Do Islamists Offer Insight or Threat?

Do Islamists Offer Insight or Threat?

www.military.com

February 08, 2010
Dallas Morning News

After the worst military base massacre in U.S. history, officials acknowledged that they failed to "connect the dots" --- the shooter had been corresponding with an imam tied to al-Qaida and had condemned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war against Islam.

But Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan wasn't the only one working on a Texas Army base the day of the shooting who had links to radical Islamists.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is an interesting article from the Dallas Morning News that examines the little too often seriously asked question of whether Islamists offer us potential insight or threat.

Logic would dictate there are only three possible outcomes in the War on Terror that would offer any kind of real victory in it.

The first is to me the most unthinkable and impossible and that’s eliminating through violence every person of the Islamic faith on the planet, to eradicate the religion and its practitioners. With 1.8 billion Muslims on the planet that seems as wholly barbarous as it appears unrealistic from just a pure logistical standpoint. Conversely it is said that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews in the world which numbered in all likelihood less than 20 million. That proved an impossible task so would the attempt to kill all 1.8 billion Muslims.

The second option appears to be the strategy we have adopted and that’s an attempt to force Muslim submission through organized warfare, violence, imprisonment and sanctions. In my humble opinion the problem with this strategy is that a person convinced against their will is a person who remains unconvinced. While our policy of regime change is adept at installing semi-democratic constitutional governments that are popular in Washington D.C. and with Washington D.C. lawmakers they aren’t proving to be popular with the actually people in places like Iraq and Afghanistan that are governed by them. Ultimately the practice of forced submission costs a lot of lives and money and only works to the extent that you are willing to spend more money and lives to dominate a people than those people themselves are willing to spend to rebel and not be dominated. In the end a lot of arguments could be made that these attempts to dominate the Islamic World and force submission to Western Democratic Values through violent and coercive means would create more hostility to the West and not less, thus only temporarily reducing the problem while exasperating it and making it grow worse in the long run.

The third option would actually be to start honestly addressing with Islamist leaders both within the United States and abroad the issues that they feel are leading to radicalization and chauvinism that can lead to individuals and groups carrying out politically motivated acts of violent terrorism, and to seek the mainstream Islamic communities insight how to craft better foreign and corporate policy that minimizes or helps to eliminate those points of contention wherever it is possible.

The truth is not much is being done to actually address the root causes of Islamic radicalization by embracing and having an open dialogue with Islamic communities within the West.

Rather in many ways what open dialogue which is more like a running monologue from the government and mainstream news media is leading to the segregation of the Islamic populations in the West who are often treated in mass to a hostile barrage regarding all Muslims every time one or small group of Muslims do something to make headlines in violent ways or through attempted violence.

Here on ATS and other Public Forums many members favor option one of complete Islamic extermination through how they advocate the War on Terror be fought. They will come out and say they don’t want to kill all Muslims but they generally have no clear line or definition of what is a good Muslim and what is a bad Muslim.

Many more people openly favor the policy of dominance through gunboat diplomacy, regime changes, sanctions and a heavy stick and carrot approach. Yet as with the people in the first group they really have no clear definition of what is a good Muslim that poses no threat to anyone and what is a bad Muslim that might pose a threat under the precise circumstances that cause them to think in violent and threatening terms?

When will we begin to encourage dialogue so we can actually honestly, logically and intelligently determine the true circumstances that lead to radicalization and when will we develop monologues and dialogues that encourage Islamic communication rather than their segregation due to the rancor of our own discourse?

Many people will at the moment you begin to ask these questions come out and denounce and decry any attempt by stating that the Muslims don’t want any such dialogue and that they would only attempt to take advantage of it this way or that way because of a purported propensity to do this or to do that by way of a reaction?

How many of us are actually being honest with our selves and realizing that we are often and in many ways arguing for the entire extermination or forced conversion of the world’s most popular religion? How many of us our actually connecting the dots and realizing at this point our whole strategy is one about forcing Islamic submission to our values and desires through violence and intimidation?

How many of us actually realize what failing, futile and wrong strategies those are?

How many of us really want to talk, and consider, and truly try to make the world a better place for everyone with terms and an understanding everyone can actually understand?

When does a time to kill become a time to talk?


www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

At Fort Bliss, an experienced military trainer was teaching Soldiers about his Muslim faith. He, too, had denounced government counterterrorism efforts, and public records show he and some of his closest associates had ties to terrorism suspects.

But when The Dallas Morning News first inquired about the instructor, Louay Safi, military officials praised him. Only later did they say that Safi had been suspended from working on military bases pending a continuing criminal inquiry.

The Safi affair reveals the deep divisions within the U.S. government over how to combat terrorism and over what constitutes moderate Islam.

And here in lies the rub, what does constitute moderate Islam? Many people like Safi find themselves worshipping at Mosques that radicalizing elements of Islam do to. Are they truly guilty simply by association with those fellow congregants that they are sharing time and space with during worship or are we once again employing dual and hypocritical standards that are self defeating and adding to further segregation of the Islamic community and its radicalization?

Case in point the Reverend Wright and Barack Obama’s controversial Chicago Church where many people claim Wright’s sermons were racist and derogatory towards Caucasians.

Yet most reasoned people concluded and argued that Obama as a mere congregant shouldn’t be held responsible for the sermons or rhetoric and that simply because he attended them did not mean that he accepted those premises being put forward.

In other words people were all to happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and judge him on his individual achievements and stance and not that of the collective’s or part of the collective.

So that begs the question why would we be willing to give that kind of latitude to an individual running for the highest office in our land and to not paint him with that broad brush, but are willing to paint Muslims almost everywhere with a much broader one?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


An interesting post my friend. I believe you are not really talking about "Islamists" as in religion but the current clash between West and Middle East (as the article talks about attack).

I personally think none of the three insights you offered would work in practicality. To erase the tension one will have to work on the "root causes" such as military bases in Middle East, Israel, interference in other country Govt. (coups) etc. Without working on these issues the clash will continue unabated, a moderate will become extremist.

So why would a moderate become extremist? Why would a person dislike or hate or feel angry towards something? and we go back to the same circle of root causes. I can blame MSM and propaganda to make Muslims who are living from many years in West peacefully feel threatened and act defensive, but why would MSM use propaganda and we again go back to root causes.

Why sudden clash? why France & Italy thought about banning 'Burqa' or 'Viel' all of a sudden? Why sudden rise in UK regarding Islam or Muslim? Before 2001 one hardly heard of such things.

Frankly, the Western players don't want to work on these issues due to various reasons (most of it is profit oriented) and without it any step would be futile and not enough. If the Govt. really wanted to solve this whole thing they would have taken practical steps by having conversations without "pre-conditions" but sadly we don't live in a perfect world, as you can see the current climate of hostility towards Iran. You already know a great deal about it and more hence no use for me to say the same thing.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by December_Rain]

reply to post by December_Rain

I personally think none of the three insights you offered would work in practicality. To erase the tension one will have to work on the "root causes" such as military bases in Middle East, Israel, interference in other country Govt. (coups) etc. Without working on these issues the clash will continue unabated, a moderate will become extremist.

Exactly my friend! The truth is its almost taboo to talk honestly about the root causes of terrorism.

In many ways terrorism is a byproduct of political correctness. Political correctness requires basically ignoring some inconvenient and unpleasant truths.

Yet while it then becomes convenient to the beneficiaries of that pretty whitewash it becomes wholly inconvenient to the people who are in fact actually and truly suffering from a lack of discussing and dealing with the truth in a qualitative way.

Part of the problem in really creating a dialogue that allows for the real truths and root problems to be addressed is that once you mention Jews or Zionists in the equation they tend to want to dominate the agenda and conversation and make it all exclusively about them. Once you mention Christians they too then want to dominate the agenda and conversation and make it all about them.

In fact each various group is so self focused, and so self motivated towards their own agenda, it seems that the truth, the hard truths, the practical truths and the logical truths are simply impediments to be ridiculed and disdained as each group and each individual from a group becomes totally immersed in making it all about what’s good for them in a way that’s exclusionary to everyone else.

No one wants to fairly consider the other side, but each is quick to cry when they themselves aren’t fairly considered in return as a result of that.

It’s a simple problem that all parties tend to want to exasperate and perpetuate by looking for complex, instead of simple solutions.

Thanks for posting.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Part of the problem in really creating a dialogue that allows for the real truths and root problems to be addressed is that once you mention Jews or Zionists in the equation they tend to want to dominate the agenda and conversation and make it all exclusively about them. Once you mention Christians they too then want to dominate the agenda and conversation and make it all about them.

The age old my God is better then your God. I believe it has a lot to do with what everyone was groomed to believe from child hood and on into their later years. We are told that this book is the undeniable truth of the situation and we have to follow it. The Jews have one, the Christians have one, the Muslims have one. I'm sure there are others that I haven't mentioned.

I do believe that it is clear in my own Bible that the Temple Mount will be a point of contention for the three major faiths that I have addressed above. I have a solution, one for everyone. God would not want us to destroy each other over Him, would He? So let's all agree that the one thing that brings all of these faiths together in crescendo of horror should be taken out of the equation.

Everyone should agree that it would be God's wish to see us realize the futility of following a pre ordained path to destruction. Let us put down our arms and confess that we have no idea what we are doing and that their is no way that we can appease God by killing everyone that disagrees with our own beliefs. Vacate the area and ask God to show us what He would have done to the place.

Come together and realize we are all human and need the same things. Or could it be that there is another agenda afoot?



[edit on 8-2-2010 by jackflap]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I want to correct this from my last post:

Frankly, the Western players don't want to work on these issues due to various reasons (most of it is profit oriented) and without it any step would be futile and not enough.

It's not only Western (US/ UK/ Germany etc) nations but also Middle East (Saudi Arabia/ Egypt/ current govt. of Afghanistan etc) countries that do not want to honestly work these things out for their own reasons most of which is profit.

reply to post by jackflap


An excellent observation my friend JackFlap, it truly is beyond the pale when you get beyond all the side issues and down to the root that all these people, Jews, Christians and Muslims are in fact fighting over the same G-d that not one person alive has ever seen or can claim to have seen without being thrown in an insane asylum!

Three things are constantly being overlooked one is that at the heart of the problem is a three way argument about what this G-d wants.

Two is that no one really has a definitive answer because no one can actually get this G-d to show up and declare what he wants in a certifiable way that everyone could agree on.

Three is that even though they all believe in this G-d often to the point they are willing to fight and die for it, none of them actually believe any of them will ever meet, see or talk to this G-d personally in a two way conversation that can be witnessed by a third party.

That so many people on all sides see this as something to fight and die over and for is almost so impossible to believe the only thing that makes it believable is the fact that they are in fact fighting and dying over this G-d.

Wouldn’t it be ironic that the thing that in fact gives this particular G-d its greatest credibility is that men who consider them selves to be inherently inferior in the face of it are willing to fight and die for it and over it?

Thanks for posting.

Perhaps its pessimistic to say, but I truly don't believe there will ever be world-wide peace.

Unless, of course, our world can unite against one common foe...like in the movie Independence Day. Granted, that's a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is true; sharing enemies does make allies.

Perhaps that should be the true cause of an Alien agenda?

Or mayhap I just need a nap.....its been a long day.

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I want to correct this from my last post:

Frankly, the Western players don't want to work on these issues due to various reasons (most of it is profit oriented) and without it any step would be futile and not enough.

It's not only Western (US/ UK/ Germany etc) nations but also Middle East (Saudi Arabia/ Egypt/ current govt. of Afghanistan etc) countries that do not want to honestly work these things out for their own reasons most of which is profit.

The corruption in both politics and religion is endemic and it increases exponentially when you combine the political body with the religious body as they each corrupt one another even further when they merge for shared agendas and goals.

For the people in power, even in power over regimes and states that are violent and war torn, diseased, famished or impoverished maintaining their power is far too often about maintaining those less than desirable status quos.

No matter which side you are on, the average person tends to place their trust in the least desirous people when it comes to actually effecting change.

This sure does not make change any easier.

Very interesting thread, and with caution, I would have to agree with the last alternative. It seems dialogue is the only way to really truly get into the heads of those that may be friends or those that may be foes. Are we doing that, not to the extent we should be. However, would this dialogue had made Hasan act any differently on that day when he decided to open fire on his comrades? Perhaps, it could have, because we would have a better understanding of what the criteria is for a radical or a moderate Muslim.

If his commanders had any inkling of concern about his beliefs and views, all they had to do was ask him into an office, and talk about it. If red flags could be confirmed from that interview then he should have been put under investigation, and restricted from the use or handling of fire arms. It is really basic common sense on how to handle this situation, if a legitimate concern arises, by all means look it into. However, it can be done without causing a chilling affect on the person or the community they live in. It must be done tactfully and with respect. A Jew, Christian, or Muslim are all entitled to that simple premise of the Constitution, and that is being innocent until proven guilty. When was it ever an indictable offense for a religion one is affiliated with, oh wait that was when the Nazi regime was in power.

The reason we have no understanding of the culture, and essentially the enemy is that the government and MSM puts a stigma on the Muslim community. They fuel a climate of fear among the populace, thus leading to a chilling affect among the community we are supposed to be learning about. They are afraid to have open dialogue with the government, because they don't know if they are going to be put under the magnifying glass for a seedy acquaintance at a mosque or voicing a controversial view in a classroom or workplace. There certainly seems to be a stigma in this country associated with Islam and people of Middle Eastern origins.

There is a war going on, but they are protected by the First Amendment as we all are. As long as they are not threatening violence to any one person, religious group, or maintaining open communications with known terrorists; then what is the problem if they should disagree with foreign policy of their own country or another. I am noticing minor infractions being dealt with by a heavy-hand. Mostly out of fear and paranoia, and lack of understanding by those tasked with an investigation. That is absolutely wrong, and does more harm than good in the long run. It only breeds resentment and anger.

So, in that sense, a chilling affect has engulfed the Muslim community in America. However, if relations and common respect is not restored, how can we win against an enemy we know nothing about? These people won't join the CIA, government agencies, or even the military if mutual respect and common decency is absent in their treatment by fellow countrymen. This is something that needs to be discussed among the people in government and debated in the media. The old adage goes: "Know your enemy better than yourself." Very thought provoking thread!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

But Safi has called the widespread raids on Muslim organizations after 9/11 "a campaign against Islam" – a term that 9/11 Commission director Philip Zelikow says is part of "the jihadi narrative." Safi has also complained that Muslims are treated differently from Christians and Jews when they do wrong. They are unfairly identified by and questioned about their religion, he says, treatment that can lead to isolation and aggression. "The extremist ideology responsible for violent outbursts is often rooted in the systematic demonization of marginalized groups," Safi said in an Internet posting after the Fort Hood shooting.

www.dallasnews.com...

I wonder why there isn't more coverage on what Islam actually does? I mean, humanitarian efforts and how someone's life was changed for the better and what not. Is it because there are no stories along these lines, or is it because we have been focusing on the negatives to persuade public opinion?

This thread is a wonderful opportunity to expose manipulative rhetoric.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The first is to me the most unthinkable and impossible and that’s eliminating through violence every person of the Islamic faith on the planet, to eradicate the religion and its practitioners. With 1.8 billion Muslims on the planet that seems as wholly barbarous as it appears unrealistic from just a pure logistical standpoint. Conversely it is said that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews in the world which numbered in all likelihood less than 20 million. That proved an impossible task so would the attempt to kill all 1.8 billion Muslims.

No such goal has ever been stated by the DoD or President and will never. But plenty of Islamists have gone on record with "eradicating all Americans".

The second option appears to be the strategy we have adopted and that’s an attempt to force Muslim submission through organized warfare, violence, imprisonment and sanctions.

Nobody is "forcing muslim submission". This is not a war on muslims, it is a war on organizations that have the explicit decree of harming America and Americans.

a lot of arguments could be made that these attempts to dominate the Islamic World and force submission to Western Democratic Values

"Down with the Great Satan USA" is not only "contrary to western values" but a direct attack that needs to be defended. Not the Islamic World is the target, but organizations hell-bent on destruction.

The third option would actually be to start honestly addressing with Islamist leaders both within the United States

Dialogue with Islamic leaders (Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, etc.) is ungoing and constant.

Here on ATS and other Public Forums many members favor option one of complete Islamic extermination

Only a very small segment "favor complete Islamic extermination". Those people wouldnt even make up 0.001% of the population. Who are you kidding?

What agenda of yours does it serve to make it look as if some muslim-hater on the Internet represents the voice of America?




[edit on 20-2-2010 by lucid eyes]

Originally posted by December_Rain
To erase the tension one will have to work on the "root causes" such as military bases in Middle East, Israel

Putting the entire blame on Israel/USA again ,eh?

So why would a moderate become extremist? Why would a person dislike or hate or feel angry towards something? and we go back to the same circle of root causes.

The "root causes" are always beliefs, in this case manipulative interpretations of quran-verses for the purpose of inciting violent action against non-believers.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The truth is its almost taboo to talk honestly about the root causes of terrorism.

The usual insert that "I cant talk about the truth" although you and your friends do so 24/7 on the Internet.

the real truths and root problems to be addressed is that once you mention Jews or Zionists in the equation they tend to want to dominate the agenda

The usual "those damn jews" - insert. Your threads all follow a very similar pattern.

One-sidedness is certainly no path to peace.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
the same G-d that not one person alive has ever seen or can claim to have seen without being thrown in an insane asylum!

Are you saying that religious people should be thrown into an insane-asylum?

Jews, Muslims and Christians live together in harmony in most places in the world because they recognize what they have in common.

It is not normal religious folk causing problems.

Originally posted by December_Rain

It's not only Western (US/ UK/ Germany etc) nations but also Middle East (Saudi Arabia/ Egypt/ current govt. of Afghanistan etc) countries that do not want to honestly work these things out for their own reasons most of which is profit.

Good point - and one that is often missed here on ATS where all too often it appears that either one side or the other is cast 100% villain and the other as 100% victim.

The truth often has a few shades of gray to it and both sides have rights and wrongs that they have done and been done to them.

But, fixing it would mean those in power and control on both sides giving up some of that power, control and $$ - and that can be a very very very hard thing for any in power to give up - regardless of their religious, ethnic or political associations.

One thing that those in power have used to keep power and control since time began is an enemy.

So when can we expect the OP to respond to the challenges made?

There is no such thing as an "islamist".

There are muslims.
Muslims engage in Jihad.
Jihad is used to spread Islam.

They are muslims engaged in jihad to spread Islam.

It has been done this way for 1,400 years.

Originally posted by Frogs
Good point - and one that is often missed here on ATS where all too often it appears that either one side or the other is cast 100% villain and the other as 100% victim.

In some cases its actually true that someone is a Villain in thought and deed. Not everything can be watered down and equalized.