More Islamic extremist Activity!

[Argus]

The upheaval you're seeing in Muslim nations is not a result of Islam itself becoming more radical, but rather because Islamists (aka - those who don't believe in separating politics and religion) have co-opted many of the political desires of Muslims in many nations. Mostly those desires are for more justice and freedom, things which are denied to them by dictators and corrupt regimes & systems - many of which the West gives aid to.

There is a danger of radicalizing the religion itself if this becomes commonplace. Thus if one is committed to promoting democracy and combating radicalization, they would take away the fuel for the fire: we would stop supporting the dictators and regimes which make Islamist leaders the only alternative for many people who have no voice in how their countries are run.

This is so much twaddle, of course. The major reason for the radicalization of Islam is the state sponsored funding of extremist Wahabi schools, mosques and cultural centres around the world. It is the Saudi government which is largely responsible for radicalization in Pakistan, for example, and this same government funds mosques and Islamic centres throughout the world, to the tune of billions of dollars - on condition that they install Wahabi clerics to preach their extremist version of Islam.

[Argus]

What is the solution, the end state, other than global war...there is none that could be or would be effective..I mean explusion, Quantine, would all just bred more resentment,more anger....every solution that has been tried todate has failed, including war.... back to square one So like a circil what is it we do ?

Either persuade the Saud government to stop funding extremism throughout the world or bomb Saudi Arabia and or quarantine it. Monitor the kind of messages being preached in Mosques and arrest those who preach violence against others. Work with Muslim governments to persuade them to tone down the anti-Christian, Anti-Western, Anti-Jewish rhetoric in their socities or quarantine them. Ie, no flight paths out, no boats allowed to dock from there, no recognition of passports so no acceptance of their people as visitors, students or anything else. No diplomatic recognition, nothing.

[Army Guy]

Here is some interesting reading, about Islam.

My link

Edited November 6, 2009 by Army Guy

[GostHacked]

The only reason i am against Islam is because they want to kill us!! Funny how people who practice

a religion that endorse's terrorism worldwide does that to a person,

You should have been a spokeperson for the whole War on Terror. YOu'd fit right in with the generic rhetoric I hear from you. There have been other incidents where a military person has opened fire on their own guys, because he snapped and guess what, he was not muslim. I knew the moment that I saw the last name Hasan, people like you Wulf42 would be sounding the alarm that Islam is out to kill is.

There have been more domestic attacks in the USA done by non-mulsims than attacks by muslims. I am not talking about overall death toll, I am talking about the number of attacks in the homeland USA.

are there peaceful Muslims?

yes i am sure there is but they certainly could do more against extremism....!

I doubt you'd want to listen to them anyways. That might wreck your whole worldview on Muslims and Islam.

[Michael Hardner]

Here is some interesting reading, about Islam.

My link

ArmyGuy - your link is just a picture.

[GostHacked]

Here is some interesting reading, about Islam.

My link

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/05/tarek-fatah-banned-in-canada.aspx

I had heard Tariq Ramadan had spoken against the idea of introducing Sharia Law in Canada. I was excited. The grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would have the maturity and understanding to take a brave stand when the rest of the Islamist establishment was hell-bent on making sure sharia law found a foothold in North America.

The grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We know what this brotherhood has done in the past. So I agree Army Guy, kick his ass back to wherever he came from.

[Argus]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/05/tarek-fatah-banned-in-canada.aspx

The grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. We know what this brotherhood has done in the past. So I agree Army Guy, kick his ass back to wherever he came from.

I agree as well. We should not allow people like this into Canada. For my money you could pretty well round up anyone and everyone who attends his little lectures, remove their citizenship, and put them on a boat headed for the middle east.

[wulf42]

You should have been a spokeperson for the whole War on Terror. YOu'd fit right in with the generic rhetoric I hear from you. There have been other incidents where a military person has opened fire on their own guys, because he snapped and guess what, he was not muslim. I knew the moment that I saw the last name Hasan, people like you Wulf42 would be sounding the alarm that Islam is out to kill is.

There have been more domestic attacks in the USA done by non-mulsims than attacks by muslims. I am not talking about overall death toll, I am talking about the number of attacks in the homeland USA.

I doubt you'd want to listen to them anyways. That might wreck your whole worldview on Muslims and Islam.

Well anyone with half a brain can see the violence associated with radical Islam!

i didn t make it that way the extremists did....and for people to say it is only a few

is nonsense, extremist's openly say Islam tells them to "kill the infidel"

if Muslims want to practice their religion in peace well great but there are many

who have other plans...FT Hood is a good example and yes there have been other

incidence of military opening fire but this retard did so because he viewed the

U.S. as at war with Islam!

As far as sounding the alarm goes CSIS,FBI,CIA and just about everyone else

is the intelligence community having been doing that for years..nobody listened

until 9/11 ....it is what it is!

I personally do not believe in ANY religion i see it all as nonsense...which is

why i have a problem with people twisting any religion and killing in the name of it! It is absolute nonsense....when your dead your dead!! No virgins, no pearly gates,

nothing,nada,nyet your just dead..if people would just enjoy their short time on Earth

and live in peace that would be a great world to live in! Humans spend way to much

time practicing something that most likely doesn t exist anyway.

I have no problem with Islam or any other religion if you practice it then great! but do so in peace and leave others alone to believe what they wish!

Edited November 7, 2009 by wulf42

[JB Globe]

Right now your are looking at this for one side on the fence "OURS", and while we do deserve our share of the blame for this problem, it is a 2 sided street.

True, but we can only really control our side of the equation. Also consider that we're not quite as immersed in this problem on a day-to-day basis and as such it affects us to a much less degree (ie - we can decide to stop funneling money to dictators tomorrow - it's not as if the people being ruled by dictators will be able to overthrow them tomorrow, they're the ones who'll have to put their lives on the line to improve the situation).

I presently don't see a western nation capable of a Holocaust type event or crime do you....Awhile we will probable not share the same bed or house for some time i don't see muslims being rounded up here in America and shipped off to camps...

The Holocaust began someplace, didn't it? Dehumanizing and vilifying an entire religion was the first step. Frankly I don't want to wait and see if things get worse before doing something.

I also would not class this Islamophobia as hate either, very concerned yes, maybe even dislike, but hate NO...

Considering Islamophobes support things such as: discriminatory laws against Muslims and wars of aggression against Muslim nations, I'd say that qualifies as hate.

I disagree, Those Muslim countries that are radical or becoming radical are not doing it for more freedoms, but rather to surpress those that do want those freedoms,

I'm not clear on what you mean here.

From what I can tell - the vast majority of Muslims in many countries want more influence on how their society is run, this may not end up looking like our idea of democracy, but it's democratization nonetheless. While there are some people who no doubt buy into Islamist ideology, most people tend to support Islamists because they are the only option for exerting pressure on widely-despised regimes because dictators have made free speech is illegal - but of course, they wouldn't dare censor the sermon of an Imam - hence the rise of political Islam (Islamism), which is filling the void that would otherwise be filled with regular old political organizing.

and i'm sure that if you peeled the layers of control away, we might just find that is is the religion that controls the nation, not the government or dictactor, etc etc......Iran a prefect example...

I actually think Iran DISPROVES your theory: it's a country ruled by a theocracy which is disliked by the vast majority of the people, who may be somewhat religious, but don't appreciate religious leaders being involved in politics.

Surely the events of the past few months in Iran have demonstrated that the people there are rebelling against religious involvement in politics.

The west supports and gives aid to most of the Middle east, and most muslim countries...those not supported by the west get thier aid or assistance from others such as Russia or China...Threaten to cut this aid would only see them making a deal else where, and becoming even more hostile towards the west....

Who would become more hostile to the West? The dictators? Perhaps: but the population would probably appreciate this move, especially if it was done explicitly because of the corrupt and/or repressive nature of these regimes. And I don't think China or Russia would step in right away - after all, if they did then they'd become the new Imperialist bad guys in the eyes of the people, and most of the efforts being made against the West would be turned towards them.

Because after all, the public in Muslim countries don't have an irrational hatred of the West, most of the time it's rooted in legit rational concerns such as Western support for repressive leaders.

Last time i checked Egypt was a democractic country,

Where the did you check that? The Economist ranks Egypt as an Authoritarian Regime at #119 on their Democracy Index, for comparison, Cuba is at 125 . . . Which in my mind makes the regime much worse than Fidel's overall - because at least the Cuban regime has top-notch education and health care and a huge chunk of the population isn't going hungry.

Your staraegy is flawed, these approaches have been tried,

Really? Where have these approaches been tried before? I'm unaware of an example.

I am aware that it was policy for decades and still is to this day to support dictators who give us access to natural resources we desire, and support dictators that act as proxies in regional conflicts on our behalf . . . Which is the exact opposite of my suggestion - and look where it's gotten us.

Actually i said we've tried everything, and i did not know the solution...Anything is possiable, If western nations could defeat an entire army of Iraq in weeks , can you imagine if NATO decided to get serious with a total deployment.

The story in Iraq wasn't that the US rolled over the Iraqi army, it's that it didn't have the resources to secure the country after the war was over and prevent all the terrorist attacks and guerrilla warfare that ensued.

NATO has it's hands full in Afghanistan right now, and the situation is as bad as it's ever been, 8 years in.

If the most powerful militaries in the world can't handle two nations of 30 million, what makes you think they can handle invading and occupying 1.5 billion people? I don't even think it's possible - the price of oil would go through the roof because the supply from the Gulf would be interrupted by the war, I think most Western economies would tank before it got up and running again - after all, the US only has 6 months of reserve. Besides that, there just simply aren't enough troops or equipment to do the job.

How would you go about doing this according to international law anyways? Or would you just disregard international law? Do you think China would take kindly to this kind of aggression? Would they tolerate Western nations invading and occupying Indonesia? With whom they do a lot of trade? Or how would India feel with Western nations setting up shop on either side of them? It would look like colonialism all over again.

Also - what EXACTLY would Western nations do once if they did succeed in invading a country - since Islam is the enemy, would they start force-converting people? Genocides?

Just how exactly do you defeat a religion? The Romans tried doing that once, and in a few centuries the religion they were trying to wipe out ended up becoming the state religion. It wouldn't be the first time a state underestimated the power of martyrdom.

[Army Guy]

True, but we can only really control our side of the equation. Also consider that we're not quite as immersed in this problem on a day-to-day basis and as such it affects us to a much less degree (ie - we can decide to stop funneling money to dictators tomorrow - it's not as if the people being ruled by dictators will be able to overthrow them tomorrow, they're the ones who'll have to put their lives on the line to improve the situation).

I don't think that will solve our problems, there are other super powers that will quickly fill the void that will be left....It's a catch 22 situtation, i think that atleast by funding these countries that the west as some power to atleast somewhat control these nations and thier actions...And if another super power has influence over them do you not think they will use that to thier benifit.

Considering Islamophobes support things such as: discriminatory laws against Muslims and wars of aggression against Muslim nations, I'd say that qualifies as hate.

Discrimintory laws, such as which laws ? and which wars of aggressions ?

I'm not clear on what you mean here.

From what I can tell - the vast majority of Muslims in many countries want more influence on how their society is run, this may not end up looking like our idea of democracy, but it's democratization nonetheless. While there are some people who no doubt buy into Islamist ideology, most people tend to support Islamists because they are the only option for exerting pressure on widely-despised regimes because dictators have made free speech is illegal - but of course, they wouldn't dare censor the sermon of an Imam - hence the rise of political Islam (Islamism), which is filling the void that would otherwise be filled with regular old political organizing.

DO they want more influence , Hard to tell in Iraq, Afghanistan...and many other muslim countries, that where given that freedom to choose any form of government they wanted, and it was served to them on a platter and yet they have chosen violence over freedom....

The Controling government and controling religious groups are linked they are as one. as you've said here and this is done to control thier population, it is done to spread thier message and right now that message is the west is bad, and needs to be destroyed...And millions are buying into that, as the conditions are right, lack of education, poor standard of living, etc etc ....

I actually think Iran DISPROVES your theory: it's a country ruled by a theocracy which is disliked by the vast majority of the people, who may be somewhat religious, but don't appreciate religious leaders being involved in politics.

Surely the events of the past few months in Iran have demonstrated that the people there are rebelling against religious involvement in politics

Iran is one of the more liberal Muslim countries in the Middle east, but one can not say the government there has total control over the country, Religion has an iron grip and overall control...and will always have...If the people truely wanted to exericise thier power and wanted thier freedoms they would have done so years ago....Iran's struggle with the west is only a distraction to keep the people focused , not on thier freedoms but rather thier hate of the west...

Where the did you check that? The Economist ranks Egypt as an Authoritarian Regime at #119 on their Democracy Index, for comparison, Cuba is at 125 . . . Which in my mind makes the regime much worse than Fidel's overall - because at least the Cuban regime has top-notch education and health care and a huge chunk of the population isn't going hungry.

Wiki , CIA handbook, there are plenty of other refs if you like however Egypt is listed as a Semi-presidential system one that requires the people to vote, sound democratic to me....and while they're may be flaws in thier government one has to admit, it is a change for the better...

[politicslvr]

What i don t get is...if Islam is a religion of peace then why is it the only

religion that hardly a day goes by that a terrorist plot is linked to it??

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/29/f...#socialcomments

To Islamic fundamentalists, Islam is a religion that seeks peace...by way of brutal violence and oppression of human rights.

[Moonlight Graham]

What i don t get is...if Islam is a religion of peace then why is it the only

religion that hardly a day goes by that a terrorist plot is linked to it??

There is a big difference in radical/extremist Islam and the Islam that the vast majority of Muslims practice. Most of radicals follow a radical fundamentalist form of Islam called Qutbism that came out of the 1950's/60's.

I don't know why the "peaceful" Muslims don't reel in the radical violent ones. How are they going to do it? By taking up arms against the these armed and trained extremists? How can they if they are "peaceful", and it is against Islam to kill other Muslims? Many Muslim leaders have spoken out against the radicals.

There's just some crazy bad apples out there. This bunch is just a heck of a lot more determined than the others.

[DogOnPorch]

To Islamic fundamentalists, Islam is a religion that seeks peace...by way of brutal violence and oppression of human rights.

"Peace" in Islam technically refers to Dar al-Islam as opposed to Dar al-Harb or Dar al-Kufr (land of peace...land of war...land of unbelievers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam

Other descriptions such as Dar al-Dawa (Islam via invitation) refine the meaning of the above three states of being.

It's a concept seemily not very well understood in Western society. Islam is the religion of peace towards OTHER Muslims...not neccessarily to the unbeliever. Non-believers are thought of as one community...be they atheist, Catholic, Hindu, etc.

[PocketRocket]

I am impressed!!! hopefully if enough muslims feel this way events like the ones in

the list i provided will cease!

I'm sure we all hope for that. The simple fact of the matter is it only takes a very small minority to cause any group to have a bad reputation.

Earlier in this thread you asked "Is there a peaceful Muslim?".

I am personally acquainted with a few who are completely and utterly appalled at some of the acts committed in the name of Allah. I've also read many online entries with the same attitude. Now you have read some of those entries yourself, or if' you've not read them, you at least know they exist.

You simply cannot paint an entire population with the same brush.

Anyone who believes the world is such a well-defined black-and-white is deluding themselves.

We live in a world made up of shades of gray.

[Moonlight Graham]

My point is that other Muslims should be doing more against the extremist's but that is not happening

even after 9/11 they were amazingly silent...if they are a religion of peace than why is there violence

everywhere you look associated with it?

Where are you looking? Only in the news headlines it seems.

[Michael Hardner]

My point is that other Muslims should be doing more against the extremist's but that is not happening

even after 9/11 they were amazingly silent...if they are a religion of peace than why is there violence

everywhere you look associated with it?

Where are you looking? Only in the news headlines it seems.

Here's an question: if an Islamist mused aloud as to how the west would respond to the threat of a nuclear attack, would we insist that moderate Muslims speak out about him ?

[DogOnPorch]

Here's one musing aloud...did we ever hear anything more of it? No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonuCkR6_m0

[Michael Hardner]

Here's one musing aloud...did we ever hear anything more of it? No.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DonuCkR6_m0

Right - I have seen that one before. So we should have heard more of it then ?

I ask because Wulf himself mused aloud about threatening to bomb Mecca, and we didn't hear anything on the thread in the way of protest.

[DogOnPorch]

Right - I have seen that one before. So we should have heard more of it then ?

I ask because Wulf himself mused aloud about threatening to bomb Mecca, and we didn't hear anything on the thread in the way of protest.

Wulf is incapable of bombing Mecca.

[Michael Hardner]

DoP,

We're unable to say for sure how capable this guy is of moving anthrax over national borders, either. I'd like to use the same criteria for examining behavior for all people.

I just don't like the idea of saying things like "they bomb civilians so we should bomb civilians" while trying to say that we're somehow better than them.

Our way of life is what will break down their opposition; the fact that we can lure away their people to our way of thinking, and that so many can plainly see that separation of church and state leads to co-existence and prosperity. Now, both of the countries we invaded are fledgling democracies and the success of that will depend on them adapting our way of democracy to the region, not on us adapting the terrorist way of fighting into our own.

[DogOnPorch]

DoP,

We're unable to say for sure how capable this guy is of moving anthrax over national borders, either. I'd like to use the same criteria for examining behavior for all people.

I just don't like the idea of saying things like "they bomb civilians so we should bomb civilians" while trying to say that we're somehow better than them.

Nobody wants to actually bomb anything I'd hazard. Wulf shows frustration at things in a different fashion than you or I do.

Our way of life is what will break down their opposition; the fact that we can lure away their people to our way of thinking, and that so many can plainly see that separation of church and state leads to co-existence and prosperity. Now, both of the countries we invaded are fledgling democracies and the success of that will depend on them adapting our way of democracy to the region, not on us adapting the terrorist way of fighting into our own.

Nobel words that worked on the Russians, but I fear that you will be dead wrong...many of the harsher threats coming from the Middle-East and such are very clear that they do not like our lifestyle one bit.

[Topaz]

Am I right that the only war going on in the world in the Middle-East? Or is it the only one being reported? Ever wonder why we are in the Middle-East fighting for what? It changes so many times, its confusing. Here's a piece I hope you will read and it may change your mind for being there. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11313

[Gabriel]

Am I right that the only war going on in the world in the Middle-East? Or is it the only one being reported? Ever wonder why we are in the Middle-East fighting for what? It changes so many times, its confusing. Here's a piece I hope you will read and it may change your mind for being there. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11313

I'm pretty confident I'll never read another one of your posts. I think congratulations are also in order for your blatant (and baffling) attempt to derail this thread into something painfully broad in scope. I'm definitely adding you to the list of folks whose posts I just skim over or completely ignore due to their absurdity.

I invite everyone to read the very first sentence of the link Topaz posted here - The recent attacks in Mumbai, while largely blamed on Pakistan’s state-sponsored militant groups, represent the latest phase in a far more complex and long-term “strategy of tension” in the region; being employed by the Anglo-American-Israeli Axis to ultimately divide and conquer the Middle East and Central Asia. I stopped reading at that point. You can now accurately be labelled as a left-wing nutcase conspiracy theorist. Are you also unemployed, or 19-years-old, or a travel and tourism major, or some other type of chronic underachiever and overprojector?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Gabriel

[wulf42]

Wulf is incapable of bombing Mecca.

True enough......

But that guy in that video is dead serious.....funny we don t hear much uproar about that from Michael Hardner.

Edited November 22, 2009 by wulf42

[wulf42]

Here's an question: if an Islamist mused aloud as to how the west would respond to the threat of a nuclear attack, would we insist that moderate Muslims speak out about him ?

As usual you leave out information.....the whole point of the Mecca thing is if the Islamic Terrorist's exploded a Nuclear weapon or bio attack and kill Millions of people in the U.S.A. then the U.S. would have a right to respond and likely would respond with a Nuclear strike to retaliate....my point i was trying to make if the extremist's know that a horrible retaliatory strike would be the response it would make them think twice about such an attack! Hizzbullah's leader publicly stated he would never have kidnapped an Israeli soldier if he knew how the Israeli's were going to respond (flattening Gaza). These people only understand violence anything else to them is a sign of weakness,Israel has understood this for years. In order to end violence you must threaten retaliation with more overwhelming violence and this is the same policy the Russians and Nato have used for years "attack us and we will wipe you out"(MAD) and because of that there has been peace an uneasy peace but peace just the same. Hamas is calling an end to rockets attacks because it has had enough of Israeli punishment and seems to be realizing that attacking Israel will only bring them misery and this should be the same message sent forth by the U.S.A!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8372728.stm

Edited November 22, 2009 by wulf42