Just How Many Muslims Support Terrosism

[russ_watters]

The arguments here are a little all over the place. I'd like to re-emphasize the main point of this thread:

The main point of this thread is to show with factual data that the perception that many people have that terrorism is supported by significant fractions of people in some Muslim countries is an accurate perception.

What people do with that is up to them. What I see in that fact is that there is a problem in some Muslim countries that needs fixing. But perhaps I jumped the gun posting my opinions about it - it seems we may not even get a general agreement that this fact is, in fact, a fact.

 

[Burnsys]

You're saying you didn't know that terrorists (foreign and Iraqi) trained in Iraq? That Saddam Hussein gave cash rewards to the faimilies of suicide bombers who attacked Israel? That Iraq trained terrorists in tactics for hijacking airliners in its own government run facilities? That the US found many terrorist camps during its invasion?

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=289&x_context=3
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

You forget something russ..

That Us gave aid, support and inteligence data to saddam husein.!

 

[Art]

Edit: misread. You said "a US general" - ie, not necessarily Colin Powell. Fair enough. Was this unnamed general a psychologist? Is he qualified to give such a diagnosis? Did Albright actually write the survey report? Did she personally falsify the data? Do you think the data was fabricated?

Pew research is highly regarded (as evidenced by their frequent usage by news organizations). You'll have to do much better than throw insults at people associated with them.

I have no idea of the general's qualifications but I imagine he was more expressing his amazement than diagnosing an actual medical condition but then again...
Here's another Albright classic,

Television interview, "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996:
Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq:
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean,
that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is
the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price -- we think the price is worth it

Madeleine Albright is more than 'associated' with Pew research she is co-chairperson and here is a short snippet about the other co-chairperson John C Danforth.

On June 4, 2004, George Bush nominated John C Danforth, a Republican senator from Missouri from 1976 to 1995, and former special envoy to Sudan, to replace John Negroponte as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Danforth's Senate and international experience, opposition to family planning, religious-influenced politics, pro-corporate stances and fundraising for Republican candidates no doubt helped recommend him to Bush administration officials.

Some of John Danforth's controversial stances in the Senate included voting against sanctions on the apartheid government of South Africa in the mid-1980s, voting to cut funds for United Nations peacekeeping in the 1990s, and voting to limit U.S. support for international family planning programs

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_C._Danforth

 

[solutions in a box]

How many Muslims support terrorism

To cut to the chase here:

Tragically the number will be how many ever it takes to convince the U.S. to leave the middle East. And that is something we will never do until the oil runs out in about 50 years.

The radical Islamics commit terrorist (atrocities) acts against each other. They always have.

Should we be surprized that it is happening now? The only thing that has changed is the methods and weaponry.

 

[AKG]

Well, that's different from the context in which it was used, but what you're saying has anther problem. Someone in another thread described that as "f'd up logic" - but its still wrong: logic requires a good starting premise to yield a correct answer. In the case of this "f'd up logic", the reason it is "f'd" up is the starting premise ("feels that...their only possible recourse is terrorism") is flawed. Terrorism is never a viable option, much less the only one.

Yes, they may have an incorrect premise, but we can understand how they came to that premise. You may not wish to grant the fact that you can understand how they came to that premise, but I think it's only reasonable to say it is understandable. If you make a reasonable attempt to understand their position, you will see that it is understandable (although you need not condone it). However, it seems clear to me that you don't want to make a reasonable attempt. In fact, your statement that terrorism is never a viable option, and never the only option, and the implication that you can never understand why someone might think it viable, strongly suggests to me that you don't want to make a reasonable attempt. You can say that you cannot understand why they'd believe their premises, but I don't believe you.

 

[Archon]

Regarding the reasons for the lack of American terrorism in response to the bombings on 9/11:

It seems fairly obvious from my standpoint that Americans don't participate in acts of terrorism because they have more viable alternatives. What reason do you have, after all, to blow yourself up and kill a few terrorists, at the cost of your own life, when the army is already doing this for you. Most of the terrorists in Iraq and throughout the Middle East don't see similar options: from their perspective, their country has been invaded and conquered, and the only way for them to "effectively" mount a counterattack is through terrorism.

If America was somehow invaded by hostile forces and conquered, and people perceived that their country was being occupied by external forces, SOME Americans would be willing to perform acts of terrorism to save their country, even if civilians were killed in the process. They would see this as a necessary sacrifice for the cause of freedom and the American way of life. Though most of the population would be unwilling to blow themselves up, many would support these actions, until they were personally affected by the bombings: after all, if the terrorists are trying to liberate the country from foreign invaders, they can't be THAT bad, right?

The situation in Iraq seems similar: many people, and particularly the terrorists, feel that their country has been invaded and is being occupied by a foreign army, and can see no alternative to terrorism in the face of the might of the U.S. Army. This is, in any case, my theory on the subject.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Quite frankly, the questions asked in the poll were straightforward and the ones you ask are not. It appears you desire obfuscation above all else on this issue.

Russ, I didn't realize you actually read Arabic. What was the first question ... In Arabic?

If you'll notice, the poll didn't use the word "terrorism", it described a type of act, thus alleviating the problem of the emotionally charged word.

Then, quite clearly, you have just proved the conclusion flawed by inserting words that were not used in the poll in your conclusion.

Also, you have just proved that where the poll deliberately avoided the use of the word "terrorism" YOU deliberately use the word contrary to the poll for the inverse reason.

How about "Would you prefer if the Moslems had a professional army like the USA?"

Were there questions in the poll that indicated an of solving the problems without terrorism ... sooooorry ... 'terrorist like acts'?

Your 'poll' did not mention terrorism and seems to avoid the obvious so you are extrapolating are you not?

Show me in the poll where they asked about a legitimate army option?

Where does it ask, for instance, if they would prefer the Palestinians if they prefer an army armed by the USA with Nukes, Helecopter Gunships with rockets, Tanks, etc. who would target political targets only?

You are asserting the poll is flawed/invalid. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? Poll data from somewhere else that says something different?

Russ, obviously you are new to polling. It does not take another poll to prove bias or invalidity. That merely takes an analysis of what was asked vs. what wasn't.

Ironically Russ, I have one of the most accurate polls of all time ... the voting of the UN compared to the use of the US veto in the security council.

Without exception and regardless of the political bent of the US administration, the USA has used its veto to block all legitimate censure of Israel.

When denied a legal and legitimate voice, people revolt. (see among others 1776 America, 1986 Phillipines, 1989 Tiananmen ... I'm sure you get the drift ... well, you DID support the suicide in Tiananmen didn't you?)

The US military has not attacked Saudia Arabia and Saudia Arabia was the source of most of the terrorists. Therefore, American citizens do (by the "f'd up logic" you prefer) need to start going over to Saudia Arabia and bombing busses.

LOL.

Are you purposly quoting Michael Moore now?

I would have taken you for a person who hated his movies.

Maybe I should just refer you there to see the answer.

Now why would the USA engague in this type of act when those guys are available to them who have all those great toys?

I love it when Neocons start quotng Moore theories as their own.

Please Russ, when you quote, you really should show your sources.

Um... you wish to present some poll data that indicates that a significant fraction of the US would favor "nuking China"?

Be careful, Russ.

The glee that you display while giving that answer opens you up to everyone and his brother asking you the same question when you make a statement. If you want to be hit with the question "Where is your Poll" every time you open your mouth ... just continue with this line of responses.

No I must admit that this is the first American Oraganization that has gone over and attempted to stir things up in this way.

Do you believe that this was a fair poll; that this poll was not created to prove a western premise?

Do you believe there were questions asked about 'Do you wish to see peace?' or 'Do you want war?'

Do you seriously believe that this was not a 'Have you stopped bearing your wife?' type of poll?

 

[The Smoking Man]

To cut to the chase here:

Tragically the number will be how many ever it takes to convince the U.S. to leave the middle East. And that is something we will never do until the oil runs out in about 50 years.

Ironically, this is the number of years that Bush projected the 'War on Terrorism' would last.

Do you think he knows something?

 

[The Smoking Man]

You forget something russ..

That Us gave aid, support and inteligence data to saddam husein.!

And Saudi gave aid to the Palestinian bombers AND Al Qieda up to and following 9/11.

In Bandar bin Sultan's own words:

MR. RUSSERT: Prince, the former general consul to the Department of Treasury, David Aufhauser...

PRINCE BANDAR: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...a professional, a lawyer, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Question: "With regard to the trail of money ... and whether it leads in some cases to Saudi Arabia?" Aufhauser: "In many cases it is the epicenter." Question: "And does that trail of money also show money going to al Qaeda?" Aufhauser: "Yes." "Is the money from Saudi Arabia a significant source of funding for terrorism generally?" Aufhauser: "Yes. Principally al Qaeda but many other recipients as well."

This was the scene in April 2002, when your king, a state-sponsored telethon--and look at these pictures--raised over $92 million and the money was "for Palestinian martyrs"...

PRINCE BANDAR: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...suicide bombers who blew up Israeli children, school buses, restaurants. Here's the Treasury Department of the United States saying that Saudi money is funding al-Qaeda. You're having telethons raising money for Palestine suicide bombers, and you sit here and say, "How could people say these terrible things about us?"

PRINCE BANDAR: Yes, I say that very easily because nothing stands still. If you are saying before 9/11 we didn't have our thing together, yes, but nor did you. Look what 9/11 is showing. However, since...

MR. RUSSERT: This was April of 2003.

PRINCE BANDAR: I understand. Since then, since 9/11, when after we recovered from the shock, we looked at all our procedures, and we have come through and we're proud of it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What I see in that fact is that there is a problem in some Muslim countries that needs fixing. But perhaps I jumped the gun posting my opinions about it - it seems we may not even get a general agreement that this fact is, in fact, a fact.

What is that fact?

Desperate people take desperate measures?

Do we solve this problem by invading and shooting everything that moves or provide the Moslems with a standing army and nukes like Israel so we have the type of 'detante' that kept the USA and USSR from invading each other?

I love your world, Russ.

It's just so ... Black and White.

Unfortunately, the world I live in has so many grey areas.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Spewing rhetoric? I posted a poll! This is hard, factual data.

Russ, you posted nothing of the sort. You posted numbers and a conclusion coloured with your opinion and have stated quite accurately that you have attributed the word 'terrorism' to something inserted after the fact.

You have never addressed the problem of definitions where 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

In no part of that scenario do I see American civilians going to Russia to kill Russian civilians.

Funny, I have yet to see and Iraqi citizen do the same thing in America.

Do you have a 'poll' or a link to show us where that happened?


(See previous warning re:glee)

 

[The Smoking Man]

I see one side asking and answering direct questions and the other side not.

Yes unfortunately, the same people who are asking the questions made up the questions and then the answers?

Since when is a poll a fact when they always display a margine of accuracy?

Since when is a poll accurate about anything other than the questions answered in the poll with all extrapolation coloured by an interpretation?

Can I ask you where the control group data is posted?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Of course you would - but does that necessarily imply that the resistance will purposely target civilians?

If you saw people collaborating with the enemy ... signing up with their forces to aid them in administering their rule of law ... New Police Force ... New Army, would you consider them collaborators and, as such, legitimate targets?

The majority of the bombings in Iraq have been on these targets.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Uh, no... The part in parentheses is factually incorrect. Saddam was a very strong supporter of terrorism. People often extrapolate that from the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and it isn't correct.

By 'people' I am assuming you mean the presidential commissions who have reported contrary to what Bush keeps repeating as fact? ie. the big lie?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Uh, no... The part in parentheses is factually incorrect. Saddam was a very strong supporter of terrorism. People often extrapolate that from the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and it isn't correct.

where you get this from ? FOX news ? oh yeah he gave cash to families of dead suicide bombers in Palestine, who are fighting for their country.

Russ, you just got through dismissing the support the USA gave to the IRA which is equally divided on religious grounds!

Also see previous post on Saudi Arabia having a State Run Telethon (Bandar) to contribute $94 million IN ONE YEAR to the Palestinian Martyrs ... Far in excess of what Saddam ever gave and yet Saudi is considered an American ally.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sorry for the 'glut of posts'. I am on a 12 hour delayed clock here in China.

 

[vanesch]

Why do the civilian relatives of 9/11 victims not fly to Saudia Arabia to bomb busses? Ie, American civilians do not commit acts of terrorism. Why not?

Even better.

Because in these matters, you do not take private initiative, but use public service

 

[The Smoking Man]

A new development that blows the theory:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1121638810254&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&pubid=968163964505&StarSource=email

"Fatwa issued against suicide bombers
`Sin' to kill others, Sunni council says
Bombings `can be seen as a sacrilege'

MITCH POTTER
STAFF REPORTER

LONDON—Britain's largest Sunni Muslim group yesterday brought the full weight of Islamic law against the perpetrators of the July 7 attacks on London's transport system, issuing a binding religious fatwa against suicide terror.

Calling the bombings the work of a "perverted ideology," the Sunni Council declared such actions forbidden by the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book.

"Who has given anyone the right to kill others? It is a sin. Anyone who commits suicide will be sent to Hell," Mufti Muhammed Gul Rehman Qadri, the council chairman, told Associated Press.

"What happened in London can be seen as a sacrilege. It is a sin to take your life or the life of others.""

 

[Spin_Network]

A new development that blows the theory:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1121638810254&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&pubid=968163964505&StarSource=email

"Fatwa issued against suicide bombers
`Sin' to kill others, Sunni council says
Bombings `can be seen as a sacrilege'

MITCH POTTER
STAFF REPORTER

LONDON—Britain's largest Sunni Muslim group yesterday brought the full weight of Islamic law against the perpetrators of the July 7 attacks on London's transport system, issuing a binding religious fatwa against suicide terror.

Calling the bombings the work of a "perverted ideology," the Sunni Council declared such actions forbidden by the Qur'an, the Muslim holy book.

"Who has given anyone the right to kill others? It is a sin. Anyone who commits suicide will be sent to Hell," Mufti Muhammed Gul Rehman Qadri, the council chairman, told Associated Press.

"What happened in London can be seen as a sacrilege. It is a sin to take your life or the life of others.""

This I posted early in the thread?..Page 1..thread 14..

Overlooked by everyone?

 

[The Smoking Man]

This I posted early in the thread?..Page 1..thread 14..

Overlooked by everyone?

Sorry, the BBC is blocked in China and the other two links referred to 9/11 and condemned the characterization of Moslem scholars based on the attack.

Sorry to have stolen your 'thunder' but I couldn't see the link from that post.

 

[cepheid]

I am a Muslim. I condemn terrorism in every way shape or form. It goes against everything I believe in, the entire system of values in which I was brought up, values that required the utmost respect for all human life, and expressed that violence was unacceptable, except perhaps only in self defence. That is the message of our faith, and, ironically, of practically all other faiths around the world. Love of one's fellow man, tolerance, forgiveness. It is not the message that is flawed, but the flawed human beings running the institutionalized religions who have often deliberately failed to follow it in the past. One need look no further than the bloody history of the Church. Furthermore, no one would be so unenlightened as to say that the IRA exemplifies Catholic values or that Catholicism condones such violence. Yet, the actions of terrorist organizations carried out in the name of Islam are consistently assumed to be part and parcel of the nature of the Islamic faith by the media today.

All of this having been said, I guess it's easy for me to sit back and encourage a more enlightened view, having had the luxury of being born in Canada, of not being oppressed, of always enjoying freedom of worship etc etc. Just as it's very easy for Americans and others in the developed world to say, "we'd never do something like that." Nevertheless,this sentiment that exists among Muslims in some countries is troubling to me. Why is it so widespread? I would guess that for people in some of these countries who endure extreme hardship, either because of abject poverty or their country's war torn history or both, all they have to turn to is their faith. That's all that keeps them going, makes life seem worthwhile. Think of how easy it might be for the people running these extremist political organizations to abuse that devotion, to twist them to aid their cause. All they have to do is blame all of the hardship endured by the masses on the west, and claim falsely that the west is waging war against Islam, and that they must rise up to defend their relgious freedom. Even though this is a bunch of bull****, it's easy for them to believe it, given that some of the excesses of western foreign policy *are* directly to blame for some of the problems in these countries. So they are incited to hate, and next thing you know a whole army of people have been indoctrinated, willing to die for this "cause", believing that they are fighting justly when in reality they have been driven to commit unspeakable atrocities that can never be condoned under any circumstances, especially not according to Islamic values. Don't get me wrong. I'm not sympathizing with or condoning their actions in any way. Whatever legitimate grievances these countries may have against the west, terrorism will never be an acceptable or even viable method of solving them. These extremist and terrorist organizations who have such sway over the populace, as far as I am concerned, must be stopped. They could not possibly be preaching anything further from Islam.

For those who argue that Muslims have not taken the opportunity to speak out against such violent acts, I think you will find that we are now trying to do so en masse, and lift the centuries old veil of ignorance that has surrounded Islam in the Western World. Ignorance and fear of the unknown on both sides leads to mistrust and hatred. Peaceful coexistance is impossible without education and mutual understanding. Nothing is more pressing to us now than the need to reach out to our larger communities and present a true picture of who we are and what we stand for. I think you will find that especially true now among the British Muslim community. It is very difficult to combat the image of violence that surrounds Islam thanks solely to the actions of a few extremists who use religion as a tool to further their own political agendas. Their militant actions are nothing more than a sort of nationalism in disguise. As far as whackos like Bin Laden, Al-Qaida, the Taliban, etc. no, I do not agree with what they stand for or anything they are doing at all. Their extremist ideologies represent a perversion of Islam. As I hinted at before, as much as I may disagree with the current American administration and the so-called "war on terror", I believe that these extremist organizations pose a far greater threat to the future of Islam and Islamic societies than the U.S. ever could.

 

[GENIERE]

...I believe that these extremist organizations pose a far greater threat to the future of Islam and Islamic societies than the U.S. ever could.

Your last statement implies that you regard the US as a threat to Islam rendering everything previously stated to be of dubious worth. Your post only strengthens my conviction that the peaceful Muslim, in his heart of hearts, admires these Soldiers of Islam.

…

 

[Happeh]

Your last statement implies that you regard the US as a threat to Islam rendering everything previously stated to be of dubious worth. Your post only strengthens my conviction that the peaceful Muslim, in his heart of hearts, admires these Soldiers of Islam.

…

Muslims have every right to defend themselves and their way of life. Your implication that they should not admire people willing to defend their faith is disgusting.

It makes me ill to see muslims standing up and saying "I don't support terrorism". You have all already lost. It is like a person standing up and saying "I don't beat my wife". You can never win after you say something like that.

When the collective muslim body decided to actually accept the mind twisting logic of Israel and it's lackeys that there is no reason for Palestinian resistance, they set back their cause by years. When was the last time you saw Israel admit anything? The never admit anything and they get everything they want. Muslims try to be nice, try to talk to people, try to reassure people and what do they get? A slap in the face.

It is my understanding that muslim philosophy is to turn the other cheek no matter the provocation. It is my concern that the ultimate result of this policy will be decades of mistreatment similar to the mistreatment black people endured in the USA for decades.

Appeasing these evil men currenly working for world domination will only encourge them to do more evil. They got away with the illegal Iraq war. That encouraged the USA to start the string of coups in Russian satellite states and African states and to make war noises at Syria and Iran. Getting away with the constant murder of Palestinians and the theft of their property in Israel has done nothing but encourage the Israelis to kill more Palestinians and steal more of their property.

 

[vanesch]

When the collective muslim body decided to actually accept the mind twisting logic of Israel and it's lackeys that there is no reason for Palestinian resistance,

When did they do that ?

 

[revelator]

Why don't American civilians fly to Saudia Arabia and bomb busses?

There's no need. When Americans need something bombed, they can rely on their armed forces to do it far more efficiently.

I'm sure if the Iraqi insurgents had an air force or whatnot, they would be more than happy to use it, rather than blow themselves up.

 

[russ_watters]

There's no need. When Americans need something bombed, they can rely on their armed forces to do it far more efficiently.

Someone answered it that way before, but it doesn't follow for two reasons: First, of course, the US military does not purposely attack civilians, so if American civilians want to kill Saudi civilians, they need to go do it themselves. Second, the US military is not bombing Saudia Arabia. So clearly the need exists for American civilians to take it upon themselves to go kill Saudi civilians, right?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Muslims have every right to defend themselves and their way of life. Your implication that they should not admire people willing to defend their faith is disgusting.

It makes me ill to see muslims standing up and saying "I don't support terrorism". You have all already lost. It is like a person standing up and saying "I don't beat my wife". You can never win after you say something like that.

When the collective muslim body decided to actually accept the mind twisting logic of Israel and it's lackeys that there is no reason for Palestinian resistance, they set back their cause by years. When was the last time you saw Israel admit anything? The never admit anything and they get everything they want. Muslims try to be nice, try to talk to people, try to reassure people and what do they get? A slap in the face.

It is my understanding that muslim philosophy is to turn the other cheek no matter the provocation. It is my concern that the ultimate result of this policy will be decades of mistreatment similar to the mistreatment black people endured in the USA for decades.

Appeasing these evil men currenly working for world domination will only encourge them to do more evil. They got away with the illegal Iraq war. That encouraged the USA to start the string of coups in Russian satellite states and African states and to make war noises at Syria and Iran. Getting away with the constant murder of Palestinians and the theft of their property in Israel has done nothing but encourage the Israelis to kill more Palestinians and steal more of their property.

this to me is exactly the mindset that this poll reflects, and the attitude that fans the flames of terrorism. this mindset is much more common that many Americans naively believe.

thanks for vindicating Russ' point.

 

[Burnsys]

this to me is exactly the mindset that this poll reflects, and the attitude that fans the flames of terrorism. this mindset is much more common that many Americans naively believe.

thanks for vindicating Russ' point.

You know what is the problem, that this "Mindset" is not only in muslim nations, its all around the world. and youu americans can even see at what level the world is tied of your arrogance... i hope you realize what your government has been doing for years and years before is to late, for you and for us...

 

[cepheid]

Your last statement implies that you regard the US as a threat to Islam rendering everything previously stated to be of dubious worth. Your post only strengthens my conviction that the peaceful Muslim, in his heart of hearts, admires these Soldiers of Islam.

…

You're assuming a lot, and instead of taking what I say at face value, you decide to put words in my mouth, presuming to know what I truly think/believe in my "heart of hearts". Furthermore, you have ignored what I have been saying that it is impossible for me, based on my values and everything I have been taught/believe in, to admire cold-blooded killers. That is what they are, they are not solidiers, and certainly not "of Islam". I do not support them in any way. I don't believe that they are trying to defend Islam at all. They've done nothing but distort it and misrepresent it, ultimately destroying everything it stands for in the societies in which they have taken hold. Their attitude, outlook, and goals are as foreign, alien, and incomprehensible to me as they are to you. But you don't understand that, do you? Instead you personally insult me and opt to perpetuate the falsehood that Islam tacitly condones violence.

I do not regard the US as a threat to Islam, I phrased what I said in the way I did in order to show that, contrary to what the extremists have been saying, the US is not an enemy of Islam, and the extremists' philosophy is far more harmful to the Islamic way of life than the US ever possibly *could be* (i.e. potentially/hypothetically. I never said that it actually was).

True, I have reservations about the effectiveness of the war on terror as it is being conducted right now and believe that in many ways it has done more harm than good. But that is a debate for another thread. Furthermore, disagreeing with U.S. foreign policy or disapproving of their contrived war in Iraq does NOT make one an enemy of of United States, nor does it make one a supporter of extremist groups. Why is it that the minute one expresses the minutest amount of disapproval of the U.S., one becomes a terrorist symphathizer? Bush's message that things are black and white, and that if "you're not with us you're against us", or "this is the only way to fight terror" seems to have really taken hold with the American public??!? That's astonishing to me. A lot of us here in Canada and elsewhere who support democracy and free society nevertheless cannot abide the actions of the United States (so get over it!), waging an illegal war against a sovereign nation based on fabricated intelligence and outright lies, and showing that they, too, are not above distorting the truth to further a political agenda. The ends simply do not justify the means, and the results have been nothing short of disastrous to the region.

Geniere, open your eyes my friend. You know nothing of Islam, and your "conviction" is based entirely on assumptions. Keep an open mind and take the opportunity to learn about that of which you are ignorant, before presuming to say that you know what Muslims are all about. Is that so much to ask?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

You know what is the problem, that this "Mindset" is not only in muslim nations, its all around the world. and youu americans can even see at what level the world is tied of your arrogance... i hope you realize what your government has been doing for years and years before is to late, for you and for us...

it is my belief that terrorism, if unchecked by Muslims themselves, will result in the destruction and further breakup of the Arab states.

The argument that Happeh is making has been made for several hundred years now. It is always someone else's fault when an Arab country gets bullied. For pete's sake, they're still upset over what happened in Spain 500 years ago.

It is time to move on and reject terrorism, since that only leads backwards. Is that asking too much? However you may regard the US government, it is at least a legitimate, rational government that can be negotiated with. How could a stable international system possibly thrive in an environment governed by terrorism? It can't, which is why terrorism will inevitable fail, but not until after many lives have been lost.

 

[BobG]

To cut to the chase here:

Tragically the number will be how many ever it takes to convince the U.S. to leave the middle East. And that is something we will never do until the oil runs out in about 50 years.

The radical Islamics commit terrorist (atrocities) acts against each other. They always have.

Should we be surprized that it is happening now? The only thing that has changed is the methods and weaponry.

Unfortunately for us, the real 'US' that your extremist groups are fighting are Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Levis jeans, and other signs that interaction with the Western world is eroding traditional Middle Eastern lifestyles. Unfortunately for your extremist groups, you can't fight time and change successfully. Western products and customs are seeping into the Middle East because the 'average' Middle Easterner likes the conveniences that oil money has brought their country.

That doesn't mean you might not be right about US involving itself too deeply in Middle East affairs. A more hands-off approach would tend to highlight the real conflict going on within the Arab world and the emphasis would be shifted towards them resolving their own problems. It's probably unrealistic to step completely out of the picture, but the less direct interference, the better.

Nevertheless,this sentiment that exists among Muslims in some countries is troubling to me. Why is it so widespread? I would guess that for people in some of these countries who endure extreme hardship, either because of abject poverty or their country's war torn history or both, all they have to turn to is their faith. That's all that keeps them going, makes life seem worthwhile. Think of how easy it might be for the people running these extremist political organizations to abuse that devotion, to twist them to aid their cause.

Same as it always was. Whatever it takes to mobilize the masses for your cause, do it. Even America isn't completely immune - the 2004 election might be a much smaller, more benign scale, but mobilizing the religious right was one of the keys to Bush's success in the election. It's a tool that sometimes works, so of course extremist political organizations would give it a try.

 

[Burnsys]

it is my belief that terrorism, if unchecked by Muslims themselves, will result in the destruction and further breakup of the Arab states.

If someone helped more to the breakup in the arab states and bring war to them is The US.
Us trained the mujaidin terrorist in afganistan, helped saddam hussein to stay in power, trained osama bin laden, gave weapons and aid to dictators like sha in iran, Mohammod Zia Ul-Haq pakistan, ex-Nazi and cia agent George Papadopoulolis in grece , Turgut Ozal in turkey, Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King in saudi arabia, Islam Karimov in uzbekistan, etc etc etc.

The argument that Happeh is making has been made for several hundred years now. It is always someone else's fault when an Arab country gets bullied. For pete's sake, they're still upset over what happened in Spain 500 years ago.

It is time to move on and reject terrorism, since that only leads backwards. Is that asking too much? However you may regard the US government, it is at least a legitimate, rational government that can be negotiated with.

ahaha yeees right. it can be negotiated with!

How could a stable international system possibly thrive in an environment governed by terrorism?

Welcome to hell... just watch the world governed by America... hello?

 

[vanesch]

That doesn't mean you might not be right about US involving itself too deeply in Middle East affairs. A more hands-off approach would tend to highlight the real conflict going on within the Arab world and the emphasis would be shifted towards them resolving their own problems. It's probably unrealistic to step completely out of the picture, but the less direct interference, the better.

Now, these are wise words

 

[Anttech]

Funny... ;-)

You are right tho... This is sooo hypocritcal, "Muslims condon Terrorism" What about the US government sponsoring Terrorism when it suits them

Kettle calling the pot Black!

And this is the BIG problem! The west is seen as two faced in the ME... and rightly so! The Mulism majority who want to quash Terrorism, always have this counter agument...