This is so true. It wasn’t the beginning of a new wave of Fundamentalist Muslim terror, it was the last gasp of a fringe movement already being choked out of relevance and influence by the overwhelming number of moderates, and which is now a dwindling remnant of a long gone era. Contrary to what many people seem to think, there was a moderate counter-extremist movement in Islam centuries ago, and mainstream Islam in the 20th century is the fruit of that movement; not the fringe extremism we see in the typical Western tabloids.
Given their success over the past ten years I’d say we have no reason at all to treat the threat of islamic terrorism as anything worse than a bad flu season.[/quote]
Seconded.[/quote]
Your both forgetting the devastating attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
Islamic terrorism?
Of course that’s not a threat. So far casualties from Islamic terrorism number only in the thousands. That does not amount to a threat to national security, and certainly doesn’t warrant the creation of something so grotesque as the Department of Homeland Security.
I was thinking about something a bit more… prosaic. Like nuclear weapons. (Or, even biologicals - as the Dutch so easily engineered recently)
Again, y’all are dodging the question. This isn’t a foreign policy debate. This is a discussion of the moral limits to self-defense.
Are none of you able to take up the topic?
Don’t you mean the devastating failure? But in any case, this example simply proves the point; from 2001 to 2012, exactly what evidence is there for an army of Fundamentalist Muslims successfully terrorizing the world?
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]…Again, y’all are dodging the question. This isn’t a foreign policy debate. This is a discussion of the moral limits to self-defense.
Are none of you able to take up the topic?[/quote]
We have answered the question. We see no serious threat so there is no question that extraordinary measures need to be taken to deal with it.
And don’t give us this bullshit that Islamic extremism wasn’t at the heart of your question.
You wrote this;
So are we discussing the threat of Islam or not? I think quite clearly we are but now you would like to shift goalposts because you are dealing with people who aren’t craven.
Okay, so let’s get more specific.
Iran seeks nuclear weapons. There is credible evidence of this.
If you wish to make this hypothetical, call the country something like Ethnicklashistan.
What are the moral limits to which we can go in self defense?
Why is it that you cannot answer a simple question?
This reluctance is interesting. Please continue to avoid the question. It’s illuminating.
Not half as illuminating as your shifting goalposts. Not more than a page back this was all about Islam. Now it’s hypothetical ethnic states who threaten our existence.
Your posting is completely disingenuous. I mean I would think that would be obvious even to you. 
No, we were discussing the nature of Islam as a threat.
Since ‘threat’ is a part of that discussion, and since this is a religion and spirituality forum…
It is logical to want to discuss the moral limits to self-defense.
We’ve already drifted over to discussions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so why don’t you want to answer the question?
Don’t you mean the devastating failure?[/quote]
Yes it was a devastating failure at humor. The guy started a fire in, of all places, his own underpants. When the worst your enemy can do is that…
Because I don’t believe your question is sincere. It’s what is known as a leading question. You don’t care what I say. You merely want a springboard for your own thoughts.
Bye.
[quote=“bigduke6”] What about Iranian, Syrian, Libyan, state sponsored terrorism? Did you conveniently forget to mention there?
[/quote]
What indeed. Who do you think is most terrorized by these sates? How much does it have to do with Islam, and what do you think the population think about it?
Well, let’s see… we have Darfur, Lebanon, Somalia, and Israel - just to name a few victims. Then there’s the internecine fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We also have credible intelligence indicating that Hezbollah has been linking up with narco-terrorists in South and Central America.
And then there’s Iran cozying up with Venezuela. That could turn into something interesting.
Let’s not forget that Iran has threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, through which transits 33% of all seaborne oil - for a total of 17% of worldwide oil production.
Oh and, the nuclear weapons thing.
All of that is connected to Islam.
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]Well, let’s see… we have Darfur, Lebanon, Somalia, and Israel - just to name a few victims. Then there’s the internecine fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We also have credible intelligence indicating that Hezbollah has been linking up with narco-terrorists in South and Central America.
And then there’s Iran cozying up with Venezuela. That could turn into something interesting.
Let’s not forget that Iran has threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, through which transits 33% of all seaborne oil - for a total of 17% of worldwide oil production.
Oh and, the nuclear weapons thing.
All of that is connected to Islam.[/quote]
Yes, we were talking about terrorism, and countries like Syria, and right now the Arab Spring has no mention in your post.
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]Well, let’s see… we have Darfur, Lebanon, Somalia, and Israel - just to name a few victims. Then there’s the internecine fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We also have credible intelligence indicating that Hezbollah has been linking up with narco-terrorists in South and Central America.
And then there’s Iran cozying up with Venezuela. That could turn into something interesting.
Let’s not forget that Iran has threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, through which transits 33% of all seaborne oil - for a total of 17% of worldwide oil production.
Oh and, the nuclear weapons thing.
All of that is connected to Islam.[/quote]
Those things seem only tangentially connected to Islam. The concept of the separation of church and state is alien to Islamic societies, so it’s natural for political leaders to use religious language when justifying military action. To be fair, many American leaders do the same thing. Christians have less theological standing for violence, but that didn’t stop President Bush from declaring he was called by God to invade Iraq. I know what you’re saying, by the way. Islam has been violent from the get-go, and the Quran and Hadith celebrate unprovoked violence against non-Muslims who have not submitted to Muslim rule, or even those who have, but have violated their dhimma treaty. But the facts don’t point to modern day Muslims advocating that position. Like anybody else, they only support violence when their are political reasons - rebellion against an invader, domination of another ethnic group (even other Muslims), expansion of an empire, retribution for an attack, or any of the other reasons that people go to war.
What are you talking about?
Wow. Interesting links. I always learn a great deal, talking with you. But I imagine that it’s typical for miltiary and political leaders to second-guess themselves no matter what their decision. I don’t think we’ll ever know whether the Japapense would have surrended at the same time, or continued fighting. One thing we know for sure - if they’d surrended unconditionally when we told them to, there would have been no atomic bombings against Japan.
Some of you are confusing state terrorism and state sponsored terrorism.
Libya blowing up a jet over Scotland, or Iranian use of Hizbollah is state sponsored terrorism.
State terrorism is what is happening in Syria.
Mod feel free to start a thread on the latter.
The same applies to ww2 and the atomic bomb.
This thread is about Islamic terrorism.
This is somewhat different and has no relation to the other 2 for extremely obvious reasons.
I’m talking about the US targeting civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s not a matter of second guessing. It’s a matter of a significant number of people in a position with the best available knowledge, in a capacity to advise the decision makers, all maintaining exactly the same message. High ranking officers involved in the attacks on Japan at this stage (in the army, navy, and air force), made it clear that Japan was no longer a military threat, that there was no need for an invasion of the mainland, and that Japan was already on the brink of surrender. High ranking politicians knew Japan was attempting to surrender, and also knew that there was no military advantage to be gained from dropping the bombs.
Yes we do. They were already attempting to negotiate a surrender through the Russians. This was known to the US.
Quick, blame the victim of my bullying! How about ‘If we had decided that bombing civilian targets with no military value, killing at least 150,000 people in the process was actually immoral, there would have been no atomic bombings against Japan’? The US didn’t end up with an unconditional surrender anyway, the US ended up acquiescing to the request to keep the emperor, so it’s clear the issue of unconditional surrender is irrelevant.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”][quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]Well, let’s see… we have Darfur, Lebanon, Somalia, and Israel - just to name a few victims. Then there’s the internecine fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We also have credible intelligence indicating that Hezbollah has been linking up with narco-terrorists in South and Central America.
And then there’s Iran cozying up with Venezuela. That could turn into something interesting.
Let’s not forget that Iran has threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, through which transits 33% of all seaborne oil - for a total of 17% of worldwide oil production.
Oh and, the nuclear weapons thing.
All of that is connected to Islam.[/quote]
Those things seem only tangentially connected to Islam. The concept of the separation of church and state is alien to Islamic societies, so it’s natural for political leaders to use religious language when justifying military action. To be fair, many American leaders do the same thing. Christians have less theological standing for violence, but that didn’t stop President Bush from declaring he was called by God to invade Iraq. I know what you’re saying, by the way. Islam has been violent from the get-go, and the Quran and Hadith celebrate unprovoked violence against non-Muslims who have not submitted to Muslim rule, or even those who have, but have violated their dhimma treaty. But the facts don’t point to modern day Muslims advocating that position. Like anybody else, they only support violence when their are political reasons - rebellion against an invader, domination of another ethnic group (even other Muslims), expansion of an empire, retribution for an attack, or any of the other reasons that people go to war.[/quote]
Not quite.
We have a messianic theocracy in Iran that really does believe that their national objective is the bringing in the Mahdi.
Remember that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while he was Mayor of Tehran, told the planning commission to prepare the main street for the Mahdi’s procession through the city.
Khamenei is just as bad. He has made pronouncements and prophecies about the imminent return of the Mahdi, and the he believes that it is Iran’s most important national project. He has even prophesied that the Mahdi will return within the next five years (from August).
Furthermore, both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad believe that the annihilation of Israel and America will actually bring the Mahdi. (Although, some argue that the COMPLETE annihilation of the US may not be necessary.) The fact that they are hoping to achieve this within five years is unnerving.
This is not just some cynical game of realpolitik on the part of the Iranians. This is true blue religious fervor that has become state policy. The fact that it’s insane shouldn’t make any difference.
And, I don’t really see anyone making any meaningful policy decisions to deal with this. And, the more that the world delays, more violent the solution is going to have to be.
We are morally required to protect ourselves with as little violence as possible, but we are backing ourselves into a corner - which leads us to the question that is appropriate for THIS forum.
What are the moral dimensions that constrain us in dealing with this problem?
The Japanese were making overtures to the Soviet Union to mediate a peace FAVORABLE to Japan. Certain posters should take the actual facts into account. The Japanese raped, pillaged and plundered throughout WW2. You think they deserve a favorable peace? The whole issue is about unconditional surrender. Yes, the Japanese got a condition about the Emperor in the end. This was more because of the Emperors intervention to end the war than anything else.
The Soviets were already about to invade Manchuria due to Tehran and Yalta commitments.
After the nuclear bombs and the Russian invasion, it was the Emperor that intervened and ordered surrender as required by the Potsdam declaration.
There was even an attempted coup by Japanese officers to PREVENT the surrender and fight on. They were trying to put the Emperor under house arrest and countermand any surrender.
This coup only failed as most Japanese saw the Emperor as a living God, not because they did not want to fight.
At the end of the day, the Emperor was above all else.
There was no actual evidence that the Japanese were on the brink of surrender, as some state. The home Islands were a defenders paradise, which the Japanese knew well.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“bigduke6”] What about Iranian, Syrian, Libyan, state sponsored terrorism? Did you conveniently forget to mention there?
[/quote]
What indeed. Who do you think is most terrorized by these sates? How much does it have to do with Islam, and what do you think the population think about it?[/quote]
Get your definitions correct. We are talking about state sponsored terrorism, and not state terrorism.
Yes, they terrorize their own population. This is state terrorism.
They also sponsor terrorist groups outside the state. This is state sponsored terrorism. All of these external groups are Islamic terrorist groups. The Iranians are the most open about this. Have a look at their constitution.
Libya was also open about this. They used to send money to suicide bombers families.
Lets not forget Syria either, and their proxies.
In most state sponsored terrorism, the aim is to keep the regime in power. State sponsored terrorism aims at destabling other governments.
In the large majority of cases this is via terror in the name of Islam. Even Sunni on Shia violence is in the name of religion.