A thorny question

[Valnorran]

I have a question about one of the world's largest and most widespread religions. I want to stress that this is an honest inquiry on my part and not intended to be offensive in any way. My sincere apologies if it comes off as offensive. I'm trying my best not to sound that way. All I'm trying to do is find an honest answer to an honest question.

What is the deal with Islam? I've heard it said that it preaches tolerence and love, yet doesn't the Koran also preach the doctrine of holy war? Or is that just a popular misconception? I've heard that Arabic translates very poorly into other languages, so a translation of the Koran could easily be worthless. If this is the case, how is a non-Arabic speaker able to understand what the doctrine really says?

Why are Islamic fundamentalists so much more vicious than the fundies of other religions? Violence from the fundies of most religions is the exception rather than the rule, yet with Islamic fundies the opposite seems to be the case. As far as I can tell, their doctrine is "Kill all infidels". It seems like the first order of business after the religion's inception was to go on jihad across Africa and into southern Europe. I know all groups have pulled their share of dirty tricks thoughout history. Christianity had its crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts. Israel is currently battling Palestine, but these things are a bit different, I think. The Inquisition and Witch Hunts in Christianity were usually Christian v Christian. The Israelis and Palestinians are fighting over territory. Yeah, religion is part of it, but it started out as a simple land grab. Islamic fundies seem to view things as Muslims v the World. Current Christian fundies are usually, at worst, annoying. They generally don't blow things up or kill people. Christian fundies with a penchant for violence are exceedingly rare, and there are not enough of them for there to be multiple cells of terrorists. If they weren't fighting over land in Israel, we probably wouldn't hear much about the Jews, either. Why are Islamic fundies so different? Is it, perhaps, more a cultural factor than a religious one? They say the fundies don't speak for most Muslims. Then who does? The fundies are the only ones we ever seem to hear from, and there seem to be an endless supply of Islamic terrorists all over the place. Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but whenever these fruitcakes commit an atrocity, I don't think I've ever heard "mainstream" Muslims denounce it. I should think they would simply for the sake of public relations. Maybe they do and the media doesn't mention it. People acting in a sane and rational manner just aren't dramatic enough for the news. Maybe Islamic fundies are the mainstream of the religion. But why do Islamic fundies seem to be so much more prone to violence than the fundies of other religions? As I said, fundies in non-Muslim religions can be violent, but they are aberrations and usually not numerous enough to constitute a threat to many people.

Once again, I would like to stress that this is an honest inquiry, not an attempt to be offensive or start a flame war. I have never lived around Muslims. All I know is what I've read in history books and gotten from the current media. All I ever hear or see is Muslims in a negative light. I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume that most Muslims aren't like that, but all I get is that negative imagery, and I start to wonder, "Are most of them like that? Surely not, yet all you ever hear is..."

Someone please enlighten me. Do mainstream Muslims disagree with the fundies, or are the fundies mainstream? If the fundies are not, does the mainstream at least somewhat agree with the fundies? There are many terrorist groups in the world, but none seem to be so pervasive or numerous or as fanatical as the Muslim terrorists. Why?

[Danustouch]

Valnorran..I'm certainly no Quran expert...however, when September 11th happened, there were a lot of broadcasts about the true meaning of Islamic Jihad, and I watched alot of them. What I heard, was that "Jihad" is actually supposed to be an "inner battle" that one wages. What i've also heard, is that if a Jihad or War must be declared, no children, women, tree's, or buildings are supposed to be harmed in the process. So it seems to me, much like other religious doctrines, things have been misinterpreted by those with personal goals, and motivations. Twisted, and used to their own agenda.

As for WHY these fundamentalist radicals do this???? I am personally of the belief that it is because of the culture that they have been raised in. Not necessarily Religion...but...think of all of the wars these people have seen. Poverty, Starvation, Public execution, children stepping on landmines, rogue governments, warlords...these people are angry at a million and one horrible things which happen n their lives every day. They've been raised in a culture where violence is displayed/seen every day, in one form or another. Where they MUST fight for their survival. In my opinion, people who live in that sort of environment, will become part of that environment themselves. They don't know any other way. It must be easy for people who are starving, in fear for their lives, in fear for their CHILDRENS lives, to believe any prophet, or maniac who promises them a better life if A, B, and C tasks are completed. For instance, someone like Osama Bin Ladin, comes in, and tells them that if they strap a bomb to their chests, and blow themselves up in a crowded islamic sector, they will receive the gratitude of Allah, and reap a reward for them and their families, both spiritually, and materially (a lot of money is given to the families of suicide bombers by the groups who sponsor them). If YOU were starving, impoverished, saw your children wasting away, or suffering from limbs torn off by landmines (which these prophets might blame America, or other western countries for laying, and which may in part be true)....how easy do you think it would be for YOU to believe these things?

Desperation, motivates a multitude of sins. IMO..many of the people who join these groups, do so out of desperation. Then there is the issue of it becoming something which their society see's as heroic. People from all differen't cultures, are effected/motivated by the things which their society see's as patriotic, or heroic, etc. What might start off as a few desperate individuals, becomes far more, when it is touted as an honorable, heroic action.

But...how do the rich people like Osama Bin Ladin, become so hatefilled? I don't know his entire biography. But I'd say emotional imbalance. Some horrible things he has witnessed or lived through, and for whatever reason, in his brain, he just chooses to pin the blame on one thing..Western Civilization. In short..it's probably a simple problem of mental instability. Why did Hitler do the things that HE did? Mental instability. The problem is....they know how to talk to others, and lure others into their little world, by exposing, and manipulating those peoples needs. Making them dependent upon the maniac himself. Etc.

[Valnorran]

Thanks, Danus. Even though you may not be an "expert", it's reassuring to hear this from an outside source. Interesting concept of warfare, that bit about harming no noncombatants or the environment. If wars must be fought, this is how it should be done. Up until the 20th century or so, we westerners were pretty good about not harming noncombatants.

Good points about the environment they grow up in. I suppose it would render them vulnerable to a smooth talker. After a particularly low point in my life (which I am only now climbing out of) I had an exceptionally depressing thought: due to the $100,000 life insurance policy on me, I'd be a better provider for my family if I were dead, because that insurance policy is far more than I could ever hope to make. Now, I never seriously considered doing myself in, but I began to see how someone could become so desperate. Being a "have-not" who constantly has the "haves" shoved in his face over a decade or so would probably lead to considerable anger. Add all those other factors you named, and suddenly suicide bombers aren't so farfetched. Hell, their lives are so miserable that the prospect of dying probably isn't very frightening.

Thanks for an intelligent reply.

[Marchosias]

Originally posted by Valnorran

What is the deal with Islam? I've heard it said that it preaches tolerence and love, yet doesn't the Koran also preach the doctrine of holy war?

Why are Islamic fundamentalists so much more vicious than the fundies of other religions?

*Snort* Apparently you havent had much contact with Christian fundementalists...there are many kinds of vicious, my friend.

[SerenityMoon]

Marchosias...i just gotta say: indeed. in-freaking-deed.
In our social problems class, we learned some pieces of the Koran...and a lot of it is very peaceful. thep roblem is that many people can take it to mean many different things..for example, someone with a twisted mind could take the bible one way, distort it, and think their ways are justified, whereas a completely passive person could see it as the book of all that is holy and good. *shrug* i'm not an expert at all, but that's basically what i learned from that class.

[Yvonne Belisle]

Any religion can get violent when the holier than thou types step in and any religion can be twisted no matter how good it is. There will always be people who feel that it is their way or the highway which is really sad. You see it in pagans too.

[Semele]

Originally posted by Valnorran
Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but whenever these fruitcakes commit an atrocity, I don't think I've ever heard "mainstream" Muslims denounce it. I should think they would simply for the sake of public relations.

I am just curious as to why you would find it the responsibility of these non-fruitcakes to denounce the fruitcakes of their religion. I mean, what really is the point in doing so? To say.."Whoa wait a minute we are not all like that..we are a loving peaceful people.. yada yada.." Why not just let your own actions speak for themselves..and damn the opinions of others because you know within yourself that you are not wrong and not represented by the fruitcakes..as does Allah/God and after all isn't that what our spirituality is about...rather than public relations?


BTW, I am going to move this to Theology and Philosophy since it fits a little better there. Remember it is great for us to attempt to understand other religions, but we have to try to keep the respect.

[Mithrea]

I think it's also important to point out that just because the American media isn't airing stories every night of Muslims who want to tell the world that these groups do not represent them, that doesn't mean they don't feel that way. I have several Muslim friends and they are just as devastated by all of this as anyone else and the first thing out of their mouths anytime the subject is brought up is "That is not Islam."

[Sgeir]

Perhaps its cyclical?

What I mean is that, if we look back in history, we see highly violent and terror-filled Christian regimes, the Crusades are a good example of that. At the same time there was a relatively tolerant society within Islam.

Now we see the positions reversed (though the increase in Christian fundamentalism may show the beginning of a new cycle) and (some) Muslims are now taking on the role of agressors.

Perhaps it will turn back again, or perhaps another religion will take its turn at the attacking of others of different faiths.

[Mithrea]

There is a theory, commonly referred to as just "Atavism" that countries or societies need war in order to remain viable. Wars usually unite a people against a common enemy, they renew patriotism and they boost the economy. I read an article a few years ago during an American Foreign Policy course that charted American atavism. The author not only showed the pattern, he predicted what is happening now simply based on a cycle the timeline pointed to. It sounds like, Sgeir that that might be a little of what you are alluding too.

[Danustouch]

I also have alot of Islamic friends who were absolutely devastated by the events of Sept 11th. And many of them went out of their way, in the weeks following, to show their support for America, and the "Positive" parts of their religion. If more Islamic people do not seem to denounce the actions of the militants, I would say that l agree with Semele. I don' t think they should HAVE to justify themselves in light of the less palatable parts of their religion. I also think that perhaps they show their differences by their actions, far more than by their words. And...to tell the truth...in the months directly following the WTC attacks, the Islamic Community in the US was under heavy fire from racists, and bigots, and ignorant people. Alot of them were probably just trying to keep their heads low to avoid getting them shot off. Just think of the horrible stories of Islamic people being attacked by people in the days following Sept 11th. With such volatile emotions running around, do you really think they were going to raise their hands and insert their opinions? Many ignorant people didn't WANT to hear the Islamic's defense. Many ignorant people didn't WANT to see that there is a difference between being Islamic, and being a fundamentalist radical. They just wanted blood. Period. I can hardly blame them for not speaking out. They realized that tension was high, emotions were running amuck, and that they were in danger because of the ignorance, and anger abounding in America in these times. They wanted to stay safe. Who can blame them?

[Valnorran]

Originally posted by Sgeir
Perhaps its cyclical?

What I mean is that, if we look back in history, we see highly violent and terror-filled Christian regimes, the Crusades are a good example of that. At the same time there was a relatively tolerant society within Islam.

Now we see the positions reversed (though the increase in Christian fundamentalism may show the beginning of a new cycle) and (some) Muslims are now taking on the role of agressors.

Perhaps it will turn back again, or perhaps another religion will take its turn at the attacking of others of different faiths.

Interesting theory. It would explain much.

[Valnorran]

Originally posted by Marchosias
*Snort* Apparently you havent had much contact with Christian fundementalists...there are many kinds of vicious, my friend.

My point was that Christian fundies generally don't make it a habit to blow up planeloads of people. Islamic fundies will. Danus said earlier that such volatility was likely the result of the culture/surroundings in which these terrorists are raised, rather than their religion. I think she's right. Religion is just the vehicle with which they express their rage and hate.

[Sequoia]

an important thing to remember is this: fundies are fundies. Be them Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist (though I havn't seen any of those *has to surpress a giggle at the mental image of a fundie buddhist monk*), or any religion out there. . . Fundies are the fanatics, the ones who have an agenda, and they use their religion as an excuse to accomplish this. Whether they truely belive it, or are simply using it to foster support or sympathy, they aren't being true to their own religion.

fundies are a whole 'nother class. They're like the Chaotic Evil of religion.

[Blueowl]

Every religion has its fundies...and in todays's society, unfortuanely all you hear is the negative side of things....and not alot of positive things...hence why its hard to gather all the information on all sides of the spectrum of the religion...every religion throughout history has tried to force people to accept there religion as their own. History and I feel that a few fundies from the christian coalition have been trying to force "the will of god and instill His goodness" all over the world for way too long. Now I am not for all the chaos arising out the middle east...but christianity has done alot of things as well as other religions to bring this kind of negativity unto themselves...I wish if we had to go to war just once it wouldn't be about religion...God and Goddess have no business being forced and used when it comes to war. But that is my opinion. If you want to talk to the gods yourslef in a private moment, kewl...I am off my soapbox now I know this post was more venting than any viable info you were looking for I am still on a mindset from War with Iraq in one of the other little chat rooms on here!!!!
Just to verify...I was raised a Christian and had numerous problems with people and places that area ffiliated with it, but I have also met some really kewl people who are not only Christian but they aren't trying to convert you either. So, I hope thatI have not offended anyone because We all are entitled to opinions in here. SO I apologize in advance if I do offend anyone.

[Mithrea]

I just feel the need to interrupt at this point and remind you all that the word is *fundamentalists*. Whether you mean it or not, "fundies" has a negative connotation and, as we are tyring to be respectful, we should be aware of that. Thanks :)

[Sylv]

Up until the 20th century or so, we westerners were pretty good about not harming noncombatants.
I was reading through the thread (interesting, btw) and I noticed this statement. I'm going to respectfully disagree, if westerners is supposed to mean Europeans. First of all, the conquistadors (sp?) in South American exterminated women, children, men, cities, cultures, etc. Then, in North America the Native Americans were 'gotten rid of' with smallpox infested blankets, killing off buffalo herds, etc. Also, the British/Americans quickly discovered that Native American warriors were hard to kill-they faded out of the forest and faded back into it. So instead they attacked the villages to a) destroy the warrior's support, and b) try to draw the warriors out. I know this isn't really relevent to the Muslim idea but I just had to say something about that. :)

[Valnorran]

Never said they were perfect, but when Western armies fought one another (roughly the 18th and 19th centuries), they usually did not shoot, bombard, or bayonet civilians, and cities were left more or less intact. Officers of opposing sides usually tried not to kill each other. I could be wrong but I don't know of any attempts by them at extensive defoliation. Please note that I'm not saying they had a perfect track record, but compare that with what modern western armies will do to each other, starting from about WW 1 on up to today. I had never heard that version of Muslim warfare and found it interesting that they sought to spare trees and even buildings.

[Blueowl]

Just like the japanese in this country after PEarl Harbor...the threefold law I believe is taking affect here in this sticky situation. I am just going to keeplighting candles and hope for the best....I still am toying with the idea of building an underground bunker somewhere and lloading it down with supplies for a couple years...lol why is it they did that in WW2 but here we are facing WW3 and bio warfare is a strong possibliity and we don't have anything readily available inc ase it does happen here. Good news is the boi chemicals are around but not as readilya vailable as you think it would be...there are a lot of these terrorists still sittin around the us waiting for further instruction and they haven't done anything yet...like mess with our water, and food supply etc. etc. interesting isn'tit? To put another twist on things...what do you all think of that?

[SagaDraco]

I think if you look carefully enough, you'll find the intent of most faiths "battles" are not literal, but spiritual. The Christians have their "Armor of God", sounds war-like right? Wade into battle with God's Armor on! Get 'em all! But all it really means is protection from what Christians perceive as sinful from hurting them. I have noticed more Christians lately view the "Devil" as less of a literal beast of evil, but as a symbolic course of ideas and actions that would lead them off their path. However, Islam threatens me far more than Christianity. I have never met a violent Christian per se, plenty of annoying ones though. I suppose the only real difference is if Christian fundamentalists were in charge we'd be living in 1703 C.E., and if Muslim ones were in charge 603 C.E.

Also, I do find the word "fundie" disrespectful as well.

[CopyrightPolice]

Originally posted by Sylv
I was reading through the thread (interesting, btw) and I noticed this statement. I'm going to respectfully disagree, if westerners is supposed to mean Europeans. First of all, the conquistadors (sp?) in South American exterminated women, children, men, cities, cultures, etc. Then, in North America the Native Americans were 'gotten rid of' with smallpox infested blankets, killing off buffalo herds, etc. Also, the British/Americans quickly discovered that Native American warriors were hard to kill-they faded out of the forest and faded back into it. So instead they attacked the villages to a) destroy the warrior's support, and b) try to draw the warriors out. I know this isn't really relevent to the Muslim idea but I just had to say something about that. :)

I gotta back Sylv up on this. Let's not be prissy and allow that western Europeans were models of conduct in times of war but were simultaneously capable of abominations like slavery and genocide. I find the comment about westerns being "good boys" in war time until recently reprehensible and dismissive of the vast amounts of carnage and violence westerns have done against women, children, and people of color for centuries. Western history is written in blood. Let's *not* forget that.

[Valnorran]

Then you didn't read my responses to that issue closely enough.

And by the way, it isn't just western history that's written in blood. Ever heard of Chengis Kahn? Attilla the Hun? Idi Amin? Mao Tse Tung? Do you honestly think the American Indians were living in the garden of eden until the europeans showed up, nature's chosen golden children who never raised their hands against each other? Do you think westerners were the ones who invented slavery, genocide, and racism? Believe me, no one group has a monopoly on any of those markets.

All I'm saying is compare what an army of the Napoleonic period did to the carnage unleashed by Hitler. Officers, being all from the same social class, would not usually (hint: pay close attention to that term "usually") deliberately (another qualifier that must be paid attention) harm each other. In modern warfare, the officers are the prime targets.

[Danustouch]

I have never met a violent Christian per se,

Which of course, i'm sure you know, doesn't mean they don't exist. As many have pointed out, there were the crusades, the conquistadors, the slave owners in older times, the governors in Salem. Now...it's people like those who protested at Matthew Shepherds Funeral, who really DO believe that gays should be killed, and who DO perform acts of violence against them. Or...how about the people who bomb abortion clinics? There are Bad Apples in every bunch. Violent vigilante's and ignorant fanatics in ALL paths. The reason which people may fear Islamic Fundamentalist groups at this point, is because they are a far more vocal, far more populous entity then the Fundamentalist Radicals within western society. Far more organized, as well. However, just because we do not "see" the fundamentalist radicals elsewhere in the world, it does not mean that they don't exist, or that they do not pose as great a threaght. Timothy McVeigh is one good example of the destruction that a "radical" of any type can reap. It really wouldn't take much for a "homegrown" terrorist group, or individual, to wreak havoc. A little homebrewed nerve gas here, a few well placed truck bombs there....

Islamic fundamentalist radicals are simply in the limelight right now, because they are the largest in number, population, the most organized, and the most vocal.

[CopyrightPolice]

Originally posted by Valnorran
Then you didn't read my responses to that issue closely enough.

And by the way, it isn't just western history that's written in blood. Ever heard of Chengis Kahn? Attilla the Hun? Idi Amin? Mao Tse Tung? Do you honestly think the American Indians were living in the garden of eden until the europeans showed up, nature's chosen golden children who never raised their hands against each other? Do you think westerners were the ones who invented slavery, genocide, and racism? Believe me, no one group has a monopoly on any of those markets.

All I'm saying is compare what an army of the Napoleonic period did to the carnage unleashed by Hitler. Officers, being all from the same social class, would not usually (hint: pay close attention to that term "usually") deliberately (another qualifier that must be paid attention) harm each other. In modern warfare, the officers are the prime targets.

Look, Valnorran, no one is arguing that the rest of the world was peaceful until the big bad Westies came along. I am taking issue with your flippant remark about westerners being good about not harming noncombatants. What you said, whether you want to admit it or not and whether you realize it or not is dismissive and ignorant. "Yeah we're pretty good about behaving appropriately in wartime, but let's not get into what we do to folks in peace time, because hey, we're not talking about *that* anyway."

But if we're going to talk about, even peripherally, the behavior of Westerners when it comes to war, let's also talk about these Westerners and their behaviors when they're *not* at "war". And let's ask all the "noncombatants" that Western countries have bloodied whether they feel the behavior was "pretty good".

Feh.

[Danustouch]

CP....

I went back and read Valnorrans original post...and I think I see the problem. See..he's fully admitting ignorance. He said "I WANT to give these people the benefit of the doubt" (Islamics) and yet all that I see is them being portrayed in a negative light.".

Well...it seems to me, that Media Sensationalism is the problem. Until the Oklahoma City Bombing, how many people actually knew about, and were worried about groups such as the Montana Freemen? How many times are our governments actions covered up? Either by those government agencies themselves, or by the press?

However, Islamic Militant Groups, and Terrorists, have been front page news on and off for DECADES. Remember Libya? Quaddaffi? Remember the Ayatollah Kumenhi? (sp). All of the bombings in Israel. All of the hijackings. All of the Kidnappings. Remember Terry Anderson?

Islam is not at fault. We've established that. But...are these Islamic Terrorist groups MORE common then terrorist groups within western society (imo, it's a matter of what one calls a terrorist group. In my opinion, gangs, and drug lords qualify in this bracket as well). It would SEEM so, based on the news coverage that they receive....and a sheer ratio of populations. How many islamic countries are there? And how many islamics are living in WESTERN countries? And there ARE cells working all over the world. But...as i've said..we'll never REALLY know...because other terrorist groups, tend to keep a little more quiet about thier actions. Not really claiming responsibility for the things they do...OR they are covered up..OR they are so small, or so unorganized , that it RARELY (except in the case of the Ok. City Bombing) has such an impact.

Are western societies bloody? Damned right they are. However, whether due to lack of press coverage, or lack of a specific group claiming responsibility for the atrocities westerners commit, or whether it is due to less fear due to less organization, and population of perpetrators, or due to government coverups and conspiracies, they Simply LOOK more bloody then us "good little civilized westerners" do.

I think I would prefer to say...More Angry...because it takes some SERIOUSLY angry individuals, to commit an action like Sept 11th, or the bombings in Israel, or the hijacking of other planes..and ADMIT to it, threaghtening further actions if demands are not met. Why do I think this? The simple fact, that they ADMIT to these things. Own up to them. Take responsibility for them, and are organized enough, to carry out even more attacks. That is why to so many, they seem so frightening, and yes, so bloodthirsty.

People soon forget that in America's past, we decimated the Native American Population. They Seem to forget, that we dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. It seems like ancient history...to so many. So..nowadays, when Sherriff Roscoe Pecotrain...uh..I mean GW Bush, commits some major crime against humanity, it's a race to the press, to see what can be covered up, and what can be "reframed" etc. In otherwords..western groups/people try to AVOID responsibility, in most cases, for the horrible things that IT does, where as the Islamic Groups freely admit to them, and glory in them. Perhaps that is what makes them SEEM so much more bloodthirsty. And frightening.

Think of the way the ancient Celts fought. Naked, Painted Blue, Screaming their heads off, and beating drums. That was pretty damned frightening. And their opponants were often terrified at the savagery. Sure...the romans killed plenty of people. And were scary in their own right..but..they seemed so "Civilized" about it...all standing in rank and file, putting their shields up over their heads in a turtle position...

Do you see what I mean? What terrifies people most about the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Groups (boy is that a mouthful) and makes them seem more bloodthirsty...is their unabashedness about it. It's seen as "Savage" I suppose....

Does any of this make sense?

[Blueowl]

Dana...bravo!!!:smoke: :thumbsup:

I have been in another forum and mentioned how these things with Islamic Extremists has been going on since Carter!! If not before then. They have been terrorizing people for centuries.

As far as I am concerned...NO ONe is perfect when it comes to war...if they were we wouldn't be facing war time and again now would we? Bringing up the past also does not do anything to resolve the issue at hand. It may help to understand it better, but not really resolve it...so the big question is how do you all think we should resolve something like this? Witht he extremists groups? All of them.

Also, part of the reason the westerners seem so bloody is that they don't have the advantages that we do over here...or that most have all over the world...like money...so they can better themselves...plus alot of things are very misconstrued over there too. The gov't really does cover there tail out there and keeps their people from knowing the facts and likes tofill them up with a bunch of mistruths about life over here and why others have it better than they do....blah blah blah....it really is sad to see that. You have to go to a terrorists training camp just to ahve some advantages in life...like a computer to learn things, and guns for protection...whatis wrong with people that they strip others of basic rights to apoint that they can't even defend themselves...

[Valnorran]

Thank you, Danus. I agree with everything you've posted. You've understood what I was saying. Remarkable how reading exactly what is written can clear things up.

[Valnorran]

Originally posted by CopyrightPolice
Look, Valnorran, no one is arguing that the rest of the world was peaceful until the big bad Westies came along. I am taking issue with your flippant remark about westerners being good about not harming noncombatants. What you said, whether you want to admit it or not and whether you realize it or not is dismissive and ignorant. "Yeah we're pretty good about behaving appropriately in wartime, but let's not get into what we do to folks in peace time, because hey, we're not talking about *that* anyway."

But if we're going to talk about, even peripherally, the behavior of Westerners when it comes to war, let's also talk about these Westerners and their behaviors when they're *not* at "war". And let's ask all the "noncombatants" that Western countries have bloodied whether they feel the behavior was "pretty good".

Feh.


Go back and read the last paragraph of my post that you quoted. I don't know how to make my point any clearer, but I'll give it one more try.

Two western armies at war with one another. Let's say Britain v France. They slugged it out often enough. Let's say it's in the 18th or 19th century. I don't know of any instance where London or Paris or any other large city got leveled in those conflicts. I don't know of any instance where civilians were DELIBERATELY targeted. If you do know of such an instance from the time and place that I give, please cite it. But compare that to wars fought by western armies today. Cities are leveled on a regular basis. Civilians are targeted. Remember what was done to Dresden in WW 2?

It was generally considered disgraceful to deliberately target officers. Why? Because officers were from the upper class, the remnants of nobility. If once side surrendered, the victorious officers would sometimes protect the defeated officers from abuse or execution. Why do you think the British were so shocked when American riflemen picked off British officers whenever they could during the Revolution? Because it was an unusual tactic for a "civilized" army. In those days, it was considered an atrocity. Compare that with today. Any rifleman or sniper looking for a target goes after officers first and foremost. What was once considered an atrocity is now considered standard operating procedure.

Yes, there were exceptions to these rules. Anyone considered a rebel or a "savage" was not deserving (so the conventional feeling of the time went) of the considerations one would give a "civilized" army. I mentioned the way officers of opposing "civilized" armies would treat one another. Compare that to an incident in the Sepoy Mutiny, where the British strapped a captured Indian to the muzzle of a cannon and blew him into sushi. I never said western armies didn't do things like this.

I'm not saying anyone was perfect or scrubbed little angels when it came to war. All I'm saying is that there was a time when western armies had certain considerations that they no longer bother with. Sometimes they made these considerations matter and sometimes they didn't, but at least they did succeed at it SOMETIMES. Nowadays those considerations aren't even on the table. I mention this because Danus said that Muslim warfare once required that noncombatants, and even trees and buildings, be spared. I found this interesting because I was totally unaware of it and it is a great point for counterbalancing all the negative imagery we see about Islam these days. I find it quite refreshing. My point was that for a brief period in history, there were those commanders in the west who felt the same way. Just like the Muslim extremists, though, we've abandoned any notions of honorable conduct in warfare.

Now, I don't know how to make my point any clearer. If you're still going to label me flippant, dismissive, or ignorant, please cite some sources refuting my statements. I can cite some supporting my statements. Read what I wrote and only what I wrote. I meant exactly what I wrote and nothing more. I think I spelled out my points as clearly as possible, and since I'm the author of these points I think I know my thoughts and meanings a little bit better than you do. This all started with my asking about Islamic terrorists and the Islamic idea of war and defeating infidels and all that. Naturally, different concepts of war became a subject. Therefore, we discuss concepts of war, not peace. I don't care how Islamic extremists behave during peacetime. If they're not blowing people up I'm happy. Peacetime conduct isn't the question. War and terrorism are the question. So, no, let's not get into the discussion of peacetime. If we're at peace, no one's trying to kill us and I would have no questions at all about any of this. If you still think my statements are flippant, ignorant, and dismissive, please back that assertion up with some solid, rational argument and evidence. However, after discussing it the length that I have, if you still don't get my point than I think you're just not trying.

[SagaDraco]

"Any rifleman or sniper looking for a target goes after officers first and foremost. What was once considered an atrocity is now considered standard operating procedure."

We called saluting officers in the field "sniper checks". Officer rank and medic's red crosses are called "sniper bait". Medics are also the first to be targeted in an attack. Rules have changed, and modern war takes 90% of it's casualties in the form of civilians. It is sometimes safer to be a soldier, at least they can defend themselves. I think the Dresden bombing was the turning point in rules of war. A shame the cultural heart of Germany and all those innocent people died by firebomb.

[FLipsiDE]

First off, lots of Islamic leaders DID denounce the terrorist attacks. I believe the division is Sunni/Shiite with the Sunni being the moderates and the Shiites being the extremists... and some of that has to do with their Theology. The Qur'an (Koran) is only one book of the Islamic faith, there are other texts associated with it. The Tasfir, the Hadith and other books. The Qur'an by itself has about the same mix of evil hateful stuff and good loving stuff that the Bible has. In it's favor, Muhammad was in favor of women's rights right from the get go and there are many parts of it that DO stress the kinds of "honor in war" that Valnorran is talking about. But if you want to read it another way, you can certainly focus on the bad parts, just like in Christianity.

Someone early on was talking about how hard it was to find a good translation of the Qur'an. Islam recognized the difficulty in translating anything, so every Muslim is expected to learn Arabic, so as to properly understand the Qur'an. All prayers are supposed to be in Arabic also I think. On the downside of this, it leads to a kind of Culture war in countries that convert to Islam. With language comes concepts and morals, history and culture. Weaker cultures are often dominated by the stronger Islamic culture. Much like Chinese culture assimilated a number of smaller nations and not incomparable to America's cultural values being everywhere in the world now, 24 hours a day on 40 different channels...

Valnorran, I see what you are saying and it looks that way from a certain view. War HAS changed. Accurate weapons make sniping possible. The incredible difference in military strength between a developed nation and a developing nation make Guerilla warfare the only workable method. Some of the nobility between officers in the Napoleonic era was due to social classes... officers were not the same as enlisted commoners, who were expected to die in droves. These officers were the same ones you might be having to a party when the war was over. Nowadays officers are just college educated and don't have the same power that they did back then. At the same time I think atrocities were pretty common during the Napoleonic era... http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars19c.htm Look for the Civilian deaths. These might not have been directly combat (Bang I shot you) but starvation or disease due to war is no better.

As far as why are the terrorists there so much more violent. I agree with other posts that suggest that poverty, hopelessness and politics are the ingredients. The US has a terrible history in the Midle east. We put the Taliban (and others) in power for our own political agenda, we gave weapons to Iraq, the CIA meddles incessantly with the political landscape, we encourage the Kurds but don't actually help them, our oil business maneuvering... it's too easy for people who are poor, unrepresented and living with little hope to see America as the Nation of Satan.

Oh, and as a bit of history. The Islamic world was the center of learning and science... great poetry, literature, knowledge of Math, Engineering, Chemistry, Metallurgy... they were a relatively tolerant and accepting people. Until the Crusades. At some point in the Crusades they decided that Science had not saved them so Faith would be the answer. It was these stolen and looted works of science and art and literature that helped fuel the rennisance in europe much later.

[Blueowl]

I see your point Flipside...an other thing, its a shame ther ewasn't a way to chage that in the world, the whole tier of hieracrchy (did I spell that right?), I never liked classifying people when it comes to money...If eelit puts too many moral walls up and strips away any chance of others being able to mov eup in the world and be just as successful as the next person, But I have been told frequently that ... "that is just how it is and there is nothing tha tcan be done" I feel that when people make that statement they have given up on what freedom means.

not to go completely off the subject here ... sorry lol

[aluokaloo]

I have a lot of time to think, and I've realised what it means between faith and religion.
Religion for the most part at least correct me if I'm wrong, is more about dogma then the actual faith, not to mention government taxes, forcing your way for your rights etc. Faith is the spiritualtilty, understanding the truth and making that spiritually a part of your very day lives not because you have to but because you want to, and getting in touch with your devine being/s. For example, a catholic could go to church say ten hail maries, and then go home flip on the remote. But if the person had no basic understanding just goes through the whole process mechanically, then they are probably just like the aetheists they rail against. But if a christian understood and went through the motions with joy and saw the beauty in their spirituallity and integrated it into every day life then they are following faith. Don't quote me on this its just thoughts I have when I'm awake for most of the night I could totally and completely wrong, but then again I could be right.

[aluokaloo]

btw no offense to catholics, or aetheists for the record