Growing Complacent About Terrorism
by Ted Slater on 02/11/2008 at 10:28 AM
We're caring less and less about those who would destroy our way of life, while those who would kill our families and destroy our way of life remain unwavered.
So says Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff in a recent interview with Washington, D.C. area radio station WTOP. He expresses his concern succinctly:
"The great weapon they have is persistence and patience, and the one weakness that we have is the tendency to lose patience and become complacent."
He went on:
"It strikes me as hard to accept that anybody would believe the threat is over. There is nothing these terrorists are doing or saying that could lead a reasonable person to believe that they have somehow lost interest. Our biggest challenge is making sure we do not drop our guard because time passes."
I've remained aware of the threat from Islamic Jihadists. Their attacks in Britain, Spain, Turkey, Bali, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Israel, Thailand, Indonesia, Morocco, Somalia and numerous other locations remind me that they remain eager to kill those who refuse to submit to their ideology.
I agree with others that we should do more to protect our borders and to examine shipments coming into our ports, and should be smarter in how we perform security at our airports. I also agree that we should continue ethical interrogation of Jihadists captured on the battlefield; many innocent lives have been saved through such efforts. I'm grateful for what's being done in secret to protect us from those bent on killing us.
How about you? Do you appreciate those who work to prevent Jihadist attacks? Are you growing weary of the "War on Terrorism"? Do you think it's just fear-mongering by those who would impose greater government control over our lives? Is the threat really not as significant as we're being led to believe?
1. Jared said the following at 10:59 AM on Feb 11:
I'm curious, would a foreign policy overseas that doesn't make the rest of the world hate the US be a good way of fighting the war on terrorism??
Instead of taking a defensive stance, why not take a proactive (non-military) stance.
2. John D. said the following at 11:00 AM on Feb 11:
No doubt terrorism poses some threat to the United States. I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it.
There have been so many color-coded terrorist alerts over the past few years, without anything (thankfully!) happening, that the government does appear to be crying wolf, playing on people's fear to encourage the idea that freedom and civil liberties must be infringed upon.
One example: the REAL ID card (a state-issued driver's license containing biometric information and linked to an insecure central federal database) is a police-state intrusion that should be repealed, and at least 17 states have already passed legislation opposing said REAL ID. The card will make it easier for the government to track (harmless, native-born, law-abiding) citizens, while doing nothing to detect those with evil in their hearts. "Your papers, please, mein Herr."
Also, here's how I know that terrorism isn't a real problem in the United States. If we were in that much danger from foreign terrorists, the government would guard the 2,000-mile southern border, preventing unauthorized visitors from entering illegally. If the fort is surrounded, you don't leave the back door open. Therefore, I conclude that the threat is overblown.
3. Christina said the following at 11:00 AM on Feb 11:
I am the most weary of people who are weary of the "War on Terrorism" when they have no idea what's going on.
None of us knows every detail - its a matter of state policy. We will never know every security detail. If we did, we'd be a piece of cake for the terrorists cuz it would be all over our new station. I remember the day after the 9-11 attacks and the reporter was standing in front of this bunker area "We are here live awaiting the arrival of the president to his secret hideaway" (not in those words, but you get the idea).
I don't know what's going on, but neither do I need to when I know people who work in those areas of high security - I see how serious they are about this, and I know its not a joke. This is real.
4. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:01 AM on Feb 11:
The bottom line is that one rarely cares about anything until it impacts them personally.
No one cares about flossing his/her teeth until you go to the Dentist and find you have 3 cavities all between your teeth and you'll have to shell out $300 for fillings.
No one cares about scheduled car maintenance until your car breaks down because you didn't repair the timing belt at 60,000 miles.
No one cares about spending quality time with family members until your spouse files for divorce unexpectedly or your children don't visit you anymore.
No one cares about getting serious with God until you are bankrupt, have a terminally ill disease, or are staring Death in the face.
And no one cares about terrorism in this country until it happens again.
5. Ted Slater said the following at 11:05 AM on Feb 11:
Jared -- how did Bali's foreign policy invite the Jihadists' wrath?
"Foreign policy" isn't at the root of this fight. "Submission" to their ideology is at the root of this fight.
What kind of proactive stance would you recommend? For one, I'd dismantle those Islamic schools (madrassahs) that teach such violent hatred against "non-believers," and introduce a more balanced curriculum. And maybe introduce pro-social television programming in countries friendly to Jihadists, programming that shows non-Jihadists as decent people who love their families and others.
John D. -- the "color-coded terrorist alerts" are meant more for government agencies than for individuals. They prompt various agencies to up their intelligence gathering and reporting, among other things.
6. John D. said the following at 11:18 AM on Feb 11:
Christina wrote,
"I know its not a joke."
What is also not a joke is the Constitution that is our legacy as free Americans. It's instructive to note that our leaders, when they take the oath of office, swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constution of the United States" -- NOT "the United States" but "the CONSTITUTION of the United States." Important distinction.
When I see the President (Bush now, maybe Hillary in a few months) detaining American citizens in military custody in violation of the right of habeas corpus; when the government conducts searches without a warrant; when the government celebrates the interrogation methods of the Third Reich and the Spanish Inquisition (i.e., water torture) as something good and noble, they are violating their oath of office, and maybe should be impeached.
I was in Washington, D.C. on 9/11. I heard the fighter jets screaming overhead and saw evacuated White House staffers walking up Connecticut Avenue looking like horses being led from a burning barn. Yes, I know terrorism is scary.
So is fascism and martial law.
I thank God for the liberty that is my heritage as an American citizen and I guard it very carefully. I am slow to trust a government that always wants more power at the expense of the Constitution.
7. Justin said the following at 11:23 AM on Feb 11:
Do you appreciate those who work to prevent Jihadist attacks? Are you growing weary of the "War on Terrorism"? Do you think it's just fear-mongering by those who would impose greater government control over our lives? Is the threat really not as significant as we're being led to believe?
Yes, to all those questions.
8. Marc from Peoria said the following at 11:31 AM on Feb 11:
Tell me, Christians, about your "way of life" that can be destroyed by men, guns or terror.
9. Jo said the following at 11:32 AM on Feb 11:
Ted, as someone who knows people who have lived in Pakistan before there was a Taliban, I agree that the madrassahs that are led by extremists are a huge problem. However, the madrassahs provide education (which is highly prized), food, and housing to orphans and poor children who do not have other opportunities. After all, the government is not providing those things. If you want to dismantle the madrassahs, a huge undertaking, then you have to be prepared to offer another educational option.
The extremists are the only ones who are doing anything to better the situation in south and southwest Asia. Of course, they are turning the desperate situation to their advantage, but doesn't everyone?
10. JB said the following at 11:33 AM on Feb 11:
I think the threat is drastically overstated. How are terrorists a threat to our "way of life" exactly? In their most spectacular success to date, after presumably decades of trying, they killed about 3000 people and knocked down two buildings. That was a horrific event, to be sure, but it hardly endangered our way of life. I think it's ridiculous to phrase the "War on Terror" in terms of an existential struggle. I think it's really more comparable to a law enforcement issue.
That being said, a free society comes with danger. We could decide to blindly trust authority and stay safe in a police state, but that seems a solution worse than the risk of harm posed by terrorism. Improve safety at airports, by all means, but warrantless wiretapping of Americans and imprisonment of citizens without trial are perversions of this country's founding principles. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" not, "Take my liberty, just please don't hurt me!"
BTW, Ted, it was Australia's foreign policy which led to the Bali bombings. It was their tourists who were being targeted.
11. Tom Neven said the following at 12:12 PM on Feb 11:
Jared
For what it's worth, the "let's get them to like us" tack will never work. I've lived on four continents and have traveled extensively overseas, and long before 9/11 there was a certain element (a noisy minority) that is determined to hate Americans. It's hard to describe because it is very close to irrational hatred, and it goes back decades. You can't reason with it and simply expect it to be there.
12. Carrie (the original) said the following at 12:14 PM on Feb 11:
I never travelled outside the country (minus Canada) until after 9/11. In retrospect, I don't really see how terrorism was ever a threat to our way of life. Yes, more precautions are taken at the airport and you aren't allowed to wait at the gate for anyone unless they are under the age of 18. That's about it though, if you aren't of Middle Eastern descent. I think it's changed more for people who look like they are from the Middle East.
13. Paul said the following at 12:18 PM on Feb 11:
I disagree with Michael Chertoff. The greatest weapon a terrorist can have is actually the ability to incite fear that exceeds the actions thay are actually able to perform, and to provoke restrictions to our free society.
From a British perspective, I think our domestic inteligence and security services are doing a good job. Every so often, I hear news of another terorist plot that has been identified and stopped. In a sense, the best way to deal with terrorism is to find ways of keeping alert without restricting people's lives.
I'm less convinced about the so-called "war on terror". I was prepared to be convinced that the war in Afghanistan would help reduce the treat of terrorism, but the idea that the Iraq war has anything to do with domestic terrorism is and has always been a complete joke.
14. Josh said the following at 12:28 PM on Feb 11:
The threat of terrorism is nearly impossible to assess from my position as a civilian. Practically speaking we just lack the pertinent information. I'd wager that most of us aren't affected in the slightest by the constant threat of terrorism though.
Basically we won't know how much danger we were in until something actually happens. One of the most irritating things I can read nowadays is someone saying "we haven't been attacked since 9/11, therefore we are safer". Classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and unintelligent to boot.
15. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 12:33 PM on Feb 11:
I appreciate the efforts of the military in Iraq and the efforts of intelligence services around the world, but I'm not at all pleased with the big spending and big controls being placed on citizens on the domestic front. The Department of Homeland security is a giant boondoggle. Stopping grannies for pat-downs and delaying millions of people to catch the odd terrorist is terribly inefficient. Moreover, we know from countless tests that the DHS let's stuff sneak by all the time.
We have handed over our responsibility for maintaining personal security the govt. Just the way the like it. But not how it's supposed to be.
16. John said the following at 12:41 PM on Feb 11:
"BTW, Ted, it was Australia's foreign policy which led to the Bali bombings. It was their tourists who were being targeted."
Ted's point is still true. It doesn't matter if we bend over backwards for these people, to be diplomatic, or whatever. Their ultimate goal is complete and total subjugation of the entire world.
Their ability to achieve that is another issue.
The point, though, is that no matter what we do, until we bow to Allah, they want to chop some heads off!
17. obewan said the following at 12:44 PM on Feb 11:
Jared had the following to say:
“I'm curious, would a foreign policy overseas that doesn't make the rest of the world hate the US be a good way of fighting the war on terrorism??”
Ted, I am not sure you were fair with Jared. He was asking a question more than he was making a statement. We always seem to focus on how stable the US is relative to the war on terror. What we cringe to hear about is how Iraq is going relative to the war on terror. I won’t make any statements because it would only lead to another statistical Goolge war between us. Instead, I will ask a more pointed question: Was Iraq more or less stable relative to the war on terror before the US invaded?
18. Ted Slater said the following at 1:10 PM on Feb 11:
Marc from Peoria, JB and Carrie -- my "way of life" can be severely disrupted should a suicide bomber blow up the local Walmart while my wife and two daughters are shopping there.
Obewan -- though in some ways the Iraqis are much better off now than before, the Jihadists have ensured that Iraq is less stable now than under the tyrannical dictator Saddam Hussein and his murderously rapacious sons. Perhaps the solution is to return to the heavy-handed authoritarian leadership of the former administration? Perhaps....
19. Eliza said the following at 1:11 PM on Feb 11:
If this was truly a "war on terror" instead of a war protecting American interests, wouldn't we be sending diplomats, ambassadors and military police units to Sudan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, etc.? Wouldn't we make it our utmost priority to garner international favor (on a government level) so as to make it in everyone's best interest to clamp down on religious fanatics everywhere?
I don't see an actual "war on terror" going on. I see America slapping that label on the situations its created because of shoddy research and poor planning. I think we should step down on international military intervention until other countries--particularly the EU and AU--ante up. Think of all that money we'd save! We could use it on technology and personnel to protect our own borders from terrorists.
20. Carrie (the original) said the following at 1:42 PM on Feb 11:
Ted, I'm more concerned about an attention hungry teenager shooting your wife and children at the local Wal-Mart than I am about suicide bombers.
21. Grays said the following at 1:56 PM on Feb 11:
You will notice a distinct lack of planes crashing into our skyscrapers these days. Vigilance seems to be working -- let's not get stupid and think we're safe now.
22. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 1:57 PM on Feb 11:
Ted:
"my "way of life" can be severely disrupted should a suicide bomber blow up the local Walmart while my wife and two daughters are shopping there."
Then I hope that, like me, you are extremely thankful you do not live in the Middle East, where terrorism occurs every single day.
It seems that everytime I read a case study in Political Science I stop and thank God that I was born in Canada.
23. Sara said the following at 2:28 PM on Feb 11:
About Canadians... idle comment here but talking about pop culture, it's weird: we have a reputation for politeness, but I think a sort of snotty superiority towards our 'neighbours to the south' is more typical of us, as if the US is like Moose from The Archie comics, you know: big and powerful, but stupid... Not that people in the States would notice or care. I wonder how the US comes across in Australian pop culture?
U.S. people, is it true you don't call your own country as 'the States', but always say 'America'? There was a spoof about something like that on the radio the other day.
24. Jethro said the following at 2:42 PM on Feb 11:
What is ethical interrogation Ted? Waterboarding? Sleep deprivation? 'Forced adoption of stress positions'?
What is protecting the US? The PATRIOT act?
What is State sponsored terrorism? Is it Saddam giving money to the family of suicide bombers? How is that different to the US funding the Nicaraguan contras in the fight against a legitimate government, producing a manual instructing how to conduct attacks on oil facilities, assassinate judges and invoke fear in the population (then calling them the equivalent of our founding fathers - thanks President Reagan)?
So, do I appreciate those who fight terrorists? Sure do. Except sometimes it's hard to distinguish the terrorists from those fighting them...
25. Jacob M. said the following at 2:48 PM on Feb 11:
I am tired of hearing about the "war on terror," but not because I believe the "war" is a bad thing--rather, because I believe we are not fighting any such "war." The only war we are fighting is one to install democracy in the Muslim world, which results in the election of terrorists.
If we were truly serious about minimizing the threat that Islamic terrorism poses to us, we would recognize that violent jihad is an integral part of Islam: not "radical" Islam, not "fundamentalist" Islam, not "Islamofascism," not a false Islam being practiced by a tiny minority of extremists, but true, mainstream Islam. This would lead us to the inescapable conclusion that we should not allow Muslims to immigrate to our country, and should remove Muslim non-citizens who are already here, a conclusion even those known for fiercely waging the "war on terror," like George W. Bush and John McCain, are nowhere near being willing to reach.
26. Ted Slater said the following at 3:03 PM on Feb 11:
Jethro -- yes, Palestinian suidice bombers are wonderful, and the U.S. is evil. And enemy combatants should be treated to gourmet meals and enjoy their stay in 4-star hotels, free to return to murdering innocent children at their whim.
I appreciate your bringing clarity to the conversation, Jethro.
27. Sarah P. said the following at 3:25 PM on Feb 11:
The Islamic world is indeed a great threat - no doubt, the next big source of actual war - although the situation is still percolating at this point. Give Europe a few more decades to continue turning Muslim, and we'll see what happens.
Meanwhile, is Iraq helping anything? Hm. We had to respond to 9/11 in some way, so terrorists would know we have some teeth. Pragmatically, however, now we're stuck. We can't just yank ourselves out of there, any more than we could abandon the Weimar Republic in West Berlin to the mercies of communism after WWII.
I agree that people in general tend not to think about matters until they affect them directly. Everyone wanted to do _something_ immediately after 9/11, but now they have forgotten how they felt.
28. Katie P. said the following at 3:56 PM on Feb 11:
Jacob M.,
Yikes. I have to take issue with your statement that "violent jihad is an integral part of Islam," and especially that it is mainstream. It is understandable why you (and lots of others, for that matter) think this, since the majority of exposure we in the west get of Muslims involves chaotic images of people blowing themselves up. However, the vast majority of Muslims and Islamic theologians, while they might not love American foreign policy, do not support al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. Having lived in the Middle East, this was also my experience. Virtually all (with the exception of one or two) of the people I knew were very quick to make sure I knew that they condemned Islamic terrorism if the issue came up. I think it is good to remember that groups such as al-Qaeda and others are not just targeting the west, but also their own people. Most people do not enjoy living in an environment where they are scared to send their children to school, because they know that they are fair game in someone else's fight.
Don't get me wrong; I am not saying that Islam is a wonderful, beautiful religion with a totally peaceful past. On the contrary, these people do not have Christ, and are completely lost without Him. That is a big reason that statements like yours really bother me: people tend to act out what they believe. Not many missionaries from the west head to the Middle East these days. Thousands of Muslims are born and die every day without Christ, and by creating extra barriers that are not founded in the truth (i.e. "they all want to blow us up") between us and them, it is not helping the Gospel to spread. The fact that many in the Middle East have no hope of an eternity with Christ is enough of a barrier, let's not add to it by creating new ones that really don't need to be there. :)
29. k. said the following at 3:57 PM on Feb 11:
Ted - I think "way of life" is MUCH too vague. At any rate, I seriously question whether your Wal-Mart is really a priority for terrorists. :)
30. JB said the following at 3:57 PM on Feb 11:
Jacob M,
My Muslim roommate's parents immigrated here from Syria a few decades ago. As far as I can tell, he doesn't believe in violent jihad. He does, however, tend to leave dirty dishes in the sink, which is pretty irritating. I doubt it's to punish me for heresy.
I think you're making an unfair generalization about Muslims.
31. Jethro said the following at 3:59 PM on Feb 11:
I don't recall saying any of those things Ted.
32. Eliza said the following at 4:03 PM on Feb 11:
Ted,
You always* take the bait and give a sarcastic response when it comes to politics. Nobody is personally attacking you. Your exaggerated answers tend to incite more offense and division than is necessary... especially when a soft answer would turn away wrath. Jethro et. al. aren't stupid--quite the opposite. They have smart conclusions they have come to out of a lot of thinking, as do you. Yet it really sounds like you're talking down to them (and hence, me, since I generally agree with then on issues).
*Obviously not "always". But it seems like it.
33. Spud said the following at 4:08 PM on Feb 11:
So the governments 'war on terror' really means 'keep us in terror all the time'. Yeah, that's what I figured.
Oh yeah, it would be nice if anyone had a clue about who funded the last Jihad against Russia - it was the USA and Saudi Arabia. Our CIA funded Bin Laden and the Madrassas schools in Pakistan. But none of these experts on 'islamofascism' seem to know this.
If we gave a rip about terrorism we would stop giving billions of dollars to the Saudis!
34. Jacob M. said the following at 4:29 PM on Feb 11:
Katie P., who are the "lots of others" who believe that Islam itself is the problem? I know of only a handful of writers and commentators who hold this view, all of them considered outside the mainstream of political discourse for it, and I have never met anyone in person who holds it. Instead, the incessant chorus we hear from both liberals and "conservatives" is that true Islam does not condone terrorism and that the terrorists are not true Muslims. Furthermore, I constantly hear people doing what you are doing, bemoaning that so many hold this mistaken view of Islam, when in fact almost no one does.
But consider, Katie P. and JB. Are the following quotations an "unfair generalization about Muslims?"
"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
"The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."
Two guesses as to where those are from.
Both of you, in mentioning Muslims, have done another thing that is distressingly common in modern political debate: assuming that everything is personal. It's not fair to Muslims to think these things, you say. But I'm not talking about Muslims, I'm talking about Islam. It doesn't matter if only a minority of Muslims carry out terror attacks; what matters is that that is what Islam teaches that its followers must do. Thus, wherever Islam is present, there will be violent jihad.
If you are unfamiliar with this side of Islam, I suggest reading a book on the topic. Serge Trifkovic, Andrew Bostom, and Robert Spencer are some scholars who have dealt with it.
35. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:29 PM on Feb 11:
Katie P, JB, etc.
I'm certainly not defending everything what Jacob M. says. I agree that MOST Muslims do not behave the way Al-Qaeda does. And that despite how the Koran was intended or how it may be interpreted today, many do not take the "Jihad" command to such extremities.
However, Jacob is raising a legitimate point, albeit indirectly. And that point is that many Muslims, even though they say they don't support Al-Qaeda haven't really done a whole lot to quelch it either.
After 9/11 there were very few public condemnations of the terrorist act from the Muslim world (only individual citizens). Most said nothing about it, except perhaps "we regret the lives lost". Maybe the mentality was, "Well America deserved it (and in some ways we did as a result of our foreign policies)" or "Yeah it's not an ideal solution but at least it'll keep the West off our backs". They may not like Al-Qaeda or publically support them, but you never hear of any serious effort to root them out from the populace. I'm sure more than one Muslim cleric has turned a blind eye to them congregating/plotting in their Mosque.
Finally, consider the often thrown out (yet hard to prove) statistic that 1% of the Muslim world would join/support Al-Qaeda. Even if it were just 0.01% that's still over 10 million Muslims who are willing to support/engage in radical Islamic terrorism. That's a scary number if you think about it.
Finally, regarding public policy, take a look at Israel. We give aid to that tiny nation more than any other. Most Muslims are pretty divided on many issues with differing opinions except this one: Almost all Muslims either loathe Israel or don't care for it at all. The fact that many Muslim nations don't recognize it as an official country (including failing to put it into student textbooks) says something. This is not to say either way that we should/should not help Israel (that's a side disscussion in my opinion), but the fact remains that as long as we support Israel, we will have to deal with Al-Qaeda and its ilk and the danger of terrorism.
36. John said the following at 4:30 PM on Feb 11:
A conservative estimate of the number of true Muslims, the ones that follow completely what the Koran actually says, is 10% of the world's total Muslim population.
That's 10% of a billion.
That's a lot of head choppin jihadists!
I guess you can say that 100 million are giving the other 900 million a bad name.
By the way, it is illegal in almost every Muslim country to proselytize for Christianity. You can't evangelize and the penalty for conversation is death.
I'd say that that is obstacle enough AND people are not resorting to "they all want to blow us up" as an excuse.
Most evangelists are there in secret, anyway, so we don't know how many are actually there.
There have also been reports of Muslims having dreams that cause them to convert to Christianity.
So whoever tried to advance that arguement about false obstacles, sorry, but you're wrong.
37. JB said the following at 5:32 PM on Feb 11:
Jacob M,
In your first post, you advocated treating people differently based on their religion - with regard to permitting immigration and residency. To the people you want to turn away from America or deport, that would seem very personal, I think. Prejudice based on religion, if enacted in policy, can't avoid having effects for individual people. So I think it's relevant to bring up the fact that there are many Muslims you'd like to keep out or deport who are nothing like violent jihadists.
As for your characterization of Islam, I think that it's unhelpful for people outside of a faith tradition to try to define what it means. A faith can really only be understood from the inside. The new crop of evangelical atheists (Richard Dawkins, etc.) like to argue that parts of the Bible advocate genocide, or the execution of homosexuals, or what have you. We say that this is a gross mischaracterization of our faith. I think that many Muslims would argue that Islam as portrayed by some conservative commentators is very different from the faith they practice, isolated quotations from the Koran notwithstanding.
38. Khalil said the following at 6:13 PM on Feb 11:
Eliza, I agree with you and would add that the term terrorist is used by those whom are being attacked.
I don't say this to promote or condone any terrorist activity (9/11, etc) but wouldn't the Americans have been classified as terrorist when we declared independance? If we are on the side of the "terrorists" then they are guerrillas or freedom fighters, if we are against them then they are terrorists.
A good commentary on this issue is found in Robert Fisk's book "Pity the Nation", about Lebanon and the civil conflict there up until around 2000.
I am quite frankly afraid of the "get them before they get us" mentality. Our foreign policy is less than ideal and I feel that is what helps encourage "terrorists" to attack or attempt to attack us. This preemptive (with force of any kind) is pretty much the same that they use against us. If we stopped pushing American and Western agendas we might get further in the world. Welcome to the New Roman (I mean American) empire.
39. Khalil said the following at 6:25 PM on Feb 11:
Ted:
I don't think anyone called the US evil. There is a reason that suicide bombers came around. Perhaps most of us are too young to appreciate this, but is there anyone here that can shed some light on the kamikaze tactics used during WWII? That was essentially the same tactic, was is looked on as cowardly or evil?
If you want to bring up the Palestinians look at what they have suffered over the years throughout the Middle East. The Sabra and Chatila massacres in Beirut, the Qana massacre in Southern Lebanon, the very act of expulsion from Palestine, and the various methods of control and abuse they suffer daily. True, their methods don't always work and can be downright deplorable, but is it that easy to overlook that the Israelis (note, I am not saying Jews) are not exactly the angels of mercy and humanitarianism everyone makes them out to be?
Terrorism is a strategy and a means to an end. I don't think you can ever win a war against an ideology.
This is not an attack against you, so please don't take it as such. Again, it goes back to what and who is defining terrorism.
40. Bethany said the following at 6:37 PM on Feb 11:
Note: This comment has gotten rather long. I wrote this at work, then waited until I got home to post it. Now some of it has already been responded to, but I thought I still had some points.
For those making generalized statements about Islam, I will refrain from argument, but I would remind you that Christianity has perpetrated its share of violence, too, in our long history.
And Ted, I daresay your latest post about Jethro might have been censored, were you not the editor of this blog. Eliza has said this better than me.
I think Marc from Peoria has an excellent point. If we step back from fearful “patriotism” and remember our citizenship in another Kingdom, I believe we would confess that no bomb, no terrorist, no evil axis or Islamo-facist can take away our access to the Way of Life, Jesus Christ.
I know, Ted, that you don’t mean to say that – I have no doubt that you have confidence in our Lord, who “always leads us in triumphal procession” and who empowers us to assail even the gates of Hell. I liked Marc’s point because it gives a good dose of perspective, lest we forget who we are and what we are fighting for. I assume you are referring to the American way of life, but what parts of it do you mean?
[Again, I wrote this before you gave the "local Wal-mart blows up" scenario. I would still say that though the "way of life" of the families of the victims of 9/11 has inarguably changed, the American "way of life" on a broad scale has not. We still have jobs, roads, banks, schools, and government.]
The things I appreciate about the American way of life are the civil liberties we have: the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial (habeas corpus), the right to bear arms, etc. Our civil liberties are worth fighting for. If I were convinced that is what we are accomplishing in the “war on terror,” I would lend it more of my support. As it is, I am left wondering if I must actually choose between surrendering to Al Qaeda or to Big Brother. I hope I have better options.
I believe that, ultimately, the only security we have is in Jesus. I agree that we should increase national security up to a point, but not so far that we undermine the very way of life we are supposedly seeking to defend. I believe that absolute national security is an impossible goal – there will always be cracks in the system. Let us not give up freedoms we have for security we may never see (or would not want to see, in the extreme police state scenarios someone mentioned above). To let go of freedoms that others have died for – that is disrespectful to our troops.
Incidentally, it’s ironic, I think, that “terror” is another word for “fear.” We are waging a war against fear, and yet to win we have to make sure to stay afraid, so as not to drop our guard. How do we know if we’re winning? ;)
41. Katie P. said the following at 7:56 PM on Feb 11:
Jacob M.,
You're right, I should have identified the "lots of others" I was referring to. I was mainly talking about popular opinion. I will be the first to admit that it is not based on any kind of empirical, scientific study, but merely reflects the theme of the majority of interactions that I have had with people here in America. Most people (and by that I mean more than half) that find out I spent time in the Middle East first ask something along the lines of "were the (expletive) Arabs hostile," or if I am talking to a believer, they express complete disbelief that I would want to go to that part of the world. I have more than one variation of "Why would you want to take the gospel there, they hate America and Christians" since I have been back. To be fair, this is not at all representative of everyone, but I would say it has been the majority. As to your suggestion that few in the academic community share your view, I definately agree with you. And, respectfully, I would challenge you to ask why that is? Sure, I realize that some probably have an agenda, but surely not all? Is it possible that the view that most Muslims do not support radical Islamists is verified by so many because they have been to the regions in question, lived with the people and found it to be the case?
I am glad that you brought up these two quotations. I will start with the second you presented, which is actually not in the Quran. It is one of the hadith, or traditional sayings. Unlike the Quran, which every Muslim is required to follow, the hadith are not considered inerrant in orthodox Islam, and it is not required that they are followed, mainly because it is very hard to track their origins and validity.
The first passage you mentioned is in the Quran (Sura 9, I believe). A reading of the entire context makes it clear that this passage referred to rules with a particular tribe during wartime, and is not a command for the universal slaying of all who do not follow Islam. I can see how it would look like it from only reading the one passage, though.
You also said, "Thus, wherever Islam is present, there will be violent jihad." A quick look at history will show that this simply is not the case: although there definately has been violence in Islam's history, it tends to go in cycles, and long periods of peace can also be found.
Sorry this is so long, and again, I am NOT trying to convince anyone that Islam is a wonderful religion that we could all learn a thing or two from. I am, however, respectfully asking that you fairly look at the situation, and look at peoples' hearts as those that desperately need Christ and not as a collective group that all wants to kill us. I'm sure you will let me know what you think :)
42. k. said the following at 8:04 PM on Feb 11:
Ted - I think you're so used to arguing with Jethro that you sometimes overlook the fact that he has good points. If you look at Abu Ghraib, it WAS hard to say who the good guys were. (At a guess, not the ones smiling for the camera.)
Sara - I guess a lot of us do frequently refer to ourselves as "Americans," although I think that comes more from a habit of shortening phrases, rather than a delusion that we're the only ones on the continent. :) For my part, when I go overseas and get asked where I'm from, I say the US. (Unless it's someone with a grudge, in which case I say I'm from...Ontario!)
43. Katie P. said the following at 8:11 PM on Feb 11:
Mike Theemling,
You raise a good point. There is actually quite a bit of resistance to al-Qaeda/Muqtada al-Sadr/Islmic Jihad-esqe groups in Iraq, but not so much in other parts of the Arab world. The question I would ask is this: does lack of condemnation equal support? In some cases, the answer in probably yes. I think we must remember, though, that it is well-known that al-Qaeda notices and deals with their enemies. People recognize this. Sadly, the church in Germany was largely silent as the Nazis rose to power (with the exception of some heros like Deitrich Bonhoffer). Was this because they agreed with Nazi policy, or because they were afraid to do otherwise?
John,
You said, "So whoever tried to advance that arguement about false obstacles, sorry, but you're wrong."
I am the "whoever" you were referring to, and you are quite possibly right. It definately wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong about something. :)
JB,
I totally agree.
44. Ted Slater said the following at 8:30 PM on Feb 11:
Khalil -- the "Qana massacre"? You mean the one in 2006? Terrorists launching rockets from the roof of a United Nations shelter into Israel that was consequently bombed, additional bodies conveniently brought to the location to make it look super bad for the Israelis? The one with anguished Green Helmet Guy Salam Daher in every photo? The one with the guy who's "dead" in one photo and assisting victims in a later photo? The one with multiple Photoshopped photos of the same girl in different outfits? The one where some bodies are covered in cement dust and others are clean and already suffering from rigor mortis? That one?
Or are you talking about the one in 1996, where Israelis again returned fire on terrorists, killing "human shields" (disabled kids) cynically placed by Hezbollah members who have little care for human life? Cynically using a UN building as their base of operations against Israeli civilians? Perhaps with the blessing of the UN? Was Adnan Hajj the photographer on scene -- the photographer fired by Reuters for Photoshopping images to paint the Israelis in the worst possible light?
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the so-called "Jenin Massacre" -- the ginned-up event that never happened.
Were 28 killed? Were 56 killed? Were 102 killed? How about 1,230 killed -- all children and women? Dig up the cemetery and bring in more! 2,498 bodies! All killed for no reason but because Israelis and Americans are animals!
I get tired of being played for a fool, Khalil. Tragedies invited by and exaggerated by Jihadists, staged by "victims" bent on manipulating the press into giving them sympathy. And money.
Sorry, I've seen far too many faked funeral processions, faked deaths, faked shootings, faked outrage, faked mourning and faked "massacres" to fall for them any more. "Civilized" societies have more to do than make bombs, train their children to be suicide bombers, and call Jews and Christian dogs and pigs.
You write, "Terrorism is a strategy and a means to an end." You know what, Khalil -- I think you really believe that. And it's a strategy we need to eradicate. Too many innocent "Palestinian" human shields have died for such a satanically-inspired strategy. And too many innocent non-Jihadists have died for it as well.
Do you agree that there's no place for terrorism against innocents, Khalil? Hm. I guess it depends on how one defines "innocents." A tax-paying American is considered "not innocent" by many Jihadists....
Hm. Maybe it's time for another vacation....
45. Chris said the following at 9:16 PM on Feb 11:
Of all things, I am growing weary of this phrase "war on terrorism" (or GWOT for the military types).
It's stupid because there is no way to win it. Say we capture/kill Osama tomorrow. Will the terrorists say, "Gosh, you got us! You win. We'll go back to herding goats now."? Will they lay down their arms and dissolve their cells? No, they won't. If anything, Osama's death/capture will just be fodder for more terrorists. For every terrorist you kill in this "war", another will take his/her place.
Wars are fought between nation states and can be lost or won or at least "ended" with agreements. Even the Korean War, not officially over, has "ended" in that there are no longer open hostilities. No such possibility exists with an enemy that knows no national boundaries.....
Unfortunately, when we call something a "war", it let's us do things in the name of the "war". Often, these things are justified because we are in a state of "war", an unusual state of affairs that require extraordinary actions. Yet, we all know the war can never really end. All it takes is one terrorist to keep it going indefinitely. (One only has to look at questions by the Justices in certain recent Supreme Court cases where they raise this very issue.) Additionally, we tend to frame things in military terms (invading Iraq, for example) when we should be focusing on policing actions (human intelligence, infiltration of cells, gathering evidence to learn about networks, etc.)
Finally, I think a lot of what we do domestically is utter garbage that does nothing to make us safer. We waste time on airport screening and ID issues. Didn't the 9/11 bombers have ID and tickets? I travel a lot, and I'm amazed at how many times my boarding pass is checked and marked. Yet I've gotten unusual electronics (such as pressure switches) through security by merely saying, "it's a pressure switch" to the screener. FYI, a pressure switch is a great way to signal for detonation when a certain altitude is reached.
We make people put their liquids into little 3 oz jars in bags when they get on planes, yet many chemical plants lack even the basic security. You would not believe how easy it is to get inside a manufacturing facility that has dangerous chemicals.
Of course, the biggest laugh, if you can call it that, is that almost anyone can buy a hand gun or semi-automatic weapon and take it into a university class.....or wait outside an elementary school with it.
Inside of fighting this stupid war to make ourselves feel like we're doing something, we should actually start doing something.
46. Melissa* said the following at 9:30 PM on Feb 11:
"Those who sacrifice freedom for security have neither (or deserve neither)." The quote has many variations and has been attributed to several, but I think it's right on and particularly relevant in this age. What is fear making us (or the government) do?
47. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:57 PM on Feb 11:
Khalil,
The difference between kamikaze fighters and Al-Qaeda terrorists are as follows:
- Japan and the U.S.A. were both recognized nation states and both officially at war. Al-Qaeda does not belong to a nation state and thus can not legitimately make such a declaration.
- Japan for the most part followed the rules of war. Al-Qaeda has thrown those rules out the window. Rules such as wearing symbols and uniforms which signify your allegiance (it would be against the rules of war for a Japanese soldier to wear a US uniform and enter combat shooting Americans), not attacking non-combatants (Al-Qaeda specifically targets non-combatants), using protected buildings (such as hospitals and mosques) to house munitions or military personnel who aren't wounded.
You also said, "I don't think you can ever win a war against an ideology."
This is not true. Although there will always be pockets of evil for the most part some ideologies have been abolished. Take for instance:
- Slavery as it has been known for thousands of years (official ownership of people) has been abolished, including this country
- Communism in terms of Marxian economics has essentially been debunked in all parts of the world. Even China has for the most part abolished the economic aspect of Communism (although the idea of the State running/managing most of people's lives are still there).
The point is that although some people will always adhere to some tenets of an ideology, such ideologies can indeed change. But of course those won't happen overnight.
48. John said the following at 5:29 AM on Feb 12:
Let me see if I understand some of the "reasoning" going on here:
People who fire rockets at pre-schools could be both "freedom fighters" AND "terrorists" depending on a person's perspective?
A person who blows himself up is equal to a patriot defending his country?
Talk about the height of moral equivication.
Please people.
The colonists could have been considered terrorists?
Man, what a sad twist of logic.
They were considered traitors to the crown, but certainly not terrorists.
Seriously.
49. Kyle said the following at 6:08 AM on Feb 12:
I am greatly thankful for the efforts being done on a daily basis by our nation's military, police, and intelligence units. As someone who has traveled fairly extensively throughout the world, including into hotbeds of radical Islam, there is not a day that goes by that I don't worry about an attack on our nation's soil, or any nation's soil for that matter.
When you are faced with having to fight for your freedom against people who will use two women with Down Syndrome (that means mentally retarded just to make my point hit home), to blow up a market full of innocent people you must realize they will kill with any chance and opportunity they get. That was not the first time terrorists have used mentally ill or disabled individuals to carry out horrific attacks that the bombers themselves had no concept of what was going on.
May God be with all those on the "frontlines" protecting us and other freedom loving people in the world. God's greatest gift to mankind is freedom, both in our lives through Christ, and the physical and lifestyle freedoms like we enjoy in the West.
50. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:26 AM on Feb 12:
If the government were serious about terrorism, then immigration reform should have been a top priority after the 2nd plane hit on September 11. Instead, almost 7 years later, we are little closer to secure borders than we were then.
In fact, we have a field of presidential candidates--Hillary, Obama, McCain, Huckabee--whose approach with respect to our borders is smoke and mirrors, just like our current President.
Meanwhile, the neocons are upping the ante for war with Iran--even though the Iranians (a) had nothing to do with 9/11, (b) according to our CIA's latest NIE discontinued their nuclear weapons program in 2003, and (c) have nothing to do with Al Quaeda.
McCain is even talking about a 100-year war.
As an old-mold pro-life, pro-defense, pro-gun, pro-capitalism Reagan conservative, I'm absolutely disgusted at the extent to which the GOP has sold America out.
Come to think of it, I'll take Reagan--in his current condition--over anyone in the field.
Unfortunately, since the deceased Reagan--due to Constitutional issues--cannot run for a third term, I'm doing the next best thing: I'm supporting Ron Paul.
I'm out of this lesser-of-two-evils business. If we're gonna get evil, let it be the unvarnished variety (Hillary or Obama), rather than evil cross-dressed as conservatism (McCain).
51. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:37 AM on Feb 12:
Ted says: What kind of proactive stance would you recommend? For one, I'd dismantle those Islamic schools (madrassahs) that teach such violent hatred against "non-believers," and introduce a more balanced curriculum. And maybe introduce pro-social television programming in countries friendly to Jihadists, programming that shows non-Jihadists as decent people who love their families and others.
Ted: Since when is it our job to decide what other governments allow their systems to teach their children?
Deciding what other countries do within their education systems is quite an Orwellian approach to foreign policy, and will one day be used against us.
You can't have an Orwellian foreign policy AND a libertarian domestic policy. Governmental bureaucracies tend to get bigger, and will gravitate toward more Orwellian levels of control.
And if you think that will not adversely impact any efforts to have a family-friendly political arena, then you don't know government.
52. John D. said the following at 7:09 AM on Feb 12:
Chris makes some good points, the main one being the open-ended and indefinite character of the so-called "War on Terror."
When General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox Court House, the Civil War was over. Even if Osama bin Laden sat down with General Petraeus in the Green Zone and signed articles of surrender, he could only surrender on behalf of al qaeda (assuming he still has control over them). There will always be one more terrrorist group out there (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.)
Ronald Reagan once said that a government program was the closest thing on earth to immortality. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, consider the fact that there is now a large and well-funded cabinet department dedicated to fighting terrorism. The day terrorism is eradicated, the Department of Homeland Security goes out of business, and tens of thousands of bureaucrats lose their jobs. A lot of those federal employees have mortgages and kids in college. Something tells me there will always be new terrorists to fight, one way or another.
Meanwhile, a regimen of curtailed civil liberties will remain an essentially permanent fixture of our lives. In 20 years there will be a generation of adults who will not remember life as it was before September 11. At that point, the war looks less like World War II and more like the Thirty Years War.
P.S. Doesn't "Homeland" have a vaguely totalitarian feel to it, like "Fatherland"?
53. John D. said the following at 7:16 AM on Feb 12:
(The other) John wrote,
"The colonists could have been considered terrorists?
Man, what a sad twist of logic.
They were considered traitors to the crown, but certainly not terrorists."
If Patrick Henry were alive today, calling for rebellion against the sovereign, I'm sure Homeland Security would have a file on him.
If today Thomas Jefferson were to publish his famous words about the tree of liberty being fertilized with the blood of patriots and traitors, there would be men in black suits parked outside his house, and his phone would be tapped.
Bonus question: did the Founders violate Romans 13, which calls for submission to lawful government? Was our country founded on a violation of Scripture?
54. Erin Hale said the following at 10:40 AM on Feb 12:
According to the CDC, in 2001, 7% of deaths in 2001 were due to assault/homicide.
The remaining 93% were due to accidents, suicide, and, overwhelmingly, disease.
I know what I'm concerned about dying of, and it's not terrorism.
55. JB said the following at 11:30 AM on Feb 12:
Ted,
I think Khalil makes a good point that terrorism doesn't just arise from nothing. People who are willing to die in order to inflict suffering on people they don't even know may be inspired purely by ideology, but frequently there are more concrete injuries as well. Regardless of what you might think of Israel's justifications, it's certainly true that innocent people have been cut off from their livelihoods by walls and checkpoints and perfectly innocent people have been killed by both Palestinian militants and the Israeli military. A person whose child was accidentally killed in an Israeli airstrike or a person whose family land was confiscated to build a wall is not likely to be in the state of mind to reflect on the geopolitical justifications for Israeli government action. Beyond right and wrong, we can recognize that people on both sides have been profoundly hurt by the conflict.
Given that, and the inability to seek redress from the Israeli state, is it any wonder that some people respond by getting involved with militant groups and by committing acts of terror? Even Nelson Mandela, a man respected around the world for being one of history's great statesmen, found himself planning and executing bombings of South African government offices in the dark days of the struggle against apartheid. He may have been right or wrong to do so, but his motivation is clear - it was his attempt to strike back against someone he considered a powerful oppressor from a position of weakness. It does not justify or glorify terrorism to look at the reasons why people commit acts of terror.
Political conservatives in the States have a tendency ascribe to a Manichean worldview in which terrorism is an unmitigated Evil. One doesn't try to understand evil, one simply fights it. I think a more useful view is to see terrorism as a type of human behavior which is in response to certain pressures and motivations. That way we have the option of not only fighting terrorism, but also trying to stop it through changing people's motivations.
56. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:07 PM on Feb 12:
JB: The issue I have with your contention is that Israel has made good faith efforts to right many wrongs, whereas the Palestinian leaders have played bait-and-switch every step of the way.
Israel has given away almost every piece of land that the Palestinians have demanded. Unfortunately, every time they give away more land, the terrorist attacks continue. This is why they have built their wall.
Palestinian leaders have rolled American diplomats like dice. They'll come to America, proclaim their desire for peace, even write op-eds in our newspapers. Then, when they go home and speak to their masses, they'll reiterate their call for Israel's destruction.
And don't get me wrong: as a Ron Paul conservative, I absolutely oppose our foreign aid programs, which provide our government a backdoor means of manipulating the policies of sovereign nations. That means I oppose using our taxpayer dollars for either Israel or her enemies.
That said, the Palestinians ought to take a long, sober look at their leadership, as--like the Republicans in America--they have been sold out by a bunch of self-serving degenerates who care not about peace or prosperity for the masses.
57. Tom Neven said the following at 12:26 PM on Feb 12:
Erin
This is a false statistical comparison. Accidents, disease, etc., are things that usually can be prevented, and even if not, their incidence tends to be fairly randomly distributed throughout a population.
Terrorism, on the other hand, specifically targets you, as a Westerner. If you're Christian or Jewish, you have two bull's-eyes on you. They want you dead (or converted to Islam), and they will not stop until they have done so. Given the means to do so, they would do it tomorrow.
There's a difference between things that just happen (disease, accidents) and being specifically targeted. That's why you should worry and not become complacent.
58. John said the following at 12:34 PM on Feb 12:
John D.
Big difference between rebel and terrorist.
A rebel can become a terrorist.
A terrorist may be a rebel.
But a rebel is not necessarily a terrorist.
And a terrorist is not necessarily a rebel.
The founders did not target innocent civilians to advance their cause.
They did not fire their guns into schools to kill torry children.
They did not blow themselves up in the process of murdering innocent civilians.
That is what terrorists (especially muslim ones) do.
The answers you seek are no and no.
59. Mike Theemling said the following at 2:04 PM on Feb 12:
If this thread is going to spill into an "Israeli vs. Palestinian" debate, maybe the editors should start a new thread for it.
60. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:48 PM on Feb 12:
Correction on my part regarding communism: North Korea is such a backward, closed country that it probably does adhere to old-school communism. And it's so broken that without foreign aid it would completely unravel. But other than that (and perhaps a few others I've missed), almost all nations have allowed/invited capitalistic ideology (e.g. allowing McDonald's and Starbucks to set up shop) into their society.
61. Khalil said the following at 4:58 PM on Feb 12:
I was at work when I first started to see some of the responses to my comments, now it is much later and I think I am agreeing with Mike about this...if this discussion is going to go towards an Israeli/Arab debate we need another thread of discourse. It is an issue that is going to raise a bunch of people's heart-rates. That said, I am going to be able to answer some of your comments Ted...not because I don't want to, I really, really want to, but because this thread isn't the right place. Whenever we take our attention off God and place it in something else we lose perspective. If our attention is on Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, America, or your country of choice and not God's love for the people of those countries we have already lost sight of what is important. That said, I am done, خلص, with the Israel/Arab issue on this thread.
Terrorism is not limited to just the East and the West or Muslim/Christian. I never said that terrorist tactics were ever appropriate, I was just saying that terrorism is defined by who is the "victim". Targeting civilians and innocents is one of the weakest and most disgusting strategies I can think of.
I think the reason that "terrorism" is leading to complacency is that the term is used so loosely and freely. Terrorism is being used to define anything now that is in opposition to the "American Way".
62. Khalil said the following at 5:25 PM on Feb 12:
sorry, I meant to hit preview before submitting, I meant to say I am unable to respond to your comments about the Israeli/Arab issue. My typo ;)
63. John said the following at 6:19 PM on Feb 12:
There is no such thing as a "christian terrorist".
So that pretty much limits it to, yep, islam.
64. obewan said the following at 7:24 AM on Feb 13:
John writes:
There is no such thing as a "Christian terrorist".
I am not so sure about that. Moral justifications aside, the US is the only nation that has ever used a nuclear bomb as a terrorist weapon against civilians and innocent non-combatants. Yes, it did bring an end to a terrible war, but yes, it was also a terrorist weapon! (I have heard several sermons where the pastor justified it from the pulpit, so yes, I know at least one Christian terrorist.)
65. Khalil said the following at 8:32 AM on Feb 13:
I agree, Christians who have a genuine walk and relationship with Christ probably aren't going to be blowing things up and thus not be labeled as a terrorist. But the use of the term Christian in discussions like this has to be (in my opinion) clearly defined, see my previous comment above as to why. But, as an added thought to consider, what about Bonhoeffer? He was a strong Christian, but he was involved, and eventually martyred for his participation, in attempting to assassinate Hitler (note, I am not promoting Nazism here). By today's definition or use of the word, Bonhoeffer would be a terrorist, no?
What bothers me, similar to what I think you're saying John, is the developing mentality of "you're either for us or against us". I fear there will be a time when the war on terror is used to justify the silencing of those who dissent from what the ruling class want to promote. Again, terrorism/terrorist defined situationally, often by those with the most power or the most to gain.
66. Ted Slater said the following at 10:32 AM on Feb 13:
Kahlil -- once again, terrorists use the tactic of killing innocent civilians to "get their way."
While we may argue for or against Bonhoeffer's goal of killing Hitler, I think most would not consider Hitler an "innocent civilian." Would you?
Do you really not see the difference between those who kill innocent civilians, and those who target militants?
67. John said the following at 10:57 AM on Feb 13:
k.
Nope
68. Jacob M. said the following at 11:56 AM on Feb 13:
To those who have continued to argue that Islam itself is not the problem, I urge you to read up on Islam more. In addition to the authors I mentioned, Lawrence Auster's blog View from the Right is a great place to start.
Islam is a religion that preaches world domination, whether through violent or peaceful means. The teachings on violence are inherent in the Koran and hadiths, and have a long history at the center of Islamic teaching going back to its very founding by Mohammed himself, and cannot simply be dismissed by claiming that we are taking them out of context as Katie P. has done.
But violence is not even necessary. In some European countries, there have been intimations of the beginnings of sharia law being implemented (see the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent statement that this is "unavoidable"), not because of violent conquest, but merely because of the demand by the large numbers of Muslims who are now living there. We currently believe this won't happen here, but that is just because we're farther behind than Europe is in having a substantial Islamic population--because of our open immigration policies, Islam in the USA is steadily increasing too (and this fact is openly celebrated by "conservatives" like George W. Bush, who hosts an annual Ramadan dinner at the White House.) As Islamic populations increase, so will popular support for Islamic law, which includes things like hand-chopping as punishment for theft and hanging for adultery, women being required to cover themselves in burqas, as well as dhimmi status for Christians. If you want to allow this to happen to your country in the name of increased opportunity for evangelism, you are hopelessly confused. If Islam gets what it wants, there will be no "us" to evangelize them.
Islam is the problem. The solution is to separate ourselves from Islam. This doesn't mean that we as individual Christians can't go to their lands as missionaries, but it does mean that we as a nation must stop allowing them to move here.
69. Jo said the following at 1:23 PM on Feb 13:
Jacob M: "But violence is not even necessary. In some European countries, there have been intimations of the beginnings of sharia law being implemented (see the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent statement that this is "unavoidable")"
To be fair, his statement has been universally rejected as far as I can tell, numerous people have called for his resignation over it. And also to be fair, I think in its proper context it wasn't as bad as it's made to appear - implying that 'hand-chopping' is just round the corner in English law is clearly ridiculous.
That said I think you make some interesting points, though without extensive knowledge of the Koran myself I don't know whether it's more true to say that militant Muslims are the dissenters or the true followers of Islam.
John D, I agree with you - although I actually think we're more at risk of the mental health act than the terrorist act. The definition of mental illness is always relative to cultural norms (and cultural morality), and as our society moves further and further away from Biblical values and beliefs, we're going to stand out more and more as socially and morally deviant.
70. Ted Slater said the following at 1:36 PM on Feb 13:
Here's a question:
Was the recent assassination of Imad Mughniyah, deputy commander of Hezbollah and recognized as "one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world" an act of terrorism?
Live by the car bomb; die by the car bomb....
(BTW, is there any doubt that Syria harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorism?)
71. huixin said the following at 1:42 PM on Feb 13:
Wow, I must say Ted...I'm very impressed...
in a previous article you talk about not jumping to conclusions, and then here...
"Jethro -- yes, Palestinian suidice bombers are wonderful, and the U.S. is evil. And enemy combatants should be treated to gourmet meals and enjoy their stay in 4-star hotels, free to return to murdering innocent children at their whim." in response to Jethro, you totally twist his words. Good job, thanks for clarifying YOUR position.
And by the way, I certainly don't think any of the people on this board are saying that terrorists should "enjoy their stay in 4 star hotels" and all of that...but maybe we shouldn't make the general assumption/conclusion that all muslims want to kill us. Ever talked with a Muslim? I have. And just because that person is a Muslim doesn't mean he/she wants to destroy everything about me...Muslim extremists who want to destroy Christianity (for fear that it will destroy them and their religion) are quite similar to Christian extremists who want to destroy "terrorists" and Islam because they are afraid it will destroy Christianity.
But then, I get the feeling that *anything I say on this board will be twisted into something I didn't really say or mean and used against me.
72. Khalil said the following at 2:02 PM on Feb 13:
How can America, a country founded on freedom and individual rights (religion being one of them) restrict immigration based on faith? What about the Muslims that are here already? They tend to have large families, so just by biology the Muslim population will grow here in the US.
Immigration reform needs to happen, I agree, but do we have the legal authority to limit entrance into the country based on faith? I don't know, but I think that aspect of our foreign policy will help stoke the fires of hatred towards us.
The US moving towards sharia law is laughable. Police state? Yeah, that could happen, but we are too individualistic I believe for sharia to take hold here. Major changes would need to take place in the Constitution for something like that to occur.
Ergun Caner and his brother have some really good books on Islam. Fouad Accad has a good book on reaching out to Muslims. http://www.answering-islam.org/ and www.crescentproject.org are two good sites to check out. Learning about Islam is great, but at this point I don't think preventing Muslims from entering the States will work or help prevent terrorism.
For what it is worth, I have worked a great deal in Muslim ministry. The only time I have met "radical" Muslims were when I have placed myself in a situation to meet them, as in being in a Hezbollah controlled area, etc. I've never jsut randomly met a violent or radical Muslim. The political and religious talk might seem a bit extreme at first but after a few minutes of conversation I can usually find some sort of common ground and have a reasonable meeting.
We need to stop looking at Muslims as the enemy and instead look at them as the prize. Continuing to look at Muslims as the enemy just propagates fear and the "us vs them" mentality. I don't seem to recall Jesus ever holding that philosophy. Securing our borders is important, but we also need to remember we are citizens of the Kingdom of God, not just the United States of America.
73. JB said the following at 3:11 PM on Feb 13:
Ted,
The FBI defines terrorism as, "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
So, assuming that car bombing a citizen of Syria is unlawful (and I take it that it is, regardless of how awful a person that citizen might be) and assuming that the bombing was meant to send a message to either Syria or Hezbollah, then yes, the assassination of Imad Mughniyah would be an act of terrorism. I suppose that raises the question of whether terrorism is always wrong.
74. Jethro said the following at 3:16 PM on Feb 14:
John,
You've gotten yourself in a real moral quagmire here.
Quote "I'm not justifying anything, just making it clear to those who are confused, terrorism is one thing, carrying out justice is another."
This means that a Palestinian suicide bomber who blows himself up next to a border checkpoint, killing Israeli soldiers, is not a terrorist. This is because Israel have, in the past, indiscriminately murdered innocent Palestinians in their efforts to kill Hamas and Al-Asqa leaders (think of tanks firing into residential apartment buildings). So that would be justice, not terrorism. Agreed?
75. John said the following at 8:45 PM on Feb 14:
Please people, lets cut the nonsense.
The terrorists are murderers. They ambush unsuspecting people, usually innocent civilians, sometimes unprepared soldiers.
They're cowards of the worst kind.
Amazing. You guys are actually trying to justify and equivocate terrorism.
You really don't see the difference between a murderer murdering innocent individuals and a person killing a murderer?
That's sad.
76. John said the following at 9:17 PM on Feb 14:
Jethro,
As much as you libs like to use the word quagmire, you really should try to apply it properly.
A terrorist committing a terrorist attack (murdering) an innocent individual is exactly the OPPOSITE of justice.
Remember, the terrorists are cowards who target civilians and unsuspecting soldiers.
The soldiers they target do not target innocent civilians, though collateral damage is a sad aspect of war.
Here's a little picture that will help you understand the words that I have typed:
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/GaryVarvel/2006/07/2
77. Leah said the following at 9:37 PM on Feb 14:
I'm sick of the war on terror. I do believe it is fighting a genuine cause, but don't think it's doing so very well.
John, some people's idea of "carrying out justice" is an act of terror. That doesn't make that act of terror ok.
Bonhoeffer was certainly not a terrorist. Being an assassin, or attempted assassin, is not the same as being a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who kills just to strike terror into the hearts of the population to further their goal. Bonhoeffer was not trying to scare people and had no ultimate goal past seeing his victim dead. I'm not saying what Bonhoeffer did was right, I'm just saying it wasn't terrorism.
Chris- I don't think Osama bin Laden is the sole target of the war on terror. Sure, he's a big one, but the only one? No. And our leaders realise that. They're not after him alone.
I agree with John that there is a difference between a rebel and a terrorist. He said it well. It's like saying a dog might have spots, and a spotty animal might be a dog, but a spotty animal is not necessarily a dog just like a dog is not necessarily spotty.
78. Amy said the following at 10:36 AM on Feb 15:
This thread has made me personally more concerned with the growing complacency of Christians in their love for those who are lost, than the growing complacency of Americans about terrorism.
I would like to say "Amen" and "Thank You" to Khalil and Katie P. I personally agree with all the comments made by these two, the way they have defended their points are very encouraging to me and as a Christian American living in a Muslim country(Indonesia)I would put my support behind their comments. I have nothing else to add to this line outside of what these two have already expressed, other than to strongly suggest that everyone check out the websites Khalil has sited: http://www.answering-islam.org/ and www.crescentproject.org.
79. John said the following at 11:04 AM on Feb 20:
John D,
Read some history of Rome. You'll find out who brought gladitorial fighting to an end and how.
It will surprise you.
Your solution to the problem is quite provincial.
80. John said the following at 11:08 AM on Feb 20:
John D.,
By the way, that is not "all" the new testament says.
81. Ted Slater said the following at 2:27 PM on Feb 20:
I had let a comment through that seemed to advocate killing abortion providers. I was wrong to do so.
That comment led to a conversation about the ethics of killing abortion providers. I've removed all those comments, even those that just mentioned it in passing. It's just not a conversation we're going to have right now, if ever.
My apologies for allowing that first comment through, and my apologies to those whose comments were removed merely because of a reference to abortion. Thanks for understanding.
82. khalil said the following at 7:57 PM on Feb 20:
Ted, I have no issue with what you did about that thread. It wasn't going anywhere productive and could have been dangerous to let it go much further. Thanks for taking some action there :)
83. John said the following at 5:30 AM on Feb 21:
"John, some people's idea of "carrying out justice" is an act of terror. That doesn't make that act of terror ok."
Right. I could not agree more. Our standard for justice is God's word, not man made laws.
The important thing is that people understand the true definition of terrorism and justice and not confuse the two.
84. John D. said the following at 9:16 AM on Feb 21:
Ted,
I think we all understand perfectly why it might be the wise and prudent thing to remove some comments.
Now that we have numbered comments, however, I'd like to recommend that the remaining comments not be re-numbered. It could get confusing if someone tries to refer to comment X, only to find that comment X is now what used to be comment X + 1. It might be clearer to just say "Comment X removed by moderator."