France, and how we respond.

[dexeron]

Leaving public for two reasons. Firstly, it relates to the previous two posts (that I left public.) Secondly, the comments section below is worth reading, because it exemplifies exactly the attitude I'm warning about here.


---

Why did I share the two posts immediately preceding this?

It's so tempting, in the wake of horrible tragedy, to simply accept the narrative we're being sold that lumps everyone even slightly different than us into an "other" category and blame them for all of our misfortune. It's easy to say: "we are at war with Islam" or to blame the refugees for these actions. Even some who would not go so far will still say: "ISIS is exploiting the refugee crisis, thus all refugees are suspect/the borders should be closed." It makes us want to think of the world in stark black/white terms - yet that is exactly what the terrorists want us to think. That is how they think: that the world is the stage for a conflict between "the West" and "Islam," and they want that war. They want the everyday Muslim to be marginalized and victimized by folks in the countries that they have wounded. They want mosques to be burned down (as just happened in Ontario.) They are in the minority, but they want to get more people onto their side, to see their way of thinking.

They want us to do their work for them.

The real world is, of course, far more complicated than some fantasy of "good" vs "evil." Yes, the actions of ISIS are evil, but too many who buy into this black/white mindset are unwilling to differentiate "ISIS" from "Muslim," or ask "Why aren't Muslims fighting or speaking out against ISIS" when so many Muslims are, every day, putting their lives on the line to do so. Understanding these complexities is vital to moving on to find real solutions to these problems, instead of continuing to follow policies that ultimately just further the cycle.

If you haven't already, please go down and read the previous two posts made to my journal, both shares of the words of another, but important words that discuss some of the facts of what's really going on in this ongoing conflict.

Let me close this by quoting yet another friend from Facebook. I won't link this one directly, or give his name, because he chose to keep the post restricted:

"Do not side with terrorists:

A friend posted an image saying that we are at war with Islam. This worries me, as I do NOT want to be on the same side as the tiny Salafist takfiri extremists who want the West to be at war with all of Islam. It is how they hope to take control of the average Muslim. Remember: DAESH, killer of too many fellow Muslims to count, ~wants~ the French and the rest of the West to react in anger and fear and wage war against all of Islam. Please do NOT promote what they want."

Understand who the enemy actually is. Fight the enemy, if it is required. But do not let their quest to make us give in to fear and hatred succeed. Do not do their work for them. Fight them first and foremost by refusing to follow their dance.

Comments

Part 1

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"Islam is at war with entire world."

How are you defining "Islam?" Every Muslim? Shi'a? Sunni? Takfiri? We need to define terms. I'll quote a friend (whose words I quoted in a previous post yesterday as well.)

-Muslims who believe that Islam should be the basis of the state are Islamists.
-Suuni Islamists who believe the Islamic state should be built off of 14th Century principles or the restoration of the Caliphate are Salafists.
-Salafists who are willing to break the law of the Koran by declaring another Muslim apostate and kill them are Takfiri.

Takfiri are largely our problem.
Not Salifists.
Not Islamists.
And certainly not Muslims.

To simply say "Islam is at war..." is of no more use than if we'd said "Christianity is at war..." when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building or when a white supremacist Christian shot up a black church - all terrorist actions done in the name of Jesus, but in no way establishing "Christianity" being at war with anyone. (And indeed, more people are killed every year in the US in the name of Jesus than Allah - yet why aren't we asking "how sad that no matter how many years go by, not matter how much blood is spilled, people WILLFULLY refuse to see it?" Have you spoken out, recently, about Kevin Swanson calling for the death of gay people?

But that question was facetious. Christians are not a problem. I would never argue that. The problem is a specific tiny minority of people using religion as a justification for political murder, just as in Islam the problem is Salafism, Wahhabism, and their more radical subsets. And yes, of course, we have to address that. We can't just ignore it, and I advocate no such thing. But we have to understand who the enemy is (and who it is not) if we have any hope of victory against it.

More in part 2, because this comment got too long.

Re: Part 1

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

How are you defining "Islam?"

*I* don't define Islam. Islam is defined by its texts and by the example of Mohammad. He is the example/model/pattern to be followed by Muslims, according to Surah 33:21: "There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often."



"To simply say "Islam is at war..."

It is. Two houses. You can keep pretending otherwise all you want.

"is of no more use than if we'd said "Christianity is at war..." when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah building"

What filthy lies.

Timothy McVeigh never claimed to be a follower of Christ.

Timothy McVeigh never claimed that his actions were in obedience to any Christian teaching.

Most importantly, the Bible has ZERO open ended commands for either Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. That's why there are no Jews or Christians committing any such acts, on a regular basis, in obedience to such commands.

Take your lies and attempts at moral equivalency elsewhere.

Perhaps your time would be better spent reading the Quran, Sira and Hadith.

Re: Part 1

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"the Bible has ZERO open ended commands for either Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers"

I am not attempting to paint moral equivalency, but to highlight where your argument breaks down. No, the Bible does not have any "open-ended commands" for violence (as if that justifies the commands for violence that do exist - but that's another argument for another day...) Yet this lack of "open-ended commands" has not stopped Kevin Swanson or Theodore Shoebat from publicly calling for the murder of gay people. It did not stop Scott Roeder from murdering George Tiller, or Jim David Adkisson from opening fire at children putting on a play. Bible or no, they killed in the name of Jesus. Before you leap to the defense, I am not saying this makes Christianity "equal" to Islam - but we should note that followers of Christ do kill in his name. Do we judge "Christianity" by their actions? Of course not.

Meanwhile, what if the Quran contains such commands? Literal billions of Muslims today (and millions more throughout history) are not running around murdering people, nor do they believe such actions are justified. Why do we judge Islam not based on their actions, but on the actions of a handful of monsters?

Are you going to base your entire opinion on one and half billion people you have never met on a couple of phrases in an old book, rather than on their actions? Is that really what you are saying here?


"Perhaps your time would be better spent reading the Quran, Sira and Hadith."

I'll quote Clancy again:

"Salifist-Takfiri are prolific writers and readers, and they don't cite the Koran, they cite *scholars* of the Koran. Not unlike politicans today are likely to cite founding father and courts are likely to cite court cases.

Indeed trying to understand what's going on in modern Islamic militant fundamentalism by only reading the Koran book is like trying to understand the history of US politics in the 20th Century by only reading the magna carta."

If you still want to think of Islam as somehow innately "evil," I cannot change your mind. But what you should consider is that when we're faced by a threat like ISIS, there is a big difference between saying "1.57 BILLION people are the enemy" and saying "Salafist-Takfiri is the enemy." At the very least, from a military perspective, it is the difference between engaging in endless war without end and spreading ourselves too thin, and going in and actually addressing the people actually committing violence.

"It is. Two houses. You can keep pretending otherwise all you want."

The only people saying that are pundits peddling fear, and ISIS themselves. The people with a lifetime of historical, political, and military experience and expertise in the middle east do not see it that way, and instead frame it quite differently. You have a choice as to which narrative you buy into. I, for one, balk at accepting, without question, the narrative that ISIS wants me to accept. I'd also argue that "I have read the Quran, so I understand everything about Muslim history and politics" is a shallow pool from which to dip.

---

Also, I think you are somehow interpreting my enjoinder against reacting in fear as some kind of call to just sit around and sing "Kum-Ba-Yah" with the terrorists. Far from it. I applaud the actions of the Kurdish fighters taking this war to ISIS directly, and our involvement in supporting these brave people as they try to retake their homelands. Those who have committed murder must be brought to justice, whether it be by the hand of police, or with the fist of military action. But that doesn't mean that actions do not have consequences, and treating all of "Islam" as the enemy (for example: just ignoring collateral damage, or arresting or violating the Constitutional rights of Muslim citizens here) is playing into the real enemy's hands. History has shown how these groups recruit, what they take advantage of. Why should we make their job easier? Are you saying you want an all out war between the west and Islam? "Kill them all, and let God sort them out?"

At some point, we need to learn to be more selective, because unless we learn to work in the realm of realpolitik, we will never solve any of this.

Re: Part 1

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Notice how you don't even recant your false claim that Timothy McVeigh was a follower of Christ and did his evil acts in the name of Christianity or in obedience to the Bible?

Instead you go on to give even MORE examples of people who are (supposedly) doing/saying things commanded by or condoned by Christianity - while yet again providing ZERO evidence that any such things are, in actuality, commanded or condoned by Christianity.

Meanwhile, what if the Quran contains such commands?

Maybe if you bothered to READ IT, you would know. But you have not. And you will not.

I'll quote Clancy again:

I have no idea who that even is, or what his claim of authority on the matter is.

How about quoting either the Bible to back up your endless accusations, or the Quran? That's what's at issue here, not someone else's opinions.

I am done here. I am livid.

Re: Part 1

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

You are choosing to hyper-focus on a perceived attack upon your faith as an excuse to ignore everything else I said in a multi-part reply. That is convenient, but it is also your prerogative.

But I have made my case as to why it is ahistorical, illogical, and simply unwise to declare 1.57 Billion people whom you have never met your "enemy" based solely upon words in a book that you, not they, have decided are important. You have declared yourself an expert on Islam and on what Muslims believe, and to hell with what anyone else says (even those with vastly more experience in the history and politics of the region and religion in question.) Continuing to follow your comforting narrative despite this is, as I said, your choice to make.