Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West

[Phi for All]

Forget about source... -- RELEVANCY!?

I see where Physia believes it would be relevant, but religions are amazingly flexible about interpretations of their holy writings when they are proven unsound. If Mecca were bombed I'm sure the Quran could produce a scripture which explained why it was suddenly possible (and why we were evil to do it in the first place).

 

I agree with Cap'n though. I think bombing Mecca wouldn't make muslims question the validity of Islam, it would just give them a reason to hate if they hadn't already decided to travel that road. As evidence we have the Iraq invasion; we've created more Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq by invading than there were in the first place.

 

I do agree with Physia that moderate Islam needs to be more outspoken in their denial of terrorism. Moderates *everywhere* need to be more vocal about *everything* they see as wrong. Part of the problem is that being loud about what you advocate is often seen as radical. Moderates need to be shown that passion isn't always extremism.

[ParanoiA]

I think Physia brings up some great points though. If you were getting mugged on the street with people walking by, doing nothing to help, then how innocent are they? Is complacency not indictable?

 

I've never liked the notion that one group should be obligated to prove themselves to another based on the behavior of some in their group. But, perception is reality and you ignore at your peril. As long as they continue to exercise their right to silence, they will continue to be misunderstood.

 

The choice of not supporting radical Islam does not really do anything. It is like saying there is nothing such as 'moderate Islam.'

 

What?

 

Hehe' date=' I think it's a symbolism over substance derivative. To say "I don't support radical Islam", and do nothing actively to help radical Islam, that doesn't mean you've [i']done anything.[/i] I, equally, do not support murder in my country, and I do nothing to help murder, so what have I really done here? Not a single murder has been prevented by lack of support for it in all my life. Instead, I have to be against murder. I actually have to participate in decision making that tries to actively stop murder, even indirectly like through voting.

 

Mecca is said to be 'unbreakable,' a place that can't be bombed.

 

If that's true, then it's an interesting idea if you could do it without killing anyone, just breaking stuff. But we have thorny issues of morality to consider and that kind of action is despicable. If we were at a state of war with those people, then I could see it, but we know we're fighting radicals, not a nation. More recruitment propaganda for radical murderers doesn't sound like a terrific plan clinically, and quite an inhumane one morally.

[Phi for All]

In their Quran, it says that Mecca is surrounded by a cover and it can't be bombed.

I've never heard of this before and it's resonating with me this morning for some reason. What if the "cover" is a political and sociological one? I think most Western leaders would view bombing Mecca as an attack on *all* Islam, even if the enemy is only a small faction within the whole religion.

 

Does the Quran also have provisions for what the faithful should do if Mecca is attacked, or is the "cover" so impenetrable that it's a moot point?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hehe, I think it's a symbolism over substance derivative. To say "I don't support radical Islam", and do nothing actively to help radical Islam, that doesn't mean you've done anything. I, equally, do not support murder in my country, and I do nothing to help murder, so what have I really done here? Not a single murder has been prevented by lack of support for it in all my life. Instead, I have to be against murder. I actually have to participate in decision making that tries to actively stop murder, even indirectly like through voting.

Does that make you guilty of murder?

 

They do have a very simple plan. They either kill you or you convert to Islam.

Going back a few posts to the first page, I'd like to insert a historical break.

 

Back when Islam was originally spreading around, their policy was never "kill or convert." They had an obligation to share the booty with the rest of the faithful, so if they converted their new subjects to Islam, they'd get less of the rewards of their conquests (it'd be shared with more people). I don't really see any historical evidence of the "kill or convert" mentality, though I'm no historian.

[ParanoiA]

Does that make you guilty of murder?

 

Of course not. And I didn't say that anyone who fails to do anything about radical Islam is guilty either. I said they're not doing anything about it when they simply say "I don't support radical Islam". You said "What?", and that's simply 'what'.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Right, but Physia was using their non-aggressiveness as an excuse to justify bombing Mecca even though only a minority of Muslims are radicals.

[Physia]

I do not see how you jumped from your premise to your conclusion.

 

I believe I've said how before, in my previous posts.

 

So you deny that there is a population of Muslims that does not hate America. Very well. I can provide counterexamples.

 

Make no mistake here; I did not deny that there is a population that does not hate America, I've stated that there are moderates that hate America, even if they are moderates.

 

Source?

 

Islamic teachings, and I have also been told by a Muslim friend that it has been said in the Quran; thus why I said it's said in the Quran in previous posts. I will get more information on this as soon as I can, but Islamic teachings do teach that. On Iraqi tv, there was a Sheikh that usually explained why they think that's the case, but I am not sure what happened to this Sheikh.

 

If that's true, then it's an interesting idea if you could do it without killing anyone, just breaking stuff. But we have thorny issues of morality to consider and that kind of action is despicable. If we were at a state of war with those people, then I could see it, but we know we're fighting radicals, not a nation. More recruitment propaganda for radical murderers doesn't sound like a terrific plan clinically, and quite an inhumane one morally.

 

I do like to stick to the point that reform is one of the two cases that will stop radical Islam from growing. Once reform happens, Muslims will get a different view about certain subjects in Islam, thus there are no excuses for radical Sheikhs to produce more radicals. Not to forget that it will grow more hatred if Mecca was bombed, but it will create a big mess that can't be controlled except by reform. As Phi for All said, they will find a way to create explanations for why it happened, and that's what results in reform.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe I've said how before, in my previous posts.

Please point me to it.

 

 

 

Make no mistake here; I did not deny that there is a population that does not hate America, I've stated that there are moderates that hate America, even if they are moderates.

Let's get this straight:

1. You propose we bomb Mecca.
   
2. I say that risks making the moderates that don't hate us hate us.
   
3. You say there's already hatred, so that's not an issue.
   

 

The problem is that bombing Mecca not only reinforces the hatred already brewing among radicals, it also turns those who don't hate America against us. It'd be safe to say that most Muslims don't want to kill all Americans, but a bombing campaign risks changing that.

 

 

 

Islamic teachings, and I have also been told by a Muslim friend that it has been said in the Quran; thus why I said it's said in the Quran in previous posts. I will get more information on this as soon as I can, but Islamic teachings do teach that. On Iraqi tv, there was a Sheikh that usually explained why they think that's the case, but I am not sure what happened to this Sheikh.

Very well. I'll dig up my copy of the Quran if you can tell me where to look.

[Physia]

I've never heard of this before and it's resonating with me this morning for some reason. What if the "cover" is a political and sociological one? I think most Western leaders would view bombing Mecca as an attack on *all* Islam, even if the enemy is only a small faction within the whole religion.

 

Does the Quran also have provisions for what the faithful should do if Mecca is attacked, or is the "cover" so impenetrable that it's a moot point?

 

I'll try to get some information about the Quran and Mecca relations and all that.

 

Now, what I am certain about, Mecca is considered the center of Islam, the place where their Prophet was born.

[Saryctos]

Let's get this straight:

1. You propose we bomb Mecca.
   
2. I say that risks making the moderates that don't hate us hate us.
   

 

Well, why wouldn't the extremists that want to bomb mecca just hide behind the moderates like they do?

[lucaspa]

I do not doubt nor deny the existence of the Radical Islam's strong anti-West and their dangerous control over the education and indoctrination of their youth, but I seriously doubt the West's ability to control this problem by the use of armed conflict.

 

The best we can do, in the the long run, is strengthen domestic security and keep our economy strong, so we can show them that progressive democratic/capitalistic ideals are far stronger than fanatical religious extremism.

 

This is how we ultimately 'took care' of the communist 'problem' in Soviet Russia and elsewhere.

 

I agree. Military action is only part of the solution. The reason "radical Islam" hates the US and West is that it is indeed losing the battle of ideas. It can't compete peacefully in the marketplace of ideas, so it has to resort to violence to preserve those ideas. That's where the parallels with Nazism come in; those are tactics any and every totalitarian state uses to promulgate its ideas.

 

Our economy, secular society and the freedoms and personal opportunities that come from that are eventually going to take people away from radical Islam. In fact, they already have for the vast majority of Muslims.

 

The way we can lose the conflict is to over rely on the military option and convert neutrals to enemies by using force against people who are just trying to get by.

 

In that regard, we are losing. Where once we only had a radical Islamics in control of Afghanistan, we have managed by our blundering to have radical Islamics undermining Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan.

 

Bombing Mecca will trigger reform inside Islam. In their Quran, it says that Mecca is surrounded by a cover and it can't be bombed. Make conclusions about what will happen if it was bombed.

 

How much reform did 9/11 cause in the USA? How much "reform" did Islam taking Jerusalem cause within Christianity?

 

There is not going to be any refrom inside Islam if we bomb Mecca! Instead, there is going to be instant hatred of the USA, hatred that the radical Islamists will use to unite all Muslims against us! In Muslims outnumber us considerably and, together, the nations with a majority of Muslims in the population have greater industrial power and more natural resources than we do.

 

The end result of bombing Mecca is a world war with us vs all the Muslim nations and Europe sensibly being neutral and sitting it out. And the result of the war is that the Muslim nations conqueor the USA.

 

The reform in Christianity ONLY came when there was no external enemy. As long as Christianity was engaged in fighting the Crusades, there was no reform. The Catholic Church had a stranglehold on Christianity. It was only after Europe turned inward and were not fighting another ideology were Luther and Calvin able to instigate the Reformation. Of course, that was an extremely bloody affair. Do you really think that such a series of wars today would be just within Islam? No, we have to help Muslims to a better way for their religion to mature. Bombing Mecca won't achieve any of your aims.

 

Good grief! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? No, of course not. Ordinary logic has gone by the boards. Bombing Mecca is not logically tenable as a solution to the current problem. With logic gone, why read history? After all, history is used to logically predict the outcome of actions.

[Physia]

Please point me to it.

 

Since the Quran says that 'Mecca' can't be bombed, it will create contradictions, which will lead to reform. I believe I have said it in other posts, so I am repeating it here.

 

Let's get this straight:

1. You propose we bomb Mecca.
   
2. I say that risks making the moderates that don't hate us hate us.
   
3. You say there's already hatred, so that's not an issue.
   

 

The problem is that bombing Mecca not only reinforces the hatred already brewing among radicals, it also turns those who don't hate America against us. It'd be safe to say that most Muslims don't want to kill all Americans, but a bombing campaign risks changing that.

 

It would be more interesting to have Muslims discuss this topic with us, but I believe that we must look at the bigger picture of it.

Reform in Islam equals a new way of thinking and interpreting Quran. There is a downfall in the proposition of bombing Mecca I believe, and that is the freedom the radicals have to interpret the Quran however they want. They can easily continue on with their radical Islamic teachings of anti-Democracy, anti-West, etc., and by bombing Mecca that will attract others, moderates could be included. What I would like to question is: Are moderates going to be attracted to the idea of contradictions in the Quran and hint for reform, or are they going to be attracted to the idea that 'an imperialist state,' as they regard us, attacked the center and holiest place in Islam? I will go ahead and actually question some of my Muslim friends about this, and get their input.

 

Very well. I'll dig up my copy of the Quran if you can tell me where to look.

 

I do not have a Quran with me, but I've asked a friend to look up. Once they get the correct Aya's, I'll post them on here. They assured me, however, that there's something close to this in the Quran.

 

How much reform did 9/11 cause in the USA? How much "reform" did Islam taking Jerusalem cause within Christianity?

 

There is not going to be any refrom inside Islam if we bomb Mecca! Instead, there is going to be instant hatred of the USA, hatred that the radical Islamists will use to unite all Muslims against us! In Muslims outnumber us considerably and, together, the nations with a majority of Muslims in the population have greater industrial power and more natural resources than we do.

 

The end result of bombing Mecca is a world war with us vs all the Muslim nations and Europe sensibly being neutral and sitting it out. And the result of the war is that the Muslim nations conqueor the USA.

 

The reform in Christianity ONLY came when there was no external enemy. As long as Christianity was engaged in fighting the Crusades, there was no reform. The Catholic Church had a stranglehold on Christianity. It was only after Europe turned inward and were not fighting another ideology were Luther and Calvin able to instigate the Reformation. Of course, that was an extremely bloody affair. Do you really think that such a series of wars today would be just within Islam? No, we have to help Muslims to a better way for their religion to mature. Bombing Mecca won't achieve any of your aims.

 

Good grief! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? No, of course not. Ordinary logic has gone by the boards. Bombing Mecca is not logically tenable as a solution to the current problem. With logic gone, why read history? After all, history is used to logically predict the outcome of actions.

 

9/11 and taking over Jerusalem are not the same issue as Mecca.

 

Mecca is mentioned in the Quran that it can't be bombed, so based on that I make a conclusion that there will be 'reform' or 'some type of change' within Islam.

 

Also, to clarify myself, I did not deny that it will create hatred, but I believe it is for the better.

[ecoli]

 

Also, to clarify myself, I did not deny that it will create hatred, but I believe it is for the better.

How is creating more hatred for the better.... ever?

[Physia]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY

 

Any comments on these?

 

How is creating more hatred for the better.... ever?

 

It is not hurting us. It is already growing day by day. This bumps us back to the point of "reform." That's how it's for the better.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Since the Quran says that 'Mecca' can't be bombed, it will create contradictions, which will lead to reform. I believe I have said it in other posts, so I am repeating it here.

 

I don't agree with that thought process. For example, I could point out dozens of contradictions in the Bible, and have we seen reform?

 

For such a measure to be effective, (a) it'd have to be something regarded as utterly true by the vast majority of Muslims, and (b) the reform would have to outweigh the resulting hate. I don't see either of those conditions being met.

[mooeypoo]

Physia, there already *ARE* contradictions in the Quran (like there are in the bible, tanach and any other mythical ancient book). That never stopped the "true believers" from devising imaginative ways of overcoming these contradictions.

 

Violence is never the answer to violence. Specifically not such huge generalized response in a place where a lot of *INNOCENT* people are. If you want to find the terrorists, fight the terrorists, not the people they are using.

 

When you fight the innocent people ('brainwashed' against the west or not) you are letting terror win. terrorists don't fight a "regular" war (for territory, for example), they fight a psychological one. Innocent people are still *LIFE*.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Bombing Mecca will trigger reform inside Islam.

 

Yes, it will. Just like whacking a hornet's nest will "reform" the nest. Just like bombing the Vatican will "reform" Catholicism. Just like bombing your house or your favorite garden will "reform" you.

 

Almost everyone who is Muslim will be very angry, and anyone who was already angry will become far more angry. They will seek revenge, in large numbers. Terrorists will get huge amounts of funding and recruits.

 

In fact, many religious leaders will become very upset, even if they hated Islam. Why? Because such an act would be viewed as not just an act against all of Islam, but an act against religion, which currently has a rather untouchable status.

 

Also, every single country that doesn't want to get hit by countless terrorists will denounce the bombing.

 

I don't see how you think any of this won't happen, or that it would be a good thing.

 

In their Quran, it says that Mecca is surrounded by a cover and it can't be bombed. Make conclusions about what will happen if it was bombed.

 

What will happen? The same thing that happens to any other contradictions in holy texts -- they get ignored, considered non-literal, or reinterpreted. For example Genesis has a creation story that scientists say cannot be literal. Therefore, some say that the Genesis creation story is not to be taken literally, and others say that God created the earth with an appearance of age. Elsewhere the Bible says that not a single star is missing, yet supernovas are real. That gets completely ignored.

 

The likely thing is that Mecca would be rebuilt if possible, and whoever bombed them would earn a permanent place in their interpretation of prophesy as the ultimate evil. If it is rebuilt, many would ignore the bombing (instead claiming eg that they just tried to bomb it) like Holocaust deniers, and others would reinterpret the text as saying eg that only the ultimate evil could have harmed Mecca or that it wasn't actually protected.