New Name for the War on Terror

[Makalakumu]

You seem to have avoided the question. When those of us who are right of center post an opinion that relies on common sense, many on this board look for validation from sources.

My what a cross to bear for the rugged individualist. Seems like a lot of victimhood. Atlas Shrugged didn't he?

To properly make your argument, you need to:

1. Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam
2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical Islam
3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

Without the data, its just conjecture

It seems as if common sense is the least common some times, so I'll do my best...

1. Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam

Islam

Islam listen? (Arabic: الإسلام al-islām) "the submission to God" is a monotheistic faith, one of the Abrahamic religions, and the world's second largest religion.

Radical Islam

The phrase Islamic fundamentalism is primarily used in the West to describe Islamist groups. However, usage of the term is often expanded to include all of the following aspects of Islam and the modern Muslim world:

• It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal and traditional interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith (since they view these as "fundamental" to their religion). By extension, fundamentalism may include a variety of religious movements and groups in Muslim communities which may be entirely apolitical. An example is the Tablighi Jamaat, a missionary-like organization whose main goal is to increase the personal piety of its members. Islamic fundamentalism thus describes a religious conservatism which forms part of the spectrum of modern Muslim societies.

• It describes Muslim groups which advocate Islamism and the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law, also known as Shari'a.

The above perspectives are generally opposed by liberal movements within Islam to varying degrees; in fact, fundamentalism and liberalism often define the two poles of public opinion in Muslim society. This indicates that fundamentalism may best be regarded as a kind of conservatism which finds expression in a religious context.

Wow, this seems familiar...a cross cultural example pops to mind.

2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical Islam.

There are 1.48 billion Practioners of Islam in the world. Most believe and actively follow sharia. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all have significant portions of their populations that practice sharia. Wahabbism, which is practiced in Saudi Arabia, is one sect that teaches fundamentalist islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Demographics

We are talking about over 20,000,000 practicioners of fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia alone! Therefore, I think that it is safe to estimate that 100,000,000 practioners of fundamentalist islam live in countries were sharia is strictly enforced. (This is probably low.)

3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2002/08/21o03.htm

Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. They are the proven terrorists that have a proven track record of targeting americans. Their numbers are estimated to be between 20,000 and 60,000.

Most fundamentalist Islamists are NOT terrorists. Oferchrissakes, its common sense, der hey.

 

[sgtmac_46]

My what a cross to bear for the rugged individualist. Seems like a lot of victimhood. Atlas Shrugged didn't he?


It seems as if common sense is the least common some times, so I'll do my best...

1. Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam

Islam




Radical Islam


Wow, this seems familiar...a cross cultural example pops to mind.

2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical Islam.

There are 1.48 billion Practioners of Islam in the world. Most believe and actively follow sharia. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan all have significant portions of their populations that practice sharia. Wahabbism, which is practiced in Saudi Arabia, is one sect that teaches fundamentalist islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Demographics

We are talking about over 20,000,000 practicioners of fundamentalist Islam in Saudi Arabia alone! Therefore, I think that it is safe to estimate that 100,000,000 practioners of fundamentalist islam live in countries were sharia is strictly enforced. (This is probably low.)

3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2002/08/21o03.htm

Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. They are the proven terrorists that have a proven track record of targeting americans. Their numbers are estimated to be between 20,000 and 60,000.

Most fundamentalist Islamists are NOT terrorists. Oferchrissakes, its common sense, der hey.

I'm sorry, I missed the strawman that posted, purporting to support what you are arguing against. I don't recall anyone claiming that the majority of fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, that's an argument you clearly invented to beat up on.

It is clear, however, that Wahhabism and Shiite Islam are terrorist generators in the sense that they have created a religious environment that encourages, condones and supports the use of terrorism as a means of religious and political gain.

 

[MisterMike]

Maybe we should all get this book, and a copy of the qur'an and then debate it.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
by Robert Spencer
Exclusive hardcover edition -- not available in stores!

When PC propagandists assure us that jihadist terror doesn't reflect "true," "peaceful" Islam, they're not only wrong, they're dangerous -- because they lull America and the West into letting their guard down against their mortal enemy. And not only do self-appointed "experts" lie elaborately and persistently about Islam -- they have also replaced the truth about Christian Europe and the Crusades with an all-pervasive historical fantasy that is designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it. But now there's a remedy: in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer reveals all the disturbing facts about Islam and its murderous hostility to the West that other books ignore, soft-pedal -- or simply lie about.

This book is a unique guide to the bloody teachings and history of Islam, and to the Crusades that still stand today as the Western world's most sustained and successful defense against the warrior hordes who were inspired by those teachings. Exposing myth after myth of the "Islam means peace" establishment, Spencer (director of JihadWatch.com and the bestselling author of Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers) here tackles all the hot-button issues regarding Islam and the Crusades.


Not "politically correct" -- just true:

• The Crusades: unprovoked Western aggression? How, in fact, Muslims armies overran the predominantly Christian Middle East, then drove deep into Europe long before any Crusade was even contemplated -- and did so in obedience to core teachings of the Islamic faith

• How the much-ballyhooed (and grossly exaggerated) "Golden Age" of Islamic culture was largely inspired by non-Muslims

• Muhammed: the "Perfect Man"? That's how Muslims regard him. Details about his licentiousness, cruelty, and ruthless ambition that make him a dangerous role model

• Muhammad as "Prophet": how he received convenient "revelations" that justified his insatiable lusts and numerous marriages -- including one to a 9-year-old girl

• How Muhammad ordered -- and rejoiced in -- the assassinations of his enemies. How he lied and broke treaties as a matter of course

• Muhammad vs. Jesus: proof that Christianity teaches peace and Islam violence -- and that there is nothing in the Bible that rivals the Qur'an's exhortations to warfare

• The stifling effect Islam has on science and free inquiry, accounting for its failure to prosper -- and hence for its murderous envy of the West

• The ghastly lure of Islam's X-rated Paradise for suicide bombers and jihad terrorists

• Islamic law: how it institutionalizes oppression of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims in Islamic societies

• How the Qur'an and Islamic law treat women as nothing more or less than possessions of men

• Islam's only overarching moral principle: "if it's good for Islam, it's right"

• Why Western leaders who think non-Muslims can "win hearts and minds" among Islamic jihadists are naïve

• Why modern-day jihad warriors despise democracy and will do all they can to resist it

• Filmmaker Theo van Gogh: murdered on an Amsterdam street in broad daylight for offending Muslims -- and other signs that violent Islamic intimidation has come to the West

• Why Europe could be Islamic by the end of the twenty-first century

Above all, Spencer details how the jihad that the non-Muslim world faces today is in direct continuity with the one the Crusaders fought against. It continues today in Europe and even in America while pressure groups intimidate the media into silence about the real nature and goals of Islam. The whitewashed Islam they present, argues Spencer, hinders our ability to defend ourselves against Islamic terror.
Spencer also explains here what we must do to stop the jihad onslaught not only militarily, but culturally. He maintains that we will not be able to defeat today's Islamic jihad without recovering pride in the superiority -- yes, superiority -- of Western, Christian civilization. If we surrender our culture, he warns, soon we will be surrendering our homes. But here at last is a book that helps you reclaim the glorious past of our civilization -- and thereby defend that civilization more effectively in the present.


"A clarion call for the defense of the West"

"The jihad that the Western world faces today is identical in its motivations and goals to that which Europe managed to stave off almost a thousand years ago - thanks in large part to the Crusades of which the West is now ashamed. Today's jihad, as Spencer illustrates here, is proceeding on two fronts: one of violence and terror, and another of cultural shaming and the rewriting of history. Here is a devastating riposte to that revisionism -- and a clarion call for the defense of the West, before it is too late." -- Ibn Warraq, author, Why I Am Not a Muslim, editor, Leaving Islam and What the Koran Really Says

"Sweeping away the politically correct myths about a tolerant, peaceful Islam brutalized by demonic Christian Crusaders, Robert Spencer in this powerful, important book lets the facts of history speak for themselves. Spencer's rousing, straight-talking book is a much-needed antidote to the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder." -- Bruce S. Thornton, author, Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization

"Spencer reminds us of the consequences of our failure to come to grips with the message and implications of Islam. And he warns against the spirit of masochistic self-loathing that permeates the Western elite class. In a sane world Spencer's recommendations -- notably that the upholders of sharia should be treated as political radicals and subjected to appropriate supervision - would not be deemed 'politically incorrect' but eminently sensible." -- Serge Trifkovic, author, The Sword of the Prophet

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm sorry, I missed the strawman that posted, purporting to support what you are arguing against. I don't recall anyone claiming that the majority of fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, that's an argument you clearly invented to beat up on.

It is clear, however, that Wahhabism and Shiite Islam are terrorist generators in the sense that they have created a religious environment that encourages, condones and supports the use of terrorism as a means of religious and political gain.

Maybe you missed the part where people claimed that Islamic Fundamentalism was the problem...

I suggest that you take a look at the Project for the New American Century and some of the writings of individuals in that group. This new name for the "war on terror" fits right in with their agenda to "reform Islam by force if neccessary".

The bottom line is that "the war on violent extremism" targets states that use sharia to inform their morality. The vast majority of people who live their lives according to sharia are innocent and peaceful. Why should they be "reformed"?

I have no problem with taking the fight to the people that hurt and killed our citizens. However, by broadening the target and the scope of this war we have decided to attack the culture that "produced" the terrorists. My point is that if you look at the numbers, the "culture" of Islamic Fundamentalism has produced damned few terrorists.

I would posit that blaming islamic fundamentalism for producing terrorists is akin to finding a scapegoat. It is a highly visible target that shifts the burden of guilt from "other more real" causes of terrorism.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe you missed the part where people claimed that Islamic Fundamentalism was the problem...

No, I didn't miss that part. I missed the part where someone claimed that all Islamic Fundamentalists were terrorists. The rest is a strawman that you invented. "Islamic fundamentalism is the problem" and "All Islamic Fundamentalists are terrorists" are two completely different statements. The former is clearly supported by the facts, where the later is an attempt to distort the argument for the sake of making it look absurd.

I suggest that you take a look at the Project for the New American Century and some of the writings of individuals in that group. This new name for the "war on terror" fits right in with their agenda to "reform Islam by force if neccessary".

It's unnecessary to read the work of Neo-Conservatives to come to the conclusion that Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem.

The bottom line is that "the war on violent extremism" targets states that use sharia to inform their morality. The vast majority of people who live their lives according to sharia are innocent and peaceful. Why should they be "reformed"?

Because sharia is used as a primer to create terrorists. Fundamentalist Islam has become a terrorist generator.

I have no problem with taking the fight to the people that hurt and killed our citizens. However, by broadening the target and the scope of this war we have decided to attack the culture that "produced" the terrorists. My point is that if you look at the numbers, the "culture" of Islamic Fundamentalism has produced damned few terrorists.

Yet, it is Fundamentalism Islam itself that supports, finances, recruits, and endorses terrorist activity. The fact that only a small faction actually carry out the attacks does not negate fundamentalist islams role as a terrorist generator. The culture of Fundamentalist Islam has produced a large number of terrorists. Moreover, whereever fundamentalist islam meets the non-islamic world (or even a different sect of Islam) terrorism, war and attrocity are the rule, not the exception. From New York and London, to the Sudan, to Iran, to Afghanistan, to the Phillipines, to Thailand, all across the Islamic world, among different cultures and different races, the one common denominator is Islamic Fundamentalism.

I would posit that blaming islamic fundamentalism for producing terrorists is akin to finding a scapegoat. It is a highly visible target that shifts the burden of guilt from "other more real" causes of terrorism.

In reality it shifts the burden to the one common denominator. Other core causes that you list aren't generating terrorism all over the planet, the one common denominator is fundamentalist islam.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe we should all get this book, and a copy of the qur'an and then debate it.

If you live in the US feel free to talk like that. Statements like that, however, in Europe can get you shot down on the street. The assassins of Fundamentalist Islam have a long reach that extends well in to the Europe. Iran has been assassinating political enemies in Europe for years.

 

[Tgace]

Terror is not the enemy. Terror is a tactic. The enemy is radical Islam. But for PC reasons we cant call it a "War on radical Islam".

 

[Makalakumu]

No, I didn't miss that part. I missed the part where someone claimed that all Islamic Fundamentalists were terrorists. The rest is a strawman that you invented. "Islamic fundamentalism is the problem" and "All Islamic Fundamentalists are terrorists" are two completely different statements. The former is clearly supported by the facts, where the later is an attempt to distort the argument for the sake of making it look absurd. .

When one says that in order to fight terrorism, we must reform islam by force, that is as good as treating anyone who practices a strict interpretation of sharia as a terrorist or a conspirator. Changing the name from the "War on Terror" to the "War on Violent Extremism" broadens the target to include entire states whose laws are informed by sharia. The truth is that very few of the millions who practice a strict form of sharia actually terrorism. Most people just go about their daily lives and attempt to be happy. The question then becomes...why do all of these societies need to be reformed?

It's unnecessary to read the work of Neo-Conservatives to come to the conclusion that Islamic Fundamentalism is a problem..

I would suggest informing yourself with some neoconservative writings in order to understand how the Bush Administration answers the above question. This goes for anyone and everyone.

Because sharia is used as a primer to create terrorists. Fundamentalist Islam has become a terrorist generator.

No its not. Sharia is used to inform the laws of a civilized muslim society. Sharia is being used by the West as a scapegoat so that it can interfere in the Islamic world some more...terrorism comes from something different.

Yet, it is Fundamentalism Islam itself that supports, finances, recruits, and endorses terrorist activity. The fact that only a small faction actually carry out the attacks does not negate fundamentalist islams role as a terrorist generator. The culture of Fundamentalist Islam has produced a large number of terrorists. Moreover, whereever fundamentalist islam meets the non-islamic world (or even a different sect of Islam) terrorism, war and attrocity are the rule, not the exception. From New York and London, to the Sudan, to Iran, to Afghanistan, to the Phillipines, to Thailand, all across the Islamic world, among different cultures and different races, the one common denominator is Islamic Fundamentalism..

Islamic fundamentalism is about as responsible for terrorism as catholicism is for supporting the IRA. People usually resolve their differences peacefully, even in the Islamic world, if you can believe that! Do you want to know what causes terrorism? Ask the terrorists.

In reality it shifts the burden to the one common denominator. Other core causes that you list aren't generating terrorism all over the planet, the one common denominator is fundamentalist islam.

Terrorism can be caused by poverty. Terrorism can be caused by imperialism. Terrorism can be caused by many other gross injustices, for instance, taxation without representation. The attempt to pin the blame on islamic fundamentalism is nothing more then creating a scapegoat, an easier target. The reality is a hell of a lot more complicated because it deals with a negative interplay between American society and islamic society that has gone on for over 40 years. And the dirty little secret is that we helped create the terrorists.

 

[Tgace]

No its not. Sharia is used to inform the laws of a civilized muslim society. Sharia is being used by the West as a scapegoat so that it can interfere in the Islamic world some more...terrorism comes from something different.

Sharia part of a "Civilized" society?? Please....

http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=41

This is a Muslim source.

 

[Tgace]

Terrorism is "caused" primarily by Islamic clerics who fear a secularization of Islamic countries and their fear of the influence of western nations who desire that exact aim.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html

The rise of religious extremism in South Asia and the Middle East has to do primarily with four factors: the absence in much of the Muslim world of democratic, accountable governments, and, indirectly related to this, disputes over contested territory; the failure of governments in some Islamic countries to address problems arising from rapid social, demographic, and economic changes in the last century; financial, logistical, and moral support provided by external actors; and the breakdown within Islam itself of ijtihad—the established tradition whereby religious clerics independently interpret the Koran in order to apply Koranic law to diverse and changing circumstances.

 

[Tgace]

While I am not naive enough to believe that American policy and history is in no way related to the terrorism problem, I am also not self loathing enough to bear the lions share of the "blame". I also dont quite buy the fact at we are in some way "responsible" for people flying planeloads of innocent people into civilian buildings. Do our actions make us a "target" for others anger? Sure. Does that equate to "blame" or thinking we somehow "deserve" to be attacked? NO. The nature of politics (and most leadership and decision making) is that any action you take is going to have a good effect on some and a bad one on others. If we are to avoid making enemys and upsetting people at ALL COSTS then we might as well do nothing at all.

I find this quote interesting. It does place some blame on US policy but describes the causes of Terrorism in less partisan (read liberal "It all Americas fault") and more educated terms.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html

While many religious extremist groups in South Asia and the Middle East share common organizational features, the circumstances that give rise to them and that motivate their actions vary widely from one setting to another. Among Palestinian groups, for example, the struggle against Israeli occupation is paramount. Egyptian groups, by contrast, are focused primarily on questions related to the social code and to internal governance of the country. Pakistani groups are motivated by a variety of goals, including the desire to control Kashmir.

There is no single cause for the rise of religious extremism in the Muslim world. It reflects, perhaps most of all, the failure to date of secular modernism to develop good governance in most Muslim countries. All the speakers agreed that the struggle against extremism will not be won until the countries in which extremists thrive become truly democratic, and until Islamic activists are no longer humiliated and oppressed for their beliefs. In the case of the Palestinian territories, extremists groups will continue to be influential so long as the struggle against Israel continues. "Law and order approaches" to the problem of extremism generally are ineffectual because they offer no positive alternatives to the disaffected young who swell the ranks of extremist groups.

Another prime factor in the rise of extremism is the failure of many governments in the Muslim world to address the overwhelming challenges of development arising from rapid social, demographic, and economic changes over the past century. It is no accident that many of the extremist groups in Pakistan, for example, are centered in mid-sized towns whose populations have grown exponentially in recent decades because of
rural-to-urban migration. Of the 140 million people living in Pakistan today, most are poor and susceptible at some level to the blandishments of extremist groups, who claim to have answers to questions that their own government has unsuccessfully addressed or simply ignored. Throughout the Muslim world, extremist religious groups tend to be most influential in locations where local governments are the least effective in addressing developmental challenges.

External forces have also played a significant role in creating extremist groups in the Middle East and South Asia. Stern pointed to the role of funding from the United States and Saudi Arabia, as well as logistical support from the ISI, in the rise of extremist groups in Afghanistan. In the Arab world, according to Muslih, the "literate class" is highly critical of the U.S. government for supporting oppressive Arab states.

A fourth, and final, factor in the rise of extremist groups relates to a deeper crisis within Islam itself. The decline of the centuries-old tradition of ijtihad—the ever-evolving interpretation of the Koran by religious clerics—has led to rigid and narrow interpretations of religious precepts. Muslim societies must engage in a process of genuine self-examination and grapple with the complicated question of why they have failed to build stable religious and other institutions capable of helping their societies adapt to a rapidly changing world.

 

[Andrew Green]

While I am not naive enough to believe that American policy and history is in no way related to the terrorism problem, I am also not self loathing enough to bear the lions share of the "blame". I also dont quite buy the fact at we are in some way "responsible" for people flying planeloads of innocent people into civilian buildings.

I think that American history and policy is why America has become a target, in fact I have no doubts about that.

But the simpathy for the cause of these people dissapears due to the nature of there tactics. If they where attacking military targets that would be one thing, but seeing as the current tactics favour civllian targets and using "terror" that changes matters.

Now I could also imagine they could make an argument that far more civillian casualties have been taken on the muslim side then the western one, and maybe that will work for some of the people in that area. But by using terror tactics they toss any outside sympathy for there cause out the window, and they should be punished.

But terror is a pyshchological weapon, and the only way it can really work for them is if we let it. By blaiming all Muslims for the actions of a few, by making them feel like the extremists claim we do. If every time a Muslim looks to the west all he sees is discrimination and hate for him and his religion, then even the civillians become enemies.

I'd say it is simillar to some of the "cop watch" stuff that has gone on in North America, minority groups that have had been on the brunt end of racism and unfair treatment by some cops. A group of them gets together and starts blaming all cops, monitoring radios and going to any scene that cops are called to and video taping everything to watch for racism.

Then they wonder why cops don't want to help them... Even the ones that weren't racist are now being video taped, monitored and living in fear that anything they do could be misinterpreted or misrepresented to get them in big trouble.

Islam is a religion of peace, just as much as Christianity. Which has also had its extremists over the years that did some horrible things. We can't stop people from hating us and our beliefs by hating them and theres, that just makes things worse.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jul-18-Sun-2004/opinion/24295897.html

http://somebodycares4u.com/islam.htm

Two Sides to Islam
But where does the truth lie? Does Islam sanction such terrorist acts? Or is it truly a religion of peace? That is the question. The answer, however, is not so simple. The truth is that both tendencies exist in Islam-in conflict with each other. There are two sides to Islam so to speak, two faces.


On the one hand there is normative Islam, with which you may be more or less familiar. To a majority of Muslims this is what Islam is all about. It involves them in believing in the six articles of Islamic faith and practicing the five required "Acts of Worship" - from the five ritual prayers that are performed daily, to the month-long fast of Ramadan, to the pilgrimage made to Mecca at least once in a lifetime, and so on. Between seeking to fulfill these and other duties imposed on them by Islamic Law, participating in various Islamic festivals, and trying to put food on the table, the average Muslim would seem to have little time for much else.


This is the only Islam that most Muslims in this country know. I'm told that 42 percent of U.S. Muslims are native born (of which the vast majority is African American), and the remainder are immigrants who have come here to find work, get an education, or escape oppression. But there are those who do know the other side of Islam, but do not want to acknowledge it, or what is worse, do not want the truth to be known.


The truth is that there is another side to Islam, a side that embraces violence "in the way of Allah." As has often been said, Islam divides the world into two zones, Dar as-Salaam ("House of Peace"), and Dar al-Harb ("House of War"). Islam is not just a religion, as I have written elsewhere; it is an ideology with a political agenda.* It holds that all men are created to live in submission to Allah, as prescribed by Islamic law.


Muslims believe that Islam's destiny is to extend its control until the whole Dar al-Harb is subject to Islamic law in an Islamic state, and this includes the use of force. The word "Islam" does NOT mean "peace." It is related to the Arabic word for peace (salaam), but it means "to surrender, to submit, to make peace by laying down one's arms in submission." It has a militaristic connotation. Herein lie the origins of radical Islam.

 

[Makalakumu]

Sharia part of a "Civilized" society?? Please....

http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=41

This is a Muslim source.

That is from a very liberal muslim source. Yet, it is still muslim. Many wish to be muslim, but they do not want to strictly follow sharia. Is this any different then all of the denominations of christianity?

 

[Makalakumu]

Terrorism is "caused" primarily by Islamic clerics who fear a secularization of Islamic countries and their fear of the influence of western nations who desire that exact aim.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html

That report was written in order to justify our position. Yet, there is some truth to it. I think that most muslims would want to live with a more liberal interpretation of sharia. I certainly would. If you ask the normal average what they do not like about the US, you get our support for isreal, our continued psuedo-colonial dealings with ME countries, and oil policy for answers. PBS did a great segment on this a few nights ago.

 

[Makalakumu]

While I am not naive enough to believe that American policy and history is in no way related to the terrorism problem, I am also not self loathing enough to bear the lions share of the "blame". I also dont quite buy the fact at we are in some way "responsible" for people ...flying planeloads of innocent people into civilian buildings. Do our actions make us a "target" for others anger? Sure. Does that equate to "blame" or thinking we somehow "deserve" to be attacked? NO. The nature of politics (and most leadership and decision making) is that any action you take is going to have a good effect on some and a bad one on others. If we are to avoid making enemys and upsetting people at ALL COSTS then we might as well do nothing at all.

I find this quote interesting. It does place some blame on US policy but describes the causes of Terrorism in less partisan (read liberal "It all Americas fault") and more educated terms.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html

I agree. We do not in anyway share the lion's share of responsibility for this problem, yet, I think that accepting our share of responsiblity will go a long way in solving the problem. Further, I think that accepting our share will make a few changing in our policies in the ME.

 

[TonyM.]

A lot of this blowback is because of things the Europeans decided in Paris in a closed door meeting at the end of WW1.We're the johnny come latelys' and seem to be taking most of the heat for it. Then there's Iran and Iraq. We'll be experiencing blowback from this for a few decades.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050711.shtml

In the U.K., The Sunday Times carried a front-page story exploding the myth of a causal relationship between terrorism and poverty among Muslims. The newspaper reported on leaked Whitehall documents that show "Al-Qaeda is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks" in Britain. The targets of the "extremist recruiters" are students with "technical and professional qualifications."

These are not Muslims without a future. These are bright and educated students who, if they wished, could be productive and prosperous members of British society. But many are embracing a false theology and a god who requires them to kill "infidels."

No amount of G8 aid to the "Palestinians," nor a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, will pacify these current and potential killers. Even if Israel were obliterated (the goal of much of the Muslim world), the terror would continue until the entire non-Islamic world is under their control.

This is not the belief of an "Islamophobic" bigot. This is what they say in their sermons and media, teach in their schools, and believe in their hearts. It matters little that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists," to quote a familiar Western mantra. It matters a great deal that most terrorists are Muslims. The sooner Western leaders and Western media begin stating what is obvious to most people; the quicker the real root cause can be dealt with.

The excuses given by Westerners and many Muslim clerics for terrorism are just that: excuses.

If Britain and the West are guilty of failing to adequately address the "oppression" of Muslims in Kashmir and Chechnya, do they earn points for intervening in Bosnia to protect Muslims and sending billions to the Palestinian Authority, money that went down a rat hole of corruption?

Do America and Britain win friends among Muslims for allowing them to practice their faith openly (no Muslim country offers the type of religious tolerance that Muslims enjoy in the U.S. and Britain). Why must America and Britain be held accountable for every perceived and actual slight against Muslims, but beheadings of Westerners receive little more than pro forma condemnation and are soon forgotten?

 

[Tgace]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...g20-29.pdf+religion+is+the+cause+of+terrorism

Poverty is not an excuse for terrorism: On the other hand, there are also many who argue that the link between terrorism and poverty is too weak to be considered causal, because the one does not necessarily lead to the other. Michael Radu, for instance, argues that the search for ‘root causes’ of terrorism is futile. He argues that this search leads too easily to the usual suspects: ‘poverty’, ‘injustice’,‘exploitation’ and ‘frustration’, even though the data does not fit this model. Radu points out that Osama bin Laden is a multimillionaire and that the backgrounds of the 11 September 2001(9/11) hijackers indicate that they were, without exception, privileged. In fact, he argues that terrorism, as one form of revolutionary violence, has always been the purview of the relatively privileged: “Terrorists have been middle class,often upper class, and always educated, but never poor.” To support his argument he refers to the South American Tupamaros and Motoneros of the 1970s, the German Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Italian Red Brigades, France’s Action Directe, the Sandinista leader-ship in Nicaragua and Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolutionaries. He also predicts that the middle-class, prosperous and self-righteous composition of the anti-globalist groups will lead to a new wave of terrorism in the West.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/03/Perspective/US_Israel_policy_not_.shtml

In his column, Bill Maxwell referred positively to a new course on terrorism offered at the University of Florida. As course instructor and supervisor, respectively, we appreciate his endorsement of the course. However, we are concerned that the placement of the paragraph may mislead readers about the content of the course.

Specifically, Maxwell's complimentary remarks follow immediately his assertion that U.S. support for Israel and Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, which provoke enormous anger in the Muslim and Arab world, are chiefly responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Maxwell's references to the course in the next paragraph seem to imply that the course supports his argument.

While we recognize that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a source of much frustration and anger in the Arab and Muslim world, we do not believe that U.S. support for Israel caused the Sept. 11 attacks.

Arab and Muslim leaders have too often attempted to divert attention from their own social, political and religious malfeasance by exploiting the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In the same manner, these leaders invoke alleged Israeli misdeeds and American support to justify various acts of terrorism, Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait and the failure of Arab and Muslim states to develop legitimate and acceptable forms of social, political, economic and religious forms of governance.

Israel is not responsible for these developments, and the problems of the Arab world would remain had Israel never existed. Indeed, Israel is not solely responsible for the terrible condition of Palestinians. That responsibility is shared by Egypt and Jordan, which occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively, for almost 20 years, as well as the British who played both Jews and Arabs against each other during the Mandatory Period. They also have legitimate grievances against all the Arab and Muslim states (except Jordan) that have used the plight of the Palestinians for political gain but have refused to grant them political rights and citizenship.

While we respect him as a courageous journalist, we would not want anyone to imagine that we share his views about the sources of the butchery on Sept. 11. Blaming Israel, directly or indirectly, ignores history and belies the terrorists' own words.
-- Adam L. Silverman, instructor, and Kenneth D. Wald, professor, Department of Political Science, University of Florida, Gainesville