The Search for Moderate Islam

SourceEd says:

quote:

---

I swear, if I hear someone ask one more time in response to some act of Muslim brutality or terrorism why moderate or liberal Muslims don’t condemn it, I’m going to puke blood. Have they ever bothered to look? Do they expect those people to knock on their door and deliver such a message via singing telegram? Rabbi Marc Schneier notes that Muslim leaders do so all the time but get almost no media coverage when they do.

---

Go to the "Source" for a big quote from the Rabbi, and/or to the "notes" which is the source source.Moose

Perhaps the problem is that there is insufficient condemnation of terrorism within the overall Muslim world.When there is an act of terrorism what we see instead is cheering in the streets and the passing out of candies.Or perhaps it is that there are far too few moderates?In any event, the vast majority of terrorism worldwide can be attributed to Muslims and until that changes I'm not too impressed by a few ineffective condemnations from a few moderates.Let's see some results and maybe then I'll be impressed.

Maybe if we stopped overreacting and trying to impose our will by force there might be fewer acts of terrorism.But have there been any acts of Islamic terrorism that were a real threat to the US?

I'd call the 9/11 attacks a real threat. The two WTCs, the Pentagon, and the White House. As well as one other which didn't get off the ground.Do you have some good reason why you'd want to minimize those attacks as not being a real threat?This I've got to hear!

How utterly sad that you find those a threat to the US.Even if all had succeeded would they have threatened the continuation of the US?I have a little more faith in reality. When much of London was destroyed during the Blitz did it threaten the continuation of Great Britain? Is the US so weak and insignificant that the destruction of two buildings and damage to a third threatens its existence?Certainly it is a tragedy but to claim it was a threat to the US simply makes the US look pathetic.

Maybe you're right.Perhaps we should invite various thugs around the world to do similar attacks on an annual basis. We could even make it a holiday of some sorts. Maybe we could even do a lottery to select who gets to whack us on that day. And the size of the attack could come as a big surprise! We could even celebrate with fireworks or something.After all, it doesn't threaten our overall continuation, now does it?

LOLPerhaps that is what you suggest, but I have never made such a stupid suggestion.But maybe in your wisdom you might be right.

What you are suggesting is that we should not react very vigorously to these kinds of attacks.That's a sure method for encouraging more such attacks, not fewer!Now, the method we used after 9/11 was probably not very good. Long, protracted gradual escalation type "actions" are a proven failure.But perhaps our failure was in under-reacting, not over-reacting.Maybe some combination of a short-term real "shock and awe" along with very focused use of our special forces to chase after the bad guys would have been more effective. And it would have been a lot less costly.That extra $ trillion or so could have been used very productively on research and development here at home. It can be argued that we received no good long-term benefits from the way we conducted the post-9/11 actions. Certainly recent events have suggested that to be the case.So, maybe the solution is more blitzkrieg and less PC in our military activities. Better to be feared and respected than to be liked.

Sorry but that is just another example of you misrepresenting what I have said. Shock and awe was utterly stupid in relation to 9-11 and yes, our method of response was not just not very good, it was stupid. A military invasion of Afghanistan did absolutely nothing over the long term except what certainly was obvious even before it started, a long protracted waste of human lives and sorely needed funds. Our invasion of Iraq was totally unrelated to 9-11 and by any reasonable standards immoral as well as another waste of US lives and money. While shock and awe seems dumb, a focused use of power would have been a very reasonable option. Not to mention starting to rebuild the US infrastructure. Nonsense. Had we taken one tenth of the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and used it as foreign aid to promote education, jobs, health care and infrastructure in Palestine and Afghanistan it would have done far more to help keep the US safe.Few people fear the US, lots hate it.

The continuation of the U.S. isn't the only concern, jar. More important than merely ensuring its own existence is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, who pay taxes, vote, and generally participate in the economic, social, and political cultures that make the country and its government possible.When people talk about hating terrorism or blitzkriegs, it's mostly because they fear for the loss of lives, peace, and prosperity that these things bring. That it might prevent their country from simply getting by is, from my observation, one of the least of their worries.Jon

I believe your analysis of public opinion is probably correct. Sad, isn't it.But the loss of American lives in 9-11 pales when compared to the over 57,000 US casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. And that also does not include the casualties other than US Military personnel resulting from those actions.

I would say that you should not react vigorously against the wrong guy. Indeed it is. if George punches you in the nose and you react very vigorously by beating Jim half to death, Jim's friends are likely to step up to defend him.

‘More will follow’: ISIS fighter praises Paris massacre

A fighter for the Islamic State militant group praised Wednesday’s attack on a French satirical magazine that killed at least 12 people, telling Reuters the raid was revenge for insults against Islam.

​

Hooded gunmen stormed the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in the worst militant assault on French soil in recent decades. The dead included top editors at Charlie Hebdo, a publication renowned for lampooning Islam, as well as two police officers.

​

The lions of Islam have avenged our Prophet, said Abu Mussab, a Syrian who fights with the Islamic State, which has captured broad swaths of Iraqi and Syrian territory.

​

These are our lions. It’s the first drops more will follow, he said, speaking via an Internet connection from Syria. He added that he and his fellow fighters were happy about the incident.

​

Let these crusaders be scared because they should be.

​

...

​

More

Yep, no one is going to be surprised to hear someone from IS condoning the Charlie Hebdo massacre.But I heard a good number of Muslim organisations in the radio yesterday condemning the attack, and wanting the murderers brought to justice.It's easy enough to dig up supportive rhetoric from the likes of IS, but it's just as easy to find Muslim condemnation, eg:"The Muslim Council of Britain condemns this attack. Whomever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justifies the taking of life."

Here's an extract from al Jazeera's website piece:"This extremely grave barbaric action is also an attack against democracy and the freedom of the press," the French Muslim Council (CFCM) said in a statement.The body represents France's Muslim community, which is Europe's biggest and estimated to number between 3.5 million and five million people."There is a very broad swathe of moderate Muslim opinion, which can be engaged with and worked with, to deal with what is the very significant danger posed by Muslim extremism.