Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The inability of people to see the difference between teaching about a thing, and a school enforcing the practice of that religion is incredible. It's grade school stuff, to be honest. You can teach about a religion, but you can't make kids participate in that religion.

But when people want to play pretend games that their faith (or tribe, really) is the one being picked on, they'll be as stupid as they need to be.

 daedalus wrote:


I think that it would be a fantastic idea to show Islam in a positive light. Please lead by example and be the first to offer us tales of Islam or deeds done in the name of Islam that can be described as being positive.
.

My boss pays above and beyond market price for things , because as a devout muslim he doesn't believe in ripping people off for a small amount of profit.

That's one , i'm sure there are many more in the community, the sooner we break down this whole media generated fear thing, the better.

A few years ago a Christian group gave all our state senators and representatives a fancy centennial Bible for the 100 years of Oklahoma celebration. Everybody was happy.

Then an islamic group gave a centennial Quran to everybody as well, and people started to refuse them:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071104_1_A13_NWorl70244

People are just stupid.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd say calling terrorists "freedom fighters" is the wrong tack. Teach the kids that these feth heads are scum, and have as much to do with Islam as modern Christianity does with the Crusades. (in most quarters...)

You want to show Islam in a positive light? Show the positive parts of Islam, don't try to repaint the gak bits gold.

For example young muslim bamf Malala Yousafzai.

Spoiler:

You should probably watch the video in the link I posted. It is not hard to see jihadis as freedom fighters when you look at it from their point of view, in fact it's somewhat difficult not too, especially when you consider that another Middle Eastern muslim pushing for Westernization could be seen in a similar light to how nazi cooperators were seen by the various european resistances. They seem to be acting along similar lines.

....you do realize just how full of gak you are here right?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'd say calling terrorists "freedom fighters" is the wrong tack. Teach the kids that these feth heads are scum, and have as much to do with Islam as modern Christianity does with the Crusades. (in most quarters...)

You want to show Islam in a positive light? Show the positive parts of Islam, don't try to repaint the gak bits gold.

For example young muslim bamf Malala Yousafzai.

Spoiler:

You should probably watch the video in the link I posted. It is not hard to see jihadis as freedom fighters when you look at it from their point of view, in fact it's somewhat difficult not too, especially when you consider that another Middle Eastern muslim pushing for Westernization could be seen in a similar light to how nazi cooperators were seen by the various european resistances. They seem to be acting along similar lines.

....you do realize just how full of gak you are here right?

No I don't. From their point of view the West is committing a war on their people/culture/religion. From that point of view, what they do is not too far removed from the actions undertaken by various resistance movements under Nazi occupation during WW2.

Now I'm not telling you you have to like it, or that I like it, I'm simply saying that I believe I understand their viewpoint and their justifications. Not that I agree with them or their actions.

 Ratbarf wrote:
No I don't. From their point of view the West is committing a war on their people/culture/religion. From that point of view, what they do is not too far removed from the actions undertaken by various resistance movements under Nazi occupation during WW2.

Now I'm not telling you you have to like it, or that I like it, I'm simply saying that I believe I understand their viewpoint and their justifications. Not that I agree with them or their actions.

Not only do I not think the view makes much sense, it's also a pretty crappy descriptor of the actual views of most Muslims. While most do not have particularly positive views of the West in general, they do not go so far as to think that attacks targetting civilians, or violence in general, is a good thing.

And I wouldn't even go so far as to say "most do not have particularly positive views of the West" we have a mixed bag of students from the ME in my Business class and I've talked with a few of them about it. Some of them love it here, others tend to have issues with specific points of US and Western culture, but have no issue with it beyond finding facet X or Y distasteful. This also implies most Muslims are Middle Eastern which they are not. It's an extremely diverse global population and very few support the extremely tiny fraction that are extremist.

The thing I'm trying to get at is that they do have semi legitimate justifications for their actions if we were to transplant what the West is doing in the ME and switched who it was happening too.

I would think that you would pick up a rifle if a foreign nation was dropping drone guided munitions on your towns or your people with seemingly little or no regard to collateral damage. Especially if the country doing it had military personnel within easy travelling distance of yourself. I think I would.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And I wouldn't even go so far as to say "most do not have particularly positive views of the West" we have a mixed bag of students from the ME in my Business class and I've talked with a few of them about it.

Sure, I was thinking not so much about the Western students but about the Muslim population at large.

Some of them love it here, others tend to have issues with specific points of US and Western culture, but have no issue with it beyond finding facet X or Y distasteful. This also implies most Muslims are Middle Eastern which they are not. It's an extremely diverse global population and very few support the extremely tiny fraction that are extremist.

Sure, it's a very diverse population, and the idea of Muslims = Middle East is wrong. That's a weird perception problem, even weirder when it's a really common perception here in Australia, and we're a small boat trip from the largest Muslim nation in the world.

But even in Indonesia, Malaysia and other Muslim nations the popular perception of the West is not as high as it is in other nations. Not to say that it's hostile, just significantly less positive than it is elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
The thing I'm trying to get at is that they do have semi legitimate justifications for their actions if we were to transplant what the West is doing in the ME and switched who it was happening too.

Yeah, I've never really been able to get behind that point of view. I mean, if 9/11 was really about sins done against the Muslim world, those planes would have flown into Moscow as vengeance for the fethed up gak done in Chechnya.

I think the boring truth is that AQ was a lot more about internal tensions within Islam. Striking at the heart of the modern, progressive world was a statement of their power to other Islamic groups. Sad but true, but Bush got something right, it really was because they hated our freedoms.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And I wouldn't even go so far as to say "most do not have particularly positive views of the West" we have a mixed bag of students from the ME in my Business class and I've talked with a few of them about it.

Sure, I was thinking not so much about the Western students but about the Muslim population at large.

So was I, I was just sourcing my data which is a diverse group of Muslims from across their political spectrum (religiously speaking) who happen to be in one of my business classes.

 Ratbarf wrote:
The thing I'm trying to get at is that they do have semi legitimate justifications for their actions if we were to transplant what the West is doing in the ME and switched who it was happening too.

I would think that you would pick up a rifle if a foreign nation was dropping drone guided munitions on your towns or your people with seemingly little or no regard to collateral damage. Especially if the country doing it had military personnel within easy travelling distance of yourself. I think I would.

Those actions are wrong, you should see some of the scathing letters I've been sending to DC on that note, however that isn't the motivation for the original Jihadis and I feel like you're dramatically over simplifying.... dang it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
The thing I'm trying to get at is that they do have semi legitimate justifications for their actions if we were to transplant what the West is doing in the ME and switched who it was happening too.

Yeah, I've never really been able to get behind that point of view. I mean, if 9/11 was really about sins done against the Muslim world, those planes would have flown into Moscow as vengeance for the fethed up gak done in Chechnya.

I think the boring truth is that AQ was a lot more about internal tensions within Islam. Striking at the heart of the modern, progressive world was a statement of their power to other Islamic groups. Sad but true, but Bush got something right, it really was because they hated our freedoms.

....Sebs said it better.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And I wouldn't even go so far as to say "most do not have particularly positive views of the West" we have a mixed bag of students from the ME in my Business class and I've talked with a few of them about it.

Sure, I was thinking not so much about the Western students but about the Muslim population at large.

Some of them love it here, others tend to have issues with specific points of US and Western culture, but have no issue with it beyond finding facet X or Y distasteful. This also implies most Muslims are Middle Eastern which they are not. It's an extremely diverse global population and very few support the extremely tiny fraction that are extremist.

Sure, it's a very diverse population, and the idea of Muslims = Middle East is wrong. That's a weird perception problem, even weirder when it's a really common perception here in Australia, and we're a small boat trip from the largest Muslim nation in the world.

But even in Indonesia, Malaysia and other Muslim nations the popular perception of the West is not as high as it is in other nations. Not to say that it's hostile, just significantly less positive than it is elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
The thing I'm trying to get at is that they do have semi legitimate justifications for their actions if we were to transplant what the West is doing in the ME and switched who it was happening too.

Yeah, I've never really been able to get behind that point of view. I mean, if 9/11 was really about sins done against the Muslim world, those planes would have flown into Moscow as vengeance for the fethed up gak done in Chechnya.

I think the boring truth is that AQ was a lot more about internal tensions within Islam. Striking at the heart of the modern, progressive world was a statement of their power to other Islamic groups. Sad but true, but Bush got something right, it really was because they hated our freedoms.

I think the Chechnyans have dibs on the Russians currently, and they do seem to be doing a fine job of it. Certainly better than AQ is when it comes to striking their targets homeland. Plus I feel that AQ and others are more pissed about the American interference in the politics of Muslim countries, as well as American cultural diffusion/invasion into traditional societies. It's a cultural conflict as much as it is a physical one.

 sebster wrote:


Yeah, I've never really been able to get behind that point of view. I mean, if 9/11 was really about sins done against the Muslim world, those planes would have flown into Moscow as vengeance for the fethed up gak done in Chechnya.

I think the boring truth is that AQ was a lot more about internal tensions within Islam. Striking at the heart of the modern, progressive world was a statement of their power to other Islamic groups. Sad but true, but Bush got something right, it really was because they hated our freedoms.

The irony about 9/11 is the fact that it happened so closely after the U.S. attacked Serbia to end the genocide happening to the Muslims in Kosavo.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think the Chechnyans have dibs on the Russians currently, and they do seem to be doing a fine job of it. Certainly better than AQ is when it comes to striking their targets homeland. Plus I feel that AQ and others are more pissed about the American interference in the politics of Muslim countries, as well as American cultural diffusion/invasion into traditional societies. It's a cultural conflict as much as it is a physical one.

I don't think terrorist organisations figure someone else is doing enough damage so we'll leave them be.

I agree that AQ is pissed about American interference in politics in Muslim countries. But the point is that they take that, stir it up with the resentment that the US is having a huge cultural influence in their countries, and you end up with a hazy kind of general anger towards America and to moderate voices in their own country.

Basically, I agree that it is a cultural war, that has a small physical result. The issue, though, is that the cultural war is almost entirely one sided - Western values and the Western way of life is winning ground everyday in Islamic countries. For a fringe of ultra-conservative muslims that is something to freak out about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
The irony about 9/11 is the fact that it happened so closely after the U.S. attacked Serbia to end the genocide happening to the Muslims in Kosavo.

Yeah. I remember at the time thinking it was a sign of a new world that the forces of Europe and the US were being used to protect Muslims... and it was barely an issue at all. I wonder if the same thing happened now would that still be the case?

@Sebster,

It makes you wonder if the Bin Laden was worried about stronger ties between the Middle Eastern countries and Muslims world wide to the west over the Kosovo intervention and decided to do something to piss in everyone's Cornflakes.

Relapse wrote:
@Sebster,

It makes you wonder if the Bin Laden was worried about stronger ties between the Middle Eastern countries and Muslims world wide to the west over the Kosovo intervention and decided to do something to piss in everyone's Cornflakes.

Fair point, I'd never thought of that. And you can add in the snub to Muslim pride that it was the West who was powerful enough to do something about it, and not any Muslim nations (that's the other part that's been an increasing factor for a few hundred years or more - frustration at growing Islamic impotence while the West has just gotten more and more powerful).

That's part of what makes the clash of cultures narrative so silly - that narrative needs roughly equal powers, but one of the factors fueling terrorism is the weakness of the Islamic world compared to the West.