🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Sep 2001 20:33:18 GMT, srt@nospam.unt.edu wrote:

>Bill <nomail@nomail.net> wrote:
>
>> Second, now we are getting somewhere in this discussion. The above makes me
>> feel better. What worries me is that I think some Islamics might place
>> their religion first and America second. 
>
>If they "place their religion first" then we have nothing to worry
>about from the vast majority, since their religion tells them that
>what the terrorists are doing is wrong.

That is only the case if the clerics they follow interpret the Koran
in that fashion.  bin Laden followers are just as devout Muslims as
any, they simply have the wrong drummer.  The issue is absolutely not
one of religious writings, it is one of interpretations and leaders.

>
>> But, did any American Islamics contribute financially to terrorist actions
>> or assist them in any way?
>
>Unfortunately, this is a very tricky question, and considerably more
>involved than what we've been talking about here.  Is supporting
>Palestinian independence supporting terrorists, since many of the
>terrorists are also supporting that cause?  I think guilt by
>association is wrong.  But what if they gave to a group who in turn
>gave directly to terrorists?  Knowingly?  Unknowingly?
>
>Directly supporting terrorists is wrong.  And yet our own government
>has done that, many times over.  They supported bin Laden when he was
>a terrorists against Russians invading Afghanistan, because we (or
>those in government) could apparently justify that by their hatred of
>the Russians at that time.  Our government also supported the Contras,
>which was also clearly a terrorist organization.  I think we as a
>country need to take an honest look in the mirror when we declare this
>war on terrorism.  We should never have done some of the things we've
>done in the past, and should own up to that, and take this opportunity
>to make a clear, moral start.
>

Be very, very careful in who and what you call terror and terrorist.
An individual who straps TNT to himself and walks into a government
building may not be a terroist at all, just a suicidal guerilla, but
if that same person walked into a crowded mall and simply blew up
civilians he is unquestionably a terrorist no matter the reason.

I do not approve of terror tactics in general, but their is a distinct
difference between civilian terroism and military terrorism.  That
line is crossed if there is no military objective involved, just
civilians.  Attacking governments and their officials falls under
military terrorism, or can.  The WTC was an attack on a society, a way
of life, if an econimic system can be so described.

A good example of a non-Muslim terrorist act would be an IRA car bomb
in Picadilly Square.  The Palestian or Lebanese who drove the truck
bombinto the Marine barracks several years ago did a military
'terrorist' act.  Had he driven that into a fully packed Jewish
Synagogue it would have been a purely terroist act against civilians.

Do you see the difference?  
And yes, particularly in the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the
Central American Operations their is a pretty damned cloudy zone
involved.  But I still say such distinctions must be carefully adhered
to when discussing this most complex issue.

Retribution/retaliation (whatever you wish to call them) acts must be
evaluated based solely on the specific act that instigated the
response.  The time for dealing with fundamental issues of original
cause must be shelved until AFTER those retributive acts have played
out.  That is pure pragmatism.  You can decry their being, but once
decided and set into motion the opportunity to deal with fundamentals
has been passed until a reaction has run its course.




>> Also, is bin Laden a religious leader?
>
>Not really -- more a "cult hero" to certain extremists, I think.
>
>> Are the clerics more of a religious leader than bin Laden?
>
>Yes, like the ones who have visited the White House to give
>condolences to Pres. Bush.  Like the one at the "National Day of
>Rememberence" service in Washington.  Like the many, many who have
>condemned the terrorist action.
>
>> i.e. Are Islamics living in America more likely to listen to a cleric than
>> to bin Laden? What worries me is that I am NOT seeing Islamics living in
>> America denouncing bin Laden publicly. Actions speak louder than words.
>> Anyway I have an open mind and will listen to what people have to say. I
>> think we all need to learn more about Islamics and their culture.
>
>Many, many, MANY Muslims in America (and all over the world) have
>publicly denounced what bin Laden has done.  They've been all over the
>news lately if you are looking for it.  If you're looking for
>something more virulent than "we condemn the actions" however, you're
>asking for a lot.  Don't expect them to be out there raving (as many
>other Americans are) to go "kill all the Arabs" -- obviously, that's
>something they aren't say (and shouldn't, nor should anyone else give
>that kind of carpet condemnation).

Computers are basically very fast idiots.
http://www.hal-pc.org/~montep