I really don't buy into most conspiracy theories BUT.......

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't even think the average Muslim on the steeet is fanatical. I just think that most of the major preaching and teaching is probably leaning towards fanatical/deeply fundamentalist (definitely not saying it all specifically urges suicide bombing, of course) and that the average Muslim on the street is considerably more moderate by comparison. So the youths are being taught a steady diet of anti-Western, anti-Jewish beliefs and a separatist outlook with regards to all infidels.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep making this claim, but I don't see why you believe this. What leads you to hold this view? Did you read something about it somewhere?

[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that even most American mosques are probably Saudi-funded and therefore essentially Wahabbist in outlook. The Saudis have invested huge billions $$ in such things for quite some time now worldwide. That's troubling and worrisome, and combined with some political backlash, we are seeing the results of what has been brewed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it seems silly to just believe something like "most mosques are Saudi funded" without any research to back it up. It might be true, it might not. Shouldn't we be checking these things out before deciding one way or the other?

[Rearden]

I think some of these arguements could be clarified with a simply series of statements:

-Is Islam(I) responsible for terrorism? meh, no

-Is Radical Islam(RI) responsible for terrorism? [censored] yeah


If tomorrow a Lama in Tibet started preaching a violent version of Buddhism to downtrodden youth mandated to listen where the godless and evil west was deemed responsible for their present condition and the pain they have seen in their lives. If this version justified extreme violence, intolerance, and a "blame the other" attitude... and if conditions continued to remain poor in that area (with or without Western influence)....

I would wager anything that within 20 years we're all talking about the growing threat of Radical Buddhism and how Buddhism may or may not be fundamentally violent, etc.


Keeping that functional analogy in mind, and thus the difference between mainstream Islam and the Jihadists, is perhaps the most important point I can make.

The Quran contains a bunch of violence, so does the Bible, so does just about every holy book or sacred text one can come across. Violence is part of a good story... and everyone loves a good story... the only problem is when a group of people warp the tale into supporting an ideology of aggression and intolerance.

IMO,
Christians today should be ashamed of Christianity in antiquity.
Muslims from antiquity would be ashamed of Islam (or what passes as the Muslim faith) today.

Arguements/polls as to what % of the Muslim world felt good about 9/11, like Osama bin Laden, think that if they kill Jews/Americans/other heathens they get a free pass to heavenville are interesting but somewhat fruitless.

If 5% or 95% of Muslims felt this way one could still look at some lessons from the Quran as teaching peace and tolerance and reflect on Islamic culture which historically was less barbaric than elements are now. The % would not change the goals of the radicals who want to kill nor would the % change the fact that there are millions of Muslims who look to their religion as a guide to peace.

What is disturbing rather than the number is that fact that said X% is more visible, more vocal, and perhaps more worthy of note (sadly) based on their terrible actions. They continue to gain support via our "friends" the Saudis, they gain converts with every accidental bombing, ill thought out policy, or with long suffering under the regimes we sometimes support, they are entrenched in part of the world and seek to extend their influence.

For the moderates part either through fear, a lack of publicity, or a simple refusal to accept the problem (because a significant number don't even want to see Muslims as part of 9/11) I think ground is being lost to angry well funded old men who want the modern world to look like medieval Europe (except wallowing in Muslim ignorance as opposed to Christian dogma).

In 2006 Comedy Central refused to show a clip of South Park ("Cartoon Wars") where Muhammad was to be shown (handing a football helmet to Peter of Family Guy). Ironically (for the sole purpose of irony), the same episode showed Jesus crapping on George Bush (funny?...youbetcha).... land of the free, not giving into terror, winning hearts and minds and all that.

[Taraz]

Nice post. I only have a minor quibble . . .

[ QUOTE ]
I think some of these arguements could be clarified with a simply series of statements:

-Is Islam(I) responsible for terrorism? meh, no

-Is Radical Islam(RI) responsible for terrorism? [censored] yeah


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's accurate to say that Radical Islam by itself is responsible for terrorism. It's a little more complex, because all radical and violent ideologies don't catch on like this one. So I think something like "radical Islam tied together with an awful sociopolitical situation is responsible for terrorism" is a little more correct.

[Rearden]

I think I lost some clarity in that statement.

Many people suggest that plain ole Islam is responsible for terrorism... I wanted to refute that. Because I used a simple phrase I did imply more correlation than I wanted to.

Is Radical Islam a factor in terrorism would be one example of a better phrase.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taraz,

1- Moderate Muslims should most certainly get more press. I also think though, because of fear, moderates are silent in many of the countries we are talking about

2- I would happily go with a statement that suggests that the Bible=the Quran in terms of violence and teachings that can be used for violence; hence why both religions have violent supporters and violent pasts. I will however suggest to you that the modern radical teaching of the Quran in these fundamentalist sects highlights the violence; that's what makes "radical" Islam truly radical.

3- You're suggesting that poll numbers taken on a nation-nation basis, within Muslim populations only (left that out in my original post) ... would suggest what? I would merely suggest what they do in fact show... that a pretty shocking number of Muslims in developed and non developed nations support the use of suicide bombing and campaigns of terrorism. (This of course does not mean that I consider the objectors to these notions somehow more violent for being Muslims) (At some point Im sure we can google those results on up for the thread... if it hasn't already been done in other threads)

It is of course not just the religion. The society, the economics, etc all play a significant role. I just think it's naive to say "OMG they hate us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or support Israel" when it is faaaar more complex than just that. As I mentioned before I think the largest components have been the shift in Islamic teachings (in some groups/regions focusing on more violent aspects or more properly selectively showing the Quran to justify violence), that educations impact on fragile, stunted, and scared youth, and our unwillingness to actually bother with those two issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware of the study showing that more Americans support the targeting of innocent civilians than Muslims do,right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that said study poses the question of innocent civilians during military action (so called "collateral damage") as opposed to general attacks purposefully targeting a civilian population (aka terrorism) right?

And yes, I would say that's certainly a negative for all involved that I think reflects public opinion in the US as to the inevitablity of civilian casualties as well as too much faith in so called "smart" or in general highly accurate munitions and tactics to at the very least limit noncombatant casualties.

Im not the one arguing that innocent deaths in some ambiguous conflict are the same as specifically targeting a civilian population... you seem to be in an attempt to refute claims specific to the support of terrorism (the polls Im talking about reference Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the concept of suicide bombing in general).


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, the study said attacks specifically targeting civilians as part of some military goal, not unavoidable collateral damage as part of a military strike. Both were talking about directly targeting civilians to accomplish their goals, one has the legitimacy of government.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bases on qoutes from suicide bombers in training it seems like they are pretty much religously motivated.

Ben-Eliezer: "If Yasser Arafat called for a halt to suicide bombings, would it have any effect on you?"

Stiti: " No. It's a religious imperative from Allah. It has nothing to do with whether Arafat says yes or no. Allah supersedes everyone. " He thinks for a moment and continues: "But maybe if he did call for it to stop, we might think twice about it."





Ben-Eliezer: "Now explain to me why you decided to commit suicide."

"Stiti: "No, that's not it. That's not right. I didn't go to commit suicide. I went to die a martyr's death. I wanted to get the reward. I spent a month in the mosque. I learned there how important it is to be a shaheed. It is the loftiest objective. It's very important for the Palestinian people, nationally and religiously. It's the biggest and most holy thing you can do. And then you receive all the rewards in Paradise."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that many or most terrorists believe their actions to be in accordance with some divine law. My only argument was that these terrorist beliefs don't flow from the religion. The vast, vast majority of Muslims don't do these things and don't believe what the terrorists believe, so it can't simply be a matter of Islam leading them astray.

Savvy fanatical religious leaders can frame the discussion in religious terms and garner support by convincing some of the downtrodden that it is their duty as Muslims to become terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not correct. If 100% of Christians condemned these actions and didn't think they followed from the Bible, would that mean that religion had nothing to do with it? Of course not, because those people are Christians, they aren't the rulers of all that is religious.

Now, why does it matter if they are Muslims? It only matters if you think Muslim = Muslim, which of course it doesn't. This is actually the point you and the rest of the Muslims (not saying you are Muslims, simply grouping) should be trying to get at. It works well for you, not so well for the other Muslims, though. From your perspective, all you need to do is show that, sure, these terrorists ARE motivated by religion, just not Islam, or not Islam-real, if you'd prefer. They are being inspired by Islam-fake, which is of course no less legit than Islam-real, but at least it forces everyone to stop treating the followers of Islam-real like they were Islam-fakists.

But of course, this sucks for the Islam-realists, because now they have to try to show they THEIR version is somehow better or more legit. Which it isn't.

But secular supporters of the majority Muslim population shouldn't handcuff themselves the way Muslim supporters are forced to do. Take the easy (correct) way out!

[CORed]

Let me propose an alternate theory. Al Queda, and their hangers-on and imitators, are, for reasons unfathomable to this Western secular thinker, absurdly enamored of the suicide attack. This has some advantages for them. 9/11 couldn't have been done any way but as a suicide attack. A successful suicide attack means their front-line terrorists can't tell the authorities anything. However, there are some problems with this approach. Any successful operatives are dead after their first attack. This means that they keep having to recruit new operatives. Also, I'm gonna guess that, for the most part, the people willing to sacrifice their lives in a terrorist attack for the don't rate real high on the intelligence scale.

A lot of the recent plots that have been uncovered, on both side of the Atlantic, have had a real amateur hour look to them. The perpetrators had grand ambitions to kill kits of people, but no clue as to how to pull it off. In this most recent plot in the UK, as far as I've been able to tell from news reports, their "bombs" consisted entirely of gasoline and propane, and apparently no high explosive. While it if possible to get some pretty impressive explosions with these materials, unless you set them up just right, you get a big fire with no explosion. This can certainly be destructive, but its not generally going to be nearly as effective at killing a lot of people as a high explosive bomb. The clowns in Glasgow also seemed to have overlooked the fact that their were barriers which kept their vehicle from getting inside the building. Maybe, after watching too many SUV commercials, they actually thought a stock Jeep Cherokee could knock down or drive over the barriers.

I think we may be winning the war on terror, partly through our own efforts, but, somewhat like our victory in the Cold War, more because of fundamental flaws in our enemies' systems and philosophy.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't even think the average Muslim on the steeet is fanatical. I just think that most of the major preaching and teaching is probably leaning towards fanatical/deeply fundamentalist (definitely not saying it all specifically urges suicide bombing, of course) and that the average Muslim on the street is considerably more moderate by comparison. So the youths are being taught a steady diet of anti-Western, anti-Jewish beliefs and a separatist outlook with regards to all infidels.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep making this claim, but I don't see why you believe this. What leads you to hold this view? Did you read something about it somewhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read articles (over time) dealing with the Saudi-funded U.S. mosques, the religious madrassas in Pakistan, and I've read parts of speeches or sermons given by the top Muftis or Imams such as in Mecca; major religious organizations and leaders. And let's throw the Iranian state religious leadrs in there since they lead a major sect and movement and doctrine (replete with political aspects as well). So, much of what I've read of that sort of thing being preached or taught was indeed radical or very fundamentally oriented, that I am guessing that it is not unrepresentative of much or even most of what gets taught and preached by major Islamic religious leaders and organizations. The State Dept. had to put pressure on the Saudis to revise their U.S. mosque material (and I read an article quoting some of it) because it was so bad. I'm guessing that this is not uncommon because I've read of it in multiple areas. That's a bit of an educated guess, at least.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would guess that even most American mosques are probably Saudi-funded and therefore essentially Wahabbist in outlook. The Saudis have invested huge billions $$ in such things for quite some time now worldwide. That's troubling and worrisome, and combined with some political backlash, we are seeing the results of what has been brewed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it seems silly to just believe something like "most mosques are Saudi funded" without any research to back it up. It might be true, it might not. Shouldn't we be checking these things out before deciding one way or the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and I didn't claim it was most; I said I'm guessing. I'll be on the lookout for additional information. If it's not most, it's at least a very significant bloc and doubtless the largest bloc of mosques in the U.S. that are funded by a single-source.

By the way, thanks for your reasonable approach, rational analysis, and good questions in this thread.

[PLOlover]

also let's mention that the US is funding some terrorists in iraq because they are opposed to other terrorists in iraq, source sy hersh from a month or two ago.

I mean i see a lot of people condemning radical islam and islam in general but I don't see anyone condemning the US, british, or israelis who fund and train these people, with the exception of the russians/soviets who maintain that pretty much all terrorism is state sponsored to achieve national interests.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"but I don't see anyone condemning the US, british, or israelis "

Haven't been on a university campus for a while ^_^?