Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

[BugI02]

I guess it depends on how you define "innocents" doesn't it? Not to get Clinton-esque on you, but once you accept the idea of "collateral damage" and that it's necessary to further your cause, if it's not wanting to kill innocents it's a very close cousin. You can make the "it's necessary" argument...and so will they. Regardless, I don't think the 10% was a hard statistic, just an example, an off the cuff statement.

You're right on some of the issue, don't get me wrong. I just think the focus on what the issue is and how to fix it is off. If you sincerely promote universal human rights such as free speech, access to education, equal rights for women and minorities, etc. and you set up a system with the rule of law, the rest will fall into place over time. It takes time to learn democracy, how to overcome tribal issues, etc. Surely you don't think the US got it right immediately and without mistakes? We founded a democracy that allowed the ownership of other people and plenty of people who weren't represented, which led to quite a bit of strife, after all. We got there, though. We've got a good system here, and again someone ironically Muslims here can easily have more freedom of religion and economic opportunity than you'd find in some Muslim-majority countries. Promoting those values gets us where we want to be, and people DO listen and DO learn. It's just tough to sincerely promote universal human rights while also propping up dictators or pulling down democratically elected governments when it suits you.

No ass kissing, thanks. The bigfoot in a denim hat ear target was gift enough for me.

I always thought that this was where GWB sincerely believed he was going with Iraq - didn't work out

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Dude, I think it's fair to say that on any given day, 10% of active INGO posters would be happy with innocent Muslims getting killed. Granted, that may not scale up to the population at large but... it might. (Looking at Trump's numbers.)

Killed , no . Deported back to their country , hell yes ! Then again I pretty much feel that way about kentuckians also.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yeah, this is the apple and orange I requested be left out.

I don't want ANY INNOCENT iraqi, syrian, jordanians, egyptians, iranians, palestinians, etc. killed. NONE.
Again, show me that 10% of Americans WANT ANY INNOCENTS killed and I'll kiss your ass on the courthouse square.

I'll agree with you as long as you stipulate that, although I'd rather no innocents be killed anywhere (including abortion clinics) I'm not so foolish as to believe that in a war - and we ARE at war - no innocents WILL be killed. This is especially true in recent warfare where the inferior force deliberately uses civilians as camouflage and shield. If we will take as a truism that "war is hell" then we need to decide WHICH innocents are going to be killed in the pursuit of victory in a war: OUR innocents, or THEIR innocents. Now they are perfectly willing to kill OUR innocents in pursuit of victory; are we willing to accept collateral casualties in pursuit of victory over an enemy who has vowed to conquer us? Are we JUSTIFIED in doing so?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I guess it depends on how you define "innocents" doesn't it? Not to get Clinton-esque on you, but once you accept the idea of "collateral damage" and that it's necessary to further your cause, if it's not wanting to kill innocents it's a very close cousin. You can make the "it's necessary" argument...and so will they. Regardless, I don't think the 10% was a hard statistic, just an example, an off the cuff statement.

You're right on some of the issue, don't get me wrong. I just think the focus on what the issue is and how to fix it is off. If you sincerely promote universal human rights such as free speech, access to education, equal rights for women and minorities, etc. and you set up a system with the rule of law, the rest will fall into place over time. It takes time to learn democracy, how to overcome tribal issues, etc. Surely you don't think the US got it right immediately and without mistakes? We founded a democracy that allowed the ownership of other people and plenty of people who weren't represented, which led to quite a bit of strife, after all. We got there, though. We've got a good system here, and again someone ironically Muslims here can easily have more freedom of religion and economic opportunity than you'd find in some Muslim-majority countries. Promoting those values gets us where we want to be, and people DO listen and DO learn. It's just tough to sincerely promote universal human rights while also propping up dictators or pulling down democratically elected governments when it suits you.

No ass kissing, thanks. The bigfoot in a denim hat ear target was gift enough for me.

I'm going to disagree with your contention that we, in accepting the facts that innocents get killed in war, are somehow equivalent to those who we are fighting who kill innocents as a POLICY and a furtherance of their religious/political objectives. We have better targeting and strike accuracy capabilities than ever before known in the history of warfare, but we still don't have the capability to pinpoint kill the bad , guy with the gun when he's standing in the midst of a crowd of "innocents," and I would hope you recognize the difference.

As for "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" and other such sentiments, perhaps you ought to either be willing to equate them to the same folks who shout "Death to the Great Satan" - harmless unless and until they attempt to follow through on their threats.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm going to disagree with your contention that we, in accepting the facts that innocents get killed in war, are somehow equivalent to those who we are fighting who kill innocents as a POLICY and a furtherance of their religious/political objectives.

I didn't claim equality but I do claim a close kinship. Both are the deaths of innocents with the call of necessity as the justification. That's a simple objective truth. Many of the practioners of the violence BELIEVE, rightly or wrongly, that they are doing it to protect their homelands and their people. Did you read the propaganda I posted? That's exactly what the narrative being used to recruit extremists. The US comes and kills our children, what will you do about it? I am not naive, innocents will die in war. How you react to that can make a big difference in how it plays out, though, and as trite as the "hearts and minds" thing is, that's really the end game.

I remember when I was a kid the liberal whiners were complaining about "western culture" displacing native cultures. Do you know why? Because it was better in most ways, and the people were willingly adopting it when they learned about it. Liberals wanted to maintain "diversity" which is bs, forcing people to stand still in time so you can visit "indigenous people" and they look like you think they ought to look. There are things that we demonstrably do better. People will adopt this. Look at the push to educate women. It's a huge movement. We didn't get women's rights over night. It took us, what, about 140-ish years to let women vote in our democracy? They'll get there, especially as social media expands, they see the benefits, etc. Islam is not anti-woman.

Womens Rights | Inspired by Muhammad

The Quran states that men and women were created to be equal parts of a pair. Muhammad said that the rights of women are sacred and that they are the “twin halves of men”.

Early Islamic history saw the establishment of Muslim women as scholars, politicians, businesswomen, jurists and doctors. Fatima al Firhi founded the first university in 859 in Fez, Morocco; Razia al Din ruled the Delhi Sultanate in India in 1236; Umm Darda, a scholar from Syria, taught imams, jurists and even had the 5th Umayyad caliph who ruled from Spain to India as her student. In fact some eight thousand accounts of Muslim female scholars have been documented, many of whom in addition to theology and jurisprudence, were skilled in calligraphy and philosophy, women who not only contributed to their society but actively shaped it.

Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet . Muhammad and Women | PBS

At the time of Muhammad's birth, women in 7th century Arabia had few if any rights. Even the right of life could be in question, since it was not uncommon for small girls to be buried alive during times of scarcity. In the Qur'an, it is said that on Judgment Day "buried girls" will rise out of their graves and ask for what crime they were killed. Part of Muhammad's legacy was to end infanticide and establish explicit rights for women.

Islam teaches that men and women are equal before God. It grants women divinely sanctioned inheritance, property, social and marriage rights, including the right to reject the terms of a proposal and to initiate divorce. The American middle-class trend to include a prenuptial agreement in the marriage contract is completely acceptable in Islamic law. In Islam's early period, women were professionals and property owners, as many are today. Although in some countries today the right of women to initiate divorce is more difficult than intended, this is a function of patriarchal legislation and not an expression of Islamic values. Muhammad himself frequently counseled Muslim men to treat their wives and daughters well. "You have rights over your women," he is reported to have said, "and your women have rights over you."

So, this is an issue that should be an easy sell...if not for patriarchal cultures not living up to the ideals of their religion (gosh, first time that's happened anywhere, I'm sure). Basic human rights, demonstratably compatible with religion, popular support, they'll get there.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I always thought that this was where GWB sincerely believed he was going with Iraq - didn't work out

I don't know. I think it's a tough ask, though, and that a toppling of an existing government by outsiders and then trying to forge a democracy in the chaos RIGHT THE EFF NOW is a pretty big ask. I certainly can't claim to know how to even start pecking at the edges of that one. I do not believe the "he just wanted to finish what his daddy started" line, and I'm mostly convinced he believed the intel he had. I certainly don't think he was bloodthirsty or warlike just to be warlike, and that he did what he thought was right. I think Saddam was just a bit too good at faking and puffing up his capabilities in order to keep Iran in check that we believed it, too, and reacted. It's certainly turned into a giant CF, but who knows what the world would look like if we'd left him in power as a tyrant. Not me, and it's not for me to judge him based on what we know now instead of what he (at least thought) he knew then.

 

[T.Lex]

I would highly recommend GWB's autobiography:
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590631

Regardless what you think of the policies, it is some good insight into the man. And politician.

 

[jamil]

I would highly recommend GWB's autobiography:
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590631

Regardless what you think of the policies, it is some good insight into the man. And politician.

I bought it not long after it came out on Kindle. It changed some perspectives I held, but overall I still view his presidency negatively, though not nearly as negativity as Obama's.

 

[T.Lex]

I bought it not long after it came out on Kindle. It changed some perspectives I held, but overall I still view his presidency negatively, though not nearly as negativity as Obama's.

Totally fair.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I bought it not long after it came out on Kindle. It changed some perspectives I held, but overall I still view his presidency negatively, though not nearly as negativity as Obama's.

That makes sense. I do not have nearly the disdain for Bush who I see as an establishment tool that I do for Obama who is quite clearly a motivated enemy of the republic and everything it stands for, and everything I stand for.

 

[GIJEW]

https://www.facebook.com/mirilavi/videos/10154436057032715/?fref=nf This video might interest some of you. On the one hand here is Sarah Zouabi speaking as the antithesis of radical Islam--and as a rebuttal to BDS propaganda about Israel (with Christian, Father Nadaf at her right)--on the other hand, her son, Muhammed had to go into hiding because of all the death threats he got for an anti hamas FB post when they kidnapped and murdered 3 Israeli teens.

 

[Libertarian01]

I bought it not long after it came out on Kindle. It changed some perspectives I held, but overall I still view his presidency negatively, though not nearly as negativity as Obama's.

I didn't read the book but I watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKmvjbZN1E4 and it turned me around on President GW Bush.

I can't blame a man for his actions IF he isn't given the right information. I blame Cheney for misinforming the President!

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, comments like "turn the whole place into a glass parking lot" as a legitimate foreign policy decision - would that count?

Nuclear bombs are considered precision weapons, when used in the middle east.... at least my some.

 

[caverjamie]

Nuclear bombs are considered precision weapons, when used in the middle east.... at least my some.

I've wondered, if I were a crazed terrorist - and if I saw a mushroom cloud rising over my homeland, and the terrors of radiation poisoning - would it cause me to rethink whether Allah was on my side? Even if it would convince them that maybe their cause was hopeless, or perhaps not just - innocent casualties would be unavoidable. And - I figure the terrorists wouldn't care, they would just be even more angry, if that were possible. But I could be wrong...

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I've wondered, if I were a crazed terrorist - and if I saw a mushroom cloud rising over my homeland, and the terrors of radiation poisoning - would it cause me to rethink whether Allah was on my side? Even if it would convince them that maybe their cause was hopeless, or perhaps not just - innocent casualties would be unavoidable. And - I figure the terrorists wouldn't care, they would just be even more angry, if that were possible. But I could be wrong...

Respectfully, sir if you saw a mushroom cloud over YOUR homeland, and terrors of radiation poisoning - what would be YOUR mindset???

And why would you suspect that their reaction be any different than what yours would be?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I didn't claim equality but I do claim a close kinship. Both are the deaths of innocents with the call of necessity as the justification. That's a simple objective truth. Many of the practioners of the violence BELIEVE, rightly or wrongly, that they are doing it to protect their homelands and their people. Did you read the propaganda I posted? That's exactly what the narrative being used to recruit extremists. The US comes and kills our children, what will you do about it? I am not naive, innocents will die in war. How you react to that can make a big difference in how it plays out, though, and as trite as the "hearts and minds" thing is, that's really the end game.

I remember when I was a kid the liberal whiners were complaining about "western culture" displacing native cultures. Do you know why? Because it was better in most ways, and the people were willingly adopting it when they learned about it. Liberals wanted to maintain "diversity" which is bs, forcing people to stand still in time so you can visit "indigenous people" and they look like you think they ought to look. There are things that we demonstrably do better. People will adopt this. Look at the push to educate women. It's a huge movement. We didn't get women's rights over night. It took us, what, about 140-ish years to let women vote in our democracy? They'll get there, especially as social media expands, they see the benefits, etc. Islam is not anti-woman.

Womens Rights | Inspired by Muhammad





Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet . Muhammad and Women | PBS


So, this is an issue that should be an easy sell...if not for patriarchal cultures not living up to the ideals of their religion (gosh, first time that's happened anywhere, I'm sure). Basic human rights, demonstratably compatible with religion, popular support, they'll get there.

I'm willing to stipulate that both sides are going to be killing innocents in a war and it's a terrible thing to have happen. However, name me a war where innocents don't get killed. And if you want to argue, try to convince me that we AREN'T at war, no matter who "started" it. Hell, even police end up killing "innocents" occasionally (no matter how it seems to them at the time). I'll stipulate that they can use innocent deaths as propaganda and I say: So what? If they aren't going to field a regular army and fight it out conventionally, if they're going to use civilians as shields and camouflage, if they're going to come over here and kill our civilians rather than go after military targets, then those innocent deaths are on their heads, not ours, when we're fighting back and doing our best not to kill noncombatants. That sounds harsh, perhaps, but war isn't pretty and WE ARE AT WAR.

 

[jbombelli]

I've wondered, if I were a crazed terrorist - and if I saw a mushroom cloud rising over my homeland, and the terrors of radiation poisoning - would it cause me to rethink whether Allah was on my side? Even if it would convince them that maybe their cause was hopeless, or perhaps not just - innocent casualties would be unavoidable. And - I figure the terrorists wouldn't care, they would just be even more angry, if that were possible. But I could be wrong...

How do you think you would feel if the North Koreans detonated a nuke over Seattle? What would you want done about it?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm willing to stipulate that both sides are going to be killing innocents in a war and it's a terrible thing to have happen. However, name me a war where innocents don't get killed. And if you want to argue, try to convince me that we AREN'T at war, no matter who "started" it. Hell, even police end up killing "innocents" occasionally (no matter how it seems to them at the time). I'll stipulate that they can use innocent deaths as propaganda and I say: So what? If they aren't going to field a regular army and fight it out conventionally, if they're going to use civilians as shields and camouflage, if they're going to come over here and kill our civilians rather than go after military targets, then those innocent deaths are on their heads, not ours, when we're fighting back and doing our best not to kill noncombatants. That sounds harsh, perhaps, but war isn't pretty and WE ARE AT WAR.

I agree. We are at war. Innocents will die. We can't claim a moral high ground if we shrug our shoulders and say this is just how war is for their dead, and then declare them evil for our dead. The difference is in motive and how we react. If we ignore or rejoice in the death of innocents, or kill innocents to instill fear, then there truly is no difference.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I agree. We are at war. Innocents will die. We can't claim a moral high ground if we shrug our shoulders and say this is just how war is for their dead, and then declare them evil for our dead. The difference is in motive and how we react. If we ignore or rejoice in the death of innocents, or kill innocents to instill fear, then there truly is no difference.

Do you suppose those Muslims in New Jersey that watched the Towers collapse and cheered (yes, the videos of them doing so are showing up on the internet now), do you suppose they got caught up in the emotion of the moment, or would you condemn them like you're condemning some of us? Don't forget, as far as we know, neither those New Jersey Muslims, nor any INGOers have gone out and killed any innocents yet.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

BlackHawk - I totally agree with you. We ARE at war with a bunch of radicals. They absolutely want to kill us. And we should be ruthless in rooting them out. They are based in more than one country.

It was easy for us in WWII. Japanese, Germans and Italians were easy to pick out. Both by ethnicity and by language , they were distinct. In this case - not all of the folks in any given area are our enemy. Some are our friends. In WWII - we could "bomb all of the Japanese until they surrendered". Problem was, even then we had American citizens that were put in internment camps for their ethnicity alone.

I'm all for waging war on our enemies. And with that war will undoubtedly come collateral casualties. That happens. But intentionally saying "screw it, we're going after every one that looks like X (of one ethnicity or religion , etc)" - that is not war. That is genocide. We need to exercise some caution - we tread on dangerous ground.

I don't see anyone condemning anyone else around here. I think it's more of a "hey, we're on a very slippery slope so we may well want to be careful with all of the 'turn it into a lake of glass' type of stuff"