The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[4/5]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Islam is a toxic ideology. This does not mean I do not think other religions are also toxic ideologies.

Oh okay. So is there any need to separate Islam with "radical Islam" in the context of terrorism discussions in your opinion?

[4/5]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Did you just ban L_V?

Not until Ramadan.

Punkdavid post


--@SkitchP

Whoa, an old school PD post.

I miss that guy. N&D really died without him around.

[LoathedVermin72]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Islam is a toxic ideology. This does not mean I do not think other religions are also toxic ideologies.

Oh okay. So is there any need to separate Islam with "radical Islam" in the context of terrorism discussions in your opinion?

Sure, but I think that is often overemphasized for political reasons, and I think it's dangerous to try and distance Islam from terrorism to the point where people are claiming they are not at all linked.

[4/5]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Islam is a toxic ideology. This does not mean I do not think other religions are also toxic ideologies.

Oh okay. So is there any need to separate Islam with "radical Islam" in the context of terrorism discussions in your opinion?

Sure, but I think that is often overemphasized for political reasons, and I think it's dangerous to try and distance Islam from terrorism to the point where people are claiming they are not at all linked.

Why is that dangerous? I mean "not at all linked" is perhaps a little too far, but I think when people make those arguments they are essentially just pointing out the fact that not all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists, etc., and that the overwhelming majority are just regular people trying to get along the same as other religious/non religious people. I think this is a natural response to people (not saying you) who paint over a billion people with one single brush stroke that happens to extremely vilifying.

[E.H. Ruddock]

who paint over a billion people with one single brush stroke

so you are telling me all Asian people aren't smart? FML.

[LoathedVermin72]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Islam is a toxic ideology. This does not mean I do not think other religions are also toxic ideologies.

Oh okay. So is there any need to separate Islam with "radical Islam" in the context of terrorism discussions in your opinion?

Sure, but I think that is often overemphasized for political reasons, and I think it's dangerous to try and distance Islam from terrorism to the point where people are claiming they are not at all linked.

Why is that dangerous? I mean "not at all linked" is perhaps a little too far, but I think when people make those arguments they are essentially just pointing out the fact that not all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists, etc., and that the overwhelming majority are just regular people trying to get along the same as other religious/non religious people. I think this is a natural response to people (not saying you) who paint over a billion people with one single brush stroke that happens to extremely vilifying.

Right, but now I feel like we are once again returning to covered ground. Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has once suggested that all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists. Of course not. We're not morons. That has never been the point of any of this discussion. I understand there are reactionaries who feel this way, but projecting that onto anyone who condemns Islam and/or doesn't deny that Islam is at the core of terrorists' actions is not constructive or conducive to discourse.

[4/5]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Islam is a toxic ideology. This does not mean I do not think other religions are also toxic ideologies.

Oh okay. So is there any need to separate Islam with "radical Islam" in the context of terrorism discussions in your opinion?

Sure, but I think that is often overemphasized for political reasons, and I think it's dangerous to try and distance Islam from terrorism to the point where people are claiming they are not at all linked.

Why is that dangerous? I mean "not at all linked" is perhaps a little too far, but I think when people make those arguments they are essentially just pointing out the fact that not all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists, etc., and that the overwhelming majority are just regular people trying to get along the same as other religious/non religious people. I think this is a natural response to people (not saying you) who paint over a billion people with one single brush stroke that happens to extremely vilifying.

Right, but now I feel like we are once again returning to covered ground. Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has once suggested that all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists. Of course not. We're not morons. That has never been the point of any of this discussion. I understand there are reactionaries who feel this way, but projecting that onto anyone who condemns Islam and/or doesn't deny that Islam is at the core of terrorists' actions is not constructive or conducive to discourse.

Agreed.

[nyquillyn]

track11, I find your point about Wahhabism to be a bit disingenuous. While there's no doubt the Saudis help fuel ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Iran and the other countries you suggested we all take a fun family holiday to have long histories of funding outside terrorist organizations and eliminating decesent within their own borders. While I know Iran isn't as bad as some (myself included) have portrayed it in the past (I swear FOX has used the same "Death to America!" clip for the past 10 years), they still harbor known terrorists and there's a sizable segment of the population that harbors ill will towards the U.S. and Western ideals. For you to suggest that these countries "love Americans" is BS.

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

[4/5]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Islam is a toxic ideology. This does not mean I do not think other religions are also toxic ideologies.

Oh okay. So is there any need to separate Islam with "radical Islam" in the context of terrorism discussions in your opinion?

Sure, but I think that is often overemphasized for political reasons, and I think it's dangerous to try and distance Islam from terrorism to the point where people are claiming they are not at all linked.

Why is that dangerous? I mean "not at all linked" is perhaps a little too far, but I think when people make those arguments they are essentially just pointing out the fact that not all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists, etc., and that the overwhelming majority are just regular people trying to get along the same as other religious/non religious people. I think this is a natural response to people (not saying you) who paint over a billion people with one single brush stroke that happens to extremely vilifying.

Right, but now I feel like we are once again returning to covered ground. Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has once suggested that all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists. Of course not. We're not morons. That has never been the point of any of this discussion. I understand there are reactionaries who feel this way, but projecting that onto anyone who condemns Islam and/or doesn't deny that Islam is at the core of terrorists' actions is not constructive or conducive to discourse.

Agreed.

I just reread this and I agree with you until you say, "condemns Islam". I guess I would make a stronger distinction between Jihadists and Islam. Personally, I would condemn the radical ideologies within Islam, but not Islam as a whole.

[4/5]

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

Isn't that pretty much what we did in Iraq?

[nyquillyn]

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

Isn't that pretty much what we did in Iraq?

That was just a bit of hyperbole meant to point out that we should hold our Mideast "allies" more accountable.

[LoathedVermin72]

.

Can you state your basic position in like two sentences? I only read the last few pages so all I see is you saying what you're not saying. Maybe a quick reset would be helpful.

Islam is a toxic ideology. This does not mean I do not think other religions are also toxic ideologies.

Oh okay. So is there any need to separate Islam with "radical Islam" in the context of terrorism discussions in your opinion?

Sure, but I think that is often overemphasized for political reasons, and I think it's dangerous to try and distance Islam from terrorism to the point where people are claiming they are not at all linked.

Why is that dangerous? I mean "not at all linked" is perhaps a little too far, but I think when people make those arguments they are essentially just pointing out the fact that not all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists, etc., and that the overwhelming majority are just regular people trying to get along the same as other religious/non religious people. I think this is a natural response to people (not saying you) who paint over a billion people with one single brush stroke that happens to extremely vilifying.

Right, but now I feel like we are once again returning to covered ground. Neither I, nor anyone else in this thread, has once suggested that all Muslims are Jihadists/radicals/terrorists. Of course not. We're not morons. That has never been the point of any of this discussion. I understand there are reactionaries who feel this way, but projecting that onto anyone who condemns Islam and/or doesn't deny that Islam is at the core of terrorists' actions is not constructive or conducive to discourse.

Agreed.

I just reread this and I agree with you until you say, "condemns Islam". I guess I would make a stronger distinction between Jihadists and Islam. Personally, I would condemn the radical ideologies within Islam, but not Islam as a whole.

Yes, we do indeed disagree there.

[Green Habit]

WTF. You have to be willfully ignorant or just fucking stupid to think that shit is rosey for women in the middle east. Exhausting to hear such idiocy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

Women are getting shot for speaking out about the need for education but yeah they have it better.

Yeah I really dont know why anyone attempted to engage with that garbage. Anyone who would say that is beyond reason or just trolling.

Then maybe it's good I wasn't on the board last night, because I would have been ready with a can of whoopass.

[@SkitchP]

WTF. You have to be willfully ignorant or just fucking stupid to think that shit is rosey for women in the middle east. Exhausting to hear such idiocy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

Women are getting shot for speaking out about the need for education but yeah they have it better.

Yeah I really dont know why anyone attempted to engage with that garbage. Anyone who would say that is beyond reason or just trolling.

Then maybe it's good I wasn't on the board last night, because I would have been ready with a can of whoopass.

Guys, quick, lets get G_H mad.


YOUR QB IS WASHED UP

[jwfocker]

Soccer friendly in Hanover, Germany has just been canceled over security concerns. Stadium was evacuated.

[4/5]

Soccer friendly in Hanover, Germany has just been canceled over security concerns. Stadium was evacuated.

The terrorists have won.

[stip]

Excerpts from a nice piece by Charles Pierce

These are a few things that will not solve the terrible and tangled web of causation and violence in which the attacks of Friday night were spawned. A 242-ship Navy will not stop one motivated murderous fanatic from emptying the clip of an AK-47 into the windows of a crowded restaurant. The F-35 fighter plane will not stop a group of motivated murderous fanatics from detonating bombs at a soccer match. A missile-defense shield in Poland will not stop a platoon of motivated murderous fanatics from opening up in a jammed concert hall, or taking hostages, or taking themselves out with suicide belts when the police break down the doors. American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will not stop the events like what happened in Paris from happening again because American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will be dying there in combat against only the most obvious physical manifestation of a deeper complex of ancient causes and ancient effects made worse by the reach of the modern technology of bloodshed and murder. Nobody's death is ever sacrifice enough for that.

Abandoning the Enlightenment values that produced democracy will not plumb the depths of the vestigial authoritarian impulse that resides in us all, the wish for kings, the desire for order, to be governed, and not to govern. Flexing and posturing and empty venting will not cure the deep sickness in the human spirit that leads people to slaughter the innocent in the middle of a weekend's laughter. The expression of bigotry and hatred will not solve the deep desperation in the human heart that leads people to kill their fellow human beings and then blow themselves up as a final act of murderous vengeance against those they perceive to be their enemies, seen and unseen, real and imagined. Tough talk in the context of what happened in Paris is as empty as a bell rung at the bottom of a well.

Francois Hollande, the French president who was at the soccer game that was attacked, has promised that France will wage "pitiless war" against the forces that conceived and executed the attacks. Most wars are pitiless, but not all of them are fought with the combination of toughness and intelligence that this one will require. This was a lesson that the United States did not learn in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. There are things that nations can do in response that are not done out of xenophobic rage and a visceral demand for revenge. There are things that nations can do in response that do not involve scapegoating the powerless and detaining the innocent. There is no real point in focusing a response on the people whose religion makes us nervous. States should retaliate against states.

It is long past time for the oligarchies of the Gulf states to stop paying protection to the men in the suicide belts. Their societies are stunted and parasitic. The main job of the elites there is to find enough foreign workers to ensla…er…indenture to do all the real work. The example of Qatar and the interesting business plan through which that country is building the facilities for the 2022 World Cup is instructive here. Roughly the same labor-management relationship exists for the people who clean the hotel rooms and who serve the drinks. In Qatar, for people who come from elsewhere to work, passports have been known to disappear into thin air. These are the societies that profit from terrible and tangled web of causation and violence that played out on the streets of Paris. These are the people who buy their safety with the blood of innocents far away.

It's not like this is any kind of secret. In 2010, thanks to WikiLeaks, we learned that the State Department, under the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, knew full well where the money for foreign terrorism came from. It came from countries and not from a faith. It came from sovereign states and not from an organized religion. It came from politicians and dictators, not from clerics, at least not directly. It was paid to maintain a political and social order, not to promulgate a religious revival or to launch a religious war. Religion was the fuel, the ammonium nitrate and the diesel fuel. Authoritarian oligarchy built the bomb. As long as people are dying in Paris, nobody important is dying in Doha or Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton. "More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said. Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them. The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

It's time for this to stop. It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west. Money trails should be followed, wherever they lead. People should go to jail, in every country in the world. It should be done state-to-state. Stop funding the murder of our citizens and you can have your money back. Maybe. If we're satisfied that you'll stop doing it. And, it goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway – not another bullet will be sold to you, let alone advanced warplanes, until this act gets cleaned up to our satisfaction. If that endangers your political position back home, that's your problem, not ours. You are no longer trusted allies. Complain, and your diplomats will be going home. Complain more loudly, and your diplomats will be investigated and, if necessary, detained. Retaliate, and you do not want to know what will happen, but it will done with cold, reasoned and, yes, pitiless calculation. It will not be a blind punch. You will not see it coming. It will not be an attack on your faith. It will be an attack on how you conduct your business as sovereign states in a world full of sovereign states.

[stip]

Mosque Protests Turn Vicious: After Paris Attacks, Muslims Brace for a Backlash They Always Knew Was Coming
By Ismat Sarah Mangla, International Business Times
16 November 15


Ronald Abdul Rahim Hubbs arrived at the Rizwan Mosque for prayers on Sunday expecting a quiet fall afternoon at his house of worship in the leafy outskirts of Portland, Oregon. He was greeted with anything but: A handful of protesters, bearing loudspeakers and wearing sandwich boards emblazoned with phrases like “Jesus Saves From Hell,” shouted obscenities as Muslims made their way into the building.

“Your Quran is the doctrine of demons! Jesus is going to destroy the Muslims!” one demonstrator screamed, even as a non-Muslim neighbor tried to reason with him. But the epithets continued: “Islam is a lie! You’re nothing more than a pawn of Satan, you demonic Muslim dogs!”

For Hubbs, the incident was disturbing, but in some ways, par for the course. After Friday night’s horrific coordinated terror attacks in Paris, he was expecting some kind of backlash. In the years since the Sept. 11 attacks, Hubbs says that his family, and especially his wife, Sajal, have repeatedly been targets of harassment. When they were living in Los Angeles, a woman tried to rip off his wife’s headscarf while she filled the tank at a gas station. During their years in Tucson, Arizona, an assailant threw a rock through her car window while she was driving. After ISIS claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks, Hubbs warned his wife to be more careful in public because she’s visibly identifiable as Muslim.

“When this horrific thing happened on Friday, all the Muslims I know went through the same thing,” says Hubbs, a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, one of the oldest Muslim organizations in the U.S. “You first have the emotions of, ‘Oh my God, that’s terrible.’ The second feeling that comes up is, ‘Here we go again.’”

For many Muslims living in the United States and Europe, it has become an all-too-familiar scenario: A terrorist organization like ISIS or al Qaeda commits a savage act claiming hundreds of lives, people in both mainstream and social media finger Islam as the ultimate culprit, and Muslims are called on to condemn the barbarism while facing a backlash that includes harassment and violence. (A June 2015 study of hate crimes against Muslims in the U.K. found that such incidents spike after “jihadi” attacks.)

The Paris attacks seem to be no exception. A mosque in Peterborough, Ontario, was set on fire Saturday night -- an act that police say was intentional. While no one has claimed responsibility, the president of the local Muslim association believes it was “clearly a hate crime.” The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating threatening voicemails left at a St. Petersburg, Florida, mosque, on Saturday in which the caller warned that he would “firebomb you and shoot whoever is there in the head.” Meanwhile, Muslims in France fear a repeat of what happened after January’s Charlie Hebdo attacks, in which there was a 281 percent rise in incidents of Islamophobia.

Many Muslims are exhausted by what they call the “condemnathon” -- the act of decrying terrorist acts and distancing Islam from them -- and its seeming futility. Nearly every Muslim organization the world over issued statements of condemnation Saturday -- ranging from the Iranian president to advocacy groups to individual religious leaders.

“After the attacks, the hashtag #MuslimsAreNotTerrorist began trending -- because so many people were saying on Twitter, ‘Oh look, it’s the Muslims again.’ Isn’t it sad that we need that hashtag in the first place?” says Wajahat Ali, co-author of “Fear Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” and an Al Jazeera America journalist who writes frequently about Muslims in America.


“And we Muslims have to engage in what I call the ‘condemnathon tour.’ If we don’t engage in it, it’s almost as if we’re validating or supporting a vile act. We’re supposed to condemn violent actions by violent extremists in a country we’ve never visited or else. And even if we do, the collective group of 1.5 billion Muslims is still indicted, convicted and sentenced,” says Ali, pointing to responses from the likes of Ann Coulter, who tweeted that the West needs to “stop importing Muslims.”

But there is a difference between some of the online rhetoric that Muslims face in North America versus the powerlessness that some Muslims feel in Europe, says Shahed Amanullah, the founder of an accelerator that works with startups focusing on positive social impact in Muslim communities around the world.

“You have to make a distinction between hype on the Internet and reality. People create that hype online for things like protests -- and then only one or two people actually show up at mosques,” says Amanullah, pointing to recent anti-Muslim rallies planned around the country. He attributes that to a more well integrated American Muslim community and a U.S. society that values pluralism and multiculturalism.

“I’m not discounting that online hate can spill over into the real world,” says Amanullah, who says that leading presidential candidates like Ben Carson fuel anti-Muslim sentiment in this country. “But the non-Muslim supporters have outnumbered the protesters in many ways. In Europe, it’s totally different. You have mass rallies of tens of thousands of people. Having a such a big rally, saying ‘Muslims, get out,’ here in America is almost unthinkable.”


Indeed, not all Muslims are as worried about repercussions -- yet. Yousuf Chowdhury of Jackson Heights, Queens, says that in New York, where the Muslim community is so large and relatively insular, much of the Islamophobia growing pains after 9/11 have passed.

Chowdhury, 22, is studying Islamic sciences in a seven-year program at a madrassah in Jamaica, Queens. He says in his neighborhood of mostly Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants, news of the attacks is sad but not seen as relevant to their lives.

“The Muslim community in New York is so strong, and people here see Muslims everyday. We’re not that worried about it,” says Chowdhury, who added that in his program, they study how to rebuke groups like ISIS based on Islamic doctrine. “But when I go to other places like California or Oklahoma, that’s where it gets to be a problem.”

Indeed, community members at halal food stores and restaurants in Jackson Heights seemed to echo the sentiment of Maruf Sunnah, a 25-year-old employee of Mannan Halal Meat: “They [ISIS] aren’t proper Muslims. But here, we’ve recovered from the discrimination.”

[Green Habit]

Excerpts from a nice piece by Charles Pierce

What would be the consequences of a financial freezeout of Saudi Arabia? Kind of wish he delved into that.

[E.H. Ruddock]

So ISIS hates being called "Daesh" but all the news does is say they hate being called that. Why don't they start referring to them as that? Are we worried about fair reporting on ISIS?