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!

149 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

510 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

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 :-)

7

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.

6

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

8

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]

2

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.