Originally posted by: athithi
Nice strawman, I said nothing of the sort. You and others need to learn that when you're trying to work with someone, you cannot antagonize them at the same time. It just doesn't work.
You suggested that Muslims were wasting their energy fighting stereotypes and that if we worked with them then we could root out terrorism. Either people all over the world are working with muslims or they are not. You claimed the latter and when I dispute it you call it a strawman :roll:
I commend your usage of the smiley face, but it's just not true to say "Either people all over the world are working with muslims or they are not." Some people are working with the Muslims, some are not. Some people antagonize the very people who can stop the terrorism, some do not.
Are you actually asking this for real? In fact, it was the Jews. Extremist Jews assassinated Rabin! BOTH sides were responsible for the failures. But in the end, it was the British for dividing the area in the first place.
I am far from being an Israeli sympathizer. However, nobody can deny the fact that it was Israel that was attacked by its neighbouring countries first. It takes two people to fight, but only one to start. Ehud Barak came with probably the most conciliatory proposal at the time and Arafat walked away from it. What
more exactly should have been done to work with Muslims at that point? How much peace did they bring to the table in the first place?
Actually, the best proposals came under Rabin. And we saw who started the fight there. You cannot be so reductionist to make this a single fight; there are fights going on everywhere, with one party starting it in one case and the other party in another case.
I'm assuming you are Indian (I do not know this is a valid assumption). You must know that the people behind the bombings were Muslim extremists from Pakistan. Most of the Muslims in India are great people. Look at the actors and actresses, the people in the government, etc. The bombings in India had nothing to do with the "appeasement" of Muslims.
Yes, I am Indian. Yes, I know virtually all the terrorism in Kashmir is ISI-backed. And please, go back and read my encomiums to the Indian muslim before assuming that I am talking about Muslim appeasement as a source of the problem. I was stating that Muslim appeasement in India is an over-the-top example of how different people in the world are working WITH muslims. I gave those examples to counter your claim (which you are now denying) that nobody is working with muslims and that people are only trying to stereotype them.
I never said nobody is working with Muslims. I said people like YOU, and others, are antagonizing Muslims. I think India is a great example of not really how to work with Muslims, but how working with Muslims depends on the nation-state involved.
You talk as if Muslims had to undergo what the Jews underwent under Hitler or what the Sri Lankan tamils received under the Buddhists.
Strawman, never said anything of the sort.
Then you do agree that Muslims are not exactly a weakened people who would need world cooperation and understanding as a pre-condition
before they will act against Islamic terrorism? It's difficult to construct an argument against your points when all you will say is that everybody is stereotyping Muslims. Explain your stance in absolute terms and perhaps you won't have to perceive every argument as a strawman.
Again, you're failing to recognize the disctinction between nation-states and a religion/culture. Cooperation and understanding is a necessary pre-condition to the
culture/religion, not a necessary pre-condition to work with any nation-state in particular.
Muslim nations are not the same as Muslim people. India is not a Muslim nation, yet there are Muslims living there. The U.S. is definitely not a Muslim nation, yet there are Muslims living here. We are not obligated to excuse these people? I see no reason why you think these people are not helping tear down terrorism, even in the face of all the antagonizing by people like you. They are part of this country, part of India, and part of many other countries. It is simply a stereotype that a Muslim state personfies Muslims everywhere.
Muslim nations are not some imaginary concepts. They are constituted of people who have a commonality between them. Take away all the muslims from a muslim nation and you wouldn't have a nation. Basically, all I can gather from your statements is that the world should understand the psyche of a resident of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and not hold them accountable in any manner (not for terrorism, but for failing to respond to it). If they are held accountable, that is somehow antagonizing them?
Antagonize the governments involved. Do not antagonize the whole culture/religion. Why? because there are great Muslims here in this country, who hate terrorism with as much passion as we do. And there are Muslims in other countries, who hate terrorism much like we do. And, yes, there are even Muslims in those Saudi/Pakistan countries who hate terrorism as much as we do. Rather than antagonize the whole culture, we can work to understand that culture (NOT the nation necessarily), and further a movement against terrorism.
You need to find the line between a nation-state and a culture and religion. I think if we stop antagonizing Muslims, a grassroots movement can be built that can bring down the nation-state governments in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. The governments in Syria and Iran have used religion as a tool for political conquest, much like Christianity was used during the Crusades.
I need to find the line between a nation-state and a culture and religion? :laugh: Sure, now I am responsible for residents of Islamic states not knowing the fundamental concepts of freedom. How difficult is it for swathes of muslims to realize that the image and concept of their religion is being soiled by these acts of terrorism and by their failure to fight it from within the religion? When 9/11 happened, school girls in Pakistan cheered - and these were elite schools too, not some madrassa. I saw a school girl state that she wanted her husband to be like Osama bin Laden. Honestly, she didn't look like she was remotely saddened by the world stereotyping her as a terrorist supporter. In such a situation, do you expect an American citizen to go and tell that girl, "Look here, sweetie, we are terribly sorry you hate us. We still love you"?
There were Muslims in India, the U.S., Turkey, and elsewhere who condemned the 9/11 attack. Would you go up to such a Muslim girl and say, "I know you feel sympathy for us. But you're just as bad as Osama bin Laden."?
Now, after you talk to this girl, do you think she will listen to your calls to end terrorism? Or will you actually push her toward OBL by associating her with him?
It is not religion that will end terrorism, it is politics. And even with 9.11, most of the Muslim nations were with the U.S. states in fighting out terrorism. It was a chance to unite the world against this cause.
Bush took that "mandate", and shoved it up the nations arses. On top of that, people like you took that wave of sympathy and common struggle and shoved it up every Muslims arse.
The world can and WILL work with muslims only when they show a willingness to work with us. So far, apart from Indian muslims, I can hardly think of any other muslim populace (Turkey, perhaps) that has shown that humanity comes before religious affiliations. You cannot kiss and cajole 1.5 billion people into understanding that their inaction is exacerbating the situation. Neither can you fight them into it, I agree. But somewhere someone from the Islamic world has to stand up say "Enough!" (to the terrorists, not to the rest of the world).
Add Indonesia, the largest Muslim country. The general sentiment among people in the West that the Muslim religion is responsible for terrorism just gives more ammunition to the terrorists.
IMO, it is not only the right thing to do to not stereotype the Muslim culture, it would help us in international relations.
Let me put it even more simply. Muslims all over the world are at the receiving end from two factions - the terrorists who sully their religion and the rest of the world which stereotypes them. I understand and agree when you say we should work with them. But you need to understand that we ARE working with them for the most part. Leave aside everything else - if you were at the receiving end from a terrorist faction and an anti-terrorist faction, what would be your action of choice? Fight the terrorists? Join them? Sit back and watch saying it's between the terrorist and the rest of the world? Fundamental human decency says you should do everything against terrorism, regardless of how unloved you feel by the anti-terrorist faction.
I would fight the terrorists, not the culture.
But I've exhausted myself debating this with you. I can only see you come back with yet another "You are stereotyping muslims who are not involved". Take it from me, my friend. Muslims, like the rest of us, don't have a choice - they ARE involved. This is their world too and it is being ruined even as we speak. They can do something to help prevent it. Don't deprive them of their motivation to help by supporting their inaction.
I am actually supporting action on their part by understanding them. I believe the stereotyping you do gives ammunition to the terrorists and radical Islamic states in their attempt to deceive even larger swaths of Muslim people.
The leaders you are looking for do exist; but you are only hurting their cause by antagonizing the Muslim people as a whole - you push them towards hatred of us, and terrorism.