An insinuation has been made on this board that the US is using the threat Islamic fundamentalists of today in a similar manner as to the way the Nazi Party used a threat of supposed conspiracies by people of Jewish faith in their rise to power. It is also been insinuated that it is "hyperbole" to consider radical Islam a threat to world peace.

EXCUSE ME???? :confused:

How many buildings did the Jews bomb? How many hostages did they torture to death? How many thousands of innocent people did Jews kill?

This claim that the radical Islamics are the ones wronged here is absurd. This is a 180-degree twist of reality. The Taliban had Afghanistan under their control, and were working on Pakistan. They would not have stopped there. they would have moved on to Iraq, Iran, or some other Middle Eastern nation. Jordan kicked the Palestinians out of their nation after the Palestinians attempted to take over the Jordanian Government. The reason that Saddam kept the Taliban and al Qeada at arms length? Because he was afraid they would depose him.

Sorry, but the radical Islamics are acting more like the Nazi's, raising hatred and gathering support by using false claims and greatly embellished tales to frighten the rest of the Islamic people into supporting them, all the while their real goal is to transform the Middle East into their vision of Islam, and that only to increase their power. Will they stop there? I don’t think so. Historically, once a group goes on a quest for power, they rarely stop unless someone or something stops them. It is possible that the West could contain them in the Middle East, but at what cost, not only to us, but also to the people who live there? Have we already forgot that radical Islam does not believe in suffrage, free speech, presumption of innocence, and fair trials?

While comparison of the Western world to the weak position the Jews prior to WWII is preposterous, the Nazi analogy still works in regards to the actions of the extremist Islamic organizations.

You're missing my point, or I seem to have pushed the wrong button. I was referring to an in my opinion very, very hyperbole view, in general.

There could well be the implication that for some people an enemy out there, in shape of fictious islamo-fascist masses, comes in convenient.

Basically it is just about the demonisation of an enemy. I see that the threat by militant islam is vastly exaggerated.

I see that the threat by militant islam is vastly exaggerated. Tell that to the 3,000+ Americans who died on 9/11. :flaming:

That is pretty easy for you to say, since your nations ships aren't having holes knocked in them, your buildings havne't been rammed by airplanes, and your embassies aren't being bombed. :rolleyes:

Oh come on. Sure 911 was a terrible act. But that's fortunately an exception, and not the rule. And anyway, the US are a people of some 300+ million iirc. That is not meant to belittle the loss and grief of the victim's families. But an existential threat is different. Islamist terrorism poses a threat to the physical existence of those who stand to be killed as a result of its actions (...) But it is not comparable to the threat posed to western democracy and European Jewry by Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s, let alone the prospect of nuclear annihilation during the cold war.That is, a limited threat requires a limited approach. And as that article I referred to said so well, that's what the US didn't do.

For those who don't know what I mean, here's the link again (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1187326,00.html).

Terrorists are political animals in first place. Terrorism has a political root cause and that is the pivotal point where the conflict has to be adressed. Fighting terror sure requires tough action against the perpetrators, sometimes even military action. But without a political solution that alone will not be enough.

Israel's continuous military successes haven't brought it anywhere near peace with the terrorists. To the contrary.

And look to South-Africa where the ANC fought with bobmings as well. Terrorists methods, of course. The Apartheid regime used about the same methods as the israelis use against terrorists: Classical repression, assassination, restriction of movement. Did it stop or end the ANC resistance? No. The fighting will was still there, even though fighting got more difficult.

But as soon as apartheid was abolished and participation of blacks was allowed terrorism wasn't an issue anymore in South-Africa. With the root cause solved, there was no point in terror anymore. Had the bombings continued no one had accepted that anymore, as there was no more reason to bomb. For what? So, with the solution, the people who may have liked to bomb on, wouldn't have any following anymore.
With a grain of salt, liberalism, not tough action solved the problem of terror in South-Africa. Being tough and feared alone didn't work.

A good link on that: What is terrorism ? (http://search.csmonitor.com/specials/terrorism/frameset.html)

That is what the author described as the two complementing elements of counterinsurgency: Successful counter-insurgency strategy always relies on two interrelated elements: a military campaign aimed at the perpetrators of violence, and a political campaign designed to isolate them from the wider population.

I might agree with Ragusa since militant Islam is a minority, and most followers of the religion do not agree with what the minority is doing.

The reason I DON'T agree that the threat from militant Islam is exaggerated is that while most followers don't agree with them, many ACCEPT what they do, even so far as to view them as heroes with celebrations and dancing in the streets.

Even the moderates don't speak out against atrocities. Though they don't praise them, they give acceptance by saying those attacked brought it upon themselves.

We also have support of these so-called "fringe" groups by countries through supplies, protection, even payments to families of "martyrs".

Exaggerated threat? I don't think so; not when the average Joe Middle Easterner is accepting or even praising the deeds of these "fringe" groups, and they are supplied and encouraged by countries.

I agree with the very clairvoyant Sir Blackthorne !

No, seriously, it's true that though the cast majority of muslims are not islamists, they accept, if not approve the islamist's radical points of view.
I am saying this from personal experience: I have spent a whole summer with a muslim friend of mine and many, many of her relatives and though they are far from being fanatics, sadly, they have some support for the "battle" of their "Muslim Brothers".
This phenomenon is easily explained (I have done some thorough research on the subject but, since the articles I read all came from French papers I cannot put a link here...).
Anyway, back to the point!
The fact is that the Muslim religion doesn't have a Religious Institution, a Church, as such (as opposed to the other major religions). Since the only concrete source of beliefs is the Koran, it has basically been left free to interpretation of the most various minds for centuries. This leads us to the major conflicts between Chiites and Sunnites (english spelling?).
This also leads to the main problem of the moderate muslims which is guilt. The guilt of not following to the letter the only guidebook provided them, that is why there is an underlying approval of the deeds of the minority of extremists who present themselves as true followers of the Law.
To end this rant: Islamists are a tiny minority in the muslim community, yet they recieve the support of a large number of the said community which, sadly, makes them the harder to defeat...

:yot: actually the conflict between shi'a and Sunnis started in 680, when the shi'a party supported Hussain a grandchild of muhammed as the leader of islam and the Sunnis supported the ruling kalif (from the family ummajjadern). the kalif killed Hussain in a battle in 680. and from that time the shi'a and Sunnis has bin enemies. so it has nothing or very little to do with the Koran.

By the way is it called shi'a or shi'ite muslims in english?

Terrorism isn't part of Islam. Neither is hurting innocents even if they're of another faith. Muhammad expressly forbids that.

Neither is it part of Judaism. Nor Christianity. Or any normal religion.

As for the question of how Jews could be compared to Islamic terrorists, that's not as simple as people tend to think. Let us just take Count Folke Bernadotte of Swedish royal family, UN mediator for Palestine. He wasn't exactly killed by the Palestinians, if you know what I mean. One of the men involved later became Prime Minister of Israel, and fierce opponent of Islamic terrorism :rolleyes: That's not a single example.

I'm not going to go any further into this. Using God as an excuse to crave power and exterminate opposition is wrong, evil and violates the core principles of the religion.

Tell that to the 3,000+ Americans who died on 9/11. :flaming: I see your point, and I agree that 9/11 was a horrible day, but when you talk about numbers like that, lets take a look at the quite large amount of iraqi people who have died... Many more than died in 9/11...

And I also agree with Ragusa. A demonisation and an enemy against whom you can hold, not only politics but also religion. Makes a good foe, for a man (and government) who wishes to be reelected...

Again, if any one has been demonized, it is the US. Who was it that was proclaimed the "Great Satan"? The fact is we don't want to kill non-combatants, women and children. We agonize over every picture we see of people who have suffered because of this war, American and Iraqi alike. They celebrate in the streets when our innocent men, women, and children die horrible deaths. Civilian casualties are unavoidable during war, yet we go to extreme measures to minimize this, even at the cost of our soldier’s lives.

We tried years of appeasement, using special ops, and "Nintendo" attacks, and the terrorism did nothing but intensify. Look at history! If an enemy will not negotiate in good faith, cannot be appeased, cannot be killed by chopping its head off, then you are left with nothing but to attack its body. This is the same conclusion that the terrorists have come to, the difference being that we are still making every reasonable effort to spare the innocent, they are not.

They will not stand for our way of life, and we should not sit and watch them sink the Middle East into an theocratic base under which they will be in a stronger position to make demands and force their ideals and beliefs upon us, either through war or the continued escalation of terrorist attacks.

This is exactly the game plan that the Nazi's used leading up to WWII. They split the world with alliances and promises, as Saddam did with Russia and France (each veto holders in the UN), hoping to keep the US and the rest of the world at bay.

I do not believe that this is part of some master plan, it is simply the way that it is logically being played out. Saddam wasn't trying to protect or help al Qeada any more than it benefited Saddam himself. Al Qeada used Saddam and Iraq in the same manner. But ask yourself, as the pieces of the puzzle start to fit together, and the power struggles in the Middle East are inevitably resolved, who do you want to see in power, and elected government, or a group of Islamic clerics who believe that the west is evil incarnate, who also have enormous amounts of wealth due to the exploitation of the natural resources of the area?

Do we defeat terrorism now or face it later?

If there was a peaceful way to defeat this threat today, I would be all for it, but given all that we have tried in the past, I have yet to hear an idea that will accomplish this. This is where the reality of the real world and the theory of the intellectual world inevitably part ways.

The majority of muslims may not be extremists, but they sure as hell have deep sympathies for their cause. Those who think otherwise, should open their eyes for a change.

Right after the news got out about the Sept.11 attacks, the streets here were literally filled with dancing and cheering Turks and Moroccans. That sight made me sick to my stomach. The police just stould there, and did nothing, while they knew exactly what the celebrations were about. They should have beaten the crap out of those guys, celebrating such a deed, is the same as comitting the act in my book. It's sick, and doesn't belong in our society. If they hate us so much, then why did they choose to live among us ?

a side comment,
don't we need at least an actual muslim from a muslim state on board to join in this discussion?

Exactly! I guess free internet and game access is hard to come by in Islamic states.

BTA & Luthien

I have been pondering my reply a little, and as usual, sleeping over it helped.

You refer to the apathy of the Arab masses in face of Al Qaeda’s extremism and conclude that makes up an Arab threat.

I disagree. Actually the reply to understand that is right in the article I linked to in my first post here. The hostility towards the US and the sympathy for anti-American terrorists in the Arab masses are basically a result of the US failure to address legitimate Arab grievances.

What do I mean with that? Iran and the traditional flagburning ceremonies among Shi’ites. How come?
Once upon a time the US toppled the legitimate Iranian leader and replaced him with the Shah, a despot, because the elected president wanted to nationalize oil. Unacceptable for Britain and the US. When the Iranians eventually toppled the Shah he took refuge, in the US. So the Iranians demanded extradiction to put him on trial for his human rights abuses. Naturally the US refused. Naturally the Iranians were pissed. The Iranians retaliated by shamefully occupying the embassy and the Mullah’s fueled anti-US sentiment: Who’s with our enemies is against us! The US were with the Shah, a brutal opressor.
In the end the Iranians weren’t the only ones making stupid moves. But don’t expect the US to care about that, or change their policy – don’t waffle, be even standfast when you’re wrong – OR ELSE THEY WIN!. For Cheney and his ilk the mullahs are just plain evil. For them, there cannot be negotiations, just an Iranian surrender.

The Arabs, and the Iranians too, who actually aren’t even Arabs, are very well aware of the US ambitions to determine who’s to rule them and who not. And the Arabs don’t like seeing themselves bossed around by the US promising democracy while installing and propping up despots as they did the last 50 years. Actually the only despots the US don’t like, the mullahs and Assad Jr. are those not on US payroll.
Don’t the US preach democracy? Then why don’t they accept democratic decisions that conflict with their national interest? The US just reminded the Arabs on that part by putting that crook Chalabi to Iraq and painfully trying to avoid direct elections in Iraq as an elected Iraqi government very likely wouldn’t grant them the basing rights they seek. Democracy my a**.
Moving themselves on on such old and trifling matters, as Bush likes to do (For me this is no longer an issue, byeee!), won’t help the US – the Arabs do care.
. US support for Israel – US arms for Israel – failure to implement the roadmap (that is, the neo-cons killed it). When Israel kills Palestinians and conducts escalation strikes, Israeli forces use US made and paid-for arms - M60 tanks, and M113 APCs, they use American made M4 carbines (M16 derivatives) Apache and Cobra helicopters and reverse engeneered TOW missiles.
And all the while, especially since Bush Jr and “We-love-Israel” neo-con crew took office they US basically just said “Amen” to Israel’s massacres, referring to Israel’s right for self defense? Self defense in Gaza? A strip of land the Israelis hold occupied even though it is a piece of Egypt? The US don’t take action against Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory or the Israeli confiscation (basically a slow ethnic cleansing). And they didn’t even seriously try to implement the roadmap.

The US foreign policy under Bush has been staunchly pro Israel, whatever Israel did. The question wether Palestinians should have self determination on their own turf seemingly isn’t an issue for the US. New settlements? Assassinations? The Washington reaction under Bush usually was something like “ *YAAAAAAWN* … but next time not on prime time please … “ Since Sharon took office suicide bombs have killed some 300 Israelis. Sharons retaliations have killed some 2.700 Palestinians. The US don’t care.

That is a legitimate Arab grievance. They feel compassion for their fellow Muslims. And the Arabs have long perceived it so. No sign of the US addressing that.
. And recently the nonsensical invasion of Iraq, which was, and not only in Arab countries, perceived as an outrage, the ultimate poll-plunger. The fate of the Arabs in Iraq dying as a result of the occupation is also an issue Arabs feel compassion for – seemingly more compassion than, considering the OP-EDs, some Americans felt for the victims of Madrid – the victims nonwithstanding they are in US press being belittled as appeasers and cowards. What an idiocy.
Maybe the spaniards just instinctively understand counter-terrorism, from their ETA experience, better than the US do (who never really had real terrorism at home until 911, Oklahoma City being the notable exception)? It's just that now old tune of the pro-war goons "Who's not with us is against us!" just with the new line "And who leaves our train to Bedlam is a traitor!" Propaganda.
That is, the US don’t understand the second rule of counterinsurgency: Deny the terrorists sympathy. As a matter of fact the US, especially under Bush, gave them just that aplenty - by willingly killing the roadmap and by invading Iraq. There is a change in the US approach needed.
That is why the sorry poll results in the Arab world scare the foreign policy establishment and anti-terror specialists like Cofer-Black – they directly result in support for terrorists and make it much much harder to find them in their sea of sympathizers. As the saying goes, when someone feels he has a problem with you, you have one with him. No signs of understanding that on the US administration’s side.

It doesn’t mean appeasement to listen to what the other side has to say – it just means that the US have to understand that Arabs are a factor in their foreign policy that has to be taken seriously. Listening to the Arabs and trying to find out why and where they criticize the US is a good start. The Bush crew has failed there hands down. They only talk to Arabs over the barrel of a gun.

The US must win the Arab hearts and minds, in order to turn the Arab apathy into pro-US sympathy. But that requires a change in US policy. It's not just about improving PR.

As long as the US don’t address this shortcoming the Arabs will continue to cheer and jubilate in face of the killing of Americans, just like whacky Americans cheer and jubilate for the death of Arabs in retaliation for Fallujah (not here, but I’ve seen just that elsewhere). Americans can be just as ghoulish as Arab mobs, moral superiority nonwithstanding :rolleyes:

[ April 10, 2004, 10:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Perhaps, but i haven't seen them dancing around burned corpses hanging from a bridge.

And why should the US be concerned about Arab grievances ? Let them take care of their own petty problems, outside help isn't appreciated anyway. The US supplies Israel with guns ? Yeah, makes sense doesn't it ? That's what allies do, they help eachother in difficult times. Because if it wasn't for those American guns, Israel would have been erased from the the worldmap, by those grieving Arabs. Now Israel still stands, and that seems too hard for them to swallow. So now they take it out Israel's friends. Because Israel itself is too tough to crack.

Uhm, Pac man - maybe the US should be concerned about grievances the arabs experience because they are the ones causing it?! :rolleyes:

The hatred in the middle east is caused by the hypocricy of the West.

And why is that ? Because they are friends with Israel ? The US, or any other nation can't be friends with Israel, because the Arabs say so ?

If that's their biggest grievance, than they have some serious issues overthere.

Or are there some other things we do that they don't like ? The fact that we are not Islamic perhaps ? Gimme a break

Well, the way I see it they are a bit pissed at us in general and the U.S. in particular because of double standards, manipulation, outright lies.

You know, like propagating democracy, but supporting obscure regimes (like the one in Egypt) at the same time. For further examples I recommend Ragusa's post above - which you have skipped, it seems.

And yes, of course, the Islamist's try to capitalize on the general grudge that many arabian people harbour against the one's who mess with their lifes. Iraq? A shining beacon of liberty and democracy? Dont make me laugh. We are doing a really wonderful job helping them gain followers.

Exactly! I guess free internet and game access is hard to come by in Islamic states. Then you are wrong. i am a non muslim from a Islamic state under a federation which adapted Islam as the official religion. From where i come from, we have cyber cafes set up just for playing (interestingly) counterstrike for about USD 0.50 per hour.

i am just curious, while engaging in such discussion, have you been in contact with islamic culture at all? It is one thing you see them on TV; it is another thing you read them in books; it is a new thing you actually live in it. Recently i am planning to go to Iran to admire the romance of Persian empire but no one i know here in U.S. thinks Iranians are friendly people and want to come with me. i asked them to visit my country but under their parents' objetion they declined. With such limitations on what is islamic culture and who are muslims, i don't know how the argument of "muslims hate the west" can be justified.

Sorry Teeck I guess I should have been more specific.

Where are u from? Sounds like maybe Indonesia.

I've been to Turkey, but other than that not many places. I was supposed to go to Jordan along time ago. I went to school with King Hussian's daughter, and actually met the King once.

I'v had friends and customers who were Iranian (well they liked to say "Persian"), and they are very warm and friendly.

I guess my quick statement would have been better if I had merely mentioned that it is a little strange that these boards are so diverse, and yet, as far as I know, there are no posteres here from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Quater, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel(wasn't someone here from there a while ago?), Egypt...ect.

You refer to the apathy of the Arab masses in face of Al Qaeda’s extremism and conclude that makes up an Arab threat.No. I'm not sure why whenever terrorism comes up you equate it to Al Qaeda only.

I disagree. Actually the reply to understand that is right in the article I linked to in my first post here. The hostility towards the US and the sympathy for anti-American terrorists in the Arab masses are basically a result of the US failure to address legitimate Arab grievances.You see, you are not disagreeing that there is a threat, or even that the threat is or is not exaggerated. What you are arguing is that the US response to the "legitimate Arab grievances" is one of the contributors to the threat.

I made absolutely no claims about why the threat exists, or even whether the US's response to the threat is the most appropriate. All I'm saying is I disagree with your claim that "the threat by militant islam is vastly exaggerated". I don't believe it is whether the US is partly to blame for it or not.

BTA and others, you cannot deny that by some factions the threat is wildly exaggerated. What the terrorists did at 9/11 is about the worst they can ever do barring they manage to get a hold of nuclear weapons, smuggle it smoewhere and manage to set it off but beyond the foreseeable future the threat posed by terrorist is just that, a terrorist threat. I have read plenty of things where some people express an overt or covert fear that muslim hordes will overrun the western world and make them our overlords. That is something that is insinuated by many demagogues and politicians in the US and elsewhere.

That is an exaggerated, even silly threat. Despite our western worlds freedom and seemingly peacefulness almost all of our societies are quite militarized and we are vastly superior to everything else on this world and will remain so for a long long time.

Yes, I'm sure that's how the world felt about the threat from a minority party in Germany in the early 1900's too.

What I'm trying to say is that these people must resort to terrorism now because that's all they can do. That doesn't mean that is all they can do in the future when they have popular support and even government support in certain places.

Just look at the recent revelations that Pakistan (Dr. Khan) may have been responsible for nuclear technology proliferation to North Korea, Iran and Libya.

I don't know about anyone else, but those kinds of things make me nervous, and to me the threat is very real, though perhaps not "clear and present" at this time.

That was part of my point, even if for some reason the muslim(/arab) world would unite and declare hostility towards us in the west they would not pose a threat to our civilization. Except of course with the changes our societies might take to meet this threat. For the arab world to even get that far they would need a lot of development during decades and as the anti-western sentiments are held by fundamentalistic conservatives that development would never occur if they were in power. The development it takes for them to become the threat you are talking about would with almost certainity also remove the hate they feel for the western world.

You could say that Germany too needed a lot of development in the 30's and they did, but their development was a rebuilding of what had already been there. In the Arab world there is nothing to rebuild, they need to build from scratch and that takes much longer.

I dont feel the least bit threatened by the arabian nations and their military forces.
Even if they band together they dont have a chance against the EU or US in an open conflict (admittetly, I am no expert, but thats what I think). Not at this point in time. Nor do I feel threated by proliferation. If the Islamists know whats good for their homecountries they wont nuke a western city. For if they indeed kill tens of thousands of Americans, or Brits or Spaniards that would surely change our societies - and the outcome would not be favourable for the arabians. They are too smart for that and will instead prefer tactics of attrition, baiting us, let us make the mistakes which will increase hatred in the muslim nations.

The threat, in my opinion, is one of the future. Our nations are inhabited by aging populations. We are becoming fewer. The islamic nations, however, have more than enough children. Plus we have already large muslim communities, growing communities, living in Europe (something I am quite uncomfortable with, to be honest). And I think there are even some to be found in the U.S.
If we manage to 'help' those Islamists painting our civilisation as something that must be destroyed, I fear we will face hordes of fanatics in a few decades, attacking from outside and from within. And we will not have enough economic or manpower to stop them and the governments supporting them, despite hightec military stuff.

Therefore I think its vital to seek a way of coexistence with the moderate muslims now and stop playing into the hands of the fanatics by royaly screwing things up, a la Iraq.

And now, I am on my way to Cologne. Partytime. :)

There is a significant Muslim community in New Zealand and they co-exist happily with the other cultures here. I don't see them as any sort of threat. They are just people. One of them runs the shop where I go and get my paper in the morning and he is a friendly chap who is just doing his job and feeding his family. He is causing less bother than the yobbos who drive their souped up cars up and down my street in the middle of the night.....but now I'm getting off-topic. He certainly isn't plotting to blow up New Zealand so I have no need to feel threatened by him.

The problem with muslims is not with the common man, but with their religeous leaders, like the Imams, the ones that lead the fridayafternoon Mosque sessions. They have A LOT of influence on the majority of the muslim community, which is, as we all know, a deeply religeous community. Every word coming from an Imam, is regarded wise, therefore it's good to know for us westerners what we're dealing with here.

For example: the Dutch Justice department got some tips about several Imams, who used their sessions to preach hate, especially towards Jews, Americans, and gay people. So they hid microphones in some of the mosques in question. The outcome was pretty freaky, they literally preached that every muslim has a holy duty to do whatever is in his/her power to destroy the state of Israel, that American people are legal targets, anywhere, anytime, and that gays were lower lifeforms than pigs, and should be banned from society, or worse.

The hidden mics were in at least one Mosque in Rotterdam, where a Imam El Moumni was asking for support in his crusade against gays, and right here in Utrecht, where an Imam was preaching hatred towards Jews.

Lovely bunch, aren't they ? They got away with a warning, and the message that if it would happen again they would be thrown out of the country. But at least we got a clear view of what goes on inside those mosques on a friday afternoon. And it wasn't pretty.

I'm not saying that all Imams are like this, but one or two of em could be enough to start something really bad. Especially since the deeply religeous muslims take the imam's word for granted. Some rotten apples among the Imams use that for their own sick purposes.

The Jews were a scapegoat for Hitler and his followers and they treated them like the lowest possible lifeform by torturing and oppressing them beyond belief. Islamic extremists already live with oppression and torture by their own governments and "princes". The Jews just wanted to be left to live in peace. I think Islam is the bane of all organized religions. It is a selfish, brutal, and male dominated lifestyle that i can hardly see any spritual benefit from. They should hope and pray they are right about what they believe in, because if there is a hell and Satan, he has a lot of Islamic buddies who traits include hatred, killing of the innocent, and there proud princes and kings raping 12 year-old girls in there palaces. And just for the record Catholics are blasphemous faux-martyrs as well. Im not Jewish. May God be with us all and the Beast forever fought against. Peace.

@Naug

If that isn't the most loaded, stereotipical, and prejudiced pile of drivel I have ever read/heard, I do not know what is. I suggest you take those words back as they are racially charged and morally wrong. You are obviously ignorant towards my religion and my people. To judge a whole people only through rumor and its radicals is not only blatantly wrong but stupid.


Back to the topic:

As a Muslim Arab-American, I feel that I have insight on both sides of the issue. While I do believe in and support my fellow Palestinians and Iraqis in their plight, I in NO way condone their brutal methods and acts of terrorism. Same goes for the US. While I understand the American government's need to protect their interests, I feel that their foreign policies towards both its enemies AND allies is distorted and corrupt.

Both use what they think to be effective strong-arm tactics. All their policies towards each other do is harbor and cultivate animosity on either side of the fence. What is needed now is not violence, but a deft political touch that characterized the Reagan administration. What is needed now are not acts of terrorism, but peaceful protests against the occupation of Arab land.

[ April 11, 2004, 13:42: Message edited by: Vengeance Incarnate ]

Naug, I think all organized religions, heh, all religions is making a pretty good job in being the bane of religion with their inherent wickedness. Too bad people are too stupid to see it.

BTA, I made absolutely no claims about why the threat exists, or even whether the US's response to the threat is the most appropriate.I wouldn't like to appear I did put words in your mouth, I wasn't. When I used the "You" in my post it was meant in a general way, and not to adress anything you said. Sorry for that, I'll try to avoid that by using "one" for the future. All I'm saying is I disagree with your claim that "the threat by militant islam is vastly exaggerated". I don't believe it is whether the US is partly to blame for it or not.Fair enough. I'd still like to persuade you though ;)

I wanted to point out how the the very one-sided US foreign policy of the , not only but especially, last three years - the blanco cheque for Israel - is a thing the Arabs are very angry about. That makes them feel sympathy for everyone wo resists the US. They tolerate the terrorists because they feel it is *retribution* - like: "So want? Aren't the US injust too? They close their eyes over Israels atrocities but make abig fuss about Saddam and now about Syria and Iran?" But that doesn't make them fundamentalists.
This reaction is the effect of the piss poor performance of the US in the middle east, especially their failure to find a credible stance on Israel. It should give you a hint on how frustrated they are about US double-talk and double-standards.

As I said, a change is needed. *One* cannot decree his will on 1 billion muslims and expect them to basically say "Yessir!" They want to have a say in their affairs, and when they feel reduced to pawns on the US chessboard of imaginary "Greater Middle-East", the place where the neo-cons play their grand Great Game II, they are pissed off and resist.

Arab solidarity is a thing often underestimated and misunderstood. Muslim charity and mutual help are stressed in Islam. That is, muslims will compassionately take sides for their fellow muslims when they feel they are unfairly or brutally treated by Israel or the US. And even when it is about dealing with an ass like Saddam, they react pridictable that way: "He maybe a sorry SOB, but he is an arab SOB, so you outsiders please stay out! Or else ... !!!"

The Bush Jr. approach is basically to decree on people half around the earth and expect them to nod and say amen only because it is the US speaking, and because the US have really big guns.

As said, the US need to adress arab grievances to be able to achieve an improvement in the middle east affairs.
As long as the US haven't adressed the problem of Palestine Arabs will predicatably, and with a boulder of truth, doubt their honesty.

[ April 11, 2004, 14:55: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yeah all organized religons are b.s. i agree. I believe in god but i dont take christians to be perfect. there are tons of christian hypocrites out there and christian nuts. so dont think im some soapbox racist know-it-all, im not. For how long ive seen wars over in the mideast because they all can't live with each other unless they all believe in the same diety, i stand by my views. Islamic extremism is vile and its a shame they cant just be happy without making sure everyone else shares in there beliefs. They hate the jews as bad as the S.S. Waffen in 1939. Im not anti-islam. I just dont think the religion is the cat's meow. sorry dude from UAE

Naug has been issued a warning regarding the last couple of his posts in this thread. I won't bother editing them this time, but no more insulting generalizations will be tolerated here.

Umm...as a Muslim, living in a Non-Muslim state (India) which has loads of other muslims (largest Muslim community after the majority of Hindus), I thought I could probably add my two cents to the discussion, though I seem to be quite late.

Firstly, what I say is my opinion alone, please do not take it to be the views of the Muslim community as a whole. Also, please do not flame me for what I might/ not say.

Earlier someone mentioned the Shi'ite/SHi'a thing...its Shi'a. And the other faction is Sunni(s), not Sunni'tes.

As someone before me has already mentioned, there was large sympathy from the Muslim community towards the Islamists. That is true. What is also true, is the fact that those fundamental Islamists form a very small part of the Muslim community at large.

However, regarding the point of us Muslims having sympathies with the 9/11 bombings...

Note: The Quran and Mohammed (pbuh) have expressly forbidden any violence by Muslims towards anyone else. However, violence HAS been allowed when there is cause for self-defence, either for one's own person, family, or for the community at large. The violence Muslims might resort to, (termed as Jihad) is seen by Muslims as self-defence of the solidarity and freedom for the Muslim community.

With the present situation in mind, most people back in India (which is a non-muslim country, mind you) feel that the United States is a bully of a nation which plays God with the domestic matters of half the countries in the world, exercising its influence for no reason whatsoever, but to maintain its supremacy as a superpower. They also feel that America may be correct in "waging a war on terrorism" like Mr.Bush put it, but they have NO RIGHT to interfere in the affairs of another country.

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a dictator. True...but what business is it of the United States' to interfere with Iraq? What business does it have to wage a war on Iraq to "confiscate weapons of mass destruction" (which were never found...but that is not the point) with the United Nations EXPRESSLY saying that it did not want America to go ahead with its plans?

America effectively showed the UN the middle finger and went ahead doing what it wanted to. Also, the most shameful part of the whole thing is that the UN did nothing to prevent America. That is the state to which things have come to. The US effectively rules the world.

I realise that I am going to be nevertheless flamed for what I am posting, but the issues we Muslims have, and the rest of the people as well who don't live in Europe, Australia or America, need to be explained.

In reference to what PacMan said...not true. Imams do exercise a notable amount of influence, but from my personal experience, it doesn't amount to much. At one point, when the US troops were in Afghanistan, trying to rout Al Qaeda, there were regular sermons on the part of the Imams inciting the Muslim youth to join the "Holy Warriors fighting for the future of Islam" in Afghanistan. Needless to say, none took them up.

As far as why the Arab nations and Muslims at large have sympathies with the fundamentalists is concerned, the US has a nasty habit of interfering with the matters of other countries, rather like an uninvited guest. If you will take an objective look at reports from Iraq right now, almost EVERYONE is telling the US troops to go back to the United States. They don't want them there, and they feel that they have worn out their welcome.

It is unrealistic to expect that the US ousted Saddam Hussein with the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart. If that WAS the case, then they would have left when the people of Iraq made it crystal clear to them that they were not welcome. (Pelting the troops with stones might count as a clear way of telling someone to go home.)

It is also the public opinion in Arab countries and especially in India, that the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel has been largely prolonged due to US interference.

Americans need to understand that the Muslim people are not subject to the same jurisdiction that they seem to exercise over the rest of the world. They're religion doesn't allow it.

On the other hand, I would personally attribute a lot of the US' recent problems to Mr. Bush. I noticed for myself, that when Mr.Clinton was in office, there were little problems of this nature. This I feel, reflects strongly on Mr. Bush's capabilities as President.

I realise that it is wrong to sympathise with the deaths of thousands of innocents. But the patience of the Muslims people is wearing thin. They cannot tolerate the US bossing them around, and the fundamentalists are taking extreme steps to let this be known. (Examples would be the US occupying Saudi Arabia from the last few decades and exercising unfair strongarming of the Arab nations using economic sanctions[Iraq])

There is already support to the fundamentalist Islamic groups in Pakistan, and in the future, this can only be expected to escalate. This is all held to be obvious truths by the common man in India and I am just repeating them here.

It was not my intention to offend anybody who might read this. All I wanted was to state my opinion, and that of the general public in India and other Arab countries, which I know of, having either personally experienced it, or having relatives living in those Arab countries.

I would like to strongly remind you again to think twice before you start flaming me. :shake: I'd really appreciate it if you didnt. :)

Greetings Faraaz.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to flame you...you speak clearly and add positive feedback to this thread. I hope you continue to post in a "no flame" zone. Don't have too many flamers here, mostly people who can disagree, but respect others opinion in a peaceful way...besides, if anyone flames you, I'll kill em'. :D

You are not the first Muslim whom I have heard speak that Islam is a religion of peace and non-violence...yet I continue to hear Islamic "experts" (they are non-muslim, btw) quote all the direct and glorifed acts of violence, chapter and verse (or is that "surra"), that are found in the Quran. I am curious what your answers would be to the following simple questions...

Based on what the Quran says:

1. Who is an infidel?
2. Who is a hipocrit?
3. What is to be the fate of infidels and hipocrits?
4. What is the fate of a faithful muslim who aids the infidels and hipocrits to attain that fate?

Anyway, always wondered how muslims with the "one and only" Quran can say it says drastically different things. I can look at the Christian community as a whole and see that we have our fanatics, fundamentalists and nut-cases...who use the Bible to support racism, anti-semitism, genocide, polygamy...whatever...but they receive NO sympathy from the rank and file Christians, regardless of denomination. This situation, by your own observations, is the opposite in the muslim world.

Also, I would challenge your (I assume it would be "Arab-ish" :) ) perspective on some recent world events, for instance (Examples would be the US occupying Saudi Arabia from the last few decades and exercising unfair strongarming of the Arab nations using economic sanctions[Iraq])
Neither of those observations are accurate...to call our military bases in Saudi an occupation is untrue, and Iraq was under sanctions from the beloved UN, not the USA...we always wanted tougher sanctions or more action against Saddam. And remember...Iraq was under santions for invading and occupying Kuwait...a neighbor and fellow muslim nation. In fact, the US "occupation" of Saudi didn't really begin until we (and the rest of the world), began the military buildup for the liberation of Kuwait.

Hope you don't feel flamed. Looking forward to your response.

HacknSlash, let your fundamentalistic christian fight back with dirty means towards a force of overwhelming power mostly composed of muslims whom even you as a more moderate christian find is meddlesome and threathening and lets see how loud you complain about your misguided but albeit fellow christians fight back towards impossible odds.

That is the situation as perceived by most muslims. The US is not seen as the beacon of hope and liberty in most of the world but as the undisputed hegemon and ruler of the world. A power which doesnt have an all too kind eye towards the muslim world.

As for me? As of yet I would still side with the US but I am more afraid of the christian fundamentalistic right in the US than the fundamentalistic muslims, however, that right is still kept somewhat in check even though it is very uncomfortable to see them have as much power as they have today. Five fundamentalistic christians with nukes are more dangerous than one million fanatic muslims in the desert with handarms. Religion should be eradicated from the face of the earth, one issue I am becoming more and more authoritarian on.