Letter from uncle...How to convert people that fear islam wants to destroy us all?

[ClayTrainor]

I have been discussing politics and world issues with my Uncle bill for a couple of months now through e-mail, and we just recently got into the religious topic, according to world issues.

Right now i'm currently working on a big project, and i've been wasting too much time trying to come up with a well-thought out response.

Can my brothers and sisters in this forum help me come up with a rebuttal, to this e-mail?

Keep in mind, he's opening up to Ron Paul's ideas in a lot of ways, and i believe we can convert him 100% to our side, if we just tackle this religious issue.





Clay
I got your letter and although it was fairly accurate, I must clarify a few things. The Old Testament of the Holy Bible is three things: - 1) It is a comprehensive history.
2) It is a book containing the good and the bad of the pre New Testament times with no attempt to judge or disguise the facts of the time.
3) It is the basis and a part of the q"aran.
There is not in any part of the Holy Bible, Old or New Testament, and I have read and studied, discussed and argued it's merits many times, is there any reference to killing all people not following their religious philosophy.

Understand that Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the U.S.A are the only nations in history that fought major wars on behalf of others and the only thing they asked for from these many nations was a place to bury their dead. Then they helped rebuild the tyrannous countries.

Move forward to Iraq - a major error and anyone who suggests otherwise is naive. The U.S.A. has paid heavily in all phases of the attempted conquest and will continue to do so for many additional years. The did not become involved to claim jurisdiction over Iraq, but to set-up a North American type democracy. Totally stupid, but who said George Bush was smart. Afghanistan is another issue and if you believe that the Muslims are not out to destroy the free world, you had better get a reality check. The scourge of the twentieth century was communism, but at least there was honour between sexes and a trial court. No such thing exists under Islam nor does freedom. The Issues facing this world over the move to total Islamic dominance is ten thousand times worse than communism ever was, because there is no dignity, no regard for human life and no tolerance of others - none. If you are a student of the bible and the Q'oran as you suggest, this is paramount in all of the Islamic teachings. You will know this fact.

Look at the attached video. You have a wonderful mind and a curious nature that I love, but do not dismiss history so quickly.

Great Uncle Bill

This is kind of a thumbnail sketch as to how the middle east got into the situation it is in. Thought you might find it interesting.



Cheers,




http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/









I need to explain to him, eloquently how Christianity is just as guilty for these wars as Islam... but the truth is, religion is only a side issue... the real motivation comes from Foreign Occupation.



I need some people to help make some good counter-points here, so i can continue to focus my efforts on my project :cool:



Also, some pictures of christians protesting FOR the war, with signs like "God says bomb iraq", would be ideal :cool:

[Anti Federalist]

Operation Ajax.

How the west started the rise of Islamic Jihad.

[surf]

the real motivation comes from Foreign Occupation.


not certain, but i think bin Laden has stated this previously.

[ClayTrainor]

Operation Ajax.

How the west started the rise of Islamic Jihad.


not certain, but i think bin Laden has stated this previously.

good points to help research :cool:

[Chieftain1776]

2 books I (regretfully) have yet to read myself but I'm somewhat familiar with the arguments:

Dying to Win: The Strategic logic of Suicide Terrorism: Link with chapter by chapter summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terro rism

Basically argues that although some fringes have rhetoric that seeks world domination most of their support comes from moderates incensed by specific wrongs in the form of land being taken.

Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them

Shows how the chances of a terrorist attack are so minuscule that I believe you have more of a chance dying in a car crash (or airplane crash). And that overreaction is a goal of terrorists so that they can rally the local moderate population behind them to fight and "bleed the empire" into leaving.

I'd also make the point Michael Scheuer made on Glenn Beck a number of times. (Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkkjVmYnYHM)). If the government is so concerned about terrorism WHY THE HECK is our border WIDE OPEN? How crazy is it that the Gov. is willing to launch a war half a world away but won't even DEFEND OUR OWN FREAKIN BORDERS. This is almost prima facie evidence that pro war politicians are SO full of shit. And I'm a libertarian who believes immigration is a great thing and this worries me.

Sorry for the rant but your uncle should try to square THAT circle before supporting more preemptive wars.

Hope this helps...definitely makes me want to pickup the books now.

[ClayTrainor]

2 books I (regretfully) have yet to read myself but I'm somewhat familiar with the arguments:

Dying to Win: The Strategic logic of Suicide Terrorism: Link with chapter by chapter summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terro rism

Basically argues that although some fringes have rhetoric that seeks world domination most of their support comes from moderates incensed by specific wrongs in the form of land being taken.

Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them

Shows how the chances of a terrorist attack are so minuscule that I believe you have more of a chance dying in a car crash (or airplane crash). And that overreaction is a goal of terrorists so that they can rally the local moderate population behind them to fight and "bleed the empire" into leaving.

I'd also make the point Michael Scheuer made on Glenn Beck a number of times. (Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkkjVmYnYHM)). If the government is so concerned about terrorism WHY THE HECK is our border WIDE OPEN? How crazy is it that the Gov. is willing to launch a war half a world away but won't even DEFEND OUR OWN FREAKIN BORDERS. This is almost prima facie evidence that pro war politicians are SO full of shit. And I'm a libertarian who believes immigration is a great thing and this worries me.

Sorry for the rant but your uncle should try to square THAT circle before supporting more preemptive wars.

Hope this helps...definitely makes me want to pickup the books now.

great post, thanks man! :cool:

[tnvoter]

Yes as Paul has said, what motivates the terrorists? There is fuel for the fire- the vehicle is radical Islam, but what's fueling it?

[TastyWheat]

I'm not sure of the exact title, but another one is "What Muslims Think." It has a bunch of answers to survey questions in muslim countries. MOST muslims do not hate us nor are they out to destroy us. We're really fighting a small radical group of muslims but even those aren't fighting us simply because we're free. If that's the reason then why isn't England or Germany so concerned about them? The European countries are about as free as us and I dare say not nearly as moral. Bin Laden has clearly said several times that he was angry at our occupation.

[Zolah]

Add to Operation Ajax - Operation Cyclone (which involved encouraging radical Islam in Pakistan and Afghanistan to combat communism among other things) for your research purposes.

[RonPaulalways]

As others have noted, you should let your uncle know that secularism was alive and well in the middle east until it was undermined by specific actions by western governments, namely,

1) Operation Ajax, which helped the mullahs and monarchists in Iran overthrow the secular democratic government of Iran in 1953. For the next 36 years the Iranian monarchy bribed the religious clergy, thereby strengthening it while purging secular democratic and nationalist opposition in Iran.

2) Operation Cyclone, where afghanis and other members of the international mujahadeen were funded by the US to the tune of billions of dollars to fight the Soviets. The money was funneled through Pakistan's ISI, and Islamic radicalism was the ideology that the resistance fought under. This led to the destruction of Afghanistan's secular communist government and growth of the international mujahadeen.

Also:

Israel supported Hamas to undermine secular Fatah in the 80's through to early 2000's. This was a deliberate strategy to replace an ideologically credible resistance with an Islamic one that western populations would be less sympathetic to.

If islamic radicalism is what your uncle is worried about, he should know that it has only been through western intervention that it has surfaced, and the absence of western involvement would return the middle east to the path of increased secularization.

Furthermore, as has been noted in this thread, the book 'Dying to Win' lays out a convincing argument that religion has almost no bearing on resistance movements in the middle east. With or without religion, there will be insurgencies in countries as long as there is foreign intervention. Vietnam is case in point.

[Elwar]

If it weren't for our presence in that region, the more extreme views of the q'oran would not be in the mainstream. They would be left to the foothills like the Christians who dance with snakes.

But with our troops there, the more violent teachings are emphasized and the people have something to rally them.

There are many countries with muslims that we are not at war with. When was the last time we were attacked by Indonesians?

[TastyWheat]

Yeah, I got it wrong. I was thinking of "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Speaks-Islam-Billion-Muslims/dp/1595620176/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235499001&sr=1-1)"

[Xenophage]

I have been discussing politics and world issues with my Uncle bill for a couple of months now through e-mail, and we just recently got into the religious topic, according to world issues.

Right now i'm currently working on a big project, and i've been wasting too much time trying to come up with a well-thought out response.

Can my brothers and sisters in this forum help me come up with a rebuttal, to this e-mail?

Keep in mind, he's opening up to Ron Paul's ideas in a lot of ways, and i believe we can convert him 100% to our side, if we just tackle this religious issue.





I need to explain to him, eloquently how Christianity is just as guilty for these wars as Islam... but the truth is, religion is only a side issue... the real motivation comes from Foreign Occupation.



I need some people to help make some good counter-points here, so i can continue to focus my efforts on my project :cool:



Also, some pictures of christians protesting FOR the war, with signs like "God says bomb iraq", would be ideal :cool:

But he's right. Christianity is significantly less offensive to a civilized mind than Islam. The Islamic world is full of the worst kinds of tyranny, while the Christian world remains mostly free. You can't put the two on an even moral keel, and this is coming from an atheist. If you believe in human rights at all, you have to want to see Western civilization ultimately prevail. You have to want to see Israel, the only free country in the middle east, survive and prosper.

That doesn't make a case for undeclared wars of aggression and nation-building - those are the two best things we can do to further the goals of Islamic extremism. Our foreign policy in the middle east has been flawed for 50 years, starting with the decision to allow the theft of the oil industry American and British corporations developed.

But we should realize that Islamic extremists really, truly are ideological enemies who have no interest in an enlightened humanity. They exist in the dark ages.

[angelatc]

But we should realize that Islamic extremists really, truly are ideological enemies who have no interest in an enlightened humanity. They exist in the dark ages.

The Christian faith has some of those too.

As for the original question, I don't even go there with Muslim-haters. I shoft the conversation with a comment like "Do I have to pick between fighting the socialists here or the Muslims there? Because I choose to fight the socialists. Obama is scaring me!"

[NYgs23]

I wouldn't try use the argument that "well, Christians are just as bad." You can admit that radical Islamism is the vision of Al Qaeda: it is. But how does Al Qaeda recruit so many followers? US govt intervention gives Bin Laden all the propaganda all the propaganda he needs. It looks like our uncle's already against the War in Iraq. How many recruits did that gain for Bin Laden. Depending on how he felt about Clinton, you might also want to bring up the sanctions that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, with Madeleine Albright saying "It was worth it." In other words, radical Islamic philosophy gains strength and popularity from the interventionist policies of Western nations, in much the same way that Communism gained strength from oppressive "capitalist" regimes. Tsarist pogroms, cossacks, and WWI --> Bolsheviks. Radical Islamic ideology wouldn't disappear with non-interventionist Western foreign policy, but it would dwindle in strength and direct its attention elsewhere because the bogeyman that all radical philosophies need to thrive wouldn't be such a big bogeyman anymore.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

"It is a comprehensive history"

Umm... not even CLOSE... I am not sure you can win an argument with someone that invents their own facts as they see fit... We have better things to do...

[RCA]

Here are 10 ideas to ponder:

1) We can't afford the war.

2) The war wasn't declared first per the Constitution.

3) We're creating their hatred for us by taking over their land.

4) They are less of a threat than the Soviets during the Cold War.

5) We buy their weapons.

6) We buy weapons for their enemies.

7) We're not protecting our country because we're over there.

8) The people that say they hate us for our freedoms have always lied.

9) Our government has killed more innocents muslims than guilty muslims have killed innocent Americans.

10) Muslims were around long before the United States.

[oilboiler]

There is never black and white, only shades of grey. Tell him to watch this well balanced BBC documentary about the rise of the neocons and the islamic radicals. It is long, in 3 parts, but a real eye opener.

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=135
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=136
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=137

[Richie]

Send him a copy of Blowback. http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Project/dp/0805075593/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235574046&sr=8-1

This issue is very complex, going back into history very far. Unless you send him reading material, you will be unable to convince him. It's too large an issue for an e-mail debate.

Instead of convincing him that all Muslims are not out to destroy us, play up to the conservative conscience he has tucked away. Send him the cost of our wars, and what it is doing to our nation. Explain to him that no matter what his views are concerning whether or not the war is necessary, that it is an undeclared war; that it violates the Constitution. Show him the growth of government that violating the Constitution even in small ways creates. This is the only way to convince a neoconservative in an online debate.