posted on September 17, 2001 12:30:32 AM new
It seems that many posters here are quick to brand anybody with a religion prominent in the Middle East as either a terrorist or someone who is likely to be in sympathy with terrorism.
That is a dangerous assumption to make. There are many, many followers of Eastern religions who are just like you; peaceful, law abiding advocates of non violence, who just want to worship and practice their own religion in their own way.
Terrorism is not the sole perogative of Middle Eastern nations.
It has been perpetrated by the Irish, the Japanese, the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
"Ethnic cleansing" has been and is being practised in the former Yugoslavia, tensions are still rife in Cyprus, the Chinese have control of Tibet. The Chechins are battling the might of Russia. The list of terrorist organisations is a long one.
It should not be the intention of a nation, or coalition of nations, to nuke the hell out of a race but to actively seek out and rid terrorism in all its forms, wherever that may be.
It is up to the world to stand tall once and for all and work together to flush it out, but not to seek and destroy entire nations because they are "different" to you.
I understand the need to lash out and strike back, but to do so without knowing who to strike back at is degrading yourselves to the level of terrorist you hope to be rid of.
Terrorists can have as many "causes" as they wish. None of them has the slightest validity if they share the belief that innocent individuals need to perish to satisfy their point. Nor do governments that covertly support terrorism as a manipulative tool have any part in a stable world.
I agree that terrorists should actively be hunted down and eliminated as should the governments that support and fund them, but innocent people have to be protected.
The culture of hate and suspicion has festered for too long. This is the point in time that governments have their chance to stand up and be counted. If the chance is taken, there has never been a better time to rid the world of despots and extremists, but it has to be done with purpose and compassion, not by an out of control lynch mob.
posted on September 17, 2001 12:57:17 AM newI agree that terrorists should actively be hunted down and eliminated as should the governments that support and fund them, but innocent people have to be protected.
posted on September 17, 2001 07:57:46 AM newI agree that terrorists should actively be hunted down and eliminated as should the governments that support and fund them, but innocent people have to be protected.
Are mothers innocent who raise their sons to die in a suicidal terrorist attack on America?
Are clerics innocent who praise this and prior terrorist actions?
This irrational behavior did not spring up unrewarded (in contrast to the Columbine shooters). What we witnessed was the results of a lifetime of preparation, of describing the rewards in the afterlife and the intense respect of one's surviving community. This manufacturing operation remains in operation, cranking out more young men wishing to die in the jihad.
posted on September 17, 2001 08:25:28 AM new
roofguy - You're right.
Associating these terrorists with Islamic Fundementalism isn't a knee jerk reaction. The evidence in overwhelming. The term Jihad isn't a secular term.
The men that set off the bomb in the first WTC attack had meetings in their Mosque in NJ. One of those convicted is a blind Imam of Islam.
We can no more separate the innocent from the guilty in this political/religious movement than we could sort the innocent from the guilty in Dresden, Berlin, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima in WWII.
A defence source said it right the other night - 'These terrorist networks will use our own moral propensities and value system against us'.
posted on September 17, 2001 09:00:48 AM newWe can no more separate the innocent from the guilty in this political/religious movement than we could sort the innocent from the guilty in Dresden, Berlin, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima in WWII.
I'm not ready to give up on separating the innocent from the guilty, and from that to try to limit injury to the innocent.
What I do see is that "lack of innocence" is somewhat more broad than some seem to believe.
What I don't see is much participation in this nonsense by American Moslems, which I think justifies the complaints of those who decry the painting of all of Islam with this lack of innocence.
posted on September 17, 2001 09:10:24 AM new
I hope that nations are willing to capture terrorists. How about Eric Robert Rudolph, accused of bombing abortion clinics and the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics and anyone who has aided him? Do a search on the web for him and check out your hits for Christian groups. And why can't he be found - do some people approve of home grown terrorists if they think God approves of the terrorist's cause?
posted on September 17, 2001 09:21:27 AM newdo some people approve of home grown terrorists if they think God approves of the terrorist's cause?
It's an interesting comparison. Observe that Christian terrorists get support only from an incredibly small fringe of Christianity.
Observe that there is little or no training of Christian boys to die as Christian martyrs in a battle against ungodly countries.
It seems safe to say that all religions end up with violent fantics, but some religions are better than others at marginalizing the violent fanatics by denying them respect.
It's also fair to include the fact that relatively few Christians feel that their religion is being trampled by some foreign country. Historically, when Christians have felt trodden upon, they behaved irrationally as well. Of course, historically, what was accepted as civilized behavior has included plenty of things we now call crimes against humanity.
posted on September 17, 2001 09:36:15 AM new
roofguy, I wish I could feel confident that the number of Christian terrorists was miniscule. There's an abortion clinic in my town and there's a peaceful march every Saturday against it. The protestors include children. One is never certain what goes on behind the lines. I just hope it's rational thought and not hate. I would also feel more comfortable if Falwell and Robertson would have been too ashamed to spout the crap they did this week.
posted on September 17, 2001 10:06:17 AM newI would also feel more comfortable if Falwell and Robertson would have been too ashamed to spout the crap they did this week.
Falwell and Robertson are lunatics, but I have never heard them advocate or praise violence.
I think that's important. Falwell and Robertson firmly believe that, as a nation, we should turn to their kind of religion. They believe that God is punishing us for turning the "other way". Ok? That's screwey, as I see it, but it is a religious belief. Plenty of religious beliefs are screwey as I see them. Belief in and of itself is vastly separated from violent action. Falwell/Robertson do not advocate violence as the means to their end. They do not speak with respect of the murderers of abortionists.
Are they reserved due to political pressure? Maybe, we don't know. Do they praise murderers in private? I honestly don't think so. I know a lot of fundamentalist Christians, who do a lot of griping about the same things as Falwell/Robertson gripe about, sometimes in raw terms. However, none of those I know has any tolerance for murder.
posted on September 17, 2001 10:10:44 AM new
saabsister,
I am so sorry that the acts of a few evil people hiding behind the term "Christian" has caused you fear and suspicion. I hope you can find a way to resolve those feelings just as I hope those now persecuting all Muslims will find a way to know the difference.
posted on September 17, 2001 10:27:15 AM new
Deliteful, I think that the number of Christians who would resort to terrorism is very small. But rhetoric has the potential to incite. Not all of the people we've seen cheering the destruction of the WTC have been trained to commit acts of terrorism, but they've heard the calls to violence. A few will act on it. Just as a few that hear diatribes against feminists and gays will be moved to violence.
posted on September 17, 2001 11:06:10 AM new
saabsister, I agree that rhetoric has the power to incite. Unfortunately it works two ways. I do not wish to see anyone harmed out of hatred be they gays, muslims or even Christians.
I just hope your fears will not incite you to hate us.
posted on September 17, 2001 11:27:28 AM new
Deliteful, I was raised a Presbyterian; but the hypocracy I saw in church drove me first away from organized religion and then away from religion all together. I suppose I'm exasperated with Falwell and Robertson in particular because I am familiar with Christianity and I'm waiting for condemnation of what they've said. I'm very tolerant of different religions - I just don't condone the violence done in religion's name. I fear the lunatic fringe, not the religion.
posted on September 17, 2001 11:44:30 AM new
saabsister,
I am glad to hear you are tolerate of all religions.
I agree that I am not very tolerate either of fringe lunatics no matter who they are targeting.
I am also sorry that your church was filled with people who caused you to turn away. That is sad. Unfortunately it happens.
Our church spoke out against Falwell and Robertson. We see God in the people helping each other not in the act of terror. Just as I am sure many Muslims are speaking out against Bin Laden. They see God in peace and love not terroristic acts.
Toke,
I don't know, maybe I am confusing the two?
I have no doubt I heard disapproval in the posts but I also thought I heard a little fear too? I might be wrong.
posted on September 17, 2001 11:52:12 AM new
Of course, I can only speak for myself. To be accurate, Falwell and Robertson don't excite my disapproval exactly...the feeling is more of a horrified disgust.
posted on September 17, 2001 11:58:19 AM new
I'm having trouble understanding how some are able to disconnect the religious people, of say Afghanistan, and the terrorists that are harbored in their country.
For example:
The news today is saying that the Pakistan leadership has asked the Taliban leaders to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. The Taliban has said they will leave that up to their 'clerics'. To me, clerics are their religious leaders. So....if they're leaving the decision to their religious leaders....what does that imply?
I doubt the clerics will agree to turn him over. (But would be very pleased to be proved wrong.) If they don't....doesn't that send a rather clear message to their religious followers....that the government is not against the behavior of the terrorists?
posted on September 17, 2001 12:02:03 PM new
Chococake,
You are right about going to church to be near people, to just hold a hand or get a hug. It can be a good place to be no matter what it is you seek there. I'd gladly sit and hold your hand in silence.
Toke,
I can only hope that your feelings are limited to those who have caused the feelings and not broadly spread to those who have not.
posted on September 17, 2001 12:05:57 PM new
Well, I would say my feelings extend to the followers of Robertson and Falwell...who, by definition, approve of their stance.
posted on September 17, 2001 12:57:30 PM new
Toke,
I can understand that.
That is as why so many feel the way they do about Muslim countries,who, by definition, approve of the terrorists stance.
The hard part is identifying those who do and do not fit in those definitions. It is hard to tell by the color of their skin, the clothes they wear, or even the church they attend.
Should we decide, at a glance, that anyone wearing a scarf on their head or a cross around their neck is digusting and evil? I think we can agree that we would not approve of such bigotry.
And agree.