Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Which disproves your point that all/most Islamic violence is in retailation to western invasions.
Hang on, we aren't talking about war, we are talking about terrorist attacks carried out in the name of religion. You brought up the theory that all terrorist attacks are in retaliation to western wars against Islam, which I am still waiting for you to prove.
I don't claim to be an expert on the situation, certainly over a Northern Irish resident. I've never even been there. However I mentioned it because I thought it was a good chance you'd come back with <insert suitable description for the situation in Northern Island from the 1960s to 1998>, and I wanted to head off that by mentioning that I don't consider <insert suitable description for the situation in Northern Island from the 1960s to 1998> to be religiously motivated.
When have I tried to insult you? You seriously have one big chip on your shoulder. In addition, I consider:
to be rather insulting, rude, immature and actually quite inflammatory.
|
Again you've chosen to misinterpret my points.
Let me be absolutely clear. I am stating that prior to 9/11 and the "war on terror" atrocitices carried out by muslims against others (including other muslims) was not meritorious of the attentions, and certainly not the military might, of the west. It was all well and good to let them carry on kill ing each other as long as it wasn't "us" who were suffering. This exact same methodology of "not in our back yard" was as much a contributory factor in the execution of the holocaust as it is in the modern xenophobic frenzy against muslims - get used to it.
Your interpretation of "war" is irrelevant, as indeed is mine. In order for a conflict to exist there needs to be a minimum of two sides, on that we have to agree - it is an inaliable fact. In the event that one of the parties to the conflict purports to be a democratic entity, or is percieved as such, that side, throughout history, will invariably call their opponents "Terrorists". A convenient moniker that conjures up all sorts of supposedly demonic and evil images in the minds of right thinking "democrats" and which clearly establishes the democracy as the "good guy". Now, consider this. At what point did Nelson Mandela make the transition from convicted "terrorist" to international statesman and champion of equal rights and freedom of speech? When did Osama Bin laden cease to be a mujahadeen freedom fighter funded by the CIA fighting the russian forces in Afghanistan and suddenly become an (unconvicted) terrorist?
You need to understand that there are those in the muslim communty who believe that they are at war and they see the west and its allies to be terrorists. Are they not entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of thought or should they simply cow tow to the propaganda that we are all fed day and daily like sheep? The murderous acts that they carry out are seen by them as acts of bravery in much the same way that the bombing of Dresden was seen as the actions of a war hero. There are still relatives of nazi officers who cherish the medals their fathers and grandfathers were awarded for manning the death camps. The fact is that if you want to sanitize genocide or terrorism you simply relabel it as war or freedom fighting. Lets be frank about this. If you glorify war you will pay the price because someone WILL put you to the test, of that you can be sure.
No one in this situation is right, no one. There can only be one winner in this scenario in its current context and that is hate. I'm not here to discuss the semantics of free speech, I'm here simply to state, based on my experience, that if this current situation of ignorance, intolerance and paranoia is not addressed then more needless blood will be spilt, families will be destroyed and loved ones lost. Believe me when I tell you, and I sincerely want you to reflect on this, it will not be easy for any advocate of free speech, on either side, to look the relatives of the next victim in the eye and say "you know what, I supported the right to publish those cartoons". With free speech comes responsibility, sadly we're not seeing much of that.
I hope I've made my point about war / terrorism. They are one and the same. Their end results are the same, their actions are differentiated, in the main, only by uniforms and mindsets. One mans war is another mans terror campaign. One mans freedom fighting is another mans terrorism, I'm sure you get where I'm coming from. As I said earlier its a matter of disarming the mindset. Working to achieve that will develop a greater understanding and mutual respect. Cases in point? Northern Ireland and South Africa, to name but two, where those previously denounced as "terrorists" have, and are, delivering a lasting peace.
With reference to your Northern Ireland comments. I appreciate what you are saying in relation to why you made the comment but, as I have clearly pointed out in my previous post, please don't try to preempt what you quite obviously didn't understand. I don't mean that to sound condescending in any fashion but I'm uneasy with the thought that this "political war" nonsense still permeates. The fact is that the end solution is political - but the reality for thirty years was a religious based sectarian war / terrorism.
Perhaps we should both stop feeling insulted by each others comments and set a precedent whilst we're on the subject of mutual respect and understanding?
From our pointed debates I understand that we both, essentially, are against war / terrorism in whatever guise. So, how do we bring about a broader realization of our consensus that killing other human beings "in the name of...." is wrong?
Peace out.