Do you agree that Blaming Islam For Paris Attacks Is Both Immoral and Bad Strategy?

2015-11-23T08:11:09-05:00

Do agree that Blaming Islam For Paris Attacks Is Both Immoral and Bad Strategy?

The outpouring of anti-Islamic and anti-refugee sentiment is a gift for Islamic extremist recruitment.

RP Members do you agree or disagree with the author on this one? I still have my reservations about the refugee situation here in the United States! Your thoughts?

http://taskandpurpose.com/blaming-islam-for-paris-attacks-is-both-immoral-and-bad-strategy/

On Nov. 13, three separate attacks in Paris shocked us. Without a doubt, the attacks in Paris were hideous. The perpetrators, planners, and supporters of these acts deserve nothing less than death. Following the attacks social media erupted with sympathy for the victims, but also vitriol and rage. Much outrage was, and continues, to be directed at the Islamic faith as a whole and specifically at the Syrian refugee population. These angry sentiments are counterproductive to an effective response. Anger is understandable, but not toward an entire religion or refugee population.

In any group there is a broad range of beliefs. Members of the Islamic faith are the same. It is a massive community with a wide spectrum of viewpoints. Some members of the Islamic faith are the enemies of the West, nothing less. Yet, others are not. Some of those could be enemies, but are not yet. Portions subscribe to versions of Islam that perpetuate and support terrorism, and other barbaric acts. There are some members of the Islamic faith who choose to be enemies of the West, while others are not; their choice of opposition is political. As politics shift, so do our future enemies and allies.

Blaming Islam For Paris Attacks Is Both Immoral and Bad Strategy

The outpouring of anti-Islamic and anti-refugee sentiment is a gift for Islamic extremist recruitment.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Nov 23 at 2015 8:13 AM

2015-11-23T08:13:38-05:00

Depends how you frame it. If its framed as Radical Islam I believe thats the truth and should be called what it is

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 8:15 AM

2015-11-23T08:15:10-05:00

All of any group almost never happens. On the other hand a few of any group are often responsible for all of that group being labeled and blamed.

That said I fully believe that all of ISIS (or ISIL or any other name you call that group} are evil and need to be dealt with.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-11-23T08:55:36-05:00

Blaming Islam as a whole entity...yes, it's bad business. Having traveled to a few continents and numerous countries, most of which were predominantly Muslim - I have met some amazing individuals.

It's funny how the leading scholars within the Muslim community have come out publicly and denounced all of the extreme and perverted ideology of their faith and the horrible actions of the groups claiming to be Muslim - yet I do not recall a MSM network talking about it.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 23 at 2015 9:02 AM

2015-11-23T09:02:28-05:00

I think we should always keep the distinction between Islam and radical islamic extremists. However, the success of the Paris attacks is a much greater gift for islamic extremist recruitment than any hand-wringing exercise in semantics. We must destroy the core, present a better ideal, live a better life than their alternative, and remain vigilant, in order to reduce their recruiting, success rate, and limit the damage they cause.

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Nov 23 at 2015 9:16 AM

2015-11-23T09:16:37-05:00

There is no simple answer to this question, it is yes and no. Some quick thoughts.

This is a well written article and it touches on many things I have comments on in discussions on the topic. This is a complex multilayered challenge. Terror is a weapon, a tactic, the monster under the bed, the thing that keeps you awake at night, perhaps, with cold sweats worrying. Terror and violence are tools. It is the ideology underlying them that must be addressed. We seem to be unwilling to actually put a name to the ideology. How do you fight a thing you will not name. How do prepare successfully, tactically, operationally and strategically, if you are focused on the tool, and not the weirder of the tool or the shaper of the desire to use the tool? You cannot. We must remember we view law differently in the west. Our interpretations do not always translate well, nor do theirs.

The author is correct, Islam is not monolithic. it is complex and subtle, it has many aspects and some are in direct opposition to each other. Islam and sharia are intertwined. To me, (in very broad strokes) It is reminiscent of the West before the Protestant Reformation, when Church Law was viewed as superior to secular law. The Western world eventfully changed, spreading spiritual,law and secular law into two distinct realms. However, that change only came after years of costly intermittent wars, finally ending in the 17th Century.

I submit it is less about Islam, and more about the different practitioners and interpreters of that faith. However the Faith is part of the equation.

No we should not condem whole cloth, yet it is a tendency we see in the West at every turn, - some one gets shot, condem the gun owners; someone gets drunk, condem the drinkers, etc... It seems to be easier to condem in broad strokes, rather than spend the time understanding the issue and seeking the cause and the source. Then again, in so doing we may be forced to make a choice and take a stand.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Nov 23 at 2015 9:29 AM

2015-11-23T09:29:42-05:00

Is blaming Islam for Paris attacks both immoral and bad strategy? A few questions:
- Is it true? If it is true, how can it be immoral? If it is true, basic problem solving methodology starts with defining the problem. A properly defined problem is more likely to lead to a good strategy than an improperly defined problem.
- I fail to see how labeling terrorists as "radical islamists" is an attack an all Muslims. If that is true then accurately calling someone an "illegal immigrant" is an attack on all migrants into the US. I know some people believe this but I do not. Words matter. Proper and precise words should be used to define and describe the problem we are facing.
- The fight against radical Islam is an ideological and a kinetic fight. This is not a new phenomenon. The Western Allies engaged and successfully defeated several ideological and kinetic fights in the 20th Century to include: communism (Cold War), socialism (mainly 1930s but after as well), and Nazism (WWII). Let's not reinvent the wheel here.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 23 at 2015 9:33 AM

2015-11-23T09:33:04-05:00

Blaming a quarter of the population of the Earth (23%~ at between 1.6B-2.2B) for the actions of a handful of Radicalized Individuals, regardless of what their specific faith is, is frankly asinine.

Extremists of any Religious or Ideological Affiliation are the problem. It doesn't matter which.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Nov 23 at 2015 9:34 AM

2015-11-23T09:34:16-05:00

I would certainly blame those who adhere to wahhabi Islam COL Mikel J. Burroughs for the attacks in Paris and the recent assault n the hotel in Mali by al Qaeda.
France has been accepting refugees from Algeria. Since at least the 1960's, Mali and other former french colonies.
Once Islam reaches 10% of the population problems become serious. Pushes or sharia courts or "civil cases" are one of the initial steps. France's Islam population passed 10% many years ago. Since for Islam to be fulfilled the government must adhere to Islam principal of government and justice.
Once Muslims began to cooperate with the civil government and help both ind terrorists and work to stop people from becoming terrorists including policing the teaching in the mosques then the followers of mohammed should expect relief from blame.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Nov 23 at 2015 9:43 AM

2015-11-23T09:43:01-05:00

I don't know of anyone who is blaming "Islam" for terrorist actions. This is a Straw-man argument held up by peace activists, our enemies, and the Media in an effort to stop discussion and action against about our real enemy "Islamic Terrorism" in its many and varied forms (IS, ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, Al Qaeda, radicalized nut jobs, etc)..

Response by SPC David S. made Nov 23 at 2015 9:46 AM

2015-11-23T09:46:57-05:00

I do not see this as a singular event - however non-secular reform is needed to rid the religion of Islam of extremist ideologies. As well the there is the issue of sectarian violence that needs to be addressed from within. As the Judeo-Christian West has had a challenging relationship with the Muslim community an emphasis needs to be placed on stronger efforts towards a mutual understanding when it comes to Islam and the region's world view. However I honestly doubt that such reforms will come about by any peaceful resolution. Much more along the lines of the reformations in 1924 as a result of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

Response by Vit Spirek made Nov 23 at 2015 10:07 AM

2015-11-23T10:07:09-05:00

Every way which talk about God must be intolerant to violence that is really cancer. We know that cancer must be cured quickly with respect to body. Cultures must be mature to understand what is forbidden (Abel vs Kain.. first sin between people who seek God) . We want find Islam again like oasis of peace and equality like is effort many ways which believe in True Love. Violence is degradation of islam and same mistake like christianity did it in middle ages.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Nov 23 at 2015 10:08 AM

2015-11-23T10:08:53-05:00

It all depends upon individual actions. But to make a generalization that an entire group is all good or all bad is incorrect.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 10:20 AM

2015-11-23T10:20:19-05:00

Without getting too far in the weeds, this is about motives.
The motive of Islamic terrorists is prestige. By executing successful attacks, they garner jihadi "cool-guy points" that translate into influence in the overall movement and in the Muslim world. They don't have to make everyone happy, they just show how tough they are and like moths, disenfranchised youths flock to the cause to sacrifice their lives for this madness. You'll never see a leader of these movements anywhere near one of these attacks, because pawns are fine to sacrifice, but rooks... oh no. The point of their operations is to get more pawns. No more, no less.
I'll take it a step further, and let you decide.
There are approximately 5 million Syrian refugees, and the President wants to take in 40k. This represents under 1% of the total, a completely inconsequential number in terms of solving the problem. Yet he is adamant about it, and demonizes those who think it is not a good idea as bigoted. Much like most things we have done in regards to Syria, the administration appears to be doing just enough to be perceived as "doing something" but not enough to actually affect any result. In my view, this is by design. By not causing any consequences that can be directly attributed to your actions and simultaneously deriding any other course of action, you get it both ways. So what is the desired result?
Republicans, not the Islamic State, are the problem.
Global Warming, not geo-politics and American retrenchment, is the cause of instability.
George W Bush, not seven years of current policy, is to blame for problems that have arisen lately.
It is always somebody else's fault.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 23 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-11-23T10:27:14-05:00

All generalizations are false. Yes, I know that statement is a generalization. Thus we find ourselves awash in a sea of propaganda and this article is just the tip of an iceberg. It cripples our understanding before we reach the first paragraph with the assertion that "The outpouring of anti-Islamic and anti-refugee sentiment..." What outpouring? I have neither seen nor heard any. Interpreting reasonable caution in admitting Syrian refugees does not connote anti-Islamic sentiment. It is a reasonable precaution in response to acts of terror committed by Syrian refugees. Not all. Just a few. Remember the Boston Bombers? Thus, the terrorists are not only harming their "enemies" but also "their own people". But then, when have terrorists every shown concern for their own. We seen them frequently use them as shields as in placing rocket launchers in their own communities, frequently using schools and hospitals in hopes of dissuading counter attacks. Is it any stretch of the imagination to suppose they would hide among legitimate refugees to infiltrate the homes of their enemies?

I could have started with the title of this article rather than the lead-line. However, the propaganda value of that is slightly more obscure and would have required even more explanation but trust me, it too is a prime piece of propaganda.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Nov 23 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-11-23T10:33:21-05:00

Who is blaming Islam? I think people are pointing fingers at the ISIS/ISIL/ad-Dawlah/Daesh but when you put 'Islamic' (al-Islāmiyah) it is hard for there not to be a little spill over but have not heard any call for strikes on Jordanians, Kurds or Iraqis.
The anti-refugee calls are not Islamic or really even Syrian based but common sense stance considering the inability to identify who is or is not ISIS/ISIL/ad-Dawlah/Daesh? I think some people want to try to make this an anti-Islam or anti-refugee discussion to muddy the water to advance their agenda...my problem is what actually is that agenda? Their are actually millions of refugees across the globe, but seem to only be interested in Syrians?

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Nov 23 at 2015 10:43 AM

2015-11-23T10:43:11-05:00

All Muslims are not terrorist. But all terrorist are muslim. I'they last heard there are 1.2 million Muslims and 15 to 20 percent are radicalized. They are middle class, university educated and well fed.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2015 8:54 AM

2015-11-30T08:54:07-05:00

It does not serve one well to operate under a policy of acting on generalizations, stereotypes, etc. Not all priests are pedophiles, not all police officers are corrupt, not all low-income people are lazy or criminals, and a bad apple does not define an entire race. We see how this policy does not serve us well in the United States in regards to race or socioeconomic statuses.

Westerners are used to large Christian denominations that have, more or less, a type of hierarchy or legislative conference. Even then, administrative power is not completely centralized. For example, the Pope does not speak for all Christians and he still has to confer with the other bishops and holds even less influence over non-Latin rite Catholic churches.

Islam has no central moral/administrative/ruling power or spokesman. It spans many regions, cultures, races, and languages. We are not going to find a legitimate leader or spokesman to speak on behalf of all Muslims or to condemn the radicals. Also, not all Muslims are Arab. Not all Arabs are Muslim. Only about 20% of Muslims are Arab. Most are Asian.

To view all Muslims the same as the radical terrorist Muslims will not serve any state or person well. Does the IRA represent the Catholic Church? Do we blame Greek Orthodox for the imperialistic actions of Russian Orthodox? Does the Lord's Resistance Army in east Africa represent Christians worldwide? NO, no and no.

All generalization will do is serve the purpose of the radical Islamists. Muslims who have a favorable view or no opinion at all of the "Western" world may be swayed to have a negative opinion of us due to being treated or viewed as if every Muslim is a radical terrorist.