What is the root of Islamic Terrorism?

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Originally Posted by EAGLE1
I see where your coming from. However, extreme preachers are so many in the ME that its not really extremism but more mainstream thought.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
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?

That our occupation has excaserbated the terrorist problem.

How do you know their view is "pigeon holed"? From my view, their view, is a lot better than "your" view, when it comes to viewing Iraq.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

Sorry your assertions are not backed up by the facts, first of all the Islamists are not in the minority, Salafist Islam is the most common form throughout the ME, secondly if it was our foreign policy that created Islamist terrorists then we would be seeing the same phenomenon coming out of other regions of the world where our foreign policy has been far more aggressive and exploitive, Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with what we have done but rather what they are taught to believe and what they want. These Islamists are the inheritors to the Reich they have picked up where the Nazi's left off the only difference is that the Muslim world has been popping out Hitler Youth for the better part of the last century.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

The U.S. withdrew its support for the partition plan by 1948 and it was the Soviets not the U.S. who first recognized Israel's independence, end of story.

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.

It was a Constitutional Monarchy thank you very much.

 

[EAGLE1]

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Indeed, thank you for agreeing. Ill expand. These preachers who preach mainstream thought that Palestine must be defended, and the west repulsed. The Arab street looks to them and then looks to what is actually occurring and sees that much of what they say is true, so in some cases they assume that the solutions of the really really extremists are also true.
But just to flesh this out a bit, its not just preachers they get their ideas from but the debates across their airwaves and radio, the talk shows with experts and opinion formers. All the experts on air rightly agree that to some extent Palestine must be defended, and the west repulsed. Most preachers say this also. The truly radical preachers of the ME say that this must be done by terrorist/ insurgent action, the rest just encourage them to follow Islam and demonstrate on a regular basis, keeping their rage under the lid.

 

[Iriemon]

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

Not true.

...

 

[dixon76710]

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.

It is prophecized that they will be victorious.

several thousand Muslims gathered in front of the London Central Mosque to applaud fiery preachers prophesying the overthrow of the British government – a future vision that encompasses an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America.
"One day my dear Muslims," shouted Anjem Choudary, "Islam will govern Britain!" ..
"Brothers and sisters, make no mistake. Make no mistake. The British government, the queen, the MPs in this country, they are enemies to you, enemies to Allah and enemies to the Muslims." ...
"Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none." ...
"Of course," he replied, "we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam."
"One of the prophecies of the message of Muhammad was the hour will never come, i.e., the last day – which you also believe in – will never come until a group of the Muslims ? will rise and conquer the white house." ...
"There's nothing we can do to be friends?" Humphries asked.
Abu Saif replied: "There is something you can do to be friends. You can become Muslim."
WorldNetDaily: Muslims declare sovereignty over U.S., UK

 

[Iriemon]

Just what do you think is innaccurate?

TOT's statement, which was discussed in other threads and is irrelevant to this one.

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.

Dude, what are you obssessing about? I said I was aware of no Iraqis who had been involved in terrorist attacks. You brought up Yasin. Yasin was an American citizen but lived for years in Iraq. I said OK, I'll give you credit for that.

That is one "Iraqi" who has ever been involved in terrorist attacks, in 1993. That does not IMO make Iraq a hot bed of terrorism that justified attacking and invading 10 years later as part of the "war" on terrorism.

How many times are you going to bring it up?

 

[EAGLE1]

The U.S. withdrew its support for the partition plan by 1948 and it was the Soviets not the U.S. who first recognized Israel's independence, end of story.

Actually your right to an extent. The US did have second thoughts, unfortunately it was too late. Nevertheless, the on April 16 the United States formally proposed a temporary trusteeship instead. The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it having already gotten what they wanted.

The administration's trusteeship idea soon became academic. On May 14 the last British officials left Palestine, and that evening the Jewish state was proclaimed. Eleven minutes later, to the surprise of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, the United States announced its de facto recognition.

So again, as Wilson 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.

It was a Constitutional Monarchy thank you very much.

Constitutional Monarchs defer to their Parliaments. Furthermore while we're on the subject of the 1906 constitution, why not also point out that the shah could not legally remove the prime minister. Hell even the Americans were aware of this pseudo-legality as they duped the Shah into signing the decree removing Mossadegh from power.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not true.

...

How so not true?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

TOT's statement, which was discussed in other threads and is irrelevant to this one.

It was not ****ing inaccurate, what's inaccurate is the Baathist propaganda that you're shoving down are throats.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That our occupation has excaserbated the terrorist problem.

Where does it say that our occupation is the cause for radical Islamism, and/or Islamist terrorism?

How do you know their view is "pigeon holed"? From my view, their view, is a lot better than "your" view, when it comes to viewing Iraq.

Their vantage point is better than yours or mine but not better than the officers who are higher up, they can only see what's going on in their particular zone not the overall picture.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Indeed, thank you for agreeing. Ill expand. These preachers who preach mainstream thought that Palestine must be defended, and the west repulsed. The Arab street looks to them and then looks to what is actually occurring and sees that much of what they say is true, so in some cases they assume that the solutions of the really really extremists are also true.
But just to flesh this out a bit, its not just preachers they get their ideas from but the debates across their airwaves and radio, the talk shows with experts and opinion formers. All the experts on air rightly agree that to some extent Palestine must be defended, and the west repulsed. Most preachers say this also. The truly radical preachers of the ME say that this must be done by terrorist/ insurgent action, the rest just encourage them to follow Islam and demonstrate on a regular basis, keeping their rage under the lid.

Thank you for agreeing that it is what they are taught to believe at every level of society not anything that we or Israel has done.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually your right to an extent. The US did have second thoughts, unfortunately it was too late. Nevertheless, the on April 16 the United States formally proposed a temporary trusteeship instead. The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it having already gotten what they wanted.

The administration's trusteeship idea soon became academic. On May 14 the last British officials left Palestine, and that evening the Jewish state was proclaimed. Eleven minutes later, to the surprise of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, the United States announced its de facto recognition.

Who first recognized the indepence of Israel? Are you asserting that it was the U.S.? Umm no it was the Soviets.

So again, as Wilson 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.

Again we reneged on our support of the partition plan and it was the Soviets who first recognized Israel.

Constitutional Monarchs defer to their Parliaments. Furthermore while we're on the subject of the 1906 constitution, why not also point out that the shah could not legally remove the prime minister. Hell even the Americans were aware of this pseudo-legality as they duped the Shah into signing the decree removing Mossadegh from power.

You're a liar, it was the Shah's perogative to dismiss the Prime Minister according to their Constitution; furthermore, if the standard is deferring to the will of the Parliament than Mossadeq who dissolved the Parliament under a fraudulent referendum must be considered the tyrant, because the Shah never dissolved parliament.

 

[Iriemon]

There is no need to modify the First Amendment, ...

I saw nothing you cited that says the US Govt may discriminate on the basis of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....

That says pretty clearly to me that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Saying you cannot come into the country if you belief in Islam kind of does that to me.

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 ...

It is true that even consittutional rights must be interpreted so that their exercise is balanced against other rights.

“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.”

Interesting.

“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.

Point addressed earlier in the thread. It is a ridiculous application and when I asked you a question that presented the illogical conclusion of this position you could not respond to it.

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“:

I still fail to see the relevance of bringing up "being a member of a racial or ethnic group" because I asserted it was bigotry of you to claim that anyone who voted for option 1 was bigoted. What difference does "being a member of a racial or ethnic group" make?

 

[EAGLE1]

Thank you for agreeing that it is what they are taught to believe at every level of society not anything that we or Israel has done.

Nah, its the situation on the ground that backs up much of the opinion they receive, as Ive said.

 

[Iriemon]

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

B) My evidence of the relationship is DOCEX.

If anyone who wants to review debate about TOT's FreeRepublic, errr, "DOCEX" let me know and I'll refer the threads.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sorry your assertions are not backed up by the facts, first of all the Islamists are not in the minority, Salafist Islam is the most common form throughout the ME, secondly if it was our foreign policy that created Islamist terrorists then we would be seeing the same phenomenon coming out of other regions of the world where our foreign policy has been far more aggressive and exploitive, Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with what we have done but rather what they are taught to believe and what they want. These Islamists are the inheritors to the Reich they have picked up where the Nazi's left off the only difference is that the Muslim world has been popping out Hitler Youth for the better part of the last century.

AmericanOrator's statement is completely backed up by fact heavily supported by articles, investigations, reports by Saudi and Isreali intellegence, and the conclusions of the US intellengence community, the explosion of terrorism corresponding to the Iraq war, as well as common sense.

 

[dixon76710]

TOT's statement, which was discussed in other threads and is irrelevant to this one.

Dude, what are you obssessing about? I said I was aware of no Iraqis who had been involved in terrorist attacks. You brought up Yasin. Yasin was an American citizen but lived for years in Iraq. I said OK, I'll give you credit for that.

Dude! Your the one claiming he is not an Iraqi or an Iraqi citizen. He is an Iraqi and it is highly likely, having lived almost his entire life in Iraq, and having Iraqi born parents, he is also an Iraqi citizen. Your the one obsessing because he is CLEARLY an Iraqi and you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to base your claim that he isnt a citizen of Iraq, upon other than this pathetically desparate need to believe so.
The statement is correct in my opinion. The evidence for Iraqi payments and housing may not be overwhelming, but it all points in that direction. Do you dispute each and every element of his statement below, or just portions of it?

"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."

 

[Iriemon]

It was not ****ing inaccurate, what's inaccurate is the Baathist propaganda that you're shoving down are throats.

Your obvious bigotry aside, the issue has been discussed in other threads and is irrelevant to this one.

 

[EAGLE1]

Who first recognized the indepence of Israel? Are you asserting that it was the U.S.? Umm no it was the Soviets.

Feel free to disprove any of what Ive said. The US was instrumental, it changed its mind soon after the vote but it had already done quite enough.

You're a liar, it was the Shah's perogative to dismiss the Prime Minister according to their Constitution; furthermore, if the standard is deferring to the will of the Parliament than Mossadeq who dissolved the Parliament under a fraudulent referendum must be considered the tyrant, because the Shah never dissolved parliament.

How dare you call me a liar? Do you wish to take this down to the basement? You know by now how much I enjoy it there, so feel free to invite me.

If you wish instead to conduct proper debate then do so. Giving source and argument to disprove what Ive said. You say he's a constitutional monarch, I say he broke that constitution of 1906 so he's not. Perhaps you wish to cite another constitution? I may know the one you mean, if its that tell me what legitimacy this has?
If you cant or wont then refrain from calling me a liar or offer me proper quarter in the space reserved for abuse.

 

[Iriemon]

Dude! Your the one claiming he is not an Iraqi or an Iraqi citizen. He is an Iraqi and it is highly likely, having lived almost his entire life in Iraq, and having Iraqi born parents, he is also an Iraqi citizen.

Provide me a site that shows he is an Iraqi citizen, since you are claiming that.

I cited Wiki which stated he was an American citizen.

Your the one obsessing because he is CLEARLY an Iraqi and you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to base your claim that he isnt a citizen of Iraq, upon other than this pathetically desparate need to believe so.
The statement is correct in my opinion. The evidence for Iraqi payments and housing may not be overwhelming, but it all points in that direction. Do you dispute each and every element of his statement below, or just portions of it?

"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."

You seem to be the one with the problem with the statement "an American citizen".

I could care less.

Any other "Iraqis" ever involved in terrorist attacks than Yasin?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

AmericanOrator's statement is completely backed up by fact heavily supported by articles, investigations, reports by Saudi and Isreali intellegence, and the conclusions of the US intellengence community, the explosion of terrorism corresponding to the Iraq war, as well as common sense.

No they're not, correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore; were we in Iraq on 9-11? No I thought not, the fact that we have now actually begun to recognize and fight an enemy and they are fighting back harder as a result does not mean that we have created the enemy but rather we have shown a light on them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Feel free to disprove any of what Ive said. The US was instrumental, it changed its mind soon after the vote but it had already done quite enough.

I don't care what you said, it was the Soviets who recognized Israel not the U.S., and we withdrew our support for the partition plan by 1948.

How dare you call me a liar? Do you wish to take this down to the basement? You know by now how much I enjoy it there, so feel free to invite me.

If you wish instead to conduct proper debate then do so. Giving source and argument to disprove what Ive said. You say he's a constitutional monarch, I say he broke that constitution of 1906 so he's not. Perhaps you wish to cite another constitution? I may know the one you mean, if its that tell me what legitimacy this has?
If you cant or wont then refrain from calling me a liar or offer me proper quarter in the space reserved for abuse.

You made the claim you prove it, it was the Shah's perogative under the Iranian Constitution to remove the Prime Minister, it was not the Prime Ministers perogative to dissolve Parliament through a rigged referendum and declare himself dictator. The Shah not Mossadeq was the head of state.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your obvious bigotry aside, the issue has been discussed in other threads and is irrelevant to this one.

Yes it has been discussed, Yassin was given safe haven and a salary you claim that he was incarcerated by the Saddam regime, the proof of this assertion is the claims of the Baathist regime which conflict with eyewitness testimony.