Thread: Is Mullah Osama.. errrr... Barack Obama done

Originally Posted by Boltonian

Isn't Obama the leader of Al Qaeda?
He was when I last checked.

Originally Posted by CMartel

can we judge islam by the actions of its founder, the gangsta mohammed?

Enough on that! Both of you.

Originally Posted by sirpuddingfoot

Let's not judge one, or even a few, Muslim(s) (or reportedly one who grew up in a quasi-Muslim household) by the actions of Muslim extremists. That is certainly not justified.

As I have made clear a dozen times, I do not judge Muslims as a group by the actions of Muslim terrorists, I judge Muslims as a group by their INACTION in response.

They disappoint me.

-dale

Originally Posted by Stan187

I've never seen anyone seriosuly suggesting to put all American Muslims in internment camps on WAB.

No, I’ve never seen anyone seriously suggesting to put all American Muslims in internment camps on WAB either. What I said though is that it seems that what some posters on this board are “almost suggesting by inference” is the establishment of interment camps. In other words, it is not going to take some posters here too many more steps to make that jump in thinking.

What would I suggest? Well, in the first place I’m not going to pretend that I have some profound answers to the challenges of terrorism that face the United States – and the rest of the world. I do believe some form of military action is often (and currently) appropriate, and despite the mess that exists in Iraq today, I do not believe the withdrawal of American troops at this point would be prudent. Likewise, I believe Canadian troops should stay the course in Afghanistan. At this point I do not see any immediate or easy solution.

It would be nice if some of these people in third world countries had never become so marginalized (by western corporate expansionism) as to be susceptible to the recruitment by extremists, and in the long run, I believe continued efforts to help the regular citizens rebuild their countries and economies is the best and most worthwhile course. Obviously I recognize the challenge in doing this given the continued activities of the extremists. Still, we (the “western” world) need to win (not coerce) these people to our vision of freedom and democracy.

I would suggest that at an individual level, here at home, we not buy into our fears and engage in prejudicial thinking. It is my strong opinion that by doing so and ostracizing and further isolating minority groups we are creating the conditions here on this continent that were (and are) used by extremists to recruit members overseas. By buying into and acting out on our fear, we will contribute to the growth of extremist movements.

Some posters here challenge the inaction of regular Joe, a Muslim immigrant just trying to earn a living, pay his taxes and raise his family. He speaks out against the actions of extremists, but what more would we expect of him? He is also responsible for the welfare of his wife and family. Are we suggesting he quit his job and join the army? Are we suggesting he go back to his homeland to work as an American spy? Is it not enough he publicly renounces the actions of the extremists? What more are we doing? Should he sacrifice more because he is Muslim?

These marginalized groups don’t hate the west because they are jealous. They hate the west because they feel they are being used and exploited by the west – and there is some merit in that assumption. And feeling used and exploited they are easy pickings for extremist recruiters.

Originally Posted by sirpuddingfoot

The beauty (or lack thereof) of the situation, is that we (the U.S.) are really between a rock and a hard place.

Sure, the actions of a relatively small proportion of extremists acting in the name of Islam has a much greater effect than the words of many who do speak out against it.

Yes, there are many more Muslims who would rather have world peace than would like to saw the heads off of any/all Americans. But, the actions of the few who would rather saw heads off proverbially speak louder than the words of the many (thank you media--all of you). News is sold on shock and drama: we're more likely to watch a news program reporting atrocities than one reporting the results of a volunteer program; that's just the way it works.

Of course, that doesn't lend credence to the argument that Islam is by and large a religion of extremists. As the product of an evangelical christian church (which I have abandoned and speak out agains), I can certainly speak of the call by Christians to be "intolerant toward world-centric (secular) views" and how the Bible and God are to be the final arbiters. Evangelical Christianity is one of the fastest growing Christian denominations in the world today. It was the evangelical christian (read neo-con) bloc that elected Bush not once, but twice, on the argument that as a "Christian", he would act from faith and truth rather than from secular approval.

But, the other side of the coin lies therein: how bad was the decision to target islamic extremists?

The facts are that it wasn't insane for him to target Al Qaeda and the Taleban. Frankly, despite the arguments that they have their right to freedom of speech, does not mean that we (the secular world) can allow them to commit heinous acts of murder, no matter the cost. It is poor reasoning to judge the value of the actions against these people on a 1:1 basis.

The actions have gone too far in one direction though. The situation in Iraq is largely out of hand. The actions targetting extremists have hit too close to home for many of the Iraqi and other Islamic peoples. It wasn't just "crazy uncle LeRoy" who got taken out by US forces, it was "beloved grandpa Joe". There has been too much emphasis on the military action and 'accomplishments' and not on bridging the gap that exists between those of us who live in a secular society accepting the role of religion to a certain extent, and those of us who live in a religious society who are wary of the intent of people who wish to downplay the importance of religion. If the U.S. had poured half of the cash it put toward military action in Iraq toward developing infrastructure and creating an atmosphere of reconciliation and understanding for the people, I believe much of the current situation could have been avoided.

It would be a travesty if we (again, the U.S) left the region without, at the very least, beginning the process of reconciliation.

While I do not think that military action should be anywhere near the top of the list when it comes to solutions, the world cannot allow the actions of a few become the actions of many. It is apparent that the choice to pursue military action in Iraq has degraded our (the U.S) ability to enact reconciliation and has in fact accomplished just the opposite. A majority in the U.S. has now finally lost hope that reconcilliation can, in fact, take place in the middle east, and they are looking to cut their losses and run; an unfortunate circumstance, but not an unjustified one. Instead, the response should be a call to action by the world-over, not just the U.S. and the U.K.; actions that seek to help the victims of poor choices. It will take far more now than it might have if this had been set in motion long ago. The negative reinforcement of years of hardship enacted upon the Iraqi people indirectly through U.N. sanctions on Saddam Hussein's government have caused the people their to seek out some foundation for value. Unfortunately that foundation has been largely taken over by extremist factions who are not only set against the U.S. (secular ideology in general, of which the U.S. is the prime example) in part, but also against each other. I do not pretend to know in the least how to truly solve this, and I am exceedingly pleased that I do not face the responsibility to do so.

Let's not judge one, or even a few, Muslim(s) (or reportedly one who grew up in a quasi-Muslim household) by the actions of Muslim extremists. That is certainly not justified.

This is an excellent post. Very well thought out.

Originally Posted by steven lloyd

No, I’ve never seen anyone seriously suggesting to put all American Muslims in internment camps on WAB either. What I said though is that it seems that what some posters on this board are “almost suggesting by inference” is the establishment of interment camps. In other words, it is not going to take some posters here too many more steps to make that jump in thinking.

:Sighs: Would you care to actually highlight which posts "infer" internment camps, and which posters you are claiming would make 'that jump"? Or are you simply posing strawmen?

So basically, Steve L and Sir Pudding don't got the convictions to act but to lecture.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

So basically, Steve L and Sir Pudding don't got the convictions to act but to lecture.

*shrug* Which one is safer?


(I seem to be shrugging a lot lately, my apologies)

Originally Posted by steven lloyd

...long post...

How about our discussion sir? Which of my points or positions do you consider ill-informed or ignorant? Let's get specific.

-dale

Originally Posted by TopHatter

*shrug* Which one is safer?


(I seem to be shrugging a lot lately, my apologies)

I thought it was a twitch

Originally Posted by dalem

How about our discussion sir? Which of my points or positions do you consider ill-informed or ignorant? Let's get specific.

-dale

I've already asked him to respond to specific points and positions. Perhaps you'll have better luck. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I thought it was a twitch

It is. I grabbed a live wire a few days ago.