What is the root of Islamic Terrorism?

[Iriemon]

I think the Germans after WWII had their national/cultural pride deeply wounded even more so than the Germans after WWI.
While you would argue that the Danish Cartoons were the root of the riots in the street, I would argue that the Islamic doctrine was at the root of the riots. When an Image of Jesus smeared in feces(or something like that) was displayed in a prominent art museum, Christians didnt riot in the street. I bet we could publish pictures of Mohammed smeared in feces and get the same reaction as the cartoons. Publish cartoons of Moses, Jesus, Buddah, or any religious figure with a bomb in their hat, and you wouldnt get riots. It wasnt the Danish cartoon that distinguishes the two situations, it was the religion.
And just because we might ge able to reduce the chances of riots in the street if we would only give up funny cartoons of religious prophets, it doesnt follow that we should give them up.

In your hypothesis, what is it about Islam that makes it particularly sensitive to slights?

 

[Iriemon]

No that would be mid 2005.

You are correct. I'm not sure why I put 1995, except maybe I was diverted about something someone wrote about Clinton.

Sorry the report shows a decline in support for terrorism, that totally contradicts your assertion that support for terrorism is increasing due to the Iraq war. End of story.

I have acknowledged it did amongst general Muslim populations, which puts the lie to claims that Islam the religion is the principal source of terrorism.

That does not indicate that US policy in Iraq is not fueling radicalism in populations, as found by the 16 US intellegence agencies making up the NIE, Saudi and Israeli intellegence agencies, and numerous other sources I cited. The Pew report did not purport to measure attitude towards the US, and I did not see anything in the report measuring attitudes towards the US in ME nations like Iraq and Iran.

But the report does state that among the broader measure of Islam that there is less support for terrorism, a surprising finding for the so-called religion of evil.

 

[Iriemon]

Sorry Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism including AQ.

Because the "Weekly Standard" and Freerepublic.com say so! LMAO!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Terrorists flock to the new battlefield we opened up in their back yard. And? That's the whole point of taking the fight to them. Zero terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.

This is a very disturbing statement. First of all it's almost saying that it's fine that over onehundredthousand Iraqies has died because no atacks has been made in the USA.

Also it's disturbing because you don't care that the terrorist threath against the west have increased. And even with the increased level of security sucefull terrorist atacks have been made like for example in UK and Spain. But I guess you only care if USA is atacked...

 

[Iriemon]

Terrorists flock to the new battlefield we opened up in their back yard. And? That's the whole point of taking the fight to them. Zero terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.

Sure to you everyone who objects to American foreign policy is a terrorist.

Helping Afghanistanis defeat the Soviet global conquest was not helping al Qaida, it was not helping terrorists, and it is not the same as Democrats needlessly forcing a humiliating defeat on the U.S. in Somalia, sharply increasing emboldened terrorist attacks against us.

You think the CIA funding and training didn't help him at all?

Al Qaida wasn't rapidly growing throughout the 1990s? There's this new thing called the 9/11 Commission Report. Perhaps you should read it.

You must be thinking of someone else regarding this point.

This statement doesn't even relate to the one it was responding to. And what Bin Laden objected to was the Saudis allowing us to station our troops there to defend Kuwait and the region, yes...

Thank you for supporting my point.

Tell the left to stop peddling PC, anti-U.S. excuses such as "it's hopeless poverty that drives Islamic terrorists" and I won't have to make such obvious statements clarifying that even doctors throw it all away to slaughter infidels, hence it is NOT hopeless poverty, but only Islam, drives the bloody ways of Islamic terrorists.

You must be thinking of someone else; I did not make the quoted statement.

However, the fallacy of your logic is attacking absolutes. The fact that some doctors were terrorists does not mean that poverty and strive are not factors that fuel radicalism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I acknowledged it did amongst general Muslim populations, which puts the lie to claims that Islam the religion is the principal source of terrorism.

No radical Islamism is the principal source of terrorism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Because the "Weekly Standard" and Freerepublic.com say so! LMAO!

No because the captured Iraqi documents say so.

 

[Iriemon]

No radical Islamism is the principal source of terrorism.

Yep. Not Islam. We agree.

 

[Iriemon]

No because the captured Iraqi documents say so.

So they claim.

 

[dixon76710]

But it also suggests that most Muslims do not view Islam as mandating terrorism.

Most Christians dont abstain from fornication or masturbation and the casting of their seed upon the ground. Doesnt change the doctrine. Simply demonstrates that not all adherents of religion, religiously follow the mandates of their religion. It is the Islamic Fundamentalist, the ones who believe that Islam requires that they adhere to all the mandates, that are causing the current problem.

 

[MSgt]

But if you are going to do that, then what is the basis for asserting that the US withdrawal from Somolia was a motivating factor in Al-Queda's targeting of America?

America's existence is the motivating factor. Our withdrawal from Somalia only gave them a sense of victory and weakened us in their eyes.

I.e. America supporting what they view as illegitimate regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Ah, yes. The "double standard" that is the Middle East. Khomeini - "this world [the United States] of unbelievers is the only serious force rivaling and preventing the devinely ordained spread and triumph of Islam." Angers of the Shah seem to just be a surface tool to be used to gather religious zealism. All those government we "support" in the Middle East are in their way. And as long as they refuse to give their extremists and fundamentalists control, they will always be "illegitimate."

2) They do not get the heat we get. No ****. Why do you suppose that is? Because we have attacked and occupied their lands based on freaking "mistakes".

So all this anti-Americanism started in 2003? That's a default BS reply. We didn't draw the lines on the map. We didn't align with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was one of the greatest voices for the creation of the new Israel while America remained uneasy about it. Primary military resources for Israel came from Euope, namely France, until 1967 when America got involved. The Soviet Union slaughtered and brutally oppressed Muslims in the north and was influencing Egypt's government. The Muslim response to the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan was barely noticed. Islamic warriors from all over went to "defend Islam," but it was the American government that pulled it all together. Were it not for America's involvement in the Middle East against the Soviet Union, parts of the desert would have shared Poland's fate. America gets absolutely no credit for defending Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. The British left Egypt, the French left Algeria, both left their Arab possessions, the monarchies were overthrown in Iraq and in Egypt, the westernizing shah of Iran, the Western oil companies relinquished control of the oil wells that they had discovered and developed, and contented themselves with the best arrangements they could make with the governments of these countries-yet the generalized resentment of the fundamentalists and other extremists against the West, namely America, remains and grows and is not appeased.

Their complaints against America is purely religious, despite their double standard scapegoating and their hypocritical responses to what they perceive as insult.

Other countries don't get the heat we get, because of what we stand for and our cultural threat to their fundamentalisms. It all began with Germany, Russia, and Sayid Qutb's writings about America which is the inspiration behind Islamic organizations all over the region.

Gysgt's partisan opinion versus:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/613547-post283.html

Opinion? Still don't know much about the Middle East do you? I fail to see where you are addressing the root problem here. I see a bunch of simpleton answers to complex issues.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yep. Not Islam. We agree.

So you agree that it is not what they experience but rather what they are taught to believe?

 

[Iriemon]

Most Christians dont abstain from fornication or masturbation and the casting of their seed upon the ground. Doesnt change the doctrine. Simply demonstrates that not all adherents of religion, religiously follow the mandates of their religion. It is the Islamic Fundamentalist, the ones who believe that Islam requires that they adhere to all the mandates, that are causing the current problem.

Then our goal should be to discourage folks from embracing fundamentalism.

 

[MSgt]

Then why haven't the Jews in Iran and the Christians in Iraq been slaughtered over the centuries, if this is the reason for the current violence.

because it is also a Muslim law, according to the Hadiths, to respect all individual who have experienced contact with God through other religions. Non-Muslims within Muslim governments were not slaughtered, but they were subjected to taxes and other "second-citizen" laws.

The slaughtering of non-Muslims occurred in territories not under Muslim governance.

Why have terrorists attacks worldwide exploded from a low of 200 in 2003 to over 14,000 last year.

Al-Queda's third phase is in motion.

You reckon that most Muslims just figured out in the last couple years they are supposed to be violent?

They have always known their laws according to their religion. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have merely given them their venue in which to guarantee devine favor.

 

[MSgt]

Then our goal should be to discourage folks from embracing fundamentalism.

You mean like supporting individuals who try to push fundamentalism aside? Apparantly, we get chastized for that too.

 

[Iriemon]

America's existence is the motivating factor. Our withdrawal from Somalia only gave them a sense of victory and weakened us in their eyes.

How do you know that?

Ah, yes. The "double standard" that is the Middle East. Khomeini - "this world [the United States] of unbelievers is the only serious force rivaling and preventing the devinely ordained spread and triumph of Islam." Angers of the Shah seem to just be a surface tool to be used to gather religious zealism. All those government we "support" in the Middle East are in their way. And as long as they refuse to give their extremists and fundamentalists control, they will always be "illegitimate."

You constantly overlook the huge overridign difference.

Khomeini was the guy "they" put in. The Shah was the guy "we" put in.

I don't like Bush much, but he's the guy we put in. If some foreign nation took him out and put in someone else in a coup, I'd be up in arms against him regardless of his stripes.

So all this anti-Americanism started in 2003? ...

Of course not. That's a straw man. But US policy in the past 6 years and certainly in Iraq has coincided with an explosion of terrorism and anti-US radicalism, which is no coincidence.

Their complaints against America is purely religious, despite their double standard scapegoating and their hypocritical responses to what they perceive as insult.

Sure, religion is part of their culture.

But if is was solely a relgious issue, you would find anti-American sentiment to be consistent thoughout Islam. But that is not true. America is popular in Kuwait but unpopular in Iran.

How come, if it is "purely religious" -- they are all Muslims.

Other countries don't get the heat we get, because of what we stand for and our cultural threat to their fundamentalisms. It all began with Germany, Russia, and Sayid Qutb's writings about America which is the inspiration behind Islamic organizations all over the region.

Other countries have gotten the heat. Britain, Spain, more recently and others before. The US more lately, but look at US policy of the past 6 years and the answer is obvious.

Opinion? Still don't know much about the Middle East do you? I fail to see where you are addressing the root problem here. I see a bunch of simpleton answers to complex issues.

That is your opinion.

 

[Iriemon]

You mean like supporting individuals who try to push fundamentalism aside? Apparantly, we get chastized for that too.

When we do it in a way that increases support for radicalism in is contra to our own interests.

 

[Iriemon]

So you agree that it is not what they experience but rather what they are taught to believe?

Who is they? Anti-American radicals? Of course their experiences matter! That is true for everybody.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Who is they? Anti-American radicals? Of course their experiences matter! That is true for everybody.

Umm no radical Islamists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe.

 

[Iriemon]

because it is also a Muslim law, according to the Hadiths, to respect all individual who have experienced contact with God through other religions. Non-Muslims within Muslim governments were not slaughtered, but they were subjected to taxes and other "second-citizen" laws.

The slaughtering of non-Muslims occurred in territories not under Muslim governance.

We share the same position in response to Prezken's comment.

Al-Queda's third phase is in motion.

LOL - what a coincidence! 2003 was the lowest level of worldwide terrorist attacks in years, yet the AQ "third phase" exactly coincided with the US invasion of Iraq.

It appears the attack on Iraq and the resulting jihad is exactly what AQ needed to do it's 3d phase.

They have always known their laws according to their religion. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have merely given them their venue in which to guarantee devine favor.

Maybe we should stop doing things that help them attain their goals and start doing things that help attain our goals.

 

[Iriemon]

Umm no radical Islamists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe.

And they believe that an infidel nation has illegitimately attacked and indefinitely occupied Iraq and that it is their duty to defend their lands from the infidel attackers.

Unfortuneately, because of "mistakes" by the neocons and Bush Administration, their belief in this regard has a lot of evidentiary support.

 

[dixon76710]

Then our goal should be to discourage folks from embracing fundamentalism.

Seems that most of you get your panties all knotted up when anyone is even critcal of the Islamic, fundamentalist doctrine.

 

[Iriemon]

Perfectly reasonable.

One difference between religious fundamentalist whackos here in the USA and religious fundamentalist whackos who are terrorists is that those in the USA in most cases (if not all) do not kill people to make a point......

They do (witness abortion doctor murders, for example) though not to the same extent as is happening in the ME. There are other factors at play.

I am not sure that I agree on this being one of the major reasons behind terrorism, if that is what you meant.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Hmm, this makes a certain amount of sense. If I were them, however, I would help build up Iraq to eliminate the need for US troops, and to show that they have the pride in their country to protect it.......instead they are attacking Iraq and the US troops (or at least someone is).

That would be nice, however, I image that many associate the Iraqi Govt with the US, defeating the objective.

I disagree with this statement. Whose perspective do you refer too? Surely you don't think Muslims in the area as a bloc think the attack on Iraq was a bad idea. Because even though I have no real knowledge of the exact situation, I guarantee there are portions who think it was a good idea.

IMO, it is obvious that many or most Muslims object to infidels attacking and occupying their holy lands.

I dislike the term "occupation". I have many a time heard it used to reference US troops in Iraq, and I personally take exception to it. I feel that they are there to help protect Iraqis, not to occupy their country. If protecting them requires placement of troops in the area, it only makes sense.

I'm guessing many Iraqis would disagree with you.

So what do you suggest instead of that which is currently occurring?

Fundamentally, we need to consider the perceptions created by our actions and whether they will encourage anti-America radicalism or not, in line with the various characteristics outlined in my previous posts.

To begin to restore credibility, we have to pull out of Iraq. We have to acknowledge that our attack was a mistake, that we tried to set up a better govt for the Iraqis, but we need to do what we said we would do -- leave. Once a stable govt in Iraq is establish, we should offer to pay reparations for the damage our mistake has caused. That is the right thing to do when you make a mistake. And it will be a hell of a lot cheaper than maintaining an occupational army.

We also have to pick a date for leaving Afghanistan. We cannot be seen as intending to maintain a permanent occupational force in Muslim nations. If after 6 years we cannot set up a Govt that can stand on its own, we have failed and the mission is being counter-productive.

We need to return to objectivity regarding Israel. We support Israel if it is necessary, but we as a nation need to turn away from policies and statements that are blatantly partisan towards Israel to more objectivity. It will both reduce anti-American sentiment, and if the US is going to ever be effective as a mediator of problems there (like it did brokering the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt when Carter was pres and the Jordinian peace treaty when Clinton was pres) the US must have at least the objective appearance of impartiality.

We generally need to tone down the agressive rhetoric. Calling other nations evil is counter productive. Look at how we react to other nations calling us the "great satan." You don't think statements our leaders make have the same effect to them? Our nation is now seen as a bully and that is counterproductive to our objectives.

While we can maintain tought negotiations with nations like Iran and Syria, it is a mistake to not even engage them, particularly when they try to engage us. Iran has reached out to us privately and publicly, and this administration repeatedly rebuked those efforts. That makes us look unreasonable and arrogant. We are finally taking baby steps with Iran now, though it smells of desparation because of the way things are going in Iraq, but it is better than not.

We should put pressure on our purported allies like Saudi Arabia to increase human rights and decrease support for radicalists. This must be done very carefully at this time because our image is so tarnished.

We need to stand by things we stand for. I truly believe in the American ideals of liberty, democracy human rights, freedom and the rule of law, and that it is self evident that these ideals have inherent appeal and that these things will ultimately prevail over the forces of totalitarianism and intolerant fundamentalism. However, when America the purported representatives of these things acts in ways that are completely inconsistent with them, we are seen as hypocritical, and it undermines the persuasive power of the ideals we are supposedly fighting to promote.

We need to go after the hard core guys that want to hurt us, but our attacks must be specific on target. Ultimately we will win by reducing support for their radical agenda.

 

[Iriemon]

Seems that most of you get your panties all knotted up when anyone is even critcal of the Islamic, fundamentalist doctrine.

Not at all. I certainly disagree with a lot of fundamentalist positions. It may not seem that I am that critical because on any thread on the subject there are usually 20 other people who have piled on the issue already, and in such cases I generally don't see the value of making it 21.

I do get my panties in a knot when I see anyone making false statments or misrepresentations in an attempt to unfairly demonize Islam, or any other group for that matter.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And they believe that an infidel nation has illegitimately attacked and indefinitely occupied Iraq and that it is their duty to defend their lands from the infidel attackers.

lmfao, ya because we all know that the Iraq war started before 9-11. :roll: It has nothing to do with our foriegn policy and everything to do with theirs it has nothing to do with what we have done but with what they want.

Unfortuneately, because of "mistakes" by the neocons and Bush Administration, their belief in this regard has a lot of evidentiary support.

Spoken like a true western apologist for radical Islam.

"Yes, 'imperialism,' " he tells me. "The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe."

"...I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan. They are mere excuses.Algerian Muslim fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerian Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me that this was because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or American foreign policy?"...

"...Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."

"We're not talking about a fringe cult here," he tells me. "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world. It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."

"..."The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education....I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way. There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free. If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims -- and never poor Christians -- who become suicide bombers in Palestine."

Jihad Watch: "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world"