, p. 25.)

So what's changed?