If the goal of Radical Islam is?

[Rebiu]

If the goal of Radical Islam is to destroy or enslave the no Muslim world why does the Shiite Badr Brigade militia kill Sunni Muslims?

[Sisyphus]

Because "Radical Islam" is not an organization, let alone an organization that can articulate a single goal, let alone an organization with THAT goal. There are certainly many Islam-based "radical" organizations, but their goals vary wildly. I can't think of any whose goal is to "destroy or enslave the non Muslim world."

 

As for why all those Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other in Iraq right now, then I would say general anarchy + religious fundamentalism + centuries old hatreds = a lot of interfaith violence. The more conservative elements among Sunni and Shiite don't consider one another to be true Muslims.

[Jim]

Because "Radical Islam" is not an organization' date=' let alone an organization that can articulate a single goal, let alone an organization with THAT goal. There are certainly many Islam-based "radical" organizations, but their goals vary wildly. I can't think of any whose goal is to "destroy or enslave the non Muslim world."

 

As for why all those Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other in Iraq right now, then I would say general anarchy + religious fundamentalism + centuries old hatreds = a lot of interfaith violence. The more conservative elements among Sunni and Shiite don't consider one another to be true Muslims.[/quote']

 

I agree completely except that I bet a few of the radicals envision an entirely Islamic world and would not shrink from violence to accomplish that goal. They would not view this as "enslavement."

[Rebiu]

Because "Radical Islam" is not an organization, let alone an organization that can articulate a single goal, let alone an organization with THAT goal. There are certainly many Islam-based "radical" organizations, but their goals vary wildly. I can't think of any whose goal is to "destroy or enslave the non Muslim world."

The why does the president refer to it like it is?

 

As for why all those Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other in Iraq right now' date=' then I would say general anarchy + religious fundamentalism + centuries old hatreds = a lot of interfaith violence. The more conservative elements among Sunni and Shiite don't consider one another to be true Muslims.[/quote']I would guess it is a power grab by those who see a potential to advance themselves through their religious influence.

[Rebiu]

I agree completely except that I bet a few of the radicals envision an entirely Islamic world and would not shrink from violence to accomplish that goal. They would not view this as "enslavement."

This is the picture that has been painted. I doubt a significant part of the "radicals" leadership believe this will happen. I would suggest it might be a pep rally type speech.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, "Radical" Islam wishes to exterminate the "infidels", for the salvation of its believers. The Muslim religious leaders state that many many times.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1251789

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=46

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/

 

But Rebiu, I agree with you (wow ), most of the problem with Radical Islam is the high-preachers and high-influencial religious leaders desire to take advantage of their influence. The problem is that a lot of the time, it works.

 

I strongly suggest this movie, btw, it's very strong in its message, and quite objective (to say the least): Death in Gaza, by James Miller and Saira Shah, showing the situation in Gaza through children's eyes. Quite disturbing, but explains some of the major problems with the radical leadership and influences in some areas of the world.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

Actually' date=' "Radical" Islam wishes to exterminate the "infidels", for the salvation of its believers. The Muslim religious leaders state that many many times.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1251789

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=46

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/

 

But Rebiu, I agree with you (wow ), most of the problem with Radical Islam is the high-preachers and high-influencial religious leaders desire to take advantage of their influence. The problem is that a lot of the time, it works.

 

I strongly suggest this movie, btw, it's very strong in its message, and quite objective (to say the least): Death in Gaza, by James Miller and Saira Shah, showing the situation in Gaza through children's eyes. Quite disturbing, but explains some of the major problems with the radical leadership and influences in some areas of the world.

 

~moo

 

The first link was about someone calling for the destruction of Israel. The second was about calling for the destruction of George Bush. The third is a random group of articles. I'm not sure how any of that is supposed to support the statement that "Radical Islam is an organization that seeks to destroy all non-Muslims." Even the crazy terrorist says there should be peace if Muslims are left alone. I'm not saying that nobody wants that, I'm just saying it's foolish to generalize. Indeed, "Radical Islam" is not a thing that you can really say any generalized statement about. Less, even, than you can talk about "Radical Christianity."

[Jim]

This is the picture that has been painted. I doubt a significant part of the "radicals" leadership believe this will happen. I would suggest it might be a pep rally type speech.

 

I agree that some of the leadership is probably cynical in some respects. I'm not sure about the young people they are targetting for indoctrination.

 

We also do not know how this will play out in the long term. If a majority of Europe becomes Muslim and they come to share the beliefs evidenced in the poll of British Muslims all bets are out the window.

[Pangloss]

The Taliban rose to power without any abuse from the west, and even arguably its support during the Afghan war. The "destroy all non-Muslims" claims may be exaggerated (everyone participates in what might be called "trash-talking" at that level) and I might even agree that if left alone the region might be more peaceful, but I don't think anyone can make the argument (and I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here) that "Islamofacism" or Muslic terrorism groups would never have arisen without the west's involvement in the region. It would have happened simply due to normal trade relations.

[Jim]

The Taliban rose to power without any abuse from the west, and even arguably its support during the Afghan war. The "destroy all non-Muslims" claims may be exaggerated (everyone participates in what might be called "trash-talking" at that level) and I might even agree that if left alone the region might be more peaceful, but I don't think anyone can make the argument (and I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here) that "Islamofacism" or Muslic terrorism groups would never have arisen without the west's involvement in the region. It would have happened simply due to normal trade relations[/i'].

 

Excellent point Pangloss.

 

Boiled down, the goal of Radical Islam/Islamofascism/Islamism is to gain power. The danger of this movement is directly proportional to the sincerity in a belief that God wills them to have power.

[mooeypoo]

" Even the crazy terrorist says there should be peace if Muslims are left alone. I'm not saying that nobody wants that, I'm just saying it's foolish to generalize. Indeed, "Radical Islam" is not a thing that you can really say any generalized statement about. Less, even, than you can talk about "Radical Christianity."

 

You're right, Sisyphus, it wasn't my intention to generalize islam, it was my intention to give examples about Radical Islam.. I also think that there are differences within "Radical Islam". But those who demand the distruction of either a state (that did no physical harm to them) or a president of a country, and mean it (and they do mean it, as it seems), I would concider them Radicals..

 

Radicals are not something you can generalize, really, they exist in so many forms and shapes, it's better to just give examples what the definition contains, than to talk about "THE Radical Islam", imho.

 

 

I didn't mean to give examples of General Islam.. just examples of Radicals.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

I know that. My only point has been that there are plenty of very radical Islamic organizations, but "Radical Islam" is not a coherent entity. That's why it's not surprising that radical Shiite groups and radical Sunni groups often hate each other more than, say, Westerners.

 

Also, irregardless of what would actually happen if we "left the Islamic world alone," (something I am NOT advocating), the point remains that almost all of the rhetoric of radical Islamic groups that DO care about what Westerners are doing centers on the fact that we are trying to oppress them and they wish to be left alone. Hence, even saying that most radical Islamic groups have the goal of "enslaving the world" or something, as if they were Evil Galactic Overlords, is inaccurate.

[Rebiu]

Radicals are not something you can generalize' date=' really, they exist in so many forms and shapes, it's better to just give examples what the definition contains, than to talk about "THE Radical Islam", imho.

~moo[/quote']Yet Generalize is what we do when we use Radical as a known instead of an adjective.

[mooeypoo]

We always generalize when we use a noun. The point in the discussion, however, is to try and point out the subtleties where generalization is not required, or is not accurate.

 

There's a difference between saying "The World" in a sentence (a blunt generalization), or speaking about people in the world and pointing out why the generalization is flawed..

 

I've just tried to point that out in my post..

 

~moo

[Rebiu]

The Taliban rose to power without any abuse from the west, and even arguably its support during the Afghan war. The "destroy all non-Muslims" claims may be exaggerated (everyone participates in what might be called "trash-talking" at that level) and I might even agree that if left alone the region might be more peaceful, but I don't think anyone can make the argument (and I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here) that "Islamofacism" or Muslic terrorism groups would never have arisen without the west's involvement in the region. It would have happened simply due to normal trade relations[/i'].

I suggest you are mistaken Pangloss. The Wahabi of Saudi Arabia are an extreme sect of Saudi Arabia that has been enraged by many American activities. They provided the funding for the Taleban. The militant Islamist in Pakistan are fueled by the favorable treatment the US has given India during their conflicts. They ran the schools that indoctrinated the Taleban. The Taleban had a close and functional relationship with many of the foreign fighters that were funded and supported by the CIA during the war with the USSR. I doubt the Taleban would have been able to gain power without the environment created by the US activities in the region.

[Aardvark]

The militant Islamist in Pakistan are fueled by the favorable treatment the US has given India during their conflicts.

 

The USA did not provide any favourable treatment to India during their conflicts. The USA provided favourable treatment to Pakistan. India was aligned with the Soviet Union, receiving military equipment and economic assistance. The 'militant Islamist' has no grounds at all to hate the USA on the basis of any so called bias against Pakistan.

 

I doubt the Taleban would have been able to gain power without the environment created by the US activities in the region.

 

How odd. The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan creating turmoil, civil war and anarchy, and you blame the USA?

 

 

The fact that the Taliban and other radical Muslims blame everything on the USA does not actually make it true.

[mooeypoo]

I doubt the Taleban would have been able to gain power without the environment created by the US activities in the region.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html

 

Here's a bit of the Taliban's history, for your refference. The USA's influence was much much later.

 

~moo

[Rebiu]

The USA did not provide any favourable treatment to India during their conflicts. The USA provided favourable treatment to Pakistan. India was aligned with the Soviet Union, receiving military equipment and economic assistance. The 'militant Islamist' has no grounds at all to hate the USA on the basis of any so called bias against Pakistan.

The US under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, has imposed sanctions on Pakistan in the past, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

How odd. The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan creating turmoil' date=' civil war and anarchy, and you blame the USA?[/quote']I said the CIA funded the foreign fighters, nothing more.

 

 

The fact that the Taliban and other radical Muslims blame everything on the USA does not actually make it true.

It must be a lie if they say it then.

[john5746]

How odd. The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan creating turmoil' date=' civil war and anarchy, and you blame the USA?

[/quote']

 

He may be correct, if we hadn't helped the rebels in Afghanistan, maybe it would be Soviet now?

[Bettina]

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html

 

Here's a bit of the Taliban's history' date=' for your refference. The USA's influence was much much later.

 

~moo[/quote']

 

Thanks for the link... What a bunch of sickos the Taliban are.... Most sickening to me is -

 

"Taliban bans the use of the Internet, playing cards, computer discs, movies, satellite TV, musical instruments, and chessboards, after declaring them against Islamic law."

 

After that came any form of ball game, kite flying, non-religious books, magazines, weather forcasting, girls going to school, picnics, etc, etc.

 

Great to be free!!! Bee.

[Pangloss]

I suggest you are mistaken Pangloss. The Wahabi of Saudi Arabia are an extreme sect of Saudi Arabia that has been enraged by many American activities. They provided the funding for the Taleban. The militant Islamist in Pakistan are fueled by the favorable treatment the US has given India during their conflicts. They ran the schools that indoctrinated the Taleban. The Taleban had a close and functional relationship with many of the foreign fighters that were funded and supported by the CIA during the war with the USSR. I doubt the Taleban would have been able to gain power without the environment created by the US activities in the region.

 

Even if we were to agree that all of this is true, it doesn't contradict my point. It simply extends the amount of stuff they're willing to draw on in order to find the useful demons they need to exert their power.

 

Put another way, it wouldn't matter if not one single American had left this country in a century, we had no trade relations with any foreign countries, and exported nothing but our television signals (unintentionally). They'd latch on to those uncontrolled television signals or some other aspect of our society, declare it to be evil and in contradiction to the Koran, and leverage that to control their people.

 

 

Um.

 

You're right, Jim. Islamo-fascism it is.

[Sisyphus]

Who falls under the "Islamofascist" title? The Taliban? Definitely. Al Qaeda? I suppose (though it's fuzzy). The Saudi royal family? Perhaps. The sectarian militias killing each other in Iraq? Who knows?

[mooeypoo]

Since "Fascism" is a regime, I would rule out Al Qaeda emmediately (hardly a regime, more of a terrorist organization built by individual cells hyrarchy), and the Saudi Royal Family would suit "Totalitarian" more than Fascism, at least by my imho and understanding (which, admittedly, about Saudi Arabia, is limited)..

 

So I'd say Iran fits that, Iraq used to fit that, Syria DEFINATELY fits that, and I might even include Egypt, though it's under a pretence of 'western' totalitarian government.. err.. sometimes.

 

~moo

[Rebiu]

Even if we were to agree that all of this is true, it doesn't contradict my point.

Your point was that the US had nothing to do with the Taleban's control of Afghanistan, therefore it does contradict your point.

It simply extends the amount of stuff they're willing to draw on in order to find the useful demons they need to exert their power.

Despite how useful the perspective that there is a unified "they" to refer to does not make it a reality. There are people and positions willing to do this. There are more that would be happy to work with the US.

 

Put another way' date=' it wouldn't matter if not one single American had left this country in a century, we had no trade relations with any foreign countries, and exported nothing but our television signals (unintentionally). They'd latch on to those uncontrolled television signals or some other aspect of our society, declare it to be evil and in contradiction to the Koran, and leverage that to control their people.[/quote']This position is so absolute that only a blind ideologue would consider it.

[Aardvark]

The US under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, has imposed sanctions on Pakistan in the past, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

 

For the entirety of Pakistans existence the USA has ben allied to Pakistan. It has favoured Pakistan in its disputes with India and provided military and economic assistance. The sanctions imposed on Pakistan after it exploded a nuclear bomb were less than the sanctions imposed on India when it did the same.

 

Where is this discrimination against Pakistan? You are simply wrong on this point.

 

 

I said the CIA funded the foreign fighters, nothing more.

 

No you didn't.

 

You said

 

'i doubt the Taliban would have been able to gain power without the environment created by the US activities in the region'

 

That is much more than simply stating that the CIA funded foreign fighters. (Incidentially the CIA never funded the Taliban anyway.)

 

It must be a lie if they say it then.

 

That's what the facts prove.