But if we don’t react agressively – do you really think he’ll just stop?

His ability to affect us relies on being able to motivate his followers. A common enemy – such as an aggressive USA – will unite various Muslims against the west. OTOH, if his potential followers have something to lose i.e. if they are part of a legitimate political process that empowers them to at least some degree, they are less likely to risk all by carrying out his plans.

Without a following, he is just one guy.

Only one person yes, but a sadly influential one who runs the world’s most deadly terrorist organisation.

And from whence comes that influence?

From his ability to give people who feel powerless a way to strike at those who he alleges created that situation.

The second part is pretty much what I’m saying too – except I’d add that we need to kill or arrest him –

Killing him would turn him into a martyr.

What better justice could there be than eroding his powerbase by giving his potential (and actual?) followers a stake in a democratic society. Then, he becomes just another harmless crackpot spouting conspiracy theories.

Bin Laden is only one person. We should ignore him and go our own way.

Only one person yes, but a sadly influential one who runs the world’s most deadly terrorist organisation.

The second part is pretty much what I’m saying too – except I’d add that we need to kill or arrest him – bringing him to justice and ending the threat he poses, one way or another – rather than just ignoring him.

If we react aggressively, we give him ammunition with which to recruit and convert more followers.

But if we don’t react agressively – do you really think he’ll just stop? Or will he (& those of his ilk) see it as weakness to be exploited and use it as an opportunity to keep growing and attacking us further? I don’t think you can appease such people & I don’t think its wise to try. Our policy on terrorism (all terrorists) should be unrelenting and non-negotiable : they must unconditionally surrender or be destroyed.

have heard that GWB worked for the bin Laden family at some point in his early career, but have not checked up to see how accurate this is.

Wikipedia says :

Bush began his industry career in 1979, when he established Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas exploration company he financed with his education trust fund surplus and money from other investors, including Dorothy Bush, Lewis Lehrman, William Henry Draper III, Bill Gammell, and James R. Bath, the last of whom represented Salem bin Laden, a half-brother and cousin of Osama bin Laden. In 1984, Bush sold the company, hurt in the wake of the 1979 energy crisis, to Spectrum 7, another Texas gas exploration firm.

Source : wikipedia page “Professional life of George W. Bush”, accesssed 2011 March 10th.

Which seems to say that one of the bin laden family was an indirect investor in one of Bush’es companies. Not quite the same thing.

Also, what are the implications here? That US and Western foreign policy be determined by what our enemies like?? That they’re concerns and interests be placed ahead of our own?

Bin Laden is only one person. We should ignore him and go our own way.

Either way, if we can erode his power base – i.e. give his potential recruits a voice and a forum in which to be heard – then he will be unable to cause much more harm. If we react aggressively, we give him ammunition with which to recruit and convert more followers.

Violence really does beget violence.

He can see that he is affecting our way of life. Security checks at airports are becoming more intrusive, and the rules about what you may and may not carry with you onto a ‘plane are becoming ludicrous (certainly over here, where you may not carry more than a very limited quantity of any fluid). In the UK, laws now exist to give the police extra powers if terrorism is suspected. What were once regarded as our rights under statute have been altered to make the police more effective at combating terrorist threats. However, those same changes are (a) open to abuse, and (b) not necessarily effective.

To me, that looks like an awfully long stretch and a rather warped way of trying to blame Bush for absolutely everything bad in the world. Blame the former President Bush for what he’s directly responsible for and chose to do, sure, but other people and groups need to be accountable for themselves too.

Well, the argument ran along these lines:

The Clinton administration was actively brokering peaceful dialogue between various factions in the region, and the Bush administration halted these talks.

As I said before, I’m not sure if it is correct. If correct, then it is something we can lay at the feet of GWB’s administration.

As you say, 11/9 was not the first attack on the WTC.

BTW, we cannot for sure know bin Laden’s actual motives. He may be cynically manipulating Muslim extremists to serve his own agenda (rather than being an actual Muslim extremist himself).

One hears and reads so much about people like this, and has to wonder how much salt to apply. For instance, I understand that Osama bin Laden was actually educated in the USA. I have heard that GWB worked for the bin Laden family at some point in his early career, but have not checked up to see how accurate this is.

For instance, I have seen it argued that GW Bush precipitated 11/9 by ceasing the US’s involvement as a peace-broker in the middle east. I’m not sure if this is right, ..

To me, that looks like an awfully long stretch and a rather warped way of trying to blame Bush for absolutely everything bad in the world. Blame the former President Bush for what he’s directly responsible for and chose to do, sure, but other people and groups need to be accountable for themselves too.

Osama bin Laden hated the West long before G.W. Bush was in power. Al Quaida attacked the World Trade Centre in 1993 too, remember. Bin Laden was an extremist pretty much from the start. He hates us for being non-Muslim, being powerful and happy and free – and nothing we do but surrender and become Muslims will appease him.

Also, what are the implications here? That US and Western foreign policy be determined by what our enemies like?? That they’re concerns and interests be placed ahead of our own?

@ 264. Nigel Depledge & 265. kuhnigget : .. the problem is extremists.

Yes, I agree with that.

Mind you, it does appear like some religions and political philosophies have a tendency to produce more extremists and are inherently more extreme than others.

PS. Wow this thread is still going?!?

Interestingly, if one looks into the origins of extremism, it seems to start with people who feel they have no voice.

Give everyone a voice – i.e. give them a stake in a system that is at least vaguely democratic – and extremism seems to become less likely to start in the first place.

For instance, I have seen it argued that GW Bush precipitated 11/9 by ceasing the US’s involvement as a peace-broker in the middle east. I’m not sure if this is right, but the broader point it makes is that ignoring the concerns of people who feel they have been wronged can initiate extremist activities or attitudes.

That being said, I think everyone here can agree with your second sentence. Of course that is true for any extremists, by definition. Muslim extremists are probably the worst, although there are a few who give them a run for their money. For instance some members of the ultra-right-wing militia movement (i.e. the Oklahoma City bombers), although those groups are much smaller.

Go back a mere 25 years and the IRA was probably more active (and killed more people) than any Muslim organisation that wasn’t an actual army.

And the IRA is (was?) an allegedly Christian organisation.

The problem really isn’t Muslims – the problem is extremists.

Well, the first step is to admit that you have a problem

That being said, I think everyone here can agree with your second sentence. Of course that is true for any extremists, by definition. Muslim extremists are probably the worst, although there are a few who give them a run for their money. For instance some members of the ultra-right-wing militia movement (i.e. the Oklahoma City bombers), although those groups are much smaller.

He doesn’t ignore it consistently, he ignores it selectively. When it is a religion he likes, he is perfectly happy to accept this, and often insists on it. It is only when we are discussing a religion he doesn’t like (i.e. anything other than Christianity or Judaism) that he suddenly becomes incapable of understanding this.

So true, and for a number of other issues MTU has problems with.

#260, Nigel

LOL!

I like simple.

Evidently if I write it in plain English and not simplistic sentences, MTU doesn’t get it and invents his own meaning. Not that I think it will hammer home this time.

#261, MTU

But I still think Muslim extremists are the stuff of nightmares.

No one would disagree with you there, only because you added ‘extremists’ to the sentence. Leave it out and we would start questioning you again.

Maybe – okay even definitely – I have issues here. (Long story.)

But I still think Muslim extremists are the stuff of nightmares.

PS. See what I did there? Did I apologise for anything? No – I said prejudice from both sides is bad. Peace = good. Terrorism = bad. Non-violent people = peace. Violent people = jail. MTU = inventing strawmen. There, can you comprehend now?

LOL!

I like simple.

So you admit that Sharia law is not international law as accepted by nations, their governments, or the organisations set up to create/follow them and is practiced by lawyers all over the world? Because I think that’s what Nigel meant (correct me if I’m wrong Nigel).

You have the right of it.

I certainly do not include Sharia law when I say “international law”. To my mind, international law comprises those laws and statutes that are internationally agreed between the majority of nations. An example of international law is how far into an ocean a coastal country’s sovereignty extends. IIUC, there is a worldwide accepted standard, agreed as international law and recorded on the statute books of most nations.

#253, me

“Human nature is what it is.”

Massively varied and with a vast range of complex motivations that are in a continual state of flux and genesis.

Funny how MTU consistently ignores that bit.

He doesn’t ignore it consistently, he ignores it selectively. When it is a religion he likes, he is perfectly happy to accept this, and often insists on it. It is only when we are discussing a religion he doesn’t like (i.e. anything other than Christianity or Judaism) that he suddenly becomes incapable of understanding this.

I do think that that sort of mindset is typical of many (not all but a scarily large number of) Muslims

Citation needed.

If you are watching someone bash up somebody else whon is helpless to resist,if you are watching say a killer open fire on innocent people – and you have a gun and can stop further killing, further harm, by shooting the killer or threatening to prevent the person who is bashing another with it – would you not do so?

You’re forgetting the third option, which is to negotiate and find a peaceful solution. Nigel is right: just because you have a gun, doesn’t mean you need to use it. (Some police don’t use guns, for example) Also, it’s not an either/or situation: we can use both threats of force and peaceful means to get there.

PS. Read the sedition laws yet?

#246, Nigel

This! Everything you said!

#252, TBC

So you’re arguing against your own family & their interests then?

Wow. Just wow. Disagreeing with religious ideology and the policies of a particular country somehow make you “arguing against your own family & their interests”.

It is obvious now. You are simply psychologically incapable of understanding that people could have legitimate disagreements with your conclusions. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he thinks that some of Israel’s policies are against the best interests of his family? Every Jew who has family in Israel that I know thinks that they are.

Thanks and thanks. Exactly right.

Once again you make it clear that you are incapable of distinguishing the past and the present. You apparently don’t even know what a “folk tail” is, or you are being intentionally dishonest (given your past history I would bet on the latter).

See my comment #256 for clarification of the folk tales.

#253, me

“Human nature is what it is.”

Massively varied and with a vast range of complex motivations that are in a continual state of flux and genesis.

Funny how MTU consistently ignores that bit.

So you’re arguing against your own family & their interests then?

Oh, I’m getting close to breaking Phil’s rule now.

I’m arguing for peace. I’m arguing for my family not to get hurt. I’m saying that’s it’s far more complicated than I understand or know. Muslims picking up weapons is not right. But I’m also arguing that Jews picking up weapons on behalf of themselves and their children is also not what’s right.

I repeat from my above comment:

Saying Israelis, Jews and Westerners have a right to live free of terror isn’t quite correct: those who are peaceful and lawful have a right to live free of terror, and the terrorists, whichever camp they come from, should be put in jail. That’s the bit you keep missing. People from both sides want peace; a small minority from both sides use violence.

PS. See what I did there? Did I apologise for anything? No – I said prejudice from both sides is bad. Peace = good. Terrorism = bad. Non-violent people = peace. Violent people = jail. MTU = inventing strawmen. There, can you comprehend now?

Seems to me that the Jewish folk tales are of helping others and wise Rebbes and dangerous golems and doing good to fight for survival against persecution.

I was going to counter this, by in getting out the book I read full of folk tales, there are indeed some that deal with the Holocaust. I wouldn’t have called them folk tales, and it seems the book is a combination of folk tales, songs, Torah stories, jokes and even modern stuff. The tales that I was thinking of, and the ones that aren’t traditional (ie. modern), are
totally not hidden messages about persecution.

And in getting out my book to see, I note that it does include golem and other ‘nasties’. My memory was faulty on that; but the majority of the tales is indeed, more of the following… Talk about Sarah and sharing meals with strangers, and making donations and treating your children kindly, and being respectful, etc etc.

They are not, as far as I’m aware, written by Rabbis. Just folk tales handed down, like any other folk tale, likely mainly from Europeans. If I had meant psalm, or Torah or Talmudic story, I would have said so.

I quote from the inside table of contents from A Treasury of Jewish Folklore ed. Nathan Ausubel:

“These are stories from Oral Tradition and adaptations from foreign-language sources”.

Are they? Have the Muslims done enough to condemn their extremists? Anywhere? Really?

Many Muslims have spoken out in the MSM (Insight on SBS for example, news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/337#overview, also see web extras, further reading on that page), whether it’s newspapers, on TV, forums, etc.

The fact that you haven’t paid attention to it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or that (dare I say, other) prejudiced people decry “but Muslims haven’t denounced the extremists!” – even though they have.

I also refer you back to my previous comment on this matter:
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/24/texas-state-board-of-education-confirms-irony-is-dead/#comment-310126

But you’ll ignore it, as usual.

.. because we’re the ones who believe in these things, our principles and our ideas. If we don’t fight for them, fight to see that the Koran is respected, women are to be submissive, men to be pious, children to be seen and not heard, fight to see that Islam is spread then they won’t. If we don’t really believe in these values, if we don’t mind seeing women dressed in bikinis and gays mincing about everywhere in Christian countries, then we can shrug that aside.

Well – do *you* believe those things? Really?

Really? You couldn’t figure out what I was doing there? Really?

MTU you’re getting very obtuse.

Of course they’re going to fight for what they believe in, for their nasty set of values such as misogyny, homophobia and the tyrannical Khalifate. That is exactly *why* we need to counter them by fighting for what *we* believe in & what our values are. The question here is – what values do you beleive in and what are you going to do to see they prevail? Whose side are you on?

See above. Reread, go to Coles and buy a new irony detector if yours is broken. And also see above comments about circular infighting because each side says “we must fight for what is right”! I’m a pacifist, so I’m on the side of peace.

Sharia law is Islamic law that *they* wish to impose on the entire planet. It makes non-Muslims, women and many others second class citizens or worse. If imposed it would mean my death at their hands and very likely yours too – even *with* your constant apologising for them. Islam wants us all dead. It wants to destroy all that is un-Islamic in the Ayatollah’s eyes. It sucks.

So you admit that Sharia law is not international law as accepted by nations, their governments, or the organisations set up to create/follow them and is practiced by lawyers all over the world? Because I think that’s what Nigel meant (correct me if I’m wrong Nigel).

Jewish culture and societyand religion condemns such politicial assassinations and that was *one* exceptional case. Muslim culture celebrates such murder in its name, such assassinations are commonplace and Muslims idol-worship the murderers.

You’re still not getting it. I give up; you’ve got a big ol’ blindspot and are just as stubborn as creationists.

I don’t know the exact percentage but *far* too many.

[citation needed]

Judaism is Israel’s raison d’etre (reason for being) but it isn’t ruled by a council of Rabbis and isn’ a theocracy. balzes, the knesset even ha sArab-Israeli, Muslim, representatives.

No it’s not. Israel exists because the Jews didn’t want to have to deal with diaspora anymore. Judaism was the reason for the diaspora, because other people were prejudiced. Prejudice is why Israel exists.

Is Islam even a legitimate religion or rather a political ideology akin to, well Communism and the one that can’t be named for Godwin’s sake?

Is this a real question on a skeptical blog?

Massively varied and with a vast range of complex motivations that are in a continual state of flux and genesis.

TheBLackCat : Jewish culture and societyand religion condemns such politicial assassinations and that was *one* exceptional case. Muslim culture celebrates such murder in its name, such assassinations are commonplace and Muslims idol-worship the murderers.

Utter baloney. There was a great deal of condemnation from Muslims around the world for the assassination of Sadat, and there were plenty of Jews who supported Rabin’s assassination.

Israel is a parliamentary democracy run by the Knesset – the Israeli equivalent of Congress or Parliament – click on my name for more info. via wikipedia.

Judaism is Israel’s raison d’etre (reason for being) but it isn’t ruled by a council of Rabbis and isn’ a theocracy. balzes, the knesset even ha sArab-Israeli, Muslim, representatives.

That is simply wrong. The state enforces religious rules handed down by religious authorities. The case of women getting arrested for praying in public locations is one such example, but there are many others.

Is Islam even a legitimate religion or rather a political ideology akin to, well Communism and the one that can’t be named for Godwin’s sake?

Are you kidding me? You honestly expect any sane person to not think you are a bigot after statements like this? Yes, it is a religion. Yes, like practically all religions (including Christianity) members of it have political aspirations. But to claim that it is not a religion is absurd and bigoted to the highest degree.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, liberating Iraq from that murderous dictator & his pyschopathic sons is justification enough in my book.

I suggest you read more of what Christopher Hitchens has to say on that topic.

You mean the murderous dictator we installed and supported? He was a murderous dictator all along, the U.S. only opposed him when stopped cooperating with U.S. economic interests. There are plenty of murderous dictators the U.S. does everything they can to support, it is only the ones who don’t cooperate with us economically that are taken down.

Are they? Have the Muslims done enough to condemn their extremists? Anywhere? Really?

What would be “enough” in your mind? Is it is even possible for it to ever be enough? Do you even know how much condemnation there is?

Sharia law is Islamic law that *they* wish to impose on the entire planet.

Who is “they”? And what is “sharia”? There is no single version of sharia, it varies enormously from innocuous to awful (as do Christian rules, although there are more Muslims than Christians supporting the awful side). There isn’t even agreement amongst Muslims about what Holy books are actually valid.

Don’t forget that many Christian leaders right here in the U.S are trying to enforce their own religious beliefs as law in the U.S. And they succeeded in Uganda, which you conveniently ignored (as usual).

It makes non-Muslims, women and many others second class citizens or worse.

Depends on the version.

If imposed it would mean my death at their hands and very likely yours too – even *with* your constant apologising for them.

Depends on the version.

Islam wants us all dead. It wants to destroy all that is un-Islamic in the Ayatollah’s eyes. It sucks.

No, some Muslims want us all dead. In fact for most of its history Islam was much more inclusive of other religions than Christianity was at the same time. They didn’t forcibly convert people like Christians did. The attempt to destroy competing religions is a more recent development, and only carried out by extremists, in many cases extremists the U.S. is responsible for putting in power.

I’m not supporting Sharia, it is the last thing I want to see, but you characteriziation of what it says and what the goals of most Muslims would be laughably ignorant if it wasn’t so bigoted and wasn’t leading to massive discrimination against Muslims across the U.S. and wasn’t being used as a tool of conservative Christians to enforce their own brand of religious law around the U.S.

So you’re arguing against your own family & their interests then?

Wow. Just wow. Disagreeing with religious ideology and the policies of a particular country somehow make you “arguing against your own family & their interests”.

It is obvious now. You are simply psychologically incapable of understanding that people could have legitimate disagreements with your conclusions. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he thinks that some of Israel’s policies are against the best interests of his family? Every Jew who has family in Israel that I know thinks that they are.

Seems to me that the Jewish folk tales are of helping others and wise Rebbes and dangerous golems and doing good to fight for survival against persecution.

OTOH, the Muslim folk tales are of the joys of Jihad, the conspiracy theories of how the Zionists and the “Great Satans” (that’s us folks! ) are to blame for absolutely everything bad that ever happens and the likes of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion the anti-Semitic Tsarist forgery that, I gather, is a best-seller in the Muslim world.

Once again you make it clear that you are incapable of distinguishing the past and the present. You apparently don’t even know what a “folk tail” is, or you are being intentionally dishonest (given your past history I would bet on the latter).

I want peace and harmony as well – I just can’t see us having it while Islamo-fascist Jihadists remain murderously rampant around the world & keep seeking to wipe us and our way of life out.

Where you define “Islamo-fascist Jihadists” as “every Muslim everywhere”.

I don’t think those methods work. Not well enough. More often they just harm those who aren’t responsible for the problems while the dictators and other bad guys find ways around them. Sometimes force really is the best option.

You mean like the embargo Israel set up that prevents even medicine from reaching foreign lands they are occupying?

How many have to die and suffer in the meantime? How long do we leave it before speaking out or acting to stop it?

Let me ask you this: how many times has the U.S. invading a sovereign nation to set up governments there actually worked long-term?

I don’t mean protecting a country that is being invaded by someone else, I mean invading an existing country that has traditionally lacked a republican form of government and setting one up resulted in a republican government that remained stable for a long period of time (a decade at least)?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that this approach works, but I don’t think history supports this conclusion.

Which part of the behavior of the USA when it financed, armed, and trained Osama bin Laden and the Afghanis who would become his murderous followers was “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

What goes around, comes around.

(Sorry, couldn’t let that one slide. Back out o’ here.)

So why is it that you persistently ignore the harm that our western culture of which you are so proud has perpetrated on its journey to get where it is today? And – in some views – the harm it still does?

I don’t think I do ignore it (past or present) I just think that, relatively speaking, it isn’t as bad as any other major culture. (Past or present.) I’ve already acknowledged that I don’t think we’re perfect or flawless and can – and hopefully will – still improve.

So, which part of the behaviour on the Conquistadors is “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

Which part of the behaviour of the early colonists of what became the USA is “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

Which part of the behaviour of slave-traders is “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

Which part of the behaviour of the British Raj in India was “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

Which part of the behaviour of the USA towards the original inhabitants of Bikini Atoll was “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

Which part of the behaviour of the USA when it supported the tyrrany of the Shah of Iran in the 1970s was “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

Which part of the behaviour of the USA when it armed Saddam Hussein against the newly-theocratic Iran in the Iran-Iraq war was “not as bad” as other cultures past or present?

For now we have to live in the world as it is, not the world as we’d want it to be.

We must be the change we wish to see.

Although less extreme, your attitude is the same as that of the Muslim extremists you deplore so readily.