Islam - global monster or global scapegoat?

Are Muslims the Jews of the 21st century?

Published on August 21, 2004 By cactoblasta In Politics

The image of Islam, this immense and diverse faith, has been of the robed and bearded man, rifle in one hand, Qu'ran in the other, a bomb around his waist and hate in his eyes. They are everywhere, and their diabolical hand can be seen in every disaster. They are poisoning water supplies, raping white women, using their loathed petrodollars to take over our businesses and corrupt our governments. The only possible response has been decried unto the masses, and they shout their slogans with glee - seek them in the dark places, find them all and in the darkness show them the meaning of justice. "Find them in their holes," exclaims the head of one of the world's largest nations. "Make them suffer like I have suffered," screams the wife of the murdered businessman, lost to the strike against the World Trade Centre. "They took my job," complains the outsourced labourer whose company shifted operations to Indonesia.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. The Nazis used much of the same propaganda against the Jews. "Abominations". "Scheming monsters". "They're not like us". MAKE THEM PAY FOR WHAT I HAVE SUFFERED.

Who is really the demon here? The innocents lost in the wreaking of veangeance, or the ones who say that a civilian casualty is merely "collateral damage"? It's a question that with luck we will never have to face.

Comments (Page 2)

sandy2

on Aug 21, 2004

Sir Peter Maxwell you are an extremist.

Ok if anyone is intrested here is my take on the situation. First of all I agree with cwarsh. Well written Cwarsh, props for that. Second- I also agree with whoever it was that stated that the muslim world should infact denounce the terrorist attacks (someone please inform me is there someone in the muslim world similar to the pope? if so this is the person who should do the denouncing). And I dont know about Cwarsh, but I condem terrorism by everyone. There is no excuse. I don't care if you are of an alien religion, there is no excuse. I will denounce everyone who commits a terrorist act, even if they were my brother. Why can't everyone do so? I will denounce Israel for their attacks on palesitnians, just as I will denounce the palestinians for attacking innocent civilians. Anytime civilians die I will denounce it. Why can't everyone? Does anyone support this.

cactoblasta

on Aug 21, 2004

SSG Geezer: Yeah, it was a bit over the top, but I was slightly enhanced when I wrote it.

cwarsh: Supplying weapons and equipment to both sides of a war is both good business and good foreign policy. It keeps your own industry running and weakens the two countries involved to such an extent that a) they cannot resist an attack and

they will never even think of banding together against the one who's causing all the mischief.

As for the Muslim pope, there is noone in the Muslim world with anywhere near the same authority as the pope, and that's saying something, considering how many Catholics ignore him. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but only the Shi'ites have any "rank" in Islam above that of the average Muslim. In Sunni and other Muslim circles scholars might be afforded more respect, but they don't have this through the will of God. They have earned it instead. Ayatollahs and the lineage of Ali have a certain authority in Shi'ite Islam, although generally they only really have a great deal of power in their immediate regions or in Iran. That's why Salman Rushdie still lives; few Muslims take any notice of fatwas these days, just like few Anglicans take any notice of the Pope's views.

sandy2

on Aug 21, 2004

Hmm. Thats to bad. Even though I agree that many people do not listen to the pope, however the pope would denounce any terrorist who invoked the name of god and the catholic religion. In that respect, the Ayatollahs are not being ethical.

Cwarsh- I think the real solution is to completley eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil. Then we can pull out and say you want to fight- then fight. Don't involve me in and dont involve US citizens and we won't stop you. You threaten us and we will come after you with no end in sight. We could say we don't depend on you for oil. We could actaully tell saudi arabia to crack down on terror, and if they don't we will. Best of all, as I said earlier, we can leave their internal conflicts that currently disrupt our oil to them to deal with. I actually think this is the most important thing that this country needs to do. I think that the future safety and economic stability depends on the fact taht we do not depend on other countries (especially unfriendly ones) for oil. We can depend on them a little, but as long as we have enough of a backup in place, then we can say fine if you don't crack down we will change to this source of supply, even if it does cost .10 more a gallon. I think I shall actually start a post later on the idea of reducing our foreign dependence on oil so we can discuss this topic in particular, but I like your ideas of why we have this issue of terror from the middle east in the first place.

cwarsh

on Aug 21, 2004

"Cwarsh- I think the real solution is to completley eliminate our dependence on middle eastern oil."
-How? Yeah we could drill in our wildlife refuges, and I don't think that I would be especially opposed to that as long as certain measures were taken, but even then its a relateively small amount of oil. Other than that, we could ramp up renewable energy capacity.. but thats substancially more expensive than petroleum.

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 21, 2004

To answer the title question, though, cacto, I am going to go out on a limb and say that neither appellation applies to Islam.

They are not a global terror for two reasons:

1) because the militant Islamic factions that operate outside of their countries are a minority of Muslims. As for those internal factions, a certain deference must be given here to self determination, even if it is not a path we would choose. Many Muslims are just plain folks trying to raise their families as you and I are. This is a climate of misunderstanding, not unlike the cold war in which many of us grew up, only with a different face.

2) Despite what the media would have you believe, the minority that espouse terrorists views aren't substantial enough that we couldn't eradicate them quickly if the threat of attack was truly imminent. The reason we have not done so is a respect for the American legal system and a certain deference towards their humanitarian rights. This would change in a heartbeat if we were truly threatened, believe me.

Islam is not a global scapegoat because they have allowed some of this perception to be brought on themselves. They have allowed their hatred of the nation of Israel to blind them to the fact that the actions of their countrymen are appalling and should be condemned as such. They also have not worked hard enough in ferreting out those who would work diligently to disturb the peace process. In short, they bear some of the responsibility for their own condemnation.

Thank you for an excellent topic and for moderating it well, cacto.

kingbee

on Aug 22, 2004

after reading through this and the several other posts about the dangers of islam--more to the point, the dangers of fundamentalist islamist theocracy--as well as gideon's appropriately scary vision of life in falwellian america, it strikes me how for more than 20 years america itself has been treading on the edge of fundamentalist theocracy. that may sound alarmist or worse but it's difficult to argue with the fact that one cannot hope to win the republican presidential nomination without the approval of none other than jerry falwell and his fellow imams. (its with no little irony i recall 44 years ago, jfk had to publicly promise the nation his allegiance to the usa took precedence to the precepts of his church). cardinals and bishops in several large dioceses whove publicly warned their flocks that voting for kerry is morally wrong.

im posting a comment very similar to this in those blogs to which i refer in the first sentence.

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Aug 22, 2004

I strongly agree that the statement "they hate us for our freedom" is one of the most inane, idiotic, and dangerous statements Bush has made.

They perceive our democracy as a threat because the spread of it would cause the aspects of their society they suppress to challenge them, such as women and intellectuals. Islamic "scholars" are not intellectuals and are just mouthpieces for bigotry and hatred.

So, in a sense, they do hate us for our freedom. That is if you take freedom to mean political freedom.

I do not give any credence to the idea that we are somehow to blame for the terrorism we face, the Muslims that embrace terror should look to their own corrupt leaderships for the cause of their suffering, not Britain or America.

cwarsh

on Aug 22, 2004

"I do not give any credence to the idea that we are somehow to blame for the terrorism we face"
-not to blame in any legitamate way, but you might say instigators. Having military bases in places where the local population doesn't want them is bad for the average american- it costs them money, incites terrorism, and doesn't do anything for them.

"So, in a sense, they do hate us for our freedom. That is if you take freedom to mean political freedom."
-I've never heard of Osama bin Laden saying that he hates america because it is governed by representatives elected in a ballot system except in cases where they are elected by caucus. I have heard of him saying that he hates america because we have military bases near the holiest city in islam, and because we support with military aid the monarchy of saudi arabia which he oppposes. Do these actions by america legitimize his terrorism? Certainly not, but do they instigate it?

If Saudi Arabia established a military base in Vatican City I'm sure that a lot of Catholics wouid be pissed... maybe they wouldn't resort to terrorism but they'd do something.

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Aug 22, 2004

I've never heard of Osama bin Laden saying that he hates america because it is governed by representatives elected in a ballot system except in cases where they are elected by caucus.

It is quite obvious that Bin Laden does not favour democracy, which is seen as a tool of the "decadent" west.

I have heard of him saying that he hates america because we have military bases near the holiest city in islam

I have also heard him say that September 11th was a glorious day in world history, the man is not be listened to at all. I funded his warriors in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, but as soon as I realised his real intentions against the west I cut off ties with him.
Link

sandy2

on Aug 22, 2004

He obviously has bad intentions against the west. The point here is not whether or not he is an evil evil man. We know that his is. The point is that it is not fully and soley because we are a democracy. It is also because we do somethings that although not meant to antagonize, clearly cause some animocity in the middle east.

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Aug 22, 2004

It is also because we do somethings that although not meant to antagonize, clearly cause some animocity in the middle east.

A nation must show its military strength, England of all nations knows this. I find your idealistic view that if there were no western troops in the middle east terrorism would end. The struggle against radical Islam has being going on for centuries and did not start when America started intervening. It did not even start when Britain showed them who exactly was in charge during the glory days of the Empire. It is better to have military forces ready to attack than to have that area of the world unchecked in a physical sense.

sandy2

on Aug 22, 2004

The only time there has been an attack on US soil by islamic radicals was on 9/11. That seems pretty recent to me. We have fighter planes that fly faster than the speed of sound. Even if we have our nearest base in england or germany, we can get to the middle east pretty fast. If we stop supporting Israel, and tell them that we have had enough and they are going to have to solve their own problems then there is no need for us to be there. If Iran wants to attack Iraq or Saudi Arabia, right now, we will stop them because we need the oil. That brings us full circle back to the point that we need to not depend on any middle eastern oil. Period. End of discussion. Thats the only way to handle the situation. Then on top of that we finnaly decide that we will not go to war for humanitarian reasons, only in self defense, and then that problem is solved.

sandy2

on Aug 22, 2004

Cwarsh- later today I will outline my proposal for reducing our dependence on oil. Thanks.

cwarsh

on Aug 22, 2004

"A nation must show its military strength,"
-No. A tyranny must show its military strength. Don't get me wrong, I believe in maintaining a military strong enough to defend america against any threats to the life, liberty, and property of its people. By being in the middle east we are actually inciting more terrorism.

We can never win the war against terrorism. Its an unwinable war. For every martyr you make by killing one, a hundred new people take up arms. For every avenue of funding that you break for them, they find a new one. In the meanwhile, you use terrorism to justify the theft of civil liberties from the american people, and the theft of their tax dollars to fund this war. The only option that makes sense is to entirely get out of the region. We are not making peace by asserting our military superiority.

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Aug 22, 2004

That seems pretty recent to me.

Terrorism did not begin on September 11th, its time you Americans learnt there is a world outside of America, you show a complete ignorance of history here.

We have fighter planes that fly faster than the speed of sound.

And how do you propose to transport thousands of troops in fighter jets? You show a complete ignorance of military tactics here. I find it shocking that you would question an ex-SAS General on military matters.

and then that problem is solved.

Yes, how could we military generals be so foolish? Thank you for your advice.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!