[noir]

If he wasn't a Muslim, he would have been branded Islamophob

[AJS]

Again people keep discussing the merits of Islam and Muslims, as if these should be the criteria for determining immigration policies.

It is important to remember that none of this was a problem in the 1960s. It only emerged since the 1980s and most of us were oblivious to it until the events of September 2001.

The South African whites are living as an ethnic minority, but the majority that surrounds them is not Muslim. It does not make their situation any better.

Islamism has been a problem for a lot longer than that. Ask the people of the Balkans, or Spain, or the Christians of Egypt or Iraq. Or the Indians. Etc etc

It's become more of an issue in the west in recent years but that doesn't mean it was invented then.

[Political Interest]

Islamism has been a problem for a lot longer than that. Ask the people of the Balkans, or Spain, or the Christians of Egypt or Iraq. Or the Indians. Etc etc

It's become more of an issue in the west in recent years but that doesn't mean it was invented then.

I was referring to it as a problem for us in the West, as a fact of our day to day lives.

We need to deal with the problem of Wahabi Islamism, but we cannot succeed in this by alienating the people in the Islamic world or by declaring our absolute opposition to their civilisation.

By all means, end mass immigration and declare an affirmation of our countries as culturally homogenous entities, but do not do this in hostility to Islam and Muslims. We need to have a good relationship with the Islamic world in order to finally eliminate the extremist problem once and for all.

We really should be directing our anger at those who enable this and promote the mass influx into our countries, along with the hair brained interventions and fiddling around in the global south. These sorts of people can come from any colour and religion and many of them are from among ourselves.

[Godstud]

We need to deal with the problem of Wahabi Islamism

The US does. They support it, by suporting the Saudi Arabian regime, wholeheartedly. The US government works against American best interests so they can put cash in their pockets, and keep terrorism alive.

It's become more of an issue in the west in recent years but that doesn't mean it was invented then.

Yet, it was, and continues to be.


CIA Director Admits: US Foreign Policy Causes Terrorism
John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, acknowledged that US foreign policy may sometimes cause terrorism.
"So Brennan well understands that our foreign policy causes attacks against Americans. And our legal code specifies that attempting to retaliate against US actions is what makes you a terrorist. Nonetheless, this obvious reality is almost never said out loud by government officials."
https://sputniknews.com/us/201506081023102542/

It’s Time to Reconsider U.S. Policies That Create Terrorists
We have been at war with the people of various Muslim countries for decades, since perhaps as early as 1953 when we engineered Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh’s overthrow in Iran after he nationalized the oil industry.

Since then the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, on a pretext that was shown to be phony, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. That war came after over a decade of U.S.-sponsored sanctions that resulted in the deaths of more than a million Iraqis, including more than a half million children due to malnutrition and diseases caused by the lack of clean water and medicine.

Then there are the current sanctions against Iran, ostensibly to deter its government from developing nuclear weapons but, in practice, punishing the Iranian people by degrading their quality of life as well as their health. (Just one example: the Iranian civilian airline has experienced a major spike in air crash deaths since sanctions have prevented it from purchasing parts needed to replace worn and outmoded machinery).

Then there are the drone attacks. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in February that, as of then, U.S. drone attacks had killed 4,700 men, women and children (including, he notes, “innocent people”) in Afghanistan, Yemen and Pakistan.

And, of course, our Israel policy is based on the premise, so often stated by Vice President Joe Biden, that there must be “no daylight, no daylight” between Israeli policies and our own. That statement has proven true on matters large and small — from Congressional promises to join Israel if it decides to attack Iran’s nuclear reactor, to supporting Israel’s policies on the West Bank and Gaza, to opposing any form of Palestinian representation at the United Nations. Muslims do not imagine that we view the Middle East almost entirely through Israeli eyes. We do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenb ... 46845.html

America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group
During the 1970’s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980’s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-cr ... up/5402881

Do some reading... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... iddle_East

[noir]

Muslims do not imagine that we view the Middle East almost entirely through Israeli eyes. We do.

There are many who view Middle East almost entirely through Arabs eyes, say French. It didn't help them, did it?

[Political Interest]

The US does. They support it, by suporting the Saudi Arabian regime, wholeheartedly. The US government works against American best interests so they can put cash in their pockets, and keep terrorism alive.

Unfortunately the only way for this problem to end would be for the West to get out the Middle East and abandon all of its dubious allies there.

But as we know there are always reasons why something is not possible, in this case choosing a Middle East policy that will not come back to bite us every few decades.

[noir]

Islamic Feminism

A left Islamists alliance in America

[AJS]

Godstud
The ideas of a caliphate, jihad, Sharia law and Islamic supremacism predate the founding of the United States by a millennium. They predate British or French imperialism and even the crusades. The reach and intensity of Islamism has waxed and waned in that time but never disappeared.

There are many things wrong with US and western foreign policy

[Pants-of-dog]

Godstud
The ideas of a caliphate, jihad, Sharia law and Islamic supremacism predate the founding of the United States by a millennium. They predate British or French imperialism and even the crusades. The reach and intensity of Islamism has waxed and waned in that time but never disappeared.

There are many things wrong with US and western foreign policy

That does not change the fact that western foreign policy is one of the main causes of Islamic militancy.

Despite the right's attempts at looking confused, it seems clear that people do not like being bombed.

[AJS]

Similarly one of the main pretexts for bombing Muslim countries is tackling Islamist radicalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Similarly one of the main pretexts for bombing Muslim countries is tackling Islamist radicalism.

Yes, politicians say that. They might even believe it.

Of course, they would have to ignore the evidence that shows that people do bot like being bombed, as well as ignoring the simple logic that people do not like being bombed.

Or they could be just using it as a pretext, and the real reason has to do with securing petroleum resources for geopolitical advantages in the future.

[AJS]

As Islamists could just be using western foreign policy as a pretext. The Philippines, Thailand, India, China, Nigeria and other countries who have suffered Islamist terror attacks have not bombed Iraq.

[Pants-of-dog]

As Islamists could just be using western foreign policy as a pretext.

...except we are bombing them.

The Philippines, Thailand, India, China, Nigeria and other countries who have suffered Islamist terror attacks have not bombed Iraq.

The fact that other countries have terrorist attacks (for whatever reason) does not change the relationship between western military policy and terrorism.

[AJS]

No, but it suggests that there are other significant causes.

[Drlee]

No, but it suggests that there are other significant causes.

This is correct. There are large factions of Islam whose goal is not peaceful coexistence but rather a religious state run under Islamic law. There is no denying that. And some of these people are using terror to achieve it. To blame terrorism on US bombing of terrorists is not telling the entire story.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

While smoking causes cancer, other things also cause cancer.

So while the statement "smoking causes cancer" is not the whole story, it is still a correct claim.

[anasawad]

@AJS
There is a bet of a difference here between the middle east and other parts of the Islamic world.
But due to the fact that everyone now calls everything terrorism, so it gets harder to tell the difference for someone who doesn't look at history of the area in which an event has taken place.

As Islamists could just be using western foreign policy as a pretext. The Philippines, Thailand, India, China, Nigeria and other countries who have suffered Islamist terror attacks have not bombed Iraq.

So lets look at each of those independently.

1- The Philippines and India and Thailand.
Already mentioned the reason of the conflict there.

3- For India the conflict is actually over. And india and philippines had conflicts between Muslims and others because of colonialism actually.
Because if you looked at historical maps of them, you'd note one big thing going on. Those weren't countries.
They're several countries put up under one rule by colonial empires. And what happens when you take 2 independent nations with one being much much bigger in population than the other and put them under one government in which all the official positions are voted in ? The bigger nation takes full control while the smaller one loses not only its independence but also cant get full representation and thus goes into ruin.
Guess what happened in several areas of Asia ? You know, the place that have over 4 billion people around a quarter of them being Muslims being formerly many nations, then colonized and suddenly having a new map of states drawn combining groups of nations all under one state multiple times over.

To add, the answer to guess what happened, local conflicts between the new states and smaller groups in areas that want its independence back. That is also one of the main reason of war between Pakistan and India and the small conflicts within each since then even though Muslims and Hindus along with others worked together to get independence from the British empire.
Several nations wanted independence from colonialism, and they ended up being screwed and robbed of their right to determination by being placed under control and dominance of a bigger nation other than the colonizing empire.

2- China.
Also mentioned before, here;

4- And for China. China annexed multiple nations into to it with the two major ones being Tibet and East Turkistan. East Turkistan is mainly Muslims, and Tibet Buddhists. And the Chinese authority is oppressing both of them so they cant reclaim their independence.

Though i made a mistake here previously as i wrote Nepal instead of Tibet so fixed the quote.

3- Nigeria
Here is a video i had in my youtube recommendations a few days ago.

For the overall topic.
Here is a fun fact, Muslims are 1.6 billion people. And anyone, literally anyone, who bothered at any point of time looking at some of the historic maps of the Islamic world. They'll see a something that is quite notable in all of those maps.
Although all of them are Muslims, you'd see that the Islamic world consisted of multiple different empires, kingdoms and nations in general. Each with its own culture, language, ruling system and policies and yes even interpretation of Islam which is why there are 72 different sects in Islam. And even each became Muslim in a different circumstances and different time period under different influences.

Side note:
Shia and Sunni are not actually sects but rather political devisions each with a group of sects in those factions, and they're political because the divide between them started about who should've been the Caliph and across time morphed into a conflict of preservation for the Shia sects and dominance and imperialism among Sunni sects. (Sunnis made the largest empires) Sectarian conflicts do sometimes happen but across history it was mostly within the major factions not against each other. As in 2 Shia sects or 2 Sunni sects less than a Shia sect against a Sunni sect.


@Drlee

This is correct. There are large factions of Islam whose goal is not peaceful coexistence but rather a religious state run under Islamic law. There is no denying that. And some of these people are using terror to achieve it. To blame terrorism on US bombing of terrorists is not telling the entire story.

Currently the main group seeking conquest rather than either a nation seeking independence or a group wanting to improve the conditions of its people or liberating it from oppression laid upon them or a resistance group against occupation or foreign aggression , are Wahabis.
Those are the only ones who's goals are international and generally can be defined as conquest.
And the reason they managed to spread and gain influence and weren't crushed earlier is because Britain supported them to grow and gave them a country by helping them conquer other nations. and then followed by the US helping them stay in power and suppress any fight against them by giving them both weapons and direct military protection.
So if we were to look at terrorist attacks that are actually terrorist attacks and not the listed above, its generally wahabi groups or mercenaries working for wahabis. So a good start to reduce terrorism if not eliminate it is probably stop protecting sponsors of terrorism and not sponsoring it yourselves, like the "rebels" in Syria.

[Philby]

Smoking = Cancer = Death

(radical) Islam = Cancer = Death

That's what you're saying Pod....right?

Looking for a cure for cancer is the thing to do. We've started the cure with killing cancercells. Good start.

[Pants-of-dog]

Smoking = Cancer = Death

(radical) Islam = Cancer = Death

That's what you're saying Pod....right?

Looking for a cure for cancer is the thing to do. We've started the cure with killing cancercells. Good start.

Nope.

Western military interventions = cause of terrorism
Smoking = cause of cancer

And as smoking is not the only cause of cancer, so western military interventions are not the only cause of terrorism.

[Philby]

Ahh, ok, you said simply nothing in that post.