Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, June 30, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions

by Chiade O'Shea

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2109574,00.html

Thanks to Alec Porter for sending us this story.

Children as young as six are being used by the Taliban in increasingly desperate suicide missions, coalition forces in Afghanistan claimed yesterday.

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to which Britain contributes 5,000 troops in southern Afghanistan, revealed that soldiers defused an explosive vest which had been placed on a six-year-old who had been told to attack Afghan army forces in the east of the country.

The boy was spotted after appearing confused at a checkpoint. The vest was defused and no one was hurt.

The claim came only hours after the second report this week that civilians had been killed in Nato military operations.

Nine women, three babies and the mullah of a local mosque died alongside 20 suspected Taliban militants after an air strike, Helmand's police chief, Mohammad Hussein Andiwal, said.

The air strike had been launched in response to an attack on Nato troops by militants near the town of Gereshk. An estimated 120 people have been killed in recent weeks, including seven schoolboys who died in a US air strike on Sunday.

Yesterday ISAF said it was investigating reports from the Afghan authorities that civilians had been killed. But it also accused the Taliban of using civilians as battleground cover, and said the incident with the boy signalled a new type of tactic. The boy had been ordered to target a check point in Miri, in the Andar district of Ghazni province.

"They placed explosives on a six-year-old boy and told him to walk up to the Afghan police or army and push the button," said Captain Michael Cormier, the company commander who intercepted the child, in a statement. "Fortunately, the boy did not understand and asked patrolling officers why he had this vest on."

Lieutenant Colonel David Accetta, ISAF eastern regional command spokesman, told the Guardian: "In the past we have not seen the Taliban sink that low, to use children as suicide bombers. The personnel secured the vest to make sure the child was safe."

Lt Col Accetta said the procedure for dealing with an armed minor had so far been untested in Afghanistan.

"It would have been difficult to know what to do considering it was a six-year-old boy and he was presumably going to push the button himself or someone was going to detonate it for him remotely," Lt Col Accetta said.

The rules of military engagement are easily muddied when a child poses a direct threat, he explained. "What we do if we identify the fact that an adult is wearing a suicide vest is we use whatever force we deem necessary to protect the lives of our soldiers and any civilians. Of course it makes it more difficult - it's a six year-old child."

The date of the incident, the boy's name and information on what happened to him afterwards were not immediately available, Lt Col Accetta said. The Guardian has been unable to independently corroborate the claim.

ISAF has accused the Taliban of intentionally living and fighting in residential areas, capitalising on the international forces' reticence to put ordinary Afghans at risk.

"They will normally intermix with the civilian population with the thought that we won't engage them there, and it's true, we won't do that," Lt Col Accetta maintained. "They are deliberately putting civilians - women and children - at risk by bringing the combat into close proximity with them."

Coalition forces have struggled in recent days to pacify a swell of anger following repeated incidents where innocent civilians have apparently been killed in military operations.

Responding to reports that women and children had been killed in the latest airstrike, a spokesman, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, said: "If civilians had been identified in the area the air strike would not have gone ahead."

He added: "ISAF has demonstrated this restraint on a number of occasions and goes to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties."

Backstory

That the civilian toll in Afghanistan is on the rise is not in dispute. At least 230 people have been killed already this year, including the 25 who died yesterday and seven children killed in an airstrike on Sunday. What is more contentious is who is to blame. Nato accused the Taliban of hiding behind civilians during attacks. But protests against civilian deaths are growing and unsettling the government. President Hamid Karzai has insisted that Afghan authorities be consulted on any airstrikes. He said yesterday's deaths were "difficult for us to accept".

Comments 1 - 27 of 27 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #53334 by Pieter on June 30, 2007 at 9:13 pm

This is disgusting.

Other Comments by Pieter

2. Comment #53338 by Krister Bratland on June 30, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Sadly, we can not expect this to be the last of its kind.

Other Comments by Krister Bratland

3. Comment #53372 by _J_ on July 1, 2007 at 4:59 am

 avatarLucky that David's on holiday, or we'd be counting the seconds before he attacked 'Richard's' decision to post this article here as a cynical attempt to tar all religion with the brush of extremist child abuse.

On the main issue: this is a horrible, horrible story.

Other Comments by _J_

4. Comment #53379 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 1, 2007 at 6:01 am

This is news? This is surprising? Well, I suppose it is surprising that the Guardian noticed it for once.

This kind of behaviour is the _norm_ for these scum. Hamas does it, Hezbollah does it, Islamic Jihad does it, the terrorists in Iraq do it, the Iranians do it, the Moslem nations of Africa pioneer the use of child soldiers...

Take a look at this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/PalestinianChildAbuse/

Why were there so many casualties in the Israel/Hezbollah war? Because Hezbollah deliberately sets it rockets up amids children and hospitals. They did it during the Lebanese civil war, as did those under Yasser Arafat who started that particular war (anyone who thinks the Palestinians are murderous scum just because of Israel should find out what they did to the Maronite Christians in the Lebanese civil war - the same Maronite Christians that gave them refuge).

And on and on it goes.

The hell with the lot of them. The sooner Islam is disinfected from the course of human history, the better.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

5. Comment #53383 by alfonso on July 1, 2007 at 6:44 am

Oh, xians do it too:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/ire-s05.shtml

Maybe they don't use them to blow themselves up, but make their lives miserable instead.

Religion is detritus of our society, and we must evacuate it.

Other Comments by alfonso

6. Comment #53418 by Vinelectric on July 1, 2007 at 11:26 am

 avatar
anyone who thinks the Palestinians are murderous scum just because of Israel


Yeah they were doing it long before the British raped the geography of the middle east with the zionist bastard, aka the state of Israel. Long before the religious and secular fanatic murderous Haggana thugs started terrorising the local population and driving thousands of locals out of their homelands...

should find out what they did to the Maronite Christians in the Lebanese civil war - the same Maronite Christians that gave them refuge



Oh I see. Is that why the maronite militias surrounded the defenseless refugees in their camps and massacred 3,500 of them at once at Sabra and Chatilla?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

7. Comment #53421 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 1, 2007 at 11:52 am

In the first case, Sabra and Chatilla were knee deep in Islamic terrorists who used women and children as shields. The moral responsibility for that therefore lies at the door of those who hid behind the civilians and started the war - the Palestinians, in the same way that the ultimate moral responsibility for the firebombing of Dresden lay at the foot of the Nazis and those who put them in power.

In the second place the estimate of the number dead that you cite is the highest possible one, even by the standards of the Palestinians. The Red Cross listed 400, the BBC 800, Robert Fisk 2,000. The Kahlan commission stated only 35 were women and children, and again this lies at the foot of those who started the war - the Moslems.

In the Third Place, yes, yes, that is _exactly_ why Sabra and Chatilla happend. Have you bothered to listen to the tales of what your precious palestinian Moslems did in that conflict? Have you heard the tales of children having their brains dashed out in front of their parents, or of mothers having knives tied to their hands and then being forced to slit their own childrens throat?

Here is the tale of one of the survivors of that genocide:

http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/wm/Lehrman-092706a.wvx

And do you know anything about the history of that area? Do you know anything about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni ? Who lead anti-semitic pogroms and allied with Adolf Hitler? And did you bother to think that this is why the Jews aren't actually stupid enough to trust the Moslems? Or any of the other pogroms and massacres that have infested that area ever since it fell to Moslem rule? Do you know about the institution of _dhimmitude_? Moslem anti-semitism dates back to the days of Muhammed who had entire tribes killed by having their hands and feet hacked off.

These are the acts of barbaric savages. Period.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

8. Comment #53423 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 1, 2007 at 11:57 am

And as far as Zionism goes, I will only quote the words of Martin Luther King:

>>". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it." <<

I do not like Judaism much, nor am I fond of the ultra-Orthodox wierdos. But they are a damn sight better than the tribal savages that infest that area. In that sense - that Israel is a first world democratic outpost of freedom and decency - I am a proud Zionist.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

9. Comment #53424 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 1, 2007 at 12:00 pm

And one final point:

Winston Churchill famously said that if Hitler invaded Hell, he, Churchill, would find himself on Satan's side. You might want to think about that before apologising for murderous jihadists.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

10. Comment #53440 by Vinelectric on July 1, 2007 at 1:29 pm

 avatarMs/Mr Khiyal

Thanks for your infuriated and one sided view on the conflict.

Why would the moral responsibility of any massacre lie with anyone else but the murderer? Sorry but that is some twisted logic.

Judging by your furious tone, you too seem like the type of person who would consider blowing themselves up if your family is butchered and your possessions removed for the pleasure of some lunatic zionist settler. I don't know what planet the zionist sympathizers come from but in what way dd you expect the palestenians (muslim and christian) to react to your excesses. Violence begets violence and that is the sad situation at the moment. I sitll feel there is room for peace if we keep angry crackheads like you from agitating the already too volatile situation.

Mr King was absolutely wrong on equating anti zionsim with anti semitism. Among the orthodoxy of Jewish Rabbis are anti-zionists and among my personal friends and mentors are Israeli Jews.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

11. Comment #53448 by LeeLeeOne on July 1, 2007 at 1:48 pm

 avatarAs nauseating as this is, as disturbing as this is, I could not, the first 3 times through, finish the article. First, I know the technique of utilizing the "innocents" to promote one's agenda has been around for thousands of years. This is a modern day version of manipulation. Secondly, it hits my gut knowing that I have children who could have been used with or without my approval to forward the set agenda. Thirdly, and perhaps the most disturbing, humans are the most inhumane to anything and everything, past - present - future. How humans manipulate history, how humans manipulate information, how humans have absolutely no concern how anything they do would affect the generations to come. The idea of using children to forward an idea or an agenda has been around for thousands of years - sacrifices to some god somewhere, pawns in legal arguments, disposable bodies in slavery, defense in wars, to "tug at the heart" in allegedly moral issues, to demoralize populations, to skirt laws, etc. Children, our very own most precious human asset are probably one of the least respected when it comes down to respect for all life. And if anyone wishes to automatically assume that I am "pro-life" when it comes to nonviable fetuses of any species.... nope. I am pro-choice.

These are children, viable humans. Such disrespect for our very own, to me, is close to the lowest of the low.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

12. Comment #53464 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 1, 2007 at 2:48 pm

>> if your family is butchered and your possessions removed for the pleasure of some lunatic zionist settler<<

And what, prey, have the Palestinian Moslems been doing to every poor sod who wasn't Moslem they could get their hands on for the last few centuries?


>>Why would the moral responsibility of any massacre lie with anyone else but the murderer? Sorry but that is some twisted logic.
<<

Okay, let me make it clear. There is a population. This population contains members who are waging war on your people, setting up rockets and firing them, planning terrorist attacks, waging war. You can't fight and protect your own without endangering the population that is sheltering them. What do you do? What can you do?

During the Second World War the allies didn't just flatten Germany, they went after the Nazi's wherever they were - France, you name it. It's what was necessary.

But by your logic, that should not have happened. Dresden got it far worse that the Palestinians ever did; you don't see the Germans blowing themselves up in American bars. According to your logic however, that should not have been done. And what would the result have been? Harris's Fatherland - a triumphant German Empire straddling the entire continent and killing off every Jew, Gypsy, and Homosexual they could get their hands on.

What pacifists refuse to understand is the basic fact of human civilisation: The alternative to controlled ruthlessness is not no ruthlessness, but _uncontrolled_ ruthlessness. The idea that 'violence just begets violence' is unmitigated bullshit, and this is attested to by every single serious student of human history. If I am an 'angry crackhead' then so are Sun Tzu, Niccolo Macchiavelli, Thucydides, Pericles, George Orwell and Lee Harris (amid countless others). I am proud to stand among such men.

However, I do not expect you to understand this. You have not answered a single point, merely smeared away. Why? Well, because recognising what the Palestinian Moslems have routinely done to people who are in no way involve with Israel would blow that particular bubble wide open.

And once more: The Palestinian terrorists want to kill us. And, yes, I do mean us. You. Me. Have your read Oriana Fallaci's interview with Yasser Arafat? Do you know what HAMAS's charter mandates? If these subhumans ever get the upper hand, you'll last no longer than I. You'll just burn in a different coloured flame.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

13. Comment #53465 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 1, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Speaking of George Orwell, here is a quotation you might read profitably:

>>Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered<<

And yes, there are rabbis who oppose Israel. There are also self-hating Jews; you do the math. 99.999% of 'anti-Zionism' is, as Martin Luther King said, anti-Semitism.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

14. Comment #53466 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm

 avatarIt's not about the virgins for the six year-old martyrs. The kids get a Playstation III and 72 new games.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

15. Comment #53470 by roach on July 1, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Disgusting. I wonder if we'll see a multiculturalist defense of this.

Other Comments by roach

16. Comment #53513 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 8:44 pm

 avatarAssuming this is true, and unfortunately I see no reason to assume it isn't, one can only hope that there will be a blowback* against the perpetrators, depriving them of support from their own communities.

I can understand without condoning the pride that parents of adult suicide bombers express; after all, they see it as an act of bravery in a good cause. A child, however, by definition can't make such a choice. The death of the child in the vest surely cannot be seen as anything but simply another murder, and the murder of an innocent from amongst their own, rather than of the "other."

I hope that the horror of that will wake up the consciences of some of the jihadis' supporters to just how amoral their 'holy war' truly is. It's a small hope, but it's the only one I can glean from this.

* No pun intended. Not a joking matter.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

17. Comment #53517 by robotaholic on July 1, 2007 at 9:28 pm

 avatarI read the Watchtower and Bible Association books my whole life - and hearing someone say evolution is not about chance but about natural selection is so beautiful-

Other Comments by robotaholic

18. Comment #53541 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 2, 2007 at 1:35 am

>>Assuming this is true, and unfortunately I see no reason to assume it isn't, one can only hope that there will be a blowback* against the perpetrators, depriving them of support from their own communities<<

With respect, that would be a first in decades, given that has been the standard modus operandi with jihadists throughout the world. There won't be a blowback because the communities identify themselves too much with Islam.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

19. Comment #53562 by bamboospitfire on July 2, 2007 at 4:22 am

 avatarUtterly abhorrent. It reminds me of the old chestnut that "peace will come only when Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews." Regrettably, I fear that this analysis fails to take Islam into account. The only "justification" for suicide bombing is religious - the belief that death in the service of Islam guarantees an immediate place in heaven. If the people involved in acts such as those detailed in the article really believe that - and they keep telling us that they do - then the Palestinians' love for their children is irrelevant. What greater good could a mother do for her child than to allow him to obliterate himself in order to massacre the enemies of Islam? I'm afraid that peace will only be possible once Islam (and indeed any belief system which sanctions the killing of non-believers) has been abandoned entirely.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

20. Comment #53713 by JoseGarcia on July 2, 2007 at 7:34 pm

I have accidentally discovered this forum, and cannot walk away without adding my two cents. I am a Mexican American living in the States, since I was thirteen I realized all religions were basically arguing over who had the best imaginary friend. If you believed in god, why not superman? Anyway, on the subject at hand... While Muslim extremism is, in my mind, some of the most cruel in the world today, I am very aware that these forms of ignorant violence and stupidity have been here far longer than any of the big three religions (Christianity, Judaism, or Islam). What can be done? I ask you. You cannot change minds that have been washed clean of reason and replaced by blind "faith". I ask this knowing there is no real answer. Maybe nothing. I have no hope that things will change soon. I know that I will not make any friends saying this, but I can only think of one thing that could "clear the slate". Complete erasure of that which is held as "sacred" by the blind faithful. No more "holy sites". No more "sacred ground". No more completely antiquated and ridicules properties which demand blood be spilled to hold on to, land which holds no value other than ancient memories which are best left to the sand to decay away. Religion is fallacy. Why does no one have faith in man, and in what we can achieve. If we could only abandon the spiritual crutch which the old believe they must force upon the young, then could there be room for reason. If there were no Jerusalem, would there still be war over the crater that once held it? Maybe my thoughts could be called "evil", but I have no doubt that if you remove the "holy" from the earth, then all you would have is a blank slate. From that slate, maybe we could reach a consensus. That all life is worth saving. That no one deserves the right to claim who lives or dies. Muslim fanatics, Christian extremists, radical cultists. All claim that there views are the only ones with merit, and therefore have veto rights over all our lives. To all of them I say: "you have no right. You have no honor. You have no soul. You are the evil which your hart has condemned, and therefore become. Go die alone, if you believe in your god so much." -Jose

Other Comments by JoseGarcia

21. Comment #53738 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 3, 2007 at 1:50 am

With respect, this defeatist attitude that we cannot do anything even about the most vile and fanatical has. got. to. go.

Even the most fanatical and violent can be turned away from evil. As proof, I hold up Walid Shoebat, the Christian convert from Islam who was a former PLO terrorist. If Christianity can do that much, then the heirs of the Enlightenment should be able to do even more.

If people could not be turned away from demonstrably wrong beliefs, we would be truly cooked and finished. However, very fortunately, there is no evidence that they cannot.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

22. Comment #53782 by Vinelectric on July 3, 2007 at 5:54 am

 avatar
And what, prey, have the Palestinian Moslems been doing to every poor sod who wasn't Moslem they could get their hands on for the last few centuries?



I'm sorry but can you back this up? Or are you the type that likes to imagine things. The answer is: nothing unusual and that's why Jewish communities have flourished in many Arab and Muslim countries (Morocco, Yemenites..etc).


If you mean the Palestenian muslims specifically: They were waiting for your zionist loopys to come steal their lands because they lived in them some millenium ago and because some silly old book incites them with intoxicating fury to claim some pathetic piece of desert for their own. At all costs even if it's the disgusting practise of exploiting the misery of european jews under Hitler.

Anti-zionism = anti-semitism my ass. Shame on you.

The alternative to controlled ruthlessness is not no ruthlessness, but _uncontrolled_ ruthlessness.The idea that 'violence just begets violence' is unmitigated bullshit



Shit! What perverted mentality!!!

If I am an 'angry crackhead' then so are Sun Tzu, Niccolo Macchiavelli, Thucydides, Pericles, George Orwell and Lee Harris I am proud to stand among such men.


No you don't. You stand with the Hamas crackheads, in a different guise but the same extremist mentality. Annihiliate each other and let the world live in peace.

You have not answered a single point, merely smeared away.


Right, discussion with you is a waste of time and an insufferable irritation. Unwind yourself. No common ground appears possible. Let's move on to another interesting post, angry zionboy.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

23. Comment #53809 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 3, 2007 at 10:17 am

>>
I'm sorry but can you back this up? Or are you the type that likes to imagine things. The answer is: nothing unusual and that's why Jewish communities have flourished in many Arab and Muslim countries (Morocco, Yemenites..etc).<<

Excuse me? Have you bothered to read my previous posts on this matter? Can you even read them? They are long, I know, but still... What about what they did to the Maronite Christians? What about the Grand Mufti and the Hanscharr? What about the regular pogroms that were unleashed against Jews?

How on earth existing as a dhimmi, completely at the mercy of the first Moslem murderer who decided that paying diyya - blood money - was worth killing a Jew (no Moslem will ever pay more than a fine for killing a dhimmi) counts as flourishing I don't know. Life as a second-class citizen was prefereable to the appalling horror of medieval Christendom, but it was no 'flourishing', not by a long shot.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

24. Comment #53876 by BT Murtagh on July 3, 2007 at 9:17 pm

 avatarFanusi Khiyal, you've confused me. First you say this, in reply to my comment that such tactics may erode support for the perpetrators within their larger communities:

With respect, that would be a first in decades, given that has been the standard modus operandi with jihadists throughout the world. There won't be a blowback because the communities identify themselves too much with Islam.
Then this:

With respect, this defeatist attitude that we cannot do anything even about the most vile and fanatical has. got. to. go.

Even the most fanatical and violent can be turned away from evil.

So you think the more-or-less passive enablers in the community cannot be sufficiently shocked by the use of their (tribal sense) children to reduce their support of the jihadis, because said communities are too tied to Islam, but you think the fanatical and violent jihadis themselves can be turned from evil? The bombers themselves can be salvaged, but not the communities they live among?

With respect, that seems so completely backward to me that I'm sure I must be misunderstanding you. I thought Sam Harris was daring in saying that religious moderates enable fanatics, but you seem to be going one further and saying that the fanatics are more amenable to reason than the moderates!

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

25. Comment #53880 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 3, 2007 at 11:37 pm

*nods* It's a fair point. Of course, the more fanatical, the more difficult it is to convince them otherwise. However, it is possible.

My comments about the community were that it is massively unlikely - precisely because of Islam - that they spontaneously decide to reject the jihadists. That is, unless someone gives them the intellectual reasons to do so.

On the other hand, it should make them more open to intellectual counterattack.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

26. Comment #54130 by Benjamin Michael on July 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm

 avatarFanusi, you seem to be fairly alone in your viewpoint, so let me throw my hand in the mix and offer my support. I agree with most of what you have been writing (factually... although we likely diverge when it comes to methods of dispute resolution). You certainly are not the diplomat! but I think you have it mostly correct.

Of course anti-zionism is in the majority of cases just a guise for anti-semitism. Those who read and swallow the crap that crooks like Chomsky spurt will disagree, but those who exercise any modicum of rational independant thought on the issue will realize that double standards are constantly and consistently applied against Israel's actions. In any event, anti-zionism is not something to be proud of *even* if one can make the case that it is completely disparate from antisemitism. Israel makes a ton of bad choices that should be condemned, but it as a democratic secular nation is leaps and bounds ahead of its neighbors on issues of human rights and "moral" conduct. To single out Israel begs the question...

Other Comments by Benjamin Michael

27. Comment #54350 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 6, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Benjamin Michael, I thank you and I do so sincerely. We can diverge on things, and I am sure that you are right that I would make a poor diplomat.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: