Share This Page:
potential solution for muslim fundamentalist terrorism...
potential solution for muslim fundamentalist terrorism...
anyone know if this is true?
SP
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
www.no it isn't true.com
If you read even a terse biography of the man, you will find that to prepare for his Phillipines posting (where this allegedly happened), he spent much time studying the Koran and local custom. So rather more the understand-your-enemy than enrage-your-enemy type it seems.
The above also sounds like a bloody awful idea...aside from the utterly tenuous link between such an act and the cessation of terrorism (if, er, it were actually true), ask if such an insult to YOUR religion would make you more or less pissed off with those who did it?
This legend seems to generally be reproduced by neo-nazi, sorry, conservative rags for the kind of loud US mid-western hick who would rather read and shout about the glorious military than actually sign up for it. Note the amusing way in which they fixate on the virgins in the Islamic idea of paradise. Sex in paradise! NOT IN OUR RELIGION! Abstain, abstain!
If you read even a terse biography of the man, you will find that to prepare for his Phillipines posting (where this allegedly happened), he spent much time studying the Koran and local custom. So rather more the understand-your-enemy than enrage-your-enemy type it seems.
The above also sounds like a bloody awful idea...aside from the utterly tenuous link between such an act and the cessation of terrorism (if, er, it were actually true), ask if such an insult to YOUR religion would make you more or less pissed off with those who did it?
This legend seems to generally be reproduced by neo-nazi, sorry, conservative rags for the kind of loud US mid-western hick who would rather read and shout about the glorious military than actually sign up for it. Note the amusing way in which they fixate on the virgins in the Islamic idea of paradise. Sex in paradise! NOT IN OUR RELIGION! Abstain, abstain!
fair one sarastro
i can see a logic behind the notion though.
the terrorists beleive they are on a win-win thing, that is, if they blow up infidels they do good and will go to heaven.
if they die they are martyers and will go to heaven and get their 40 virgins.
remove the gaurantee of heaven though exploiting their own perverse beleif system and i wonder how many would just stay at home...
i can see a logic behind the notion though.
the terrorists beleive they are on a win-win thing, that is, if they blow up infidels they do good and will go to heaven.
if they die they are martyers and will go to heaven and get their 40 virgins.
remove the gaurantee of heaven though exploiting their own perverse beleif system and i wonder how many would just stay at home...
SP
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
...or how many would find some form of fighting which negated the possibility of them being captured and subjected to such a punishment. Suicide bombing anyone?
Your point is a good one, but hard to put into practice. Part of the reason that Islamisim is so successful for terrorist purposes is that they have set up a win-win situation. When both the standard weapon and ultimate success is your own death, it is a) possible for any recruit to achieve, b) very hard to catch before the act, and c) impossible to punish after the act. The last two also make enforcing law against such terrorism virtually impossible: the only perpetrators are already dead, thus impossible to make an example of justice out of them, and would-be perpetrators haven't committed any crime yet, so holding them opens the system to accusations of bias, racism, and so on.
Personally, I think that to stop the win-win situation of Islamist terrorism, we need to extricate ourselves from the lose-lose situation we are in by fighting it.
Your point is a good one, but hard to put into practice. Part of the reason that Islamisim is so successful for terrorist purposes is that they have set up a win-win situation. When both the standard weapon and ultimate success is your own death, it is a) possible for any recruit to achieve, b) very hard to catch before the act, and c) impossible to punish after the act. The last two also make enforcing law against such terrorism virtually impossible: the only perpetrators are already dead, thus impossible to make an example of justice out of them, and would-be perpetrators haven't committed any crime yet, so holding them opens the system to accusations of bias, racism, and so on.
Personally, I think that to stop the win-win situation of Islamist terrorism, we need to extricate ourselves from the lose-lose situation we are in by fighting it.
Last edited by Sarastro on Wed 27 Jul, 2005 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dont know mate... but my personal opinion is most have only got the balls they do because of the their own beleifs.
while more may become suicide bombers, they still know that now if they get caught they may get the treatment and be eternally out of heaven.
so while your absolutely right, more may become bombers, at the same time some might bottle it and just sit at home smoking...
it'll never happen anyway. can you imagine the human rights pussies getting a hold of that story?!
while more may become suicide bombers, they still know that now if they get caught they may get the treatment and be eternally out of heaven.
so while your absolutely right, more may become bombers, at the same time some might bottle it and just sit at home smoking...
it'll never happen anyway. can you imagine the human rights pussies getting a hold of that story?!
SP
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
The line between BS and PC is thin and blurry
The problem is fighting an ideological war. As TB seems to understand, but unfortunately Bush doesn't get, the worst thing you can do when faced with an enemy driven by ideology is to set up your own opposing ideology against it. It may motivate and mobilise your population or troops when conflict is inevitable (ie WW2), but when you are trying to avoid large scale conflict (as we essentially are with terrorism / Islamism) it simply validates your enemy's ideology by giving them something to fight against, polarises the two sides, and makes any diplomatic / peaceful resolution impossible.
Example:
Bush proposes chasing down specific terrorist organisation responsible for 9/11 and their supporters in Afghanistan. Keeps quiet about fundamentalist Islamic nature of Taliban. Everyone joins in, including Arab states, wide international support from governments. Wide support from Arab populations.
Bush proposes attacking Iraq, using weak to non-existent evidence of terrorist link with Saddamn Hussain. Consistently bangs on using words such as 'crusade', 'destiny', 'evil-doers' and so on. Most of the world tell him to piss off. Arab states tell him it is a bad idea. Arab populations get mad. Support for occupation in Iraq by Iraqi population dissapears before that in Afghanistan, which has had the same coalition troops there for two years longer than in Iraq.
Of course there are many, many factors influencing all of this, but you could use a hundred examples from a hundred wars. If you set two ideologys against each other, there are going to be fireworks. Ergo the smartest thing to do at the moment, to prevent recruitment of more terrorists, and to kill any support Islamists recieve from other Muslims, is to deny them an ideological struggle against the corrupt / Christian West.It is somewhat harder to persuade large numbers to blow themselves up because Americans are fat and eat McDonalds. It is somewhat easier to persuade them to do this because Americans are fat, eat McDonalds, and want to make everyone else fat, eat McDonalds by destroying good fundamentalist Islamic values.
This is why the idea of exporting democracy, while seemingly benign in intent and to Western eyes, can be such potent recruitment fodder in the Middle-East. It smacks of an invasion of ideas, conversion, and all the ghosts of colonialism, crusades and Christianity. Though this is mostly deliberate misconception and radical madness (and convieniently ignores the conflict-of-interest that democracy tends to be rather unhealthy for fundamentalist religion) it plays damn well in the middle-eastern sticks...just as the idea of the rampaging Hun / Nazi played damn well in the middle-english sticks fifty and eighty years ago.
Going to stop now, or I'll never shut up!
Example:
Bush proposes chasing down specific terrorist organisation responsible for 9/11 and their supporters in Afghanistan. Keeps quiet about fundamentalist Islamic nature of Taliban. Everyone joins in, including Arab states, wide international support from governments. Wide support from Arab populations.
Bush proposes attacking Iraq, using weak to non-existent evidence of terrorist link with Saddamn Hussain. Consistently bangs on using words such as 'crusade', 'destiny', 'evil-doers' and so on. Most of the world tell him to piss off. Arab states tell him it is a bad idea. Arab populations get mad. Support for occupation in Iraq by Iraqi population dissapears before that in Afghanistan, which has had the same coalition troops there for two years longer than in Iraq.
Of course there are many, many factors influencing all of this, but you could use a hundred examples from a hundred wars. If you set two ideologys against each other, there are going to be fireworks. Ergo the smartest thing to do at the moment, to prevent recruitment of more terrorists, and to kill any support Islamists recieve from other Muslims, is to deny them an ideological struggle against the corrupt / Christian West.It is somewhat harder to persuade large numbers to blow themselves up because Americans are fat and eat McDonalds. It is somewhat easier to persuade them to do this because Americans are fat, eat McDonalds, and want to make everyone else fat, eat McDonalds by destroying good fundamentalist Islamic values.
This is why the idea of exporting democracy, while seemingly benign in intent and to Western eyes, can be such potent recruitment fodder in the Middle-East. It smacks of an invasion of ideas, conversion, and all the ghosts of colonialism, crusades and Christianity. Though this is mostly deliberate misconception and radical madness (and convieniently ignores the conflict-of-interest that democracy tends to be rather unhealthy for fundamentalist religion) it plays damn well in the middle-eastern sticks...just as the idea of the rampaging Hun / Nazi played damn well in the middle-english sticks fifty and eighty years ago.
Going to stop now, or I'll never shut up!
-
sneaky beaky
- Member
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Mon 09 Sep, 2002 8:09 pm
- Location: 19th hole
Sarastro,
You put up a good argument! I wonder how many on this forum can argue against it, let alone understand it.
I don't know how we can combat Muslim extremism. Gen. Pershing had a sort of an idea.
The thought of going to heaven and having 40, 72, it now seems to be 80, virgins waiting for you, is very nice , until you look at the statistics or the logic.
If YOU are going to get 72/80 virgins, - where are the next 72 coming from, for the other guys? That's an awful lot of virgins!!
These guys who kill themselves in the name of Allah and on the false presumption that they are going to get all these benefits in heaven, are, thick and so inndoctrinated, not to care!!
Sneaky
You put up a good argument! I wonder how many on this forum can argue against it, let alone understand it.
I don't know how we can combat Muslim extremism. Gen. Pershing had a sort of an idea.
The thought of going to heaven and having 40, 72, it now seems to be 80, virgins waiting for you, is very nice , until you look at the statistics or the logic.
If YOU are going to get 72/80 virgins, - where are the next 72 coming from, for the other guys? That's an awful lot of virgins!!
These guys who kill themselves in the name of Allah and on the false presumption that they are going to get all these benefits in heaven, are, thick and so inndoctrinated, not to care!!
Sneaky
Former RM of 23 years.
-
Frank S.
- Guest
Immaculate contraptions will be made available (see your local angel for availability and pricing) for those whose tastes run towards the more adventurous or exotic.sneaky beaky wrote: If YOU are going to get 72/80 virgins, - where are the next 72 coming from, for the other guys? That's an awful lot of virgins!!
"They have such sights to show you..."
-
Bliartheliar
- Guest
Re: .
BNP supporter/Daily Mail reader I suppose?Adrale wrote:Repatriation and a complete end to Islamic immigration in western countries would be a good start.potential solution for muslim fundamentalist terrorism
You are missing one vital point - Islam is a religion, not a race. You cannot have limits on the number of Muslims coming into the country.
Then what happens when someone converts to Islam? Throw them out?
Its also worth mentioning that some of the failed bombers were immigrants and that they came to Britain as children. They were not 'fundamentalists' (a very loose term) when they came here, and were in no way extremists. One of the 7/7 bombers was also an Muslim convert, so there is no pausible way that you can keep would-be terrorists out. The fact of the matter is that anyone can potentialy be a terrorist - it depends completely on what they are told and who they meet.
The only way to tackle Islamic extremism is to tackle the roots of terrorism - change our middle eastern policies. Lets expel the misconceptions here - they are not doing this for religious reasons, but for political ones. They do not dispise all 'infidels', aree not seeking to destroy our society and are not trying to destroy democracy or to kill everyone they can.
To put it in a nutshell - they attacked the US for giving support to the likes of Gaddafi, the Algerian Military regime, Saddam, Egypt, the Saudi Royal family, Israel, Uzbekistan, etc, etc. They attacked us for supporting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Im not syaing that we need to cease support to the US, or that the US should in turn cease support to Arab governments, but some steps have to be taken. For a start, combat troops need to be taken out of Arab soil (including Iraq but at a later date), we need to stop selling arms to the Israelis and other repressive regimes, and we need to work with the moderate clerics.
In the short term - shoot and kill the terrorists. In the long term, win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world.
-
Bliartheliar
- Guest
One other point - the fact that thier tactics are apalling doesnt make thier long-term objectives wrong. Thier are millions of Muslims who sympathise with their objectives and millions who actively strive for them in a peaceful manner. Those who chose the tactic of terrorism are only a minority, and this is a credit to the Muslim community.
To be fair, thier long term objectives are quite fair considering the oppressive nature of some of thier governments and the poor social conditions of most Muslims and arabs. Another misconception to Islamics is that they want to return to medievil times - reject technology and basically form a taliban-like society. There are some strands that want this. But their are other who wish to cooperate with the west, use the technology, etc, and create an Islamic Umma on par with Western society.
The terrorist acts themselves - to kill innocent people for short term political gain - are nothing but dispicable.
The goals of millions of politically active Muslims are quite attractive. However, when Tony Blair stands up and says they are 'following an evil idealology', he is only playing into the extremist's hands. Because thier idealology is Islam itself. Terror is simply a tactic - one of the many methods available, but the most extreme.
Dont let the terrorists change your viewpoint of the Muslim community. If you tar them all with the same brush, in the long term lives will be lost.
Tony Blair and George Bush need to put aside the rhetoric and tell it like it is. But that wont happen because they are not prepared to change thier policies in the middle east because that will mean less oil, a weaker strategic placement and fewer votes.
The terrorists themselves all share one factor - they are extremely angry towards the West. Now, consider one important factor - less extremists come from countries with a more liberal and democratic society and government. Democracy is the key - if you give these people the freedom to vioce thier opinions in thier own homes, without fear of oppression, they will not become angry towards thier governemt and the hand that feeds it.
Pressure needs to be put on the Israelis, Egyptions, Yemenis, Algerians Uzbeks, Saudis, etc, to improve thier democratic record.
Bush and Blair know this. It is thier responsibility to do this - not through war, but through political channels. Its possible.
To be fair, thier long term objectives are quite fair considering the oppressive nature of some of thier governments and the poor social conditions of most Muslims and arabs. Another misconception to Islamics is that they want to return to medievil times - reject technology and basically form a taliban-like society. There are some strands that want this. But their are other who wish to cooperate with the west, use the technology, etc, and create an Islamic Umma on par with Western society.
The terrorist acts themselves - to kill innocent people for short term political gain - are nothing but dispicable.
The goals of millions of politically active Muslims are quite attractive. However, when Tony Blair stands up and says they are 'following an evil idealology', he is only playing into the extremist's hands. Because thier idealology is Islam itself. Terror is simply a tactic - one of the many methods available, but the most extreme.
Dont let the terrorists change your viewpoint of the Muslim community. If you tar them all with the same brush, in the long term lives will be lost.
Tony Blair and George Bush need to put aside the rhetoric and tell it like it is. But that wont happen because they are not prepared to change thier policies in the middle east because that will mean less oil, a weaker strategic placement and fewer votes.
The terrorists themselves all share one factor - they are extremely angry towards the West. Now, consider one important factor - less extremists come from countries with a more liberal and democratic society and government. Democracy is the key - if you give these people the freedom to vioce thier opinions in thier own homes, without fear of oppression, they will not become angry towards thier governemt and the hand that feeds it.
Pressure needs to be put on the Israelis, Egyptions, Yemenis, Algerians Uzbeks, Saudis, etc, to improve thier democratic record.
Bush and Blair know this. It is thier responsibility to do this - not through war, but through political channels. Its possible.
-
markthestab
- Member
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sun 29 May, 2005 7:03 pm
- Location: Nottingham
