Why are muslims more prone to terrorism as a means to achieve their goals?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Hmmm. Are the Irish Muslim. Or Greeks. Or Columbians. Or Tamel. Or (insert your small group of people out gunned by the larger more powerful opponant)

Silly Sprayber. The Irish can't be terrorists. They have white skin. And everybody knows that people with white skin are the good guys. And good guys are never terrorists. The only people who are ever terrorists are dark skinned people, commonly referred to as, "People we don't like, but who wash our dishes and mow our lawns."

I do agree though, terrorism isn't really any worse than any other kind of war. It's just that, contrary to what Che thinks, Americans aren't all that good at it. We like our enemies to stand around and wait to be cut to pieces by our armor and aircraft. It also looks better on CNN.

Personally I think that as long as it's carried out against legitimate military and political targets, it's no worse than war in general, which is of course bad. In fact, if it's used to kill leaders it could be considered better seeing as how only the people responsible for the conflict are affected.

[Monoriu]

Re: Why are muslims more prone to terrorism as a means to achieve their goals?

Originally posted by paiktis22


One thing that he got partially right was that most battles occure between muslims or between muslims and non - muslims than between non-muslims (I hope you followed that )

That's not even partially right. That shows a complete lack of knowledge of human history.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tong, Pal Pot, Mussolini, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and about several thousand more tyrants and invaders are not Muslims.

Even when it comes to terrorism, the guy who bombed Oklahoma city, the IRA, the ETA, rebels in Columbia, KKK, Neo-Nazis etc are not Muslims.

Religious fanatics: Do you have any idea what the Spanish did during the medieval times? Crusades anyone? Thirty years war? Catholics vs Protestants wars?

[Chris 62]

The other side of the coin, Paiktis?

[Tolls]

"...most battles occure between muslims or between muslims and non - muslims than between non-muslims..."

This bit strikes me as a bit unfair, since surely the category "muslims and non - muslim" should be applied to the "non-muslims" part just as much as to the "muslims" part...in which case I think the argument falls apart.

[Sikander]

"Terrorism is the surgical strike capability of the oppressed."

Militant dude from Slacker

-----------

I think there are several good reasons why Islam tends to produce more than it's share of terrorists. Firstly, it is one of the big three monotheistic (read intolerant) religions, and in fact probably the largest. Secondly it is one of the big two religions who spread primarily by the sword (the other being christianity). Finally, it's adherants are probably the poorest and most ignorant adherants to any major religion, and suffer under the most repressive governments as well.

Thus you have a fine mix of the hubris which comes from knowing that you are right and everyone else is wrong (and that God agrees with you) which is unfortunately not tempered with a great deal of education but is inflamed with a historical tendency to holy warfare, added to a strong resentment of poor living conditions, racism, and the fine example of the local corrupt government to teach that human life is worthless.

Add to this a history which in many cases shows a complete cessation of progress even as the rest of the world was accelerating forward, to the extent that women are treated in a manner worse than in many cultures even hundreds of years ago. Slavery and torture are not distant relics, or even shameful reminders of a century and a half ago, but actually still exist, with torture being particularly common.

The Muslim world, and in particular the Arab world has to be a concern for every citizen of the planet. It is the only part of the world which is more repressive than it was 30 years ago. The fact that peoples who not all that long ago were noted for their commercial capabilities and scholarship are dropping out of the world economy (with the exception of third world like extractive industries) and seeing the rapid growth of fundamentalist movements which espouse policies which run exactly opposite to the course most likely to actually help the situation is scary indeed.

[Ted Striker]

This brings up a good point.

Muslims are always talking about this Muslim brotherhood crap, but they are fighting each other all of the time. BS I say.

And they can't fight anybody with their armies so they have to resort to terrorism.


Also what Sikander said. Good job for having the balls to make a point thats going to have the PC police crying and whining.

Interesting that Muslims hundreds of years ago would have been considered the most refined, civilized, educated, and advanced culture by far.

Many of the fundamentalists leaders in the Muslim world know this, and so use the West as a rallying cry in efforts to try and unite the Muslim world again to return it to its glory.

Good luck. Bring it and we'll whoop your asses.

[orange]

Originally posted by Bob Dornan
Why is it that no Muslim country can live in peace with a non Muslim neighbor Because the Islam religion promotes itself as the only true one and non believers must be killed.

*BIG COUGH* Christianity *BIG COUGH*

[Ted Striker]

There is no evidence that "the muslims" are more prone to terrorism than others. Can you say IRA? ETA? Red Brigade?Timothy McVeigh?

Complete BS and political correctness. Those you and that other guy just mentioned are EXCEPTIONS. The numbers just don't stack up.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Complete BS and political correctness. Those you and that other guy just mentioned are EXCEPTIONS. The numbers just don't stack up.

How so?

The PLO is no different from the IRA. Just got better funding and leadership is all. It's got nothing to do with religion, it's the situation. Same deal with the religious right who bomb abortion clinics and more domestic forms of terrorism. Same motives, different amounts of funding and ability to carry out the tasks.

[Ted Striker]

There's also more blacks in the NBA just because of the situation, not because they're black.

Sorry orange, numbers just don't add up. Muslim mideast terrorism is a daily event.

[Laertes]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Complete BS and political correctness. Those you and that other guy just mentioned are EXCEPTIONS. The numbers just don't stack up.

Can we add a few more: Baader Meinhof, the Protestant terrorists in Northern Ireland, the Shining Path, John Wilkes Booth and Lee harvey Oswald, anti-abortion arsonists and murderers.

How is the arithmetic going now?

[orange]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
There's also more blacks in the NBA just because of the situation, not because they're black.

Sorry orange, numbers just don't add up. Muslim mideast terrorism is a daily event.

What numbers? Show me numbers.

[Ted Striker]

The number of acts of terror by Palestinians in the last year ALONE beats all of those COMBINED.

There's your ****ing numbers, PC cowards.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The number of acts of terror by Palestinians in the last year ALONE beats all of those COMBINED.

There's your ****ing numbers, PC cowards.

Look, I find the terrorist actions by Palestinian terrorists absolutely disgusting. But that's no reason to OVERLOOK the terrorist acts by non-Muslims.

It is your numbers that are wrong. The IRA killed at least 3000 British over the past couple of decades alone. Did the Palestinians kill 3000 Isrealis last year? I don't think so.

[Roland]

Sikander:

"Secondly it is one of the big two religions who spread primarily by the sword (the other being christianity)."

There is one crucial difference between islam and christianity on that one: Islam was a fighting religion from the very start. It took christians about 300 years to discover the good old "Willst du nicht mein Bruder sein, so schlag ich dir den Schädel ein" ("If you don't want to be my brother, I'll crush your skull"). That early islam was very skillful in that regard (using indirect pressure and jewish/christian as well as intechristian devides like the monopysite schism) does not change the use of force, and the inseperability of "church" and "state".

"Finally, it's adherants are probably the poorest and most ignorant adherants to any major religion, and suffer under the most repressive governments as well."

Poverty, oppression and religion are always an explosive mix. I like Mommsen's account of the roman occupation of Judaea, with all the various fanatical sects und cults culminating in the burning of Jerusalem.

"The Muslim world, and in particular the Arab world has to be a concern for every citizen of the planet. It is the only part of the world which is more repressive than it was 30 years ago."

Let's differentiate a bit more. The equalization between islam and islamism is one extreme, the "islam is a peaceful religion" is the other. Both are utterly silly. The largest muslim communities live in Indonesia, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In 3 of those countries, the islamist movement is quite weak. And even in Pakistan it is intertwined in tribal conflicts etc.

The religion as such is quite split. I doubt that a searcher in the Sufi mystical tradition will start to bomb people. I'd find it surprising if the Alawi in Anatolia would suddenly start suppressing women. The Bosniaks have not become fundamentalists despite the serb (and croatian) atrocities. On the other side, I'd also be surprised if the Wahabis in Saudi-Arabia would start making some sense.

Islamism is a relatively new phenomenon, but I would not say that it is alien to muslim tradition. It just takes one thread of this tradition to an extreme. It has a huge potential. Just look at Stalinism and Hitlerism, taking some christian traditions (salvation, orthodoxy, bureaucratic organisation, inquisition) to an extreme. I'd abstain from identifying what is/was the christian world with that wholesale.