The Hard Truth about Terrorism

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, I see little reason to classify the slaughter in Orlando as an act of "Islamic terrorism."

 

[Laika]

Parenthetically, I see little reason to classify the slaughter in Orlando as an act of "Islamic terrorism."

The news reports have changed since this morning When I posted the OP. I read about a Clinton speech and it bothered me so I started this thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The news reports have changed since this morning When I posted the OP. I read about a Clinton speech and it bothered me so I started this thread.

I'm sorry, @Laika, but I don't understand. What Clinton speech, what about it bothered you, and how has the reporting changed?

 

[Augustus]

(1) Expose Islam for what it is instead of constantly whitewashing it.
(2) Allow the FBI and CIA to study Islamic theology, as well as the link between Islam and terrorism. This is currently banned.
(3) Reduce Muslim migration to non-Muslim countries.
(4) Make the propagation and preaching of political Islam (i.e., Sharia Law) illegal.
(5) Stop trying to appease Islamic organizations such as the Hamas-linked CAIR.
(6) Keep mosques under surveillance.

If this actually happened the jihadis would think that all their [errr..] Christmases had come at once.

Doing exactly what they want has been spectacularly unsuccessful so far, ramping up our compliance another notch is unlikely to reverse the trend.

I'd say it's about time to stop dancing to their tune acapella nasheed

 

[Laika]

I'm sorry, @Laika, but I don't understand. What Clinton speech, what about it bothered you, and how has the reporting changed?

The news that the shooter at Orlando had frequented the pulse club that he attacked and may well have been gay is how the news changed since I posted the OP. That greatly complicated the picture of his motivations.

In the political fall out from Yesterday, Clinton delivered this Speech. I only saw a very short clip on the guardian but below is the full speech from YouTube. ( the guardian link won't work).

I will sit and watch the whole speech in a bit. (I got a third of the way through whilst typing this). But what struck me this morning is the simplicity of the narrative involved, an almost Hollywood portrayal of terrorists as villains or the "virus" of an extremist and terroristic ideology. The implication is that we need more force, more restriction of civil liberties to defeat terrorism or an extremist ideology when in reality we only defeat ourselves by trying to win and unwinnable war against a tactic and not an enemy. its perverse to sentimentalise the death of "innocent" civilians and to think that the "guilt" of terrorists means that we must necessarily act as judge, jury and executioner without recognising the nature of the power we wield is identical to the one we despise.

Describing it as a "virus" really struck me because it echoes closely with the dehumanised portrayals of enemies in totalitarian systems which was how they were able to portray their enemies as less than human, incapable of negotiation or rational thought, that they are simply insane or "poisonous psychology" as Clinton put it and there is nothing to understand and we just have to slaughter them. They are simply the personification of evil which must be destroyed by all means if the "good" are to triumph. It makes me uncomfortable to hear that and think of the parallels and where we were heading and how comfortable we've become thinking wiping out this enemy is both possible and even moral.

Watching the full version of the speech I am struck by some Orwellian undertones. We have to rethink how we fight terrorism and can't fall into the trap of thinking we can defeat it.

 

[Crypto2015]

Here's my take on your list.

1) Expose Islam for what it is instead of constantly whitewashing it.

Not sure how you'd achieve that. That's practically saying the media should promote a particular message as a restriction on freedom of the press.

(2) Allow the FBI and CIA to study Islamic theology, as well as the link between Islam and terrorism. This is currently banned.

That sounds really weird. Do you have a link for that? I would be surprised if that was true.

(3) Reduce Muslim migration to non-Muslim countries.

Keeping Muslins in Muslim-majority countries would be unworkable without an international agreement and police force to enforce it.

Preventing Muslims from entering the country and establishing a religious text for citizenship is more workable but highly discriminatory.

(4) Make the propagation and preaching of political Islam (i.e., Sharia Law) illegal.

That will be hard to do without infringing on the rights of Muslins to exercise their freedom of religion because distinguishing between political Islam and non-political Islam will be difficult.

This would essentially ban any pro-sharia law political parties. I don't think there are any in the U.S. But there is one or two elsewhere. There might be one in the UK I think.

(5) Stop trying to appease Islamic organizations such as the Hamas-linked CAIR.

What do you mean by "appease"? Are you saying we should ban organisations we consider Islamic or specifically promoting political Islam? More information would be good here.

(6) Keep mosques under surveillance.

Assuming you did that and ignored the privacy violations involved, I think all it would achieve is moving any unwanted discussions to outside of the Mosque. It's unlikely that terrorists would gather in a mosque and discuss their plots as its a public place anyway.

To expose Islam for what it is you just need to present an unbiased and realistic exposition of the Islamic sacred texts. For instance, Obama and other leaders normally quote this passage of the Qur'an:

"“…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” (Qur'an 5:32).

The entire passage actually says

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Qur'an 5:32-33)

They also forget to mention that according to Sharia Law preaching the Gospel or simply defending your wife from a Muslim (if you are a Christian) are good examples of "spreading mischief through the land" and carry the penalties described in that passage.

The CIA, the FBI and the US army are forbidden from linking terrorism with Islam. Here you have why

"On October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates wrote a letter to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam...”

Brennan assured Khera that all her demands would be met: “Your letter requests that ‘the White House immediately create an interagency task force to address this problem,’ and we agree that this is necessary.” He then detailed other specific actions being undertaken, including “collecting all training materials that contain cultural or religious content, including information related to Islam or Muslims.” In reality this material wouldn’t just be “collected”; it would be purged of anything that Farhana Khera and others like her found offensive—that is, any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify violence."

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/...-drop-the-ball-on-orlando-jihad-mass-murderer

You keep talking about Islam as if Islam were simply a religion. It is not. Islam is as much of a political movement as it is a religion. That's why it must be treated by the law as a political movement and not as a religion.

 

[Crypto2015]

If this actually happened the jihadis would think that all their [errr..] Christmases had come at once.

Doing exactly what they want has been spectacularly unsuccessful so far, ramping up our compliance another notch is unlikely to reverse the trend.

I'd say it's about time to stop dancing to their tune acapella nasheed

Our moronic leaders normally claim that what the jihadist want is to divide us. This is a lie. The jihadist tell you very clearly what they want and they never mentioned anything about dividing us. Why would they? They know that we are already divided. Do you think that the vast majority of Muslims are integrated into the West? If you think that they are, go and take a look at cities like Luton.

 

[Lyndon]

Well I know who's spewing hate in this discussion.

 

[Crypto2015]

Well I know who's spewing hate in this discussion.

You were never able to tell the difference between the truth and hate speech.

 

[Altfish]

"all the wrongs of Islam" <----> banal islamophobia.

First sign of criticism you shout "islamophobia".

If you call me homophobic, I'll take it as a criticism and may change my behaviour; similarly if you call me racist, I'll take it as a criticism and may change my behaviour.
But Islam is an idea, a belief - it is not a race, or way of life - islamophobia is a fear of an idea. Nobody has to be an islam, it is a choice, do I fear islam, some interpretations of it are dangerous, so yes I fear some of its followers. But islam, like communism or capitalism, it is an idea, I am not afraid of ideas, so I am not islamophobic.

 

[Valjean]

I never said that all Muslims have the intent to commit acts of terrorism. What I said is that mainstream Islam (the ideology) encourages terrorism. This cannot be denied. The proves are readily available in the Qur'an and the Hadith.

So how do you explain the fact that this terrorism is a recent phenomenon?
Fifty years ago the middle East was secularizing; it was westernizing by example. Women in Baghdad, Kabul and Tehran were walking the streets in western dress, sans hijab (Google images). But after incidents like the Suez crisis the six day war and the continuing military support of Israel, people began to perceive the West as tyrants supporting puppet regimes.
I see this imperialism and exploitation as a major factor in the reversion to fundamentalism and anti-Western sentiment.

That's right blame the west for all the wrongs of islam.

Look at the history, Altfish, from Sykes-Picot to the invasion of Iraq. I'd say the region has some legitimate grievances.
How do you think we'd act if the shoe was on the other foot?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The news that the shooter at Orlando had frequented the pulse club that he attacked and may well have been gay is how the news changed since I posted the OP. That greatly complicated the picture of his motivations.

In the political fall out from Yesterday, Clinton delivered this Speech. I only saw a very short clip on the guardian but below is the full speech from YouTube. ( the guardian link won't work).

I will sit and watch the whole speech in a bit. (I got a third of the way through whilst typing this). But what struck me this morning is the simplicity of the narrative involved, an almost Hollywood portrayal of terrorists as villains or the "virus" of an extremist and terroristic ideology. The implication is that we need more force, more restriction of civil liberties to defeat terrorism or an extremist ideology when in reality we only defeat ourselves by trying to win and unwinnable war against a tactic and not an enemy. its perverse to sentimentalise the death of "innocent" civilians and to think that the "guilt" of terrorists means that we must necessarily act as judge, jury and executioner without recognising the nature of the power we wield is identical to the one we despise.

Describing it as a "virus" really struck me because it echoes closely with the dehumanised portrayals of enemies in totalitarian systems which was how they were able to portray their enemies as less than human, incapable of negotiation or rational thought, that they are simply insane or "poisonous psychology" as Clinton put it and there is nothing to understand and we just have to slaughter them. They are simply the personification of evil which must be destroyed by all means if the "good" are to triumph. It makes me uncomfortable to hear that and think of the parallels and where we were heading and how comfortable we've become thinking wiping out this enemy is both possible and even moral.

Watching the full version of the speech I am struck by some Orwellian undertones. We have to rethink how we fight terrorism and can't fall into the trap of thinking we can defeat it.

I do not agree with much of the above, but I appreciate the thoroughness of your response.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nobody has to be an islam, ....

 

[Altfish]

So how do you explain the fact that this terrorism is a recent phenomenon?
Fifty years ago the middle East was secularizing; it was westernizing by example. Women in Baghdad, Kabul and Tehran were walking the streets in western dress, sans hijab (Google images). But after incidents like the Suez crisis the six day war and the continuing military support of Israel, people began to perceive the West as tyrants supporting puppet regimes.
I see this imperialism and exploitation as a major factor in the reversion to fundamentalism and anti-Western sentiment.
Look at the history, Altfish, from Sykes-Picot to the invasion of Iraq. I'd say the region has some legitimate grievances.
How do you think we'd act if the shoe was on the other foot?

I'd join the 20th century (joining the 21st century is probably too big a jump yet) start looking at reason and science and stop following books written in middle ages. Start treating women equal, get over gay life style, get over apostacy, etc., etc.
I do look at history, my country has a lousy past, so do many others, my country has been invaded and conquered by others, we are known as Anglo-Saxons. There is a clue there of one race that has invaded us. Do we bomb and preach hate against Saxons or Normans or Danes.
As Sam Harris has said, islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.

 

[icehorse]

Terrorism is largely a red herring.

(While I understand this is a bit of a tangent: In my opinion, Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It is Islam's fundamental conflicts with secular society that we must defeat. The "perversion" of Islam is to attempt to label it a religion of peace. If some Muslims want to turn Islam into a religion of peace, they must create a denomination that specifically denounces Islam's clear anti-secular, supremacist leanings.)

 

[Quintessence]

In the wake of the Orlando attacks in Florida, we are now once again discussing how to fight terrorism. In the rush for politicians to seem more "decisive" on the issue there is something which badly needs to be said.

You can't stop every terrorist attack.

Isn't this common sense? Does this really need to be said?

Apparently, yes.

 

[Altfish]

Educated reply, I must say
I was born Christian - I soon realised it was rubbish, I am no longer a Christian. What is the difference with Islam?

 

[Augustus]

Our moronic leaders normally claim that what the jihadist want is to divide us. This is a lie. The jihadist tell you very clearly what they want and they never mentioned anything about dividing us.

Perhaps you need to listen a bit more carefully then:

"By polarization here, I mean dragging the masses into the battle such that polarization is created between all of the people. Thus, one group of them will go to the side of the people of truth, another group will go to the side of the people of falsehood, and a third group will remain neutral, awaiting the outcome of the battle in order to join the victor. We must attract the sympathy of this group and make it hope for the victory of the people of faith, especially since this group has a decisive role in the later stages of the present battle...
Dragging the masses into the battle requires more actions which will inflame opposition and which will make the people enter into the battle, willing or unwilling, such that each individual will go to the side which he supports...
This was the policy of battle for the pioneers: to transform societies into two opposing groups, igniting a violent battle between them whose end is either victory or martyrdom, whose emblem is either glorious war or humiliating peace."
The Management of Savagery - Abu Bakr Najri

As I said, the West has bent over backwards to do exactly what they wanted. They actually did far more than they ever really expected at the turn of the millenium.

 

[Crypto2015]

So how do you explain the fact that this terrorism is a recent phenomenon?
Fifty years ago the middle East was secularizing; it was westernizing by example. Women in Baghdad, Kabul and Tehran were walking the streets in western dress, sans hijab (Google images). But after incidents like the Suez crisis the six day war and the continuing military support of Israel, people began to perceive the West as tyrants supporting puppet regimes.
I see this imperialism and exploitation as a major factor in the reversion to fundamentalism and anti-Western sentiment.
Look at the history, Altfish, from Sykes-Picot to the invasion of Iraq. I'd say the region has some legitimate grievances.
How do you think we'd act if the shoe was on the other foot?

Colonialism destroyed the spiritual authority of Islam in the Middle East. Islam asserts that Allah will never allow the non-Muslims to prevail over the Muslims.

And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way to triumph over believers [Pickthall – “any way of success”] (4:141)

Colonialism proved that this is false. Hence, it proved that Islam is false. That's why the Middle East suddenly forgot about Islam. They lost their faith. One of the most efficient ways to kill the Muslim's faith in Islam is to utterly defeat them on the battlefield.

 

[gsa]

Westerners still get to live in the historically safest societies in the world, it's just that their expectations are fanciful..

This is a really disturbing sentiment. Peaceful, nonviolent societies are the exception and we should be glad to be the exception, since those unruly savages can't be expected to meet the same standards.

I know that is not what you meant, but think long and hard about what you are suggesting here.