[marden]

The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World

Because of a misunderstanding with another MacNN poster I believe it is necessary to ONCE again make it clear to all what the dynamics are re: Jihad and the threat it poses to America, Americans and the world.

What follows are a few excerpts from the third public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Statement of Steven Emerson to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
July 9, 2003
Overview: The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World

[...]

Because of a fear of engendering charges of racism by Muslim leaders, a charge that is routinely applied to anything critical of militant Islam, there has been an assiduous effort to avoid labeling the terrorists of 9/11 for what they were: militant Islamic terrorists. Their behavior was informed and guided by their misguided interpretation of Islam. Unfortunately, efforts to sanitize the discussion of Islamic terrorism has led to explanations of 9/11 that exonerate the masterminds and ideological perpetrators of any responsibility for their actions: A special Hollywood broadcast after 9/11 noted that the attack of 9/11 was simply "pure evil" and had nothing to do with religion.

In fact, the 9/11 attack had everything to do with religion-- it had to with the doctrinal interpretation of Islam by militants.At the outset, it is critical to point out that militant Islam does not equal Islam. Islam as a religion, like Christianity and Judaism, does not endorse violence. Islam is a vibrant religion that gives spiritual comfort and meaning to its vast number of practitioners around the world. And there are Islamic writers, intellectuals and clerics who openly and unambiguously repudiate violent Islamic militant ideology. For the peaceful majority of Muslims around the world, it is imperative that these distinctions be made. But in the end, it is not the West that is avoiding these distinctions. It is the militants who are trying to erase these distinctions; by claiming there is no such thing as Islamic extremism, the militants have tried to hide under the protection of the mainstream majority.

Anti-American radicalism was pervasive in the Muslim world long before the events of September 11, 2001, and is not limited to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. One need only read translations of the Muslim media in many parts of the world, including the West, to see the resentment, hatred and anger, even in countries that are our strategic "allies." The persistent denial that radical Muslims were responsible for the September 11 attacks, with the belief that Israel or the United States had secretly launched the attacks, is further evidence of the rampant radicalism. The extent of radicalism in the Muslim world has gone unrecognized because of premeditated deception, a cloak of religiosity, intimidation, and a tendency by many in the West to dismiss radical statements as nothing more than mere rhetorical posturing.

Often one cannot draw a clear line between fundamentalist religious dogma and radical action or between the West and the Muslim world. Indeed many of these militants have been educated in the West. Such a belief system, in which anti-Western animus is so entrenched, cannot be remedied by a public relations program launched by outsiders. Rather, any hope for change must come from within the Muslim world itself. As Professors Fouad Ajami and Bernard Lewis have long argued, the roots of Arab and Islamic belligerency towards the US are found in the failure of those regimes to adequately meet the needs of their people. A democratic modernization of the Islamic world, mounted from within, is the only way to defuse these murderous emotions.

In the last two years, there has been a genuine, although belated, recognition in the United States that the problem and threat posed by Al-Qaeda is not limited to card carrying members of this terrorist group. Although Al-Qaeda carried out the horrific terrorist attack of 9/11, the larger problem the US faces is the militant Islamic culture and mindset that gave birth to Al-Qaeda. In this regard, Al-Qaeda is shorthand for a much larger religious phenomena - militant Islamic fundamentalism - that has spawned violence and terrorism against the United States, the West or western-allied states that are deemed to be the "enemies of Islam." Within the framework of militant Islamic fundamentalism, a culture of violent "jihad" has become a common denominator, sanctioning violence and terrorism against moderate and secular Muslims, Americans, Westerners, Christians, Jews, and other "infidels."

To be sure, the Muslim world is not the only religious umbrella under which religious-sanctioned terrorism takes place. There have been Christian, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu terrorists for example.

But today no other religious-inspired violence matches the scope and transnational breadth of militant Islamic fundamentalism. According to research we have conducted, Islamist terrorist attacks have now occurred in or been planned and supported from more than 100 countries around the globe in the past 10 years.

One of the basic problems when confronting radicalism in the Muslim world is the unwillingness by some Western academicians, editorialists and leaders to recognize the pervasive institutionalized support for and dissemination of jihadist ideology. In the West, the concept of Islamic extremism is automatically associated with relatively small portions of Muslim society.

The undeniable fact is that Islamic militants dominate or exercise disproportionate influence over the religious, academic, and media institutions in the Muslim world, with the notable exception of several countries such as Turkey and Indonesia. Within the Muslim world, the religious hierarchy has been traditionally controlled by Islamic fundamentalists; major Islamic media institutions, from newspapers to television, mirror the Islamic fundamentalist influence over the message dictated to the masses.

[...]

Bernard Lewis, the premier scholar of the Muslim world, has written:

In the course of the twentieth century it became abundantly clear that things had gone badly wrong in the Middle East-and, indeed, in all the lands of Islam. Compared with Christendom, its rival for more than a millennium, the world of Islam had become poor, weak, and ignorant.


Attempts were made to reform and catch up, but:

The results achieved were, to say the least, disappointing. The quest for victory by updated armies brought a series of humiliating defeats. The quest for prosperity through development brought in some countries impoverished and corrupt economies in recurring need of external aid, in others an unhealthy dependence on a single resource - oil.

Worst of all are the political results: the long quest for freedom has left a string of shabby tyrannies, ranging from traditional autocracies to dictatorships that are modern only in their apparatus of repression and indoctrination.

'Who did this to us?' is of course a common human response when things are going badly, and many in the Middle East, past and present, have asked this question. They have found several different answers. It is usually easier and always more satisfying to blame others for one's misfortunes.

The obvious scapegoat is the West, now led by the United States.

[...]

Public Opinion Polls in the Muslim World

The effect of the constant recitation of these lessons has been profound, even on Muslims living in the West. Opinion polls conducted since September 11 illustrate the continuing impact such widespread teachings have had on Muslim populations throughout the world. Ultimately, the constant vilification of Jews, Christians and others has led populations in the Muslim world to believe they are the target of a vast conspiracy.

For example, between November 2nd and 11th, 2001, ICM conducted a telephone survey of 500 British Muslims on behalf of the BBC. ICM reported the following results:

Q: "From what you have seen or heard, do you think the USA are justified in blaming Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda Group for the attacks in America on September 11th?"
67% replied "unjustified"

Q: "Taking all things into account, do you think the military action by the United States and Afghanistan is justified or unjustified?"
80% replied "unjustified"

Q: "Some people we have spoken to have said they approve of British Muslims going to fight America and its allies in Afghanistan. Do you approve or disapprove of Muslims going to Afghanistan to fight America and its allies?"
24% said they "approve."

Q: "Do you think military action in Afghanistan should…"
76% said "stop now."

In 2002, Gallup conducted a poll in conjunction with USA Today in which Gallup interviewed nearly 10,000 people in nine mostly Muslim countries: Turkey, Kuwait, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, and Lebanon.

77% said that "U.S. military action in Afghanistan [is] morally unjustifiable."

61% said that Arabs did not carry out the September 11th attacks.

More specifically: 86% of Pakistanis and 89% of Kuwaitis do not believe that Arabs were responsible for the attacks.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

There is much more information at the link.

I think after reading this information anyone who is truly in doubt as to the existence of a global Islamic based terrorist movement should be convinced.

Conclusion:

As accustomed to creating solutions for every problem Americans face, the reality is that there are no silver bullets in the challenges posed by Islamic radicalism. All solutions are going to painstakingly slow but we need to abide by a set of principles.

1) The first requirement for any hope of change is that we all recognize who and what the enemy is -- it is not an amorphous group of "terrorists," but rather it is those who work to advance the cause of global militant Islam through the spread of its ideology and violence. Unless we can name the enemy without fear, we cannot construct effective ways to counter its strategy. As described by Daniel Pipes, "It is not a war on terrorism, nor a war on Islam. It is a war on a terroristic version of Islam." (Daniel Pipes, "A War Against What?", New York Post, Oct. 1, 2002)

2) Second, we must act consistently in our approach to fighting the battle. Changing our behavior, our policies, our democratic belief system to conform to militant Islamists' "wish list" will not serve our purpose of eradicating the violence. Rather, accommodating their demands will only empower those who wish to see the West fall. The religious dogma that is the underpinning of militant Islam will not change, regardless of our actions.

3) Third, we must continue to provide law enforcement with effective tools to shut down the financing and training of terrorist networks, working with other countries around the world at all levels. The actions taken by the FBI, Department of Justice, Treasury, CIA, Homeland Security and other agencies in shutting down terrorist conduits must be supported on a long term basis-and not have powers suddenly withdrawn because of the false perception that the threat is declining.

4) We must empower genuine moderates in the Islamic world. At the same time, this means not legitimizing militant purveyors of hatred and violence. In practical terms, this means that the United States truly has to stop allowing the State Department the continued license to invite Islamic militants to the United States under the guise of "outreach"; it means that the United States has to stop pandering to Saudi Arabia and demand that they truly cease supporting and financing Islamic militant groups. In the United States, militant Islamic leaders who only pretend to be moderate should not be afforded political legitimacy by being embraced by the White House, Congress or other governmental agencies. This sends a terrible message to the community of genuinely moderate Muslims.

5) The US , should help create the seed money for endowed chairs at universities around the world that would sponsor genuine Islamic moderates. Today, much of Middle Eastern academia is dominated by the ideology of militant Islam or anti-Americanism.

6) And finally, we must be learn to be patient and strong. The resentment of militant Islam has festered for many years and will not diminish over night. Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world stems from the anger that many who live in that world cannot freely express toward their ruling governments. The cancerous spread of the ideology and violence from the Middle East to Muslim societies of Africa, Asia and the Pacific is further evidence of the growing extent of the problem. We must stay the course for as long as it will take.

Steven Emerson
Executive Director, The Investigatvie Project
5505 Conn. Ave, NW #341
Washington DC 20015

We should stop being too politically correct to save our own way of life.

[Kevin]

It's SELECTIVE politically correctness.

I wish Bush would do a complete turn-around and SIDE with terror based Islam just so the Anti-Bushies would take it's threat seriously and rile against it.

Because him riling against it is just making any zealot that dislike it have the opposite feelings just because it's the opposite of what Bush feels.

Politically zealotry sucks in that way.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I wish Bush would do a complete turn-around and SIDE with terror based Islam just so the Anti-Bushies would take it's threat seriously and rile against it.

He already does. Saudi Arabia is your best friend in the ME.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

He already does. Saudi Arabia is your best friend in the ME.

Wow comparing that to what I said was a stretch. I know the Koran promotes honesty.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Wow comparing that to what I said was a stretch. I know the Koran promotes honesty.

You said this:

I wish Bush would do a complete turn-around and SIDE with terror based Islam.....

Wahhabism is the ideology 90% of the "Islamic" terrorism follows. While you support them, they will continue to send out their Imams that teach wahhabism to the easily manipulated. Which in turn results in more willfull idiots being recruited into terrorism.

And try to keep from making this personal. Just for once.

[Kevin]

AGain that was dishonest. He isn't siding with terror based Islam.

Just like said, if we were to make a transaction or agreement. It wouldn't be me siding with your religion.

Stop spinning.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

AGain that was dishonest. He isn't siding with terror based Islam.

Just like said, if we were to make a transaction or agreement. It wouldn't be me siding with your religion.

Stop spinning.

Since you will obviously continue to do your thing I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Have a nice day.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden 

The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World

Because of a misunderstanding with another MacNN poster I believe it is necessary to ONCE again make it clear to all what the dynamics are re: Jihad and the threat it poses to America, Americans and the world.

What follows are a few excerpts from the third public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

There is much more information at the link.

I think after reading this information anyone who is truly in doubt as to the existence of a global Islamic based terrorist movement should be convinced.



We should stop being too politically correct to save our own way of life.

I agree with most of what the articles you quoted say, but I'm not sure that you do. You are equating the Quran with the terroristic ideology of radical Islamism, the articles don't and make clear that radical Islamism is abusing the religion it is based in.

Since islamistic terror is justified and motivated by its underlining ideology, and its ideology is based on a narrow-minded interpretation of the Quran and supported by hadith-collections (which are all pretty much fabricated), and the narrowminded interpretaion of the Quran uses the techniques of quoting out of textual and historic context, exaggeration and going to absolutes, the war on terror, should be called the "war on mishandling a holy book".

That war though, can't be fought by the US, not only because it is a nation of christians, and therefore pretty much not credible enough to teach muslims what to believe and how to handle the Quran, but because the US was massively responsible for the strenghtening of radical Islamism in the islamic world, not only throught its alliance with the Wahabits of Saudi-Arabia, but espescially with the instrumentalisation, support and training of radical Islamism for the fight against the Soviet-Union and communists.

So, in the end it is the task of muslims to defeat radical Islamism and at the same time to complete the reformation of Islam by escaping the laming grip of the orthodoxy.

It's definitely one of the most important jihads for liberal/modernistic Islam.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Since you will obviously continue to do your thing I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Have a nice day.

In other words, since I wont legitimize your spins, you are taking your ball and going home.

You know very well what I meant.

Your spin, and that is what it was, had nothing to do with what I said.

Cut the crap.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That war though, can't be fought by the US, not only because it is a nation of christians, and therefore pretty much not credible enough to teach muslims what to believe and how to handle the Quran, but because the US was massively responsible for the strenghtening of radical Islamism in the islamic world, not only throught its alliance with the Wahabits of Saudi-Arabia, but espescially with the instrumentalisation, support and training of radical Islamism for the fight against the Soviet-Union and communists.

So, in the end it is the task of muslims to defeat radical Islamism and at the same time to complete the reformation of Islam by escaping the laming grip of the orthodoxy.

It's definitely one of the most important jihads for liberal/modernistic Islam.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That war though, can't be fought by the US, not only because it is a nation of christians, and therefore pretty much not credible enough to teach muslims what to believe and how to handle the Quran

Good thing we aren't telling anyone how to handle the Quran.

but because the US was massively responsible for the strenghtening of radical Islamism in the islamic world

Wrong. That's simply propaganda. Radical Islamoterrorists spreading lies about the US are responsible for such a thing.

not only throught its alliance with the Wahabits of Saudi-Arabia, but espescially with the instrumentalisation, support and training of radical Islamism for the fight against the Soviet-Union and communists.

We didn't teach them to do what they are doing now to the world. No no we did not. Just because the army teaches a soldier how to kill, doesn't mean if the same soldier goes home and murders his family that it's the army's fault.

That is called scape goating.

Lets not also forget such Islamic terrorism was going on before such war.

So, in the end it is the task of muslims to defeat radical Islamism and at the same time to complete the reformation of Islam by escaping the laming grip of the orthodoxy.

Well when are they going to start doing it? We are waiting.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Wrong. That's simply propaganda. Radical Islamoterrorists spreading lies about the US are responsible for such a thing.

It's time to wake up, the US was indeed considerably strenghtening radical Islamism for the purpose of keeping communists in check or even out of the middle-east. That project started already in the sixties, but it wasn't until the seventies that it came into full gear. The US even wrote a US-brand-jihadist schoolbook for primaries, explaining the ideology of radical islamism in easy to understand terms and concentrating it on warfare and martyrhood, printed and delivered them in the millions to schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, year for year, until that sort of education-project got stopped in 1994.

This is definitely not propaganda, and the radical islamists would be the last to admit and propagating that they had massive support by the US, its nowadays evil nemesis.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

We didn't teach them to do what they are doing now to the world. No no we did not. Just because the army teaches a soldier how to kill, doesn't mean if the same soldier goes home and murders his family that it's the army's fault.

That is called scape goating.

I would also like to believe that the US merely trained the mujahideens in normal warfare, but that is unfortunately not true. What the CIA in addition trained them in was guerillia-tactics, psychological warfare and terrorism, as well as how to finance independently through drug-trafficking and control of the opium-fields, as well as islamic charities by using fake organisations that seemingly collect money for the poor but in reality...

Saudi-Arabia did its part by using its widespread influence through wahabitic mosques and the influence on other arabic/islamic states through their oil- and subvention-dependency to call for the violent jihad against the Soviet-Union, as well as by paying half the expendures for the whole project, the other half being paid by the US.
Pakistan provided the ground on which to train and prepare the recruits who arrived there following the jihad-call, and allowed the madrassas to prepare the new generation of radical islamists, that would join the fight against Soviet-Union steadily.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Lets not also forget such Islamic terrorism was going on before such war.

Please, be careful, what you write, you are using islamophobic judgments, but I guess it happened with no bad intention: You surely mean radical islamistic terrorism was going on before the US-Saudi-Arabia-Pakistan-project to bring down the Soviet-Union through a demoralising war against guerillias and terrorists.

I agree completely. Terrorism existed in the islamic world before that "war", but it was located in specific conflicts, like in Algeria, during the liberation-war against France, or in Palestine, where the PLO and other palestinian terror- and guerillia-groups fought against Israel's occupation of Palestine (most of these groups saw all of Israel as part of occupied Palestine)...
but what the US in alliance with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan did was to combine radical islamism with terrorism, ie. giving terrorism the ideology to support and motivate it, as well as to organize it internationally, recruiting from the whole islamic world, training, educating, indoctrinating, financing... and directing it not only against a military occupation, but against an idea, the idea of communism, so that the radical islamists would not only fight in Afghanistan but also in their homecountries, wherever the idea of communism would come up, whereever communists would openly start their political activism.

The fight against an idea was already contained in islamistic writings of Qutb and other islamists, where the enemy was identified as secularism, but again the US combined this with other ingredients, espescially with terrorism, and gave it legitimation, support and marketing...

Yes, that would sum up best what the US did. It's what the US was always good in: marketing. They took what was there, refined it, concentrated it, and made it into a successful marketing-product, and backed, supported and directed it.

That intervention allowed radical islamism to gain mainstream-appeal, experience and most important: victory.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well when are they going to start doing it? We are waiting.

It's already happening all over the islamic world, and was ongoing for the last two centuries, the islamic world is head-on in its own reformation-phase, and ironically the US-support for radical islamism is what really kicked it into gear and into its last phase.

Taliesin

[Spliffdaddy]

so what you're saying is the US did something truly brilliant by convincing Muslims to fight against communists - by brainwashing all of them.

BUT - the US is too bloody stupid to fix the problem because Americans are Christians and not capable of telling Muslims what to do.

So Christians have the ability to tell Muslims to fight and they will do it. But Christians cannot tell Muslims to stop killing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

so what you're saying is the US did something truly brilliant by convincing Muslims to fight against communists - by brainwashing all of them.

BUT - the US is too bloody stupid to fix the problem because Americans are Christians and not capable of telling Muslims what to do.

So Christians have the ability to tell Muslims to fight and they will do it. But Christians cannot tell Muslims to stop killing.

This reminds me of Hannity and Colmes last night. They had a disciple of Farrakhan on the program and they were watching a video of two kids pounding the snot out of one another. The parents were not only watching the fight, but picking their respective children up after being knocked down to fight some more. This guy said that these two children were acting out the self-loathing, deep-seeded in them due to long history of white oppression and slavery.

Neither Hannity nor Colmes asked; "surely, this kind of thing has occurred between two white kids right? Who could've imposed this self-loathing upon them? And what of cock-fighting and pit-bull fighting both of which have historical roots in both the black and white communities? Is this somehow indicative of a long history of chicken loathing or dog loathing?"

In all cases including the above, in poor socio-economic conditions violence is entertaining, prevalent and enemies are necessary. Until you address the socio-economic conditions and the leadership that propogates it, you will have no peace. Period.

How could the radical Islamist have forgotten who taught them this ideology and why; instead of vowing our demise, are they not thankful for the West having bolstered their faith from the 40's to the present? If, in fact the West is truly responsible for radicalization particularly on the rise in the 1970's, there would be a host of "radical" clerics in their 60's and 70's who could identify and communicate its roots to actively denounce the radical intentions of their brethren.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

So Christians have the ability to tell Muslims to fight and they will do it. But Christians cannot tell Muslims to stop killing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

It's time to wake up,

You first

the US was indeed considerably strenghtening radical Islamism for the purpose of keeping communists in check or even out of the middle-east.

No, the radical islamism strengthened itself through FUD and propaganda. You seem to be blaming it all on the US.

That project started already in the sixties, but it wasn't until the seventies that it came into full gear. The US even wrote a US-brand-jihadist schoolbook for primaries, explaining the ideology of radical islamism in easy to understand terms and concentrating it on warfare and martyrhood, printed and delivered them in the millions to schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, year for year, until that sort of education-project got stopped in 1994.

Lets see these handbooks.

This is definitely not propaganda, and the radical islamists would be the last to admit and propagating that they had massive support by the US, its nowadays evil nemesis.

Again Islamic terorrism was going on well before the US was involved. You are simply wrong.

I would also like to believe that the US merely trained the mujahideens in normal warfare, but that is unfortunately not true. What the CIA in addition trained them in was guerillia-tactics, psychological warfare and terrorism, as well as how to finance independently through drug-trafficking and control of the opium-fields, as well as islamic charities by using fake organisations that seemingly collect money for the poor but in reality...

Saudi-Arabia did its part by using its widespread influence through wahabitic mosques and the influence on other arabic/islamic states through their oil- and subvention-dependency to call for the violent jihad against the Soviet-Union, as well as by paying half the expendures for the whole project, the other half being paid by the US.
Pakistan provided the ground on which to train and prepare the recruits who arrived there following the jihad-call, and allowed the madrassas to prepare the new generation of radical islamists, that would join the fight against Soviet-Union steadily.

AGAIN The Us taught them how to fight off the Soviets and comminism. It did NOT teach it to lauch a grand scale war on non-muslims.

Please, be careful, what you write, you are using islamophobic judgments,

By telling the truth? Nonesense. You don't seem too concerned with blaming everyone else but who is to fault.

but I guess it happened with no bad intention: You surely mean radical islamistic terrorism was going on before the US-Saudi-Arabia-Pakistan-project to bring down the Soviet-Union through a demoralising war against guerillias and terrorists.

No I mean radical islamic terrorists were doing their thing well before the US got involved. Even efore the US was around. Their actions isn't something NEW. Radical islamic terrorism isn't new to this century. They were being taught such things before the US even existed. They have a history of such things for CENTURIES. To now blame it on the US is absurd.

It's already happening all over the islamic world, and was ongoing for the last two centuries, the islamic world is head-on in its own reformation-phase, and ironically the US-support for radical islamism is what really kicked it into gear and into its last phase.

Taliesin

What a load of crap. You need to stop the scape - goating.

The first step to stoping radical islamics is to get to the root cause. And it's not America.

[Zeeb]

I think that the The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World has to do with their health benefits and dental plan. You can go to any out of network doctor or dentist with only a $5 copay.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I think that the The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World has to do with their health benefits and dental plan. You can go to any out of network doctor or dentist with only a $5 copay.

Mine's $15.

OFF WITH ZEEB'S HEAD!!!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I wish Bush would do a complete turn-around and SIDE with terror based Islam

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

He already does. Saudi Arabia is your best friend in the ME.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Wow comparing that to what I said was a stretch. I know the Koran promotes honesty.

Logic is right, Kevin. Saudi Arabia was home to the bulk of the 9/11 attackers and the government, through gifts/grants/loans to other governments and Middle-East-based NGOs, was the single biggest provider of financial support to Islamic Fundamentalists/Terrorists in the Middle East. Heck, Saudi Arabia knew about Osama bin Laden for years--He had training camps in Saudi Arabia--but did nothing to suppress his movement until after the 9/11 attacks, and then only after being pressured to do so by the US government.

The rulers of Saudi Arabia have been pushing for decades to get their extreme brand of Islam--Wahhabism--made into the de factor form of Islam practiced today--Sort of like how Catholicism and Protestantism are both pushing to become the de facto form of Christianity in practice today. But it has been only recently that the Saudi government has started to crack down on Islamic Fundamentalist/Terrorists in their own country because now the terrorists are criticizing the Saudi government for being too friendly with the West.

However, through their financial support of madrassas and other Islam-based charities--that promote the Wahhabism brand of Islamic belief--the Saudi government is still the single biggest source of funds for the support of terrorist groups in the Middle East.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Logic is right, Kevin. Saudi Arabia was home to the bulk of the 9/11 attackers and the government, through gifts/grants/loans to other governments and Middle-East-based NGOs, was the single biggest provider of financial support to Islamic Fundamentalists/Terrorists in the Middle East. Heck, Saudi Arabia knew about Osama bin Laden for years--He had training camps in Saudi Arabia--but did nothing to suppress his movement until after the 9/11 attacks, and then only after being pressured to do so by the US government.

The rulers of Saudi Arabia have been pushing for decades to get their extreme brand of Islam--Wahhabism--made into the de factor form of Islam practiced today--Sort of like how Catholicism and Protestantism are both pushing to become the de facto form of Christianity in practice today. But it has been only recently that the Saudi government has started to crack down on Islamic Fundamentalist/Terrorists in their own country because now the terrorists are criticizing the Saudi government for being too friendly with the West.

However, through their financial support of madrassas and other Islam-based charities--that promote the Wahhabism brand of Islamic belief--the Saudi government is still the single biggest source of funds for the support of terrorist groups in the Middle East.

And unfortunately that problem isn't isolated in the ME. The Saudis fund Imams that teach in Europe, that teach in the Americas and in the rest of the world. The Saudis can rightly be compared to the cancer that needs to be dealt with. They are not only destroying my religion, but they are also destroying our (Western) society. Cut off the support for them and make it easier to study Islam in the West and you'll see a rapid decline in extremism.

This would be the most effective way of fighting militant/extremist Islam (also known as Wahhabism).

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World

Because of a misunderstanding with another MacNN poster I believe it is necessary to ONCE again make it clear to all what the dynamics are re: Jihad and the threat it poses to America, Americans and the world.

What follows are a few excerpts from the third public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

There is much more information at the link.

I think after reading this information anyone who is truly in doubt as to the existence of a global Islamic based terrorist movement should be convinced.



We should stop being too politically correct to save our own way of life.

I think we all agree on the dynamics...but what we disagree about is the stakes.

Our way of life is in no danger...unless we end up in WWIII because your lot overreacts to this "clash of civilizations."

Your man Bushy already laid waste to Al Qaida, but what remains is a Muslim world gripped by ignorance and poverty. It's a massive, sprawling culture that has developed an inferiority complex.

The answer? Consumerism. Though it carries a lot of baggage, at least the West's anything-goes pop culture is peaceful--except for the gangster rap. If you're not sure what one has to do with the other, then stay tuned. When I get a chance, I'll explain.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I think we all agree on the dynamics...but what we disagree about is the stakes.

Our way of life is in no danger...unless we end up in WWIII because your lot overreacts to this "clash of civilizations."

Your man Bushy already laid waste to Al Qaida, but what remains is a Muslim world gripped by ignorance and poverty. It's a massive, sprawling culture that has developed an inferiority complex.

The answer? Consumerism. Though it carries a lot of baggage, at least the West's anything-goes pop culture is peaceful--except for the gangster rap. If you're not sure what one has to do with the other, then stay tuned. When I get a chance, I'll explain.

Your informed opinion is in direct opposition to the words of Saudi Islamist cleric Sheikh Dr. Nasser Al-'Omar.

"The Islamic Nation Now Faces a Great Phase of Jihad"

"The Islamic nation now faces a great phase of jihad, unlike anything we knew 50 years ago. Fifty years ago, jihad was attributed only to a few individuals in Palestine, and in some other Muslims areas. Following the events of Afghanistan, the nation has embraced jihad. Young and old, men and women - everyone is talking about jihad.

"Whoever is familiar with the Sunna and the Hadith knows that a battle against the enemies of Allah awaits on the horizon, in which the Muslims will be victorious. This is confirmed by the reliable hadiths, as well as by reality.

"But some young people wish to expedite this, and because of their love for jihad, get involved in things that are not jihad. As I've said, all these minor battles, which took place in certain Muslim countries, only delay the victory. This diverts the strife and calamity into the lands of the Muslims, instead of aiming them directly at the enemies.

"Yes, there are places where jihad is proper - in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, and the Philippines. There are many places where jihad is undoubtedly proper."

Al-'Omar in Al-Majd TV Interview, June 13, 2004

"America is collapsing from within. Where are America's principles of justice and democracy? Ask Sheikh Suleiman. Is America now, with its reputation and status, the same America of 30 years ago - the source of hope for many people?

"Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America."

[…]

"Today, America is defeated. I have no doubt, not even for a minute, that America is on its way to destruction. But as Ibn Khaldoun said, just as it takes decades for nations to rise, it takes them decades to collapse. They don't collapse overnight.

"Because Communist Russia opposed reality, it collapsed immediately. America may not collapse this way. It will be destroyed gradually. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...mp;ID=SP115406

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, the radical islamism strengthened itself through FUD and propaganda. You seem to be blaming it all on the US.

You are simply wrong here, and it's really surprising to me that you are rejecting and ignoring key historic findings, facts and developments.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Lets see these handbooks.

Sorry, but I don't have a copy at hand, but I have a link for you to read up on it:
washingtonpost.com: From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Again Islamic terorrism was going on well before the US was involved. You are simply wrong.

Since you are obviously not ready to make a distinction between Islam and islamic fundamentalism, and not between islamic fundamentalism and radical islamic fundamentalism, and not between radical islamic fundamentalism and extremistic islamic fundamentalism, I have to assume that you are dishonest.
Worse is though that you dishonestly create an argument, put in into my mouth and that trying to counterargue that created argument:
I have never said that the US invented radical islamistic ideologies, militancy, nor terrorism. I have claimed that the US deliberately cooperated with Saudi-Arabia (and Pakistan) to use what was there, to refine it, to support, strengthen and help it along to gain mainstream-appeal, even to the point of creating primary-schoolbooks centered on warfare and martyrdom, and to direct it against the Soviet-Union and communism, including US-training in guerillia-warfare, terrorism, psychological warfare and logistics/operation/independent raising of funds...

Sorry, Kev, but you are simply wrong to reject the considerable effect the US-campaign to defeat the Soviet-Union and to keep communists out of the middle-east, by instrumentalising radical Islamism.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

AGAIN The Us taught them how to fight off the Soviets and comminism. It did NOT teach it to lauch a grand scale war on non-muslims..

Well, but that's the point there was no difference between these, the US tapped into radical islamism for instrumentalisation to achieve the defeat of the Soviet-Union and the keeping out of communists from the middle-east, they did so by making clear that the Soviet-Union and communism were bend on converting the islamic world to atheism.

Radical Islamism is radical for a reason, because it only regards its own creed as being true to God's path, and all the rest are unbelievers that have to be fought. The US could direct that radical stance and fever against the Soviet-Union and communists, even secularists, which the US thought to be in danger of siding with the Soviet-Union once in power.


The US-intervention in the islamic world is not unique, Britain and France did it, too, when they were colonising the islamic world. Britain and France saw the threat of secularism gaining foot in the islamic world, democratic movements and developments that had the goal of indepence were forming, and so in order to counter the threat, the colonists supported radical islamism, that were strictly against democracy and secularism. Of course radical islamism was also for independence, but the british and french colonists figured that the threat of radical islamism against the rulers of colony was considerably weaker than the threat of modern secular movements, which was of course right, since radicalism had simply not the mainstream-appeal that secular movements had. The job radical islamists had to do was to denounce secular leaders of independence-movements as being apostates...

The US certainly learned from that history and decided to use that card, too. Israel by the way did similarly, in order to weaken the secular movement of the PLO in the occupied territories.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

By telling the truth? Nonesense. You don't seem too concerned with blaming everyone else but who is to fault.

Hmm, you are wrong again. Of course muslims are equally at fault for letting radical islamism gaining mainstream-appeal, and radical islamists are on their own responsible for their deeds and sayings/writings, but it's equally important to know the historic developments, who helped whom, for what and why. Just because I'm blaming the US for instrumentalising radical Islamism during the coldwar, I'm not saying that the islamic world is innocent. Everyone is responsible for his deeds, but since the guilt of the radical islamists is so obvious and the US-guilt is so less-known I had to do my part to make it known.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What a load of crap. You need to stop the scape - goating.

The first step to stoping radical islamics is to get to the root cause. And it's not America.

Try to pay attention to what I'm writing, not what you project into it.

Islamism is and was never an invention of the US, it had its own roots and ideological development during european colonialism of the islamic world, but the US supported it, strenghtened, helped it even along ideologically with the primary-schoolbook, trained it...


and through the US-instrumentalisation, ideological and political support for radical Islamism in the islamic world, in cooperation with Saudi-Arabia, helped radical Islamism gain mainstream-appeal!

This is fact, and it's time to acknowledge that.

By acknowledging that fact, I'm not nillifying the responsibility of the muslims, but merely providing a more complete picture of the development.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Logic is right, Kevin. Saudi Arabia was home to the bulk of the 9/11 attackers

This doesn't mean however that SA had anything to do with it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You are simply wrong here, and it's really surprising to me that you are rejecting and ignoring key historic findings, facts and developments.

Taliesin would you like me to post examples of such terrorism before the US existed? I can. Heck Islamic extremists was doing this back in mid-evil times.

America didn't even exist. They used the SAME excuses and reasons then as they do now.

Sorry, but I don't have a copy at hand, but I have a link for you to read up on it:
washingtonpost.com: From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad

Again America was trying to get them to ward off the Russians that were invading them and trying to take the over. If you want to fault America for this go right ahead.

They however weren't teaching them to launch world-wide attacks on innocent people. THAT is the doing of muslim extremists.

Since you are obviously not ready

Projection. A dishonest one at that. Leave this silliness at the door Tali.

to make a distinction between Islam and islamic fundamentalism, and not between islamic fundamentalism and radical islamic fundamentalism, and not between radical islamic fundamentalism and extremistic islamic fundamentalism, I have to assume that you are dishonest.

LOL! Now you are attempting to pull the semantic straw-man out of the closet. I differentiate between regular muslims and muslim extremists that attack innocent people. Yes indeed I do. On many occasion I have made such distinction. For you to think otherwise shows you simply aren't paying attention.

Worse is though that you dishonestly create an argument, put in into my mouth and that trying to counterargue that created argument:
I have never said that the US invented radical islamistic ideologies, militancy, nor terrorism. I have claimed that the US deliberately cooperated with Saudi-Arabia (and Pakistan) to use what was there, to refine it, to support, strengthen and help it along to gain mainstream-appeal, even to the point of creating primary-schoolbooks centered on warfare and martyrdom, and to direct it against the Soviet-Union and communism, including US-training in guerillia-warfare, terrorism, psychological warfare and logistics/operation/independent raising of funds...

And I never said that you claimed that the US invented such a thing. I am talking about your claim that the US somehow taught them how to be world-wide terrorists. And to do what they are doing now. Terrorizing the world.


AGAIN, if say I go into the Boy Scouts and they teach me to shoot a gun and make knots, is it their fault if I use that knowledge for evil? Of course not.


As far as the rest of your post. It's just more rambling Blaming the US instead of who is really at fault here.

But I understand your desire to "protect' Islam's name.

But scape-goating and blaming someone else doesn't help that.

[Helmling]

[QUOTE=marden;3210132]Your informed opinion is in direct opposition to the words of Saudi Islamist cleric Sheikh Dr. Nasser Al-'Omar.

QUOTE]

That's nice...I should care what he thinks now?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Taliesin would you like me to post examples of such terrorism before the US existed? I can. Heck Islamic extremists was doing this back in mid-evil times.
America didn't even exist. They used the SAME excuses and reasons then as they do now.

Really? Islamic extremists flew planes into the WTC in mid-evil times? They conducted suicide-bombings against civilians?
Sorry, Kev, but you are wrong, not about the existence of islamic extremists in older times, they were indeed there, and not about these using the tool of terrorism to make up for their lack of power, like the Assassins or the Karajites, which were prosecuted, condemned and defeated by the islamic empires back then by the way, but you are wrong in understanding what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that there were no extremists before the US intervened, but that the US legitmised their cause, methods and strenghtened their appeal among the mainstream, supported them ideologically, politically and military, through training in guerillia-warfare, terrorism and logistics/organisation.

To acknowleddge that fact is important, and yet does not lessen the guilt of radical islamists and their sympathisants, it merely completes the historic picture.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Again America was trying to get them to ward off the Russians that were invading them and trying to take the over. If you want to fault America for this go right ahead.

Really? You have no problem with the US encouraging militancy from civilians, even children?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

They however weren't teaching them to launch world-wide attacks on innocent people. THAT is the doing of muslim extremists.

What the US encouraged the radical islamists to do, was to do their thing, as long as it stopped intellectuals in the islamic world to flirt with communistic ideas, and as long as it killed off communists in the islamic world, innocent or not.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Projection. A dishonest one at that. Leave this silliness at the door Tali.

LOL, that coming from the master of dishonesty and projection.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

LOL! Now you are attempting to pull the semantic straw-man out of the closet. I differentiate between regular muslims and muslim extremists that attack innocent people. Yes indeed I do. On many occasion I have made such distinction. For you to think otherwise shows you simply aren't paying attention.

I believe you that you make that distinction, but then you should also express it in your language.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And I never said that you claimed that the US invented such a thing. I am talking about your claim that the US somehow taught them how to be world-wide terrorists. And to do what they are doing now. Terrorizing the world.

Yes, exactly, bingo, zing.
Here is a good webpage detailing it for you. If you read carefully, you will see that most of the religious terroristic groups started their activitiy at the end of the 70s and in the 80s:
frontline: target america: the evolution of islamic terrorism - an overview

But if you don't have the time to read a webpage, here is a short summary from that page:

Key Characteristics

The 1970s - Groups focus on material damage and limited attacks aimed at killing individuals while an increasing number of urban incidents, using lessons from guerrilla conflicts elsewhere, occur.

The 1980s - A distinct move toward urban-based attacks with a subsequent increase in collateral casualties as well as a change in targeting methodology; civilians become the target. Superpower conflict in Afghanistan becomes a formative period in the proliferation of weapons and emergence of militant, fundamentalist Islam.

The 1990s - The trend toward directly targeting civilians continues, and gains even greater currency as ethno-nationalist, religious, and religio-nationalist actors fill the void left by the demise or decrease in leftist organizations. The end of the Cold War and the creation of new states, the leaving of certain states in unstable or anarchic conditions, give impetus to the rise of a new set of extremists whose ideology or motivations allow, or even call for, indiscriminate targeting.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

AGAIN, if say I go into the Boy Scouts and they teach me to shoot a gun and make knots, is it their fault if I use that knowledge for evil? Of course not.

Funny analogy. But seriously, the point is not that the US merely taught some volunteers how to fight against the soviet-military in Afghanistan, the point is that the US saw it as a good idea to indoctrinate pupils in warfare, martyrhood.. using the ideology of radical islamism, to support the concept of teaching civilians, even children, in militancy on a big scale, for the purpose of creating a neverending stream of recruits willing to sacrifice their lifes in a guerillia-fight, that should demoralise the Soviet-army, and in effect also the Soviet-Union in itself, slowly but surely.
The CIA espescially taught the abc of urban warfare, ie. terrorism, psychological warfare, logistics and organisation, including the use of drug-traficcing and use of fake charity-organisations to generate funds.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As far as the rest of your post. It's just more rambling Blaming the US instead of who is really at fault here.

But I understand your desire to "protect' Islam's name.

But scape-goating and blaming someone else doesn't help that.

It was clear that the discussion would reach the point, where you would start to outright lie to make a point.

Let's see what I wrote right there in the posting you replied to:

Of course muslims are equally at fault for letting radical islamism gaining mainstream-appeal, and radical islamists are on their own responsible for their deeds and sayings/writings, but it's equally important to know the historic developments, who helped whom, for what and why. Just because I'm blaming the US for instrumentalising radical Islamism during the coldwar, I'm not saying that the islamic world is innocent. Everyone is responsible for his deeds, but since the guilt of the radical islamists is so obvious and the US-guilt is so less-known I had to do my part to make it known.

Protecting Islam's name? I have again and again said that Islam has a problem, that is in serious need to reform, and that radical Islamism is a threat that needs to be defeated by the muslims, and I have the hope that the islamic world uses the opportunity and challenge radical Islamism offers to complete the reformation of Islam.

After all despite US-instrumentalisation of radical Islamism and the strenghtening of it through the US, it is afterall muslims that are falling for radical islamism and sinning, so they carry the bulk of the guilt, it is muslims who show sympathy towards islamistic terrorists, and it is muslims who are apathic and have not yet stood up to confront radical islamism..

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Really? Islamic extremists flew planes into the WTC in mid-evil times? They conducted suicide-bombings against civilians?

WOW! no, not that at all. I am talking about the belief that they need to purge the world of those that don't believe in their Muslim beliefs .

THAT is the center of the problem. Nothing the US did started that. I am not going to play your semantics and blame-Shift game Taliesin.

The problem isn't their actions. The problem is what causes those actions.

And what causes those actions was NOT started by the US.

Quit using the US as a scape-goat.

Again just because someone teaches me to shoot, doesn't mean when I go in a shooting rampage, it is their fault.

Such beliefs that are causing terrorism are older than America itself.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

WOW! no, not that at all. I am talking about the belief that they need to purge the world of those that don't believe in their Muslim beliefs .

THAT is the center of the problem. Nothing the US did started that. I am not going to play your semantics and blame-Shift game Taliesin.

The problem isn't their actions. The problem is what causes those actions.

And what causes those actions was NOT started by the US.

Quit using the US as a scape-goat.

Again just because someone teaches me to shoot, doesn't mean when I go in a shooting rampage, it is their fault.

Such beliefs that are causing terrorism are older than America itself.

Have you even read my posting? Judging from your kneejerk- and substanceless reply you surely haven't, and oh, you are again wrong, so wrong:

It was none other than the christian religion and its earthly political maifestations that felt the urgent need to purge the world from those who didn't believe in their christian beliefs.

Stop projecting.

Taliesin

P.S.: Not that I don't enjoy my exchanges with you, but I will have to say bye, until monday or tuesday. Happy weekend.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Have you even read my posting?
Judging from your kneejerk and substanceless reply you surely haven't, and oh, you are again wrong, so wrong:

Yes see not too long ago I have decided to give up on the quote and post style posting on certain things and just signal in on the point. It takes away from the noise ratio.

And please don't just tell me I am wrong. Prove it So far the only thing you've done is blame-shift.

It was none other than the christian religion and its earthly political maifestations that felt the urgent need to purge the world from those who didn't believe in their christian beliefs.

Stop projecting.

Tali, Tali, Tali, while I am not apologizing for Rome's actions, their actions was a response to the Muslim's first crusade against anyone that wasn't Muslim.

They were attempting to push them back and to undo the harm they did.

It just went totally wrong. And both sides sucked.

But my point still stands. This belief reaches waay back before the US even existed.

You are simply wrong.

[marden]

[QUOTE=Helmling;3210729]

Originally Posted by marden 

Your informed opinion is in direct opposition to the words of Saudi Islamist cleric Sheikh Dr. Nasser Al-'Omar.

QUOTE]

That's nice...I should care what he thinks now?

Unless you are a jihadist, yes you should pay attention to what he says...if you want to speak on the subject and appear knowledgeable, that is.

[Helmling]

[QUOTE=marden;3210811]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Unless you are a jihadist, yes you should pay attention to what he says...if you want to speak on the subject and appear knowledgeable, that is.

You missed my point. You continually act as if we should react to their threats and their beliefs as if they are capable of what they say--even though they constantly make grandiose claims and threats, such as that Americans are drowning in their own blood in Iraq, which is needless to say just ridiculous--instead of responding to them in a measured and reasoned fashion, dealing with them logically. By that, I do not mean that we should try to reason with them or try to discuss things logically with them, but that we should use our own faculties to reason our own path toward defeating these maniacs that does not involve validating their psychotic delusions of grandeur.

[Kevin]

Not all their threats and beliefs are ridiculous. Some actually come to be.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You missed my point. You continually act as if we should react to their threats and their beliefs as if they are capable of what they say--even though they constantly make grandiose claims and threats, such as that Americans are drowning in their own blood in Iraq, which is needless to say just ridiculous--instead of responding to them in a measured and reasoned fashion, dealing with them logically. By that, I do not mean that we should try to reason with them or try to discuss things logically with them, but that we should use our own faculties to reason our own path toward defeating these maniacs that does not involve validating their psychotic delusions of grandeur.

Former Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu says the lesson of 1938 is clear.

If a mad man tells you he is going to kill you, take him at his word.

If you have a body of work that spells out what a group of people are to do to kill you and they say they are following the book, believe them.

Mein Kampf = My Struggle

Jihad = My Struggle

Disclaimer: There are non violent and wholly innocent & peaceful forms of jihad as well as the violent terrorist form. But colloquially the term jihad is commonly used to refer to violent acts that are part of radical Islamic terrorism.

Helmling, you seem limited in your imagination. You can't seem to fathom any way in which jihadists might cause havoc in America or cause harm to America or bring chaos to America or bring America to it's knees.

The enemy is not so limited in their ability to imagine.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

Former Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu says the lesson of 1938 is clear.

If a mad man tells you he is going to kill you, take him at his word.

If you have a body of work that spells out what a group of people are to do to kill you and they say they are following the book, believe them.

Mein Kampf = My Struggle

Jihad = My Struggle

Disclaimer: There are non violent and wholly innocent & peaceful forms of jihad as well as the violent terrorist form. But colloquially the term jihad is commonly used to refer to violent acts that are part of radical Islamic terrorism.

Helmling, you seem limited in your imagination. You can't seem to fathom any way in which jihadists might cause havoc in America or cause harm to America or bring chaos to America or bring America to it's knees.

The enemy is not so limited in their ability to imagine.

Marden, you seem limited in your faith in our way of life. If it is so fragile, perhaps it's not worth saving.

That said, and for the umptinth time, I'm not saying we should not take these people seriously. They obviously can cause havoc and they are obviously seriously intent on murdering people.

Your rhetoric, though, is premised on the belief that not only are they dangerous individuals who must be stopped (i.e. what I'm saying) but that the source of the peril they pose arises from their culture in such a way that our concern should be with that foundational culture, not only the murderous individuals and groups, and that because of this connection to a particular interpretation of their religion, they do indeed represent an imminent threat to our entire way of life.

What I am saying is that not only is that not the case, but that by reacting to the threat they do pose as if it is earth-shattering we reenforce not only their own perceptions of their own power, but the real cultural variables which sow the ground for their message to flourish in the Muslim world.

A reasoned response, as I am advocating, would focus on all elements of the problems and not have us take up the cause of crusade to fight their jiihad, thus legitimizing their entire world view.

To simplify: You're overreacting and in your overreaction you threaten to worsen the situation.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Marden, you seem limited in your faith in our way of life. It is so fragile, perhaps it's not worth saving.

That said, and for the umptinth time, I'm not saying we should not take these people seriously. They obviously can cause havoc and they are obviously seriously intent on murdering people.

Your rhetoric, though, is premised on the belief that not only are they dangerous individuals who must be stopped (i.e. what I'm saying) but that the source of the peril they pose arises from their culture in such a way that our concern should be with that foundational culture, not only the murderous individuals and groups, and that because of this connection to a particular interpretation of their religion, they do indeed represent an imminent threat to our entire way of life.

What I am saying is that not only is that not the case, but that by reacting to the threat they do pose as if it is earth-shattering we reenforce not only their own perceptions of their own power, but the real cultural variables which sow the ground for their message to flourish in the Muslim world.

A reasoned response, as I am advocating, would focus on all elements of the problems and not have us take up the cause of crusade to fight their jiihad, thus legitimizing their entire world view.

To simplify: You're overreacting and in your overreaction you threaten to worsen the situation.

Your position is silly, foolish and has no precedent to suggest it would possibly prevent a determined foe from harming America.

[Tuoder]

[QUOTE=marden;3211042]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Your position is silly, foolish and has no precedent to suggest it would possibly prevent a determined foe from harming America.

Lol, the way you quoted that it looked like you were contradicting yourself.

EDIT:and the error continues into my post.

EDIT 2: and the error goes further back than I initially noticed.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

Your position is silly, foolish and has no precedent to suggest it would possibly prevent a determined foe from harming America.

What, no "nanny nanny boo boo?" My position is silly? Can abe...er, marden, the champion of always being able to answer a post, even if he just posts exactly the same screed as before, really have this little to say?

No precedent? Perhaps you're right, perhaps there is no precedent from human history of people behaving rationally to deal with foreign affairs.

There is, however, ample precedent for your view of things: Israel's occupation of Palestine.

What does THAT precedent tell us? It tells us that disproportionate responses and a faith in overwhelming military might to suppress a cultural movement and dominate a people leads only to a cycle of mindless, unending violence. If that is where you want to take the world, I say, "no thank you."

Oh, and since we're on the subject of precedents: Has any ideology ever conquered the world...the way you're so afraid Islamo-fascism (or whatever scary name you guys are using this week) will?


P.S. I heartily invite you to try to cite the Nazis so that I can easily demonstrate the myriad of ways that Al Qaida 2001 is hell and gone from Hitler in 1938. But I'll politely wait while you make that obvious and deeply flawed historical comparison.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Lol, the way you quoted that it looked like you were contradicting yourself.

EDIT:and the error continues into my post.

EDIT 2: and the error goes further back than I initially noticed.

Yes, I've made a mess of things. I cut a link from the quote and accidently removed a bracket...woe be unto me, and all those who reply to me!

[swiftp]

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be. Some very well constructed arguments here and some blatent islamophbic statments. Leaving aside what the US Government has said (because governments are notoriously bad at getting things right - e.g. the threat from the Soviet Union), I pose only one question...

What makes Western leaders think that they (and consequently us poor sods who have to do the fighting) can win the 'war on terror'? In my limited historical knowledge no established well goverened country has ever won a guerilla war (e.g. Mau Mau; Boer War; Afganistan 1990s; Rhodesia/Zimbabwe the list goes on). The latest example is Northern Ireland which mysteriously got solved as soon as the US decided that it was against terrorism and THEN got solved by dialogue.

So, my view is that all if this hinges on Pallestine. Sort that out and the rest will fall into place. Engage with the 'enemy' in dialogue and progress will be made. Demonise a whole religion, especially one that has influencers that promote what in Christian terms is medeval rhtoric and there is only one outcome, more bloodshed. The USA at the moment is led by a Christian fundamentalist clique and the sooner 2008 comes around the better. I wish I could vote Bush out but I can't because I'm British. I just have to stand by and watch and hope America doesn't elect a dangerous President again!

Bring the flames on!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

What, no "nanny nanny boo boo?" My position is silly? Can abe...er, marden, the champion of always being able to answer a post, even if he just posts exactly the same screed as before, really have this little to say?

No precedent? Perhaps you're right, perhaps there is no precedent from human history of people behaving rationally to deal with foreign affairs.

There is, however, ample precedent for your view of things: Israel's occupation of Palestine.

What does THAT precedent tell us? It tells us that disproportionate responses and a faith in overwhelming military might to suppress a cultural movement and dominate a people leads only to a cycle of mindless, unending violence. If that is where you want to take the world, I say, "no thank you."

Oh, and since we're on the subject of precedents: Has any ideology ever conquered the world...the way you're so afraid Islamo-fascism (or whatever scary name you guys are using this week) will?


P.S. I heartily invite you to try to cite the Nazis so that I can easily demonstrate the myriad of ways that Al Qaida 2001 is hell and gone from Hitler in 1938. But I'll politely wait while you make that obvious and deeply flawed historical comparison.

No, silly boy. You have adopted an inarguable position, or perhaps more aptly, a position which insures never-ending debate. There is no way to prove you are right and no way to prove you are wrong.

That's a perfect metaphor for what some of your ilk stand for. Warm spit. Not a win. Not a loss.

I'll allow you to rest in your slime of a point of view and let history prove you wrong.

Or here's another metaphor, for anyone to debate the position you represent would be like intercourse without the possibility of ultimate satisfaction.

Some people LIKE that sort of thing. I can enjoy it only if there's the promise of a pay off. If you like that sort of thing, go ahead and knock yourself out. Good luck on finding someone who will indulge you.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

No, silly boy. You have adopted an inarguable position, or perhaps more aptly, a position which insures never-ending debate. There is no way to prove you are right and no way to prove you are wrong.

That's a perfect metaphor for what some of your ilk stand for. Warm spit. Not a win. Not a loss.

I'll allow you to rest in your slime of a point of view and let history prove you wrong.

Pot, meet the kettle...Kettle, this is the pot.

You know it's funny. I said nothing antagonistic to you whatsoever, and yet you get nasty for no apparent reason...or I guess, deep down you know the reason.

I think it's clear who can't prove his point.

[marden]

Originally Posted by swiftp 

What an interesting thread this has turned out to be. Some very well constructed arguments here and some blatent islamophbic statments. Leaving aside what the US Government has said (because governments are notoriously bad at getting things right - e.g. the threat from the Soviet Union), I pose only one question...

What makes Western leaders think that they (and consequently us poor sods who have to do the fighting) can win the 'war on terror'? In my limited historical knowledge no established well goverened country has ever won a guerilla war (e.g. Mau Mau; Boer War; Afganistan 1990s; Rhodesia/Zimbabwe the list goes on). The latest example is Northern Ireland which mysteriously got solved as soon as the US decided that it was against terrorism and THEN got solved by dialogue.

So, my view is that all if this hinges on Pallestine. Sort that out and the rest will fall into place. Engage with the 'enemy' in dialogue and progress will be made. Demonise a whole religion, especially one that has influencers that promote what in Christian terms is medeval rhtoric and there is only one outcome, more bloodshed. The USA at the moment is led by a Christian fundamentalist clique and the sooner 2008 comes around the better. I wish I could vote Bush out but I can't because I'm British. I just have to stand by and watch and hope America doesn't elect a dangerous President again!

Bring the flames on!

Negotiate?

Ok. Tell us, what do the jihadists want?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Pot, meet the kettle...Kettle, this is the pot.

You know it's funny. I said nothing antagonistic to you whatsoever, and yet you get nasty for no apparent reason...or I guess, deep down you know the reason.

I think it's clear who can't prove his point.

No, I think there are people who can play a game of verbal and literary sparring and not realize the possible effect it can have on unwary others. It's like a cancer. The thing that I don't like is that I have to act as a white cell to clean up your toxicity lest it spread to others.

It's a natural tendency for people to take the path of least resistance or to choose the easier path. That is what you offer. An easy path that would make it easier for the enemies of freedom to achieve their goals and harder for us to recover.

And even if we don't succumb to a concerted effort by those who have vowed to bring us down how much needless damage would be done, how many people would die because they preferred to believe an argument which suggested the threat of Global Jihad was all bogus?

Let's make it clear, I don't like your position at all. It helps the enemy. And you do it for either sport or intentionally knowing the slight disadvantage it would place us at.

Find someone else who is willing to give you an opportunity to broadcast your view.

[swiftp]

Originally Posted by marden 

Negotiate?

Ok. Tell us, what do the jihadists want?

Well you can climb a high horse and condem me for being an apologist but the plain fact is that almost evey conflict in human history has ended with a negotiated settlement. Of course there are a few exceptions but my view is that when there is a settlement in Palestine the sting will be taken out of the extreme cause. It won't make it better over night but it will help.

The devil is in the detail there though but while the west spends more time battering the muslim world and ostracising it then seeking a settlement in Palestine this situation will continue. Look at any footage of the Israili Defence forces, they use American side arms, American aircraft, American vehicles. People notice that. Once upon a time people said that Ireland couldn't be solved. It is not, but it is a lot better then 25 years ago. That is due to dialogue and courageous leadership by Clinton, Blair and Ahern et al.

Western leaders including the US (this is not a dig by the way) must realise the kinetic force and courage in the field does not solve the world's problems. This is not a movie but real life and in real life people sit and talk with the people they detest and work though it. This is the way this 'war' will end. I don't believe that the objective of muslim extremeists is to convert us all to the faith or kill us. Most muslims I know want a peaceful life but are appaled at the way their part of the world is treated by the west and I have to say, they have a point.

[marden]

Originally Posted by swiftp 

Well you can climb a high horse and condem me for being an apologist but the plain fact is that almost evey conflict in human history has ended with a negotiated settlement. Of course there are a few exceptions but my view is that when there is a settlement in Palestine the sting will be taken out of the extreme cause. It won't make it better over night but it will help.

The devil is in the detail there though but while the west spends more time battering the muslim world and ostracising it then seeking a settlement in Palestine this situation will continue. Look at any footage of the Israili Defence forces, they use American side arms, American aircraft, American vehicles. People notice that. Once upon a time people said that Ireland couldn't be solved. It is not, but it is a lot better then 25 years ago. That is due to dialogue and courageous leadership by Clinton, Blair and Ahern et al.

Western leaders including the US (this is not a dig by the way) must realise the kinetic force and courage in the field does not solve the world's problems. This is not a movie but real life and in real life people sit and talk with the people they detest and work though it. This is the way this 'war' will end. I don't believe that the objective of muslim extremeists is to convert us all to the faith or kill us. Most muslims I know want a peaceful life but are appaled at the way their part of the world is treated by the west and I have to say, they have a point.

I fully expect the wrath of the Christian fundamentalist world to come down upon my house now!

I asked you to tell us what they want. You don't know or don't want to say? Yet you have blind faith that negotiation is the answer and that the US simply doesn't want to negotiate?

Why don't you try researching the matter?

By the way, here is an excerpt from the Hamas Covenant of 1988. (Yes, it's the same Hamas that now rules Palestine.)

Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:

Article Thirteen:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

As far as the way the Middle East is treated by the West, you come into the situation without knowing the history and the people you come in contact with are naturally going to try to win you to their side.

You have been co-opted.

Once you understand the history and the part that the Palestinians have played in forcing the Israelis to do what they do and the west to adopt the position we have you will have a different opinion.

[VirtualRiot]

Logic? DId you change your name to Sayf-Allah?

[marden]

Anyone who wants a fun quick flash presentation of the Israeli Palestinian history or the bias against Israel or the real position of Hamas should check this out.

Concept Wizard - Info page

[swiftp]

Originally Posted by marden 

I asked you to tell us what they want. You don't know or don't want to say? Yet you have blind faith that negotiation is the answer and that the US simply doesn't want to negotiate?

Why don't you try researching the matter?

By the way, here is an excerpt from the Hamas Covenant of 1988. (Yes, it's the same Hamas that now rules Palestine.)



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

OK you can abuse me, you can quote and you can try to unermine my credibility (I did live in the Middle East by the way - but no matter), you can say that I need to do research but in the end, there will be a negotiated settlement. If force of arms doesn't work in a controlled environment like Ireland, it will not work on all of the planet. Palestine will be solved and this will end. I just hope it is in my lifetime.

Lets just hope that some sense will come into this and our western leaders do just that lead. Quoting a statement by Hamas doesn't do it, its akin to quoting the Real IRA, they are the ones that did Omagh. I know Hamas is the govenment of Palestine, they won because anybody had to de better then that buch of loosers 'led' by Arafat. Our leaders need to grab the mainstream and get the decent people in their side. That will come if they resist the temptation to beat up the muslim world at every opportunity.

From your side, sir, this is decending into abuse. There is no point in replying, my points are made and I now withdraw. If you are from the USA, just remember that you may hold the majority view there (and that is what we here are worried about) but here in Europe it looks different. If you are not, I apologise.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

No, I think there are people who can play a game of verbal and literary sparring and not realize the possible effect it can have on unwary others. It's like a cancer. The thing that I don't like is that I have to act as a white cell to clean up your toxicity lest it spread to others.

It's a natural tendency for people to take the path of least resistance or to choose the easier path. That is what you offer. An easy path that would make it easier for the enemies of freedom to achieve their goals and harder for us to recover.

And even if we don't succumb to a concerted effort by those who have vowed to bring us down how much needless damage would be done, how many people would die because they preferred to believe an argument which suggested the threat of Global Jihad was all bogus?

Let's make it clear, I don't like your position at all. It helps the enemy. And you do it for either sport or intentionally knowing the slight disadvantage it would place us at.

Find someone else who is willing to give you an opportunity to broadcast your view.

Find someone else who is willing...what're you talking about? We're on a message board, remember.

Your rhetoric--pointing to the Koran and citing the risk of a global jihad as threatening as Hitler's rise in the 30's--would have us declaring war on an entire culture. You believe this is necessary because, sorry to say, you see the world in simple, polar terms. You seem to have no sense of subtlety or of the complicated dynamics of history. Because you think history is simple, you think it can be mastered. You honestly believe that history will vindicate you, as if history has ever obeyed anyone's predictions so simply as to unequivocally validate a historical prediction!?!

Well, except for Iraq turning out (sadly) exactly the way people like me said it would, but honestly, I don't want to hold that against you now. That'd just be petty.

Seriously, when one side of a debate's predictions have already fallen apart--"we'll be greeted as liberators"--and the other side's predictions have pretty much unfolded as if we were writing the very script none of us wanted to see enacted, then shouldn't one side acquiesce to the other?

I mean, since the "convenient battlefield" of Iraq is not what stopped the recent attempt at a massive terror strike--one almost on par with 9/11 itself--but it was instead the kind of international law enforcement which some--like, oh, I don't know: me--advocated on the very night of September 11th, then doesn't that warrant some reevaluation?

When you've been wrong this much, don't you think it's implicit upon you to really evaluate the point of view that has led to such miscalculations? Now, I don't know what you position was before the war in Iraq, but the way you're able to swallow the rationalizations for it that have been thrown up since the WMD excuse fell apart, I'm betting you've been with the administration all the way, and if that's the case, then really, you need to take a look at yourself and ask:

If there's no rational reason for me to believe in this agenda, what psychological need am I fulfilling by casting the world in this light? Why do I want to believe this is the way it has to be, when it so clearly isn't?