What is the root of Islamic Terrorism?

Vader said:

The rampant Islamic indoctrination that occurs as a result of Islamic interference in the lives of its followers is the root cause of Islamic terrorism.

Click to expand...

Is that what Bin Laden says? Where?

Iriemon said:

That is OBL's take on Islam. How does that explain why more Muslems are joining or supporting his brand of fundamentalism?

Click to expand...

The recent PEW surveys indicate precisely the opposite.
They were always adherents to his brand of fundamentalist, they just werent needed to fight the Americans before 2001 when we were not there. And because they now see Iraq as

"the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era, and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God @ about the epic battles between Islam and atheism. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world",...

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, ...
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi

Click to expand...

Iriemon said:

That is OBL's take on Islam. How does that explain why more Muslems are joining or supporting his brand of fundamentalism?

Click to expand...

OBL has become the 'face' of radical Islam. One reason for the growth of AQ is simply that nothing succeeds like success. OBL was virtually penniless, having spent almost his entire inheritance, when he was forced out of Sudan and took refuge in a small mud-walled compound in Afghanistan, under the protection of Mullah Omar. But, the success of the AQ operation against the US in Somalia turned things around for him in a big way. A hugely successful PR effort resulted in a renewed flood of donations and recruits.

At bottom, this success is possible because of its appeal to a segment of society (both in the ME and elsewhere) that feels victimized. Throughout his writings, including those noted in my last post above, OBL refers time and again, to Muslims who were once rulers of much of the known world as being victims of colonial powers, of Crusaders, of the Jews, etc., etc. Certainly there are millions in the ME who feel oppressed, and rightfully so. It doesn't take that much to attract followers who are predisposed to become followers of someone who promises them a return to past glories, all in the name of Allah.

As for his particular brand of Islam, OBL, along with Zawahiri, have become the successors to Qutb. Karen Armstrong, in a Guardian article entitled "The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA":

“Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death."

Thank you all for the last few pages of intelligent, informed, rational debating.

It has been a pleasure to read.

Especially GySgt's posts, as I have learned a bit about the makeup of the middle eastern area from them.

.

Billo_Really said:

Oh, yeah, well, my nothing, got you to respond.

So "my nothing" = "your something"

Now if I did post up "something", you wouldn't be able to handle it!

So I did you a favor.

You're Welcome!

So how does it feel,
to be on your own,
a complete unknown,
without a home,
Like a...

Click to expand...

I asked you to show me all the Christian suicide bombings you could.
But you cant handle that because you don’t have chit!
In the past 10 years you have what maybe 4 or 5 tops? Where on the other hand I can show you several hundred over that same time period.
But what the hell how about just ONE in the past 72 hours.

BAGHDAD–Rescuers used bare hands and shovels yesterday to claw through clay houses shattered by an onslaught of suicide bombings that killed at least 250 and as many as 500 members of an ancient religious sect in the deadliest attack of the Iraq war.

The U.S. military blamed Al Qaeda in Iraq, and an American commander called the assault an "act of ethnic cleansing."

The victims of Tuesday night's co-ordinated attack by four suicide bombers were Yazidis, a small Kurdish-speaking sect targeted by Muslim extremists who consider its members to be blasphemers.
(http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246810)

Click to expand...

Iraq bombs: 500 die in worst terror attack
The American military said that there was little hope of finding anyone still alive in the rubble of scores of houses destroyed in two remote villgers by at least four suicide bombers on Tuesday evening.

The number of confirmed dead was 175, with more than 300 injured and 600 made homeless. But medics speculated that the real toll could be closer to 500.(Iraq bombs: 500 die in worst terror attack - Telegraph)

Click to expand...

Are you going to show me something or just run your mouth as usual?

Yeah, blowing up 500 Yazidis is just a natural, normal reaction to the brutal and illegal zionist/crusaders occupation of Iraq. Nothing to do with religion to see here.

I had to pull this out for its own post....

Iriemon said:

What? The very name "America" was unknown? Where are you getting this?

Click to expand...

Oh c'mon. Why even ask when you know you won't be receptive? For a very long time, little was known about America in the Islamic deserts. The first recorded mention of America as a political symbol in the Islamic world was in Istanbul around 1792 when the newly arrived ambassador of the French Republic pulled into port with three flags hoisted...the colors of the Ottoman Empire, France, and America. But even this was a French enterprise and not an American one and it was well north of the Arab heartland. It wasn't until the late 19th century and early twentieth century that more attention was given to America in textbooks, encyclopedia, and newspapers, but it was very limited and was more generally descriptive rather than detailed in nature.

Before all of this, some unemployed officers from our Civil War actually found employment in the service of Muslim rulers to help them modernize and train their armies. But it wasn't until the Second World War and the boom of global expansion when we started seeing a Middle East that placed "America" as a focus of interest and in most circles, they had never heard of us. Before this period of enlightenment, it was the more learned and educated that had brief information about America. And by the start of the Cold War, most of what they heard came from Germans, Russians, and a zealot called Qutb.

Iriemon said:

Since when?

Click to expand...

What? Since forever and a day....

Clearly something deeper is involved. Sayyid Qutb's stay in the US was a crucial period in the development of his ideas concerning the relations between Islam and the outside world, particularly the US and within itself. I've already brought up the propaganda machine of Germany's Rainer Maria Rilke, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, and Martin Heidegger as interests of study. And of course there was Russia. But what else about Russia? Check out their history. Middle Eastern resentments of imperial powers have not always been consistent.

1) The Soviet Union, which retained and extended the imperial conquests of the czars of Russia, ruled with no light hand over tens of millions of Muslim subjects in Central Asia and in the Caucasus for a long time. Before WWII, Russia was expanding southward and had incorporated vast Muslim territories in their empire, at the expense of Turkey and Persia. In the Russo-Iranian wars of 1804-1813 and 1826-1828, the Russians had acquired the northern part of Azerbaijan (a Persian Province), which would later become a republic of the Soviet Union. During WWII, the Soviets occupied Iran with the British. When the war ended, the British withdrew and Russia stayed (many argue that this was when the Cold War began to take shape) along with being strongly entrenched in the Balkans and threatening Turkey on both it's eastern and western borders. With America's help, the Turks were able to refuse the Soviet demand for bases in the Straits, while the Iranians dismantled the Communist state which was set up in Azerbaijan and reasserted Iranian soveriegnty over it's territory. Our efforts to keep Iran from communist hands saw us quickly move to help convert Iran into an anti-communist block and would later bring us great and unfair criticism.

2) The Soviet Union played a significant role in procuring the majority by which the General Assembly if the United Nations voted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine and then gave Isreal immediate lawful recognition. The US was more hesitant and gave only de facto recognition. More importantly, the our government maintained a partial arms embargo on Israel, while Czechoslavakia, with Moscow's authorization, immediately sent a supply of weaponry which enabled the new state to survive against Muslim protests and determination to out it. Even up to a decade following the founding, American dealings with the Israel was limited and cautious. It wasn't until 1956, that the US intervened, forcefully and decisively, to secure the withdrawal of the Israeli, British, and French forces. And it wasn't until 1967 that Israel stopped relying on European, mainly French suppliers, and started receiving from America.

3) But what about the circumstances surrounding 1955? With Turkey and Iran entering into the Western (American) alliance in the beginning of the Cold War, the Soviets backed off. But the Russian-Egyptian Arms agreement of 1955 brought Russia back into the Middle East and saw the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser importing arms from the Soviet bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel (despite Russia's clear approval of the new state's creation on the international stage). The Arab states were more experienced with Western imperialsim so they were more favorabale to the Soviets. This allowed the Soviets to establish a very strong position among the newly independant Arab states. At first, the Soviets proceeded exactly as Western governments have done - miltary bases, supply of weapons, military "guidance," and economic and cultural penetration. But if we look at every location where the Soviet Union was venturing, there can be little doubt that, had it not been for American oppositoin, the Cold War, and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arab world would at best have shared the fate of Poland and Hungary - probablyUzbekistan.

4) As I mentioned before, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the installation of a "puppet" government was probably the most clear and obvious case of imperialist aggression, conquest, and domination. And yet the response from Arab and more generally the Islamic world was muted. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the Soviet aggression, used politically correct words like "intervener" and didn't even name the Soviet Union as the aggressor. Among the Arab countries, Syria and Algeria abstained; South yemen voted against the resolution; Libya was absent. Hell, the PLO even made a public speech strongly defending the Soviet action. That most hypocritical Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is supposed to be concerned about Islamic human rights, yet only focuses on the outside world and not how they treat their own people, did much of the same. Libya even attacked the USA in this meeting as some sort of conspirator. After all was said and done, it was left to the United States to organize, with some success, an Islamic counterattack to Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan. This too, would be something for our critics to later unfairly criticize us about.

5) During the Iran-Iraq war, the Soviets supplied Saddam Hussein with large amounts of conventional arms. Saddam Hussein received the vast majority of his arms in that war from Russia, China, and France. America falls in at the bottom of the list. Ayatollah Khomeini helped this alliance along by deeming Islam principally incompatible with the communist ideals of the Soviet Union, which left the secular Saddam as an ally of Moscow. After the war, especially with the fall of the USSR, Tehran-Moscow relations witnessed a sudden increase in diplomatic and commercial relations, and Iran soon even began purchasing weapons from Russia. By the mid 1990s, Russia had already agreed to continue work on developing Iran's Nuclear Program, with plans to finish constructing the nearly 20 year delayed Nuclear Reactor plant of Bushehr. Iran in turn, a self-proclaimed advocate of Muslim national rights (such as in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories), was largely silent in condemning the violence against Chechnya during the first and second Chechen Wars.


America has done nothing of the above. We have not "conquered" Muslim lands to rule over them. We have not subjegated them. The most humane treatment of Muslims can be found in the U.S. As the Cold War, developed our support towards Israel seems to have been based mostly on replacing Britian as the defender of the Middle East against outside attack, specifically from the Soviet Union. Even Muslim governments that had no help from us are labeled as "puppet governments" for simply condusting diplomacy and business with us by their Radicals and extremists. America has always given financial support towards Palestinians (way more than grossly wealthy Arab states) and has been the driving force behind every peace struggle between the two societies. And yet the Soviet Union suffered no backlash of anger and hatred from the Arab community throughout the entire episode of Russian/Soviet involvement. The Soviets have sufferred no penalties or even reproof for their suppression of Islam in the Central Asian and Transcaucasian republics, where two hundred mosques were "licensed" to serve the religious needs of 50 million Muslims. And this is only Russia. For that matter, the Chinese are not condemned for their battles against Muslims in Sinkiang. America has received no credit for its efforts to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Albania.

What we get is a failing civilization seeking to blame everyone but themselves for the decisions their own people have made and a never ending accusation of collaberating with Satan himself against the world of Islam. When we take into facts everything that has happened in that region, our foreign policy is merely a scapegoat for those who seek religious support in order to wage their war for God and they have many in the West fooled as they repeat their rhetoric. After all tat has been done to them by European powers, the Soviets, and others, and despite our efforts to keep the peace in that region and protect it from communist fates, WE are labeled as Satan for the shah of Iran who defied his zealots, supporting Saddam Hussein who waged a war against these zealots, and for supporting Israel.

The use of our "foriegn policy" is BS. Especially when considering their gripes about us and the hypocricy of their won treatment towards each other. We would be the best friend they have were it not for their Radical's fears of our culture influencing the sanctity of their religion.

Iriemon said:

Weren't you just criticizing me for citing what bin Laden says? Or is it only stuff he says that supports your opinion that counts?

Click to expand...

That's not what I criticized you for and I didn't mean to. I produced his statement and then showed a history of evidence from other extremists and zealots to give it strength. You always produce the surface argument he (and others) make to justify their hatreds and angers. This surface argument only masks the deeper anger and resentment that is driving this unorganized and organized movement against the West. The trick about receiving their grievances is to know what is BS for the masses and what is religious fuel for the Radicals. There is a reason their focus on key points in current events is accompanied with a wealth of historical twists and turns enforced with religious fervor.

Iriemon said:

But it is not a statement as to why he decided to target America.

Click to expand...

Is that what you are looking for? A simple statement from Bin Ladden that associates the attack on 9/11 to this Muslim rage that we see from every single Radical and zealot going back forty years? You think Bin Laden sits aside from this and merely lashed out on America just because of the Gulf War and support of Israel?

Iriemon said:

Which all proves what? Bin Laden is one guy, are you arguing what he says applies to the beliefs of all Muslims or even all radical Muslims?

Click to expand...

That 9/11 was about deeper issues within Islam and not about something as simple as America's foriegn policy, which has done far more for Muslims than against. And the words and actions of Bin laden, Khomeini, and Qutb have been very influential to a civilization lost in identity with only "God" to turn to. Nobody said anything about "all." But there's something to be said about those that haven't joined the extreme minority-which are the actual extremists-who haven't broken a sweat in fighting their own religion's terror.

Iriemon said:

But given this perspective, cannot you understand why a pretextual attack on Iraq furthers their agenda? Because it makes us look like the global crusaders he claims we are?

Click to expand...

Of course it furthers their agenda. Any analyst worth his freshly printed college degree would have known this before we kicked off. Anything we do will result in support for their extremists and will further their agenda. You attack an agressor in his region, he will attack back and he will gather support, especially if the mission is for "God." Khomeini's Islamic revolution led to the new Sunni Wahhabist movement and the extremism was gathering fuel throughout the 90's. All along, their leaders have been using exaggerations of American activity and the existence of Israel to gather support for either sect against the other. We are currently "crusading" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan. Soon enough we will be "crusading" in Sudan. The reason why Iraq has gathered the extremists for the fight is because of the divide in religious sect amongst the population and the two cities of Baghdad and Karbala. If we atacked the House of Saud, we would see the Muslim extremists and Radicals pour in, not because we attacked Muslims, but because of Meccan and Medina. This is all religious to them and we shouold not cater to their zealots for "security."

Iriemon said:

As I've said before, you're implicit assertion that US policy has and has had no effect on perceptions and attitudes in the ME is illogical and is not even common sense.

Click to expand...

I don't think I said that it had no effect. It said it has had very little. What effect it has had has been accompanied with Arab and Shia propaganda and exaggerations to further support for their own internal causes.

Iriemon said:

The Great Satan dance has re-gained popularity in Iran over recent years, not uncoindentally with our president calling them the "axis of evil" with implicit threats to bomb them.

Click to expand...

Didn't take much did it? It wasn't until the end of the 90's that Iran started backing off of their annual marches, dubbed the "Struggle Against World Arrogance," past the old American embassy while burning flags and chanting "Death to America" and "Death to the Great Satan." It has re-gained popularity in Iran since Ahmenadejad, but especially in the media, which was all but ignoring it in the past.

Iriemon said:

Which out recent policy is feeding plenty of fodder.

Click to expand...

Meh. Our involvement to save Muslims against Saddam Hussein in 1991 seems to have feuled enough anger in a few individuals to unite enough Muslim rage to ignite a super terrorist organization long before 2003.

Our assault into Saddam HUssein's Iraq in 2003 gave them a venue.

Iriemon said:

"Stirring the pot" unleashed zealism, but removing Hussein was not stirring the pot.

Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein encouraged a Sunni dominace by any means necessary. The zealism that was contained under him was kept there through the bayonet. The Sunni extremists that already existed, but was dormant was traveling throughout the Al-Anbar Province from Syria and Jordan long before 2003. Removing Saddam Hussein (Sunni) from Krabala (Shia) and Baghdad (Islamic importance), did indeed, stir the pot on this strangle hold of minorities and changed the entire world of Islam.

Iriemon said:

It is true, America did used to represent that.

Click to expand...

But don't even try to think that the America of today was a Bush creation. He merely followed along with the policies set before him by many Presidents. The events on 9/11 didn't exactly aid us back to what we were pre-WWII - when we didn't have a global responsibility (burden) against another Super Power and today, religious extremism.

Iriemon said:

Given that the ME is now mysteriously filled with these radicals, what do you do about it.

Click to expand...

It's not "mysteriously" filled. We can trace all of this extremism back to a time when American foriegn policy wasn't a factor. We came later.

What to do I do about it? Kill them as they pick up guns or strap on bombs. The question is what does the world do about it. So far, nothing. As their free world leader is attacked, they ignorantly and exaggeratingly accuse our prior activities during the Cold War when they remained deathly silent and benefitted from the security we were providing. They did nothing then, and they do nothing now. The greatest weakness in the West is our refusals to see this as any more than just one country's foreign policy, which only lends our enemies credibiltiy as they pull from their fundamental base to launch terror upon us.

Iriemon said:

Sure, if someone bombed the hell out of the US, invaded and occuipied our nation for 6 years, it would be fair to call it a "minor involvement".

Click to expand...

And there you go making this anti-Americanism all about 2003 again.

Iriemon said:

Anti-American sentiment (and support for terrorism) varies widely. The Islam world is not a homogeneous entity any more than the Christian world is.

Click to expand...

Of course it varies. It is stil consistently in every country and their themes mirror the themes of the neighbors. It is a part of the progressive indoctrination that has been happening for more than fifity years.

Iriemon said:

Because anti-American sentiment is consistent throughout Islam?

Click to expand...

Yes. They recruit where they know they get recruits.

Iriemon said:

Yes. America threatens them. I agree. We should stop doing it unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

Be the first to give up your culture and your way of life and maybe the rest of America will follow. It is our culture that threatens their Radicals....not America.

Iriemon said:

I agree that their hatred is currently more focused on the US than France, Russia, or even Britain because we are the main force sticking our noses in others' businesses when we don't know what the hell we are doing.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The most powerful accusations in all of Qutb's writings are of the deneracy and debauchery of the American way of life, and th ethreat that it offers Islam. In Khomeini's 1970 book, Islamic Government, the US is mentioned infrequently and only in the context of imperialism-first as the helper, then as the successor of the British Empire. By his revolution in 1979, he would make speeches that involved statements like..."This world [America] of unbelievers is the only serious force rivaling and preventing the divinely ordained spread and triumph of Islam." Bin Laden would later use history to unite the hatred that so many Radicals in the region share. This all follows an escallating force, that is surfacely about the smaller grievance, but principally about Islam's place in the modern world and the propaganda that has been feuling it.

Iriemon said:

Your assertion that the growth of terrorist attacks from 200 to 14,000 from 2003 to 2006 has nothing to do with the attack on Iraq is just nonsense. Hell most the attacks are in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Iraq was very significant. It gave the majority Shia control over what was dominated by the minority Sunni for centuries. But we aren't the ones pitting Muslim against Muslim in Iraq. This is their culture and religious prescriptions at work. Your assertions would criticize the great degree of violence in the world during the 40s. War is violence.

Iriemon said:

Given your opinion on Islam, what is the way to address the threat of terrorism it represents. Bomb them more? Make up more excuse to invade other countries? Overthrow more Governments? Make Isreal a state?

Click to expand...

Obviously, unlike others, throuhg my studies, I have actually thought this out in depth. When dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. When doing this, we are punching thin air. We need to

A - Kill the extemists, because they are ireedemable and incapable of defying their fundamentalisms against the West or against each other.

B - Allow for the geographical majority to have a voice over their oppressive minority in each country.

C - Support the moderate voices and their leaders (indirectly).

D - Designate DOS (Department of State) as lead agency against countering Radical Islam.

E - Reorganize foreign assistance funding and our efforts by creating DOS "Regional Directors," that actually control assets. But his would be tricky, because we would need some cooperation from these Muslmi governments in order to reorganize supprt to geographical vice functional lines on a map (This would mirror our DoD Combatant Commanders).

F - Reestablish the funding for the cultural outreach programs that were cut following the end of Cold War.

G - Resolve Israeli/Palestinian and Indian/Pakistani disputes (which will create more Radicals in the process).

H - Counter Radical Islamic Media (which we have been chastized in Iraq for by our allies for using "propaganda.")

I - Support programs that are dedicated to providing educational reform in threatened countries outside of the Arab heartland. Governments with strong governmental oversight over the education of their young must be rewarded; likewise those that do not provide such oversight must be punished diplomatically, publicly, and economically.

Iriemon said:

*You* are holding out bin Laden as a credible source of information?

Click to expand...

It's not "what" he says. It's what surrounds his statements that have more meaning than just the trivial disagreements that every one of Islam's zealots envoke in their feuds against the West. He, and others, do not see us as their enemy. They see us as "God's enemy." This means that trivial disagreements for the select items they use to invoke anger and rage mean nothing in light of what they are actually trying to capture.

Iriemon said:

What does Bin Laden say about the root of Islamic terrorism?

Click to expand...

Everything I have already stated. Focuses on Israeli support and the Gulf War are mere tools that fool the Western and Middle Eastern symptahizers and fuels his (and others) deeper religious rage towards outsiders.

Iriemon said:

It sure explains why the number of terrorists attacks have increased from 200 to 14,000 in three years.

Click to expand...

Most of which is inside the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or are between Muslim sects in varuious countries. Get over it. You are grasping at this as if it defines Islamic terror.

The Mark said:

Thank you all for the last few pages of intelligent, informed, rational debating.

It has been a pleasure to read.

Especially GySgt's posts, as I have learned a bit about the makeup of the middle eastern area from them.

Click to expand...

I'll just follow up with an observation of my own.

I find it fascinating almost to the point of bizarre, that we have a situation where the US attacked another country - Iraq - without direct provocation, based on what our Govt has admitted was a mistake. Everyone, even die hard neocons, acknolwedge the huge problems with the administration of the occupation. No one can deny that tens of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion and that their society is in internal conflict. No one can deny that the US is not a Muslim nation and therefore is viewed as infidel to Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere.

Yet for page after page, conservatives here have argued that US actions in Iraq has had no effect on terrorism or anti-American radicalism in Iraq or the ME. Post after post have effectively asserted that US foreign policy has no meaningful effect on ME attitudes.

I find this kind of group denial just flabbergasting. The effect on American attitude from one attack that killed 3000 has been undeniably huge and dramatic. Yet the conservatives here assert that the US attack on Iraq - that has resulted in the deaths to 10 or 100 times that number - has had no significant effect on Iraqi or Muslim attitude.

What is the source of this denial? Is it fear that any introspection or criticism of US policy is internally viewed as disloyalty or unpatriotic? America right or wrong? Is it based upon a faith that the US is God guided and therefore could not possibly do wrong? That Muslims are evil and therefore the ends justifies the means? Is it a prideful stubborness that no concessions can ever be made to the "liberals"?

Fascinating.

Iriemon said:

Fascinating.

Click to expand...

Actually, "fascinating" is how you keep insisting that the root of Islamic Terrorism (as per the thread title) is a phenomenon directly associated to 2003 and our foreign police, depsite what I have shown you regarding Russia and others. The conservative base has been consistently catering to the theme of the thread.

Also, something else that is fascinating, is how even Sunni Muslims hated Saddam Hussein throughout the region and chastized us (and us alone) for "supporting" him when we did, but hate us even more for taking him out. Even with the events regarding Saddam Hussein, we can plainly see something far deeper at work regarding Islamic fundamentalism and the effect it has on this civilization against the West, specifically America. And considering the extreme depravity that Muslims have sufferred under other influences for a very long time, their sentiments towards America also plainly shows us a deeper rooted anger and resentment that goes far beyond something as simple as scapegoating a few incidences.

GySgt said:

Actually, "fascinating" is how you keep insisting that the root of Islamic Terrorism (as per the thread title) is a phenomenon directly associated to 2003. The conservative base has been consistently catering to the theme of the thread.

Click to expand...

For the record; that is a straw man as I have never asserted that and acknoweldged multiple sources of anti-American radicalism and terrorism (including religious fundamentalism) in this post in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/614213-post337.html

Iriemon said:

For the record; that is a straw man as I have never asserted that and acknoweldged multiple sources of anti-American radicalism and terrorism (including religious fundamentalism) in this post in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/614213-post337.html

Click to expand...

Yet, you continually look towards 2003 to define it. You keep pretending that Bin Laden's grievance is all about exaggerated events like "occupying Muhammed's homeland" as if his life long study of Islam and all the influences he invokes in his speeches is trivial. It's the other way around. This existed long before we crossed the border and it has had little to do with our foreign policy as much as it has had to do with the Radical's defiance towards the modern age.....which we define and lead.

Sure your not just imagining this denial? Who said the war had "no significant effect"? Seems the only denial is of the role of Islamic doctrine and a denial of Islamic terrorist goals.
The topic is "the root of Islamic Terrorism". Islamic terrorism is occuring all over the world in nations that have no involvement with the US or Iraq whatsoever. Your depth of understanding is pretty friggin shallow on this one.

Iriemon said:

I find this kind of group denial just flabbergasting. The effect on American attitude from one attack that killed 3000 has been undeniably huge and dramatic. Yet the conservatives here assert that the US attack on Iraq - that has resulted in the deaths to 10 or 100 times that number - has had no significant effect on Iraqi or Muslim attitude.

What is the source of this denial? Is it fear that any introspection or criticism of US policy is internally viewed as disloyalty or unpatriotic? America right or wrong? Is it based upon a faith that the US is God guided and therefore could not possibly do wrong? That Muslims are evil and therefore the ends justifies the means? Is it a prideful stubborness that no concessions can ever be made to the "liberals"?

Fascinating.

Click to expand...

GySgt said:

Yet, you continually look towards 2003 to define it. You keep pretending that Bin Laden's grievance is all about exaggerated events like "occupying Muhammed's homeland" as if his life long study of Islam and all the influences he invokes in his speeches is trivial. It's the other way around. This existed long before we crossed the border and it has had little to do with our foreign policy as much as it has had to do with the Radical's defiance towards the modern age.....which we define and lead.

Click to expand...

1) I have never ever claimed that Bin Laden's motivation was based on Iraq.

2) I have never ever claimed that all terrorists are created by Iraq or that they didn't exist before 2003.

3) I have claimed that our invasion of Iraq has been a factor motivating many to join or support radical terrorism. I stand by that assertion.

dixon76710 said:

Sure your not just imagining this denial? Who said the war had "no significant effect"? Seems the only denial is of the role of Islamic doctrine and a denial of Islamic terrorist goals.
The topic is "the root of Islamic Terrorism". Islamic terrorism is occuring all over the world in nations that have no involvement with the US or Iraq whatsoever. Your depth of understanding is pretty friggin shallow on this one.

Click to expand...

I have not denied that Islamic fundamentalism places is a factor in anti-America radicalism and in fact acknowledged it. Read my previous post I cited.

Iriemon said:

I have not denied that Islamic fundamentalism places is a factor in anti-America radicalism and in fact acknowledged it. Read my previous post I cited.

Click to expand...

I never claimed you did. I am tiring of your pretend debates. Most of the denials have come from others. Perhaps, since youve been repeatedly pointing to our actions in Iraq on a thread questioning what is the root of Islamic Terrorism, you merely presumed I must be talking about you.

GySgt said:

Actually, "fascinating" is how you keep insisting that the root of Islamic Terrorism (as per the thread title) is a phenomenon directly associated to 2003 and our foreign police, depsite what I have shown you regarding Russia and others. The conservative base has been consistently catering to the theme of the thread.

Also, something else that is fascinating, is how even Sunni Muslims hated Saddam Hussein throughout the region and chastized us (and us alone) for "supporting" him when we did, but hate us even more for taking him out. Even with the events regarding Saddam Hussein, we can plainly see something far deeper at work regarding Islamic fundamentalism and the effect it has on this civilization against the West, specifically America. And considering the extreme depravity that Muslims have sufferred under other influences for a very long time, their sentiments towards America also plainly shows us a deeper rooted anger and resentment that goes far beyond something as simple as scapegoating a few incidences.

Click to expand...

Hardly fascinating Gunny, just quite logical. Saddam they hated cos he was the local dictator, USA they hate for on one hand for not taking their own invasion seriously and controlling the place and on the other for being the one powerful nation they have no reason to trust given that it has both helped and hindered Saddam, toppled a popular democrat in Iran and supported numerous tinpot dictators since WW2..not even mentioning Israel.

Iriemon said:

1) I have never ever claimed that Bin Laden's motivation was based on Iraq.

2) I have never ever claimed that all terrorists are created by Iraq or that they didn't exist before 2003.

3) I have claimed that our invasion of Iraq has been a factor motivating many to join or support radical terrorism. I stand by that assertion.

Click to expand...

And no one should be arguing about number 3 in the simple way you just produced it. But one also shouldn't argue that there is some finess way to handle this exponentially growing phenomenon that wouldn't ignite some extra extremism. These individuals who join the fight against the West in Iraq because of Iraq will simply go home or continue to wage war on the root crisis within Islam after we leave. The heart of the extremism in Iraq is about Baghdad and Karbala and regionally it is about the Sunni dominance that has been shaken. We did not create the zeal and determination that sees Sunni Muslims traveling to Iraq just to wage war against the Shia.

dixon76710 said:

I never claimed you did. I am tiring of your pretend debates. Most of the denials have come from others. Perhaps, since youve been repeatedly pointing to our actions in Iraq on a thread questioning what is the root of Islamic Terrorism, you merely presumed I must be talking about you.

Click to expand...

I do apologize, but when you make statements and put *my* post in them, as you did,

http://www.debatepolitics.com/615246-post441.html

the logical assumption is that your statement is directed to me.

That is the way it works around here. You can reasonably deduce that this post is directed to you dixon, by the little hint that you post is quoted in it.

If you do not intend to make a statement directed at me then don't put my quote in your post and you will save your self from having to be tired.

GySgt said:

And no one should be arguing about number 3 in the simple way you just produced it. But one also shouldn't argue that there is some finess way to handle this exponentially growing phenomenon that wouldn't ignite some extra extremism. These individuals who join the fight against the West in Iraq because of Iraq will simply go home or continue to wage war on the root crisis within Islam after we leave. The heart of the extremism in Iraq is about Baghdad and Karbala and regionally it is about the Sunni dominance that has been shaken. We did not create the zeal and determination that sees Sunni Muslims traveling to Iraq just to wage war against the Shia.

Click to expand...

Igniting extra extremism is exactly what our attack and occupation Iraq is doing in this exponetitally growing phenonemon.

Iriemon said:

Is that what Bin Laden says? Where?

Click to expand...

I was not addressing OBL! I was addressing the root cause of Islamic Terrorism overall!

The root of the problem is Islamic interference in the government, schools, and daily lives of its followers. This interference paves the way for people like OBL to brainwash people into becoming murderers of Allah!

:mrgreen:

Iriemon said:

Igniting extra extremism is exactly what our attack and occupation Iraq is doing in this exponetitally growing phenonemon.

Click to expand...

Stop showing support for the terrorists and their non-existent cause, Irie.

:shock: