Miliant Islamists really DO hate freedom...

[fgalkin]

Seems pretty clear to me. The Bush administration line about these groups "hating freedom" isn't without base. They aren't against democratic elections because of the American occuption. They are against democratic elections because they believe democracy is a crime against God.

Well done, retard. You've taken the criticism completely out of context and twisted its meaning. The fact that fundamentalist Muslims want their own governments to be Islamic theocracies does not mean that they are going to attack any government which is not an Islamic theocracy, nor does it mean they necessarily care.

*cough*Afghanistan*cough*Indonesia*cough*Turkey*cough*

Do they like the traditional Western-style democracy? Of course not. Is that why they hate the United States so much? Wake up and get a clue, retard. They reserve special disdain for the United States because of our fanatical support of Israel and our culturally imperialist actions in the Middle East. This is perfectly in-line with the Qur'an's teachings. They don't give a shit about your way of government unless they think they're being attacked by you. And here's a special bulletin for Admiral_K: They do think we're attacking them. Not in a military sense necessarily, but in a cultural sense. They don't like us because we're spreading our Western traditions which go against everything they believe in. That's why they're mad.

No different that the fundies in US, really. However, they are trying to take over countries that are not Islamist and are not attacking them. Which is the main difference between them.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

There isn't exactly any "grey" area there. They make no disctinction between "western democracy" or "american support of Israel". They consider the very concept of Democracy to be against Muslim doctrine. They consider "rule of the people" to be against Muslim doctrine. Its crystal clear what they are saying. If you can't see it you are an idiot.

That must explain their attacks on Canada, Australia, France, and all the other democracies out there.

Or Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, the Philippines, and all the other countries with Islamist groups trying to overthrow the government.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Wicked Pilot]

Or Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, the Philippines, and all the other countries with Islamist groups trying to overthrow the government.

Those nations have significant Islamic populations, the US and the other nations I mentioned do not. Try to comprehend the point people are making before you post replies.

[Durandal]

And a wacko leftist comes out of the woodwork to defend the militant islamists. I was wondering where you guys were.

Defend them? I see that my earlier labeling of you as a retard was entirely too generous. No, you're a knee-jerk reactionary lunatic.

Pretty brave of you to call someone names over the internet. Do it in real life, and you're liable to get punched in your big fucking mouth.

Ooooh, I'm so scared. Is that a threat? Care to actually address any of what I said?

There is no possible way to "twist the meaning" of the following statement:
"Democracy is a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit," said the statement. "This concept is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God — Muslims' doctrine."

There isn't exactly any "grey" area there. They make no disctinction between "western democracy" or "american support of Israel". They consider the very concept of Democracy to be against Muslim doctrine. They consider "rule of the people" to be against Muslim doctrine. Its crystal clear what they are saying. If you can't see it you are an idiot.

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. If you would have actually read my post rather than jerking your knee because I'm a meanie head who called you names, you'd see that I acknowledged that Islamofascists don't like Western democracy, you idiot. But that's totally irrelevant to the criticisms that Bush's detractors have offered.

I'm sure they don't like the spread of our culture. They HATE FREEDOM. I really don't give a fuck if it is perfectly in-line with the Qur'an's teachings or not. It is still true.

Yes, they hate freedom. But that doesn't mean that they're terrorizing the American public simply because they hate freedom, you fucking idiot. Or did you not notice the conspicuous absence of Islamic terrorism prior to the formation of the state of Israel?

As far as our "fanatical" support of Israel goes, I'm sure they hate the fact that we are preventing their "muslim brothers" from invading and killing the lone democracy in the middle east. If Arafat hadn't been so thick skulled regarding Clinton's peace proposal, the Palestinians likely would've had their own state by now. And so long as militant islamic groups continue to use terrorist attacks, they are all but guaranteeing a pro-longed process of getting their state. But then, maybe thats what they want after all.

Red herring. The details of Israel vs. Palestine have absolutely jack-shit to do with this. The simple fact is that we take their enemy's side consistently, and that's what they don't like.

Tell me, when George W. Bush is spoon-feeding you your weekly dose of bullshit, does he still have to say, "Here comes to airplane! Open up the hangar!", or have you graduated to simply burying your face in the pile?

[Durandal]

There isn't exactly any "grey" area there. They make no disctinction between "western democracy" or "american support of Israel". They consider the very concept of Democracy to be against Muslim doctrine. They consider "rule of the people" to be against Muslim doctrine. Its crystal clear what they are saying. If you can't see it you are an idiot.

That must explain their attacks on Canada, Australia, France, and all the other democracies out there.

Or Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, the Philippines, and all the other countries with Islamist groups trying to overthrow the government.

Please explain how this has any relevance at all to attacks on the United States "because they hate freedom." Admiral_K seems to think that the extremists are attacking the United States simply because they hate freedom. I say that the situation is more complicated than that, and you retort by saying that local Muslim populations are trying to shape their countries' governments into Islamic theocracies. Well no shit, Sherlock. Could that be because they want to live in such a government, which is exactly what I said?

You seem to be buying into this ridiculous, quasi-imperialistic view of extremist Muslims, being that they want all governments in the world to be Islamic theocracies. That's simply bullshit, and you know it. They're concerned with their own governments, and that's it. They want all Muslims to live in Islamic theocracies. If we'd just let them stew in their own shit, they'd leave us alone, like they did before the formation of Israel.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, they hate freedom. But that doesn't mean that they're terrorizing the American public simply because they hate freedom, you fucking idiot. Or did you not notice the conspicuous absence of Islamic terrorism prior to the formation of the state of Israel?

Post hoc fallacy, and not an entirely accurate statement in any case. Other frequent complaints concern the presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda's most common choice of rhetoric. Support for Israel is not the sole, and probably not even the primary, cause of anti-Western terrorism, or even Islamist terrorism in general. There are a boatload of other factors in the situation, notably the poverty levels in many Middle Eastern nations and the rich/poor divide resulting from the accumulation of oil wealth in the hands of nobles and business owners. These contribute to the popular turn towards radical fundamentalism, which by it's nature will not tolerate dissent or freedom of thought, both of which constitute the greatest threats to the fundamentalist mindset, and both of which are allowed and even encouraged in Western culture, which is spreading into the region regardless of Israel's situation. Some amount of blame doubtless rests with our support for Israel, but not all of it.

[The Third Man]

Depends on your definition of freedom.

And on your definition of democracy too. The quote mentions the Greek meaning of the word - but I strongly suspect that they are not really referring to the Greek concept of democracy. Even the US doesn't employ the Greek model. And there are viable democratic models which incorporate religion - I actually get to vote in one myself. So I suspect that the flavour of democracy the quote is really intending to have a go at is the American one.

If you believe "freedom" is being able to do whatever you want whenever you want, then Anarchy is what you want.

Yes, "freedom" is a nebulous, hard-to-pin-down term; which is presumably why politicians like to bandy it about so much. That's why I get twitchy when it's mentioned.

However, if you wish to take the traditional American view of "freedom" then that is enshrined by Democracy.

The number of American citizens that subscribe to a belief is not relevant to its truth. The terms "democracy" and "freedom" are not interchangeable.

Even if we did accept this dubious definition of freedom as equivalent to American-type "democracy" (the Greeks would have called it a Republic) then all your subject title boils down to is "Miliant Islamists really DO hate American-style government", which they would by definition.

[Coyote]

Bear in mind that modern Islamic militant violence stems from two sources-- the purist Wahhabi movement which dates back to the 1800s and the more recent fandamentalist movement which started in the 1960's.

For a long time, Muslim religious leaders have felt that they became second-rate powers in comparison to the West because the people lost the path of true Islam and are being punished by Allah for this. Back in the "good old days" of "Pure" Islam, the Muslims were a dominant world power.

Since the West became powerful, anti-Western feelings have grown in the Middle East for over a century. Fuel got thrown on the fire after Sayyid Qutb went to America in the 1950's and was shocked at the "immoral" behavior he saw there.

So in a way, Durandal is right. They hate our western way of life, with it's "ungodly" lifestyles, and that fact that it is a dominant worldview on TV and pop culture, and the Muslims are browbeaten for not falling into it as well. They feel that they are righteous, surrounded by evil and corrupt hyenas trying to drag them down into the seductive pit of immorality.

But also, Durandal misses some of the rhetoric of the exrtremists-- bin Laden is quotoed on various news interviews, and this is noted in the book "The 9-11 Report", that he wants to impose a Muslim theocracy on the world, eventually, and that the only way for America to end these terrorist attacks is to convert to Islam.

Attacks have been carried out against the Saudi government for not being Islamic enough, and here in Iraq an alliance between Zarqarwi and OBL has brought a fatwa that "anyone who participates in this election is an infidel".

The Wahhabist strain (of which OBL is a part of) is as intolerant of fellow Muslims who are "impure" and attacks them with especial zeal.

But as usual with religious fucktards, they have apile of hypocrisy to wade through:
In the old, "pure" Islam, women had more rights than they do now (the veil is not actually a part of Muslim society but an interpretation of an event that came later). Science, learning, and literacy were respected and everyone, including women, were expected to indulge. Jews and Christians were to be respected so long as they paid their tax, and the Caliph, or supreme religious leader, was determined by voting.

Also, a jihad can only be called by a Mufti (keeper of holy shrines), a Qadi (judge of sharia' law, or the recognized ruler of a Islamic state. Bin Laden is none of these things (back when the Taliban web site was up and running, he was referred to as a "merchant prince")-- his call to jihad is a false call, and those who heed it are, by sharia', apostates.

So these dumbfucks don't know their own ass from a hole in the ground. All they want is their own despotic power. They piss on their own religion to get it.

[Admiral_K]

Defend them? I see that my earlier labeling of you as a retard was entirely too generous. No, you're a knee-jerk reactionary lunatic.

Yes Defend them. Thats exactly what I would call it when you attempt to justify their actions. The knee-jerk reactionary lunatic here is you.

Ooooh, I'm so scared. Is that a threat? Care to actually address any of what I said?

Merely a reminder that just because you aren't face to face with someone doesn't mean you should feel justified in unprovoked name calling. Its not a threat until someone invents a way to punch people in the mouth over the internet. You are safe for now...

Congratulations on missing the point yet again. If you would have actually read my post rather than jerking your knee because I'm a meanie head who called you names, you'd see that I acknowledged that Islamofascists don't like Western democracy, you idiot. But that's totally irrelevant to the criticisms that Bush's detractors have offered.

You said absolutely nothing in that whole paragraph. Congratulations on wasting everyones time reading it.

Yes, they hate freedom. But that doesn't mean that they're terrorizing the American public simply because they hate freedom, you fucking idiot. Or did you not notice the conspicuous absence of Islamic terrorism prior to the formation of the state of Israel?

Apparently, it is YOU who are the one not reading what someone posts. Before you launched into your misguided diatribe all I had was a quote from the news article and the following statement:

Seems pretty clear to me. The Bush administration line about these groups "hating freedom" isn't without base. They aren't against democratic elections because of the American occuption. They are against democratic elections because they believe democracy is a crime against God

Please point out the parts where I specify anything to do with terrorizing the American public. Don't see it? Neither do I.

But since you brought it up...

Yes, pulling out of the middle east, stopping all support of Israel etc. may stop terrorist attacks in the immediate future. However, as fgalkin and others have already pointed out these fundamentalists are working in Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, the Philippines to overthrow governments there. Once they've dealt with the small fish, you don't think we'd be the next target?

Red herring. The details of Israel vs. Palestine have absolutely jack-shit to do with this. The simple fact is that we take their enemy's side consistently, and that's what they don't like.

You brought up Israel which was irrelevant to begin with. Don't get mad because I called you on it. We've worked hard to try and get the Palestinians their own state, and its not our fault if their leaders were too greedy, or simply preferred to preserve their places of power.

[kheegster]

Yes, pulling out of the middle east, stopping all support of Israel etc. may stop terrorist attacks in the immediate future. However, as fgalkin and others have already pointed out these fundamentalists are working in Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, the Philippines to overthrow governments there. Once they've dealt with the small fish, you don't think we'd be the next target?

The Muslim insurgency in the Phillipines is mostly about separatism, and are mostly glorified pirates. Any links to the global Islamic terrorist network are pretty tenuous at best. It's been going on for decades with little hope of success let alone any ambitions of terrorising the West.

The rest of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in South-East Asia (the Jemaah Islamiyah) have been estimated to number no more than a few thousand at most out of a population numbering in the 8 digits. They have little popular support, and despite their successes they aren't going to overthrow the governments of Indonesisa or any other regional countries anytime soon.

Algeria's Islamic insurgency has been raging for some time, but it's mostly contained within the country as a civil war between the government and insurgence, with little evidence of being part of the AQ movement.

Turkey is the most secular country in the Islamic world, and with the prospect of entry into the EU being dangled in front of them, they will only become more secular as a whole, not less. Again, they do not have a significant fundie infestation.

I don't know much about Egypt, but since they are a Arab nation, their fundies probably belong the big Wahhabi mess infesting the Arab world.

[Admiral_K]

Depends on your definition of freedom.

And on your definition of democracy too. The quote mentions the Greek meaning of the word - but I strongly suspect that they are not really referring to the Greek concept of democracy. Even the US doesn't employ the Greek model. And there are viable democratic models which incorporate religion - I actually get to vote in one myself. So I suspect that the flavour of democracy the quote is really intending to have a go at is the American one.

Why would you dismiss their statement and then infer that they meant something else? This was obviously something they had researched and found that the very origin of the word "rule of the people" to be offensive. They made no specific reference to the American implentation of this form of government, rather they consider the basic concept to be "anti muslim" and thus something that should be fought against.

If you believe "freedom" is being able to do whatever you want whenever you want, then Anarchy is what you want.

Yes, "freedom" is a nebulous, hard-to-pin-down term; which is presumably why politicians like to bandy it about so much. That's why I get twitchy when it's mentioned.

However, if you wish to take the traditional American view of "freedom" then that is enshrined by Democracy.

The number of American citizens that subscribe to a belief is not relevant to its truth. The terms "democracy" and "freedom" are not interchangeable.

Even if we did accept this dubious definition of freedom as equivalent to American-type "democracy" (the Greeks would have called it a Republic) then all your subject title boils down to is "Miliant Islamists really DO hate American-style government", which they would by definition.

At risk of turning this into a "what freedom means to me" essay, I'll try to explain further.

Things I would consider to be important freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc would not exist in a muslim theocracy. Further, the freedom to elect officials and to be able to have a voice in creation of laws that govern our society would not exist in a muslim theocracy. I suppose the same could be said of many religions which is why we have seperation of church and state in this country.

[Skelron]

Yes Defend them. Thats exactly what I would call it when you attempt to justify their actions. The knee-jerk reactionary lunatic here is you.

Oh god's I refer people here to Al Franken's Wonderful 'A National Discourse' Piece in his book. To sum it up 'Why are they attacking us?'
Because they hate our Freedoms and they are Evil'
'Is that it?'
'Why are you defending the terrorist's!'
'I'm not I'm just saying....'
'TRAITOR! They are Evil!'
'No argument they are evil but...'
'TRAITOR'

Franken does it far far better but I think I get the point across, in short, saying that the world is a complicated place and that Bush's attempt to make the Middle East and Terrorism into a Sound Bite is a foolish and dangerous idea, is n ot defending Terrorism, it is saying that well the World is a Complicated place and that these people are operating under multiple influancing factors. A hatred for Democracy is perhaps one of them for the most extremists what was attempted by Durandel was however to provide a context for that, and a warning, along with the simple argument that this may not likely be the explanation for a lot of the support base they are building up.

Merely a reminder that just because you aren't face to face with someone doesn't mean you should feel justified in unprovoked name calling. Its not a threat until someone invents a way to punch people in the mouth over the internet. You are safe for now...

I'm sure he breathed a sigh of relief

Apparently, it is YOU who are the one not reading what someone posts. Before you launched into your misguided diatribe all I had was a quote from the news article and the following statement:

Seems pretty clear to me. The Bush administration line about these groups "hating freedom" isn't without base. They aren't against democratic elections because of the American occuption. They are against democratic elections because they believe democracy is a crime against God

Please point out the parts where I specify anything to do with terrorizing the American public. Don't see it? Neither do I.

It is called an expansion of the point, since it is clear that when Bush speaks of Terrorism he is mostly addressing in this context the Muslim Terrorists and their attacks on US xitizens that would obiously mean that in addressing this point Durandel is quite able to address the wider context of the problem to show that Bush is wrong in his simplification of the problem.

Wait no let me chane the word not Simplification his making it into Baby talk, an explanation fit only for small children who want everything to be black and white, and can't handle the shades of grey in the middle.

But since you brought it up...

Yes, pulling out of the middle east, stopping all support of Israel etc. may stop terrorist attacks in the immediate future. However, as fgalkin and others have already pointed out these fundamentalists are working in Indonesia, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, the Philippines to overthrow governments there. Once they've dealt with the small fish, you don't think we'd be the next target?

And as has been pointed out they are operating in said places with a support base, from a substantial Muslim population, strangely enough a strong home support is vital for a sustained terrorist campaign to overthrow a state, they can't magic one up in America, the Terrorists do not have magic terrorism powers.

You brought up Israel which was irrelevant to begin with. Don't get mad because I called you on it. We've worked hard to try and get the Palestinians their own state, and its not our fault if their leaders were too greedy, or simply preferred to preserve their places of power.

In the mean time the weapons used by Israel everytime it re-occupies the Strip are paid for by the American Governemnt, and made by American companies. On paper America says one thing in actuality well, it continues to give Isreal the same degree of support no matter what it does. Do you imagine for a second the problem could not be solved simply by saying to Israel behave or we cut the Aid we send you every year.

[tharkûn]

Or did you not notice the conspicuous absence of Islamic terrorism prior to the formation of the state of Israel?

Oh please. I suggest you look up the results of the Dreyfus affair in Algeria. Or an incident known as "Bloody Passover". 'Terrorism' has been a stock trade of religious extremists since recorded history began. If you want early examples I suggest you look into the Hashshashin.

Let's be honest here how much terrorism existed prior to WWII period? You had a handful of anarchists, assassins, and fringe marxists who amounted to jack didly squat. You did have numerous murderous Islamic revolts in which they terrorized the nonbeleivers.

Frankly you whole premise here is BS logic. If even X didn't occur prior to event event Y then event Y must cause X. There were militia terrorist attacks prior to Janet Reno becoming AG, does that mean she is the reason that Oklahoma City occured? Of course not. Idiots like these will cease upon any issue they can.

e simple fact is that we take their enemy's side consistently, and that's what they don't like.

Let's see. Kossovars vs. Serbs. Mujhadeen vs Soviets. India vs Pakistan. Rather than have you fire back about the Phillipines, Chechnya could you just admit that the claim that the US consistently backs their enemies is pure unadulturated BS?

Never will here one of these morons acknowledge that the US backed them against the atheist commies or against serbian nationalists. There will always be a reason for them to hate.

Those nations have significant Islamic populations, the US and the other nations I mentioned do not. Try to comprehend the point people are making before you post replies.

And I suppose that the assassination in the Netherlands happened because the Dutch are an Islamic population too

Let's be honest these bastards aren't going to stop once if they get the Islamic world running their way, if someone like Rushdie says something they don't like ... then he has to die. If a convert decides to tell the ugly truth about practices in her former homeland, then she needs to be in protective custody. I won't even begin to catalogue the petty anti-semetic attacks that have occured throughout Europe, but I do recall the French had a run in with beheadings over the head scarf ban as well as the bombing of the Limburg.

Yes the US is the number one target and more support likely flows because of policy decisions, but the hard core asshats would still be after the US regardless. There is always something that will set off the morons. Be it little things like women's rights or big things like freedom of speech.

[Howedar]

Defend them? I see that my earlier labeling of you as a retard was entirely too generous. No, you're a knee-jerk reactionary lunatic.

Yes Defend them. Thats exactly what I would call it when you attempt to justify their actions. The knee-jerk reactionary lunatic here is you.

So if I were to say that Germany attacked Poland in 1939 in order to gain living room, you would call me a Nazi?

Grow a fucking brain.

[Thirdfain]

Please explain how this has any relevance at all to attacks on the United States "because they hate freedom." Admiral_K seems to think that the extremists are attacking the United States simply because they hate freedom. I say that the situation is more complicated than that, and you retort by saying that local Muslim populations are trying to shape their countries' governments into Islamic theocracies. Well no shit, Sherlock. Could that be because they want to live in such a government, which is exactly what I said?

You seem to be buying into this ridiculous, quasi-imperialistic view of extremist Muslims, being that they want all governments in the world to be Islamic theocracies. That's simply bullshit, and you know it. They're concerned with their own governments, and that's it. They want all Muslims to live in Islamic theocracies. If we'd just let them stew in their own shit, they'd leave us alone, like they did before the formation of Israel.

I can't agree with you, Durandel. Let's start with the first fact we can all agree on here. Non-revised Islam is specifically authoritarian and opposed to the basic principles of democratic society. It rejects the concept of government as anything but a tool to administer Shariat and the Qur'anic concepts which are, due to the "uncreate" doctorine the literal direct will of God. These concepts are also the last, perfect words of God, never to be superceded (As Islam says to have done to Christianity and Judaism.)

At the base, we have this fact. Pure Islam is anti-democratic, and indeed can construe the concept of democracy as being heretical and opposed to God's will.

I'll point out that this hardly means people of Islmic faith are incapable of democracy- I am merely presenting the fundamental concepts of Islam are anti-democratic, the same way the fundamental concepts of Christianity are anti-homosexual. I'll add that many Muslims have risen above this, notably in Turkey, where the leading Islamist party seems to be a model for political Islam.

Can we all accept this as fact? If so, I can continue my argument.

[Admiral_K]

Defend them? I see that my earlier labeling of you as a retard was entirely too generous. No, you're a knee-jerk reactionary lunatic.

Yes Defend them. Thats exactly what I would call it when you attempt to justify their actions. The knee-jerk reactionary lunatic here is you.

So if I were to say that Germany attacked Poland in 1939 in order to gain living room, you would call me a Nazi?

Grow a fucking brain.

If you were to imply that its ok because it is in line with the teachings of mein kampf then I'd have to call you a Nazi.

Go re-read what he wrote. Its not simply the words spoken, but the tone in which they are spoken.

[Admiral_K]

Franken does it far far better but I think I get the point across, in short, saying that the world is a complicated place and that Bush's attempt to make the Middle East and Terrorism into a Sound Bite is a foolish and dangerous idea, is n ot defending Terrorism, it is saying that well the World is a Complicated place and that these people are operating under multiple influancing factors. A hatred for Democracy is perhaps one of them for the most extremists what was attempted by Durandel was however to provide a context for that, and a warning, along with the simple argument that this may not likely be the explanation for a lot of the support base they are building up.

I wasn't looking for context. Nor did I state that this was their one and only aim in the world. It was simply to state for those that refused to believe it, that these people consider democracy an affront to their religion and you cannot simply ignore that anymore as simple hyperbole. Your other points about other reasons for terrorism etc are off topic and irrelevant. If you want to start a topic on the many facets of terrorists and their cause, go start your own thread.

[Coyote]

Two things:

One-- Durandal, there was terrorism before the state of Israel was founded. Much of the terrorism was not directed against the United States at the time, though, so it goes historically unnoticed by us.

Two-- We already had two threads go into the Israel/Palestine zone, for which I am sorry because I was a contributor to the devolution. Let's watch it on this or DW is going to get cranky.

Other than that, I'm going to watch the fireworks.

[Morilore]

If you were to imply that its ok because it is in line with the teachings of mein kampf then I'd have to call you a Nazi.

Rational discourse does not survive when any attempt to understand the motivations of terrorists is construed as defending them. Implications are in the eye of the beholder. It's a little bit concerning when people reject analyses of individuals that make them out to be normal people operating under normal factors.

[Admiral_K]

Rational discourse does not survive when any attempt to understand the motivations of terrorists is construed as defending them. Implications are in the eye of the beholder. It's a little bit concerning when people reject analyses of individuals that make them out to be normal people operating under normal factors.

As I said, it wasn't simply what he said, rather the tone. Unless calling someone a "retard" is part of his normal discourse...

[Durandal]

One-- Durandal, there was terrorism before the state of Israel was founded. Much of the terrorism was not directed against the United States at the time, though, so it goes historically unnoticed by us.

THAT'S THE GOD DAMN POINT. If the terrorists hate our freedom so damn much, then why were they not attacking us before we started supporting Israel? Christ all-fucking mighty. You don't actually believe this idiocy Bush is peddling do you? He's trying to oversimplify the situation for obvious reasons -- to give Americans a sense of righteousness. So instead of saying, "They're attacking us because we support Israel and are moving in on their culture," he says, "Duh, they hate our freedom." Do you not see a problem here?

I can't agree with you, Durandel. Let's start with the first fact we can all agree on here. Non-revised Islam is specifically authoritarian and opposed to the basic principles of democratic society. It rejects the concept of government as anything but a tool to administer Shariat and the Qur'anic concepts which are, due to the "uncreate" doctorine the literal direct will of God. These concepts are also the last, perfect words of God, never to be superceded (As Islam says to have done to Christianity and Judaism.)

At the base, we have this fact. Pure Islam is anti-democratic, and indeed can construe the concept of democracy as being heretical and opposed to God's will.

I've already acknowledged that Islam doesn't like democracy. Try reading my god damn post. The fact that Muslims do not like democracy does not mean that they will attack every state that practices it. What the fuck is so hard to grasp about this concept?

[Justforfun000]

Coyote wrote:
One-- Durandal, there was terrorism before the state of Israel was founded. Much of the terrorism was not directed against the United States at the time, though, so it goes historically unnoticed by us.


THAT'S THE GOD DAMN POINT. If the terrorists hate our freedom so damn much, then why were they not attacking us before we started supporting Israel? Christ all-fucking mighty. You don't actually believe this idiocy Bush is peddling do you? He's trying to oversimplify the situation for obvious reasons -- to give Americans a sense of righteousness. So instead of saying, "They're attacking us because we support Israel and are moving in on their culture," he says, "Duh, they hate our freedom." Do you not see a problem here?

I'm a little hesitant to wade into this because it seems to be a heated debate, but I'm not really disagreeing with anyone. Everyone seems to have a relatively valid point of view, it's just people seem to be arguing different facets of the argument.

I think the original poster was simply trying to say that in essence the Islam religion is naturally anti-democratic. Of course this applies EQUALLY to Christianity or Judaism, because the whole point of religion is to believe and act as if the precepts and tenets laid out within are unquestionably moral and right.

This of course leaves no recourse for differing views or morality, and essentially throws democracy right out the window in many respects.

As to the States and the terrorism issue, my guess is that they didn't bother with the States so much in the past because of their distance from the North American continent. Plus the limits of technology and communication necessary to coordinate effective global terrorism were probably a factor.

Now I definitely agree with Durandel as to the exacerbation of the violence being stoked greatly by America's fanatical devotion to the State of Israel, as well as their tendency to stick their noses in every major pot in the world.

However the one thing about Islam that is scary is that unlike the other two religions mentioned, they actually make it an important goal to eventually make the entire world Islamic and run under a theocratic regime. Thankfully there are many moderate moslems, just like moderate Christians, but if they follow it to the letter, that's one of the basics.

So if enough Islamic countries were run by leaders as fundie as Bush is, AND they had the power of America, I think we would definitely see a plan to start pressuring other countries to become moslem.

Hopefully this will never happen.

[Morilore]

As I said, it wasn't simply what he said, rather the tone. Unless calling someone a "retard" is part of his normal discourse...

Umm... how long have you been here? Me, I've been watching silently for far longer than my post count would make it seem, and yes, people hurl insults around here a great deal. It's pretty par for the course.

[Marksist]

I like David Cross' take on Bush's "they hate our freedom" remark.

He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that; "if what the terrorists hated so much was freedom, then why wouldn't the terrorists attack the countries that are truly more free than the US, like The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, etc.?"

[Howedar]

Rational discourse does not survive when any attempt to understand the motivations of terrorists is construed as defending them. Implications are in the eye of the beholder. It's a little bit concerning when people reject analyses of individuals that make them out to be normal people operating under normal factors.

As I said, it wasn't simply what he said, rather the tone. Unless calling someone a "retard" is part of his normal discourse...

It is, dipshit.