suicide bombers

[_beastie]

For those who were following the suicide bombers thread on MAD, here is the post i was going to make before it was suddenly locked:

You're right it was a distortion. I should have stated again our fundamental difference of opinion. I believe your opinion is that without religion than the suicide bombing would not be carried out. I believe that without the political environment the religious zeal to kill oneself would not be necessary. I don't think they're perfectly entertwined. You remove the political and the entire motivation crumbles. You remove the religion and it does not.

Without the sanction of religion the suicide bombing would not be carried out. I am not saying that other forms of opposition and even terrorism would not be carried out. I am saying that without Islamic leaders sanctioning suicide terrorism as an acceptable method of martyrdom, the suicide terrorism would have not been popularized within this particular conflict.

I agree this is a waste of time. I can type over and over again that "politics and sociological problems" are the only true motivating factor. Religion is part of the equation. Religion is used as a way to... well let's see what you said about this.
I think I found my answer by reviewing your earlier statements:

Perhaps my paragraph above clarifies my stance.

We actually agree! You say here that those that manipulate suicide bombers do not believe any of it is about God. The poor suicide bombers have been manipulated. It's not about God at all. It's all about the will of the person that manipulated them to believe it WAS about God.

Whoa. I said that we cannot know whether or not those who manipulated suicide bombers do not believe any of it is about God. They may well sincerely believe it is. Or they may be deliberately manipulating their trusting followers. I really don’t know the answer to that, and neither do you.

I believe you're wrong. This is dying for a cause. How do they refer to themselves? They call themselves martyrs for a cause! Are you suggesting that they do not believe they're dying for a cause?

Again, what is your point?

Saying “dying for a cause” is acceptable does not necessarily entail suicide for a cause. It was the introduction of the suicide as part of terrorism that was controversial. (see my above link and quote)

Of course I think that the suicide bombers believe they are dying for a cause.

Suicide bombing is wrong. I can say so. I can be agnostic and say Timothy McVeigh was wrong. I can be a military brat and say the U.S. military has done things in it's past that were wrong. I can be a proud American and still condemn slavery.

What is your point? I believe it's all religiously motivated. Now tell me why I can't condemn it?

I tried to clarify my point above in my “Pahoran’s strawman” response. It is tiring dealing with Pahoran, and I can only take so much of it, hence, my refusal to engage in a point-by-point exchange with him. I can only ask you to not rely on his words to ascertain what I am trying to say.

The people who cannot condemn it without engaging in hypocrisy are those who do believe God tells people to kill other people. If you do not believe that, you can condemn it without hypocrisy. For those who actually believe that God tells people to kill other people, to condemn the Muslim terrorists requires the believer to insist that, despite the overwhelming evidence of the unreliability of man’s ability to ascertain God’s will, HE knows it well enough to know that even though God told followers of HIS religion to kill other people and they did so righteously, the Islamic terrorists were NOT obeying God because God would never tell them to do such a thing.

That was a very convoluted sentence, so I will try to restate in a list:

1. Believer A: God has, in the past, told followers to kill other people, and they did so out of obedience and love for God. The examples of this can be found either in my own religion’s scripture or sacred history.
2. Believer B, Islamic terrorist: God told me to kill other people and myself in order to die as a martyr, to help free my people.
3. Believer A: OH NO HE DIDN’T. God would never, never tell you to do such a thing.
4. Observer: Didn’t Got tell people of your own faith to kill other people? How can you know that God didn’t tell Believer B to do it too?

5. Believer A: You are just trying to paint all religion as evil.


I don't know if anyone is interested in the conversation over here or not, but just in case.

[_dartagnan]

I read his statement that said the terrorist motivation is purely political and not religious.

What a load of crap. This is what the idiotic multicultural relativists want you to believe. Hell, everyone wants to believe the motivation has to do with something, anything besides Islam, which is probably why so many do.

In Islam the political and religious are inseparably intertwined.

In Islam the world is divided up into two realms: The House of War and the House of Islam. Any part of the world that is not under Islamic rule, is considered, according to Islamic law, as the House of War. This means that any jihad-minded Muslim who wants to live in Britain, Denmark, Alaska, the USA etc., and act as though they are literally fighting in the trenches as if in literal battle, can do so with the Islamic stamp of approval. There is nothing figurative about the Islamic concept of "war" in this context. War was declared a long time ago, and its purpose is both political and religious. Make the world Islamic by any means.

[_beastie]

dart -

I do agree that there is a fanatical sect of Islam that could fit your description.

But I also do think that if there were not such serious political and economic problems in the mid-east right now that this sort of radical Islam wouldn't appeal to so many. Do you agree?

[Guest]

== I do agree that there is a fanatical sect of Islam that could fit your description.

I am not speaking of a sect.

I am speaking of what Islamic Law states. This law is applicable to the whole of Sunni Islam, which represents more than 85% of Islam today. I am speaking of what Islamic authorities confirm. In Islam the world really is divided up into two sides. You’re either with us or you’re free game for our jihad warriors. That most Muslims do not engage in this is fortunate for us, but it is not because those who do represent a sect. The Mujuhadeen are the warriors who engage in battle, and not all Muslims are obligated to participate unless the House of Islam is under direct threat. This is why so many Palestinians are willing to die - even the women - and Muslims from abroad move to the area and fight with them.

== But I also do think that if there were not such serious political and economic problems in the mid-east right now that this sort of radical Islam wouldn't appeal to so many. Do you agree?

Not exactly. A reason there are political and economic problems is precisely because of the terror activity that goes on over there - if not towards us, then amongst themselves. Chicken and egg and all that jazz...

Incidentally, the “economic factors made them do it” had been a theory – and a popular one at that” - among academians (and it was invented for the sole purpose of multicultural relativism that says Christianity doesn’t encourage Christians to commit atrocities and Judaism doesn’t compel Jews to do likewise, and since all religions are equal in their capacity to inspire good and evil, the reason Muslims represent the vast majority of terrorism has to be due to something else besides Islam; enter the sociological/economic excuse) but it has been thoroughly repudiated by scholars like Daniel Pipes. The 9-11 hijackers were not people who experienced economic distress. Contrary to this theory, terrorists have a tendency to be highly educated, often coming from wealthy families (Osama bin Ladin was initially a multi-billionaire, for example). More importantly, they become experts on Islamic texts which the vast majority of Islam cannot read because of illiteracy.

The political distress goes hand in hand with what is Islam is really about, so I agree that this adds fuel to the fire. But the hypocrisy here makes it clear that they really are not just worried about Palestinian Muslims who are suffering. Yasir Arafat’s greatest accomplishment was to bring the Palestinian plight to the international stage. However, to be sure, hundreds of millions of Muslims have suffered far worse in genocides in Muslim countries like Somalia and Rwanda, but the Muslim world turns a blind eye to them. Instead they are worried about the relatively few Palestinians whose parents left the area for the sole purpose of Israel’s destruction. The reason the Muslim world is so interested in Palestine is because it involves Jews. Islam’s history is replete with anti-Jewish sentiment, as it is found in the Quran itself which refers to Jews negatively 99% of the time. But it is the dichotomy in the Muslim mindset that is really the source of the problem. If you are not in the House of Islam, then don’t complain about war because that is supposed to exist.

[_Ray A]

I think the bottom line question is this: If there never was a Qur'an, would 9/11 have happened? (Fly by post on my way to work.)

[_dartagnan]

Observer: Didn’t Got tell people of your own faith to kill other people?

Who, what when and where?

[_beastie]

God ordered his followers to commit mass murder several times in the Old Testament, and ordered specific individuals to kill other specific individuals in the Old Testament (and Nephi).

I'll have to come back to your longer post later.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Beastie...

This topic is a perfect example of my issues with the LDS church specifically and all religion generally.

The "God said" excuse makes me crazy! :-)

If Joshua, and his army slaughter (with knives) whole communities (children, babies, elderly,) and rape the young girls, it is all fine and dandy because God said. Oh well... God has his reasons.

If the 9-11 bombers fly a plane into a building because God said, all of a sudden they are evil.

If God tell Nephi to kill Laban... no problem! 'God said' so Nephi is just valiant and obedient.

If anyone else kills in the name of God he/she is a follower of Satan.

If Joseph Smith tells others God said he is to marry the wives of other men, and take for himself girls and women to have as his, manipulates, lies, and coerces others, well, so what? He is just following God... and didn't want to be killed by the angel with a flaming sword.

If my neighbor does the same claiming God told him to behave in this manner, he is in jail and condemned as a sick pervert.

In other words, the "God said," excuse is GARBAGE!

How anyone can condemn suicide bombers while embracing the Old Testament is beyond me. Both groups believe they were acting under the direction of God. Both groups believe they were destroying evil. Both groups believe they were holy and in line with God's will. Whatever....

~dancer~

[_dartagnan]

The "God said" excuse makes me crazy!

But this excuse is generally given by those committing the acts.

If Joshua, and his army slaughter (with knives) whole communities (children, babies, elderly,) and rape the young girls, it is all fine and dandy because God said. Oh well... God has his reasons.

Rape? Keep in mind that we are talking about an ancient civilization, and these events were the norm. It is also quite possible – and I believe this to be true – that many of these tales were invented and in other cases, the “God said it was OK” excuse was also invented. Rulers often appealed to divine sanction for their actions, but that doesn't mean they really got it. Glenn Miller makes a good case for this: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

This argument of yours would only work against those theists who take the Old Testament to be literally God's word in every single sentence that is written. In this day and age that would be a very small group.

How anyone can condemn suicide bombers while embracing the Old Testament is beyond me.

Easily actually, since one has nothing to do with the other. The Old Testament is a collection of stories from thousands of years ago presumed by many to be accurate histories, but by more critical thinkers, and those equally religious, they are considered ahistorical. By contrast, the stories in the Quran are hardly disputed by anyone. They occur more recently, long after Jesus and his message of peace changed the face of religion a half millennia earlier. It is a clear attempt to drag religion back to the Stone Age. What’s worse is that after 14 centuries Islam hasn’t budged much. Christianity benefited from its own Renaissance but Islam is designed to preclude such a reformation, which explains why it hasn’t happened.

Both groups believe they were acting under the direction of God. Both groups believe they were destroying evil. Both groups believe they were holy and in line with God's will. Whatever....

Sorry, but comparing 21st century terrorists with folk tales that allegedly took place 4000 years ago, is quite a stretch. It smacks of multicultural relativism and moral equivalence. All religions are not equal. All cultures are not equal. All governments are not equal. Some really are better than others (this is one of those rare points where I agree with Bill Maher).

Moreover, even if we assume all the Old Testament stories are dead-on accurate, it still doesn’t compare to Islamic terrorism. The stories in the Bible involve commands to kill specific groups of people, most of whom were practicing abhorrent rituals such as child sacrifice. But the fact is the Bible doesn’t delineate all the crimes that were committed by these groups, so it is premature to jump to conclusions and assume they (if “they” even existed to begin with) were just innocent victims of religious zealots.

The Bible is also open to interpretation whereas the Quran is not. The Quran has been declared timeless, even uncreated by Muslim law. It is supposed to apply in all periods and its commandments to kill all unbelievers is an open-ended command to kill anyone who isn1t a Muslim. It is not confined to specific groups under specific conditions and restricted to certain time-frames. One mst take this into account in order to see the salient differences between he two.

There really is a reason Christians and Jews do not form terror groups and randomly slaughter innocents in various countries. Even though Christians have twice the numbers of Muslims, Islam is responsible for roughly 80-90% of the terrorism today, and perhaps 99% of the religious terrorism. If all things are equal, and Christianity equally inspires violence, then what’s with the warped ratio? That is the reason for this?

That reason is best explained above.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Kevin,

Yes... the "God said" excuse goes over pretty well! Well, it works for whomever wants to justify their behaviors that otherwise would be considered dispicable.

I disagree with your thoughts on Islam. While I understand your position, the Muslims I know do not share your ideas. They do interpret the Quran, they do not share the beliefs you suggest, as Muslims, they must. But this is another topic! :-)

If one doesn't believe in the Old Testament, or if one just doesn't believe the Old Testament, then I can understand their condemnation of suicide bombers and the like.

But I'm taking about those who hold the Old Testament as the word of God, inspired, written by prophets in communication with God, or "the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

It is clear in the Old Testament Joshua & Co... claimed they were told by God to slaughter babies, children, mothers, sons, the elderly and even the animals (the young girls they could keep for themselves to do with as they wished). This is justified because "God said".

Yes, we are in a new age, yes, society is different, yes those who various groups want to destroy are different... but they are killing to please God. They justify their acts by claiming God is pleased with their killing (or God commanded it, or it is the will of God, or whatever).

If one wants to go with the idea the the Old Testament is a reflection of some tribal, nomadic men and their choices to overtake others as was common in the day, well fine. But if one is going with the belief that God was at the helm of these tribal nomads slaughtering others, then I don't think they can condemn others who do the same thing.

The justification is the same... slaughter/kill others because God will be pleased.

Just my opinion....

~dancer~