Ultimately, it doesn't really matter - if Muslims in countries like Egypt are anti-American and pro-bin Laden - so what? Just means more recruits, but you know, at the end of the day, these Terrorists are doing the most damage to Islam and Muslims. Too bad Muslims would rather let it happen and blame the west - like their leaders have done for the past half-centuary.
See the problem here is that you are making a gneral statement about what Muslims do. The facts have been presented that most muslims don't do anything of the sort. You make generalizations with no real evidence to back them up, and ignore evidence that discredits your theories. I think that is why so many people are finding fault with what you are saying.
Problem is no one is taking a position...they are looking for faults but not saying anything - only that Islam is really a religion of peace which evidence doesn't support. So, you claim most muslims are against terrorism and against bin laden based on the media and what imams say - but my claim is that claim isn't a true reflection. So at best, you can argue that it's inconclusive, but that's not what's being said. What's being said is that I'm wrong. Yet there is no evidence for that except a bunch of quotes from some imams.
No I am saying your wrong based on the what the leaders of the religion say, based on the fact that the majority of Muslims don't engage in terrorism, based on the reaction and support the U.S. received from Muslims after 9/11, from the fact that Muslim troops went into Afghanistan to take part in the military operations there, that Muslims were the ones who tried to turn in the London subway bombers years before those bombings etc.
There was a poll done not too long ago ranking the most popular political figures (some of whom have been dead for a while now) in the Arab world. Chirac was first on that list, along with Gamal Abdel-Nasser (the former pan-Arab nationalist president of Egypt, who was notorious for his secular policies and cracking down on religious groups in Egypt), as well as Bin Laden. When you look at that list, you will quickly see that the three figures have very little in common, except for one and only one thing: the willingness to stand up and oppose perceived US hegemony/policies in the region, REGARDLESS of how it's done. So is Chirac or Nasser 'Islamists' or 'terrorist masterminds'? That should tell you everything you need to know about the mindset in that region. People there for the most part absolutely despise US policies, and yes they do view US policies as 'acts of aggression' against Arabs and Muslims. It's not just blind support for Israel that's the problem (in fact Bin Laden never claimed this as a motivation until later on), but it seems like the Al-Qaida brass are more interested in overthrowing the pro-West regimes in their countries than anything else. What has been the 'sticking point' for Bin Laden in most of his speeches? It has been US support for what he considers a 'corrupt, un-Islamic' regime in the 'Holy Land of Arabia'.
You seem to be making a few assumptions here to support your theory that it's American policy that is causing all the problems. I am not convinced that because they support Chirac and Nasser that it means they hate US policy. Chirac was a US ally after all who met with Bush (of all people!) And isn't Egypt one of those corrupt regimes supportebd by the US? I believe there was a survey posted earlier where most Middle Easterners did NOT blame US policy on the rise of terrorism. Here it is: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=813 "There is also little consensus among Muslim publics on the causes of Islamic extremism. In no country did a majority agree on a primary factor. Pluralities in the range between 34% and 40% point to U.S. policies and influence (Lebanon, Jordan); poverty and lack of jobs (Pakistan, Morocco); lack of education (Turkey); and immorality (Indonesia). "
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn16.html Media utters nonsense, won't call enemy out October 16, 2005 BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST F rom Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.'' "Insurgents," eh? From Agence France Presse: "Nalchik, Russia: More than 60 people were killed as scores of militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ." "Militants," you say? From the Scotsman: "Rebel forces battled Russian troops for control of a provincial capital in the Caucasus yesterday . . ." "Rebel forces,'' huh? From Toronto's Globe & Mail: "Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of rebels launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ." "Rebels," by the score. But why were they rebelling? What were they insurging over? You had to pick up the Globe & Mail's rival, the Toronto Star, to read exactly the same Associated Press dispatch but with one subtle difference: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ." Ah, "Islamic militants." So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter. In fairness to the New York Times, they did use the I-word in paragraph seven. And Agence France Presse got around to mentioning Islam in paragraph 22. And NPR's "All Things Considered" had one of those bland interviews between one of its unperturbable anchorettes and some Russian geopolitical academic type in which they chitchatted through every conceivable aspect of the situation and finally got around to kinda sorta revealing the identity of the perpetrators in the very last word of the geopolitical expert's very last sentence. When the NPR report started, I was driving on the vast open plains of I-91 in Vermont and reckoned, just to make things interesting, I'll add another five miles to the speed for every minute that goes by without mentioning Islam. But I couldn't get the needle to go above 130, and the vibrations caused the passenger-side wing-mirror to drop off. And then, right at the end, having conducted a perfect interview that managed to go into great depth about everything except who these guys were and what they were fighting over, the Russian academic dude had to go and spoil it all by saying somethin' stupid like "republics which are mostly . . . Muslim." He mumbled the last word, but nevertheless the NPR gal leapt in to thank him and move smoothly on to some poll showing that the Dems are going to sweep the 2006 midterms because Bush has the worst numbers since numbers were invented. I underestimated multiculturalism. After 9/11, I assumed the internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition would be made plain: that a cult of "tolerance" would in the end founder against a demographic so cheerfully upfront in their intolerance. Instead, Islamic "militants" have become the highest repository of multicultural pieties. So you're nice about gays and Native Americans? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of the tolerant, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti- masochists. And so Islamists who murder non-Muslims in pursuit of explicitly Islamic goals are airbrushed into vague, generic "rebel forces." You can't tell the players without a scorecard, and that's just the way the Western media intend to keep it. If you wake up one morning and switch on the TV to see the Empire State Building crumbling to dust, don't be surprised if the announcer goes, "Insurging rebel militant forces today attacked key targets in New York. In other news, the president's annual Ramadan banquet saw celebrities dancing into the small hours to Mullah Omar And His All-Girl Orchestra . . ." What happened in Russia on Thursday was serious business, not just in the death toll but in the number of key government installations that the alleged insurging rebel militants of non-specific ideology managed to seize with relative ease. The militantly rebellious insurgers of no known religious affiliation have long said they want a pan-Caucasian Islamic state from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, and the carnage they wreaked in the hitherto semi-safe-ish republic of Kabardino-Balkaria suggests that they're more likely to spread the conflict to other parts of the Russian Federation than Moscow is to contain it. Did you see that news item in Stavropolsky Meridian last October? "Strontium, Uranium And Plutonium Found In Train To Caucasus." When a region already regarded as a Bud's Discount Warehouse for nuclear materials is getting sucked deeper into the maw of Islamism, why be so sheepish about letting us know the forces at play? The Russians couldn't hold on to Eastern Europe. They couldn't hold on to Central Asia. Why would they fare any better with the present so-called Russian "Federation"? The country is literally dying. It's had a net population loss every year since 1992, one of the lowest fertility rates in the world -- 1.2 children born per woman -- and one of the highest abortion rates: some 70 percent of pregnancies are terminated. Russian men now have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis -- not because Bangladesh is brimming with actuarial advantages but because, if he had four legs and hung from a tree in a rain forest, the Russian male would be on the endangered species list. Yet, within their present territory, there remain a few exceptions to the grim statistics cited above, parts of Russia that retain healthy fertility rates and healthy mortality rates. And guess what? They're the Muslim parts. Or, as the New York Times/NPR/Agence France Presse/Scotsman/Toronto Globe & Mail would say, they're the insurgent rebel militant parts. Many of these Russian Muslim areas -- like Bashkortistan (and no, I didn't make that up, it's a real stan. Check it out in the World Book Of Stans) -- are also rich in natural resources. If you're an energy-rich Muslim republic, what's the point of going down the express garbage chute of history with the Russian Federation? The Islamification of significant parts of present-day Russia is going to be a critical factor in its death spiral. I'm aware the very concept of "the enemy" is alien to the non-judgment multicultural mind: There are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated. But the media's sensitivity police apparently want this to be the first war we lose without even knowing who it is we've lost to. C'mon, guys, next time something happens in the Caucasus, why not blame the "Caucasians"? At least that way, we'll figure it must have been right-wing buddies of Timothy McVeigh.
Nasser died over 35 years ago. If you knew what Nasser was about, you would've known that he's universally despised by all Islamists out there, even the moderate ones, because he was ruthless in his crackdown on those groups. So yes, for most Arabs to now be looking back with nostalgia on Nasser is a significant thing. As for Chirac, that poll was conducted after Chirac had voiced opposition to the invasion of Iraq. So yes, Chirac was seen as someone who 'stood up' to the U.S. It's no doubt a combination of all those things, but Al-Qaida is concerned mainly about support for what they see as Western puppet regimes. Moreover, as that poll illustrates, at least a plurality of the countries most directly affected by US policies in the region (Jordan, Lebanon for ex.) agree that it's US foreign policy, even when given other choices in the poll. However, when you limit the question to the specific region most affected by U.S. policy -- the Arab world that is (the Turks and the Indonesians have had good relations with the US and haven't experienced much negative effect from US foreign policy) -- then you clearly see that there is a lot of anger/concern about US foreign policy, which is reflected in this article pointing to a poll conducted by the AAI and Maryland/Zogby poll back in 2004, both of which show that the majority of those polled blame US foreign policy for their negative views. Also, there are a few other interesting questions that were thrown around in the poll, which reflects the mindset of people in the Arab world (For ex: not even a majority of Saudis believed that there should be a larger role for the clergy in politics in their country, and it's much lower in other countries): http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4305 Here is what I was referring to earlier on, which is mentioned in the link above: Among the most interesting findings in the Maryland/ Zogby poll, however, was whom the Arabs considered to be the most admired world leader. Telhami said he was personally surprised that late Egyptian President Gamal Abdel- Nasser topped the list, followed by French President Jacques Chirac. Even more surprising, Nasser who died 34 years ago, had a popularity rating of 46 per cent in Saudi Arabia, the conservative oil-rich Gulf state whose rulers were notorious opponents of the nationalist leader in the 1950s and 1960s. As for the most unpopular leaders, there were no surprises: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon came first by a wide margin, followed by US President George W Bush.
But how do you explain that no other religion is using terrorism to advance it's aims? There are no christian suicide bombers, or hindu, jewish, or whatever. I mean, right now, you have Islam fighting wars where-ever they co-habitat with other people. In Kashmir, you have Muslims fighting Hindus, effectively, same is true in Indonesia where Muslims are fighting Catholics. Russia, Israel, and every other place where you have a significant Muslim community and that of another people - you have strife. I mean, look at the Middle East, who here would want to be a minority living in the Middle East? I as sure wouldn't. No, it's not that the majority of Muslims are violent - of course not, but they tolerate their violent minority, in fact, they blame America for the violent minority - which you can see here on this board...but never take responsibility - never look in the mirror as wonder....is there something in our religion that needs to be examined?
Actually there are jewish terrorists, that have gone in and targeted civilians on buses, at mosques and other things. Christians have recently attempted genocide against Muslims in the Balkans, which is worse than terrorism IMO. And it isn't that muslims tolerate their violent minority. I think you have some that obviously do tolerate it. But you don't have the majority. The leaders of the relgion and Muslims at large don't tolerate it. That it is why we have Muslim troops from a nation with a Muslim majority sending troops into AFghanistan after 9/11. You have multiple arrests and plots stopped in SA, Yemen, Jordan and even Syria. You have muslims warning authorities of suspicious Muslims in London. You have multiple books coming out against that thing. Yes there are extremists in all of those places and more in other places. Nobody at the BK Killer's church turned him in. But it wasn't because they tolerated his serial killings. IT was because they didn't know.
dead on. nasser was brutal to the brotherhood in egypt. qutb was sentenced to death under him if im not mistaken.
Well, I think the folks in Saudi Arabia are opposed to extremists who are attacking Muslims and Saudis - that might be the wake-up call that swings the tide. In any case, what we have here is a very complex state of not knowing how many Muslims in some way "cheer" on some of these acts of violence. I think they were cheered against the U.S. (9/11), but that the London attacks may be a bit more sobering to the Muslim community because the understanding of how it will affect perceptions in the world regarding Muslims. In any case, the question really is where are these extremists coming from. It's clearly more then a few rag-tag guys who are crazy - there's some sort of organized pan-Islam jihad being fought across multiple countries. How much sympathy do they truly have? I don't think I've made a case that's it's the majority, but I think it's sizable and no one has made a chase that it's really not that many. So it's an unknown quanity - but how many. I think a lot is at stake here and it's something the Muslim community really has to address - it's not all about the U.S. The face of Islam is being shaped, and right now, I don't think those who advocate the stance that "Islam is a religion of peace" have much weight.
