What is the root of Islamic Terrorism?

[mpg]

This is a very good argument. I'll give you that.

But I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, US foreign policy is THE PROBLEM. It is part of a very complex problem. I do not think you can point to one thing and say, "Yep, that's the problem!" There are too many things that are inter-related on a global scale that would allow us to reduce it down to one single thing.

US foreign policy plays a role in this. How much of a role can be debated. But it is one of the factors. Just as I cannot say with any certainty our foreign policy had anything to do with the incidents you listed above, you can't tell me our foreign policy has no effect at all.

Please address the last sentence in post #493.

 

[dixon76710]

None of the Muslim sources say that anyone from the society at that time criticized this marriage due to 'Aishah's young age.

Well, none of the Muslim sources say that anyone from the society at that time criticized this "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" bit. Some of us are not so immersed in moral relativism that what is wrong, suddenly becomes right.

 

[EAGLE1]

Well, none of the Muslim sources say that anyone from the society at that time criticized this "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" bit. Some of us are not so immersed in moral relativism that what is wrong, suddenly becomes right.

The trouble for you is, things WERE different then, that includes the marriageable age of children.
To wit, what is wrong now is not what was wrong then so I dont need any moral relativism when we are speaking of the contexts of two different time periods separated by centuries.
Further the daughter herself becomes one the formost defenders of Mohammed both in writing and deeds.

Also however, this Abu Bakr, a man already of independent means, was so pissed at having to marry off his daughter that he stayed by Mohammed until his death and then took over the religion and rules as Caliph for the next three years! Forced to give away his daughter against his will? Pull the other one... . .

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mpg:
Please address the last sentence in post #493.

You want me to explain why we don't have South American suicide bombers? Is that the only measure of the adverse affects of our foreign policy? You don't feel Chavez remarks towards Bush, the large protests when he went down there and the treatment he received while he was there as proof? How about the Iran-Contra affair? That got some Reagen people jail time. That isn't proof that our foreign policy in South America is detrimental to the indigent people of those areas.

Why do you accept that TOT's scenario is the ONLY scenario used to view the affects of our foreign policy? Furthermore, not to see these affects (in the ME) or arguing they have no role in Islamic extremism, is irresponsible.

 

[EAGLE1]

Of course no one criticized the marriage. Many of those in the perverted society of that time and place in history where also pedophiles. Because it was excepted dosn't make it any less disgusting or wrong. Slavery was once excepted. Does that mean it wasn't wrong?

Muhammad had sex with his wife Aishah when she was nine years old. What kind of man, let alone prophet has sex with a nine year old? A sick disgusting pervert. The sick bastard was in his 40's.

Well fine if you want to call their society sick and perverted then make sure you include the whole world atthe time also..

Slavery was indeed once accepted and it is wrong...TODAY. At the time it was pass remarkable.
Most of your founding fathers were slave owners...does that make them evil men? By todays standards of course...by the standards of the time not at all.

Marriages across the world at the time were consumated at the onset of puberty.

 

[mpg]

You want me to explain why we don't have South American suicide bombers? Is that the only measure of the adverse affects of our foreign policy? You don't feel Chavez remarks towards Bush, the large protests when he went down there and the treatment he received while he was there as proof? How about the Iran-Contra affair? That got some Reagen people jail time. That isn't proof that our foreign policy in South America is detrimental to the indigent people of those areas.

Why do you accept that TOT's scenario is the ONLY scenario used to view the affects of our foreign policy? Furthermore, not to see these affects (in the ME) or arguing they have no role in Islamic extremism, is irresponsible.

You misunderstood TOT. He wasn't making excuses for US foreign policy in other parts of the world. He was admitting that plenty of people other than Muslims had grievances with the US, yet they don't commit acts of terrorism. This thread is about terrorism.

 

[EAGLE1]

You want me to explain why we don't have South American suicide bombers? Is that the only measure of the adverse affects of our foreign policy? You don't feel Chavez remarks towards Bush, the large protests when he went down there and the treatment he received while he was there as proof? How about the Iran-Contra affair? That got some Reagen people jail time. That isn't proof that our foreign policy in South America is detrimental to the indigent people of those areas.

Why do you accept that TOT's scenario is the ONLY scenario used to view the affects of our foreign policy? Furthermore, not to see these affects (in the ME) or arguing they have no role in Islamic extremism, is irresponsible.

I'll answer the question. South America has numerous examples of terrorism.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mpg:
You misunderstood TOT. He wasn't making excuses for US foreign policy in other parts of the world. He was admitting that plenty of people other than Muslims had grievances with the US, yet they don't commit acts of terrorism. This thread is about terrorism.

And he also stated that our constant bombing of that part of the world is not one of the causes for their hatred. Which is ridiculous! Someone bombs your neighborhood for 12 straight years and you're going to feel indifferent about it?

 

[SgtRock]

Well fine if you want to call their society sick and perverted then make sure you include the whole world atthe time also..

Slavery was indeed once accepted and it is wrong...TODAY. At the time it was pass remarkable.
Most of your founding fathers were slave owners...does that make them evil men? By todays standards of course...by the standards of the time not at all.

Marriages across the world at the time were consumated at the onset of puberty.

It was common practice at that time in history. Ok, my question to you is where they wrong for practicing pedophilia. Was it wrong for 40+ year old men to have sex with a 9 year old?

FACT: It was wrong that our founding fathers owned slaves. It was wrong that Muhammad was a pedophile.

 

[EAGLE1]

It was common practice at that time in history. Ok, my question to you is where they wrong for practicing pedophilia. Was it wrong for 40+ year old men to have sex with a 9 year old?

FACT: It was wrong that our founding fathers owned slaves. It was wrong that Muhammad was a pedophile.

If one is not aware of something being wrong then one cannot be judged for the crime. Thats why we dont convict children. Same goes for individuals operating according to the mores of their own societies. FACT.

 

[mpg]

Slavery was indeed once accepted and it is wrong...TODAY. At the time it was pass remarkable.
Most of your founding fathers were slave owners...does that make them evil men? By todays standards of course...by the standards of the time not at all.

Many African-Americans feel that it's wrong to idolize George Washington because he owned slaves. I'm not sure that I agree with them but at least I don't call it "hate speech" when they raise the issue. Falsely accusing someone of hatred is every bit as bad as hatred itself.

 

[EAGLE1]

Many African-Americans feel that it's wrong to idolize George Washington because he owned slaves. I'm not sure that I agree with them but at least I don't call it "hate speech" when they raise the issue. Falsely accusing someone of hatred is every bit as bad as hatred itself.

The charge of peadophilia was raised without reference to the context and during a conversation about Islamic terrorism, not Islamic peadophilia. Therefore the only purpose of such a comment at that time was to engender hatred for the religion, thus its hate speech.

BTW I was not the first one on this forum to make a charge of hate speech, plus I refuse to shut down debate on this or any subject. If you have something against those who make the charge of hate speech its not me you should be talking to.

If you or anyone wants to open a thread to contest the subject I'll gladly take part. After all Im completely fair minded on the subject of hate speech and will give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike some I could mention.

 

[Gardener]

I clicked on the ad that just appeared with this thread, and it proclaimed

"Bringing families home the sharia way".

Ah, yes.

 

[Gardener]

If you want to open a thread to contest the subject I'll gladly take part. After all Im completely fair minded on the subject of hate speech and will give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike some I could mention.

:roll:

Do you sell used cars by any chance?

 

[EAGLE1]

Ah yes, Islamic finance. How interesting.

No I dont sell used cars. Do you peddle fake DVDs?

 

[mpg]

The charge of peadophilia was raised without reference to the context and during a conversation about Islamic terrorism, not Islamic peadophilia. Therefore the only purpose of such a comment at that time was to engender hatred for the religion, thus its hate speech.

BTW I was not the first one on this forum to make a charge of hate speech, plus I refuse to shut down debate on this or any subject. If you have something against those who make the charge of hate speech its not me you should be talking to.

If you or anyone wants to open a thread to contest the subject I'll gladly take part. After all Im completely fair minded on the subject of hate speech and will give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike some I could mention.

If we were discussing an issue regarding George Washington that was totally unrelated to slavery, and then someone came along and criticized his ownership of slaves and said that the US was an evil society at that time, I wouldn't accuse them of hate speech.

 

[EAGLE1]

If we were discussing an issue regarding George Washington that was totally unrelated to slavery, and then someone came along and criticized his ownership of slaves and said that the US was an evil society at that time, I wouldn't accuse them of hate speech.

Im glad you're so fair minded and open to discussion, however your beef isnt with me.

For the record hate speech is defined as speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.

The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

 

[SgtRock]

If one is not aware of something being wrong then one cannot be judged for the crime. Thats why we dont convict children. Same goes for individuals operating according to the mores of their own societies. FACT.

Consider the following hypothetical

So lets say I was raised by evil parinoid parents and was home schooled. I wasn't allowed TV or radio or Internet. I had no outside contact with anyone.

I was never taught that pedophilia was wrong. I thought it was normal because my parents had sex with me at a young age.

At the age of 18 I leave home for the first time after living a compleatly sheltered although twisted life. I rape a 9 yearold child.

Was what I did wrong? And should I be convicted of a crime? After all I wasn't aware that what I was doing was wrong.

If its my 9 year old, you better hope the police get to you first. I say your GUILTY. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse ~ Sgt Rock

 

[mpg]

Im glad you're so fair minded and open to discussion, however your beef isnt with me.

For the record hate speech is defined as speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.

The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.

The key word there is "intended". You never know a person's intent unless they tell you or if you can read minds.

 

[The Mark]

Consider the following hypothetical

So let’s say I was raised by evil paranoid parents and was home schooled. I wasn't allowed TV or radio or Internet. I had no outside contact with anyone.

I was never taught that pedophilia was wrong. I thought it was normal because my parents had sex with me at a young age.

At the age of 18 I leave home for the first time after living a completely sheltered although twisted life. I rape a 9 year old child.

Was what I did wrong? And should I be convicted of a crime? After all I wasn't aware that what I was doing was wrong.

If it’s my 9 year old, you better hope the police get to you first. I say you’re GUILTY. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse ~ Sgt Rock

I completely agree. I think they also should go after the parents, but that is obvious.

However, I have a question. It may sound odd, but it seems reasonable to ask it.

If, for example, you took a sample of, say, 50 human females between puberty and the age of 18.

You would most likely find that they had all reached puberty at different ages.
You would most likely find that a portion of them, even the 18 year old ones (and if you extended the age range, even older), were not mentally ready for sexual activity.
Now, I also think you would find that a portion of them, even down to some of the ones seemingly barely out of puberty, were mentally ready for sexual activity. I am not sure if this has always been the case or simply has developed in the past century, but due to various news stories I have read over the years, I think it is true. And applies to males as well.

So, I ask. Is an arbitrary age limit the best way of deciding such things? It seems to have caused some problems, but it probably has prevented many more. I still must ask if it is the best setup.

Then again, this IS a bit off topic, so........

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on debate between Billo and TOT.

I think it most likely that both are wrong to an extent.

TOT, I don't think that "what they believe" is the ONLY factor, but I do think it is one of the major ones.

Billo, I think that the US is a factor to a lesser extent than you seem to believe. But it has to be having some effect.

 

[EAGLE1]

Consider the following hypothetical

So lets say I was raised by evil parinoid parents and was home schooled. I wasn't allowed TV or radio or Internet. I had no outside contact with anyone.

I was never taught that pedophilia was wrong. I thought it was normal because my parents had sex with me at a young age.

At the age of 18 I leave home for the first time after living a compleatly sheltered although twisted life. I rape a 9 yearold child.

Was what I did wrong? And should I be convicted of a crime? After all I wasn't aware that what I was doing was wrong.

If its my 9 year old, you better hope the police get to you first. I say your GUILTY. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse ~ Sgt Rock

People are given such dispensation all the time in todays society and rightly so.
If you werent aware of the law or how wrong the act is then exactly how can you be held to account for that Sgt Rock?

Here's another hypothetical for you.

You land on Mars and walk around for while enjoying the lack of atmosphere and open views of rocks and red sky. While doing so you step on a number of little ant sized insects, killing them outright of course, you notice and are fascinated that there's life here, though theyre dead now..you get out your equipment from your bag and drop it to the ground, as it falls you see more insects under it but its too late and you kill a few more. Youve been negligent but ok, its a few insects, they'll be millions more about.
Later however, a number of enormous insect rise from the ground and inform you that you just killed their children and now they propose to either kill you or confine you for decades. Happy with that judgement Sgt Rock?

 

[EAGLE1]

The key word there is "intended". You never know a person's intent unless they tell you or if you can read minds.

Youre right. However, Im taking in all factors and also giving the benefit of the doubt and the possibility to answer as to intentions so I think Im being quite fair. Plus Im alwways open to discussion.

Unlike others I could mention..

 

[mpg]

People are given such dispensation all the time in todays society and rightly so.
If you werent aware of the law or how wrong the act is then exactly how can you be held to account for that Sgt Rock?

Here's another hypothetical for you.

You land on Mars and walk around for while enjoying the lack of atmosphere and open views of rocks and red sky. While doing so you step on a number of little ant sized insects, killing them outright of course, you notice and are fascinated that there's life here, though theyre dead now..you get out your equipment from your bag and drop it to the ground, as it falls you see more insects under it but its too late and you kill a few more. Youve been negligent but ok, its a few insects, they'll be millions more about.
Later however, a number of enormous insect rise from the ground and inform you that you just killed their children and now they propose to either kill you or confine you for decades. Happy with that judgement Sgt Rock?

That's obviously an accident. Slavery is no accident. Pedophilia is no accident.

 

[EAGLE1]

How was the accident caused? Ignorance. Yet ignorance is no excuse. Still happy for Sgt Rock to be killed or confined on Mars?

 

[SgtRock]

People are given such dispensation all the time in todays society and rightly so.

Maybe in the Scotland. Not here in Texas. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse where I from. On Mars I should be put to death for killing there children.

One more question for you EAGLE1. If nobody ever taught you that as a 40year old man it was wrong to have sex with a 9 year old girl. Would you know that it was wrong?