Terrorism - social factors

[Felonius Monk]

Tangent from another thread (http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?t=157915&page=1&pp=25).

Thoughts?

PS: try not to get into religion/race bashing.


Speculation warning. I can't back this up.

Most terrorism can be explained in socio-economic terms. Poor and unemployed young people (a) need a direction to channel their frustration/anger and (b) seek something that gives them an identity and a sense of purpose. The only sense in which Islam seems to tie into it is that Islam (on the surface) demands a greater committment to the faith than most other religions in terms of the role it plays in your life. I believe that makes Muslims more vulnerable to be being manipulated on the basis of faith, especially those who take their faith very literally. I believe I also saw a study somewhere that suggested the poor are usually the most deeply religious. Add it all together and it makes at least intuitive sense that we have a lot of terrorism coming out of dirt poor Islamic nations in spite of the fact that the goals of these outfits have nothing to do with Islam.

The Mohammed cartoons are a great case in point. All the violence came in areas that are essentially poor and seems to have been instigated by regional political leaders.

I read a study which said that terrorists are usually taken from the middle class citing the 7/7 bombings of the London Tubes. Before that I was willing to agree with your POV but now I'm not so sure. I think socio-economics does play a very important part in it but there are other historical occurances we are discarding.

Yeah, I agree its an oversimlipification. There is a historical context to examine these questions in, and of course the use of religion as a political tool is a somewhat grey area, since most religions are intrinsically political in themselves in some degree.

This study - is it centered exclusively on England? The london bombings weren't the actions of a large and well organized organization, so they can't really be taken as representative of terrorism as a whole. Organized terrorism is slightly different kettle of fish... the poor and the disaffected are often the easiest to recruit. The other thing to consider is that middle-class means different things in different parts of the world. Like in India - unemployment is still very much a part a concern for what is commonly referred to as the middle class. I met some firebrand right-wing hindus in Delhi last year. They weren't terrorists (or i don't think they were) but they were extremists at the very minimum. All of them were educated. Most of them had initially come to Delhi in search of employment. I can't trace the exact evolution of how they ended up in that particular outfit, but I think there's a correlation.


Make a topic with that post above so it can be discussed without the added vitriol that's plaguing this thread

[bill]

The study cited the attack on England but it was predominantly trying to overthrow the 'myth' that terrorists are poor people. I think it makes sense though: terrorists usually know exactly what they are doing even if the justifications for their actions are skewed and they would have some form of education to aid in this justification. People don't give up their lives easily. I think terrorists are usually the middle class; the upper class don't really need to sacrifice their lives to achieve their ends because they have the best the society can offer, they are effective rulers and law-makers. The lower class is too busy trying to earn a living to give a shit about worldly issues. They want to make it to day n+1, and if they make it there then it's another successful day. But where does that leave the middle-class? They're not rich enough to get what they want, but they've seen and know enough of the world to know what they want. This is the underlying force which gives rise to terrorism: people with a will but without means of action. It's a terrible place to be in, to see what you can have but never being able to get close enough to actually getting it. I think this is the theory behind the 'middle-class revolution' which is said to be at the heart of any major revolution overthrowing an authoritarian government.

This also explains what you saw in India: a bunch of educated people trying to make their way without success and thus subscribing to extremist ideals.

Now where does religion come into this? Well, religious leaders have always had a spiritual hold on the majority community and are looked to as the most pious of the group - obviously. But as you can see, also obviously, this is a position that welcomes corruption and propaganda with open arms (I think now is the time the statement "absolute power corrupts absolutely" can be best applied). Now, what happens when the upper-elite-religious folk can offer the hopeless middle-class a way out of their bland and 'mediocre' existence? Yup, you guessed it. The middle class are very, very thirsty for a cause. The religious elite offer such a cause.

It's a match made in heaven.

:/

[bill]

The only sense in which Islam seems to tie into it is that Islam (on the surface) demands a greater committment to the faith than most other religions in terms of the role it plays in your life. I believe that makes Muslims more vulnerable to be being manipulated on the basis of faith, especially those who take their faith very literally.

I'm going to get flak saying this, but I don't think Islam is as sociologically evolved as Christianity. What I mean by this is I don't think Islam has received the kind of introspection which Christianity has received. The introspection of a religion is extremely important as far as its social development goes and any kind of introspection of Islam was pretty much banned by the muslim war-lords post 1000 AD.

Now, theologically, I believe Islam is extremely evolved however theological development seldomly maps into sociological development.

[adren@line]

Many of the terrorists who operate on a world-wide scale are from decent families.

Its mostly in the regional conflicts in which types like the Palestinian suicide bombers are recruited from the poorer classes.

Its all about historical trends and the Quran itself, which from the Muslim POV (and im being nice here), can be easily "misunderstood" to encourage terrorism.

Further, if one reads Islamic history, the central themes are war and violence, starting with Mohhamed till Bin Laden today.

It always involved either Muslims killing each other off or killing everyone else off.

Christians (Turkish Genocide for example).
Zoroastrians
Hindus
Buddhists
Jews
Animists
Pagans.

You name them, Muslims have conquered them at one point or another and killed them in large numbers.

What we see today is a result of the frustration of the lack of Muslim power.

They simply arent capable of conquering and ruling other people like they did in the past.

They arent at the top and arent the ruling superpower, and they feel that they should be the ruling elite. They resent the fact that they are overpowered by "infidels" and "kafirs" and take "misguided" (from the liberal Muslim POV) calls to Jihad to wage against the infidel, which is reflective of what past Muslims with power had done since the death of Mohhamed, but on a smaller scale.

[HiGHland~Heather]

Yeah because even so-called terrorists always demand that their rationale is due to oppression and aggrevation of their people, you obviously know better don't you.

:rolleyes:

Some people do have aspirations for their thoughts, their ideals to be the dominance of the world but that is not exclusive to Muslims - have u spoken to any dumb average american, encouraging the US to declare war on anyone and everyone - I wonder how they would feel if that was arab people saying the same about the West?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ


I'll let u know something, any Muslim or participant of any faith group wishes for their people to be free and obvisouly not persecuted. At the moment Muslims are th most persecuted people and discriminated against the most worldwide, not by individuals but by entire nations!

[bill]

Many of the terrorists who operate on a world-wide scale are from decent families.

Its mostly in the regional conflicts in which types like the Palestinian suicide bombers are recruited from the poorer classes.

Its all about historical trends and the Quran itself, which from the Muslim POV (and im being nice here), can be easily "misunderstood" to encourage terrorism.

Further, if one reads Islamic history, the central themes are war and violence, starting with Mohhamed till Bin Laden today.

It always involved either Muslims killing each other off or killing everyone else off.

Christians (Turkish Genocide for example).
Zoroastrians
Hindus
Buddhists
Jews
Animists
Pagans.

You name them, Muslims have conquered them at one point or another and killed them in large numbers.

What we see today is a result of the frustration of the lack of Muslim power.

They simply arent capable of conquering and ruling other people like they did in the past.

They arent at the top and arent the ruling superpower, and they feel that they should be the ruling elite. They resent the fact that they are overpowered by "infidels" and "kafirs" and take "misguided" (from the liberal Muslim POV) calls to Jihad to wage against the infidel, which is reflective of what past Muslims with power had done since the death of Mohhamed, but on a smaller scale.

Hey dotard: fuck off.

[Chronos]

Now, what happens when the upper-elite-religious folk can offer the hopeless middle-class a way out of their bland and 'mediocre' existence? Yup, you guessed it. The middle class are very, very thirsty for a cause. The religious elite offer such a cause.

I read an article some time ago that was centered around the wave of bombings and attacks that hit Saudi Arabia in the last two years or so and it was trying to examine the psyche and motivations of the people behind said attacks. Almost all the attackers were in the lower-class, high school dropouts, unemployed and were just generally struggling in society.

I especially agree with your statement that elite religious figures can have a tremendous influence and swaying power when it comes to offering an alternative to out-of-luck-would-be-militants' "mediocre existence". Here is a guy who's basically a societal wash-out, without any clear direction in life and seemingly no tangible means to pick him/herself up. Then comes along a possible "solution" to their aid, and what makes this solution more pallatable is the prospects that they'll be out of this world with - quite literally - a big bang. A fitting package that becomes even more attractive once wrapped in spiritual goodwill that promises the alleviation of injustice at the hands of the oppressors.

My point being, I don't think this is exclusive to people in the middle-class. I'd probably lean more towards F. Monk's speculation that it's predominantly the lower-class that is more susceptible here. This doesn't rule out, though, the animosity some of those in the middle to upper class may harbour. In fact, I would strongly suspect the middle to upper class to be the heads of the hydra of terrorist movements - and they don't even have to be all that "religious". Most of these people may feel the need to accomplish individual or collective goals with motives that are political or otherwise, however, rather than going into the thick of things themselves, they'd opt to flex their financial and social muscles to aid their cause by using the more vulnerable lower-class who, inevitably, become the grunts of the operation. This is not always the case though, I'm sure, but it just seems to me to be the more common case.

They resent the fact that they are overpowered by "infidels" and "kafirs" and take "misguided" (from the liberal Muslim POV) calls to Jihad to wage against the infidel...

The dismantling of the Ottoman empire after WW2 may have been the crux of these ill-feelings, and there may very well be a feeling of resentment amongst a number of Islamic die-hard-ists and reminiscers alike concerning being at the hands of Western colonialism. While these resentments of basically losing a sense of dominance or global respect may have, in some very ingrained way, influenced the violence and hate displayed at the cartoon protests (ye ol' case of kicking a dog while it's down), I don't believe it's the impetus behind violent movements, terrorism et al.

It must be noted here that Islamic movements and ideals, for the most part, have not been about liberation as much as they have been about justice. A recent example being Iraq. Iraqis, by and large, don't really want to be "liberated" - especially not by a force that forcefully and subsequently wears the shoes of an occupier as well - as much as they want justice. As HiGHland~Heather mentioned the feeling of injustice amongst would be militants and terrorists may be a more serious issue to consider.

[wiNk wiNk ....]

wtf's up with all the fuckin essays over a stupid thread :ugh2:

[Felonius Monk]

The study cited the attack on England but it was predominantly trying to overthrow the 'myth' that terrorists are poor people. I think it makes sense though: terrorists usually know exactly what they are doing even if the justifications for their actions are skewed and they would have some form of education to aid in this justification. People don't give up their lives easily. I think terrorists are usually the middle class; the upper class don't really need to sacrifice their lives to achieve their ends because they have the best the society can offer, they are effective rulers and law-makers. The lower class is too busy trying to earn a living to give a shit about worldly issues. They want to make it to day n+1, and if they make it there then it's another successful day. But where does that leave the middle-class? They're not rich enough to get what they want, but they've seen and know enough of the world to know what they want. This is the underlying force which gives rise to terrorism: people with a will but without means of action. It's a terrible place to be in, to see what you can have but never being able to get close enough to actually getting it. I think this is the theory behind the 'middle-class revolution' which is said to be at the heart of any major revolution overthrowing an authoritarian government.

This also explains what you saw in India: a bunch of educated people trying to make their way without success and thus subscribing to extremist ideals.

:/
Well - couple of things.

Education doesnt always translate to financial well being. Thats one of the big problems in developing third-world countries. The economies simply aren't keeping pace with the rate of population growth and the number of people being churned out of colleges. There are college graduates in India who work at jobs making Rs. 5000 a month (~$100). These guys are officially classified as 'middle-class' since they meet the basic requirement of being able to eat. So there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the term 'middle-class'. In the US, it means a house in the suburbs, 2.5 kids and a dog. In India it only means food on the table. The education thing is a big factor in contributing to the frustration levels. I fully agree on the stuff you said about being able to see the life they could have (and feel they deserve), but can't reach.

There's also the fact that the world is much smaller now - every city has slums and every village has tv/radio/newspapers. The poor are in contact with the 'better' world as well. A college degree isn't required to aspire to something better but be locked into a tough existence. I think the criteria of just being able to survive is set too low. The poor aren't too busy to care about worldly matters.

Perhaps we're only arguing differences in terminology here. What I call poor may be your idea of middle class. Are you defining poor by the 2000 calorie poverty line standard or something?

[FatGeezer]

Many of the terrorists who operate on a world-wide scale are from decent families.

Its mostly in the regional conflicts in which types like the Palestinian suicide bombers are recruited from the poorer classes.

Its all about historical trends and the Quran itself, which from the Muslim POV (and im being nice here), can be easily "misunderstood" to encourage terrorism.

Further, if one reads Islamic history, the central themes are war and violence, starting with Mohhamed till Bin Laden today.

It always involved either Muslims killing each other off or killing everyone else off.

Christians (Turkish Genocide for example).
Zoroastrians
Hindus
Buddhists
Jews
Animists
Pagans.

You name them, Muslims have conquered them at one point or another and killed them in large numbers.

What we see today is a result of the frustration of the lack of Muslim power.

They simply arent capable of conquering and ruling other people like they did in the past.

They arent at the top and arent the ruling superpower, and they feel that they should be the ruling elite. They resent the fact that they are overpowered by "infidels" and "kafirs" and take "misguided" (from the liberal Muslim POV) calls to Jihad to wage against the infidel, which is reflective of what past Muslims with power had done since the death of Mohhamed, but on a smaller scale.


same ol crap/dont u ever get tired of repeating yourself? youre like a SEVERLY scratched record!

[shiahazara]

Yeah because even so-called terrorists always demand that their rationale is due to oppression and aggrevation of their people, you obviously know better don't you.

:rolleyes:

Some people do have aspirations for their thoughts, their ideals to be the dominance of the world but that is not exclusive to Muslims - have u spoken to any dumb average american, encouraging the US to declare war on anyone and everyone - I wonder how they would feel if that was arab people saying the same about the West?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ


I'll let u know something, any Muslim or participant of any faith group wishes for their people to be free and obvisouly not persecuted. At the moment Muslims are th most persecuted people and discriminated against the most worldwide, not by individuals but by entire nations!


Then make hijrah or shut the fuck up.

People like you are the reason why we are seen as a bunch of victimized idiots.

Why don't you speak out for Muslims who are oppressed by other Muslims, namely Darfur?

I don't see you crying for our help when we were slaughtered by the filthy Taliban.

Dumb hypocrite you are.

Stop with the victimization crap.

[adren@line]

The dismantling of the Ottoman empire after WW2 may have been the crux of these ill-feelings, and there may very well be a feeling of resentment amongst a number of Islamic die-hard-ists and reminiscers alike concerning being at the hands of Western colonialism. While these resentments of basically losing a sense of dominance or global respect may have, in some very ingrained way, influenced the violence and hate displayed at the cartoon protests (ye ol' case of kicking a dog while it's down), I don't believe it's the impetus behind violent movements, terrorism et al.

It must be noted here that Islamic movements and ideals, for the most part, have not been about liberation as much as they have been about justice. A recent example being Iraq. Iraqis, by and large, don't really want to be "liberated" - especially not by a force that forcefully and subsequently wears the shoes of an occupier as well - as much as they want justice. As HiGHland~Heather mentioned the feeling of injustice amongst would be militants and terrorists may be a more serious issue to consider.

The Muslim idea of "justice" and "peace" is far different from others.
Muslims fight to control, not to fight oppressors or for defensive purposes.

If you look at history, Muslims would remain somewhat peacefull only if they were at the top. When they ruled others, when they had absolute control, only then would they cut back on their attacks against non-Muslims (as well as other Muslims)... and this was only to a degree, and I am keeping the Islamic "occupation" of India in mind here.

They arent content with merely co-existing with others.
They want to dominate and they want to rule (in this regard they are similar to Christians).

Allah has guaranteed that they will be succesfull. Allah has guaranteed that they will come out on top and that they are superior to the non-Muslim. This is all in the Quran. This mindset is a direct product of Quranic indoctrination. something that is vital to Islam.

Thats why people are making a big stink about Iran's nuke program.
Its not in the nature for religious Muslims /extremists to merely "co-exist peacefully" with non-Muslims or surrounding nations.

This is backed-up by historical trends seen within the various Islamic empires.

So we can say that these Islamic movements are neither about liberation or justice, but about control, not only control over ones own people, but control on a world-wide level over non-Muslim groups.

Just ask Muslims about their past Islamic empires, and how proud they are of the fact that Muslims conquered, killed, and enslaved many differing groups.

[Mash007]

nobody is born a terrorist or a criminal...

they are products of their environment...

[shiahazara]

The Muslim idea of "justice" and "peace" is far different from others.
Muslims fight to control, not to fight oppressors or for defensive purposes.

If you look at history, Muslims would remain somewhat peacefull only if they were at the top. When they ruled others, when they had absolute control, only then would they cut back on their attacks against non-Muslims (as well as other Muslims)... and this was only to a degree, and I am keeping the Islamic "occupation" of India in mind here.

They arent content with merely co-existing with others.
They want to dominate and they want to rule (in this regard they are similar to Christians).

Allah has guaranteed that they will be succesfull. Allah has guaranteed that they will come out on top and that they are superior to the non-Muslim. This is all in the Quran. This mindset is a direct product of Quranic indoctrination. something that is vital to Islam.

Thats why people are making a big stink about Iran's nuke program.
Its not in the nature for religious Muslims /extremists to merely "co-exist peacefully" with non-Muslims or surrounding nations.

This is backed-up by historical trends seen within the various Islamic empires.

So we can say that these Islamic movements are neither about liberation or justice, but about control, not only control over ones own people, but control on a world-wide level over non-Muslim groups.

Just ask Muslims about their past Islamic empires, and how proud they are of the fact that Muslims conquered, killed, and enslaved many differing groups.


Where the hell do you get your skewed look of Muslims from?

ClearGuidance?

Ummah.net?

[HiGHland~Heather]

Then make hijrah or shut the fuck up.

People like you are the reason why we are seen as a bunch of victimized idiots.

Why don't you speak out for Muslims who are oppressed by other Muslims, namely Darfur?

I don't see you crying for our help when we were slaughtered by the filthy Taliban.

Dumb hypocrite you are.

Stop with the victimization crap.

I am talking about facts, do I look like Im begging for sympathy??

How the heck do you know who I pray for? You think you're omniscient now, do you?

it's we now is it?? :hand: Its 'Muslims' like you that create disunity and cause animosity in the ummah, just look at the state of RD - how many muslims do you even get along with?

I would rather not be associated with your ilk, thank you very much.

And I don't live in the US, so why don't you try to stfu for a change!! :gtfo:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

I'm going to get flak saying this, but I don't think Islam is as sociologically evolved as Christianity. What I mean by this is I don't think Islam has received the kind of introspection which Christianity has received. The introspection of a religion is extremely important as far as its social development goes and any kind of introspection of Islam was pretty much banned by the muslim war-lords post 1000 AD.

Now, theologically, I believe Islam is extremely evolved however theological development seldomly maps into sociological development.
yeah, that's when the politics and religion in Islam got split up. so theology continued to be developed, but didn't go hand in hand with the other sciences like it should have. there was no real sociological introspection, just political gameplay at the top.

then again, its not so bad. people need the introspection to understand the religion better and apply it better. people get confused too easily today over how Islam relates to life on the psychological/sociological level. it doesn't need huge rewrites or reinterpretations like other faiths did.

[Luxifero]

The only government in current history to be deemed a 'terrorist state' by the world tribunal was the United States, a repeat offender of terrorists activities the world over. I can hardly sit here and agree that certain religious devolutions are the fault of terrorist activities.

Current terrorism is consequental of Foriegn policies wrought upon by the U.S mainly and it's client states, monarchs and dictators alike. You simply can't afford to blame Islamic teachings on terrorism when simply and otherwise rational political motifs exist.

[SharpenedMango]

ShiaHazara and Adrenaline sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love, then comes marriage.
Then comes Hazara, with a baby carriage!


Honestly you2,
there is a highly interesting discussion going on here,
either contribute or leave.
Since u both seem to be so fond of scriptural exegesis,
extract something from this:
'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone'
thats from the book of John by the way.

Both of u, all u do is criticise muslims and offer nothing of your own,
without realising it u r both highly nihilistic coming from very different viewpoints.

to everyone else:
im starting to get really pissed off that the intelligent majority sometimes gets drowned out of the conversation with these useless baiters who would never talk the way they do in real life. :mad:

[KhanNoonienSingh]

http://www.forumspile.com/Funnay-Arnold.jpg
http://www.gerbens.nl/wp-files/stfu.jpg
http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-Sucks-Come_for-Arnold.jpg

[shiahazara]

I am talking about facts, do I look like Im begging for sympathy??

And your facts are, in other words, crap.

You always whine about how Muslims are oppressed by the "kuffar", yet you say nothing about the millions of non-Muslims who are oppressed under Muslims.

it's we now is it?? :hand: Its 'Muslims' like you that create disunity and cause animosity in the ummah, just look at the state of RD - how many muslims do you even get along with?

I'm sorry I'm not your typical "blame the Jews, kill the kuffar!" type of Muslim that you like for me to be.

RD is a bad example, and you damn well know it.

I would rather not be associated with your ilk, thank you very much.

Yeah, you'd rather be associated with the likes of al-Muhajiroun or Hizb-ut-tahrir, or any other group that is obsessed with making Britain an Islamic state.

And I don't live in the US, so why don't you try to stfu for a change!! :gtfo:

But you live in a democratic nation where there is more freedom than your own country of origin.

Why don't you show some gratitude for your host country and stfu for a change?

Mrs. Abu Hamza :lol:

[Indian_Eyess]

lol...wat an idiot

[adren@line]

Where the hell do you get your skewed look of Muslims from?

ClearGuidance?

Ummah.net?

lol.

typical answer.

Muslims were conquerors.
Muslims were warlords.
Muslims did invade alot of people.

This is all fact.

Ofcourse being a Muslim, you will try to justify it. You will try to say some shit like "But the Jews living under the Ottomans in the 16th century on a Wednesday wanted us to rule them!"...

well, who cares?

Muslims have always been power-hungry, just like Christians were (and are).
They never simply co-existed.

They always had to fuck with someone around them in some way or another.


The only government in current history to be deemed a 'terrorist state' by the world tribunal was the United States, a repeat offender of terrorists activities the world over. I can hardly sit here and agree that certain religious devolutions are the fault of terrorist activities.

Current terrorism is consequental of Foriegn policies wrought upon by the U.S mainly and it's client states, monarchs and dictators alike. You simply can't afford to blame Islamic teachings on terrorism when simply and otherwise rational political motifs exist.
quite innaccurate.

The root of Islamic extremism has absolutely nothing to do with the United States or the west.

It has everything to do with the Quran and the very nature of Muslims, as evidenced by history with their imperial and violent tendencies.

I suggest you check out this book:

Islamic Imperialism : A History
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300106033/ref=pd_cp_title/104-0413429-9717537?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

If youre intial reaction is to pass it off as "anti-Islamic rhetoric", then read up the history of the "Muslim Ummah" on any website you find neutral and it will probably have the same information, with the same general themes being present in the Ummah:
- imperiaism
- conquest
- war
- death/killing
- in fighting
- massacres/genocides.

[Octane]

ShiaHazara and Adrenaline sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G
First comes love, then comes marriage.
Then comes Hazara, with a baby carriage!


Honestly you2,
there is a highly interesting discussion going on here,
either contribute or leave.
Since u both seem to be so fond of scriptural exegesis,
extract something from this:
'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone'
thats from the book of John by the way.

Both of u, all u do is criticise muslims and offer nothing of your own,
without realising it u r both highly nihilistic coming from very different viewpoints.

to everyone else:
im starting to get really pissed off that the intelligent majority sometimes gets drowned out of the conversation with these useless baiters who would never talk the way they do in real life. :mad:


No they dont have the gonads to bring that up in the real world. They are too worried they will get their asses kicked.

Besides the arguments that Adrenacrap uses are redundent, its the same orientalist rubbish that E. Said ripped apart on many occasions. He simply parrots them off in some vain attempt to sound educated. But I guess that is what you get with obsessively deranged puppets, especially when they are smacked so many times, they continually needs to save face. Albeit not very well.


As per the original question. Galtung has some excellent view points on this.
Mainly his concept of structural violence, which explains the physical impediments that end up creating a supersized gulaag. Once it reaches a boiling point, it spills over into terrorism.

[adren@line]

more Muslims who disagree with me.

shocking.

:o

[Octane]

lol.

typical answer.

Muslims were conquerors.
Muslims were warlords.
Muslims did invade alot of people.

This is all fact.

Ofcourse being a Muslim, you will try to justify it. You will try to say some shit like "But the Jews living under the Ottomans in the 16th century on a Wednesday wanted us to rule them!"...

well, who cares?

Muslims have always been power-hungry, just like Christians were (and are).
They never simply co-existed.

They always had to fuck with someone around them in some way or another.


quite innaccurate.

The root of Islamic extremism has absolutely nothing to do with the United States or the west.

It has everything to do with the Quran and the very nature of Muslims, as evidenced by history with their imperial and violent tendencies.

I suggest you check out this book:

Islamic Imperialism : A History
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300106033/ref=pd_cp_title/104-0413429-9717537?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

If youre intial reaction is to pass it off as "anti-Islamic rhetoric", then read up the history of the "Muslim Ummah" on any website you find neutral and it will probably have the same information, with the same general themes being present in the Ummah:
- imperiaism
- conquest
- war
- death/killing
- in fighting
- massacres/genocides.


Efraim isnt an expert on Islamic history moron. How long did it take you too scrounge this one up. :p

Try Esposito and Armstrong, for starters.

adren@line -The root of Islamic extremism has absolutely nothing to do with the United States or the west.

And yes it does, your statement is a neo-con fairy tale. Try reading Imperial Hubris: Why the west is losing the war on terror. Michael Scheuer.
Forgot you dont read. Well this is for the rest. Read it.
And again Robert Fisk's latest book also addresses the reasons. Aswell as providing a historical background.

[SharpenedMango]

more Muslims who disagree with me.

shocking.

:o

adrenaline,
im sorry bro, but once u made decent points,
but right now in reality,
its not that the majority disagrees with you,
we pity you,
open ur eyes and see the beauty of the world,
less hate bro....

[Octane]

more Muslims who disagree with me.

shocking.

:o

Hey your here. I thought this was gonna be a slow night. I just hope you fixed that broken record of yours.

[HiGHland~Heather]

And your facts are, in other words, crap.


My facts are what the metropolitan police don't deny, so who the hell are you?


You always whine about how Muslims are oppressed by the "kuffar", yet you say nothing about the millions of non-Muslims who are oppressed under Muslims.

Never used the word 'kuffar' in my life!!

And no so far I have only ever spoken up for Palestinians, Iraq and Afghanistan which are three issues I actually got involved with due to my links with Anti-War campaigners at my universty, so stop talking out of your anus.

There are many more issues that affect the Muslim and non-Muslim World but these are close to my heart - Is there a problem with that, b*tch?!


I'm sorry I'm not your typical "blame the Jews, kill the kuffar!" type of Muslim that you like for me to be.

RD is a bad example, and you damn well know it.


Yes, you're a 'i hate muslims, let's kill the b**tards' right-wing Ariel Sharon ass-kisser!!

Shiahazara & Ariel ---> :cuddle:



Yeah, you'd rather be associated with the likes of al-Muhajiroun or Hizb-ut-tahrir, or any other group that is obsessed with making Britain an Islamic state.

don't your fingers get tired of typing so much BS?

If you remember.....I actualyl said I was glad they were dismantled as a group.

Glad is a feeling of joy........unlike the kind anyone feels around you so I'm not surprised its a new concept for you.



But you live in a democratic nation where there is more freedom than your own country of origin.

Why don't you show some gratitude for your host country and stfu for a change?

When have I never shown gratitude?? Listen hoe, just because I have certain views that are not in line with yours does not mean I am at the complete other side of the spectrum. I like to consider myself to be on the path of the prophet of Islam......the middle way!!

Try it sometime :rolleyes:


Mrs. Abu Hamza

Actually I will be Mrs. Hamzah soon.....if we have a son I'll be sure to cal him Hamzah too.............then I will be Mrs Abu Hamza --- cute me likey
:p

[adren@line]

Efraim isnt an expert on Islamic history moron. How long did it take you too scrounge this one up. :p

Try Esposito and Armstrong, for starters.
.

The book references and cites "experts".

But then again, he mustnt know what he is talking about since it makes your cult look bad.

:D

Try Esposito and Armstrong, for starters.
been there, done that.



And yes it does, your statement is a neo-con fairy tale. Try reading Imperial Hubris: Why the west is losing the war on terror. Michael Scheuer.
Forgot you dont read. Well this is for the rest. Read it.
And again Robert Fisk's latest book also addresses the reasons. Aswell as providing a historical background.
No it isnt a neo-con fairytale.
The idea that the west is the sole reason why Islamic extremism exists is Islamified garbage.

Crap that people like you believe.
It makes Muslims feel better about themselves and makes them look like the victims, when the truth is that everything that has happened to them recently is something they have done to other groups at one point or another.

Read your own cult-history. There is absolutely nothing to refute in the regard that

1. Muslims were imperialists
2. Muslims were conquerors
3. Muslims were warlords.
4. Muslims subjugated and enslaved various peoples.

The main reason why the majority of people like you are Muslim is because India was invaded over and over and over again by Arab, Iranian, Afghan, and Turkish Muslims who did their business and then left.

Again, you cant deny this. Its all documented history, regardless of what Islamified crap you read. The main reason Muslims arent up to their imperialistic tricks is because the Christians and the West (as well as Jews/India) are keeping them in check and making sure they wont start up again.

Again, violence and Islamic history go hand-in-hand.
The trends that are seen today are merely reflective of the "glorious Islamic past".

There is plenty of evidence.


:)

[adren@line]

adrenaline,
im sorry bro, but once u made decent points,
but right now in reality,
its not that the majority disagrees with you,
we pity you,
open ur eyes and see the beauty of the world,
less hate bro....

this isnt reality, its the internet.

e-pity means little.

:D

[adren@line]

im still waiting for the boat loads of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Parsis, etc to come back up the Islamic broken-record argument that I am "full of shit" and that "I have been refuted a million times".

third-party verification.

Until then Octane, it doesnt mean shit that some Muslim (like you) thinks I have been refuted.


:D

[HiGHland~Heather]

im still waiting for the boat loads of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Parsis, etc to come back up the Islamic broken-record argument that I am "full of shit" and that "I have been refuted a million times".

third-party verification.

Until then Octane, it doesnt mean shit that some Muslim (like you) thinks I have been refuted.


:D

Why do you think it means shit to Muslims if you think you have not? :dunno:

[CaSh_MoNeY]

Many of the terrorists who operate on a world-wide scale are from decent families.

Its mostly in the regional conflicts in which types like the Palestinian suicide bombers are recruited from the poorer classes.

Its all about historical trends and the Quran itself, which from the Muslim POV (and im being nice here), can be easily "misunderstood" to encourage terrorism.

Further, if one reads Islamic history, the central themes are war and violence, starting with Mohhamed till Bin Laden today.

It always involved either Muslims killing each other off or killing everyone else off.

Christians (Turkish Genocide for example).
Zoroastrians
Hindus
Buddhists
Jews
Animists
Pagans.

You name them, Muslims have conquered them at one point or another and killed them in large numbers.

What we see today is a result of the frustration of the lack of Muslim power.

They simply arent capable of conquering and ruling other people like they did in the past.

They arent at the top and arent the ruling superpower, and they feel that they should be the ruling elite. They resent the fact that they are overpowered by "infidels" and "kafirs" and take "misguided" (from the liberal Muslim POV) calls to Jihad to wage against the infidel, which is reflective of what past Muslims with power had done since the death of Mohhamed, but on a smaller scale.













yooo dawgs is u fukin high? nigah plz blaming muslims? yo u aint kno the first thing bout islam , its message is peace not terroism u dimwit..terrisiom is sponsered by corporate monopolys such as the carlyle company and the united states ....they jus needed tu blame someone ...witout blowin up the towers the bush admistration cud not go tu war with iraq...thats why they did it as for bin laden he was a cia agent and a business partner of mr bush himself....he was in on it its all about the mighty dollar nigah...back tu the war usa was and still is in debt ..the bush admistration was borrowing money frum the future that never existed...jobs wnt down bush was fallling and falling he had tu do something tu get all the money he spent being on vacation 75% of the time he served as a president or shud i say coward?...lol yeh i kno my politics ....bottom line its all about the money and they blamed the muslims...if my people were shot at like dat hell mothafukin yeh imma retaliate 2 guns up buuuuuuuuuurat...think about it other people comeing taking over ur homeland and ur culture trynah put democracy in a islamic country????? not a good idea ...and of course they gon blow bombs up..put it ur mind...people only watch tv and thats the only way they get their news!!...and 95% of tv is lies ..........lies.........lies..........lies.......re ad instead dont flow wit the crowd and talk shyt learn and know ur facts before u open ur mouth ...peace young gunnaz..b safe wun

[Octane]

The book references and cites "experts".

But then again, he mustnt know what he is talking about since it makes your cult look bad.

:D

been there, done that.




No it isnt a neo-con fairytale.
The idea that the west is the sole reason why Islamic extremism exists is Islamified garbage.

Crap that people like you believe.
It makes Muslims feel better about themselves and makes them look like the victims, when the truth is that everything that has happened to them recently is something they have done to other groups at one point or another.

Read your own cult-history. There is absolutely nothing to refute in the regard that

1. Muslims were imperialists
2. Muslims were conquerors
3. Muslims were warlords.
4. Muslims subjugated and enslaved various peoples.

The main reason why the majority of people like you are Muslim is because India was invaded over and over and over again by Arab, Iranian, Afghan, and Turkish Muslims who did their business and then left.

Again, you cant deny this. Its all documented history, regardless of what Islamified crap you read. The main reason Muslims arent up to their imperialistic tricks is because the Christians and the West (as well as Jews/India) are keeping them in check and making sure they wont start up again.

Again, violence and Islamic history go hand-in-hand.
The trends that are seen today are merely reflective of the "glorious Islamic past".

There is plenty of evidence.


:)


Your argument is flawed everytime. You disregard people who ARE experts on the topic, and are well known to be in the academic world. But you continue to obsfucate that point, with abstract authors. The point that I make everytime is academic pedigree on the topic is important. But you skirt the issue every single time. You write off Armstrong and Esposito both of which are huge and established scholars on both sides of the Atlantic. Instead you bring in authors who are NOT experts and do NOT teach the subject matter.

Thats like having a mechanic teach cardiomyopathy and claiming he can speak with more authority on the matter then a Cardiologist.

It has nothing to do with making a religion look "bad" as you colloquially put it. And the sources that you use on a constant basis are regularly debunked. And you proved that by stating Efraim which I know you havent read. Its just something you picked up to buttress your argument. Just like that book list you provided. Just like the 3000 terrorist attacks you claimed. Again you engage in polemics and confabulations.

The idea that the west is the sole reason why Islamic extremism exists is Islamified garbage.

Again the above statement clearly shows your ignorance. Seriously when did Scheuers material become Islamified garbage as you put it. This guy is an x- CIA operative who actually tracked Bin Laden. And your now stating that its Islamified Garbage. You contrive fact. A simple assessment on your arguments with a cursory fact check shows they fall flat, no one needs a "third party" assessment on that fact. Anyone who peruses the thread can see that.

Again you make too many assumptions. That too on my percieved ancestory.
Lets be clear historically and its backed up by fact that Muslims were benevolent rulers. There are bad eggs along the way, but that is true for any group. Again I already provided sources, books with authors that have the academic pedigree to comment on this issue. But you did not respond to them adequately since YOU well know that they dont support your distorted version of history. Again your sources are abstract websites or wikipedia. Not credible sources that have enough dearth to support your arguments.

Again you information is constantly debunked. Argue it all you want but the fact remains, there is plethora of credible academic work that supports my assertions then the neo-con drivel that you constantly parrot. And your lack of knowledge on the subject matter, is well parlayed by you not knowing who the authors are. Again everytime these points are brought up and you are demolished you run to everyone else to grant you credence on your statements to prove otherwise.

You provide weak facts, abstract sources and conjecture. Coupled with the fact that you are CLEARLY proven wrong on every account. Same old parlour tricks adrenaline.

[Octane]

im still waiting for the boat loads of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Parsis, etc to come back up the Islamic broken-record argument that I am "full of shit" and that "I have been refuted a million times".

third-party verification.

Until then Octane, it doesnt mean shit that some Muslim (like you) thinks I have been refuted.


:D

Im sorry I dont take a census on peoples religious beliefs here on RD. That obsession I leave to you. But the fact is that the arguments posited hold up for themselves.

Your argument can be used for anyone so again that fails. The fact is that most RD'ers dont bother with your fanatical obsession with anything Muslim and Islam. They all laugh at you. You are toy, here for our amusement. But you have become boring now. And really your racism comes shining through everytime. You truly are the best emissary for your own religious convictions of peace and harmony.

[Indian_Eyess]

this isnt reality, its the internet.

e-pity means little.

:D
e-pity can lead to pity in reality

[Chronos]

I haven't read all of this yet but it seems interesting enough so far and I figured I'd post a link to it before this thread gets junked:

Mishandling Suicide Terrorism - The Washington Quaterly (http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_atran.pdf)

[adren@line]

Your argument is flawed everytime. You disregard people who ARE experts on the topic, and are well known to be in the academic world

I didnt disregard anyone.

I just dont agree. WHo is considered an expert and who isnt is extremely subjective.

In the end, it comes down to opinion.
The root of ISlamic terrorism isnt something that can be established as fact.

You assume it can be.
The problem with you is that you completely lack the ability to think independently.

All you do is cite other people and fail to make a single argument of your own.

For example, according to your idiotic way of debating, if "scholar" A says peanut butter jelly is good, and "scholar" B says it is bad, you wont make an argument independently as to why you agree with scholar A.

youll simply cite A, give some haphazard list of credentials, and then assume that suffices as a debate, even though its all a matter of opinion.

What you need to do is use your own arguments.
It isnt that hard.

Your idiotic assumptions include that anyone with an opinion has to be a scholar to know what they are talking about. That is completely wrong.

The book I linked to cites scholarly sources, and the author gives his opinion as to why the root of Islamic terror has nothing to do with the United States or the west.

So in the end, this turns into an opinion A vs opinion B debate, but not the opinions of the two people engaged in the debate, but a "source" battle as two whos "scholar" knows what they are talking about and who doesnt.

The fact is that I have made my own arguments and backed them up with neutral sources, or with articles that are sourced to primary texts.

You dont make any arguments.
Your only argument is that I have been refuted over and over again (something any idiot can say), and then you reference someone else's opinion without backing up your own.

But you continue to obsfucate that point, with abstract authors. The point that I make everytime is academic pedigree on the topic is important. But you skirt the issue every single time. You write off Armstrong and Esposito both of which are huge and established scholars on both sides of the Atlantic. Instead you bring in authors who are NOT experts and do NOT teach the subject matter.
again, use your own head.
Armstrong and Co fail to analyze the meanings of the Quran.
They completely fail to analyze the past trends in the Islamic empires and the brutality inflicted upon people like Buddhists and Hindus by Muslims.

Pretty much all they do is analyze the western presence in the Muslim world and go back no less than 100 years in the past to back up their opinions, an approach that is extremely flawed, which is easily provable as based on what is in the Quran and the past trends of Islamic warlords.


It has nothing to do with making a religion look "bad" as you colloquially put it. And the sources that you use on a constant basis are regularly debunked.
how can they be de-bunked when they cite scholars and primary sources?

:p

And you proved that by stating Efraim which I know you havent read. Its just something you picked up to buttress your argument. Just like that book list you provided. Just like the 3000 terrorist attacks you claimed. Again you engage in polemics and confabulations.
THe book list mostly reference primary sources, historical documents that back up the historical nature of Aurangzeb.

So get this through your thick head:

primary sources > supposed scholars with opinions.
It doesnt mean shit if some Islamified/ultra-liberal fool gives his opinion about Islamic terror. If the primary sources prove otherwise, then it the primary sources win.

For example, there are journals and such recorded by Muslims themselves that document the massacres of Hindus and Buddhists.

Muslims (such as yourself), on the other hand, will use the same bullshit arguments and reference some bogus version of history to back up their claims through some author who analyzed select parts of history.

The fact remains that there is plenty of evidence in the Quran and in Islamic history to prove my point.

SInce you seem to know what you are talking about, try forming your own coherent argument while referencing primary sources (and not opinions).

Again the above statement clearly shows your ignorance. Seriously when did Scheuers material become Islamified garbage as you put it. This guy is an x- CIA operative who actually tracked Bin Laden. And your now stating that its Islamified Garbage. You contrive fact. A simple assessment on your arguments with a cursory fact check shows they fall flat, no one needs a "third party" assessment on that fact. Anyone who peruses the thread can see that.
again, what Scheuer says isnt fact.
Its a conclusion based on his experience in the CIA in which he goes back to when the west started to meddle with Islamic affairs. He does not look into the Quran nor does he look into the trends seen within the various Islamic empires.

So it is my opinion that it is a haphazardly concocted theory that fails to analyze the full scope of Islam and Islamic history (something that liberal/Islamified "scholars" routinely fail to do.

Again, read that last part.
Since you cant make your own arguments, reference one book that analyzes the Quran, and Islamic history starting with Mohhamed, AND THEN still concludes that the root of Islamic terrorism is due to the west.

Again you make too many assumptions. That too on my percieved ancestory.
Lets be clear historically and its backed up by fact that Muslims were benevolent rulers. There are bad eggs along the way, but that is true for any group. Again I already provided sources, books with authors that have the academic pedigree to comment on this issue.
Lets be clear that it is not a fact.
It depends on the time and place.

There are dozens of sources and articles written by Indians and non Indians alike that cite primary sources and historical texts that prove that illegitimate Islamic invaders routinely massacred Hindus and Buddhists.

Being a Muslim who thinks that Muslim rulers were "kind and benelovent" doesnt mean shit.

Again your sources are abstract websites or wikipedia. Not credible sources that have enough dearth to support your arguments.

Again you information is constantly debunked. Argue it all you want but the fact remains, there is plethora of credible academic work that supports my assertions then the neo-con drivel that you constantly parrot
my sources are whatever cite primary and historical texts, something far more valid than your opinion-based articles.


Again everytime these points are brought up and you are demolished you run to everyone else to grant you credence on your statements to prove otherwise.
actually, thats due to the idiotic trait of people like you (ie. Muslims) who insist over and over again that I have been debunked.

IT doesnt mean anything if some Muslim who disagrees with me says I have been debunked.

You keep stating that over and over and over and over again but have routineley failed to prove it.

You cite opinions when I cite facts.

So if you think I have been de-bunked, prove it.

Use your own arguments.

Dont be a fool and cite some "scholar" and expect that to suffice. :D

Find a historical source, or find something cites historical and primary sources, and then form your argument.

This "my sources are better than your sources" argument is the only cheap trick the majority of Muslims on this site have managed to come up with to be able to carry on a debate with me.

Im sorry I dont take a census on peoples religious beliefs here on RD. That obsession I leave to you. But the fact is that the arguments posited hold up for themselves.

Your argument can be used for anyone so again that fails. The fact is that most RD'ers dont bother with your fanatical obsession with anything Muslim and Islam. They all laugh at you. You are toy, here for our amusement. But you have become boring now. And really your racism comes shining through everytime. You truly are the best emissary for your own religious convictions of peace and harmony.
lol im sure the vast majority of cult-followers disagree with me.
But I know for a fact that many of the non-Muslims agree with me 100% or enough to where they dont feel a need to disagree with me in a topic.

Look through my entire post history and see how many non-Muslims have taken the effort to disagree with me .

hardly any.
In-fact, none, sans methodman (an apostate).

So again, dont confuse opinions with facts.
Secretly, most of the non-Muslims on this site who have read my stuff (which is ALOT of them) agree with what I say. They just dont openly proclaim it due to the idea that they would be labeled as an "anti-Islamic whacko"


Again, the fact that Muslims continualy disagree with me doesnt mean shit.
at all.

You just assume that the non-Muslims agree with your assesment when I know through various pms, emails, etc that have come in by the dozens over the months that they in-fact do agree with me but arent as vocal about it.

so again, if you think I have been refuted , prove it yourself.

[Octane]

Who is considered an expert and who isnt is well known to anyone who happens to be in academic circles. Your disagreement means jack squat since you are clearly not educated on the manner. Which is well evidenced by your incoherent comments.

You speak on primary sources. Your primary sources are crap. And you know it. None have any academic veracity, none have gone through any vetting process to prove their accuracy. Again your typical BJP spin doctoring. Your comments are so typical of someone that has had no academic training whatsoever. Again pathetic much like your BJP must read book list. None of which would be taken seriously by ANY well reputed institution.

The thing is that you get scared because none of your sources have the academic firepower to back up their statements. The sources I provide are analysis borne of fact. Which back up my assertions based on historical fact. You offer conjecture borne from your own racist diatrabes. And of which are regularly torn apart. Frankly, it doesnt matter whether you think this to be true or not but many reading these threads are well aware of you "cut and paste research methodolgy" which ofcourse I expect of community college twit such as yourself.


Right Armstrong et al. must be idiots because an uneducated twit like you thinks so. This comming from a layman who has no training at all in Islam or any other religion for that matter. You cant even back up your statements adrenacrap. Same parlour tricks. Discount the people who are reputable, with your mentally challenged rantings.

What Scheuer says is based on historical and current analysis with an intimate knowledge of the drivers or actual agitators that caused the desired results. Again claiming its religion is a typical amoeboid statement, Which has been disproved countless times.

Oh and as far as disagreeing with you, hmm. I wonder why your lamed then? :p

Your post history is more of amusement since your raison detre, is to ingratiate yourself in anythread that has anything to do with Islam and Muslims. A seriously pathology that needs to be checked out, along with those self delusions of grandeur. Go home and get some rest chicken little.

[Octane]

Oh and as for prove it. I already did. The facts are there, for anyone with any rudimentary thought process.