What should the West do Now about Islamic Terrorism?

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm more worried about what the east should do about Western/atheist/christian/jewish terrorism.

Hmm. How about setting your own house in order, and not blaming it on everyone else? How about rooting out the extremists in your midst, modernising Islam, getting rid of the mediaevalism, the barbaric aspects of Sharia law, the oppression of women and gays, and so on?

By the way, I protested against UK involvement in the invasion of Iraq, many of us did, and I do understand that western interventions in the Middle East have caused deep problems. But just blaming the west for past mistakes isn't going to solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism in general, and ISIS in particular. The west can't do this, the west will always be accused of being "crusaders", so it is down to the Muslim world to sort this out.

 

[Jumi]

I'm more worried about what the east should do about Western/atheist/christian/jewish terrorism.

Could you give examples of Western atheist terrorism in the past year?

 

[Jumi]

They target all civilians (Muslims and non-Muslims) .
They believe that you vote for your governments so you are responsible too.they believe it's you which cause the suffering of Palestinians and Iraqis and Syria,and Libyan .

They are also not well educated, or they would not attack in countries that are not participating or were against them. For my part, in my country, usually no one I vote for gets elected and I'm opposed to any militaristic behavior by those that do. Only thing I support militarily is defense.

Joining Nato is very unpopular here, but the government has been trying to get us to join since the USSR broke down. Only thing that could make the country join Nato is if we got attacked by terrorists or Russia tried intimidating us.

 

[McBell]

Please share.

Stop preaching "No Tolerance" and actually start practicing it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Far too simplistic. Blaming it all on the west is just a smokescreen for the problems endemic in Islam, and is ironically the same nonsense that ISIS propagates in order to radicalise people.

See here for a different perspective: http://www.newstatesman.com/world-a...-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism

You assume that I'm new to this issue, apparently. I know that Saudi Arabia finances the propagation of hardline forms of Islam. Duh. The Saudis are also allies of the US government and we basically protect them and give them arms. America and its allies really do have much, if not most, of the blame for this.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Could you give examples of Western atheist terrorism in the past year?

The bombings of Syria and Iraq to name a few.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

[QUOTE="Rick O'Shez, post: 4830250, member: 59993"]Hmm. How about setting your own house in order, and not blaming it on everyone else? How about rooting out the extremists in your midst, modernising Islam, getting rid of the mediaevalism, the barbaric aspects of Sharia law, the oppression of women and gays, and so on?

By the way, I protested against UK involvement in the invasion of Iraq, many of us did, and I do understand that western interventions in the Middle East have caused deep problems. But just blaming the west for past mistakes isn't going to solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism in general, and ISIS in particular. The west can't do this, the west will always be accused of being "crusaders", so it is down to the Muslim world to sort this out.[/QUOTE]

The MI5 has already stated conservative Muslims households are the LEAST likeliest to be radicalised and the most likeley are individuals who drink, party, are unemployed and go to prostitutes. Name me one thing other than their name which is Islamic about such individuals?

Now, if we study the vast majority of terrorism cases linked to Islam (less than 1% across Europe according to Europol as of 2013) you will find that the so called Muslims involved in these attacks were...can you guess? That's right, unemployed, drunks, mentally disturbed and people of disrepute. They barely even knew how to pray let alone understand Islam. 2 from Britain bought books off Amazon: Islam for Dummies and The Quran for Dummies. Do they sound liek religious extremists or religious novices?

Also, if you would please read up on the history of the so called religious extremist groups set up across Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria etc, you will find that they were funded, supported and promoted by western organisations and governments. Most recently, Anonymous, a hacker group, traced numerous ISIS facebook and Twitter accounts to the British government. What does that tell you?

But facts often don't appeal to individuals who want to dislike religion because that is their primary goal, not to have a true understanding of what is happening in the world.

And to end, these so called Islamic organisations have killed a 100x if not many more Muslims than non-Muslims. Let that sink in. They claim they want to fight the west but kill more of their own brothers and sisters than they do the so called infidels. They must be the stupidest terrorists on earth if they can't recognise who their enemy is. Maybe they watched too much Four Lions?

 

[Jumi]

The bombings of Syria and Iraq to name a few.

And where's your proof? I actually thought better of you, but now you are making things up.

 

[McBell]

The bombings of Syria and Iraq to name a few.

please be so kind as to name the atheist terrorist group(s) you speak of in the above quoted post.

And yes, your answer is going to determine if you are capable of rational discussion on the topic.

Good luck.

 

[YmirGF]

Most recently, Anonymous, a hacker group, traced numerous ISIS facebook and Twitter accounts to the British government. What does that tell you?

It tells me that a certain poster is merely telling the part of the story that sounds horrible. When one drills down through the details of the story one quickly finds there is no real story to begin with.

And to end, these so called Islamic organizations have killed a 100x if not many more Muslims than non-Muslims. Let that sink in. They claim they want to fight the west but kill more of their own brothers and sisters than they do the so called infidels. They must be the stupidest terrorists on earth if they can't recognize who their enemy is. Maybe they watched too much Four Lions?

Though it is entirely possible that the front line Islamic State member is poorly educated, highly excitable youth, it is foolish to assume that the leadership suffers from the same disadvantage.

 

[icehorse]

I'm sure I've said this before, but am gonna keep saying it, because it's (for me) fundamentally important - it's not Islaam that is incompatible with most other forms of government, or Islaam that is extremely intolerant of anything even approaching criticism (I'm not sure the latter even really makes much sense). Rather it is some/many people's interpretations/forms of Islaam that are (ultimately) incompatible with most other forms of government, and some/many Muslims who are extremely intolerant of anything even approaching criticism. These are to my mind important distinctions.

I think this idea has some merit. An action that would go a long way towards solving this problem would be if Muslims declared Islamic denominations more universally. I can guess what version of Islam a Saudi Prince advocates. But what denomination does the family down the street follow? Does it even have a name? It probably doesn't, and we should not take this lack of distinction lightly.

When people are not forthcoming about what they believe, it is hard to establish trust.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nah, he just used to go around slapping people.

Patton (Blood and Guts) was touted as being a, "War is Hell" General along similar lines reflective of General Sherman's approach and actions from the civil war.

There wasn't much, if anything, of Atlanta left when Sherman was through with it. I don't think Patton would have ever stopped until every last terrorist was eradicated or capitulated across the entire planet.

 

[George-ananda]

Provide non-partisan humanitarian relief only, as part of UN missions. No militaristic conquests under the guise of "human rights".

I am sure ISIS would have a field day under your policy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Terrorism is a tool, an action. Can't do much about that. But what we can do is examine the causes of it, what draws people towards violent extremist ideologies in the first place, what the risk factors are, what the social factors are, etc. and then we can use that data to solve the problem at the root of it. From what I know, violent extremist movements are highly correlated with poverty, unemployment, lack of prospects for the future, lack of education, a sense of disenfranchisement, etc. Bombing people and terrorizing them back is just completely stupid and sadistic. That's no answer at all, unless you're sick in the head and actually want to make things exponentially worse. This can only be addressed with peaceful means.

We are being attacked in the West because of the history of colonization, imperialization, and continued military/corporate influence the West is having in the Middle East, where many nations didn't even get to draw their own borders. That must all come to an end, and the Middle Eastern people allowed to work on their own problems themselves. The West's continued involvement is leading to the death's of many in the West who have absolutely nothing to do with it. And the extremists who are here, they must be dealt with. Not in the typical military sense (we can't go bombing our own nations), but with a more "surgical precision" that is too precise to even allow for the broad generalized data harvesting we saw from the PATRIOT act.

 

[Twilight Hue]

ISIS wouldn't exist in the first place if the West hadn't have destroyed the region and directly and indirectly supported them.

The U.S. didn't start the mess. It was already there at the start. I can't remember the middle east when it was last "stable" looong before Clinton and Bush. Even Jimmy Carter.

I do think Bush administration should have weighed the impacts on their decision making past Saddam's Kuwait invasion.

 

[YmirGF]

USA war against Iraq was great fault, it's consequence is still coming.

No one gain in that war , all losers , especially Iraqi people.

Especially the Iraqi people, as if they didn't have it bad enough under Saddam.

I do believe it's intentional to burn up the Muslim world

I do believe that you believe that, Godobeyer as it really must seem that way. The reality is more of being a case of political arrogance and idiotic foreign policy (by several administrations) rather than a set plan to destroy the Muslim world. The horror is, Godobeyer, if we wanted to destroy the Muslim world we certainly have the ability to do so and would have done so by now. We wouldn't be having this conversation if that was true.

They are not "Islamic" , they claim that. but their acts not Islamic.

Feel free to tell them that. Go ahead. The huge problem for "good" Muslims is that there is enough in Islam's teachings, depending on interpretation, to hijack Islam for less than noble purposes.

More that violence increase in middle east , more that you will receive attacks.
It's like echos of earthquake, or flames of volcano, no one is safe.

And I agree, but what is the solution? Bar all contact with the Muslim world?

Actually we are paying what Bush family and West did to Iraq,Syria and Libya.and Afghanistan,and bias to Israel against Palestinians ...etc

Though somewhat understandable, this kind of linkage is not actually helpful. Lumping them altogether is superficial thinking, at best, and does not further understanding of the complexities of each "theater of engagement". Instead of trying to appreciate the complexities, which may expose unpleasant truths on all sides, it is easier to see them as an overall plot. Life is never black and white.

I think it's time that be the world should declare WW3 against terrorism in Syria and Iraq,and call for justice in Palestine, and Burma ...etc

I'm thinking that would be a tiny bit extreme. You've just told us how terrible the meddling by foreign powers as been in the past and to this very day, and yet you are calling for a full on assault of the very places that will cause Muslims to scream in horror and outrage? You might want to rethink this scenario.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I think this idea has some merit. An action that would go a long way towards solving this problem would be if Muslims declared Islamic denominations more universally. I can guess what version of Islam a Saudi Prince advocates. But what denomination does the family down the street follow? Does it even have a name? It probably doesn't, and we should not take this lack of distinction lightly.

Perhaps. I think you'll find (if you take the time to get to know the family down the street, and of course if they take the time to get to know you (see my below point on trust)) that there is a pretty wide diversity of beliefs and practices among Muslims (about all things from the relationship between God and humankind, forms of worship, relations with those of other faiths or none, what to eat and drink, sexuality, family, to government, etc. etc.).

A big part of the problem, however, is a fear about what family members or 'the community' might think. This can be a difficult mould to break. And it is pretty lonely out here, if few of us have 'come out' about our less traditional beliefs/practices. There is also the problem of a fear of the more 'extremist' elements within our community. And when our community is attacked, or we perceive that we are being attacked, there is something of a tendency to 'close ranks', to stick with those whom we know and what we know or are familiar with. So trust really comes into play here. This has implications for the formation of different traditions as well as for those of us who don't necessarily wish to belong to a particular denomination or to put a particular label to our beliefs and practices, but prefer to just call ourselves Muslims, or Sunni Muslims, or Shi'a Muslims, or whatever. For just as one can have more traditionally-minded and more liberally-minded Christians or Jews or Hindus, for example, one can also find more traditionally-minded or more liberally-minded Muslims, or Sunni Muslims, or Shi'a Muslims, or whatever. Tarring us all with one brush - in particular the traditionally-minded or Wahabi or IS-type brush is neither accurate nor helpful (with all due respect to more traditionally-minded or Wahabi Muslims or those with IS sympathies).

The other factor, which does complicate this issue, is that there are many of us (Muslims) who wish to emphasise our similarities with other Muslims (in our dialogues with other Muslims) rather than to emphasise our differences in a bid to reduce sectarian tensions within the global Muslim community (the Ummah). In this spirit, some of us might simply call ourselves Muslims (others do wish to make the distinction but nevertheless go out of their way to emphasise that we all belong to one global Muslim community (Ummah)).

When people are not forthcoming about what they believe, it is hard to establish trust.

I do agree with this, but trust has to work both ways. A big part of the problem we have in relations between Muslims and non-Muslims (and indeed between, for example, Shi'a and Sunni Muslims) is a significant lack of trust on both sides (which is in part understandable given recent and not-so-recent history). In my opinion, both sides need to be making a lot more effort.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

To blame Islamic terrorism on the politics of the Western powers over the last century is dangerous nonsense. During the "troubles", the Irish Republican Army attacked British politicians and security forces, and also economic targets, but not ordinary people. Perhaps I need to add (on a place like this) that I never supported that violence. The point is that if a Muslim wanted to fight against the policies of the US government, the obvious targets would be US forces and politicians, not ordinary citizens. Muslims are attacking ordinary people because terrorism is what they do and have done throughout history. It's called jihad.

The idea that there are "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims" ignores that fact that jihad is taught in the Quran and was practiced by Muhammad. Actually, the terrorists are good Muslims: they are following the teachings of their faith.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Muslims are attacking ordinary people because terrorism is what they do and have done throughout history. It's called jihad.

Are you arguing that all Muslims are terrorists?

The idea that there are "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims" ignores that fact that jihad is taught in the Quran and was practiced by Muhammad. Actually, the terrorists are good Muslims: they are following the teachings of their faith.

Jihaad is certainly an important teaching in Islaam. But there is a time and a place for it, and a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to practice Jihaad (in my opinion). But regardless of whether I or IS think Jihaad - or a particular interpretation of what Jihaad constitutes - is fundamental to Islaam or not, the important thing to realise is that not all Muslims agree. There are different ways of interpreting the Qur'aan and the practices of Muhammad (pbuh). And these can be fundamentally different, indeed contradictory.

 

[Godobeyer]

Especially the Iraqi people, as if they didn't have it bad enough under Saddam.

Iraq under Saddam was heaven compare to today.

I do believe that you believe that, Godobeyer as it really must seem that way. The reality is more of being a case of political arrogance and idiotic foreign policy (by several administrations) rather than a set plan to destroy the Muslim world. The horror is, Godobeyer, if we wanted to destroy the Muslim world we certainly have the ability to do so and would have done so by now. We wouldn't be having this conversation if that was true.

I do believe that,since fact tells on us ground.

give the rebels "terrorists" to fight

Feel free to tell them that. Go ahead. The huge problem for "good" Muslims is that there is enough in Islam's teachings, depending on interpretation, to hijack Islam for less than noble purposes.

tell who?
tell what ?

And I agree, but what is the solution? Bar all contact with the Muslim world?

That's certainly would better for some Muslims, whom don't want intervention, or supporting the "rebels"

I'm thinking that would be a tiny bit extreme. You've just told us how terrible the meddling by foreign powers as been in the past and to this very day, and yet you are calling for a full on assault of the very places that will cause Muslims to scream in horror and outrage? You might want to rethink this scenario.

For fighting terrorists ,and or helping to make peace (not by force) I think this is acceptable .

Foreign powers should correct the path/way how they deal with problems in middle east .
for exemple , ISIS and rebels (terrorists) enemy of world , not Syria Army.(Assad regime).

So why West don't support temporary Syrian Army to defeat the terrorists (as Russia) ?