:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)
@
cooterhein @
Zafran
cooterhein said:
Yes indeed, you sure did say the MAIN CULPRIT
Indeed, sir, I sure did. My objection is not to saying that I did. My MAIN objection to your posts lays in you making it "sound" and "appear" as if I'm saying so as a circular reasoning. I did not say X is true because I said so. That is an example of circular reasoning.
Instead, I said X is true because on evidence, Y and Z. That would fall under a logical proposition. And I made two logical propositions, (a) one refuting your position that Islam is the reason for terrorism and extremism and (b) that foreign policy is instead the driver behind both. I PROVIDED EVIDENCE, and the EVIDENCE IS AS FOLLOWS AGAIN: The reasons can be numbered as follows: (1) MI5 report confirms that terrorism and extremism is not happening because of Islam (please see my original post to get link to original article that appeared in
The Guardian), (2) that U.S. terrorism analyst Robert Page's book
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism in examining 315 cases in total said that there is little connection between Islamic fundamentalism and suicide terrorism, and also because (3)
Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think shows that "Those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are
no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population." Earlier, I also told you earlier that CIA and FBI agree that there is little connection between Islam and terrorism as I'd even said previously in one of my earliest posts in this thread.
And you STILL continue to IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.
Well, here's INFORMATION that EXPANDS on previously presented information with MORE EVIDENCE:
In a book edited by Matthew M. Morgan called
The Impact of 9/11 on Religion and Philosophy: The Day that Changed Everything?, the following information is presented: "National Strategy of Combating Terrorism stated that terrorists 'exploit' and 'distort' Islam while 'peaceful Muslims' and 'responsible Islamic leaders' represent its truest forms." In the same book, a terrorism expert studying the phenomena presents the theory called "Ziggurat of Zealotry" that specifically states motivations to radicalize can occur in any secular or religious ideology and that is how terrorism is being studied in modern-day context. In the same book, an analyst in the unit of CIA called "The Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program" said that the unit did not see religion as the key driver of radicalization or recruitment of terrorist groups because religious indoctrination happened after absorption into the terrorist organization. In fact, I went onto CIA's site and it specifically again said that Islam is not the focus of this program but movements and organizations that claim the religion are. FBI on their site regarding radicalization process said that there are three main stages of the radicalization model, which is grievance which includes alienation, feelings of discrimination, discontent, perceived persecution, etc. and then diffusing this grievance into fracture of the
ummah (nation) and then hanging out with others of a similar mindset which can occur whether in person or alone on the Internet.
So, AGAIN, I have offered evidence and turning one's back on evidence shows prejudice, NOT intelligence.
Most importantly, I said specifically, "
Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism." Why do I further say this? Good question. Apart from the aforesaid EVIDENCE that it is not Islam driving the modern-day terrorism and extremism, I say this because of
FURTHER EVIDENCE:
(1) In the book
Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger in America, the author quotes. "In WorldPublicOpinion.org polling conducted in 2008 and 2009 found that 8 out of 9 Muslim-majority countries endorsed the view that 'in our government's relation with the United States,' the United States 'abuses its power to make us do what the United States wants.'"
THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY.
(2) In Abu Hafs al-Mauritani,
we have an "ex-extremist," a reformed man, who'd been part of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization, as a mufti (Islamic scholar), and he had worked prior with Osama Bin Laden as an extremist, who explained in an interview with the Al-Jazeera why the West is experiencing attacks, and his exact words are: "Now, to answer your question, one must explain these events and not justify them. We should explain such actions rather than justify them and explain the context which prompts these events in some countries but not others. Many Muslim youth and particularly youth who are members of these groups like the Islamic State, or Al Qaeda or others, they think the West is heavily involved in all the crises which afflict the Muslim world. The West is the one who planted Israel in the middle of the Islamic world, armed Israel and supports Israel politically and the West turns a blind eye to the crimes which are committed against the Palestinians. Although I do not agree with what happened and I feel pained by the killing of any innocent person whether in France or America or any other place it seems others don't feel the same pain when it comes to our issues." He goes on to explain many other things, but I quote what he said further: "Westerners want to oversimplify things and say that the strikes on France and America were random and just blind terrorism. But these groups think they are acting for a reason. Why didn't they attack China for example? So it's not a matter of disbelief versus faith and infidels versus Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned the Chinese are further in disbelief than the Jews and Christians who are considered people following books from God. Otherwise why else would they have hit France and not hit the Vatican? The Vatican represents Western Christianity." (Feel free to watch the YouTube video to which I've linked you.)
THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY.
(3) Now, let's turn to the bane of our existence in modern-day: terrorism and extremism. WikiLeaks shows the following: "The United States paid large numbers of Iraqis to defect from the Sunni insurgency and instead fight against al-Qaeda, on the promise of receiving regular employment through integration into the Iraqi military. As Jamail argues, the failure of the Maliki government to honor this promise saw huge numbers of US-trained, US-armed and US-financed—but now unemployed—Sunni militants return to the insurgency, eventually swelling the ranks of the former al- Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, which in 2014 became known as ISIS, or the “Islamic State.”
THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY, PRECISELY OUR FOREIGN POLICY
.
(4) Now, for 9/11 that seemed to set in motion events from which the world is still reeling: In the book,
Til Death Do Us Part, is said, "In 1979, about the same time as Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs." Among this was was Osama Bin Laden. In the book
U.S. Conflicts in the 21st Century: Afghanistan War, Iraq War, and the War on Terror, the following is said: "Between 1987 and 1993, another $4 billion of U.S. aid was allocated to Afghanistan, although the CIA's Operation Cyclone was gradually phased out after the Soviets exited Afghanistan in 1989. It is estimated that American funding helped train at least 80,000 Afghan rebels between 1973 and 1993. [....] Operation Cyclone was just a relatively small part of American strategy to roll back Soviet influence in Asia and the Middle East during the 1980s. However, the impact that it had on Afghanistan--over the long term--was certainly more pervasive. It helped fund and prolong the Afghan civil war, which ranged from 1989 until 1996, and aided the rise of the Taliban to power in 1996." Also, Osama Bin Laden thought that the West could be forced to give up their imperialistic policies and neo-colonialism with 9/11 Attacks and also predicted and wanted that the issue of Palestine-Israel be highlighted in a manner that United States learns to stop supporting Israel.
ALL OF THE AFORESAID IS FOREIGN POLICY!
Okay, explain something to me. As I understand it, significant minority groups in Iraq and Syria (and a few other places over the years) are Christian. Not Protestant or Catholic, but Oriental Orthodox, and they've been there forever. It's their homeland. They are very protective of it. Moreover, these Christians that are native to these lands are worried about drone strikes collateral damage violence and instability just like everyone else, and they are some of the most vulnerable people because the climate of war has turned their Muslim neighbors against them like never before.
First and foremost, I 110% disagree with what you say here, and it shows your lack of understanding what's happening in Syria that you'd ask why Christians aren't turning into terrorists. The dictator Bashar Al-Assad has had support from Christians in Syria from the beginning despite his harsh policies against his Sunni Muslim-majority population and even when he started his genocide against Sunni Muslims. If you want to know why Christians have been supporting Assad and his forces, the answer is in what Andrew Tabler of Washington Institute said because Assad gives Christians “very good business contracts, positions in government and the Syrian military.
" You just implied in two of your most lengthy posts that Christians are not participating in terrorism against Muslims when they are. In fact, the term "state sponsors of terrorism" is a term that United States Department of State applies to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism" and Syria and Bashar Al-Assad and his military is on that list. So, there goes your theories that Christians are not participating in terrorism in Syria because according to the United States such Christians would qualify in fact as actors involved in blacklisted category of state-sponsored terrorism. Referencing Christians, Anne Richard, the assistant secretary of State for population, refugees and migration, testified on Capitol Hill in December 2015 that “a higher percentage of them support Assad and feel safer with him there.” And also, Russia (which would be considered part of the West) is in fact supporting Bashar Al-Assad and in fact a Syrian archbishop had been appealing to the U.S. to also back the regime and not rebel groups. Secondly, Christians are not attacking the West because they do not have historical anger against the West that conversely exists in Muslim world due to the Palestine-Israel issue. In fact, the West has Christian origins and roots, which is why they have extremely and generally supported Zionism even at the expense of human right violations in that part of the world because Christians believe that Jesus
alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) will not return back to the earth until the Jews have their own nation. I have repeatedly told you in the past that all anger in the Middle East can be traced to Israel-Palestine, yet you keep turning a deaf ear, which is
DISINGENUOUS.
Well, there's plenty of Christians being targeted, and they're losing even more ground than the Muslims are, and they're losing it permanently. There's more than enough Christians in the region that they could have formed some sort of terror network by now, but it hasn't happened. There isn't a single bit of organized non-state violence being carried out in the region by any of these Christians, or any other non-Muslim group for that matter. They are being hurt by this just as much as the Muslims, the MAIN CULPRIT as you say is more harmful to them than it is to anyone else. So why aren't they getting organized, why aren't they securing funding for an armed resistance?
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. You are saying that Christians are all innocent of forming terror groups? Under Assad, his military by the definition of our own American government is considered part of state-sponsored terrorism and this Syrian military comprises of many Christians. Do you know how many Christian armed resistance groups have been formed in Syria by now? I know of at least four, though I think there are probably more. We're talking about a war-torn country here and war is
not a picnic. There is one Christian group that is fighting with the Free Syrian Army against Assad and his forces, which depending on what they have done or can be proven, would qualify them as terrorists according to the definition of U.S. disbarring immigration to the U.S. And also, Christian forces are forming armed resistance against
Daesh which would still qualify them as participants in terrorism and have an automatic bar from immigrating into the U.S. The same would be true for the all-women Christian group that is fighting against
Daesh. The same is also true for a Christian group known as "self-sacrificers." Also, Christians have tried to secure funding for armed resistance from the U.S., but the U.S. refused, which is why in some right-wing articles
like this one I'd read Obama was blamed for not caring about Christians and instead arming Muslim rebel groups. And in case you want to know how or why I'm saying the above about these four Christian armed factions in Syria, let me tell you I went to law school, the best in my state within the U.S., and though I specialized in family law, I am also quite familiar with immigration law and the definition of terrorism therein (and these Christian groups regardless of their motives would easily qualify).
Thank you for this, I appreciate that you are making an effort and staying on topic. For what it's worth, my understanding of the situation is that "terrorism" as a word by itself is generally understood to involve violent non-state actors, with somewhat separate categories of less-direct responsibility for the state funding of terrorism, and then there is another category of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism (which comes back to direct responsibility) which, as far as I'm aware, involves the intentional and/or indiscriminate killing of civilian non-combatants, and there's also a bit of a sub-category that involves false flag operations by a state under the guise of not belonging to that state and again we're talking about killing civilian non-combatants, and that may include the possibility of a state's military killing its own civilians.
Good question. Ben Franklin in the struggle against the British Empire said, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." History has been written by victors, otherwise Ben Franklin and others who participated in armed struggle against the British would have been considered traitors. The definition of "terrorism" in
Merriam-Webster Dictionary is listed first as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal" and then secondly also as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Obviously, United States or Russia or U.K. as strong countries in the globe and especially with U.S. being #1 leader in the world will not allow any formal international declaration that we're being "terrorists" or are participating in "terrorism" with the use the use of the drone program or in using any other types of force or proxy wars or in supporting dictatorships in the Muslim world.
So, it really depends on who is describing what as terrorism and for what reason. According to Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek, authors of
On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare, the West, however, is in fact said to be the biggest terrorist and for reasons that are entirely well-presented in this well-researched book. I highly recommend you to read this book. Also, please read the article "
Western Christians support terrorism: Shock polls prove danger in our midst" that says the following:
"Support for state sanctioned terror is shared by millions of Christians in America, more than a third of whom still expressed support for the destruction of Iraq by George W Bush - even when the scale of the disaster with hundreds of thousands of dead was well known. Significant minorities continue to support the US war in Southeast Asia that caused the deaths of millions of civilians. And in case there was any doubt that only a conservative minority support such atrocities, polls show support for a well-known liberal mass killer currently stands at 51 percent. That’s more than half the country giving backing to a leader who uses a “Kill List” to strike at alleged enemies in countries as far apart as Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Syria – none of whom have had a day in court or even, in most cases, any legal evidence produced of guilt of any crime. Many were just innocent bystanders in a crazed system of assassination from the skies, for which the paid drone operators are rewarded with envelopes telling them how many people they have helped kill while on duty. (Meanwhile most ordinary Israelis - our allies - support the execution of civilians and half support ethnic cleansing.) Ah, I hear you say, you can’t compare support for “their” terrorism – that of Islamic State or al-Qaeda on the streets of Paris and Brussels or beaches of Tunisia – with Western actions over the years designed to defend us from mortal enemies. But such an argument does not stack up. The mass killing of civilians is illegal under the Geneva Conventions and all laws of war, as we are reminded by human rights group reporting on civilians deaths in Yemen or Syria every week. So there is no get-out clause for state terrorism. If you support killing people without trial, or justify collateral damage of innocent civilians, morally speaking, you are the same as those who support Islamic State. The only difference is Western wars have killed a hell of a lot more people than either of the most famous terrorist brands. Decapitation by shell or drone is still beheading."
I'm not arguing that only Muslims can commit terrorism, just that in this particular region where there is some religious diversity, Muslims are the only ones with well-funded terror organizations, or terror organizations of any kind really.
Depends on what definition of "terrorism" you're using and for what reason and how that "terrorism" ensued after being placed in its proper context from history and other sociopolitical forces shaping the region's contemporary situation and dialogue on the situation.
For example, let's use the example of Egypt. We, the U.S., supported Mubarak the dictator in Egypt and yet our support of Mubarak meant that Muslims were living under the thumb of the dictator but Coptic Christians were happily supporting Mubarak from the beginning. In fact, in Muslim world, time and again what has been seen is that Christians usually end up supporting support secular dictatorships in return for protection from the secular dictatorship and for access to power. So, as a domino effect, our support for Mubarak's dictatorship in Egypt was benefiting Christians in that region and not Muslims, though I'm sure we as a country did not do so specifically to benefit Christians or any other minority but to ensure we had a puppet willing to listen to what we say in regards to Israel-Palestine issue. The Muslim Brotherhood wanted to change the secular dictatorship's existence and did do just that before the military coup that ended the struggle. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states consider Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. General Sisi who came into power declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. However, U.S. hasn't put Muslim Brotherhood yet on the terrorist list, though Republicans in the Congress have introduced a bill to do so.
I will go on to say one other thing with regard to terror in a broader context. I do acknowledge that there are non-Muslim terror groups, there are even a couple that have a separatist Christian motivation and a couple that involve cults somewhat related to Christianity. And then there's a few that are not particularly religious in nature, and a few that involve Eastern religions. If I could bring this back to your point about US foreign policy though, there is something that I'd like to point out.
Good, as I would rather have not have gone through the trouble of pointing them all out one-by-one because the biggest "Christian" hypocrisy that I see in the West, especially the U.S., is an entire lack of knowledge on this subject and making out terrorism to be something that is only "Muslim."
Consider for a moment all the different ways in which a terrorist organization could direct its violent tendencies. One thing they could certainly do is spread hatred for the US and for the West, they could promote armed struggle against the US military and even against US civilians or anything that's broadly West-affiliated. One thing they could care about more than anything else is the armed presence of the US military in various countries all around the world, especially if it's acting as a destabilizing force.
If you put marbles in your hand and roll them out onto the floor or carpet, what are the chances that they are all going to fall in the same way? Minuscule. In fact, I'd bet 0.00%. That's because every region has its own history, culture, belief, foreign policy, government, and its own reasons for not tangling or tangling with the West. You cannot take one region in whatever globe and believe they'd all react the same way. However, extremists and terrorists in the Muslim world has a specific reason for reacting the way it does - and I have told you time and again in different threads - the reason can be traced to WWII and Israel-Palestine conflict. However, it's more complicated than that as well because the way that Ottoman Caliphate was "drawn and quartered" (pun intended!) meant that arbitrary borders were set up and done so in a way that was meant to keep the Muslim world under the thumb of the victorious Allies whereas the Christians in those newly-mapped nations mostly benefited from this arrangement and thereby the setup from the get-go meant that Muslims would be mostly infighting against Muslims.
Now let me ask you something. As you think about which terrorist groups choose that as their main reason for existing, how many of those groups are Islamic? Think back for a second on those non-Muslim terror groups, and I did just acknowledge that they exist in quite a few places throughout the world. How many of those non-Muslim terror groups are committed to a broad, long-term fight against the US military? You probably know the names of most of these non-Muslim groups, go ahead and tick them off real quick then let me know if any of them are super committed to fighting back the US military wherever it happens to be. The IRA, in its various forms and incarnations- did it ever make a point of fighting the US military, and of removing its presence and/or influence from a certain part of the world? Yes of course they're terrorists, and that whole situation might just reignite in the current environment, but let's ask if This Particular terror group has adopted hatred of the US and its military presence as any one of its various reasons for existing and operating. Then let's repeat this for any other non-Muslim terror group and find out how many of them hate the US military, in keeping with your working hypothesis- namely, that the US military and US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT
Now, let me ask you a question: A purple man beats up a green man. You're essentially asking me the green man is angry but why is the pink man not angry? The pink man is a red herring. Your argument is nonsense.
in causing terrorism to happen. Let's just do a quick comparison, okay? I can obviously name all sorts of Islamic terror organizations that hate the US military and who cite US foreign policy as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they are trying to do. But how often is that true of non-Muslim terror groups?
See what I've said right above this quote.
Now, before you say the US military is only guilty of incursions on Muslim countries, I'll remind you once again that there tends to be a fair amount of religious diversity in those Muslim-majority countries. The US has done quite a bit of destabilizing, and with all these different regions taken together, there has certainly been ample opportunity for non-Muslims to form terror groups and name the US as their main enemy and prime target, all while saying the destabilizing chaos of its terrible foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing. Now, to your knowledge, is that something that's ever happened when we're speaking of non-Muslim terror groups?
Religious diversity doesn't mean anything in the context of most conflicts in the Muslim world because U.S. tends to back up USUALLY Christians in those countries. Not always, but mostly, yes. Also, again, do Christians have an Israel-Palestine issue? NO. See above for the rest of the argument.
Go ahead and run those numbers, and please let me know what you find out. I'm curious to see if I've really discovered a trend that is fairly common among Muslim terror networks while also being not-at-all common in non-Muslim terror networks. I'm feeling good about it so far, but I would like to know what you think.
Well, how nice. First, you want monopoly on the definition of terrorism and then you want the monopoly to define Christian terrorism and then you also want me to tell you why and how Christians as a minority within Muslim-majority nations might not have acted as badly when you well know that FOREIGN POLICY has impacted Muslims in Muslim-majority nations adversely in a way that OUR FOREIGN POLICY has not Christians in those countries. I call BS. Let's just take Egypt for a small example. And I call out STRAW MAN because we've been talking earlier in the posts about my argument about why Islam is not the reason for terrorism and extremism and FOREIGN POLICY IS and then we go from that to talking about how Christians have not acted in the same way which I find untrue based in Syria itself. Even if true, however, still
IRRELEVANT. IT STILL DOESN'T DISPROVE MY POINT - Foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism.
are you making a veiled threat?
