Muslims, Islam and violence.

[RVF500]

Dakar is a town in Senegal which happens to have sunny weather in case you are struggling with the concept. How you make the leap to an insult against muslims suggests once again your mindset. YOU imply sunni muslim Dakar not me. In fact I didn't make the connection until you twisted it. To be honest I don't know if they are sunni or shia or both here. Your assumption is nothing short of prejudice.

As I am a british subject I fail to see how you can get so worked up about me feeling that the burden of responsibility is mainly British. As for my ignorance. Firstly I was aware of the part Britain played in the affair before the visit to Wikipedia (I'd say roughly 30 years before the visit) secondly I actually read the whole thing before posting excerpts. As for apologism. Take a long hard look at your own defense of terrorist doctrine before you accuse anyone of apologism.

It is a well known fact that during the second world war bomb aiming was still rudimentary. Therefore for the tonnage of bombs dropped a large proportion did indeed miss their targets. The railyards were a legitimate military target. My point is that they were trying to hit that not specifically try to exterminate the civil population, which is your slant on things. Where do you see the specific targeting of civilians in the strafing? The red army was closing in fast, Dresden was a major road and rail hub. I would suggest to you the the vast majority of road users were in fact military. Once agin you read between the lines to see anything you want to. If it says anywhere in any report or document that you can find that substantiates your claims that the civil population was specifically targeted then I will concede the point. Your quote from the Devils Tinderbox does not do that.

The actions of allied soldiers in Iraq have been used as an example of the many by rabble rousers in that country. Even when there was no action only trumped up action in the case of the daily mirror photos. It goes both ways. So stop pointing the finger solely at the west. My remark was to point out that the media highlights the behaviour of westerners as much as it highlights the actions of muslims. Though I would dare to image the recipient of a headbutt, though an unpleasant and traumatic experience, is somewhat more survivable than a visit from your friendly neighborhood suicide bomber. THAT is where the perception differs. Not the reporting but the ramifications of the actions.

I don't mention such things as how an allied POW was treated by the Iraqi army (or by the Axis in WWII for that matter) simply because to do so is superfluous almost to the point of being childish. They (Iraqis, Germans) were regarded as criminal by our nations and thus disposed of, end of story; unlike you I don't have a need to jump over their bodies and call them names. However, what about our behaviour, our victorious armies may be reluctant to punish themselves so we must keep an eye on them because they are acting in our name, hence this apparent bias.

Doesn't make sense. Just sounds like pseudo-political clap trap. Jumping over bodies? Oh well at least you didn't call me some kind of neo-con lackey or the usual garbage from a non-thinking linear viewpoint.

I still stand by my point. The Russian soldier was part of an invading army, yes. However that does not automatically make him a criminal. He was a uniformed soldier under orders. That atrocities were carried out I do not doubt. But that does not automatically make him a criminal. It makes the people who carried out the atrocities criminals. By that token you have just criminlised the Wermacht from 1939. That there were criminals there is no doubt but the ordinary German soldier was not a criminal.

I'll leave you to try and find percieved anti Islamic portions of the text and/or signature. I look forward to seeing what you twist them into. I certainly understand now why yoy cannot see how religious texts can be twisted to be used to falsely indoctrinate people. You are a proponent of the system yourself and obviously see it as normal.

In fact after your desperate playing of the race card by twisting of my signature into an anti-islamic statement you are completely without credibility. I have nothing further to say to you.

[Lexicon]

I know where and what Dakar is and I agree that, "and it is sunny too," points out the obvious, but to deny that the wording before that, "Sunny Dakar," isn't a play on the word 'Sunni' is a bit foolish or why establish the fact that it is sunny twice; it is a classic style of play on words that works properly when you hear it spoken. I don't really care about your tag, but found it a bit ironic for you to claim that you don't add to the concept of "Islamic terrorism."

Regarding Dresden, I'm not getting worked up about you feeling that the burden of responsibility is mainly British; you can believe that if you want. I wanted to establish that my comment which referred to bombing Dresden as an American act (British too indeed, but that doesn't make it less "American") is an acceptable belief, which I still feel is the case. You were worked up over that belief.

You regard my view as being that the Dresden bomb planners were trying to exterminate the population. I don't claim that total extermination was "intended," the point was to terrorise Dresden and other cities (which I suppose could imply that some killing was needed). I'm sure that the planners wanted as few civilian casualties as possible, however their disregard for life is the problem. If you throw a bomb at someone, you may have the intention for it only to scare them but you show complete disregard for that person's life in doing that action such that your disregard is indistinguishable from intention. We both know that the Allies would not have admitted to intentionally targetting civilians, it will always be, "disabling public utilities, or disrupting civil life." You claim that strafing the cars on roads is perfectly acceptable, yet those cars could have been carrying children who didn't even understand why they were blasted to pieces with cannonfire. I claim that when one cannot easily tell what is a legitimate target or because the inaccuracy of the method, the attack shows disregard for life and in this manner there is little real difference compared to intention.

Again you keep telling me to stop pointing the finger at the West only, and again I would ask you the use of me pointing the finger at people who have already paid, or are paying, for their actions. The Germans were defeated and punished, I don't need to point fingers at them now. al'Qaeda are being hunted down. I fully support(ed) these procedures, but where is the justice for the victims of those unjustifiable attacks upon them by the "winners of wars." Maybe you can try to come up a better argument than, "Doesn't make sense. Just sounds like pseudo-political clap-trap."

You really must be living in a fantasy, to still regard the invading Russian soldier, "innocent," at least from the point of view of the Afghans; furthermore you make it sound as if the soldier was definitely innocent of killing, or attempting to kill, Afghans (soldiers or people) perhaps you know something there that I don't since you didn't give a reference. According to your logic about the soldier just following orders, we can call all people under the guidance or authority of another, "innocent." You've somehow proven (to yourself at least) that the 9/11 hijackers were innocent, after all al'Qaeda is supposedly headed by bin Laden.

[RVF500]

As for the double use of the 'sunny' word. As you may, or may not, know. Understatement and sarcasm are English traits. If it's raining we still say 'sunny' when refering to a place. Hence the double useage. As I credit people as being intelligent when I deal with them I didn't feel it warrented an explanation. You obviously do need an explanation. You now seek to make yet another tenuous thread. One so tenuous as to be totally laughable, to the concept of Islamic terrorism. The classic act of a bankrupt mind trying to deflect attention away from a failed standpoint. The racism card followed by trying to 'prove' an anti-(in this case)islamic viewpoint.

As said, you are without credibility. I thank you for reinforcing that point.

Yet you continue to accuse me of living in a fantasy? Interesting when you look at your own arguments seeking to 'understand' the terrorists yet you condemn our example of the Russian soldier out of hand. You also continue to rant about the actions of clearly marked military units in an openly declared war between nation states. Ignoring the mores of the time in which the conflict took place. While trying to legitimise the actions of privateers who represent no nation or are recognised by no body. In a time of peace. Who attack random, undefended, unsuspecting civil targets of no military value with the express aim of causing maximum loss of life regardless of race or religion.

The phrase 'under orders' means that he [Russian soldier] was part of a recognised military organisation. He was a soldier so whether or not he took part in any fighting or actually killed anyone I have no idea. Nor if he did so do I know of the circumstances. However it appears that your view is that as a Russian he was a criminal. Had he been an Afghan soldier on the side of the govt, which incidently the Russians were allied with, would he still have been a criminal? Don't confuse guidance of authority from a recognised and legitimate state with the perception of the same from a criminal leader of a criminal organisation such as Bin Laden. The followers of John Gotti had as much legitimacy by your definition. Bin Laden has no legitimacy.

To say you are blinkered is an understatement.

[nichomach]

Just a quick note; the use of the term "privateer" is inappropriate; privateers were privately owned vessels licensed by letter of marque by a government in time of war to attack enemy shipping. They DID sail legally under a national flag.

[RVF500]

lol...trust the lawyer to find that loose plank My bad. Though historically I believe that privateers were still regarded and treated as pirates by the governments they operated against. However it is a moot point because, as you pointed out, they were at least recognised by a legitimate nation state. Well privateer is definitely inappropriate in this case.

Care to help me out with a legally appropriate phrase nicho? How about privately operating homocidal maniacs? Mind you, at which point does homocide become genocide?

Incidently, the people here are Maliki, which is, as I understand it, a Sunni school of thought. However when asked they actually don't regard themselves as Sunni but as Maliki. They actually make a distinction between Sunnis as a group and themselves. Don't know if that's a point or not. All I know is that they take their faith seriously and are a very tolerant and laid back bunch.

[nichomach]

Actually, I favour the term "murderous bastards", myself, though I am unsure that it has any legal basis.

[RVF500]

I can't say that nicho. I've already been labelled anti-Islamic, and accused of linking Islam to terrorism, for repeated use of the word 'Sunny'. If I say that then I will be probably accused of questioning the parentage of all muslims too.

[nichomach]

Well, I have to say that in a spirit of egalitarianism I'm willing to extend that to any of the alphabet soup of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland (regardless of nominal denomination), and retrospectively to the Haganah, Irgun, the Stern Gang, the Red Army Faction, ETA, Action Directe, the Red Brigades...

[RVF500]

Personally I think it's insulting bastards. But I'm not willing to get into an argument about it. So I shall concede gracefully.

[atifds9]

Fantastic thread that I admit had me worried when I saw it being a British Muslim myself.

I think the discussion has been great and all i would like to add are a few statements this will be my only post not because I don't want a discussion but because I feel we are all free to believe what we believe and have our own opinions, and agree to disagree.

1. British Muslim, born and raised in England.

2. I consider myself just as British as any other British person.

3. Don't Drink or eat pork in accordance with my religion but will still go out with friends for things such as leaving do for work i simply chose not to drink.

4. Have fantastic friends of all colour religion and we are simply friends, I believe religion is very private and can be practised as wished as long as it's not imposed on anyone else and in the confines of the law of the country i live in, and continue to want to live in.

5. Every other Muslim i know is like this as I believe are the vast majority hopefully people who interact with me realise that not all Muslims are the same as what is often perceived.

6. I do feel under siege or scrutiny when I say I’m Muslim just because of the way things are these days even though I have never done anything wrong or violent and am just as law abiding as the next person (not having a go or anything just the way I feel)

7. Take it easy guys have a lovely weekend speak to you in my usual haunt of the technical forums.

[ernestrome]

No faith can be spread by violence, i don't understand why anyone would try.

[ponders]

I'm not even muslim, but i do have brown skin, and when i started running and cycling with weights in backpack (good for stamina apparently) the looks i got off people as i passed them just made me wanna run faster, know what i mean, quick sharp harp and outa there, but still, its not called stereotypes for nothing.

To my knowledge, just about every religion conceived has at some point had people representing it, use some defintion of violence, from mild intimidation to outright fighting, from hindus to christians to rasta to budhist.
keep in mind we increasly depend on politics to defend and speak for us locally or globally, and a consensus is much more valuable to men in power compared to indivualised groups. labelling people instead of realising them as persons is another 'type'

[jharne]

No faith can be spread by violence, i don't understand why anyone would try.

Christianity seems to have done quite well by it.

[iranu]

Christianity seems to have done quite well by it.

And your point is? Any argument should be kept to the present not the past.

[jharne]

And your point is? Any argument should be kept to the present not the past.

What? We have to disgrard the past. All of the worlds current problems have a past, even my post was in the past when you posted and so by your own statement should have been disregarded!!!!

[fuddam]

Christianity seems to have done quite well by it.

um.......a RELIGION can be spread by violence of course. Religion is a set of practices, which can be about any subject under the sun, deity or otherwise.

FAITH on the other hand, cannot be spread by violence.

kneejerk reactions can also spread conflict............