Yuku free message boards

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.)

Interesting too is how Muslims treated any captives - unbelievers, that is. Slavery, torture and death were the order of the day should anyone be unfortunate enough to be captured by the "Barbary corsairs" - who gave the Americans such bother at one point. I provided a quote about that earlier. Read it again if you require an insight into the Muslims' motives in their dealings with nonbelievers. Be sure to consider this second quote alongside the first:

"The old people were taken out, robbed of their clothes and cut open whilst still alive. All this was done out of spite and when we asked the corsairs why they treated these people with such cruelty they replied that among them such cruelty was deemed a virtue." - Jerome Maurand, watching corsairs raiding Lipari. (Quoted in "The Barbary Corsairs" by Jacques Heers, Greenhill Books, p. 19.)

How indeed can one defeat Islamic terrorism, if one does not understand what it is? - post 121

If you want to continually talk about Islamic terrorism being "unique" then you need to define what the word you are choosing to use means, to you, in the context of this discussion about Islamic terrorism. I pointed out that Islamic terrorism was a current, active threat in the UK, whereas the Amish pose no threat to me whatsoever. And we all know that Vincent Price isn't roaming about the countryside looking for young lassies to torture. That's straightforward enough. Whatever you mean though, when you talk about Islamic terrorism being "unique" is not known to me, nor will it be known to anyone else reading this thread, for you started using the term without explaining what you meant by it. Your best bet would be to stop trying to create straw men, and take some time to define any new terms that you introduce into this thread. - post 136

And just to clarify, since you appear to have some kind of difficulty reading: No one's "ranting" about the "evil doctrines of Islam", I did try to compare Islamic doctrines with those of Christianity - at your suggestion - I even went into Wesley Owen in Aberdeen and bought a new NT in order to do so, which cost me £2.99! Sadly when I started to do that, you decided that your own idea wasn't a good one, and you no longer wanted to compare the doctrines of the two religions. Oh well .. If you want to treat suicide bombers all the same then going the kamikaze route is a consequence of your thinking - not mine. As for your assertion that "they" (whoever "they" are, you really ought to define your terms, you know) invented the unique tactic" - well I never said that, you did. And as for your assertion that "they [...] are committing these suicide bombings solely in order to enter a martyr's paradise" - well I never said that, you did. Nor did I ever say that suicide bombing was "new and unique to Islam". (See posts 12, 136, and also post 82 (about necessary conditions.))

Since the same age and type of young men are involved in this "islamic" terrorism as in other sorts that don't have a belief in a martyr's paradise one should wonder why - particularly why if it is down simply to muslim beliefs, that these beliefs are confined to the same group of young men? If it were down to muslim beliefs, rather than common causes of terrorism, then this would not be so.- rambo

That just does not follow. I've asked you to argue for that, instead of just repeatedly asserting that there have been suicide bombers in other times and places, and all you have to say to that is: "Why should I?" (In other words: you can't.) - gb

What's your point? [...] 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. - gb

If you ever do try to argue for something meaningful and relevant, be sure to remind everyone who studies your (so far non-existent) argument how old Sayyid Qutb was when he travelled to America in 1949, and when, years later in Nasser's Egypt, he wrote "Milestones". (That is to say: give his "age and type".) You might also want to account for the fact that Ayman al-Zawahiri (to give but one example) was born on June 19th, 1951. That fucker is still alive and kicking, and is a head gadgie in Al Qaeda.

You remind me of a young earther, a real hardcore Christian theist: no matter how many times you explain to someone like that that animals can evolve similar traits independently, they insist that this is not so, that there is a cause, one cause, a first cause: God. They have no argument, can't define this "cause" of theirs, and get abusive when you ask that they provide evidence, examples and argumentation in support of what they're saying. You're like that, you know.

If you can't argue your case, if you can't even define your terms, then I'm certainly not going to accept your non-theory, any more than I would accept what a young earther was saying to me, if they showed me pictures of an aardwolf and an armadillo and said look, they both eat termites - therefore God exists! - gb

God doesn't exist, and neither does your theory.

It seems to me that all too often when religion is discussed, it is deemed acceptable to argue against some of a religion's finer points, but if you disagree with the fundamental premises which a particular religious group believe in, then that's just not cricket. One can say that God did something, or that He did not do it. One can say that He said something, or that He did not say it. It's far more difficult to come right out and say there never was a God to begin with.

One can say that Islamic terrorists are wrong to believe what they do. Well, okay. But why can't we say that their whole system is wrong, from beginning to end? Why is it okay to debate the fine points (such as "takfir") but the fundamental premises which terrorists happen to share with everyday Muslim believers are considered out of bounds?

Why does it even matter that Muslims might be "offended" at someone criticising their prophet? Why is it left to people like Newt Gingrich to talk plainly about Islamic terrorism? Why don't discussions like this occur in the media? What is everyone afraid of? - gb, post 6

Establishing the rule of God on Earth, attaining martyrdom and purifying the ranks of Islam doesn't mean much to nonbelievers like you and me. For those ideas to even matter, one must first of all believe that there is only one God. One must believe that Mohammad is his prophet. One must believe in paradise. And so forth. Only someone who already holds the fundamental beliefs of Islam can take the further steps needed to believe that the goals of people like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden are worth dying for.

I (am) talking specifically about Islamic terrorism; I thought that was clear enough from the context of the discussion, especially from the previous statement. I wouldn't disagree with you that non-Islamic religious beliefs have led to extreme ideologies as well. But I am fairly confident that these two men aren't Buddhists. Neither is this fellow. Nor were the men behind this. I could provide a long list of links. - gb, post 8 (links in original post)

Well you can hardly be an Islamic terrorist without being a Muslim, can you? - rambo, post 9

So... why is it necessary to be a Muslim to accept the extremism of Al Queda? - rambo, post 9

Again: because the idea of Mohammad being God's last prophet, and of one's going to paradise after death, and all the other core Islamic beliefs just don't mean a lot to non-Muslims. And those core Islamic beliefs form part of the fundamental thinking of the "extremism of Al Qaeda." That's pretty obvious. (So why isn't it said more often?)

If we're agreed that being a Muslim (and holding the usual core Islamic beliefs) is a necessary condition for one's becoming an Islamic terrorist, then why isn't it acceptable to criticise those core Islamic beliefs as well as say, the idea that one should not blow up buses full of passengers in the name of Islam? The terrorist that carries out such acts will use different premises and sub-arguments to support his final conclusion - that throwing the switch is a good thing. Some of the fundamental premises on which much of his reasoning rests are also core Islamic beliefs. Why can't we lay out the terrorist's reasoning and criticise it wherever we think it's wrong, from Premise No. 1 right through to his Conclusion? Why can some of the premises and logical steps in his (or her) reasoning open to criticism, while other premises are not? - gb, post 10

Islam is not unique in creating terrorists or even suicide fighters. The VC used suicide bombers. The Japs had the kamikaze pilots. - Rambo, post 11

Would it perhaps be useful to work out why christians no longer torture suspected witches then burn them at the stake? We can say that most muslims are not extremists that desire glorious martyrdom, so it cannot be simply the core beliefs of islam that promote this behaviour. What has moderated christians from actually burning people at the stake to just having a few preachers talk about it (and politicians threaten to turn muslim countries into glass deserts)? - rambo, post 13

I take your point that non-Islamic ideologies have fuelled terrorist acts. One could hardly disagree with this! (Note that I didn't do so.) So what though?

The VC used suicide bombers. The Japs had kamikaze pilots. The UK had commandos who knew they were going on what were effectively suicide missions in WWII. Germany and Russia both used ramfighters ..

These two gadgies were arrested on terrorist charges after flying into Heathrow on Tuesday.

There was no problem with criticising "the other side" in any of the conflicts you mention. Yet nowadays, people are falling over backwards to placate Muslims everywhere rather than "offend" them. Why is that? I did draw a distinction between Muslims and Islamic terrorists - as you put it, I was trying to differentiate between those two groups - while acknowledging that one must be a member of one group before becoming a member of the other - which, I would argue, opens up the beliefs of both groups to legitimate criticism. So what is "unique" about Islamic terrorism then is that we need to concern ourselves about it. World War II on the other hand, is over. - post 14 (link in original post)

The Centre for Social Cohesion (which was established by CIVITAS) recently completed a report on Islamic literature which is available in public (state funded) libraries in several Muslim areas in England. They found that in Tower Hamlets, which apparently has the largest Muslim population of any London borough, there was a significant amount of Islamic literature which "glorify acts of terrorism against followers of other religions", "incite violence against anyone who rejects jihadist ideologies", and "endorse violence and discrimination against women." (Hate on The State, p. 3)

The government has taken steps to address our situation. There is a long term strategy ("CONTEST") in place which, among other things, seeks to tackle the radicalisation of Muslims in the UK. In light of that, it is now a criminal offence to "directly or indirectly to encourage the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism or to disseminate terrorist publications." (Source: Terrorism Act 2006.) There is also a list of "Unacceptable Behaviours" such as fomenting or glorifying violent jihad, or trying to persuade others to commit acts of violent jihad, which can be used to deport people from the UK. (Source: Home Office press release.)

And we are starting to see people being arrested and convicted of terrorism-related crimes: Mohamed Ajmal Khan, Andrew Rowe, Saajid Badat and Kamel Bourgass have all been jailed, to give just a few examples. Interestingly, three young Muslims, Younes Tsouli, Waseem Mughal and Tariq Al-Daour, were recently prosecuted for using the internet to incite terrorism. A CPS lawyer said, "Behind the apparent normality of their daily lives, these young men firmly believed, supported and set about inciting others to follow an extreme ideology of violent holy war against so-called disbelievers." (Source: Crown Prosecution Service archives.) - gb, post 17

You say that suicide bombings etc have historically not been limited to Islamic terrorism, which I naturally agree with. However, as I have said twice now - the threat we in the UK are facing at the moment is Islamic terrorism. We are no longer fighting Japan - there just aren't kamikaze bombers flying over the Pacific any more - and the Tamil Tigers aren't likely to blow you or me up when we're nipping down the road to Tescos for a pint of milk either. So I've been trying to focus in on what is actually affecting our lives here in the UK - right here, right now. That's a straightforward point, surely?

I do agree with you that thinking about terrorists in general (if one can put it like that, a strange phrase indeed!) and suicide bombers in particular could shed some light on the motivations of Islamic terrorists. That could be a good avenue to take - in fact I was in Ottakars this week and saw a book on the shelves that did just that. I thought to myself, hey that's what rambo was talking about, what a good idea! The author talked about the Shining Path and the Red Brigade and so forth, and tried to draw lessons from history on how to combat Al Qaeda related terrorism today. - gb, post 29

"The ideology of the religion is irrelevant in respect to the fact that the "decision" (conscious or unconscious choice) to become a radical is nothing to do with the religion of Islam, save that in this particular case they identify with Islam." - rambo.

To say that the religion of Islam is irrelevant to our governement's efforts to prevent the "radicalisation" of UK citizens, & discussing it won't get to the bottom of why people become Islamic terrorists is quite a statement [...]. How do you know this - without ever discussing what those religious beliefs are?

I take your point that some people will go and become terrorists, while others will not. And it's certainly an interesting question: what makes them do that? But to say that the religion that informs their daily lives up to that point (and beyond it: they don't abandon their Islamic beliefs but use them as an intellectual foundation for their terroristic ideology) is irrelevant and not worthy of discussion just does not follow from that. I think it makes more sense to add that "decision" (as you put it) to the "chain" of thinking that has terrorists end up finally throwing that switch. It's definitely worthy of consideration, but so is every other link on that chain of reasoning - that would be my argument.

I'll go back to what I was saying earlier: if you think of a terrorist's final conclusion: throwing that switch is a good thing - then there are many premises and sub-arguments rattling around inside his brain that he believes support that terrible conclusion. If we can weaken any one of those supporting premises or sub-arguments - any of them at all - then we're doing good work. I wouldn't mind what stage we persuaded someone to give up their little enterprise.

Whatever works: let's cut that chain of reasoning wherever we can. - gb, post 32

You brought up the notion that people who become terrorists have grievances, which is fair enough. I mean it's a given that if you're a terrorist, you're mighty pissed off about something, eh? I did read that article you linked to, and as the fella said, it's quite difficult to pin down exactly what such grievances are. As the author of that article noted, the old notion that poverty somehow pissed someone off enough to go and blow up an aeroplane no longer seems credible. (Drs aren't poor people - but they can be terrorists.) For example. None of this negates my argument though.

I provided a link to a site (twice) explaining what is meant by "necessary condition" and that site made clear that there may be a set of necessary conditions which may be considered together before one could say, "Ok, that'll do it." All you seem to be saying at the end of the day is that for one to become an Islamic terrorist, there are other necessary conditions besides being a Muslim. And you're adding that those necessary conditions are usually met before one becomes a Muslim.

Well indeed there may be other necessary conditions: as I said, if you're a terrorist you're mighty pissed off about something! What that might be, and in what sequence any additional necessary conditions occur is an open question though. It's not at all hard to think of people who are Muslims first and who developed a grievance second - remember those examples I provided earlier, the Danish cartoons and so forth.

I suggested that Islam has a political aspect to it, and that any grievances one might have could be bound up with one's Islamic beliefs. It could also be the case that any proposed resolution of those grievances (however violent they may be) are in accordance with Islamic beliefs too.

As I said earlier though: how can one even begin to address such questions without discussing Islamic beliefs? After all, there is an Islamic terrorist threat in this country (see those links to MI5) and if we're going to combat it, then at the very least, we need to know what we're talking about. - gb, post 82

I've asked you several times now what, according to your theory of Islamic terrorism, is that "thing" (as you called it) that makes one commit mass murder in the name of Allah, and apparently you have no answer. - gb, post 57

What is this reason? How the fuck should I know? I'm not a psychologist. - rambo, post 58

btw rambo you seem to be trying to draw up an argument that asserts that terrorism is a uniquely political activity, and that Islam is not. (Therefore one has nothing to do with the other.) I put it to you that this is a reflection of the Western view of religion, which is based on modern Christianity, and what we all know and love as the separation of church and state. But you're just assuming that this applies to Islam as well. What if you are wrong? What if Islam is not merely spiritual, but has a political agenda "built in" to its teachings? And how can you find out if you are right or wrong, without even discussing Islam to find out?

The Muslim Brothers and Islamic Jihad for example, had political aims: check out the writings (and speeches) of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Sayyid Qutb. Does this mean that they were not terrorist organisations? I don't know how you can stand there with a straight face and say that holding extreme Islamic beliefs has nothing at all to do with Islamic terrorism. That's just absurd. I mean, have you even read anything about Al Qaeda at all? - gb, post 71

Nobody can be an Islamic terrorist without being a Muslim.

And it should also be obvious that one cannot hold extreme Islamic beliefs without also being a Muslim. - rambo, post 73.

I spent a fair bit of time earlier on in this thread explaining my argument: that extreme, Al Qaeda-type Islamic beliefs were a necessary condition for one's becoming an Islamic terrorist. And that one's being a Muslim was a necessary condition for one's accepting an extreme Islamic doctrine which advocates violent jihad. If we want to engage in a "war of ideas" then we need to be able to discuss the ideas which Islamic terrorists hold - all of them - in order to try to figure out how to effectively prevent the "radicalisation" of individuals in the UK. That includes their religious beliefs.

I did not say that Islam - either "mainstream" or "extreme" Islam - was "the cause" or "the reason" (italics mine) for people becoming suicide bombers. Again: I only argued that extreme Islamic ideology was a reason - that is to say, a necessary condition - for one's becoming an Islamic terrorist. And you agreed with me on that. - gb, post 29

You seem to be hung up on the notion that all people everywhere who have ever killed themselves in the pursuit of a cause have done so for one single, and so far as you are concerned, a secret, reason. Why you would think that is not clear to me at all. Different people will do the same thing for various different reasons. It's perfectly possible that the Japanese kamikaze pilots did their thing for an entirely different set of reasons than other groups of people who came into being decades later, and who went on to commit what we now call terrorist acts. - gb, post 104

Kamikaze pilots and human wave assaults are not terrorism. - rambo

So you've finally acknowledged that suicide bombers are not all the same. As you said already in post 126, and as I've pointed out repeatedly to you, people have used the same tactic for entirely different reasons. We should therefore deal with each set of the bastards as they appear, and as the particular situation demands. - gb, post 151

You haven't at all demonstrated that what you are saying is anything more than the bigotry and scaremongering that has previously been directed against Jews, communists and, indeed - atheists. Islam is the demon of the day, but the vilification of muslims today doesn't seem any different from Martin Luther's portrayal of the Jews as a mortal danger to civilized, decent people and their society and way of life. - rambo, post 155

So according to you, one's citing as sources, and directly quoting from: MI5, The Centre for Social Cohesion, the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, Jacques Heers (Professor at the Sorbonne), Ernle Bradford (WWII veteran and historian) and two American Presidents is ... what you just said. Obviously, your comments speak to your state of mind, no one else's.

"I do wish you wouldn't waste your time creating straw men, and using emotive language to ascribe motives to me which don't exist." - gb, post 66, post 116

If you want to continually talk about Islamic terrorism being "unique" then you need to define what the word you are choosing to use means, to you, in the context of this discussion about Islamic terrorism. I pointed out that Islamic terrorism was a current, active threat in the UK, whereas the Amish pose no threat to me whatsoever. And we all know that Vincent Price isn't roaming about the countryside looking for young lassies to torture. That's straightforward enough. Whatever you mean though, when you talk about Islamic terrorism being "unique" is not known to me, nor will it be known to anyone else reading this thread, for you started using the term without explaining what you meant by it. Your best bet would be to stop trying to create straw men, and take some time to define any new terms that you introduce into this thread. - post 136, post 150

And just to clarify, since you appear to have some kind of difficulty reading: No one's "ranting" about the "evil doctrines of Islam", I did try to compare Islamic doctrines with those of Christianity - at your suggestion - I even went into Wesley Owen in Aberdeen and bought a new NT in order to do so, which cost me £2.99! Sadly when I started to do that, you decided that your own idea wasn't a good one, and you no longer wanted to compare the doctrines of the two religions. Oh well .. If you want to treat suicide bombers all the same then going the kamikaze route is a consequence of your thinking - not mine. As for your assertion that "they" (whoever "they" are, you really ought to define your terms, you know) invented the unique tactic" - well I never said that, you did. And as for your assertion that "they [...] are committing these suicide bombings solely in order to enter a martyr's paradise" - well I never said that, you did. Nor did I ever say that suicide bombing was "new and unique to Islam". (See posts 12, 136, and also post 82 (about necessary conditions.)) - gb, post 150

Your only effort (a poor one) to develop any kind of argument to show that Islamic beliefs are not a necessary condition for one's becoming an Islamic terrorist (despite having explicitly agreed with that earlier) was to say that terrorism was "confined" (your term) to "the same group of young men" (an undefined term). I presented you with two counterexamples, and of course there are many more, I just gave you two I thought you might be familiar with, and you said that this was not "a point of logic" and disregarded them. Of course it obviously is a point of logic, and any one of those two counterexamples would refute your earlier assertion that Islamic terroristic thinking is "confined" to "the same group of young men".

You claim that I have refused to look at any cross-cultural motives for terrorism, but I have been open to the possibility of examining other terrorist groups, and have recognised that there may indeed be other significant necessary conditions for one to sign up with Al Qaeda. You on the other hand, have failed to actually provide any "cross-cultural motives" for me (or anyone else) to look at.

You claim that the only reason to ignore suicide tactics outside the sphere of Islam ... well hold on right there. There could be several reasons for one's not examining the groups who have employed such "tactics" - one being, perhaps, that the groups who used them are no longer a threat to the United Kingdom. Or perhaps, anyone mentioning them cannot provide any form of clear linkage between their ideologies and that of the modern-day Islamic terrorist, so there is nothing for one to actually look at. Either of those possibilities would do, and so your assertion that your reason is the only one is clearly refuted. And in any event, I have not ignored such acts but have acknowledged that they occur (several times).

..since you refuse to accept that the causes of muslims becoming terrorists could have anything to do with other terrorists, you must feel they are unique. QE fucking D. - post 156

Your opening proposition is false (see posts 29 & 82). Furthermore, you still have not defined the term you use in your conclusion, and I still don't even know what you mean by it. After all, it's your term: it is you who introduced it into the discussion.

I already quoted OT (Judaic - did I link the modern day Israeli Jewish "decency police" articles here or at the SAB - I don't recall) scriptures akin to Islamic teachings - you should have saved your money. It was you who said that christianity (which is not really related to Judaism, much as it claims to be) was a different type of religion. Why would you buy a NT when I pointed out it was the OT and quoted chapter and verse? Are you fucking stupid, or just planning to become a christian? - post 156

You don't recall, well there's a surprise. Again: I was taking your idea (post 13, dated 23d April) forward and reading the Christian holy text (along with John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty") to see if there were any reasons why that religions' followers tend to live peacefully (post 35, dated 19th May). You did indeed quote from Deuteronomy 17 - later on (post 81, dated 26th May). One's taking the suggestion of another person seriously enough to actually read the holy text of any religion (Christianity in this instance), in order to write a well-informed piece for a website, is not something which indicates stupidity. Your post (no. 156), on the other hand ...

You haven't brought anything of substance to this thread. At all.

Again: try Bruce Bawer's book. You might just about manage it.