cactoblasta cactoblasta

Islam - global monster or global scapegoat?

▼

Islam - global monster or global scapegoat?

Are Muslims the Jews of the 21st century?

from JoeUser Forums
The image of Islam, this immense and diverse faith, has been of the robed and bearded man, rifle in one hand, Qu'ran in the other, a bomb around his waist and hate in his eyes. They are everywhere, and their diabolical hand can be seen in every disaster. They are poisoning water supplies, raping white women, using their loathed petrodollars to take over our businesses and corrupt our governments. The only possible response has been decried unto the masses, and they shout their slogans with glee - seek them in the dark places, find them all and in the darkness show them the meaning of justice. "Find them in their holes," exclaims the head of one of the world's largest nations. "Make them suffer like I have suffered," screams the wife of the murdered businessman, lost to the strike against the World Trade Centre. "They took my job," complains the outsourced labourer whose company shifted operations to Indonesia.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. The Nazis used much of the same propaganda against the Jews. "Abominations". "Scheming monsters". "They're not like us". MAKE THEM PAY FOR WHAT I HAVE SUFFERED.

Who is really the demon here? The innocents lost in the wreaking of veangeance, or the ones who say that a civilian casualty is merely "collateral damage"? It's a question that with luck we will never have to face.
politics
15,565 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is also because we do somethings that although not meant to antagonize, clearly cause some animocity in the middle east.


A nation must show its military strength, England of all nations knows this. I find your idealistic view that if there were no western troops in the middle east terrorism would end. The struggle against radical Islam has being going on for centuries and did not start when America started intervening. It did not even start when Britain showed them who exactly was in charge during the glory days of the Empire. It is better to have military forces ready to attack than to have that area of the world unchecked in a physical sense.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only time there has been an attack on US soil by islamic radicals was on 9/11. That seems pretty recent to me. We have fighter planes that fly faster than the speed of sound. Even if we have our nearest base in england or germany, we can get to the middle east pretty fast. If we stop supporting Israel, and tell them that we have had enough and they are going to have to solve their own problems then there is no need for us to be there. If Iran wants to attack Iraq or Saudi Arabia, right now, we will stop them because we need the oil. That brings us full circle back to the point that we need to not depend on any middle eastern oil. Period. End of discussion. Thats the only way to handle the situation. Then on top of that we finnaly decide that we will not go to war for humanitarian reasons, only in self defense, and then that problem is solved.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cwarsh- later today I will outline my proposal for reducing our dependence on oil. Thanks.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
"A nation must show its military strength,"
-No. A tyranny must show its military strength. Don't get me wrong, I believe in maintaining a military strong enough to defend america against any threats to the life, liberty, and property of its people. By being in the middle east we are actually inciting more terrorism.

We can never win the war against terrorism. Its an unwinable war. For every martyr you make by killing one, a hundred new people take up arms. For every avenue of funding that you break for them, they find a new one. In the meanwhile, you use terrorism to justify the theft of civil liberties from the american people, and the theft of their tax dollars to fund this war. The only option that makes sense is to entirely get out of the region. We are not making peace by asserting our military superiority.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
That seems pretty recent to me.


Terrorism did not begin on September 11th, its time you Americans learnt there is a world outside of America, you show a complete ignorance of history here.

We have fighter planes that fly faster than the speed of sound.


And how do you propose to transport thousands of troops in fighter jets? You show a complete ignorance of military tactics here. I find it shocking that you would question an ex-SAS General on military matters.

and then that problem is solved.


Yes, how could we military generals be so foolish? Thank you for your advice.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are not making piece by asserting our military superiority.


Britain has military superiority that is why. I have seen American troops fight, and they are largely undisciplined and without cunning. Without British support, America leaves itself open to ridicule by other nations. You should show more respect to us, you are not as powerful as you may think.

The only option that makes sense is to entirely get out of the region.


And allow anti-western elements to dominate, do not be so silly.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
And allow anti-western elements to dominate, do not be so silly.


Who cares if they dominate the middle east. They can do what they want there, as long as they dont threaten us or our allies.

Ah. So I see. The ex-general is all knowing. I was not suggesting we transport thousands of people, not unless we need to. What are you suggesting, that transporting military from the united states aboard transport planes could take more than 24 hours? Im not an expert but I will tell you that we need to get rid of Saudi Arabia. And I never said there is no world outside of America, but when was the last time a major attack hit britian?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who cares if they dominate the middle east. They can do what they want there, as long as they dont threaten us or our allies.


The two statements cancel each other out, by their nature these uncontrolled states will attempt to attack the west, let us not give them the resources to do so.

What are you suggesting, that transporting military from the united states aboard transport planes could take more than 24 hours?


Transporting hundreds of thousands of people with the battle equipment they need takes far more than 24 hours. then when you are there you need to gather intelligence, which in the meantime the enemy already knows the terrain and you are unfamiliar with it, because you have been sitting in the barracks at home. A stunning military victory requires preperation and planning, which needs to be done where the fighting will actually take place.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I see your point however I feel that withdrawing from the middle east into europe will be much more benificial. We can still collect inteligence, using spy satelites and stealth spy planes, but we should not have a strong military presence because it encourages non sanctioned terrorist attacks. At least otherwise it would be an actual war and we could go in with a full supply of troops and actually fight. In a defensive war, we would be allowed to do more attacking (dropping bombs, destroying buildings, etc.) Right now, because of the fact that this is a humanitarian war, we have to negotiate with the terrorists. In a real war we would just take them out and not be concerned with a temple.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
"And allow anti-western elements to dominate, do not be so silly. "
-England left America and the americans didn't start committing terrorist acts against England with their new freedom from imperial rule.

"Britain has military superiority that is why. I have seen American troops fight, and they are largely undisciplined and without cunning. Without British support, America leaves itself open to ridicule by other nations. You should show more respect to us, you are not as powerful as you may think. "
-Yeah I bet you'd be saying this back in world war II... but of course, England could have won without american help, definately
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here's a point on this, folks.

If the majority of Muslims felt as bin Laden does, we would not control Iraq, heck, we'd be dealing with suicide bombs in AMERICAN malls and busses on a weekly basis. They have the numbers that, if they had the hatred to go with it, they could easily use to make us suffer.

The fact that Saddam was unable to call the majority of the Muslim nations to a true jihad in his defense in itself says much.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is true gideon. the problem is that the rebels feel the same way that bin Laden does, as do the people that commit such acts as thsoe that commited 9/11.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
the problem is that the rebels feel the same way that bin Laden does,


Some of them feel like that. There would be many, particularly amongst the young, who felt they were solely fighting for the independence of their homeland, or to avenge the deaths of their families. Muslims and Iraqis are just as likely as Americans to act in noble or pseudo-noble ways. Not everyone views foreign occupation as a positive, especially with the corruption of the returned exiles who govern Iraq now in the US' name.

Sir Pete: If I wasn't Catholic, and therefore guaranteed to burn in hellfire for all eternity by the Anglicans, I too would cry out, "Long live the British Empire!". But I am, so I won't.

cwarsh and sandy2: You're both newish bloggers I think, or at least I don't remember seeing your names anywhere. Sir Peter is not quite real - he's a fictional character. However here his points, particularly about tactics and troop movements were yet to be said, so his posts will stand.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
cwarsh and sandy2: You're both newish bloggers I think, or at least I don't remember seeing your names anywhere. Sir Peter is not quite real - he's a fictional character. However here his points, particularly about tactics and troop movements were yet to be said, so his posts will stand.


thanks. I was kind of confused by his posts and name. Then he pointed me to a website which confused me more. thanks for clearing that up.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
bebfoo: Chill man, it's just a blog. Your point about Bush is valid I think. Until recently my image of protestant American Christianity was completely determined by pictures of people like Bush. It's only recently that I've learnt it's not all hate, inbreeding and violence in American Christianity. Everyone needs to make the same leap of faith into a more open and inquiring style of thought.


I know it's just a blog, sorry. I get worked up about these issues. I enjoy to debate as well!

As far as Christianity, I don't think it takes a leap of faith. I prefer facts over faith, and the fact is that you are correct: not all Christianity is like that, in fact the core message of Christ is one of universal love. However, just as with Islam, the message (the Bible) is metaphorical, not literal, and a literal reading (as in fundamentlism) is very prone to the open interpretation inherent in most human's biased "reality tunnels" (as R.A. Wilson likes to call them). This is what allows people to justify killing, torture, etc. One of my biggest peaves is self-rightous Christians. These are fortunately a small, but VERY vocal minority. I called them "Xians" to differentiate from regular Christians. I think that it is much the same with Islam: The vast majority of Muslims are not violent, hate-filled Jihadists. It's the small, but VERY vocal minority that the Western world likes to focus on. However, one difference is that there seems to be a larger amount of "silent support" for violence amoung Muslims than other religions, and for reasons why, I think that can better be answered by someone who knows Islamic culture much better than I do. (there are a number of books on this subject)

-bebfoo