This is a story about a website that lists all Islamic-religion-motivated attacks occuring in the 2 months leading up to yesterday. It's a real eye-opener. The story describes the how and why of what the site is doing.
I was reading that at work the other day. I showed it to a couple of coworkers and they were slack-jawed. They couldn't believe that was only a two month list. I asked if they wanted to see all of '08 and they declined.
Do the same to someone else's child, I guess. NOT. I think the Palestinians or the Iraqis, etc., would get better results with Gandhi's model. The moral force of passive resistance would bring down any democratic government that tried to butcher unarmed and non-violent protestors. How long do you think the US would or even could justify occupying a country where there's no violent resistance? Who would support Israel if it were protecting itself murderously against the non-aggressive and unresisting? Even it's own people would rebel against that.
The article is not about defending yourself, your god or your country. It's about the prediliction for religiously-motivated violence among Muslims. That that is the case should be obvious simply from the large role-call of nations in which it occurs. Who are they defending themselves against in Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia? Or Indonesia? Or Yemen?
To the comment below (since it won't let me respond further): it is saying that I am not using reason in this discussion. Translation: your opinion= reason.
About U.S. women's rights sucking in the past: that's true, but more important is the present. We should be aware of our past, but we can't change what we did in the past, and it doesn't make it excusable that it is presently happening in another culture. I don't see what is logical about people who are angry at things like the discrepancy in male/female pay in the US but then when it comes to inhumane treatment of women in other countries, hey, that's just their way of life. Or for that matter what is logical about people who are angry at conservative Christians but then defend extremist Muslims.
I think you should learn about the experiences of ex-Muslims who have actually lived in these countries, and see if they think it's a tiny group of extremists or it's all the West's fault.
This "way of life" includes stoning to death of apostates/people who criticize Islam, adulterers, gays, and rape victims. And this is not a "small group of extremists" either; this is governmentally enforced by several governments. You think this is an acceptable way of life? Do you think the same of Christians in the US and Canada, or do you have a double standard?
I don't see all this ostracization that you are talking about. Several countries in the West have allowed Sharia law and even government-sponsored Islamic schools. There is also a trend toward "anti-blasphemy"--compromising freedom of speech b/c it might hurt religious peoples' feelings; mostly Muslims. Major news sources thought it was racist or jumping to conclusions to think that the Ft. Hood shootings had anything to do with Islam, despite the fact that Malik Hasan specifically praised acts of Islamic terrorism and preached Islam to his patients. He was not fired or even complained about b/c people were too afraid of being labeled racist. So how is this trying to get people ostracized or unemployed?
This may go slightly off-topic, but non-violence? Following Ghandi's model? Are you serious?
Ghandi is, much like Martin Luther King, hailed as a great leader of non-violent struggle / passive resistance, despite the fact, as George Orwell points out in his biography of Ghandi, was a beloved tool of British Imperialism. The Imperialists would go to bed at night with Ghandi in their prayers, thanking him for keeping the people of India docile despite the massacres and horrific deeds being inflicted on them by the British colonialists. Ghandi was successful in his move for Indian independence because he was chosen by the British as the man they wanted to lead India towards the inevitable. Basically, the British knew their colonial position was untenable, and they knew that having non-violent natives during the transition to post-colonialism and the neo-colonial state was every bit in their interests, so they fostered Ghandi and allowed him to grow and thrive, while using brutal violence to suppress other opposition leaders, just as in America the state used brutal violence against the Black Panthers and Malcolm X while (by comparison) fostering and encouraging the growth of Martin Luther King's passive resistance.
Muslims also give plenty of abuse to their own children, and children of groups (Muslim and non-Muslim) that they don't like. Including throwing acid in the face of little girls who try to go to school, female genital mutilation, blowing up buses full of Israeli children, and teaching children from a very young age that they should hate non-Muslims and that it's honorable to blow oneself up killing other people.
So America told them to throw acid in the face of women and girls trying to get an education? You think Saddam Hussein was a benevolent leader? Forced child marriage is also common in many Islamic countries. Is that America's fault too?
It is not a small group of extremists. If it was, it would be localized to a few regions; instead, Islamic extremism is happening all over the world. The only small group is the people who are openly extremist. Others covertly support extremism, claim to be moderate while getting angry only at people who are against extremism (saying little about extremists themselves) or at least do nothing.
What you are doing is looking at a description of the terrorist acts above, and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are justified b/c "obviously" they have to do with America/Israel/some other people oppressing them. This is enabling.
"Our own women" were not forbidden to leave their houses or forced to cover their entire face. Not that I think past treatment of women was acceptable, but it's melodramatic to say that the treatment was the same.