What is the root of Islamic Terrorism?

[Iriemon]

The truth is usually tenacious.

TOT = the truth?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No thatd be the US that was instrumental, as I said. The Soviets changed their position late on in order to sow unrest in the area and gain influence, but the real influence, as always, belonged to the US.

As the partition plan headed toward a vote in the UN General Assembly, U.S. officials applied pressure to--and even threatened to withhold promised aid from--countries inclined to vote against the resolution. As former under-secretary of state Sumner Welles put it:

"By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured."

also,

Eddie Jacobson recorded in his diary that Truman told him that 'Truman and Truman alone, was responsible for swinging the vote of several delegations.'

and in the end Evan M. Wilson, then assistant chief of the State Department's Division of Near Eastern Affairs even wrote;
"It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947-48 when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned".

You're hated for very good reasons, even your statemen admit it. Deal with it.

Bla bla bla, the Soviets supported the partition plan, the U.S. reneged its support by 1948.

Dont know of the US ever overthrowing the Shah, quite the opposite in fact. :lol:

Sorry but it was Mossadeq was the tyrant.

 

[Iriemon]

You seem to have missed the glaring distinction between a prophecy, and a commandment that must be fulfilled, before a prophecy will come about.

Could be. Let me guess the commandment. Muslims must kill all Jews?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

TOT = the truth?

Everything I staded was factual.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your argument is based on misquoting what I said:

PS - it is a common but false belief to imply that Hussein was an ally of Islamic fundamentalism.

He may have had some fundamentalists allies. But he was not an Islamist in the Al-Queda type camp. That was my point.

PS: For the record, other quotations in your post are not mine. I'd ask you to please not attribute statements to others as my quotes. Thank you.

The point is that after the Gulf War he began aligning with the Islamists whether he did this because he believed in their cause or because they had the same enemies is inconsequential to the point.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

According to Wiki, Yasin is an American citizen. Take your sarcasm up with them. But I said I gave you credit for him.

An American citizen of Iraqi origin, who was given safe haven and a salary by the Saddam government after he helped conduct a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

 

[DivineComedy]

Were it only so that all Christians focused on the sermon of the mount and not the old testament stuff.

Just out of curiousity, as a Christian, and given your views on Islam, what do you think the US policy should be towards Islam?

If only Islam could focus on this:

“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (LEVITICUS 19:33-34)

I don’t think the US can have a policy towards Islam except with regard to immigration, and unless We the People want an Islamic State in the United States, we should prevent Muslims from immigrating here.

Immigration is not a human right, last time I checked only commies believe anybody and his brother should have the right to crash on a “liberal” couch regardless of whether the owner of the couch likes it are not. Eminent domain either means something or it does not.

Any religion can be dangerous to freedom, so if you want to keep freedom you better accept the irrefutable fact that belief limited in your home keeps you alive. This nation is our home. The cannibal belief is not a good house guest for dinner, as you might end up in the pot.

Once a Muslim is here, whether or not people must wear clothes is left to the states, so should the veil, religion is a state matter not a federal one, and we should establish religion (the “liberals“ will now panic). Establish this is not the word of God:

“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

A Christian policy with regard to Muslims should be one of treating them like we would want ourselves to be treated, the rule of law, the golden rule, when in Rome do as the Romans do, if we want our state let them have theirs (over there), being treated like we want to be treated even when we break the law (not assuming the “liberal“ would rather have the police sit outside and wait for the crazy murderer to finish raping and murdering the whole family out of fear that one innocent might die in the assault); no bombs blowing up civilian status.

All Jews are not alike, just like all Muslims are not alike, just like all Christian fundamentalists are not alike. I leave the judgment to God as to who is going to heaven or getting frozen on the event horizon of the ninth level of hell, but I don’t believe a Christian racist can go to heaven if they believe that Judgment day will not come until they fight and kill the Arabs. {obviously you do NOT get it}

Long before Iraq, someone who told me they never voted for anything other than a Democrat, someone who said they were a liberal once said this:

“Anyone who wants to crush Islamic fundamentalism. I'll be honest, I support that too. Not because I despise Islam, but because fundamentalists of all faiths are fanatics and followers of mumbo jumbo. Even that is not cause. What is cause is their own gleeful participation in murder and mayhem.”

Isn’t that a bigoted statement? Well, I don’t trust Islam, I don’t trust anything that says I can’t understand it if I don’t learn a foreign language like Latin or whatever, I don’t trust their numerous interpretations to me of their Holy Book, if that is bigoted in “liberal“ eyes, so be it.

Our policy toward Islam should be, you live over there, we live over here, and you can visit if your civilian clothes actually mean that you are a civilian.

 

[The Mark]

Hmm, if my observations are correct, this debate might be getting a little off target.
Note: In the below post, I am 90% certain that my information is correct, but feel free to correct me if you notice something factually wrong.

So far, it seems there are several points of view, at least from looking at the poll:
The root of Islamic Terrorism is:

1. U.S. Foreign Policy 31 42.47%
2. What they Believe 34 46.58%
3. Other 8 10.96%

Voters: 73.

I would guess that there are at least 5 sub-points of view in each option, if not more.

Let us explore the options:
Option 1: U.S. Foreign Policy.
Approximately half of those who answered this poll believe this or something in majority related to it is correct.
They are all wrong. I think few will argue that it has not contributed to the anger towards us in some cases, but it is not the main root.
Option 2: What they Believe.
This is correct. Terrorists believe that their god is perfectly fine with them killing themselves to kill others, or just killing others, to advance a particular agenda (in some cases, a holy agenda). That is one of the overall beliefs that they have. Perhaps the only one. From that point they branch off into different portions depending on the following, among other things:

• Denomination of Islam.
• Geographic area.

In some cases, a group contains multiple denominations of Islam, or people from multiple geographic areas.
In some cases, a group would be perfectly willing to fight another group, due to denomination of Islam of geographic area. Sometimes this happens. Mostly they don't kill each other off. Some is happening in Iraq though, I think. Sunni terrorists fighting Shia terrorists. Old, old conflict. Goes back to the founding of their religion. An analogy would be that the Shia believe in a Christ-type person, including that he will come back and set things into their correct places. An analogy regarding the Sunni would be that they are like the Jews, in that they don't believe in this person.
The analogy breaks down in that it was the Sunni who have been persecuting the Shia for hundreds of years, much like Christians persecuted Jews for awhile.....just that it's the other way around.

At any rate, from what I know, terrorism has its roots in the Islamic religion, mainly in various offshoots of it which have become more radical the farther they get from the main religion.

Some have claimed that this radicalism is based in the core of Islam, but I have yet to see proof of this. Perhaps with time I shall agree. Or not.

 

[EAGLE1]

Bla bla bla, the Soviets supported the partition plan, the U.S. reneged its support by 1948.

Bla bla yourself. Typical boorish behaviour from our resident forum bully. Anyway, as Ive demonstrated the US was instrumental. Feel free to prove it aint so or argue about something else.

Sorry but it was Mossadeq was the tyrant.

What do you call an absolute Monarch if not a tyrant? Mossadeq had more support than anyone before or since. Feel free to prove it aint so.

 

[EAGLE1]

Hmm, if my observations are correct, this debate might be getting a little off target.
Note: In the below post, I am 90% certain that my information is correct, but feel free to correct me if you notice something factually wrong.

So far, it seems there are several points of view, at least from looking at the poll:
The root of Islamic Terrorism is:

1. U.S. Foreign Policy 31 42.47%
2. What they Believe 34 46.58%
3. Other 8 10.96%

Voters: 73.

I would guess that there are at least 5 sub-points of view in each option, if not more.

Let us explore the options:
Option 1: U.S. Foreign Policy.
Approximately half of those who answered this poll believe this or something in majority related to it is correct.
They are all wrong. I think few will argue that it has not contributed to the anger towards us in some cases, but it is not the main root.
Option 2: What they Believe.
This is correct. Terrorists believe that their god is perfectly fine with them killing themselves to kill others, or just killing others, to advance a particular agenda (in some cases, a holy agenda). That is one of the overall beliefs that they have. Perhaps the only one. From that point they branch off into different portions depending on the following, among other things:

• Denomination of Islam.
• Geographic area.

In some cases, a group contains multiple denominations of Islam, or people from multiple geographic areas.
In some cases, a group would be perfectly willing to fight another group, due to denomination of Islam of geographic area. Sometimes this happens. Mostly they don't kill each other off. Some is happening in Iraq though, I think. Sunni terrorists fighting Shia terrorists. Old, old conflict. Goes back to the founding of their religion. An analogy would be that the Shia believe in a Christ-type person, including that he will come back and set things into their correct places. An analogy regarding the Sunni would be that they are like the Jews, in that they don't believe in this person.
The analogy breaks down in that it was the Sunni who have been persecuting the Shia for hundreds of years, much like Christians persecuted Jews for awhile.....just that it's the other way around.

At any rate, from what I know, terrorism has its roots in the Islamic religion, mainly in various offshoots of it which have become more radical the farther they get from the main religion.

Some have claimed that this radicalism is based in the core of Islam, but I have yet to see proof of this. Perhaps with time I shall agree. Or not.

Terrorism per se is not born from Islam but the human condition itself, as is demonstrated by its numerous apearances across the globe and through history even before the advent of Islam.

Islamic terrorism, like all non state terrorism, is born of a particular grievance of a particular group. The grievance is that Muslims are being attacked, undermined or denigrated across their lands. Where 'their' lands is exactly, is obviously a nebulous concept, but it is taken to mean either muslim countries or non-muslim countries with a large muslim population.
Start removing the grievances, or the perception of the grievances, and the terrorism withers and dies as the radicals obtain fewer and fewer followers as a few specially quoted verses of the Quran and Hadith are not enough to sustain a worldwide campaign without the specific grievances to feed the fire.

 

[black wolf]

Terrorism per se is not born from Islam but the human condition itself, as is demonstrated by its numerous apearances across the globe and through history even before the advent of Islam.

Islamic terrorism, like all non state terrorism, is born of a particular grievance of a particular group. The grievance is that Muslims are being attacked, undermined or denigrated across their lands. *snip*
Start removing the grievances, or the perception of the grievances, and the terrorism withers and dies as the radicals obtain fewer and fewer followers as a few specially quoted verses of the Quran and Hadith are not enough to sustain a worldwide campaign without the specific grievances to feed the fire.

Extremist preachers are happy to construct perceptions of victimization among their followers. They make their gullible listeners believe that they are under attack and oppression everywhere (the Christian fundamentalists use the exact same strategy in the US). The trick is to make some weak-minded follower commit an unlawful act and then brand the punishment as oppression. Brainwash a young man to the point that he murders a writer or filmmaker, or plant a bomb, and then condemn subsequent searches and arrests as harassment. As long as you get to keep your pamphlets and are still allowed to incite hate, all is well for you. More will flock to your cause, fill up your sermons and rallies.
Real, reasonable grievances are not even needed. As long as you can make them believe you are delivering divine revelations and holy scriptures, you can tell them how to feel and how to act. "If you can make them believe the biggest lie, you can make them believe anything".

 

[Iriemon]

The point is that after the Gulf War he began aligning with the Islamists whether he did this because he believed in their cause or because they had the same enemies is inconsequential to the point.

Yes, we've seen your repeatedly posted Weekly Standard - FreeRepublic "evidence", every other government agency conclusion to the opposite notwithstanding.

 

[Iriemon]

An American citizen of Iraqi origin, who was given safe haven and a salary by the Saddam government after he helped conduct a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Thank you for sharing that inaccurate but irrelevant point.

 

[Iriemon]

If only Islam could focus on this:

“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (LEVITICUS 19:33-34)

I don’t think the US can have a policy towards Islam except with regard to immigration, and unless We the People want an Islamic State in the United States, we should prevent Muslims from immigrating here.

Immigration is not a human right, last time I checked only commies believe anybody and his brother should have the right to crash on a “liberal” couch regardless of whether the owner of the couch likes it are not. Eminent domain either means something or it does not.
...

OK, based on your beliefs about Islam you would modify the first amendment to permit religious discrimination and impose a religious based discrimination against Muslims.

Is that why you brought up the issue of "someone being a member of a racial or ethnic group" in post #711?

 

[dixon76710]

Yes, we've seen your repeatedly posted Weekly Standard - FreeRepublic "evidence", every other government agency conclusion to the opposite notwithstanding.

Oooh, no government agency has concluded otherwise.

 

[dixon76710]

OK, based on your beliefs about Islam you would modify the first amendment to permit religious discrimination and impose a religious based discrimination against Muslims.

Is that why you brought up the issue of "someone being a member of a racial or ethnic group" in post #711?

1st Amendment rights are rights of Americans, not those who wish to become American. No modification needed.

 

[dixon76710]

Thank you for sharing that inaccurate but irrelevant point.

Just what do you think is innaccurate? And you still have not presented anythin to refute the claim that he is an Iraqi or, anythin to support your assertion that he was not an Iraqi citizen.

 

[DivineComedy]

OK, based on your beliefs about Islam you would modify the first amendment to permit religious discrimination and impose a religious based discrimination against Muslims.

Is that why you brought up the issue of "someone being a member of a racial or ethnic group" in post #711?

There is no need to modify the First Amendment, the Congress has every right “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,“ and as Dixon pointed out the First Amendment applies to the “the right of the people,” so an immigration policy restricting Muslim Immigrants from naturalization is no different than the original intent of the term “uniform” establishing a rule like for only letting in free whites of good character.

This may or may not be current:

“current law prohibits discrimination in naturalization on the basis of race, sex, or marital status” Congress and the Naturalization of Immigrants

Religion is belief, of which loyalty and adherence to the laws of the land may be affected by a Pontif or Ayatollah. Consider the Abortion debate, what if the Pope threatened excommunication to anyone that suffered a witch or an abortion doctor to live, certainly a “liberal” society of baby killers would want to limit immigration of such a threat to the peace. {don’t panic, the language is just for emotion}

Also to elaborate further, the first word of the First Amendment is “Congress,” the word “Congress” is defined in Article 1 Section 1, and the States have “legislatures“ which may or may not be like the U.S. Congress:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

“Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.”

List of U.S. state legislatures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denying to a State the right to the establishment of religion and the prohibiting of the free exercise thereof, and everything that goes with that, means that any pedophile (with a pedophile religion) could go naked to a little league game and have sex with a consenting child, and then publish the account in something like Larry Flint‘s rag, which could be sold anywhere without a covering of the offending stuff, and Pedophiles could assemble for public meetings in public with children etc. The Pedophiles under the Constitution could still go to Washington DC and petition the government for a redress of any grievances and most likely could even do their thing if the majority of Congress were Pedophiles, and that is the reason the District of Columbia is NOT a state; should a majority of States become Islamic in this country, the veil could be required in DC. Let’s not even get into incest, which removing the word “Congress“ from the First Amendment would force States to accept the long necked consequences:

“O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.”

*****

“Any United States citizen that deliberately (without mistake) punched that button claiming U.S. Foreign Policy is the root of Islamic Terrorism is a traitor and or ignorant, and or mentally challenged, and or a bigot;”

That is not a bigoted statement if so much as one Muslim terrorist can have a root cause for terrorism other than U.S. Foreign Policy, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. The mentally sufficient patriot that claims U.S. Foreign policy is the root of Islamic Terrorism, they have rejected other views, such as the view that a Muslim terrorist can have another root cause, I on the other hand I can accept other views, such as a U.S. Foreign Policy could be the root cause for a specific individual response in kind.

Definition of “in kind” = a civilian disguised KKK blows up a black church, we send in a civilian disguised FBI to infiltrate the KKK. Still “in kind” would be immoral if we use the civilian disguised FBI to blow up a KKK church; the use of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare puts all civilians in jeopardy thereby making it immoral even if the other guy does it. Several years ago the “Red Dog” squad in Atlanta used an ambulance to facilitate a raid, and I was taking a class with an ambulance driver who told me of his peril when his ambulance was attacked.

Example of similar bigotry to the bigoted claim that U.S. Foreign Policy is the root of Islamic Terrorism:

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the root of the existence of the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

NAACP - About the NAACP

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Freedom of Information Privacy Act

To claim that the NAACP is the root of the NAAWP is bigotry as it rejects that racism could be the root cause of the founding of the NAAWP.

David Duke is prosecuted for a crime. “Just because that individual may be a member of a racial or ethnic group does not make a bigot out of their prosecutor.”

I brought up the issue of "someone being a member of a racial or ethnic group," because of your claim that “This is something a bigot would write“:

“Any United States citizen that deliberately (without mistake) punched that button claiming U.S. Foreign Policy is the root of Islamic Terrorism is a traitor and or ignorant, and or mentally challenged, and or a bigot. {period}”

Those who punched that button claiming U.S. Foreign Policy is the root of Islamic Terrorism, that now go on record in this topic admitting they were wrong, and the poll reflects that change, they instantly are no longer possible bigots “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

 

[EAGLE1]

Extremist preachers are happy to construct perceptions of victimization among their followers. They make their gullible listeners believe that they are under attack and oppression everywhere (the Christian fundamentalists use the exact same strategy in the US). The trick is to make some weak-minded follower commit an unlawful act and then brand the punishment as oppression. Brainwash a young man to the point that he murders a writer or filmmaker, or plant a bomb, and then condemn subsequent searches and arrests as harassment. As long as you get to keep your pamphlets and are still allowed to incite hate, all is well for you. More will flock to your cause, fill up your sermons and rallies.
Real, reasonable grievances are not even needed. As long as you can make them believe you are delivering divine revelations and holy scriptures, you can tell them how to feel and how to act. "If you can make them believe the biggest lie, you can make them believe anything".

I see where your coming from. However, extreme preachers are so many in the ME that its not really extremism but more mainstream thought. The words of what we may think is extremism are also backed up by much of the realities on the ground, thus giving these 'extremists' more weight.
The problem is the solutions that the young unemployed over educated men are given to resolve these difficulties. Namely attack the West rather than overthrow their western supported governments, the real cause of their woes. But since the West is not interested in overthrowing governments like Saudi Arabia in case the population then votes for Islam the best thing for the west to do is reduce the tensions in the ME.

 

[AmericanOrator]

Wow, you are greatly naive if you believe they hate us because we are free and prosperous. True, the most extreme want a caliphate for Muslims in the Middle East, but they are not going to try to convert the entire world to Islam because they know it is impossible. They hate us and make it a priority to attack us because of our continuing policies in the Middle East. Now, it is a different question of whether we should and how much we should change are policies in the Middle East because it is vital to our economy and national security.

 

[Billo_Really]

Statements from some returning Iraqi war veteran's.

This is the straight dope on what it is like over there without any corporate media spin.

The War As We Saw It
By Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy
The New York Times Sunday 19 August 2007

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict - as we do now - will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Now I sit back and wonder how many posts will be uploaded before TOT starts his usual bullshit trashing of the men and women who served this country in Iraq. You see, in TOT's eyes, the only good soldiers are the ones who keep their mouths shut!

 

[dixon76710]

I see where your coming from. However, extreme preachers are so many in the ME that its not really extremism but more mainstream thought.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, we've seen your repeatedly posted Weekly Standard - FreeRepublic "evidence", every other government agency conclusion to the opposite notwithstanding.

A) The conclusions regarding Saddam's Islamist transformatino comes from Newsweek buddy.

B) My evidence of the relationship is DOCEX.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Thank you for sharing that inaccurate but irrelevant point.

That's not inaccurate he was given a salary and a House this has been corraborated by several witnesses and the only evidence that he was jailed is the word of the Baathist regime.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Statements from some returning Iraqi war veteran's.

This is the straight dope on what it is like over there without any corporate media spin.

Now I sit back and wonder how many posts will be uploaded before TOT starts his usual bullshit trashing of the men and women who served this country in Iraq. You see, in TOT's eyes, the only good soldiers are the ones who keep their mouths shut!

Sorry these guys have a pigeon hole view they can't see the big picture from their vantage point, which is why I'll wait for Patraes's report; furthermore, what the hell does this have to do with the subject at hand?