Well, Russians think differently. When the terrorists back in the 80's hit them once, the Russians hunted the families of the terrorists and killed them. They were not bothered again.

 

I don't know if that tactic will work out this time, as we have a new breed of terrorists but if they do the same thing again, we shall see what comes of matters.

 

Sure, severe response is important so the surviving family members will feel better. But war against terrorism is nonsense. The main thing that causes terrorism to appear in almost every country, is injustice. They would happily sit and smoke hookah, but when something bad happens to them, they want something bad to happen to others. 

The fact that governments respond to terrorism by war shows, that they either don't understand the cause of it, or do not want to solve it. Civilian loses are a price cheap enough compared to benefits of their unfair policy. Acts of terrorism open doors to acts of war and to much more interesting budgets which would be otherwise pass through parliament. Poor muslims do not realize, that when they go for a walk in hundred directions at once, they only make it worse for the remaining muslims. If they are so well organized, why don't they make pressure on democratic governments to stop military actions and start humanitary actions? Probably because in their hurt they are just as selfish and short-sighted as the governments in their power.

Severe response is a typical policy. For example, George Bush senior could either offer Iraq economic aid and create a peaceful country, (which was suggested to him) or he could go to Gulf war, wasting huge amounts of money, innocent lives and natural resources, while the aggressor was not punished. I wonder where the political shit-headedness comes from. Why is it so diffcult to do the right thing, once you sit in the right chair?

The goal of the Muslim religion is total global domination and forced submission to the religion and sharia law. These people will not stop until everyone is forced to be a fundamentalist Muslim. How is that not injustice?

Sure governments make mistakes in their polices and war prosecution. But for you to claim the problem has nothing to do with the 'religion of peace' is ridiculous.

And who decides what is justice? Where does a standard of justice come from anyways?

 

Of course that is injustice, and it is a typical response on persecution. Muslim leaders are not that stupid, they know that between them and the world domination stands America, Russia and China. If given reasonable terms, I mean reasonable,  very much unlike these given to Yasir Arafat about returning a tiny fraction of original palestinian land, then muslims are likely to accept the offer.

Firstly, please tell me where is that term "religion of peace" mentioned in reference to Islam. Is that from Koran? I really couldn't google it up, all pages only show up how it is NOT a religion of peace. Well, anyway, there is no more absolute peace than death, so that's what Islam is up to.

Secondly, the last thing muslims need is military and economic persecution. This makes them more extreme, angry, militaristic, expansive and flocked together. What Muslims need is normal civilized life, you know, with food, water, education and so on. They must soften out from the civilized life. There must be lots of diplomatic contacts and media reports, so that muslim culture will get infected by western laziness. This must be accompanied by iron secular law of punishing violence and riots. Maybe then muslims driven into orderly life will be introduced to other beauties of their culture -like tassawuf and sheesha instead of jihad and sharia.

You remember Justitia? That girl with sword and scales. She's supposed to be virginally innocent, but modern times required her to wear additional blindfold. You should look at the scales. Scales symbolize balance, equal reaction for every action. That is the basis of justice. We can spice it up by introducing preventive, rehabilitative and educative policy, but the law of Cause and effect is the main point.

Ancient nomadic Jews understood it wrongly, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But more recent farming Jews had it explained better, as you sow, so you shall reap. Justice is really simple, until lawyers start their legal te(a)rms race.

 

 

 

If it were proven that the violence stopped when the overt oppression stopped. But it demonstrably does not. There will always be room for muslims to claim oppression and their response will not be that of Ghandi or Mandela, a response that succeeds peacefully. It will be violence.

Mine is a polar position, I agree. But when the next uni educated young man of a wealthy family blows himself up in the west it will be up to you guys to manufacture the sense of oppression he must have felt that somehow created a reality in which the west 'deserved' to be assaulted by immigrants we took on expecting them to happily integrate into our society, not the other way around. 
 

My personal position is that muslim immigration to the West should stop and I think until the mainstream parties take this onboard we will see the rise of right wing nutbags such as those we see in Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and even Britain, with the growing strength of the BNP, a party whose policies are eerily familiar.

We all have our historical grievances. What we do about them, how we deal with them, is what defines a person and a civilisation. The concepts of islam and the concepts of the rights of man cannot work in harmony. Islam must either remake itself, remake us, or be held at arm's length. 

 

Ed: But I agree that Lumie's position is the morally correct position. Trouble is, unless such a position is mutual, appeasement and tolerance of aggression leads in one direction only. For the record I don't support the west's military involvement in MENA, tho' just ignoring the widespread oppression of people there is morally inconsistent. It's a no-win situation we should stay out of while investing heavily in alternative power sources.