Are the Muslims really Terrorists?

[InTheGenes]

I never said "ALL" Muslims are terrorists, nor did I ever say that "ALL" terrorists are Muslims.

Reba,

I didn't mean to imply that YOU were saying that "ALL" Muslims are terrorists, etc. I was more responding to that implication being voiced by a (badly-worded) poll question.

One thing about one of the points you just made, though:

If we do ignore them, we will become sitting ducks for future attacks. If we appease them, they will laugh and boldly attack. Muslim jihadists have no respect for Western peaceniks.

First of all, I'd argue that Muslim jihadists have no respect for most Westerners, period, regardless of the fact about whether they're peaceniks or warmongers.

Furthermore, there's something to be said for how many terrorists we're CREATING, given our actions/reactions. There's already a palpable anti-American sentiment in that part of the world, and recent actions (pertaining to the war) by the US have only fanned those flames. Despite what this administration would have us believe, there are many Iraqis (and other members of Middle Eastern countries) that resent our presence there, and find our actions just as repugnant as we find those of the terrorists.

Add to that the whole "disinformation" campaign being waged on BOTH sides (here in the US, and in the middle east), and it's hard to know the truth anymore.

Don't get me wrong. I deplore the actions of ANY terrorist, I don't care what their religion is. I also agree with you that inaction can serve to embolden the terrorists... but so can provocation. The problem we're now seeing is that the US is perceived as weak due to the failures on the ground AND in foreign policy, and this has also emboldened them. Iran is a prime example, as is North Korea.

I know this thread isn't really about the (mis)management of the war in Iraq... but it's my feeling that that has played a HUGE role in creating new terrorists. If this conflict is ever going to come to an end, it will need to be done in one of two ways: A) one side will need to be annihilated, or B) this is going to need to be settled diplomatically. Most people that *I* know favor option B.

The other issue here is... many of the Iraqis being fought by our military aren't terrorists, they're Iraqi insurgents and nationalists who just don't want us in their country, and don't want to be forced into accepting democracy. They're not all al Qaeda, and in fact, are often at odds with one another. But as is often the case, to make ourselves feel better about doing something that smacks of unconscienable, we tend to demonize our opponent. Which, I think, is at the essence of this thread, and this poll. Which leads me back to my original statement: not all Muslims are terrorists. Again, I'm not saying that YOU'RE saying that; rather, I'm making that statement for anyone who IS saying that.

 

[Reba]

Reba,

I didn't mean to imply that YOU were saying that "ALL" Muslims are terrorists, etc. I was more responding to that implication being voiced by a (badly-worded) poll question.

That's OK. I just wanted to clarify my position. The poll question is poorly written, yes.

 

[Reba]

First of all, I'd argue that Muslim jihadists have no respect for most Westerners, period, regardless of the fact about whether they're peaceniks or warmongers.

True. However, any sign of weakness by the West is viewed as an invitation to strike against cowardly Westerners who are uncomfortable with fighting back. That is lack of respect in action, not just attitude.

Furthermore, there's something to be said for how many terrorists we're CREATING, given our actions/reactions.

The terrorists have been around long before we sent troops overseas. Our actions aren't the reason for people becoming terrorists; they're an excuse used by anti-war supporters. If all Americans and allies left the Middle East tomorrow, would Islamic terrorism stop? No. They would say, "Ah, ha, our strategy worked! The cowardly infidels ran like dogs. Now we can attack Israel, America, England . . . without hindrance!"

There's already a palpable anti-American sentiment in that part of the world, and recent actions (pertaining to the war) by the US have only fanned those flames. Despite what this administration would have us believe, there are many Iraqis (and other members of Middle Eastern countries) that resent our presence there, and find our actions just as repugnant as we find those of the terrorists.

You know, the Japanese and Germans weren't too thrilled about our presence after WWII either. There was resistance in those countries, too. Did we run?

BTW, how long did our troops stay in those countries after the war? More numbers.

Add to that the whole "disinformation" campaign being waged on BOTH sides (here in the US, and in the middle east), and it's hard to know the truth anymore.

Yeah, we just have to keep digging.

... The problem we're now seeing is that the US is perceived as weak due to the failures on the ground AND in foreign policy, and this has also emboldened them.

Yeah, we didn't hit hard enough, long enough, before hitting the ground.

Iran is a prime example, as is North Korea.

True. We should have taken care of them a loooooooong time ago.

I know this thread isn't really about the (mis)management of the war in Iraq...

That's part of the problem. Wars aren't meant to be "managed".

... A) one side will need to be annihilated, or B) this is going to need to be settled diplomatically...

Option "B" would be wonderful, but it takes two to tango, so that will never happen.

Option "A" might be the ultimate outcome but certainly not the desired one.

The other issue here is... many of the Iraqis being fought by our military aren't terrorists, they're Iraqi insurgents and nationalists who just don't want us in their country, and don't want to be forced into accepting democracy.

"Nationalists" don't kill their own women and children. "Nationalists" don't destroy their own nation's infrastructure. "Nationalists" don't belong to other countries.

...we tend to demonize our opponent. ..

Not necessary. They're doing a fine job of that themselves.

...not all Muslims are terrorists.

Agreed.

 

[christlovedeaf]

its hard to tell. many has a good pointer of any label who they are. i myself not against muslims, but i dont trust them what behind them, even some muslims doesnt know their purpose. im sticky with if they are or not, as terrorist as a whole, no, but as a backup, not sure. muslims can be friendly, but as for set up. when muslims come in different countries and seem great people, but when take power, people were trapped. many were killed by refusing to be muslims. even some muslims were murdered like wise by not following terrorist islamics. so its very sticky in this issue as likewise not to be stereotype of those muslims. but as for me, its hard to tell.

 

[InTheGenes]

The terrorists have been around long before we sent troops overseas. Our actions aren't the reason for people becoming terrorists; they're an excuse used by anti-war supporters. If all Americans and allies left the Middle East tomorrow, would Islamic terrorism stop? No. They would say, "Ah, ha, our strategy worked! The cowardly infidels ran like dogs. Now we can attack Israel, America, England . . . without hindrance!"

Yes, there were terrorists in the middle east long before we sent troops overseas. Just as there have been terrorists (the KKK, anti-abortion clinic bombers, gay bashers, lynch mobs, OKC federal building bombers, Atlanta Olympic bombers, guys that make their way into Amish schoolhouses and kill several schoolgirls before killing themselves, etc.) in our own country for decades. The point I'm making is the fact that due to our actions (or reactions, if you prefer), more terrorists HAVE been recruited. Again, if news reports are to be believed, terrorists are streaming in from all corners of the world. Just as in the US, "patriotic" souls are encouraged to "do their duty for God and country". Again, one man's call to arms, is another man's Jihad.

If all Americans and allies left the Middle East tomorrow, would Islamic terrorism stop? No, I don't think so, either. However, I don't think that it would stop if the war went on for 20, 25, 30 years, either. We may kill people that are terrorists, but I don't think we'll ever kill the ideologyof terrorism. That is why I personally don't ever see a "win" scenario possible. Even IF we were able to rout out and kill each and every single terrorist in Iraq tomorrow, more would take their place. Perhaps not the next day, or the next week. But their networks are worldwide, first of all, and unless we have some way of governing how they teach their children, more terrorists are born every single day. So how is it POSSIBLE to "win the war on terror"? Nuke them into tomorrow? Yeah, that'll go over well with the world community.

You know, the Japanese and Germans weren't too thrilled about our presence after WWII either. There was resistance in those countries, too. Did we run?

There's a difference between "running scared" and accepting the fact that you have not been successful in your initial response/approach. Sometimes, you need to re-evaluate that approach, and learn from your mistakes. The mantra of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" DOESN'T mean to just keep throwing American troops at the problem until it we have no troops left. These are brave young men and women, absolutely, and they are to be commended for their service to this country. But, in my opinion, it is deplorable to treat them as cannon fodder over and over again. Yes, currently the men and women in the armed forces today knew what they were getting into when they signed up... but our military leaders also owe it to them to make sound decisions, and not throw their lives away because someone is too proud to admit that we made a mistake in the first place.

That's part of the problem. Wars aren't meant to be "managed".

Well, that is where we'll have to agree to disagree. In my view, of course wars must be managed. When it is done badly, then we're presented with the kind of chaos we're seeing now.

Option "B" would be wonderful, but it takes two to tango, so that will never happen.

Option "A" might be the ultimate outcome but certainly not the desired one.

Sometimes, it takes more than two to tango. Sometimes, it takes a United Nations. Under this administration, however, I think you're right; I don't think it'll happen, given Bush's cowboy spurs/he-man attitude. His foreign policy is for shit.

"Nationalists" don't kill their own women and children. "Nationalists" don't destroy their own nation's infrastructure. "Nationalists" don't belong to other countries.

The last one I'll give you. The first two, however... we have (and have had) people in the US who view themselves as "Nationalists" who absolutely HAVE killed their own people (including women and children), and have sought to destroy their own nation's infrastructure.

Not necessary. They're doing a fine job of that themselves.

The actual terrorists, yes. My comment, however, was aimed specifically at the act of demonizing all muslims (and those who do so); which, as we've already cleared up, is not what you're suggesting, but rather my own assertion that some here are trying to do.

 

[Reba]

...If all Americans and allies left the Middle East tomorrow, would Islamic terrorism stop? No, I don't think so, either. However, I don't think that it would stop if the war went on for 20, 25, 30 years, either. We may kill people that are terrorists, but I don't think we'll ever kill the ideologyof terrorism. That is why I personally don't ever see a "win" scenario possible. Even IF we were able to rout out and kill each and every single terrorist in Iraq tomorrow, more would take their place. Perhaps not the next day, or the next week. But their networks are worldwide, first of all, and unless we have some way of governing how they teach their children, more terrorists are born every single day. So how is it POSSIBLE to "win the war on terror"? Nuke them into tomorrow? Yeah, that'll go over well with the world community.

What is your solution?

Sometimes, it takes more than two to tango. Sometimes, it takes a United Nations. ..

What makes you think they have a solution? Even if the USA surrendered our sovereignty to the UN, what makes you think the other side would do so? Recent history shows that Iran and Iraq have both pooh-poohed the UN, as does North Korea. I don't think the UN's track record is too hot.

 

[Reba]

Update:

Fort Dix Attack Plot Suspects Promoting Terror in Jail

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

HADDONFIELD, New Jersey —
Federal authorities say one of the men accused of planning an attack on soldiers at the Fort Dix army base gave another inmate in a federal detention center an Al Qaeda recruitment video and another wrote a note referring to the fight "we weren't able to finish."

...The five men — all foreign-born Muslims in their 20s — were arrested in May and charged with conspiring to kill uniformed military personnel. Authorities said they planned to sneak onto Fort Dix, a base in New Jersey used primarily to train reservists for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was no attack, however.

A sixth man later pleaded guilty to providing weapons to some of the five charged in the alleged conspiracy.

In the legal filing, the government said Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer gave another inmate a copy of an Al Qaeda-produced DVD last month. Guards found the disc in a book in the detention center's law library.

Government lawyers said in the filing that "the fact the defendant Shnewer and, perhaps, his co-conspirators may be spreading jihadist recruitment videos to other inmates clearly raises grave security concerns for the warden, and, again, supports the reasonableness of continued administrative detention for these defendants."

Shnewer's lawyer, Rocco Cipparone, said Shnewer told him 10 days or so ago about the incident. But Cipparone said Shnewer did not give the other inmate the video. Rather, he said, Shnewer was upset that the man somehow got hold of evidence that only the defendants in the case were supposed to see.

The government also said that suspect Eljvir Duka and another inmate were passing notes.

In one note, the government said, Duka wrote, "Now you see why we were going to sacrifice all for the sake of Allah in jihad" and referred to the fight "we weren't able to finish."

The government said detention center staff confronted Duka about the notes. According to the filing, he acknowledged he was passing them but said they only dealt with "issues such as the quality of the food" behind bars...

The five suspects include three ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia, a Jordanian and a Turk....

FOXNews.com - U.S.: Fort Dix Attack Plot Suspects Promoting Terror in Jail - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[Defmusicman]

I agree that not all Muslims are terrorists. It's just that the immense amount of media coverage makes it appear that way. It's a sad and unfortunate situation.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

I have to vote no, because you can't just put the blame on muslims for one race that cause the terrorisms. It any where in the usa and other counties that committed the act of terrorisms. Terrorist: The word explodes in our consciousness with a visceral blow. A common definition: The terrorist is an individual acting outside the norms of law. He or she acts violently. He or she sows terror. The terrorist kills innocent civilians in order to spread chaos and fear.

 

[moonflower]

i vote no

not all muslims are terriorists

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Yes I agree that it's not just muslim or not all muslims but I notice there're common about muslims...

Oh well...

 

[Reba]

I've never said that all Muslims are terrorists.

But we can't ignore the fact that the terrorists who are the most danger to Americans, Western Europeans, and moderate Muslims are radical Muslims.

 

[GarnetTigerMom]

Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter.

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

 

[Yiffzer]

inthegenes, thank you for responding to reba in a very complete and patient manner. i wouldn't even have the patience to. -_-

to answer the poll: no muslims really aren't terrorists, but unfortunately some are misled to be one.

i would have to agree that we do create terrorists by invading their homeland. we have military bases established all over the world. how would we feel if china established their military by our homeland? ;D

 

[Reba]

...i would have to agree that we do create terrorists by invading their homeland....

Muslim terrorists have been active around the world for many years before 9/11 and the recent wars.

 

[Yiffzer]

Muslim terrorists have been active around the world for many years before 9/11 and the recent wars.

yes... -_-

allow me to rephrase...

we create more terrorists by invading their territory.

 

[Eve]

I'd be happy not to invade... except to blast the Middle East off the face of the map.

 

[Yiffzer]

now you're being anti-semitic.

 

[Eve]

now you're being anti-semitic.

I don't see how. I have nothing against Jews.

 

[Yiffzer]

hai, education time! ^_^

with the definition of semite:

a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

point 1: 90% of jews today are ashkenazim jews. ashkenazim jews are usually eastern european in descent. therefore, they can not be semitic. so linking "anti-semitism" to "jews" is a very tiring tactic people pull. ;D

point 2: if you insist that the ashkenazim jews are semites (based on your ignorance, of course), then consider the fact israel is part of the middle east. blasting away the middle east means you'd be killing quite a lot of jews too. you'd be one hell of an anti-semite. ;D

point 3: most middle easterns are semitic so if you blast them all away, you'd effectively be an anti-semite anyway. ;D

neat, you're anti-semitic!