Question that perplexes me

[hillard]

The Taliban are religious fundamentalists which means they are going to make trouble because it's what religious fundamentalists do all over the world, take creationists, what would happen to the US if creationists took over the country? they would stop science education in schools and collages and take the US back to the dark ages, and just like the Taliban they would do it in the name of their God.

 

[Montalban]

The Taliban are religious fundamentalists which means they are going to make trouble because it's what religious fundamentalists do all over the world, take creationists, what would happen to the US if creationists took over the country? they would stop science education in schools and collages and take the US back to the dark ages, and just like the Taliban they would do it in the name of their God.

That's simply a modern media spin on things.

"Fundamentalism" is a movement back to the 'fundamentals' or basics of a religion.

A "Fundamentalist" Buddhist is not going to be violent because Buddhism isn't at it's roots a violent religion.

Some people call themselves "Fundamentalists" and claim to be going back to a simpler message but in fact distort their religion's basic teachings.

Fundamentalism is not necessarily violent.

Speaking of media spins, instead of calling Moslem terrorists "Moslem Terrorists" they use the term "Islamicist"

 

[Montalban]

I was already aware of the 9-11 attacks.

Where is the evidence that these could be linked to a specific terrorist group?

Probably the fact that they claimed that they did it!

 

[razeontherock]

they are going to make trouble because it's what religious fundamentalists do all over the world, they would stop science education in schools and collages and take the US back to the dark ages

Thank you for your unbiased, level-headed view.

 

[razeontherock]

"Fundamentalism" is a movement back to the 'fundamentals' or basics of a religion.

Hillard might be well-served to read the statement of Faith in the fundamentalist congregational section here?

 

[Nooj]

During 9/11 they didn't just attack American troops.

And I know it was Al-Queda, but the Taliban aided, sheltered and abetted them.

Yes but those Taliban were scattered and largely destroyed. The Taliban we're fighting now are home-grown fighters, some of whom are just paid five bucks to take a few potshots at Americans, others who actually think the Americans are invaders who want to kill their families, others who hate the corrupt and ineffectual government, others who come from Pakistan and are funded by the Pakistani government to destablise Afghanistan so that when the Americans leave, Pakistan will have a powerful influence on the country. It's more complicated now. It's an insurgency. I doubt they have the capability or even the desire to try a terrorist attack on American soil, whereas al-Qaeda does. The Taliban are a bunch of Pashtun insurgents.

 

[razeontherock]

And it is the Pashtun that have always been the difficulty in the region. The answer is education, not bloodshed. And they aren't going to embrace our education if they don't understood the basics of Christianity, removing the propagandized mischaracterizations of all things western. So the whole ban on proselytizing thing is absurd, IMHO.

We could have gone about this altogether differently, and been much more successful. As it is we walked right into their trap ..

 

[Montalban]

Yes but those Taliban were scattered and largely destroyed. The Taliban we're fighting now are home-grown fighters, some of whom are just paid five bucks to take a few potshots at Americans, others who actually think the Americans are invaders who want to kill their families, others who hate the corrupt and ineffectual government, others who come from Pakistan and are funded by the Pakistani government to destablise Afghanistan so that when the Americans leave, Pakistan will have a powerful influence on the country. It's more complicated now. It's an insurgency. I doubt they have the capability or even the desire to try a terrorist attack on American soil, whereas al-Qaeda does. The Taliban are a bunch of Pashtun insurgents.

I agree with you on Pakistan. I still think the Taliban are a danger.



What's that song "Hey Mr Taliban carry me banana"?

 

[Montalban]

And it is the Pashtun that have always been the difficulty in the region. The answer is education, not bloodshed. And they aren't going to embrace our education if they don't understood the basics of Christianity, removing the propagandized mischaracterizations of all things western. So the whole ban on proselytizing thing is absurd, IMHO.

We could have gone about this altogether differently, and been much more successful. As it is we walked right into their trap ..

I'm not sure if that will work.

In Vietnam one of the planks used against fighting communism was education. The idea was that no educated person would support communism. So by training Vietnamese in democracy they would just automatically see the benefits of this and leave communism

 

[razeontherock]

What's that song "Hey Mr Taliban carry me banana"?

Somehow I'm not so sure they would see the humor in this - but I do!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That's simply a modern media spin on things.

A "modern media spin" has got nothing to do with that.

"Fundamentalist" was a designation originally used by anti-modernist evangelicals who felt that scientific discoveries and progressive social developments endangered their cherished religious convictions, and thus decided that these "ungodly" elements must be denied in order to defend the "True Faith".

Scholars who study religions then seized upon the term, using it to refer to any religious anti-modernist movement that couldn't cope with the (post-)industrial society and tried to restore a supposed former "golden age" of doctrinal purity.

The choice of term is not such an unlikely one: after all, "radical" is derived from "radix", the Latin term for "root".

 

[hillard]

The Taliban are religious fundamentalists which means they are going to make trouble because it's what religious fundamentalists do all over the world, take creationists, what would happen to the US if creationists took over the country? they would stop science education in schools and collages and take the US back to the dark ages, and just like the Taliban they would do it in the name of their God.

Thank you for your unbiased, level-headed view.

(Sarcasm noted)
Perhaps you could tell us what would happen if the creationists took over the US? do you think they would embrace the sciences?

 

[Jim99]

You ask an interesting question, one that is not easily answered.
When the Soviet Union was there the Taliban were the good guys, worthy of our praise and backing, hearty fighters defending their homeland from the evil red empire.
The Russians are gone and the Talib just want to go back to the life they have known for hundreds of years. Follow the Koran, as they understand it, to include preventing the growing or poppies. Unfortunately, the Talib form of leadership (and life) does not fit into the mold accepted by the US.
Now, throw in OSB and his associated groups, their basic belief that the United States wants the world to be Christian and wants everyone else to live their life according to their rules, which are so very, very different from what they believe the Koran tells them, and we have a big problem.
Some may say that there is the profit motive in play here because both countries are largely untouched when it comes to natural resources. I don’t buy into that.
OSB and his associated groups are well funded and believe in what they are doing. Their mind set is very different from ours. Their view is black and white. Hard feeling go back to the middle ages, the very existence of Islam is at stake and it is their duty to protect and defend it and their world. If to protect and defend was their only desire I believe we could li e in the same world. However, to defend Islam they must remove ALL the things that oppose and offend Islam, this includes the United States itself!
If the Taliban control the country they will be able to provide a protected operating base for OSB and his organization. Provide a Talib run country and provide a country to develop and train fighters, starting in the crib. Remember, as Americans we believe that ALL people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…. The Talib life style is totally opposed to that, despite the fact that the Talib believe that the Koran justifies their life style. Throw in the cultural differences, like honor killing, and we have a clash of cultures that will never end…the Talib and OSB will never compromise.
Unfortunately, we will not win in that part of the world, we learned little in Viet Nam, we learned little from the Soviet defeat. Unfortunately, you cannot force freedom on a people, nor can you force a Southern Baptist to be a RC, heck, Lutherans can’t even agree on what Martin Luther believed.
What do you believe the answer to your question is?

 

[ProScribe]

What do you believe the answer to your question is?

Most of the complex factors that play into this question are beyond my control.

 

[Montalban]

A "modern media spin" has got nothing to do with that.

"Fundamentalist" was a designation originally used by anti-modernist evangelicals who felt that scientific discoveries and progressive social developments endangered their cherished religious convictions, and thus decided that these "ungodly" elements must be denied in order to defend the "True Faith".

I don't deny it's a reaction to modernism. It is a way of seeking to get back to the 'fundamentals' of a faith.

Fundamentalism has it's origins in the late 1800s. However 'fundamentalist' has it's association with terrorism only relatively recently.

"The Iran hostage crisis of 1979-80 marked a major turning point in the use of the term "fundamentalism". The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution to a Western audience described it as a "fundamentalist version of Islam" by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term "Islamic fundamentalist", which would come to be one of the most common usages of the term in the following years"
Fundamentalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is very recent. Fundamentalism is not synonymous with terrorism, except amongst those who rely on reading a very limited range of sources... such as newspapers.

 

[Montalban]

Somehow I'm not so sure they would see the humor in this - but I do!

YouTube - The Muppet Show. Harry Belafonte - Day-O (Banana Boat Song)

The Muppet Version

 

[Philothei]

MOD HAT ON
Thead has been moved from Christianity and World Religion​

to the
General Political Discussion Forum​

New Address:
Question that perplexes me​

​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[acropolis]

Why is the Taliban considered an enemy of America?

Why is America continue to target them? . . .

The answer to this is complex and involves a lot of history during the last century. But it's too much work to understand that, so most people to prefer to believe that Al Qaeda is just insane.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

Why is the Taliban considered an enemy of America?

The official reason is that they harbored and aided Al Qaeda.

Why is America continue to target them? . . .

I can only assume it's because the U.S. wants to put down Islamic extremism for good.

 

[Chris81]

Why is the Taliban considered an enemy of America?

Why is America continue to target them? . . .

We fight the Taliban because they are the enemies of the Karzai government that we naively believe will one day form a responsible stable democratic government.