Originally Posted by islamirama
I'll give it a shot.
I"m interested in knowing how many westerners look at terrorism one by groups like usa and uk
We do talk about this a lot in general terms, but perhaps there are some issues that we should address on which we aren't as good at volunteering information.
is it ok to kill in the name of Jesus with bible verse numbers printed on the bullets?
Speaking as a Christian who cares about the Bible a lot, I think that's an offensive thing to do with Bible verses. I don't think it represents Christianity well at all, and as a citizen of a secular country, I think it suggests a certain type of religious motivation to state violence which is quite frightening. This is supposed to be a secular country that treats all religions equally well, and as a secular country that supports diversity of religion we must look at violence, when motivated by religion, as an especially grave problem. Soldiers who choose to do this are probably not breaking any laws by doing this, and I'm not sure if there's a realistic way to make it a punishable offense, but if it were possible for one of the higher-ups to let people know this is detrimental to the hearts and minds type of thing and if caught doing it you'll get a NJP, I'd be in support of that.
NJP- that's a non-judicial punishment, also called a Ninja Punch in common parlance. A non-judicial punishment is not considered a criminal offense, it involves discipline without a court-martial, and it does stay on a soldier's record. I would be supportive of a scenario in which a Ninja Punch results from what you've described, and I would expect it to be an effective deterrent.
will the crusades, invasions, occupations and war crimes committed by them in Muslims lands in the name of demoncracy win the "hearts and minds" of those they wipe out?
No, that won't help, although you're reaching back pretty far with the Crusades there aren't you now? The US didn't even exist as a country back then. (Yes of course the land mass was there, but the government and the recognized borders, not so much). As to the war crimes, I have a feeling that a lot of them are in your imagination. Which is to say, if you were to state the estimated number of Actual War Crimes of which the US is definitely guilty of over the course of the past 15 years, I think you'd say an extremely high number that can't be supported in any way by actual evidence.
With that being said, the advise and support strategy is quite brilliant and that will work out a whole lot better. But in order for that to be brought off properly, it really helps if Muslim soldiers are willing to fight side by side with US non-Muslim troops. Yes, even if they're fighting other Muslims. I understand there's some type of prohibition in traditional Islam, but I want to make something very clear to you- when our people try to imbed with yours in this way, We Are Trying To Work With You. So if these soldiers refuse, and their government is not cooperative with that- and not because they're specifically angry with us, but because we're not Muslim- That is an example of You Not Working Well With Us. So stop that, okay? Do whatever ijtihad it is that you have to do, and work with us more consistently when we're trying to do that.
- Please be as objective as possible, less bias and your own feelings and more of the truth. I would like to have information I can use as an example of the western christan perspective on terrorism, especially state terrorism.
Oh yes, I can tell you just love talking about state terrorism. Would Hezbollah be a good example of this, I wonder? Iran is primarily responsible for funding and training, but it's based in Lebanon and it's not the military of a country. It's a militant group and a political party....and the EU does distinguish between the two, it only refers to the military wing as a terror organization. Afghanistan has also been accused of supporting terror in Pakistan, while Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have accused India of supporting terrorism and economic sabotage. I don't like these things, I think they're bad.
If we go back to the Soviet era for a moment, the KGB was actually a vocal proponent of state sponsored terrorism. According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, General Aleksandr Sakharovsky from the First Chief Directorate of the KGB once said, "In today's world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should be our main weapon." http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-mihai-pacepa
From the same source, we have additional quotes from various people within and in charge of the KGB that describes a plan for the Soviet Union to turn a billion Muslims against Israel and the Jews in hatred of them, and by proxy against the United States. This was a strategy, it was done by design, and it was done through state sponsored terror. And I must say, it worked quite well- most Muslims continue to blame the Jews for everything bad that's ever happened to them, and just about everybody (Muslim or not) seems to have cut the Soviet Union and the KGB out of their explanation for why things have worked out this way. In the words of KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, "We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States." (Ibid- from the source previously linked to).
That's not what you were looking for, but in my estimation that's where the conversation should always go whenever you bring up the topic of state-sponsored terrorism with a Westerner.