Muslims vow to continue fighting U.S.

[deb]

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=2624560

I adamantly support President Bush's war on terror and the efforts to bring democracy to the middle east.

I do however, wonder how we will ultimately accomplish this.  We are fighting an enemy armed with midieval attitudes and a hunger for violence.  I cannot believe that middle east Muslims claim to be a peaceful people.

These people have been fighting the same war for centuries.  The attitudes and culture seems to have been arrested somewhere in the 5th or 6th century.  There seems to be no comprehension of the concept of civility, and no condemnation of the radical actions from the mainstream Muslims.

When a government is based on a religion and the education of a country's people is based on the religious writings progressive thought is snuffed out.  Regardless of the teachings of religions, the world and attitudes do change.  It is necessary, therefore to change with the times.  How do you convince the fanatical religious people that adapting to modern times is not going to condemn them to hell?  Will it take total destruction to bring the nation of Islam forward 15 centuries?

Are they fighting the U.S. or are they fighting progress?

[durruti]

Well, if you'd like a discussion I'll play devil's advocate....

1   US policy, especially the present vivious tragedy in Iraq, has done little if anything to promote democracy in the Middle East. On the contrary, US policy has protected and helped some of the most brutal, corrupt and despised regimes over the last few decades (Eg. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Saddam's Iraq, the Sha's Iran, Egypt). I've written a few long (and probably quite boring) posts about this before.

2   There is a lot the US and the west in general COULD do to promote democracy and human rights. It hasn't done it. It has sold shed loads of weapons though, and secured access to much needed oil supplies.

3   You are generalising about Muslims very unfairly. Substitute the word Catholic or Jew for Muslim, and you may understand better what I mean. Zarqawi doesn't speak for Muslims any more than Sharon speaks for Jews or Bush speaks for Christians. As for Muslim civility, I believe the Arabs in particular have a long tradition of hospitality to guests and generosity.

4  Muslim societies played a great part in the development of European civilisation. In poetry, science, religious tolerance, and culture, Islam gave much to the world over centuries.

5   Part of the reason for the problems in Muslim and Arab countries today is that these nations were divided and brutally occupied by the west. There wasn't much attempt to build civil society, it was for money and trading routes. The Arab middle east was also kept under the yoke of the Ottomans for centuries. Some might argue that western meddling since World War 2 has continued to divide and weaken the muslim/arab world, and helped a few corrupt rulers exploit its resources. It is this widespread perception in the Muslim world which allows extremist political Islamists like Al Qaida to find a fertile recruiting ground.

6   All religions have had great evil committed in their name. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism all have. Do we blame Christianity for the problems in Northern Ireland? Do we blame Buddhism for Sri Lanka, or Judaism for the occupation of Palestine? No, I don't think that's fair. Likewise all these religions have inspired people to do great things for humanity. I'm personally quite against religions because I think people should generally develop their own morality and their own view of what is right. Still, I have been lucky to know some wonderful Muslims, Christians and Jews. Its too easy just to criticise people of a faith (or ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation for that matter) rather than try to understand them and get to know them.

7  The policies of the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia since Soviet troops went into Afghanistan were the chief creators of Al Qaida.

8  I completely agree with you about governments based on religion. Yuk. Even having the word 'God' in a constitution is too much for me I'm afraid. Unfortunately many religious fundamentalists seem to think they have a right to project their morality onto everyone else.

[deb]

Durratti,

How would democracy be introduced into the middle east and accepted?  I don't mean accepted by the people who want democracy and human rights, I mean accepted by the extremists who are so desperately fighting it.  

I don't think that I generalize unfairly.  I do realize the there are moderate Muslims, but I don't see them realing in the fanatics.  If the moderates allow the fanatics to act like barbarians while claiming to be Muslim, then the reputation is one that is earned.  Most stereotypes, though harsh are not unfounded.  If a group of people (black, white, blonde, jew, christian or muslim) predictably act a certain way they should not be surprised when a stereotype develops.  If muslims do not like the way they are viewed, perhaps they should disassociate themselves with the fanatics and form another sect or religion.  I think the christian equivalent is to the effect of if your right hand offends you cut it off.

In your paragraph #5 you are blaming much of the unrest in the middle east on the western world.  Are you saying that the people of the middle east are unable to act civilly because of westerners?  The middle easterners could at any time, with or without our permission, decide to act in a way that would be considered civil.  

All religions have had atrocities committed in their name.  Greed can be spelled as christian, jewish, muslim, catholic, protestant etc.  Religion is big business and solicitation from a pulpit very lucrative.

It's interesting that we agree on some points.  I must admit however, that I still support creating a democracy in Iraq (and in any other place that it can be accomplished), even it force is required.  The situation in the middle east has only gotten more and more volatile over the years.  It's either control it or let it destroy the world.

[durruti]

Hi Deb
Haven't got time to answer this in full today, so I'll cheat and do a quick cut ansd paste from an earlier post about an article in the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494945.html

"While spending $140 billion on the war in Iraq, and about $38 billion on the war in Afghanistan and continuing operations against the Taliban and Al-Qaida, bringing the total to more than $220 billion, the American government allots less than one-tenth of 1 percent to economic, cultural, educational, and scientific reform in the Middle East. This indicates that the government does not take its own actions seriously......George Bush's four years in office created new focal points [for Arabs]. One of the most important of these is an intense feeling of insult and helplessness."
 
Most western meddling has actually undermined the emergence of a moderate Islamic/Arab renaissance, Everything from uncritical support for Israel, to overthrowing the elected government in Iran in the 50s, to helping several regimes liquidate leftist/liberal opponents, to backing the house of Saud (which in turn financed the spead of an especially intolerant brand of Islam called Wahhabism).

I believe people in the Middle East (as everywhere else) are overwhelmingly civil...probably most Americans who have actually spent time living in the region would agree. The trouble is, popular anger at western interference in the Middle East is actually strengthening fundamentalism, strengthening authoritarian governments, and weakening progressive movements.

[Abracadabra]

Muslims vow to continue fighting U.S.---- Of course they would when receiving support from IDOTS like this------------ ( way to go A**Hole. Give them another incentive to continue.)

The Democratic Party's top foreign policy expert in the Senate said Sunday that the U.S. is losing what he described as a war with "too little legitimacy" in Iraq, even though enemy leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has publicly proclaimed the battle of Fallujah a massive U.S. victory.


In a morale-busting diatribe that's certain to bring delight to the hearts of America's enemies worldwide, Sen. Joe Biden complained that while U.S. forces have won every battle, the Bush administration's flawed strategy has doomed the war effort.

He predicted that American forces would continue to take an increasing  number  of casualties in Iraq, saying: "We have to level with the  American people. This  is going to be incredibly painful."


http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

[durruti]

Read this by analysts at the DoD?

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

“Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

“Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

“Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support. What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups.”

More 'IDOTS' huh?

Winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world isn't going quite as the Bush administration expected. But reality rarely seems to cloud your governments thinking when it comes to the 'war on terror'.

[Abracadabra]

Terrorists activities have been going on almost daily (since, 600 BC - The Assyrians poisoned the wells of their enemies), around the world with little attention by the average Joe, six-pack, a*s on couch, nose glued to TV, American.

We can kill  terrorists all day long, but unless we can stop the teaching of hate from the Moslem cleric, and the Moslem media, we will never make a dent in  this problem. Let me not forget to include some US politicians and all US media.[/b]



 Why I Am  Not A  Muslim--------The West needs  to understand muslims in order to be able to deal with them and  avoid  past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take  seriously the Islamic component. Westerners  in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the  passionate,  religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These  God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return  for the  Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs  killed in the Holy War  against all infidels. 
 Jihad is “a religious war against those who are unbelievers in  the mission of the Prophet  Muhammad  [the Prophet]. It is an  incumbent religious duty,  established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a  divine  institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing  Islam  and repelling evil from Muslims”
 The  world is divided into  two spheres, Dar  al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The  latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels  which has not  been subdued by Islam. The Dar  al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam,  the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation  of the edicts of Islam.
Thus the  totalitarian nature of Islam  is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim  is to conquer  the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law  of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is  no possibility of  salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and  kill in the name of  Allah. 

IX. 5-6:“Kill those who join other gods with  God wherever you may find  them”; 

IV.76:  “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;
 
VIII.39-42:“Say  to the Infidels: if they desist  from their unbelief, what is now  past shall be forgiven; but if they return to  it, they have already  before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against  them  till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”Those who die fighting for the only  true religion, Islam,  will be amply rewarded in the life to come: 

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the  cause of God who  barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for  whoever  fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will  give him  a handsome reward.”

 What should we make with  these further  unfortunate verses from  the Qur’an?
For the answer:  http://www.secularislam.org/articles/wtc.ht

Ibn Warraq is the author of Why I Am  Not A  Muslim

[Jawbone71]

     Americans don't just talk about bringing democracy ... we've done it over and over again.  We did it in Germany and Japan after WWII.  We did it in South Korea.  We did it in many places in Central and South America.  We've actively encouraged it throughout the world ... including in the former Soviet bloc and recently in Palestine and Ukraine.

     We recently brought democracy to Afghanistan.  We are in the process of bringing it to Iraq ... though the terrorists are doing all they can to resist it.

     We've brought a whole lot more democracy to the world than Islamic terror groups ever have.  It's the Islamic terror groups who are murdering respected Islamic leaders (including targeting and murdering the assistants to the highest ranking Islamic Cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatolla Sistani, who himself supports elections in Iraq).

     The terror groups have shown no respect for democracy or for Islam ... but only for their own imposed tyranny.  The U.S. is aligned with the pro-democratic, pro-Islamic forces in Iraq ... where the terror groups are only promoting violence and terror against democracy and against Islam.

[Mirabilia27]

Jawbone, not to sound like I'm kissing butt, but you rock. This isn't the first time I've read a thread and then wanted to respond in some fashion and then found that you've taken the words out of my mouth and put them much more eloquently. So, thanks. I couldn't agree more.

 

[durruti]

OK, lets look at the democracy issue first:

Its important to understand the occupation of Germany and Japan in context.
In Germany, the western allies kept much of the bureacratic structure of the Third Reich fairly intact, and de-nazification was gradual and not always particularly thorough. The generous Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe, a general (and quite understandable) hostility to Stalinism in eastern Europe, and the support given to centrist and right-wing political movements, all helped pull German public opinion in the pro-western direction.
In Japan, MacArthur (quite sensibly) kept the emperor as head of state, also left the bureacracy fairly intact (except where it related to military production), and made it illegal for Japanese workers to strike for better conditions. Again, pro-US parties were quietly supported behind the scenes to ensure no nasty surprises.  
Unfortunately Germany & Japan aren't the least bit comparable to Iraq. These countries both declared war on the US, they were not invaded pre-emptively for selfish strategic and ideological reasons. Also both had a history of multi-party democracy before the Nazis/militarists came to power in these countries. Both the Japanese and German occupations involved extremely generous, well organised reconstruction campaigns - the contrast with Iraq couldn't be more stark.

South Korea was not a democracy after the Korean war ended. In fact, after the Korean war, the US left South Korea ruled by the autocratic government of Syngman Rhee and the dictatorship of Park Chung Hee. Civil unrest dominated politics until protests by South Koreans succeeded in overthrowing the dictatorship and installing a more democratic form of government in the 1980s. Likewise Taiwan was ruled under the iron fist of the corrupt and unpopular (US-aligned) KMT for decades before democracy gradually emerged thanks to many years of struggle by people on the island.

You have a very strange understanding of democracy in central America. In this region, the US trained, funded and supported death squads engaging in terrorism, drug-trafficking, torture, and human rights abuses it would take too long to list. The US overthrew legitimate governments such as Allende's Chile (democratically elected)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile
and Nicaragua (where a widely despised dictator had been overthrown in a popular uprising). In fact the US supported ANTI-democratic, militarist forces in most latin American countries (El Salvador, Argentina, Panama etc etc).
It has done similarly in many other regions of the world (eg. backing Suharto in Indonesia, the brutal regime in South Vietnam, support for Pol Pot, Mobutu....)
The US has also helped overthrow democratically elected governments outside latin America such as Iran and Haiti.

Palestine is not democratic..it is under military occupation thanks to generous (an almost uncritical) US backing of a brutal occupying power. Those Palestinians allowed to vote (many were not) are not able to choose their government, just a powerless authority.

Many governments outside the Ukraine criticised the initial election, and it was held again because the most Ukrainians wanted it and took to the streets, not because of US, EU or Russian pressure.

90% of Afghanistan is still run by warlords paid by the US. The current president was initially installed by the Bush administration (the loya jirga had picked someone else, but the US 'intervened' for Karzai), and the election was held once it was clear he would win (because he had the levers of power and the funding to buy off and co-opt enough warlords to support him). Once multi-party elections are made to work and the your government stops paying warlords to run the country you can argue Afghanistan is a democracy. Unfortunately that's a long way off.

I have written before about how little the US has done and is doing to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Islamic 'terror' groups are not even a state, never mind a superpower. They are generally not proponents of democracy. So why would they have a track record of promoting democracy around the world since WW2? Their main goals are to expel foreign troops from Muslim lands and bring in a system of Islamic law. Islamists in Algeria did win an election, but they weren't allowed to take office by their military (something the US and the west were very silent about). Likewise, in many  countries where Islamists should be able to contest elections (eg. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - all with unpopular, US-supported regimes), they are unable to - one important reason why some Islamists have taken the path of terrorism and violence.

Some insurgents have targetted Iraqi's who support the election, some have targetted moderate Shias or Kurds. Unfortunately this kind of sectarian violence is being exacerbated by the occupation, and the longer it goes on, the worse it will get. The insurgents (yes, they do include among them some who are sectarian terrororists) still have an awful long way to catch up with the occupying troops when it comes to killing innocent civilians.

[durruti]

Abracadabra

Islam is a broad church, just like Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism. You could find plenty of similar quotes from the Old Testament, and you could find plenty of quotes from the Koran advocating peaceful coexistence with people of other faiths.

'Seek and ye shall find'

Terrorism rears its ugly head because of what's happening in the real world in real societies - it doesn't appear in a vacuum because of obscure religious texts.

[Abracadabra]

Abracadabra

Islam is a broad church, just like Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism. You could find plenty of similar quotes from the Old Testament, and you could find plenty of quotes from the Koran advocating peaceful coexistence with people of other faiths.

'Seek and ye shall find'

Terrorism rears its ugly head because of what's happening in the real world in real societies - it doesn't appear in a vacuum because of obscure religious texts.

Islam is a broad church---- Islam is not a church. Some may classify it a religion.


I do not have to seek. I am familiar with the Old and New testaments (not an expert) and nowhere can this or a similar passage be found:

VIII.39-42:“Say  to the Infidels: if they desist  from their unbelief, what is now  past shall be forgiven; but if they return to  it, they have already  before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against  them  till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”Those who die fighting for the only  true religion, Islam,  will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the  cause of God who  barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for  whoever  fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will  give him  a handsome reward.”

If you can find any verse that comes close than let me know because I sure need to change my religious believes and maybe my country.

[Abracadabra]

Terrorism-----it doesn't appear in a vacuum because of
obscure religious texts.

We can kill  terrorists all day long, but unless we can stop the teaching of hate from the Moslem cleric, and the Moslem media, we will never make a dent in  this problem. Let me not forget to include some US politicians and all US media.[/b]



 We know that the suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine  who enter  into crowds of innocent people, including women and  children, often yell "Allahu  akbar!" (God is great!) as they blow  themselves to kingdom come. In many cases  families of the bombers  when interviewed applaud their sons or brothers, for  their "heroic  deeds." In one case, the father even hoped that his second son  would  make the same sacrifice.Obviously, the motives  are religious. And they are based upon a  deep faith that they  are doing the work of Allah and will be rewarded in heaven  after  death.

A study of the history of Islam, will show that it expanded its  hegemony by the  use of the sword. Mohammed himself raised an army  of ten thousand men and  destroyed his enemies and he advanced  Islam by ruthless methods. The jihad has  been practiced throughout  history by the militant believers in Allah and  Muhammad.

The Crusades, seeking to defend the Christian faith in the 11th  and 12th  centuries, were led by militant Christians who attacked  Islamic lands and seized  the "Holy Land" from Muslims, only to  have it retaken. The Holy Inquisition  sought to expel Jews and  Muslims from the Iberian peninsula in the 15th century.

Moslem minorities exist in all the countries of the West—especially  the United  States, Germany, France, England.

But what is not discussed  and needs to be  discussed, urgently and critically, are the foundations  of the claims for the  jihad.

We should seek to find common ground with other human beings --

 by opening up  discussion of the grounds of revelation in the Old  and New Testaments and the  Koran -- and

by refusing to allow these  ancient documents to dictate our  policies.

Paul Kurtz----------A Call for Caution and  Prudence

http://www.secularislam.org/articles/wtc.htm

If we do not seek to find common ground with other human beings ---- than this will be just the beginning-----

suntimes.com -- A funeral for an Egyptian Christian couple and their two daughters slain last week devolved into a melee after the services Monday, with mourners shoving and punching each other as many blamed Muslims for the killings.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-slain18.html

[durruti]

The term 'Broad Church' is a common idiom. It can be used about a set of ideas, an ideology, an organisation etc which incorporates a diversity of views. Ie. saying 'The republican party is a broad church' doesn't mean its literally a church, it means that republicans have a wide range of beliefs. Likewise Islam contains a wide variety of sects and bodies of opinion.

If your interested in learning more about Islam, you could probably do worse than start your search here:
http://www.uga.edu/islam/islamwest.html

(I am an atheist/agnostic by the way, but I've been fortunate to have Muslim friends, just as I've had Christian, Jewish, Buddhist friends etc, which is why I get quite irritated with the anti-Muslim sentiment (usually founded on ignorance) which is becoming more common these days.

Persdonally I dislike the imposed morality of religions (Islam and Christianity included), and their reliance on ancient works of fiction to decide right from wrong. But that's just my view about religions, not a judgement on the people brought up to beleive them.

These links might help you find the biblical examples which I was referring to:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/debates.html#perfect

[Jawbone71]

     I understand there is a lot of criticism of the policies of the Reagan Administration regarding Central America in the 1980s ... and there were very many horrible things that happened there during that time.  There was much terror and instability in El Salvadore and Nicaragua.  We did politically support the overthrow of the Cuban backed communist government of Nicaragua (who took power by military coup against the Somoza regime in 1979), and today Nicaragua is a far more stable democracy.  We did support the government of El Salvadore against Cuban backed communist insurgency groups.  We might even have covertly approved of the use of teams to specifically seek out and kill communist terror insurgents in El Salvadore.  But it worked.  It was messy.  It sure was not perfect.  Innocent people died during the conflicts there.  But today, Central America is far more stable and more democratic.  That is in part due to the fact that there is no more support from a hostile Soviet Union for anti-American insurgent groups.  Also because the Reagan Administration actively fought against these communist backed terror insurgent groups in Central America.

     There is debate even among conservative U.S. foreign policy officials about when to purely support democracy and when to take the pragmatic approach of rewarding pro-U.S. governments whether actually democratic or not.

     It wasn't perfect and still isn't, but we recently have seen the most fair ... though there is still much work to be done ... elections that Afghanistan has ever had.  We have seen the only elections for their own leadership that the Palestinian people have had in contemporary history.  While the credit definitely goes to the Ukranian people for the free election there, the U.S., Canada, the EU, and others boldly took a pro-democratic stand there, even at the sacrifice of better relations with Russia.  The credit goes to a very bold and strong candidate of the Ukranian people, and to the Ukranian people for demanding real democracy.  But this is one case where the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and the EU all came out on the right side of this thing for the right reasons.

     In Iraq, regardless of a controversial history of U.S. policy in the Middle East, the U.S. firmly supports elections.  There are strong Iraqi forces who strongly support elections.  There are foreign and domestic terror forces who oppose them.  But, whatever one's opinion of U.S. policy in the Middle East post WWII, we are on the side of elections in Iraq right now ... of democratic elections.  The terrorists are not.  It's not a dispute of how the elections are to be held.  The terror groups oppose the very concept of democracy and free elections in Iraq.  We support that concept.  We put American lives directly in danger to support that concept.  We are in the right on that, and the terrorists are wrong.

     We want to get out of Iraq as much or more than anyone else wants us to.  But we also want these elections to happen and to happen as peacefully as possible.  There will be violence surrounding the elections.  There will be far less with American soldiers there than there would be otherwise.  And the side of democracy and freedom will have a much better chance to prevail supported by American soldiers.