Apu vs. Tut
In light of our never-ceasing debate about what a solution to the state of islamic terrorism would be, the events of the last few days make me step back and wonder. There have been some points of view expressed that we should encourage the moderate muslims to take control of their religion. I consider that not feasible for several reasons, but the bombing in Egypt may represent a turning point.
Could the attack on another muslim nation, one that provided a majority of attackers on 9/11, by another muslim nation be the beginning of a muslim world implosion? All the other terrorist attacks, to my recollection, have been on infidel targets in the western world or western strongholds in countries outside the Middle East (eg. Bali). Pakistani muslims attacking a major Egyptian civilian site may demonstrate a schism beginning to open and fragmenting the muslim world.
If this is in fact an opportunity to back moderate muslims to gain control over their religion, how can that be done? How does the world determine what a moderate muslim is? How can we assume the condescension to put ourselves in that position to judge?
What role, also, does Pakistan play in the entire charade being acted out on the world stage. They obviously had a major role after 9/11, what could their gain be in their continued involvement; wheteher it be the empty act of 'hunting for bin Laden' with coalition forces, or secretly running the islamic terrorist machine?
I have no definite answers on any of these considerations. I just wanted to mark what I consider a potentially important event in the 'War on Terrorism' and take our debate in a new productive direction.
Could the attack on another muslim nation, one that provided a majority of attackers on 9/11, by another muslim nation be the beginning of a muslim world implosion? All the other terrorist attacks, to my recollection, have been on infidel targets in the western world or western strongholds in countries outside the Middle East (eg. Bali). Pakistani muslims attacking a major Egyptian civilian site may demonstrate a schism beginning to open and fragmenting the muslim world.
If this is in fact an opportunity to back moderate muslims to gain control over their religion, how can that be done? How does the world determine what a moderate muslim is? How can we assume the condescension to put ourselves in that position to judge?
What role, also, does Pakistan play in the entire charade being acted out on the world stage. They obviously had a major role after 9/11, what could their gain be in their continued involvement; wheteher it be the empty act of 'hunting for bin Laden' with coalition forces, or secretly running the islamic terrorist machine?
I have no definite answers on any of these considerations. I just wanted to mark what I consider a potentially important event in the 'War on Terrorism' and take our debate in a new productive direction.
posted by Dorman at 01:35
20 Comments:
Another concern is how new technologies like Microsoft's Virtual Earth and one similar release by Google, facilitate terrorists in finding and pinpointing targets for attack. Are thes etechnologies needed? I don't think so, there is no reason I would ever need satellite images of places on the earth in real time. A GPS is more useful in getting me unlost. Is some technology self defeating?
I agree with your comment here. I think as the world gets smaller because of our technology, the easier for the bad guys to get the info they need. I think the media plays a huge role in this too. How many times have you watched the news where they are offering information to the entire planet on a silver platter? Then, we have hair brains that work for the CIA that blab info all over the place. We're screwed!
It is beginning..
USA TODAY
Insurgents are not terrorists.
Dorman I am glad, you're reconsidering your position on working with moderate muslims. However, to clarify the attacks in Egypt were against a tourist destination. Thus, it was an attack on a western destination, it was not an attack focused on other muslims, directly. However, as I have heard, in Iraq, a number of sucide attacks are directed at muslims. As for Bali, this does not count among western strong holds. Bali is a part of Indonesia, a country that has long held a position of neutrality. After gaining independence in 1945, Sukarno, advocated an association of non aligned countries. Indonesia, at the same time has been no friend to the Communist regimes. Bali - however, like the sight bombed in Egypt is a tourist destination for, so called westerners. Bali itself, is predominantly hindu island. This in contrast with the fact that, Indonesia, is the largest muslim country in the world, with a population pushing 250 million, that is it has approximately 50 million less people than the United States of America. Indonesia, at this time increasingly seeks, economic ties with China. Which, again is in contrast, to it's long history of surpressing it's own Chinese community. It is interesting note at this time, China is relatively unscathed by the threat of islamic terrorism. It of course has it's own problems with increasing civil unrest amongst it's peasant class. Dorman, again glad to hear that you may be rethinking your stance towards islam. Though, perhaps for different reasons. It is welcomed all the same.
WHOA! wait a minute. I haven't changed any view on moderate muslims because I don't think they exist in any identifiable group. It was a challenge for those who think that they are the solution, to come up with the next level of thought on the matter.
Nothing I said in the entry waivers from my stance that Islam is the cancer that has been ruining civilization. I still believe, and would be glad to be an agent, that it should be wiped away. Islam is the thread that is common to all these terrorist acts. The act against Egyptmost certainly was against Egypt and the muslim community because it damages them long term.
Now, someone needs to show me a way to identify acceptable 'moderate muslims' so we can help them gain control of their violent-by-design religion. Otherwise it is just another hands-off, non-feasible, type solution.
Also, after a long trip with time to ponder things, I could NOT come up with a single use for a technology like Microsoft's Virtual Earth or its analog at Google.
These exqamples represent how technology today has lost its spirit of necessity. These technologies are examples of technology-for-the-sake-of technology. Ask yourself reasonably, what would you ever do that you would legitimately benefit from finding satellite imagery of some place on Earth? Isn't Map Quest enough?
Militarily it poses many benefits, but none I can see for a civilian. Here is my concern. We are not allowed to give out the 10 digit grid coordinates of any of our locations (good for locating on a map or GPS to within 1 meter). Why? Because given those coordinates you can aim weapons very accurately or find locations that were not obvious. One example, we have a small site far away and near no civilization. What is it protected by? Not a lot except for the fact that the enemy doesn't know it is there yet. Given this Virtual Earth crap, all they would need to know is what 1000 mile square it could be in and then start scanning. Satellites are our techniology, why give out our intel like party favors? How easy can we make it for our enemies?
Dorman I agree, it is an attack on Egypt and Muslims, in the way you had described. It is true the attacks serve, to deter "westerners" to travel to Egypt, and it deters muslims from trying to interact with "westerners". Could you define what you mean by moderate? I know a number of muslims thatI would describe as liberal, let alone moderate.
In the previous thread, I had also asked how you would propose to do away with Islam. I had asked if you would ban the Koran? I had asked more generally, how would you start and how would you end in this effort?
As for either of the satelite technologies, they serve a natural human curiosiy. People, are fascinated with images of space and earth. While agree, this technology, may ultimately help terrorists. They do offer a benefit, from the point of view education. I have spent a number of hours cruising around, taking virtual driving trips. Everyone, wants to learn more about their world. This type of learning was in keeping with the exchange programs, that were made popular after WWII. The rational was that if people learned more about each other, they would less like go to war. It's easier to reject and kill what we don't know then what we don't know.
I hope for (and am doing some action towards) the elimination of Islam as a viable religion. Much in the same way being a Tori or a Whig is not a viable political platform any more. It would be a glorious day for humans on Earth to have islam be nothing more than a curiosity in some corner of a museum somewhere, studied for its absurdity and prevention of further similar attrocities.
And it wasn't APoV who repeatedly called for the moderates to gain control of the religion (I can't even accurately say 'regain' control). At least not originally.
Ric - Neither. I support your decleration of independence, in it's assertion that we all have unalienable rights, among of which is the freedom of religion. While I respect Dorman's desire to better the world, I believe his efforts are ill placed, going counter the very principals, which brought about the birth of your remarkable country. - Notwithstanding, all of Dorman's wonderful qualities, still Dorman, is no Churchill, and Islam is not the simplistic rhetoric that Dorman, himself, seems to seek and phrophesize.
When Dorman, takes away, I wonder if high fives, and all the profundity of his own wisdom will fill the void. - Such Hubris -
Dorman, you claim to find things familiar, in Buddhism. - I know no Buddhists, as you describe your wishes. Perhaps, you might do this religion a favour by distancing yourself from it, lest some other fanatic, latch onto the association with you and Buddhism, and seek to do the same as you would Islam.
Ric, I say yes to defending yourself against fanatics, by saying no to fanaticism, whatever uniform they wear.
Wow. APoV, is there an in between with you? So let me get this straight, if I am not of the opinion that every religion is good and beneficial for this earth, then I am a terribly tyrant than should be avoided ? Now Iam supposed to distance myselffrom Buddhism because you don't agree with me and you say I have such Hubris? Holy hell dude, when did you become the Dalai Lama? When did Buddhism become a philosophy of wishy washy passive pansies?
Again, let me point out the same repeated and annoying trend here. First and foremost - This freakin post was not about ME in the very least!!!! What is your collective fascination with the fact that I should have some moist-groined love for Islam? Let me point you to another principleof the American way, APoV...FREEDOM OF SPEECH which means I don't have to have some weak-assed defeatists attitude about a plague that I see devouring societies.
Second, when did any and all religion become good? Satanism is a religion...is that good? Should I be out here blandly protecting peoples' rights to kill animals to practice their religion? Islam goes directly against many of the human rights you think yourself so highly for holding....equality is not part of islam, women's rights is no where near part of islam, peace with non-believers, especially their jewish neighbors....not part. Do some research, convice Linda she's a piece of shit like me, for having her views. She has some definite, strong views with plenty of evidence to back them. Good for her!
Third,no matter how many times I ask these questions none of you nay-saying Dorman haters ever come up with a viable answer, it is all...oh, Look at me, I am so superior, I am so peaceful because I am not directly involved with the violence and destruction of islam, oh, praise me for having a non-opinion.
What the hell is it about islam that you cry babies are defending so dearly? Name one threat that was ever defeated by passive inaction? Don't even claim Tienemen Square either.
I dare you to do something that is part of a solution instead of crying that one (strong) man has a definite differring opinion and belief system. Talk is cheap and easy.
Can someone get back on the entry's topic at some point? This is ridiculous. It is ok to eliminate my beliefs while claiming that it is notok to eliminate (islam) beliefs. Anyone elsesee th ignorance and hypocrisy in that?
Things are getting very out of hand, with the Islamic Extremists. Its similar with the Japanese in WWII, they were willing to die for their beliefs and that if they did a selfless act they would go on to a better place. How many bombs did it take the Japanese to submit...2? Do not get me wrong I do sympathize for the ignorant bastards who take a good idea and misinterpret the messages in the Koran. They are behaving like children, and what do you do with a misbehaving child. Try to understand where their coming from hell no, you send them to bed without any dinner or you beat their ass.
I love it when we start talking about moist groins and beating asses!!! I hate fences and the hippocrits that stand on them. I love spiderlords attitude.
So yes Mr Dorman, I too believe this technology is worthless and totally unnecessary. What is it's purpose and what is it supposed to provide to the general public? Hell let's make it really easy and we can pass out free bombs to go with the free maps. Oh I know, now we can find the Mosques even easier now ;)
Dorman My appologies for the tone of the last post.
InterstellarLass - In my last post, I explained that I am against, the banning of Islam, because this is goes agains the very freedoms granted in the declaration of independence.
This amounts to, as you had put it, if you begin to ban one relgion you begin to ban them all.
Dorman - The solution, is in part becomming self sufficient in energy. Instead, of continually trying to gain influence over someone's elses resources.
The solution, is in part not lieing about why a country is going to war. (I am speaking about Bush not you.)
Establish, honest relationships with these countries, based on cooperation and not anipulation.
Why should people in Islam believe in the values of a country that goes to war, as the US as done.
If you want to be rid of Islam, this is not the way to do it.
You have all ther freedom of speach in the world. Just as those that oppose you do.
You have complete countrol over your blog. You can delete my resposnses if you choose.
Perhaps, on a slightly different topic. Dorman, I'd be curious what your thoughs are on McNamara's eleven lessons on the Fog of War:
1. Empathize with your enemy.
2. Rationality will not save us.
3. There's something beyond one's self.
4. Maximize efficiency.
5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war.
6. Get the data.
7. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
8. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.
9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.
10. Never say never.
11. You can't change human nature
I think that Al Qaeda and some other boom-boom type guys done attacked Saudi Arabia already, more than once. So Egypt is nothing new. I don't think it's a matter of moderate Muslims recapturing their religion. Islam is already a religion of peace more so than Christianity is, in my view. But it's more like having an awful blood-sucking leech growing on your religion, and wanting to get rid of it. I don't think the strategic aim should be a Muslim implosion so much as to get evryone on board to remove the causes of diminish the excuses for terrorism.
I can think of numerous instances before 1900 where Christianity was terribly violent. Can you inform me (us) of some other instances that lend credence to your assertion that Christianity is still more violent than Islam?
Dormna I have been thinking more about your suggestion to ban Islam. You had made the comparison with Nazism, and that something undesirable can be surpressed with law. We continue to disagree with this comparison. However, I thought there may still be some common ground on what makes banning Nazism possible. For one, I think it is a great advantage in this respect, that the Nazis' lost the war, and spectacularly at that. There was no settled truce, the allies simple destroyed the entire Nazi army, (and a number of cities along the way). It is interesting to point out how this was different from the end of world war one, where there was no real punishing end on german soldier, (so I have heard, please correct me if otherwsise). They say that history teaches us how to avoid the mistakes of the past. Here it suggests, that if you want to be in a position to surpress some undesirable way of thinking, one must truly overcome it. In the case of Nazism, this defeat came overwhelming on military grounds.
So, what I am suggesting here is, even if you are correct in your view of Islam, (which I continue to view otherwise), I would argue, that your methods, "ban Islam", are ill placed. Perhaps, if Iraq, becomes sectarian democracy, free of Islam, you could argue that indeed, the way forward is to the "banning of islam". But, from what I hear in the news, this is not the path for Iraq. Rather, it appears just the opposite.
In the news I hear of talks and agreements with Iran. Once long time enemies, with Saddam leading this charge, the two countries seek alliance. And why not? After all is not the Shiite the brand of Islam of Iran. Are not the majority of Iraq's Shiite? Is not the current leader of Iraq a former exhile of Iraq who found refuge in Iran?
It appears, that the what the Unite States, has done has given Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. What Iran could not achieve, in ten years, and over a million of it's son's, the United States have given to them free of charge. Iraq given to Iran on the backs of American soldiers, and tax dollars from the American citizen.
Here, the lesson of recent history, seems to be that it is not enough to believe you are right in theory and practice, "you must be right in theory and practice".
Was it right to invade Iraq? Would it be right to ban Islam?
Sometimes the best of intentions have unintended results.
What can we say of about less noble intentions and their results.
They say in addition to history, kindergarten also has all we need to learn. Well, perhaps the playground in general. There, we see that no one likes a bully. We all admire the kid that protects himself / herself and offers restraint over vengence. Is ever such a child, called a bully in error?
Post a Comment
<< Home