''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The Tamil Tigers against Sri Lanka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tigers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005; ISBN 1-4000-6317-5) is Robert Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism from a strategic, social, and psychological point of view. It is based on a database he has compiled at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. The book's conclusions are based on data from 315 suicide terrorism campaigns around the world from 1980 through 2003 and 462 individual suicide terrorists.

(...)

Pape claims to have compiled the world's first "database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 — 315 attacks in all" (3). "The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" (4). It is important that Americans understand this growing phenomenon (4-7)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism

Like I said, policies may make you a target, they are not the only component required for someone to kill themselves and others.

That thesis was interesting exactly because it disagreed with the mainstream opinion.

Nothing you say will change the fact that they TELL us why they feel comfortable doing what they do. Your evidence to dissprove their own stated motivations, that maybe they were joking or something (again and again) will have to be far more extensive than an FBI agent giving his own personal opinion on the matter. Concerning the proffesor, his thesis falls apart when you consider that radical Muslim groups are defined by their wish to spread the Ummah everywhere, they consider everywhere their "homeland" just look at east Timor for proof of that. Not that it matters to the argument, but even if his view was a fact ( they are not, it is very much a dissenting opinion) then the nature of radical Islam would make it irrelevant in a policy sense. None of which address' if Islam is violent, indeed one could aruge it proves it is, but then Im starting to realise you never will address anything that actually matters. It will make it too challenging to continue holding your "America baaaaaad - The Resistance goooood" view.

There has been many death cults in the past, some motivated by despair, most by religion. Think the Kamikazees. Religion is the stated motivation for most if not all of these attacks. It is the reason Saudis travel to Timor to kill themselves and others, or Afghanistan. It is the same reason (and rascism) that the Arab league gave and continues to give cover to the Sudanese government in Darfur. It is the stated reason that al Shabab will not allow Christian agneices to work within Somalia.

I dont know how you convinced yourselve that all these peoples manifestos and writings/videos are just some kind of mistake.

The people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 were not poor, or downtrodden or Palestinian. They were wealthy, college educated Saudis.

They were not spending their time agitating for poltical change in Saudi Arabia or protesting against Israel. They WERE spending alot of time in a mosque, hearing about the virgins they would receive in the after life.

Sure you could argue that if the West gave them ABSOLTLY NO reason to dislike us, they probably would not attack, but religion plays the greatest role by far in their descisions to consistanly act like animals.

The threshold now for 100's of deaths and billions of dollars of economic damage? Drawing a cartoon.

Only relgion makes people act so irrationally and one very clearlyat this moment in time encourages it far beyond others.

Once again, I cannot stress this enough BB - THEY TELL US THEMSELVES.

And you continue to fail to defend your original assertion, that Islam is a religion of peace.


I also notice you practice the same double-think common in the Muslim world. 9/11 was carried out because of US action in Muslim lands, it was not an unprovoked attack but rather a natural reaction to unconditional support for Israel.

It was also a CIA/ Mossad plot, not Muslims.

I regect the label of bigot. If someone were to say "I dislike the way Christianity encourages people to be hypocritical, or anti-science" no one would call them a bigot, it is a legitimate crictiscism to level at the faith. However criticise Islam and you are some kind of monster? Bullsh*t. It is an ideology, a mode of thinking and therefore should be open to the same level of public debate as, say communism or fascism. That some people believe Islam came from the creator of the universe is irrelevant to me.

deravarra wrote: »

Oooh rather lame comeback tbh ... it is up to YOU to prove you are correct

Wasn't meant to be perceived as some sort of comeback to be honest. I posted an article days ago which Brown Bomber proved to me was inaccurate. I have no problem with that. He was right, I was wrong.

With this one, I again posted a link to an article. When asked how sure I was it was accurate, I said 70-75% to show that I think it's true, but that if Brown Bomber had info to prove this one wrong too, I was all ears.

However, I never claimed it was or was not true. It's not up to me to prove it was true. Nor is it up to Brown Bomber to prove it was false as he never claimed it was. I just linked to an article for us to discuss in the context of the thread.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Then why no suicide bombs in Saudi Arabia then or from Indian Musims, one of the single largest populations in the world?

Actually Indian Muslims are commonly involved in violence. If it were spawned by oppression wouldnt Saudi Arabia be a prime target for these freedom fighting Islamists? I think you proved my point. Its spawned by not being sufficiently Islamic, you misunderstood my point.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I expect that it's too much to ask for you to actually share some of these stated motivations?

Now I have to google any of the many Islamic organistations which have taken responsibility for killing civilians charter's for you? Why dont you do that yourself? Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hazzbollah, Abu Sayyaf Group, The JMB, Jemaah Islamiah, Riyadus Salihiin, The Armed Islamic Group.

Knock yourself out, everyone of them say Islam is what inspires them. I deliberatly gave you exmples from all over the world, not just in "Palestine".

You cant be more wrong, I dont know why you wont drop it...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

East Timor? I believe you may be thinking of somewhere else, East Timor is very much Christian. It was Indonesia where a CIA-backed tyrant Suharto massacred 100,000's of thousands with the US's blessing.

Suharto was the Prime Minister of Indonesia An Islamic country yes? East Timor is Christian, which is why it was so oppressed by Suharto (you were right about that at least). When East Timor broke away from Indonesia (with the US blessing, those animals) and the UNs, Islamic fundamentalists fumed as their ummah was broken up. The man who brought peace, a nobel prize winner was later killed in Iraq. The islamists declared it a great victory.

This was later given as one of the reasons for Al Qaedas GLOBAL JIHAD (note, not confined to those places you deem oppressed by the CIA or jews or whoever).

It is now commonly attacked by your same peaceful Islamists, for having the audactiy not to be repeatedly abused by Muslims.

You are very confused, I can see why you beleive Islam has nothing to do with violence you see the CIA everywhere. CIA actually had strong links to Anti-suharto rebels. At best it was defacto US support, but Im sure you are the type of person who would condem them as imperialist if they attempted to force regime change through, say, a trade embargo?

You just always have your enemy, and everything you see is coloured by that, you cant even admit al Qaeda and various other groups are inspired by Islam (how ridiculous that is really should surprise people). It must be only a tool of the Zionist dogs! Or whatever you people believe these days... You ask for evidence then regect what they declare as their motivations, as though that is somehow not enough.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yet they didn't attack S.Arabia did they? There was also hijackers from Egypt, Lebanon, UAE and the 20th hijacker was Yemeni I believe. No Afghanis though.

Im not explaining to you the reasons behind this, if you dont know them already you never will. It is also irrelevant. If you want to ask why post in the politics forum.

Although it of course wont stop oil/pipeline theories, despite the obvious oil target being passed over, but thats a sideline.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I only know about Atta but he spent his time gambling, drinking, taking drugs, going to strip clubs, whilst living with his stripper girlfriend Amanda Keller in Florida.

Yes yes he was a CIA agent, whatever.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence that Islamic fundamentalism = Muslim terrorist. You need to stop pretending that there is.

If you believe there ever will be then you dont know what science is. What there can be and what there is right now is a MASSIVE correlation and causation straight from the horses mouth. Again and again and again.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There was no 100's of deaths nor billions (?) of economic damage from the protests. Surely you don't object to peoples right to peacefully protest? If it's not what you would consider protest worthy it's fairly irrelevant. Cultural relativism should come into play here IMO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_social_consequences_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy wrong again. Peaceful protest was it? Not even in the UK. Does "behead those who insult Islam" ring a bell? Yes very peaceful.

No I will never consider a cartoon thousands of miles away a good reason to violently protest. I would question the sanity of anyone who would, regardless of the reasons.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Maybe they do, but I'd like for you to show me.

No. Because then I am pigeonholded by one video/ page that you will then target as though it is the only evidence. I recognise how you work. I will let you watch any of the multitude of videos of suicide bombers in Kashmir, Dagastan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine who read from the Quran, and sing praises to Allah before they blow themselves up. Watch any video of Osama bin Laden, he does not quote from the Christian bible to justify his attacks. Its the Koran. Read the manifestos of any of the large Islamic organistations.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is a rather narcisstic viewpoint. The "Muslim World" is not a single entity with a single viewpoint..

Thats why I said Common. Please read more carefully.

You called me biggoted. Thats why I said it.

Considering your knowledge so far of the stated motivations of very famous groups, Ill take being called misinformed by you as a compliment.

deravarra wrote: »

Go away and have a long hard think ... and come back when you actually know what you are talking about

Well to me it's plainly a rhetorical question.

deravarra wrote: »

just wondering how much you actually know about islam when you come out with a question such as this ...

Can I take this to mean that in your opinion it's obvious from the teachings of Islam that this kind of behavior would/should be met with punishment?

Standman wrote: »

Well to me it's plainly a rhetorical question.


Can I take this to mean that in your opinion it's obvious from the teachings of Islam that this kind of behavior would/should be met with punishment?

FFS - are you moonlighting as a mind reader or do you just take it upon yourself to try and put words into peoples mouths?

koth wrote: »

In Pakistan Section 295-C of the blasphemy laws, which criminalizes any derogatory remark – spoken, written or by visible representation – against Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. The minimum punishment for such remarks is also “life imprisonment” of 25 years, but the law also allows for the death penalty.

I haven't found any instances of the death penalty been given in a case, but the judges can give it if they feel the breach of the law merits it.

That is Pakistani Law ... where in Islam does it tell you to do it?

koth wrote: »

Well Islam is the state religion of Pakistan and under Article 31 it is the country's duty to foster the Islam way of life.

So the law shouldn't exist if it is contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Again, I ask you - which islamic teaching are you referring to.

When you get a chance to parouse away from your extensive collection of Pakistani Law texts, perhaps you can look it up and let us all know.

I'm just so looking forward to that...

koth wrote: »

I'm not saying Islamic teachings call for the punishment. I'm just addressing the question of possible punishments for defiling an image of Muhammed in an Islamic country.

But if I find some Islamic teachings that call for punishments for such an act, I'm be sure to let you know

Islamic countries do not always apply islamic teachings 100%. Some - not yourself - suggest that these acts of violence are within islamic teaching... utter BS.

koth wrote: »

Very nice. I express confusion about what you're trying to say with your post and you respond with insults.

Now if you want to elaborate on what exactly you were trying to say with your post, I'll be more than willing to hold my hands up and admit I was wrong about what I posted.

You seem to insinuate that Sharia Law is universal - that one size fits all.
It isnt. Sharia changes from country to country, and from madhab to madhab.

So, a catholic ruling wouldnt having any authority within the lutheran church, nor would an episcopalian law hold any sway with the serbian orthodox church.

In the same way, to suggest that "Islamic" teachings - what you have given to be from the sharia courts within pakistan - are not universal nor fundamental to islam. That sharia law in pakistan would differ from the sharia law as applicable to those from the Barelvi of India, the Shaafi Sunnis of the Philippines and the Maliki Sunnis of Morocco. So, your intimation that violence comes from islamic teaching, and sharia law which gives the uneducated the impression that all islamic teaching is universal is rubbish.

There are more than 70 sects within islam, and further groupings within each sect. each have their own fiqh, or science of sharia law. To presume that one voice speaks for all or that one law guides all is a nonsense, and an indication of how little the person with such notions actually understands and should disbar them from any debate.

koth wrote: »

No I don't, I've stated just how it Pakistani law and Sharia are similar with regards to blasphemy. I agree that it can change from country to country. But I was only talking about one country.

Agreed.

I didn't say they were.


I never said anything about any other country other than Pakistan.

I never said anything of the sort. If I had said such a thing, you'd be correct in calling it rubbish.


I never said anyone is speaking with one voice. Just showing that a country that has Islam has a blasphemy law which can carry the death penalty and that Sharia law also has the same possible penalty.

I never said all Muslims follow this law. I was providing a link between Pakistani law and Sharia law.

I do appreciate the clarification on your point but you're accusing me of saying something that I haven't said in this thread.

Then be specific when you mention sharia law, and state it is "pakistani shari law" and nothing else ...

There are those who would assume that sharia law is universal.

Thank you for clarifying

dlofnep wrote: »

Deravarra - do you condemn all Islamic nations that punish blasphemy? Do you believe that anyone has the right to insult Allah and Muhammad if they so desire, without reprisal?

Here we go

With every right there is a responsibility - and with that responsibility to accept the consequences of any action you may undertake which offends others - even if it doesnt offend you.

My question to you is: Why would anyone want to insult God and Muhammad ...?

I'd love to see how you would be treated at the war memorial in washington should you start roaring and shouting obscenities about the brutality of the american regime in the vietnamese conflict - or decide to do the same at the senotaph in london, or the tomb of the unknown soldier in paris...
Let's see how long you would last without getting an almighty beating

Would I stand up for their right to be as beligerent and demeaning to the sensitivities of those who hold those places sacred and dear to them? Absolutely not! Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me.

This rubbish of having the right to insult is a load of tosh.

Why would anyone want to insult? Do it, and you get what you deserve. If anyone insulted me, my family or showed any disrespect to them, I would do the same. Of course, I would be nice first, and ask them to desist. If they chose to ignore the plea, then they shouldnt go crying foul.

And I noticed that you strictly limited this to "islamic" countries ... how very typical of an islamophobe.

Let's mention muslims burning churches in india, but pretend we dont know that hindus do the same.... I heard it all before