»Islamic councils urge cautious response to London blasts«
|
|||
 The Australian Islamic community says a knee-jerk reaction to the London bombings from world leaders will create problems rather than prevent future acts of terrorism.
The Perth-based president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ameer Ali, has condemned the attacks. But he says there will be more incidents unless world leaders try to address what causes people to become terrorists. "The reaction for September 11 was we went and bombed and destroyed Afghanistan," he said. "The result was Afghanistan became the recruiting ground for terrorists. "Then in the name of terrorism we went and bombed and destroyed Iraq. "The result is Iraq became a recruiting ground for the terrorists. "In a sense, I think we are aiding and abetting the terrorists," he said. posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPolitics and Crime (Assorted topics)Islamic councils urge cautious response to London blasts |
|
|||
 hungarian kid: "Then in the name of terrorism we went and bombed and destroyed Iraq.
"The result is Iraq became a recruiting ground for the terrorists. i'm not a smart man but if i wanted to start a terrorist group and keep it secretive, i wouldn't go to a war torn country where there are 100,000 troops looking just for terrorist...i might go to greenland or something i think that statement is so stupid posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: i'm not a smart man what? Who says? you have 84 IMO dollars, that must say something 
posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The ONEder Man: hungarian kid: "Then in the name of terrorism we went and bombed and destroyed Iraq.
"The result is Iraq became a recruiting ground for the terrorists. i'm not a smart man but if i wanted to start a terrorist group and keep it secretive, i wouldn't go to a war torn country where there are 100,000 troops looking just for terrorist...i might go to greenland or something i think that statement is so stupid The statement wasn't saying that they were training the terrorists in Iraq. It simply said that they are recruiting them there. The aftermath of the wars has left a large number of hurt and angry people who have lost loved ones. When a religious extremist comes to them and says "Allah has a plan for the people who did this to you and your loved ones. Comes and fight with us and Allah will grant us justice." People who are hurt and angry are the most susceptible to that kind of offer. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left a lot of hurt and angry people who are willing to fight. You may remember that there were quite a few people in America who were determined to fight after the 9/11 attacks. I suspect that it was easiest to recruit Americans to join the US army at that point in time. If a few plane crashes can have that affect in America, think what hundreds of bombs all over two countries (not to mention occupation by troops and tanks) can do for the terrorists! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Exactly!  posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Adressing what causes people to become terrorists is a sound strategy. By knowing the cause of something, measures for prevention and remedy can be taken. However, one must not confuse that which prepetuates for the prime cause. Even if military action in Iraq and Afghanistan encouraged people to become terrorists, this does not imply that if no such action were taken, people would simply stop becoming terrorists. Nor does it imply that these lands were devoid of terrorists beforehand. That aside, to urge caution is sound. However, passivity in the face of an agressor goes against Just War Theory and threatens the free world. Peace is the ideal; but in our efforts towards understanding, safety must also be valued. posted by dub329 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
dub329: That aside, to urge caution is sound. However, passivity in the face of an agressor goes against Just War Theory and threatens the free world. The problem, of course, is that most of the bigger "just wars" in history - since and including the American Civil War - have been total wars. That is, civilians have been targeted. In the current wars, democracy's enemies - terrorists - are not strongly affiliated with any government; they claim affiliation to a cause or a religion. Additionally, the idea that one man - Osama - is somehow the mastermind of the current terror wave is laughable, so the terrorists are not even an organized global insurgent group, but a kind of irreligious revival. Because of this, I'm not sure I would count terrorists as agressors or even enemy combatants...they are criminals. Criminals feed on the heart of a free society and are sometimes brought to "justice", which in America and elsewhere is usually through the failed system of incarceration, if not summary execution. My view is that criminality is an illness because it prevents the person whom it strikes from understanding the consequences of his/her actions. People often mock this viewpoint, but one need only look at recidivism rates ♣ after incarceration to see the value of it. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
dub329: Even if military action in Iraq and Afghanistan encouraged people to become terrorists, this does not imply that if no such action were taken, people would simply stop becoming terrorists. Nor does it imply that these lands were devoid of terrorists beforehand. Just War Theory is not necessarily the best theory, but I will accept that it is a well thought out one. In answer to the section quoted above I would agree with both those points concerning Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Afghanistan was harbouring a major terrorist (namely Osama Bin Laden) so if he were allowed to stay there we could expect just as many terrorists if not more than have been recruited in the aftermath of that war. Iraq on the other hand would not have contained active terrorists were it not for the war for the simple (and somewhat sad) reason that Saddam's dictatorship would have not allowed it. Naturally that is no justification for leaving Saddam's dictatorship intact, but it is the truth. I think most of us would rather have our freedom and struggle with terrorism than have live in a fear-driven dictatorship where there are few terrorists. We should probably wish the same for Iraq. What Iraq needs is the stability to cope with terrorist groups for itself. Far be it for me to say whether the help provided by Britain and America has allowed for that, but the torture of prisoners and the focus on the oil trade is unlikely to have been very beneficial in this. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Iraq on the other hand would not have contained active terrorists were it not for the war for the simple (and somewhat sad) reason that Saddam's dictatorship would have not allowed it. proof? and fatpie i gave an IMO$ donation for you first post in this thread, good stuff
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Proof? Anyone who diagreed with the state in Saddam's regime was shot. Now, anyone who disagrees with the state attacks the police and takes journalists hostage. What more proof do you need? Sharif Ali, 46, speaks for the Iraqi National Congress - a British-based umbrella group claiming to represent the most powerful opposition forces ranged against Baghdad.
Among its members are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Constitutional Monarchy Movement and the two main Kurdish groups based in northern Iraq. Here's an old article from before the war talking about Islamic exiles who wished to overthrow Saddam. Is that any good? *shrugs* (It's hard to find out how many terrorists weren't in Iraq during Saddam's reign) posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 16:56 php B.B. |