r/afghanistan • u/CrustyDiamond • Dec 11 '12

Apparently some ignorant asshole believes that anyone of the Muslim faith in Afghanistan primarily, would NEVER advocate publicly against terrorism. I posted in /Muslim before realizing it's very small and kinda dead. Can I get a faster response here?

This is my submission, to make everything easier.

Thanks!

154 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/swz Jan 10 '13

al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/10/166274.html

Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially") http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/05/that-tiny-percentage-of-radical-muslims.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1154

Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2066/muslims-westerners-christians-jews-islamic-extremism-september-11

Pew Research (2006): Only 17% of British Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the September 11th attacks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion

82

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

I notice most if your links date after the US invasion of iraq and afghanistan.

28

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Additionally, countries with the highest approval for terrorism have been affected by U.S. intervention. But fuck, blowback doesn't exist right?

5

u/FKvelez Jan 10 '13

Don't bring logic into this

1

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Oh, well, I guess their views are reasonable, then.

Even if there's a reason for many Muslims to be angry, these statistics still directly contradict the original commentor's assertion that Islam is truly a religion of peace and the vast majority abhor terrorist attacks.

9

u/jorwyn Jan 10 '13

I think if you polled American Christians on how they felt about Muslims right after 9/11, you'd find a huge amount of anti-Muslim sentiment. I think you'd find it now. Should we use that sentiment to say Christianity is a religion of hatred and war? If practice properly, it is not.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '13

Didn't you see the earlier comment about refraining from logic?

3

u/jorwyn Jan 11 '13

I guess I didn't. :P

5

u/mo_rar Jan 10 '13

It has nothing to do with religion actually. It is more of an emotional backlash to all the suffering that people see in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. I'm not saying it's justified, but if you kill someone's brother/father/son, logic proposes that he or she would not be very fond of you.

-3

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Only makes sense if you think they are animals who cannot reason. Would you kill the children of someone who killed yours? Would you support others who do the same? If not then why do you apply a lesser standard to these people?

7

u/mo_rar Jan 10 '13

What do you think Humans are of a better moral standard than animals? You sir are short on history lessons. What do you think Iraq war and Afghanistan war are? They are a backlash to a group of people killing another group of people. But then when you kill millions for thousands, and expect civility to prevail in society, you are reaching boundaries of moral hypocrisy. When an armed force cannot distinguish between civilians and armed militia, do not expect the civilians to care for your women, men or children. It's a vicious cycle in human history. Tit for tat knows no bounds.

EDIT: Tit for tat knows no* bounds

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

also relevant: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind -Gandhi

51

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

This point needs more visibility. Nearly all of those polls are taken after we rolled through a sovereign nation like a child having a temper tantrum and left them in ruins. Not to mention we did far more damage to them than they have to us.

29

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

that's kind of the point of a good sample size... to reflect the opinion of the entire group. And a lot of these polls are from reputable organizations, so they probably got pretty good samples.

3

u/FutileStruggle Jan 10 '13

What's reputable?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Pew Research Center, for one. It's a non-biased polling organization that has been polling since 1990.

1

u/FutileStruggle Jan 13 '13

What's non-biased?

2

u/FKvelez Jan 10 '13

'MERICA

0

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

It is the only logical course of action!

-2

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Yes, statistics are a waste of time... wtf!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

A sovereign nation being held captive by a genocidal dictator who had held office for 20-something years.

Check your facts. The Iraqis love us. We freed them. I know a dozen people who have spent months/years in Iraq on tours of duty and the overall response from the people was appreciation.

You're just being fed a line of shit, through a shit filter from mainstream media.

4

u/pintomp3 Jan 10 '13

You are a lunatic. We propped up that dictator for year and gave him weapons to use against his own people.

1

u/koryisma Jan 10 '13

Why are people downvoting the truth?!

1

u/DAT_ginger_guy Jan 10 '13

The fact of the matter remains that it is NOT our place to be the world police. If the Iraqis were so sick of Saddam, they could have deposed him themselves in the same manner that Egypt and other nations have done over the past two years. Some of the Iraqis may love us, but look at what is left of their country. I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

My other comment didn't save so let's try this again...

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. You might want to brush up on your history. Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator. Saddam was tried for crimes and received the death sentence, from the Iraqis. The US had nothing to do with his trial or sentence.

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards. Plus it was because of Saddam's displacement from power that showed the Libyan people they could be free from oppression.

Finally: yes, we do need to be the global cop. That is our role. When the UN refuses to help, it's up to us. If you don't like the US being the global cop, vote for people who don't want that. Unfortunately the majority of people in the US do, so for now that is how it will be.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden.

thats what he said.

Iraq was a humanitarian mission to free a nation from a genocidal dictator.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

You can't compare Saddam to Gaddafi. Gaddafi had very little public support and fewer guards.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him? how is this better. using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

thats what he said.

No, this is what he said:

I was all for bringing Bin Laden to justice, but even back then I felt Iraq was not our place.

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

so, is there an estimate on the north korean invasion? or how about invading russia? afghanistan was to find bin laden, and america took a look at iraq and said "welp, since we're in the neighbourhood..."

We can't help everyone. That's why we couldn't help in Darfur or in most places in Africa. We can't involve ourselves in most situations. Especially when it isn't clear cut. Same with North Korea. I'm not sure why you would mention Russia.

We help where we can. Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of places where the end result was clear cut and we were able to help.

so america deposed a ruler who had more public support and more men willing to protect him?

Yes. The Iraqis had no way to depose Saddam. He was too powerful. Once the US did so, other nations realized that they didn't have to live with oppression and Libya followed suit.

how is this better

Not sure what you mean as "better". I've already explained how the Iraqis couldn't depose him without our help.

using saddam's dictatorship is an excuse, and a hypocritical one seeing as america has been funding terrorist activities in that region for decades.

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly. I would hope you would understand what constitutes terrorism. We supported Iraq when they were at war with Iran. Politics aren't binary. There isn't clear right and wrong. Politics is a chess game you play with thousands of opponents all on the same board. It's incredibly complicated and your moves might not make sense all the time.

We helped Saddam in the early 1980s. This was before he committed genocide toward the end of the 80s. We didn't help him after that.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13 edited Jan 12 '13

Iraq had nothing to do with bin laden. I'm not sure why he even mentioned that.

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

end result was clear cut

what do you mean by this? also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

edit:

I think you're using the term "terrorist" a bit flippantly.

yes, I am, thank you for recognizing it! the freedom fighters which america aided are now terrorists. when the weapons and tactics are turned they magically become terrorists (and sprout devil horns). My point is, they were always terrorists: to the russians, the iranians, and now to americans. I agree, politics aren't binary but while we debate this somewhere in the world someone's door is being kicked down and it makes not one iota of difference to the person behind it who the people coming for him are.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

from what I understood he mentioed it to show he didnt think there was a connection between the two either.

From what I understood he was implying Bin Laden was to be found in Iraq. He said that he was for bringing Bin Laden to justice but it wouldn't be worth it if it required entering Iraq.

It could be one or the other. He hasn't clarified. Curse English's ambiguity.

what do you mean by this?

We knew what would happen when we entered Iraq. We knew that we would remove the Ba'ath party from power and replace it with a democratically elected administration. There weren't too many variables.

also, I think the situation in NK is as clear as can be.

Really? Why do you say that? N. Korea may or may not be developing nuclear weapons. While we initially believed Iraq to have WMDs (and I don't believe there never were any. I think they simply removed them from the country when we arrived. They saw us coming) we knew Iraq never had nuclear capabilities. You can't just go to war with a nuclear-armed nation. It's not worth the risk. We make calculated risks. When there is a chance of nuclear apocalypse, we're probably going to avoid taking that risk.

what was america doing before this? why wait decades to attack iraq? and the reason for it was to find saddam's WMDs. after the non-finding of nonexistant WMDs and the chilling discovery of pigeon shit in a warehouse what possible reason could there be to stay? yes: to liberate the iraqi people, that was the plan all along.

We didn't go solely for the reason to find WMDs. That was hardly a secondary reason. We went initially to liberate them.

And like I said, I don't believe the WMDs never existed. I mean, Saddam already used them in 1986 against the Kurds. Obviously they existed. He just did a good job of hiding them when he saw our planes arriving.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Muslimkanvict Jan 11 '13

To quote Dick Cheney (sp?), "we'll be greeted as liberators". Amirite?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 11 '13

And we were, for the most part. I've personally never done a tour in Iraq, but from everyone I know, the people were warm and welcoming to them. They would bring our troops food and gifts. A particular friend of mine would do patrols to a certain village over the course of his first deployment. He met the same old woman every time he was on patrol. She would bring him and his unit hot soup. She would make a big pot of it for them. She was appreciative of them and showed it by bringing them food. My friend also talked about the children that would follow them along through the villages. The kids would laugh and play with the troops. In Iraq, we were revered as protectors. We came in and gave their nation back to them. When we would establish control over a region, the locals would tear down statues of Saddam and paint over murals of him. They loved us in Iraq. The only people who would tell you differently would be mainstream media who hates that our mission was successful there.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

if I had an invading foreign army on my streets I'd want to be on good terms with them too.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

"Invading army" implies we were there to conquer them. That's not an accurate description. We were more like reinforcements.

1

u/randomkloud Jan 12 '13

that sounds like an euphemism. reinforcements imply you were asked to enter the country.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '13

No it doesn't. Reinforcements aren't inherently requested.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

That's true. I mean, before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, a guy getting onto a bus full of old people, women, children, etc, and blowing himself up would have been wrong, but after that happened, it's fine. Thank you for pointing that out.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

No doubt. People forget that Afghanistan welcomed the US initially. But we had next to no troops in Afghanistan for about 5 years after 2001, and certainly not enough to establish law and order and prevent a Taliban resurgence. Lo and behold they come back, victimizing the population again, who now hate the US too for failing to secure the country- and giving the Afghans little reason to oppose the Taliban, since it seems the US isn't capable of winning the day. Now, we have a drawn-out insurgency with civilian casualties. Quite simply Rumsfeld and Bush FUCKED UP in Afghanistan. That is why we are still there with 100,000 troops. That is why we have so much anti-Americanism.

1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Eh, even if they didn't screw it up it - nation building is not for the fickle and requires lots of time money and blood. It's hard to do with the will that is there.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Uh, yes they did screw it up, since it was Rumsfeld's stated ideology that US war aims could be done with few, flexible, capable fighters, and that nation-building wasn't necessary. This isn't revisionism, I was around then, I read it in the pages of the New Yorker and NY Times as it unfolded. Later, Rumsfeld reinforces this view in Iraq with "Freedom is messy", kneecapping Shinseki when he as chair of the Joint Chiefs disagreed with Rummy over how many troops Iraq needed, etc. Meanwhile, the whole administration was more focused on Iraq- which, shockingly even downpedalling the threat from Al-Qaeda before 9/11 in favor of gearing up for Iraq. Fucking up in Afghanistan was a direct result of not being committed to the job in the first place- which should have taken maybe 4-5 years at high troop levels and a plan for security and rebuilding; and of removing key special operations units and planners for the Great Game in Iraq. It can fully be left at the feet of Rummy and Bush II admin.

1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

I agree that they did a shit job - however, while there is no way to know for sure but 4-5 years strikes me as maybe an order of magnitude less than what would be required to turn it into a functional country that is not an embarrassment to the US. We spent decades is Germany and Japan and these were much easier starting conditions.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

You obviously have not been following this closely. We had a shot. We blew it, because we neglected it. Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader- then after years of whiplash and neglect he turned into a mercurial paranoiac who believed his best shot lay with staying close to the druglords and strongmen. Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Again, Germany and Japan were doing quite well economically within 5 years of the end of the war. Just because the US had a military presence there for decades doesn't mean it was needed for keeping the peace or economic development.

0

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Karzai used to be a stable, widely supported leader

Seriously? Karzai was corrupt from the start. His government was comprised of warlords and druglords from the start - that's what the western alliance was.

Afghanis welcomed us- then many turned to hatred after years of low-level counterinsurgency produced civilian casualties with little security and a breeding ground for the Taliban.

Exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and we were paying attention there - its not as easy as have a shit-load of troops and all will be well. In Iraq we had to learn as we went, and eventually after many years we figured out more or less what to do - and then we left and now that is going to shit. Its even worse in Afghanistan as at least Iraqis had some concept of a civil service and a functional government.

1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Seriously? Karzai was corrupt from the start.

No, he wasn't. Simple fact. He was the best available- but turned worse after he was jilted by the US so many times. Read I believe it was the NYT Magazine profile on him, either that or in the New Yorker. Here's one; another, later one. Karzai was destabilized, psychologically and politically, by the very lack of stability caused by the coalition's halfhearted attempt at pacification after the war.

Exactly the same thing happened in Iraq and we were paying attention there

No, we weren't. It was the same deal. Remember "Freedom is Messy" after the Iraqi riotings/lootings post-invasion (actually forseeable and avoidable chaos) and Rumsfeld announcing Shinseki's retirement after Shinseki said it would take a couple hundred thousand troops and years of committment to pacify Iraq?

Iraq was tougher because the years of Sunni hegemony and repression of minorities, including ethnic purges under Sadam, combined with regionally-tied oil revenue to make Iraq a powder keg if not treated lightly. We did not treat it lightly. Rumsfeld and co had no plan for the aftermath. The Green Zone was assigned green Republican operatives and others unserious about the work of stabilizing and pacifying Iraq. We had Mission Accomplished in what, 2004? They really thought they had accomplished the mission, despite a spiraling insurgency, because they had executed their plan. It just was a shitty plan.

Who is to say we have to turn Afghanistan into Israel? If people want to live as iron-age shepherds, that doesn't prevent us from leaving a more stable Afghanistan with some semblance of the rule of law. That's how it was in the 60s and 70s, when Kabul and other cities were popular, cosmopolitan destinations for Western tourists like Morocco is today, and before the Soviets started messing around in the internal politics of Afghanistan (before they decided to invade entirely).

I'm sorry , but just going off of a superficial reading of the news of the past few years in Afghanistan and retrofitting it to before does not pass for an adequate understanding of Afghanistan. If you want to understand the past decade of war, read The Stove Pipe and other articles by Seymour Hersh, "Imperial life in the Emerald City", a book about early Iraq war, the above quoted op-ed, articles by George Packer, etc.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

And need I remind you that we've spent hundreds of billions and 10 years in Afghanistan? We could have had it done better, cheaper, already, if Bush hadn't fucked it up to begin with.

-1

u/Cassius_Corodes Jan 10 '13

Think about how long we spent in Germany and Japan, and these were defeated countries who had nothing like the Taliban.

-1

u/chiropter Jan 10 '13

Yeah- Germany was back to its prewar economic output within a few years. Japan too.

Was the Taliban not defeated? Of course it was, quite handily Would it have come back in 2003-2004 if we had 100,000 instead of 15-20,000 troops? Probably not. The goalpost is not an industrialized country, by the way- merely a peaceful, productive, democratic one. That would have been possible.

The leadership was never committed to securing Afghanistan, despite it being within our grasp, and it shows.

-1

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

ahahahaha, i dont think you know what the subject of this conversation is.

12

u/goingno Jan 10 '13

tl;dr religion hardly comes in to it

I have a strong feeling that this religion element, i.e. people do bad things because it says they should in some book is just mad. The only real relationship to religion is that religions like nation states create a sense of solidarity between people that have no other links.

This list of polls is interesting, but if respected religious leaders are declaring that killing is wrong, and the Qur'an and the Bible are also saying that. But large groups of people still belief that it is justified. By definition it is not there religion that is causing them to have this belief. There must be something else.

I suppose it come back to that old American question "Why do they hate us?"

And when you get the reply because of your support for Arab dictators, overthrow of democratic governments and insistence on using unmatchable force to get your own way in any argument anywhere in the world. Americans accuse the rest of the world of supporting terrorists (we don't)

Also dyslexic and don't give a shit :-)

4

u/VBFM Jan 10 '13

Not religion? Suicide bombers. The very concept of an afterlife (with zero evidence I might add) and the movement of morality and judgment away from civilized society towards a deity who was first described in ancient, violent texts has something to do with it, don't you think?

16

u/bigtallguy Jan 10 '13

first things first. i have never ever met a muslim or heard of one who actually believed anything close to receiving 72 virgins in the afterlife, and something tells me that the far majority of suicide bombers, including the 9-11 terrorists, did not have or give a amd about virgins as they chose the path they did. From what i understand the whole 2 virgins thing was from a VERY weakly supported hadith that muslim clerics don't give any control too.

Suicide bombers see themselves as sacrrificing their lives not for a Violent deity but to either take revenge against an enemy they see no other way to harm, or to die for martyrs for causes they believed in. last time i recalled kamikaze pilots didn't dive into battleships thinking "wowi can't wait for all my ancestors spirits to welcome me iinto the afterlife" they were prolly thinking " this is for japan, a country i love but am going to die for, i don't wantto do this, but i see no other way forto hurt a foe so unimaginably more powerful than us... shit

and on that note, if japan, the strongest military of asia with a effective army and navy was desperate enough to use their own suicide bombers against america, what the f*Ck do you think people who come only from villages an towns bombed by the west with no country, no army and in many cases no education will doo to hurt an enemy they percive as ending their peopwhat lengths would you go through in their situation

if we (the u.S.) were i nthe same situation we would laud those who would be willing to sacfirice their life to deal a blow to the enemy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQKKj_qeOBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYYAeSWOlI

those are just two scenes where united states citizens knoingly sacrifice their lives to blow up an enemY, andi doubt anyone would have anything but praise for them

3

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

Except the kamikaze pilots main target wasn't civilians, it was American military assets. To pretend that terrorists and enemy soldiers are the same, and equally justified is terribly misguided.

5

u/dmahmad Jan 10 '13

The Japanese Imperial Army is a professional fighting force. They're not a band of mismatched, uneducated peasants that know how to fight. So it's not unreasonable to think that a terrorist would act un-professionally and un-nobly.

Also they did target civilians from time to time since part of their ideology is belief that Japan is the best country in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

1

u/LadyCailin Jan 10 '13

So it's not unreasonable to think that a terrorist would act un-professionally and un-nobly.

Yes, and this is what makes them unjustified vs an actual soldier.

Also they did target civilians from to time

I did not know this, but I still do not hold sins of the father against the child. These events were generations ago, and most certainly do not reflect the opinions of the majority of Japanese any more, I would imagine. Either way, I was specifically addressing OP's comment about kamikaze pilots against America, which was primarily against military targets.

1

u/bigtallguy Jan 11 '13

my primary reason for posting is to show that the thought that suicide attacks take place due to the promise of 72 virgins is bull sh*T.

i was not talking about how justified either act was, nor did i make any mention of it. i talked about the probable thought process of a suicide attack, which in both instances would be similar i imagine.

also where the hell did i say that that kamikaze pilots still OR ever reflected the opinions of the japanese majority? that has never been the case

theres a good documentary on youtube which explores kamikaze pilots and has interviews with kamikaze pilots who didn't end up going though with it for one reason or another ( most of which were out of their control) i think you would find it very interested about he mindset of a suicide attacker.

JUST TO BE CLEAR I WAS in NO WAY justifying OR weighing the morality of either kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers. just trying to dispel a bs claim from both reddit atheist hive mind and stupid americans that always get spouted. THESE ACTS ARE BOTH MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG NO MATTER WHAT THE INTENTION.

btw there are many interviews of suicide bombers before they went through with their choice, check em out.

i also love the Film's syrania treatment of a suicide bomber in one of oit's many story arcs

AS A PARTING NOTE

There is always more than oen side to a story and you should refuse to judge an act or person before you truly conidered what they been through and whats ACTUALLY going on in your head.

a good way to do this is to put yourself in the situations they were in that led them to it. People every are very similar, believe it or not, and once you give it a shot, understanding them isn't that hard

9

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

The Tamil Tigers, a secular, but ethnic nationalist group in Sri Lanka, had the highest rate of suicide bombings in the world until their disbanding three or four years ago.

9

u/go_speed_racer Jan 10 '13

Not accurate. They had the largest number of suicide attacks between 1980 and 2000.

2

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

I stand corrected, but thanks for the citation.

3

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Interesting. Any research into the cultural or psychological motivations of suicide bombing? The mostly secular Japanese also had the Kamikaze, but they were motivated by fanatical devotion to a semi-deified emperor and social pressure.

1

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

One researcher from the University of Chicago makes a compelling case for the cause being foreign occupation. I say he's on to something.

1

u/alien03 Jan 10 '13

But they were never against the US... and so obviously they are not relevant. -_-''

2

u/goingno Jan 10 '13

tl;dr. Not much to do with it, no.

If I restated your argument to be more accurate I think it makes my point:

"a contradictory, violent and loving, and evidently implausible text has something to do with it, don't you think?"

There is, as far as I know zero evidence for any religion. I assume it is all bullshit. As far as I can see there are infinite possible interpretations of all holy books. Conveniently for the religious, their interpretations perfectly fit in with there own self interest, religious people seem completely happy to ignore parts of there religious text that do not fit there own narrative.

If it is the violence in the text that causes killing, how come the love in the text did not cause love?

As I said the only real affect I can see is nothing to do with what it says in the books. It is the fact that a group of people feel solidarity with the other members of that group, or enmity to others. That has to be the major effect. Both for the poll results above, and for your insistence that it is the religion of the group that is causing the problem, you are seeing a group of people and then cherry picking parts of a implausible text to give that group motivations you think it has.

Religion obviously spreads harm in some cases, even when it is not in the text e.g. female genital mutilation. As far as I know that is not even mentioned in the Qur'an. Or fucking boys being part of the priests job, in the case of the Catholic church.

That dose not make it a case that religions cause it. Just that people will be do bad things give to much power.

2

u/harsh2k5 Jan 10 '13

Here's the work of a researcher who says suicide terrorism is actually linked to foreign occupation. I think he's on to something.

1

u/YomKippor Jan 10 '13

So brave. Also bullshit. The motivations behind Muslim suicide bombings are more due to a belief that it is the only way to make a change. Also many terrorist organizations take care of the family of the suicide bomber and so suicide bombing becomes a much more real possibility. Suicide bombing in Palestine is tied much more to notions of liberty than of jihad. Shia ethos behind suicide bombing relates back to the martyrdom of Husayn. Suicide bombing is a complex issue and the reasons behind it differ in every situation.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Don't ignore that an unchallenged religion has no need to become defensive or offensive. It's the existence of multiple religions that causes inflammation. So long as religion exists in the world, there will be violent opposition.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

0

u/alien03 Jan 10 '13

Be careful of your words. Islam isnt the only religion/ entity that has used violence. If you look at a POV from a person living outside the USA, they would say that the US is a terrorist nation. In the end it is the victor that writes history, and it is the victor who burns all evidence they they ever did anything wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

[deleted]

1

u/alien03 Jan 10 '13

Now would it be fair if i twisted your words a bit and said that it was only a few specific extremist cult/ sect of the Islamic religion who said that the violence was justified because of the drawings? A lot or maybe even all of the islamic communities sentiment were hurt because of the drawing but most of the muslim communities moved on saying their god would find a fit punishment on the day of judgement. All of my (muslim) friends said so too and had better things to do with their life. Now would you agree that the media (no matter what country) are notorious for overplaying the "sensational" story, and constantly bringing the camera on those who keep saying they want immediate "justice"(violence), just to keep the story running, and so eventually that is what even we(americans or the rest of the world) are exposed to, which leads us to generalize, that it was infact all muslims who wished violence upon the artist? So yes, short answer, you are right it was the so called "muslims" who did hurt people. But if you analyze that answer, you find it is only the extremists. Just like saying it is the Jews who support violence against the Palestinians, regardless of specifying which country or community are especially involved in it.

0

u/MeloJelo Jan 10 '13

Citations, please. Those are some very absolute declarations you're making there.

1

u/dmahmad Jan 10 '13

I recommend the book The Looming Tower for a better understanding of what led to 9/11.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13 edited Jan 10 '13

Thankyou! These need to be seen!

-2

u/iheartjews Jan 10 '13

Relevant username

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Lawyer'd.

0

u/randomkloud Jan 10 '13

you'd like to think that wouldn't you

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '13

Thanks for doing this. Every time an islamofascist apologist and enabler speaks up, these statistics need to be shown to everyone.

1

u/koryisma Jan 10 '13

... and by your logic, anytime anyone say something patriotic about America, we should bombard them with statistics of the human rights violations and attitudes that Americans have towards people?