The Islamic Extremist Agenda

Babar Ali, how would you like someone else calling you that? Please stop.

i would love to see one positive post from him. virtually all his posts i've seen provoke some sort of animosity. i understand he is a proud Israeli, and i commend him for that, but vilifying Muslims repeatedly is just uncalled for.

If you feel that way, debate him on the issues. Don't attack him personally.

I understand your feeling Babar Ali, because it's very similar to what I feel when I see tons of articles about 'racist zionist' this and that. I like to post constructive articles when I can. That's another way to change the balance. I hope to read more from you that is constructive.

While I can't link to a specific episode that is as horrible as the Muslim propoganda cartoons, that doesn't mean that GI Joe should be let off the hook for its own ethical lapses. The show, like many American cartoons, glorifies violence and is very much war propoganda akin to what you are describing.

And it is dangerous to dehumanize "terrorists" because then whoever our government labels as such becomes a target and is no longer human. I'm not saying that this makes it OK for the suicide bombing cartoons to take place, but I am saying that they are not the first to glorify violence to children and not the first to use cartoons for political means.

One of my best friends is a former Army Ranger. Guess what his favorite show was when he was little? Guess what his solution is for most of the world's problems is.

Nuke em all. Not nuke the military targets, not spare the civilians, they're all terrorists. Does that mean that GI Joe is to blame for that mentality? No but it is part of a larger culture that desensitizes people to violence and makes it seem like a solution to most problems.

And it starts when you're just a kid with GI Joe and Duck Hunt. Play enough light gun games and a gun starts to feel good in your hands.

And it starts when you're just a kid with GI Joe and Duck Hunt. Play enough light gun games and a gun starts to feel good in your hands.

GI Joe was one of my favorite cartoons and I loved Duck Hunt. I do not own a single gun and I would not be comfortable with them in my house.

Go Joe.

Look I liked GI Joe too and I'm a non-violent person. I would never kill anyone but the point is that I know how. I know what a shotgun is, what the difference between an AK-47 and an M-16 is, I know lots of ways to kill a man and I learned all this from videogames, TV and movies as a kid. I would have never known all this without these videogames and movies targeted at me. It doesn't mean I'll use the information but I have it.

I know how to run a knife through a person's throat. And?

It comes down to the choices people make with the knowledge they have.

Since the article is actually about radical Islamists and their unapologetic and very apparent hatred, let me just state that people who teach their small children to kill are far more disturbing to me than an opinion on Iran or some horror movie.

Personally I think 250 bombs, Missles capable of reaching the US and speeches ending in "Death to America/Israel" are more frightening than children being taught to kill.

I was taught to kill as a small child too, right here in America, although everyone seems to want to deny it. I know that the best way to kill a man is two in the chest one in the head, and I've never had any formal combat training. I've been taught target practice with a gun ever since Duck Hunt all the way up through Time Crisis 3 and our Army has a videogame that they give out for free to kids all across the country.

I guess the difference is that our President doesn't end his speeches with "Death to Iran/Iraq/Islam", and we have thousands of nuclear weapons that can hit anyone in the world. So I guess I'm not sure who's the scariest.

Moral equivalency is seldom a strong argument.

Playing video games or watching movies is much different than being taught to "kill whitey" or "kill the n*gger" as a schoolchild. There is a complete lack of specificity.

And the differences in speeches given by Americans and radical Muslims are vast. Chanting death threats is only a start.....and a very big one at that.

When was the last time Extremist Christians or Jews unapologetically targeted civilian population on a mass scale?

Christians did it 50 years ago and the Jews are technically doing it now. The Chinese are doing it to the Tibetians, the Indonesians to the East Timorians, and then there's South Africa...

If you want specifics of Christian (not just extremist!) persecution of Jews, look here.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

...this taken from an article from the Baltimore Chronicle. I found it interesting reading.

but anyways, happy Nikita?

While I am not equipped to comment on the content of this show (I haven't seen it), I can add to the claim that Glenn Beck is not the most intelligent man in the world. Please see this column I wrote about an episode of his show to get a taste of his rhetoric.

Here is one of Beck's more recent demonstrations of his intellectual adeptness. It's from Nov. 14th when he was interviewing Keith Ellison, the country's first-ever Muslim congressman.

OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.

With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

(source)

Again, I am not going to dispute the major premise here -- that the Islamic Extremist agenda is a terrifying thing. In fact, I'd argue that Islam itself, extremists not withstanding, is incompatible with the modern world.

But I can't vouch for Beck.

Whats the difference between terrorist victims and collateral damage?

A million dollar missile guidance system.

Babar:

"Christians did it 50 years ago"? Sorry, what are you talking about?

The Jews are not "doing it now" technically or otherwise. Every civilian death is something they openly find tragic and often it is Israeli blood that spills as a result of their attempt to minimize damage to civilians. Moreover, their target never was and never will be civilian population.

Anything over a century brings nothing to this conversation and you know this.

Guess what religion Adolf Hitler was... and Germany in general. The British massacred entire populations in South Asia during their occupation. The French led the whole Algiers fiasco. Also keep in mind that these were not even extremists (based on the fact that it was a popular action within the state). Sorry if my 50 year date is 5 or 10 years off, but i think you understand.

The Jews are targeting Palestinian Muslim's in the technical, real, and ideological sense. There is no question about it. You can argue self-defense till the cows come home, and that's fine, but it is still targeting a very specific population.

I strongly disagree with you about anything older than a century not having any weight. The whole Israeli occupation is based on a 3000 year old issue. For you to ignore the past is a dangerous way to judge the present and discuss the future.

Christianity has a 2000 year history of consistent violence against one group or another. I bet you would have to reference a history book to name me ONE incident before the Trade Center that Muslims are guilty of persecuting another race for (fighting against Israeli occupation not withstanding).

People fight each other all the time, but this labeling of entire societies, religions, and countries is getting a bit out of hand.

Please show me the parallels in the Israeli and American sources. I am unable to come up with them.

Why don't you visit the "talkback" section of any article posted on Haaretz. Here's a nice little item I received in my inbox today:

ReligionAndSpirituality.com November 27, 2006

Listeners to a parody of anti-Muslim bigotry on a Washington radio station approved of treating American Muslims as Jews were in Nazi Germany.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday that the reaction to the parody is a "wake-up call" for religious and political leaders who remain silent on the issue of growing Islamophobia in America.

In his 630 WMAL program on Sunday, November 26, talk show host Jerry Klein seemed to advocate a government program to force all Muslims to wear "identifying markers." He stated: "I'm thinking either it should be an arm band, a crescent moon arm band, or it should be a crescent moon tattoo." Klein said: "If it means that we have to round them up and do a tattoo in a place where everybody knows where to find it, then that's what we'll have to do."

The program focused on public reaction to the removal of six Imams, or Islamic religious leaders, from a US Airways flight in Minnesota last week.

Some callers to the program rejected discriminatory treatment of Muslims, but others supported Klein's statements and even suggested that even more severe measures be taken against American Muslims. "Richard" in Gaithersburg, Md., said: "Not only do you tattoo them in the middle of their foreheads; you round them up and then ship them out of this country, period."

"Heath" in Upper Marlboro, Md., said: "I don't think you go far enough. . .you have to set up encampments like they did during World War II like with the Japanese and Germans."

Later in the program, Klein revealed that his call for discriminatory actions against Muslims was "baloney." Klein said: "I can't believe any of you, any of you, are sick enough to have agreed for one second with anything that I have said in the last half hour."

If you are speaking about political leaders, here is what I was able to dig up in three seconds on Google. I am confident that if I spent more time I could find more.

1. Benjamin Franklin: "There is great danger for the United States of America. This great danger is the Jew. Gentlemen, in whichever land the Jews have settled, they have repressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty.." (Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1798). [yes, this is about Jews and not Muslims. But my point is that it is silly to argue that Western leaders don't make hateful or racist statements].

2. Menachim Begin: "[The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." (quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982)

Anyway this is a pointless exercise. You are free to believe that there is something unique about hate coming from the mouths of Muslim leaders-- I believe it is par for the course, and that hate is a disturbingly universal phenomenon. And none of this arguing is going to result in getting rid of this hateful rhetoric.

The Ben Franklin bit is a forgery. The Begin one appears to be a misquote.

Ig, Yaakov, and all... I apologize for posting false statements. As I said, I did a quick google search for those items, and I obviously pulled them off of unreliable websites.

I do, however, stand by my statement. I really don't have time to dig up quotes but I can't believe you would seriously argue that NO Western, US, or Israeli leader has ever said anything false or hateful about Islam. In terms of Western, US, or Israeli people, I once again can hardly believe that you would argue that there are NO individuals who say equally hateful and false things every day about Islam. Please. As I said, go to the talk back section on literally any item posted at Haaretz or LGF or DanielPipes.org, and read for yourself.

I would argue that a lot of the difference stems from differing circumstances - the luxury of kinder bigotries - but there aren't many Western leaders arguing for such hate or institutions (like official media outlets) teaching hate on the same level. Avigdor Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Pat Robertson come to my mind, but such examples all have strong opposition and/or limited power. They're nowhere near the same level as Franklin or Begin. They don't compare to Mahathir Mohamad, PM of Malaysia until 2003, spewing rank antisemitism at the UN, Ahmadinejad's persistent Holocaust denial, Egyptian TV station running a monthlong miniseries based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to celebrate Ramadan, or Saudi textbooks teaching the Protocols as truth.

These things aren't because of Islam, and I completely understand why you would be concerned that they might be blamed on Islam or Muslims. Rather, they're partly a response to legitimate grievances against the West, partly the sort of scapegoating that happens in all cultures, and partly particular to the moment. But downplaying them by saying that it's no different from any other culture isn't right, either. Such hatred is a problem that has to be recognized and addressed.

Going back to Nikita's post, there are some Jewish settlers in the West Bank who are targetting civilians, but it's a very important point that Israel does take action against such things. And, going back to Babar Ali's post, the implication that there are such organized programs or policies by governments in the West is simply untrue.

Well, why the hell have we been arguing? We can both agree with those statements. By the way, as a Muslim, I am just as scared, if not more so, than you are. You may find it hard to believe, but it's true. Being a liberal Muslim means being stuck between a rock and a hard place-- or in other words, between a group of crazy people that think your religion is diseased, and another group of crazy people that want to poison it with their insane ideas.

Re: Germany - that wasn't Christians against Jews, but Fascists against Jews. Entirely different thing.

Re: Rest of your statement - you are being ridiculous to the point when I am tempted to just add you to my ignore list. Do Jews have a right to self-defense?

And Israeli presence in Israel now is about survival and Israel nominally and through action wants peace and has no problem living side by side with any religion that doesn't seek to destroy it. Moreover, they are capable of discerning between real Islam and radical Islam (which has little or nothing to do with true Islam, which is a beautiful religion). You are just one of the many people who would probably never consider that Israel is indeed trying to protect itself. Thank God there are other people out there who actually want peace.

NikitaB, please don't judge the Egyptian so fast. The Egyptian is one Muslim on the Vine who consistently builds bridges with Jews and Israelis here.

Thanks, Marilyn, but I am not sure that Nikita is talking to me? [Nikita- do you want to clarify who that comment was directed at?]

FYI, (though I am not the person who mentioned fascism) Christianity is an inextricable part of fascism.

Marilyn, The Egyptian, sorry, that was was directed at Babar Ali, not The Egyptian.

The Egyptian, thanks for the link. Despite being a part of it, it's not nearly as strong a connection between Christianity and Fascism as between Islam and Muslim extremism. Even so, even if I conceded that Christians also engaged in targeting large groups of people, this does not negate the main point of the article. I am against ANY group engaging in these practices regardless of their religion.

Sorry, I didn't go to the link where Christians and others are spewing hate. The Egyptian, I am against those people as much as I am against Islamic extremism. Please do not mistake my concern with Islamic extremism for tolerance of targeting Arabs - I do NOT tolerate it. Islamic fundamentalism definitely does not have a monopoly in bigots.

i couldn't agree with you more, and i don't imply that one side is right and one side is wrong, what do disapprove of is extremist reaction, whether it be physical, verbal, or ideological.

Glenn Beck, an unqualified and opinionated racist, is doing the same thing here that his special discusses goes on in the East. i watch his show regularly for the comedic value of it, and to try and understand what this whole fear mongering is all about. he essentially promotes the "they're out to get us, so let's get 'em!" ideology that is causing more problems than bombs are right now. his views on Us vs. Them are compounding many of these problems.

The same thing happens in Islamic countries, and it's just as wrong there as it is anywhere else. It is basic manipulation and perversion of an otherwise tangible problem.

But what you refer to as "the real problem" is not the "real" problem... it is what is visible on the surface. It is wrong to teach hatred, and when parents and communities teach it, it's one of many problems, but it's not the be all end all. 9/11 was one event that created hatred in so many for a group of people. Imagine what happens in the aftermath of decades of colonialism, political meddling, and occupation. This is where I feel the real problems lie.

There is an adjustment to be made by the people in the Mid East, who are essentially left with huge social and infrastructural problems. Pointing fingers at the West is the easy way out. They see fancy cars and super-malls in the former (current?) occupying powers while they often watch children starve. What would an uneducated and poor person do in that situation?

It also doesn't help to slap sanctions on recovering countries. In what is the worst possible move, we hit Iran with sanctions that not only worsened the economic situation, but also isolated both sides from each other, allowing this tension to come to a boiling point. Would it have been so bad back then to work with the country to create ties?

I am a strong believer in Education as the most powerful tool available, and the way to peace is not by more sanctions or bombs, but by working hand-in-hand to dispel misconceptions and make amends. But this reform needs to happen on all sides, and people like Glenn Beck and Bin Laden make it difficult.

Thanks for your comment, Babar Ali. I also believe in education. Here's an article I just posted that may interest you: To Me, Teaching Arabic at a Jewish School Is the Right Answer in Any Language.

i speak 7 languages and can vouch for the effectiveness of such a program. when learning a language, one of the FIRST things you learn, right along with the alphabet of that language, is about the people and the culture of the people that use that language... which to me is more valuable than the language itself.

Point is though, if you tackle the underlying grievances, you'll be able to all but kill off the huge recruitment that these groups currently enjoy. As you yourself said in your article, the vast majority of folk just want to get on with their lives.

If you take out the reasons why people want to kill others you will for the vast majority of cases (there are always going to be nutbars on all sides who want to hurt a particular group) kill these groups from the roots up.

It's not perfect, or quick, but it would be effective. And the hardliners aren't the ones you would aim these measures at, you would aim them at the moderates with a chip on their shoulders, ones who you could still have realistic discussion with, the ones who would later become hardliners over time.

Whoops! Sorry, I hit refresh as I posted first time and it didn't show up so thought it lost, please feel free to delete either of the above posts.

Oh well... Live and learn...

I do not think that it can really apply, do to the fact that our mere existence is part of their overall grievance.

Only for the extremists though, this is the point - most Muslims don't think that way, the trick is sorting out the underlying grievances (land stolen out from under the feet of people, to name but one) before these groups get to them and start indoctrinating them into thinking this way.

I did read your comment above, I consider your idea that all Muslims think that Israel and the west need to be wiped out is disingenuous. Actually, I would go so far to say that it is counterproductive if your goal is to sort these problems out without having to resort to genocide. By tarring everyone who isn't an Israeli living in the middle east as someone who wants to wipe you out, that is the only option left to you.

We certainly seem to be seeing excessive amounts of lashing out personally at Glen Beck and religious types in general.

I personally see nothing wrong or idiotic with publicizing the methods and hatred of radical fanatics.

It appears a list of equally horrible quotes from Israeli and Christian leaders is far too much trouble to compile. Making broad condemnations is such a simple option, I can see why certain people resort to that sort of thing.

No such list is necessary. The terrible things which religion has wrought are evident in any history book. As it stands now, Islam does seem to have a greater number of extremists than other religions. That does not mean that Middle Eastern people or followers of Islam in general are prone to extremist views. Followers of every religion are prone to extremist views equally. The problem is that poorly educated, lower class practitioners (again, of any religion) are more likely to commit violent acts at the behest of religious leaders (like those who participated in the crusades) and in general.

I simply wanted to note that Islam is like many religions in that it takes the stance of: "We are assured of our righteousness and of our coming victory." This common belief, and those who would follow it without question, is what I would call "the scourge or the earth." It is illogical to start with a belief and then try to find evidence supporting it, discard that which does not match. Those in search of answers should assume nothing and search for evidence. If only people were so enlightened ...

I see. It's not "necessary" now.

How terribly convenient.

oh jeez... is there anything you won't nit-pick out of a sentence Kooozebane?! get your own arguments in order before correcting the word choices of others. this issue of "HISTORICAL CONTEXT" has been discussed. jay made some good points in his argument, and you reply with that?!

it is very important to look at the bigger picture, not just demographically, but historically. it automatically answers a lot of q's.

I'm not making outrageous claims and failing to back them up.

My arguments are clearly not the issue here.

As a journalist, I assure you that many in the journalism community (and plenty of media watchdog groups) view Glenn Beck as at the very least biased. You can find some of those criticism referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck#Criticism

I'm not too sure what "outrageous" claims I have made. Everything I stated, aside from my ad hominem criticism of Beck, is based on what is considered common knowledge to most sociologists and/or psychologists (even my criticism of Beck is supported by those who know far more about media than I.)

Followers of every religion are prone to extremist views equally. The problem is that poorly educated, lower class practitioners (again, of any religion) are more likely to commit violent acts at the behest of religious leaders (like those who participated in the crusades) and in general.

You can find a more in-depth explanation of why these phenomenon occur here: Sociology Social Psychology Psychology

As for this:

It is illogical to start with a belief and then try to find evidence supporting it, discard that which does not match. Those in search of answers should assume nothing and search for evidence.

You should check out this article: Scientific Method

I hope this clears up any perception you have of an "outrageous" claim. My assertions are not merely personal beliefs, rather, they are commonly accepted scientific thought. Save of course, for the bit about religious extremists being the scourge of the earth, that is clearly my personal belief. I just wanted to clear that up so as to avoid further explanation in a later comment. Notice, however that I do not advocate a ban on religion, or that people of religious faith (or none for that matter) be treated (or though of) any differently, let alone killed.

It appears a list of equally horrible quotes from Israeli and Christian leaders is far too much trouble to compile.

For clarification, the quote above is about the outrageous claim that has yet to be fulfilled.

I don't believe for one second this list has failed to be compiled because it was unnecessary.

Michael, while your are in a way correct. I believe you are somewhat mistaken. The definition of extremism (according to Webster's): is

extremism One entry found for extremism.
Main Entry: ex·trem·ism
Pronunciation: ik-'strE-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being extreme
2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : RADICALISM
- ex·trem·ist /-mist/ noun or adjective

This definition of extremism does not really describe the latest (or previous) Dalai Lama as far as I can see. Unless you consider this definition of extreme:

extreme c : exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected

This definition, while accurately describing the latest (and previous) Dalai Lama, does not make him an extremist in the same way as Islamic extremists. So yes, "the Dalai Lama is an extremist Buddhist," and "No one is scared of him."

However, I was referring to the connotative (rather than denotative) meaning of the word. "Extremists" are usually associated with violence in our media and conversation. As the denotative definition does not necessarily imply violence (neither does radicalism), I was using the connotative meaning, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that everyone would be on the same page.

I only bring this up to note that extremists (again the connotative definition here) are in every religion, including Buddhism. (i.e. the Buddhist who set himself on fire to protest the Vietnam war is as close to Buddhist extremism as you can get.) They just so happen to be more prevelant in poorly educated, lower class practitioners. And there just so happens to be a lot of those in the Middle East right now.

I am not bashing Buddhism, just explaining one of the downsides to religion: it gives people a justification/rationalization to do ridiculous things to each other and themselves for no logical reason.