[...] House Link to Article iraq Let Me Just Say This While I Still Can » Posted at IAmJoshBrown.com on [...]

excellent points.

how do you propose we address the problem of over-indulgence that leads to the oppression of entire populations?

i’ve asked this question before and i hope it doesn’t drive you crazy…

but! it is creative people like you who have a fire in your belly for justice in the world who bring workable solutions to the table… non-political solutions!

i ask because i think you have some good answers and its about time to start sharing some of them with those of us who are lacking imagination.

peace

“But I think they are more economic in nature. Religion just becomes the fuel for the fire. The thing that the culture uses to justify the morality of their actions.”

I think the exact opposite. That this is primarily a religious problem (the violent nature of Islam), and that economics are used (primarily by the West) as a scapegoat.

There is certainly a lot of politics involved here, as well. But the reality is, this is a religious struggle that has been going on for thousands of years – Isaac and Ishmael. Jacob and Esau. Jews and Samaritans. Divisions between brothers.

Islam was birthed in this contentious environment. And it has always condoned and encouraged outright violence against unbelievers.

In the terrorists’ diatribes, you rarely see mentions of economics as their motivations. You consistently see their references to us as infidels. They see this as a religious issue – that Islam has the right to rule the world.

The real danger is this – that as attacks increase, including on our own soil, Americans will be more and more willing to trade liberty for security. At the same time, Americans will also lose more and more restraint in how we offensively engage terrorism.

i agree with your last paragraph whole heartedly.

but i also think you scapegoat islam as the only violent one of the two. christianity has a long history of violence. and one could argue to more detrimental results than islam. and i would argue that a good portion of christianity’s history “has always condoned and encouraged outright violence against unbelievers.”

and i think the reason they see us as infidels is because of the colonial, globalization that we need as infrastructure for our consumerism has invaded every part of their life.

if religion was the root, then they would have blown up and targeted churches and community centers. instead they targeted the world trade center. the one building in the world with the most big businesses. the symbol of american decadence. and overseas, airports and train stations are attacked. not religious symbols. but rather symbols of globalization, the transportation and highways that keep the world connected. these are economic symbols. not religious. although one could certainly argue how these have become the religious symbols to the west. but that’s another story.

if religion was the root, they would attack much softer targets like churches, where tons of “believers” gather at a time. in many places you can find them in the thousands. these are soft, easy targets where they could inflict maximum damage with very little effort. hijacking planes, blowing up train stations and airports, attacking malls, where people are dispersed . . . these are much harder to attack. but more valuable to them and their agenda because they represent the economic imbalance that allows them to live in poverty while we live in excess.

Christianity has had a relatively violent history, to be sure, yet the Christian scriptures themselves condemn it. Christ says, “turn the other cheek.” He healed the ear of the soldier that Peter had cut off with his sword. His emphasis was on service, not domination.

Compare with the words of Islam’s prophet and you get the idea that Islam, at its very core, is violent.

Christians who follow the words of Christ purely are peacemakers. Muslims who follow the words (and actions) of Mohamed purely are terrorists.

You simply can’t say that the violence of Islam is a reaction to the gluttony of the West. The former far precedes the latter.

When I say that the problem is religious at it’s root, it’s not a problem of Islam vs. Christianity – in which case they would attack primarily religious targets. It’s simply a problem of Islam vs. everyone else.

To prove that point, look at the way Muslims attack each other. They are not doing so because of the opposing side’s gluttony, they are doing so because they believe their interpretation of Islam to be the correct one, and that makes everyone else an infidel. And thus a target.

well respectfully, we’ll have to agree to disagree again. i’m not discounting the religious elements to terrorism. but in my mind at least, it has far more to do with economic instability. and the gross sexualization and globalization of the american dream. which in my original post is what i would loosely call colonialism.

An irony just occurred to me, actually – things were actually relatively stable when that area was colonized. It’s actually been during the era of de-colonization that the area began its modern decline.

It makes me think that there’s something about religious fanaticism (and perhaps fanaticism in general) – that it either has to dominate or it has to be dominated. It doesn’t do well in the middle.

In any case, I’d still like to see your thoughts about how your point of view interacts with the violence of Muslims towards each other.

for the most part, the only time muslims are violent towards one another is in a situation like iraq. where they have been without power for a long time, and in the power vacuum different sects fight for control of the power.

or after we take what we need to, destabilize the region, and then leave . . . once again creating a vacuum.

but i think it’s a mistake just to say that they live in a “de-colonizalized world” now. as far as i’m concerned, colonialism hasn’t stopped. i certainly wouldn’t say that today the middle east lives in a de-colonialized world.

iraq, israel, saudi arabi, united emirates, jordan (for the most part), pakistan, egypt, for the most part all of these countries submit to our authority. and do their best to get their hands on american money and the american way of life. in any place where the children want to or are forced to adhere to the philosophical and economic models that america holds, that area is a colonized area. in any area where children drink cokes and buy nikes, watch american movies and dream of being like mike . . . that is colonialism. albeit it’s hybird form of globalization.

This is pretty fascinating. A former member of the British Jihadi Network shares his thoughts:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570

“I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.”

And:

“Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.”

amazing post. you should have someone edit it and then submit it to a publication of your choice.

BTW: thought this was a brilliant blog post. may it never come true, but I’m afraid you may be right.