Once Again

Once again we are faced with another Islamic terror attack. It wasn’t a Hindu attack, a Buddhist a attack, nor a Jewish terror attack, but an Islamic attack. I’m a person of Franch American family and I feel the hatred of Muslims for the 9/11 attacks and now this second major attack in France after the Charlie hebdo attack. But you all still believe that I’m an islamaphobe, but my fear is not illogical it is justified. My experience with this community is that you will still be pro-Islam, but condemn these terrorists and not the moderate Muslims. The moderate Muslims won’t fight or try to speak out against these radicals, because they support the radicals and the extremists. “All terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists.”, remember this quote. I have some Muslim friends who are anti-isis, so I’m not an islamaphobe.

While any attacks on civilians are terrible and should be condemned it is important to know why they take place, unless we want to devolve into a world driven by fear and hatred.

If you want your fear of muslims to be justified on the basis of the acts of terror committed against the western world then it is only fair and pertinent (if intellectual honesty and moral universality are concepts you abide by) to make a comparison and ask if the muslim world has a reason to fear the western world.

Well according to research conducted by one of the world’s most respected medical juornal, the Lancet, the crime we, the west, commited against Iraq resulted in about 650,000 excess deaths by 2006 (three years after the invasion). It’s safe to say that by now, well over a million lives have been squandered due to the biggest crime of the new millennia.

Before that in the early 90’s, US initiated UN sanctions on basic commodities resulted in about half a million deaths of Iraqi children. When 60 minutes later United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright about it she she said that “it is a price we were willing to pay”. I don’t want to needlessly draw parallels to other monsters with a similar callous and repulsive approach towards human life. It should be obvious besides whom people like that will find themselves in the history books.

And this is only a couple of examples of recent history in one middle eastern country. We have been undertaking a campaign of subjugation, violence and humiliation throughout the entire region for generations. In 1958 President Eisenhower asked his staff why there were a “campaign of hatred” against the US in the middle east, not on the part of governments but on the part of the people. The answer he got was basically that there’s a perception in the middle east that the US is hindering independent development and supporting brutal and oppressive regimes. Furthermore, they, the National Security Council, concluded that it is hard to counter this perception because it was true (and still is to this day).

So, yes, attacks against civilians are terrible, no matter who it happens to. But if we are to ever be able to even pretend to posses any kind of moral integrity then we have an obligation to first look at the crimes that we commit against others before we start dishing out blame and blind hatred when the blow back occurs.

I mean, if we speak in the language of violence, lawlessness and state terror towards others then how can we expect to receive any other kind of answer?

2 Likes

I don’t doubt that the American government is hindering independent development and supporting brutal and oppressive regimes in the middle east. the U.S. government has been known to do some horrible things to other countries and to their own people. I don’t trust the U.S. government at all. When it comes to the people of the middle east, using violence to fight violence has never been proven to work out. They, terrorists, should show the world about the U.S.'s cruel acts upon their people, countries, and culture. This would create sympathy for them, and make the U.S. look like the big bad wolf. If you can’t win in a physical war, then you can start an information war. Information can also be used as a weapon, and be able to cause more damage.

You are circumventing my point. I didn’t try to evaluate the effectiveness of terrorism in international affairs.

I responded to the claim that your fear is logical and justified.

At least you can admit all of this. Unrelated I have friends on both sides (liberal and conservative) when it comes to stuff like this. The conservatives resort to irrational accusations with facts from right wing blogs, whereas liberals cherry pick issues to defend, but remain silent on larger issues while trying to be the golden child of ‘politically correct’ and ‘non racist.’

A good amount of terrorist attacks are indeed by Muslim terrorists. It is definitely an issue in the Islamic community, and I don’t know why people see people as xenophobic when pointing this out. This is especially true when it comes to pointing out women’s rights and freedom of speech/press issues. A lot of the politically correct crowds in my college like to openly criticize Christianity and the crimes done in the name of Christ but don’t do the same when it comes to Islam, especially when the magnitude of atrocity is a lot worse. It’s because no one wants to be accused of ‘racism’.

There’s a meme and bunch of other posts floating around the social media sites is that people afraid of immigrants are xenophobic and illogical, because they’re running from the source of violence (“Why are people afraid of the immigrants when they’re running from the source of the violence?”). Therefore, how could they be terrorists? This thinking is wrong and only scratching the surface. It’s easy to take this out of context and spin this as bad, “you’re against multiculturalism and/or immigration? Racist!” It’s annoying because I think it’s understandable that a lot of the people are scared and the governments are protecting their own first rather than accepting new unscreened immigrants.

Basically, my friend from Iraq said this is all one giant mess. It’s difficult to screen who is who, and who is really who. Millions of immigrants fleeing. Don’t you think at least one ISIS member would think of that mass immigration as an opportunity?

Also, unless this is just a bad rumor, they found a Syrian passport on one of the attackers.

I stand by my post as well, but I’m open for comments and discussion. However, I don’t need to rationalize anything by saying “I have Muslim friends” (which I do by the way). Besides, “Well…not all Muslims are terrorists!” is really old hat anyways. No one important actually believes 100% of Muslims are terrorists. It’s hyperbole.

2 Likes

Job86:

“…we, the west, commited against Iraq resulted in about 650,000 excess deaths by 2006 (three years after the invasion). It’s safe to say that by now, well over a million lives have been squandered due to the biggest crime of the new millennia…”

“…We have been undertaking a campaign of subjugation, violence and humiliation throughout the entire region for generations…”

“…if we are to ever be able to even pretend to posses any kind of moral integrity then we have an obligation to first look at the crimes that we commit against others before we start dishing out blame and blind hatred when the blow back occurs…”

Implicit in all of these "we"s is a kind of joint responsibility, much along the lines: we kill them so they kill us.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t accept this. I never killed anyone in the Middle East! I never supported the killing, subjugation or humiliation of anyone in the Middle East! I never voted for anyone who expressed support for doing this. Never.

You talk about the Iraq War. Well, guess what? I was one of the thousands of people who knew very well that that was going to be a truly horrible mess long before the first shot was fired. I never saw any justification for it in law. I was always strongly opposed to it.

But it turns out that Tony Blair and George W Bush didn’t give a dried dog’s turd about what I (and people like me) thought about the matter - oddly enough.

So just how do the actions of these politicians more than a decade ago justify or rationalise the actions of some deranged hate-filled nutcase right now, if he decides to poke his Kalashnikov up my nose and tap off a few rounds while I am (for example) relaxing in a cafe?!

EDIT
For the sake of clarity, I do not wish to say here that Job86 is a supporter of terrorism! I am sorry if anyone took the post that way. Rather I find that it is implicit in this kind of thinking (which one hears a lot in the aftermath of terror attacks) that there is a kind of collective blame in the West for those things such as the Iraq War which are cited as fomenting terrorism. In fact most people in the West simply have no influence over such things (perhaps in much the same way that most people in the Muslim world have no influence over terrorists.)

I was also trying to state to you( and others whom may read these comments) that I have no trust nor confidence in the American government to tell us the truth.

I agree with Dimethyl.
Saying that terrors attacks are mainly done by Islamic fundamentalists is just a matter of fact.
9/11, Madrid, Bruxelles, Beyrouth, Pakistan etc etc and more recently the Russian plane 2 weeks ago, Charlie hebdo , those last ones yesterday in Paris where ISIS immediately claimed responsibility.

Dynasties Buch have a big responsibility in what happened, West block unilaterally decide to eliminate so called dictators (Saddam in Iran…) now fighting Bassar in Syria… for some economics reasons.
The obvious consequence of removing those "non democratics"but strongs leaders is that has free room for a lot of various movements, some more criminal and worse then the others…

Reactions from right to left aisle in Europe and US, goes from simplistic and stupid arguments: more army, more guns, more wars, (= more dollars) (D Trump) to naive positions to appear as a ”non racist” witch seem to be nowadays the worst offend !?

Like everywhere, the balance is somewhere in the middle, a terrorist is a terrorist, black, white or even green, Christian, Muslim or Jewish , and must be chase with the same strong will.
How can we face the terrorists if we are already afraid by words?

3 Likes

I’m sorry, but I just can’t accept this. I never killed anyone in the Middle East! I never supported the killing, subjugation or humiliation of anyone in the Middle East! I never voted for anyone who expressed support for doing this. Never.

No one ever means you as in YOU Mr. Prinz Schtik. At this point, we’re arguing semantics.

However, you do bring up a point; not everyone supported the Iraq Invasion.

“I was one of the thousands of people who knew very well that that was going to be a truly horrible mess long before the first shot was fired. I never saw any justification for it in law. I was always strongly opposed to it.”

You were the 10% who were opposed it, but the majority supported the decision.

“So just how do the actions of these politicians more than a decade ago justify or rationalise the actions of some deranged hate-filled nutcase right now, if he decides to poke his Kalashnikov up my nose and tap off a few rounds while I am (for example) relaxing in a cafe?!”

I suppose that a decision made by a previous generation will have consequences on the next generation of people. In essence we have to pay for mistakes that been committed by our ancestors which we had no control over.

When people say “we did X” or “we did Y” that includes everyone in a collective sense. I find it disgraceful to justify terror acts along these lines. If a terrorist wants to target (let’s say) Tony Blair because of the Iraq War then at least there would be a political logic of a kind. But killing random folks in a cafe or restaurant? No, that can’t be justified.

EDIT
To be clear: I’m not saying that Job86 is a supporter of terrorism. (See new note under last post.)

“Also, unless this is just a bad rumor, they found a Syrian passport on one of the attackers.”

This has been confirmed and there was a one French.

“Besides, “Well…not all Muslims are terrorists!” is really old hat anyways. No one important actually believes 100% of Muslims are terrorists. It’s hyperbole.”

Did you mean stereotypical?

“A lot of the politically correct crowds in my college like to openly criticize Christianity and the crimes done in the name of Christ but don’t do the same when it comes to Islam, especially when the magnitude of atrocity is a lot worse. It’s because no one wants to be accused of ‘racism’.”

  1. I’m happy that I don’t go to college or university, because I’d smack all these politically correct( pc) students. They love to have their free speech, but censor opposing views. They are hypocrites on the topic of free speech.

  2. These students love to complain about what has happened in the past, and ignore of what is going on the present.

I say “we” because we live in the worlds freest, most open and internally least oppressive societies on earth, but by far the most violent and oppressive externally. Because we live in representative democracies where the state actions, in theory, reflects the will of the people. I think we share the blame because unlike societies where you get locked up for life or executed for speaking up, civil disobedience and political dissidence bears very low risk in our societies, yet the suffering and death that our silent acquiesce or general apathy result in is unmatched.

You are free to shift the blame unto some external factor or agent if it makes you feel better. It certainly is convenient. I personally can’t do it I think we are the privileged ones in this story and in an unique position to be able to change it for the better. I think that blaming politicians gives the impression that this problem is out of our hands and distracts from the fact we are the only ones in a position to stop it. Yet we don’t. This is why I say “we”.

“So just how do the actions of these politicians more than a decade ago justify or rationalise the actions of some deranged hate-filled nutcase right now”

Why do you ask me? I never claimed they did.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting my post or did you just not bother reading it?

Furthermore, the campaign of terror against the middle east is a hundred years old and isn’t something of the past but is very much ongoing and relevant.

1 Like

Did you mean stereotypical?

Possibly. I find the knee jerk reaction by the political correct crowd when making a statement is usually them throwing in their 2 cents: “Well, not all people of X are that way, so therefore you’re racist!”

I’m happy that I don’t go to college or university, because I’d smack all these politically correct( pc) students. They love to have their free speech, but censor opposing views. They are hypocrites on the topic of free speech.

This is why I major in the physical sciences. We’re too busy to get caught up in what the mob decides to complain about next. Freedom of speech in colleges are diminishing, it seems like. Which ironically is a liberalist’s fundamental human right. The ‘mob’ as I was referring to hardly does any freethinking.

Here’s an Asian girl sharing her experiences with racism but being laughed at and ridiculed for saying “black people can be racist too.”

I’m not misrepresenting anything - I quoted your exact words. My point is that it is wrong to make sweeping and collective statements about bad things that “we” have done.

By doing so (especially in this context, in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack) there is at least an implication that “we” collectively also deserve the “…blow back…” (again your words.)

I plead guilty to blaming “some external agent” for the Iraq War!

It may or may not be “convenient”. More to the point it is a fact. (Or are you suggesting that I am personally to blame for something which I was always opposed to, and over which I had no influence or control?)

You were misrepresenting my post in the previous response as well in your latest response.

Understanding and conveying the reasons underlying an event is not the same as rationalizing it. I mean, by your logic the implication of anyone trying to figure out the reasons behind a crime is that he/she is condoning the crime.

“He killed his wife because she was cheating on him”
“Ah! So you must say she deserved it!”

Is this really how you think or are you being intentionally dishonest?

You are using exact quotes but that does not hinder you from making a straw man. Nowhere do I condone these crimes, in fact I explicitly condemn them. And the implication you point to, does not follow.

edited

No sorry, I have not “misrepresented” you. I was careful to quote your words exactly. (See my first post.)

I actually agree with your newer statement that understanding the reasons underlying an event is not the same as rationalising it. If you had expressed yourself in this way to begin with there would perhaps be no disagreement.

Just please don’t go making sweeping statements about what “we” have done - because “we” is going to include many people who bear no blame for anything.

(EDIT)

Re. the husband-wife analogy, it doesn’t work because it refers to two individuals and therefore has nothing to do with collective blame. Try this:

a.) A wife is physically abused by her husband; she randomly kills some of his distant relatives - perhaps distant cousins who hardly even knew him.

b.) Up pops a Sub-Chomskyite critic saying: Very sad, but a “blow back” against the family is understandable, because they all “tacitly acquiesced” to the husbands crimes, and therefore morally shared the blame.

Do you really not grasp the problem with this way of thinking?

(EDIT)

The quotes you have provided do not in any way, shape or form lead to the conclusion that I condone the crimes.

So, since you claim not to be dishonest then in your mind there are no descriptive statements, only normative. An event can not be understood without being evaluated.

I kind of hoped that you were being intentionally dishonest, for your own sake.

(EDIT)

I want to be fair. On reflection maybe one of my replies (to another poster) could infer that you were supporting the terrorists? It’s actually not what I meant, so I do apologise for any misunderstanding.

All I say is: people shouldn’t make sweeping statements about what “we” in the West have done in Iraq etc, because that “we” will always include very many people who bear absolutely no blame for anything.

Sigh. I always promise myself never to discuss religion or politics online. One of these days I’ll keep my word.

So my post AND my points still stand uncontested.

You made an erroneous accusation, couldn’t defend it and thusly make a hogwash excuse to cover your exit.

Your character seems to be as weak as your intellectual rigor.

[Response to your next post (there’s no reply button)]

  1. Your accusation was baseless and you relinquished from the discussion so my point remain uncontested.

Anyone who comprehends text will see that I never made a “sweeping and collective statements of guilt.”

Even though your quotes were exact you still misrepresented my proposition by drawing an undue inference. However, it is now obvious that you don’t even understand what I am talking about and that this very notion is beyond you.

At least I can take solace in knowing that most people who are capable of reading and rational thought will recognize your unmistakable straw man argument.

edit: it is the “implication that “we” collectively also deserve the “…blow back…”” that is a capricious inference. Nothing in my text indicates that I believe that we deserve the blowback. That is your misrepresentation of my position.

I do however claim that we all have a moral responsibility and to some extent share the blame for not speaking up against violence commited in our names. But the topic we were discussing were me condoning the crimes but you just changed your critique in the middle of the discussion to “sweeping and collective statements of guilt.”. I made a kneejerk response because I thought you kept to the the issue. These are two different things and that is what seems to be the problem. You don’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between understanding the reasons behind a crime and condoning it.

  1. You accused me of being a troll so I guess you too are childish, abusive and ungracious.