Muslim scholar issues fatwa against terrorism
- Thread starter Mrs.Lucysnow
- Start date
Well, she does have the tiniest objections to the use of military forces to 'prosecute' terrorists. Strikes me as a contradiction.
And when the terrorists are also foreigners? How does one define the term? The definition seems a bit more loose from their perspective, if they come from fellow Arab or Muslim countries.
@ Quadro
In your last couple of posts you raise some really valid and admirable points around "violence" as a means to an end. Undoubtedly.
Sadly, the bottom line in this instance revolves around cause and effect. US foreign policy is what led directly to the tragedy of 9/11. Subsequently every single life that was and is lost due to revenge and counter revenge is a tragedy.
Lets not forget that the US had exactly the same choices to make in addressing 9/11, regarding the use of violence now directed at "terrorists."
Had a measure of "morality" prevailed amongst the decision makers in Washington, many lives would have been saved. :m:
In your last couple of posts you raise some really valid and admirable points around "violence" as a means to an end. Undoubtedly.
Sadly, the bottom line in this instance revolves around cause and effect. US foreign policy is what led directly to the tragedy of 9/11. Subsequently every single life that was and is lost due to revenge and counter revenge is a tragedy.
Lets not forget that the US had exactly the same choices to make in addressing 9/11, regarding the use of violence now directed at "terrorists."
Had a measure of "morality" prevailed amongst the decision makers in Washington, many lives would have been saved. :m:
And other factors led to US foreign policy, and other factors led to those, etc.
The point is that provocation is not an excuse. All parties to the conflict possess political agency, and none are forced to kill.
And to that point, AQ terrorism is not a legitimate response to grievances about US foreign policy, in the first place.
At not point have I attempted to forget or otherwise avoid this fact.
That doesn't mean that everyone else is off the hook for their parts in the war.
It takes two to tango.
Likewise the decision makers in Al Qaeda.
But we don't live in a world where the moral end up in positions of political power. So criticizing one another on the basis of such an expectation is just another form of othering that divides people and fuels conflict. It is a planned, regular element of the processes that the immoral use to create and sustain violence. If one wishes to employ violence and still pretend to morality, once must first convince one's supporters that the Other is forcing this choice upon one.
The moral response to conflict is compassion, not blame. To blame is to enable revenge and so stoke the cycle of violence.
Al Qaeda wore out it's welcome in Suni Iraq because they tried to impose their culture on Iraq by force. The degree to which Al Qaeda wore out it's welcome was probably increased by many of them not being Iraqi. There is some blurriness about whether Arabs from other regions are foreigners in other Arab regions. The answer seems to be yes they are foreigners though just as Australians and Americans would be if they were involved in each others politics.
If Rupert Murdoch was Chinese rather than Australian his role in American politics might be less accepted but then the USA is used to immigration. If Timothy McVeigh had been a foreigner he and his cause would not have been as forgiven as they were.
I don't think Pakistanis meddling in an Arab nations politics would be as accepted as other Arabs meddling in another Arab nations politics. Egypt's occupation of Yemen is referred to as "Egypt's Vietnam". I don't no how many Yemenis and Egyptian soldiers died in that war but it must have been a lot for Egyptians to refer to that war as their Vietnam.
If a foreigner is going to participate in some other nation's civil war there had better be foreigners fight for the other side as well and even then the foreigner should be under the command of locals; otherwise the foreign meddling will be resented. While Egyptians and Yemenis are both Aabs the Egyptians were still foreigners.
Last edited:
What do you consider a legitimate response?
Agreed.
Very valid position. I am all for ending cycles of violence. As one who seems to understand the philosophy (moral and realistic) around this issue, what in your opinion, should the plan of action for those perpetuating violence for all the previous reasons stated, be?
For starters, one that doesn't target civilians.
Err... stop doing that?
The interesting question is what the rest of us should be doing about it. People that perpetuate violence aren't generally interested in ending violence. So it's really a question of how the rest of us are to stop them.
And there are a variety of positions on how best to do that. But I'd hazard that refusing to participate in their "us vs. them" framing and propaganda is a pretty important part of any of them. So, y'know, focus on loving one another, instead of spouting hateful shit about how it's all the fault of the Other.
Yes. Yes and Yes. And then?
Pardon.
Division is a natural consequence of injustice. Yet, taking sides perpetuates and feeds the conflict. Conundrum.
Sensitivity and compassion for perceived injustice to another is arguably an act of love.
Sure don`t seem to be much love going around. :m:
Meh; I haven't seen her disclaim terrorism as a military activity. Her objections to military response seem to be more interests-driven than principled, as far as that goes.
That cannot be true, technically. There are not enough people in the US to supply a million for every guard, interrogator, and otherwise directly complicit person in the US torture prison archipelago - just for starters.quadro said:
That is on the one side unfair - SAM has not insisted "there is no alternative but war", or anything like that - and on the other side an easily answered question: the worst offenders do represent America, in the sense that they have the support of the elected government and the majority of the people, that they act in the service of official and overt and intended and widely justified American policy.quadro said:
W&Co were not only elected, in full knowledge (or at least open information) of what they intended, but reelected in full knowledge (or at least open information) of what they had done and were doing. The US military was deliberately and openly and officially deployed with wide popular support, the contractors hired openly and justified publicly. It is not "demonizing" the US to treat W&Co and the US military/contractors as its spokesmen and representatives in foreign countries.
Why? Are we supposed to overlook the obvious implications of the American choice of means, given its unique ability - resources, information, everything - to freely choose?quadro said:
The criticism is not that badly unbalanced to the scale of the deeds, from people like SAM. It is grotesquely disproportionate, in the standard US discourse - The US has invaded entire countries with full military force. There was a 9/11 every few days for years, in Iraq.quadro said:
But some have much more power, much more agency, much more control over their much larger reactions to much smaller provocations.quadro said:
In my opinion, all soldiers who occupy other nations and kill innocents should also be treated as criminals and not as heroes. Until we stop glorifying killing, there is no resolution to the problem.
How do you treat any American soldier? As someone "defending his country" by killing innocents in the country he occupies or as a criminal and a killer or a terrorist?
I think this guy makes a good point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8
The Iraq war is about controlling energy and American Hegemony. I see American solders as pawns. Some are sadists. Some masochists. Some are trying to help. Some are murderers. Some are caring. Some are hateful. Some are hopefull and want to build a "free and democratic Iraq" ... whatever that's supposed to mean, some are rapists.
But, they're all pawns.
So,I think the only word that sums them all up would be pawns.
To win an aggressive war, the aggressor must terrorize and demoralize their enemy, to the point of submission. It's like having someone in a joint lock. They are not going to call mercy until some pressure is applied. Think nukes falling on Japan or fire bombs in Dresden or Horsemen riding into Persepolis. It takes a lot of continuous terror to subdue people. Of course these people were valiant warriors winning "Glorious Battles" from one perspective and Terrorists from the other.
whats the point the haters like you will just go their the minority.
there is a big differance between Lyndie England who did so under orders from people who got off scot free and a someone who snaps and uses terrorism.
I'm not asking their ideology. I'm not even asking their accountability. Do you see these "pawns" as criminal?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I don't understand Sam. Is it that he should be dismissed because he is a drag queen? The Lutheran Church accepts homosexuals as clergy should I dismiss what they say based on this? Does being a drag queen dismiss scholarship? :shrug: Also just because someone speaks out against terrorism and terrorists doesn't mean they support troops in Afghanistan and Iraq or wherever. So why do you pretend as if a moderate muslim wouldn't despise terrorist acts by muslims? I mean do you dismiss Ghandi just because he thought colonization in South Africa was good enough for blacks? I mean your argument that someone is a drag queen is besides the point unless you want to simply malign them to distract from their message.
I would think you would be pleased that there are more voices proclaiming terrorism as wrong.
Here. You keep bringing up terrorism and linking it to Western invasions and say this is the reason why there is terrorism, never mind the fact that they tend to kill more innocent muslim civilians than Westerners. So you behave as if this is a proper justification, ok. What about Beslan? Do you believe that it was okay for Chechnyans terrorists to take over a school and kill 176 children and 500 others as a form of protest? They didn't attack soldiers but a school for children from 1st to 11th grade. Your okay with that I suppose, I mean you would think it unfortunate but hey there are atrocities in Chechnya which makes it okay right? I guess then the reprisals aimed at innocent Chechnyans in Russia by gangs is also ok after all an entire town was affected by the loss of children.
Sam: No it wasn't. Violence doesn't work. If you were a karmic person, like me, you would recognise that. But if you were to walk into your home and see your wife or kid being mutilated or raped. Or see them lying on the floor, dismembered, with you possibly being next. Or if you drove over some bumps on the road got out and saw that it was not bumps but a street full of hacked people you were driving on, you'd find that "knowledge and humanity" might not be what you reach for in self defense.
I hope you remember that when a russian fascist beats the shit out of some innocent muslim because of Beslan or when Danes refuse to accept more muslim immigrants and the Swiss refuse to build anymore mosques on home soil. You say you are non violent and I believe you but you still make excuses for terrorism and then don't understand why no one can take you seriously when you rail against the west. I mean its all tit for tat right?
Sam: How much Americans will weep for two buildings, will they not? How many they will kill, burn, dismember and torture for just two buildings
Interesting terminology. Are you going to desensitize yourself now and call it a loss of two buildings? There were people of all races and religious persuasions working in that building at the time. A total of 2,974 fatalities, 246 on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. So no Sam they weren't weeping over two buildings.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
So wait a minute, your complaint is that the media is biased because they covered this story? :bugeye: Or is it disinformation, an absurdity and clownish propaganda?