Saudi Writer Asks How Muslims Would Act If Christian Terrorists Blew Themselves Up

[Deleted]

So in your mind the US and terrorist who attacked Paris and Belgium are morally equivalent?

They are practically equivalent. Both end up the limbs of dead kids and women all over the place at the behest of some political elite.

The rationalizations on both sides make me fucking puke. I'll leave moral judgements up to God.

[Venant]

The numbers of civillian deaths are not greatly different when you compare drone strikes with terrorism. If you look at any impartial study the ratio of non-combatants to combatants is always huge.

If you go into a baseball stadium and shoot randomly with an AK-47 you'll hit a few soldiers who happen to be there, but mostly it will be civillians. You could bullshit the issue and claim that any male over 18 is a combatant, which is actually what the CIA does, but I doubt any one would be fooled. That's pretty much what happens with drone or air strikes.

There is not a moral equivalent. We have the capability to wipe their entire region off the map, if they had access to nuclear weapons they would certainly not hold back. Even without nuclear weapons, we could probably just eliminate their entire population in a region pretty efficiently, however we take pretty strong measures to limit civilian casualties. Your way of thinking about this is deranged by the unwillingness to recognize that all human beings have agency, and that those who use terrorism as a strategy do so out of their own free will. Too many people have bought into the insane notion that somehow there are no other options for these people beyond blowing themselves up.

[Ginantonicus]

But wouldn't 72 prostitutes be better? I mean who wants to teach sex to 72 virgins after a rough day?

I know. The Koran doesn't even specify male or female virgins.

[Daerio]

Too many people have bought into the insane notion that somehow there are no other options for these people beyond blowing themselves up.

We have other options for fighting, they do not.

Any attack by any given terrorist on America is a suicide attack. They'll get caught, imprisoned, killed - it doesn't matter. They don't actually get a choice if they want to fight back.

Now you could just say they should roll over and play dead, not really care that America is constantly bombing their children and homes to little red bits - but that's not a realistic expectation.

[Independent voter]

There is not a moral equivalent. We have the capability to wipe their entire region off the map, if they had access to nuclear weapons they would certainly not hold back. Even without nuclear weapons, we could probably just eliminate their entire population in a region pretty efficiently, however we take pretty strong measures to limit civilian casualties. Your way of thinking about this is deranged by the unwillingness to recognize that all human beings have agency, and that those who use terrorism as a strategy do so out of their own free will. Too many people have bought into the insane notion that somehow there are no other options for these people beyond blowing themselves up.

Yeah, we target soldiers, they target civilians. It's not equivalent.

[Sentynel]

Suicide is a sin in Islam as well, since you apparently didn't know that.

The vast difference in force is what causes them to rely on suicide tactics. They have no other choice for fighting.

They die in the name of Allah, they kill unbelievers. That alone equals out suicide.

[Powerogue]

The bulk of the letter is valuable, because it attempts to get Muslims to see exactly what their neighbours are doing to other people, and how they wouldn't like it if it happened to them. I fear, however, that most people will not heed the warning.

The last couple of lines, however, are the most important. He's telling other Muslims that "No, terrorists do represent Islam, because they are doing what they do in the name of Islam." A group is only as morally upright as its least moral member (which, incidentally, is why there is so much cop hate). By not excommunicating terrorists, Muslims the world over are essentially silently agreeing with them.

Or at least giving people the impression that they're silently agreeing with them, which at the end of the day has the same effect.

[Pangean]

But wouldn't 72 prostitutes be better? I mean who wants to teach sex to 72 virgins after a rough day?

And why are they still virgins?

[HumbleDuck]

I know. The Koran doesn't even specify male or female virgins.

No, actually it does. For men its virgin girls, for women its black dudes. Talk about double standards.

- - - Updated - - -

And why are they still virgins?

I am not educated enough on this matter, but I heard they are specialized to grow back hymen after each session.

[Deleted]

Yeah, we target soldiers, they target civilians. It's not equivalent.

This has been explained to you like a hundred times in similar threads. There is no targetting going on. The number of civillian casualties vastly exceeds that of combatants by any metric.

Which part of this do you not understand? Do you just weed out the difficult parts of reallity in your mind like the Jihadis do?

- - - Updated - - -

There is not a moral equivalent. We have the capability to wipe their entire region off the map, if they had access to nuclear weapons they would certainly not hold back. Even without nuclear weapons, we could probably just eliminate their entire population in a region pretty efficiently, however we take pretty strong measures to limit civilian casualties. Your way of thinking about this is deranged by the unwillingness to recognize that all human beings have agency, and that those who use terrorism as a strategy do so out of their own free will. Too many people have bought into the insane notion that somehow there are no other options for these people beyond blowing themselves up.

Which part of this justifies your military murdering women and children?

[Sama-81]

Yeah, we target soldiers, they target civilians. It's not equivalent.

Indeed, it's objectively not equivalent. One can absolutely view both as quite bad indeed, to each their own, but equivalent? That's just an embarrassing statement, and then I'm being kind.

[Khadgar]

At least the US has the moral high ground of not indiscriminately carpet bombing civilian locations anymore like in WWII, post war Germany and Japan were left in ruins and took decades to rebuild.

[Deleted]

Indeed, it's objectively not equivalent. One can absolutely view both as quite bad indeed, to each their own, but equivalent? That's just an embarrassing statement, and then I'm being kind.

Yeah, when someone blows your family up I'm sure they'd agree with you about how embarassing it is to imply equivalence...I mean...it would be social death....

[Purpleisbetter]

I appreciate the effort of the writer, props to her, but let's face it, this chain of hate will never break.

This war started as a religion war, sooner or later it will become just a conflict between Arabs and Caucasians. This is scary to me, because its just a matter of time before Russia will get hit too. Then it will be Putin, Trump or some other scary crazy mofo like him and megatons worth of mushrooms popping all over the middle east.

[taliey]

Guilt by association, as usual.

[Sama-81]

Yeah, when someone blows your family up I'm sure they'd agree with you about how embarassing it is to imply equivalence...I mean...it would be social death....

It's not embarrassing when coming from someone currently being in a very distressed emotional state - that would be quite understandable under the circumstances. I think most people would agree with that. It is, however, embarrassing when argued in a discussion devoid of such issues and thus not hampered by emotionally induced hindrances to rational thought - ie, more relying on actual intellectual and logical reasoning.

[Deleted]

It's not embarrassing when coming from someone currently being in a very distressed emotional state - that would be quite understandable under the circumstances. It is, however, embarrassing when argued in a discussion devoid of such issues, more relying on actual intellectual and logical reasoning.

I'm sure you find it unpleasant to be classed as the same kind of apologist for infanticide as an ISIS supporter, but opposition to drone strikes is a fairly standard position among intellectuals even in the US. The type of people who blindly support american militarism are, by contrast, not generally classed as great thinkers.

[Sama-81]

I'm sure you find it unpleasant to be classed as the same kind of apologist for infanticide as an ISIS supporter, but opposition to drone strikes is a fairly standard position among intellectuals even in the US. The type of people who blindly support american militarism are, by contrast, not generally classed as great thinkers.

I have not excused the use of drones in any way or form - you are entirely unaware of my stance towards them. That much is abundantly clear, not least from this quote. It is, however, still quite embarrassing to claim that the two are equivalent. They most certainly aren't, and any fool can see that.

Edit: That being said, I'm not surprised you decided to take it upon yourself to explain my own views to me, and even less so that you are far off the mark when doing it. I'm sure you can find a way to get the word "racist" in there as well, somewhere, if you try.

[Deleted]

I have not excused the use of drones in any way or form - you are entirely unaware of my stance towards them. That much is abundantly clear, not least from this quote. It is, however, still quite embarrassing to claim that the two are equivalent. They most certainly aren't, and any fool can see that.

The use of logic would lead the educated mind to conclude that the use of bombs on civillians is similar to the use of bombs on civillians, whatever horseshit partisan propaganda is used to justify these atrocities.

The almost total opposition to such methods outside of american militarist and jihadi groupings would tend to confirm that. I'm not sure what special insight you believe you have that makes your reasoning superior to this almost universal consensus among the intelligensia.

[Slant]

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9037.htm

"Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars…
"Imagine hearing the voices of monks and priests from churches and prayer houses in and out of the Arab world, screaming on loudspeakers and levelling accusations against Muslims, calling them infidels, and chanting: 'God, eliminate the Muslims and defeat them all.'
"Imagine that we had provided an endless number of foreign groups with visas, ID cards, citizenships, proper jobs, free education, free modern healthcare, social security, and so on, and later a member of one of these groups came out, consumed by hatred and bloodlust, and killed our sons on our streets, in our buildings, in our newspaper [offices], in our mosques and in our schools.
"Imagine a Frenchmen or a German in Paris or Berlin leading his Muslim neighbor [somewhere] in order to slaughter him and then freeze his head in an ice box, in a cold and calculating manner... as one terrorist did with the head of an American in Riyadh years ago.[2]
"Imagine that we visited their country as tourists and they shot at us, blew up car bombs near us, and announced their opposition to our presence [there] by chanting: 'Remove the Muslims from the land of culture.'
"These images are far from the mind of the Arab or Muslim terrorist because he is certain, or used to be certain, that the West is humanitarian and that the Western citizen would refuse to respond [in this manner] to the barbaric crimes [of the Muslim terrorists]. Despite the terrorist acts of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, we [Muslims] have been on [Western] soil for years without any fear or worry. Millions of Muslim tourists, immigrants, students, and job seekers [travel to the West] with the doors open [to them], and the streets safe [for them].
"However, how much longer [will this last]? Today things are different. [Western] anger [at Muslims] is apparent, and they make scary declarations. One who recently championed [these views] is Donald Trump, who demanded to bar Muslims from entering the U.S.
"It is strange that we [Muslims] believe we have the right to condemn such statements rather than address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and be ashamed [of them]... It is strange that we condemn [the West] instead of addressing what is happening in our midst - the extremist ways in which we interpret the shari'a and our reactionary attitudes towards each other and the world. It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world.
"How would you react if a European blew up a theater in your city or a café that your son frequents? What would you do if you heard curses against your religion and faith every Sunday, as they hear [against theirs] from some of our imams on Fridays and other days?
"Imagine being in Amsterdam, London, or New York and knowing that students [there] learn as part of their curricula that you are an infidel, and that killing you is jihad that leads to the virgins of paradise. Would you extend your stay there to the end of the summer, or stay away? [Would you] blow yourself up [as the Muslim terrorists do], or would you do less than that: [Merely] conquer your rage and demand to ban Christians from entering Arab countries. What would you do?
"[Imagine] the war that would break out had Westerners shed their values in the face of the bloody crimes committed by foreigners, and if Western or Christian counter-radicalism had emerged in our Arab cities?
"After all these farces, some Arab analyst comes out touting a pathetic message, and reciting the same words in his friend's ear that he has repeated millions of times: 'Those [Muslims who commit terrorism] do not represent Islam, but only themselves.'
"This is all we [know how to do] – absolve [ourselves] of guilt.

If this is a true translation, then the bold part is exactly why I'm opposing the many Xenophobes on this forum. Exactly that one line is worth all the trouble, not that this forum is significant enough to have any influence, but that one line right there is the exact reasons why we have to do this the hard way. As long as he can say that, we'll get Muslims on our side. The second he can't say that anymore, the terrorists will win and we'll have all Muslims against us.