ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Other General Discussion => Topic started by: Mr Edwards on August 30, 2010, 10:12:29 pm
-
Is a country considered a muslim country only if the majority of its population are muslims? Or is it because it has Islamic law (Sharia Law)? or is it because of some other reason? Geerk Wilders, a Dutch politician wants no immigration coming to the Netherlands from muslim countries whether these be people who are jews, christians, muslim or atheist etc if he becomes prime minister. just wondering what this will mean, coz his gaining much support.
-
I guess the definition is a country where the majority of people are muslims, naturally sharia law is a possibility from there whereas a country where muslims are a minority will most likely not have sharia law. So according to the definitions you wrote there i guess its where the majority of people are muslims.
-
What makes a Muslim country? Just a few things: Gender apartheid, dictatorship, poverty, rampant scapegoating, intolerance toward other religions, imported slave labour, government corruption, a bribe economy, and hatred toward Israel and The West.
P.S. Geert Wilders isn't so much against Mohammedans as he is against Islamism as an ideology. What we're seeing now in Europe, is a process of Islamization, whereby fundamentalists are trying to replace the dominant culture and government with Sharia Law. Google up Tariq Ramadan, Eurabia, Aayan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh for more info on this. The only way to prevent this from happening in Australia, is to ensure that Aussie Muslims are more integrated and assimilated into our multicultural society - ensuring they have high socioeconomic standards, an education and opportunities. When people have something to lose, they're much less willing to embark on a jihad.
-
hmm ive listened to many aayan hirsi ali videos and i respect her a lot...she talks about how she is okay with the religious/spiritual side of islam but not ok with the social and political aspects of islam... but the only thing i don't agree with her is that she totally neglects to talk about foreign policy and the long periods of time of occupation of middle eastern countries...which obviously aggrevates and gives a reason for the fundamentals to preach jihad or whatever ideology based on islam...there has been a jump in the amount of suicides after the iraq invasion...
but in my view the majority of muslims are peaceful and are willing to follow the norms in other countries as well as follow their religion and its not islam per se
http://snarla.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/if-they-hate-us-why-havent-they-killed-us-yet/
-
Perhaps if the country has a state religion which is Islam...?
-
Here's an example of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in action, versus an extreme lefty Chomskyite who somehow got on the payroll of a leading Canadian tv station.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08EYqwyns-k
and an excellent analysis of this shgort interview here: http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/deconstructing-the-avi-lewisayaan-hirsi-ali-clip/
hmm ive listened to many aayan hirsi ali videos and i respect her a lot...she talks about how she is okay with the religious/spiritual side of islam but not ok with the social and political aspects of islam... but the only thing i don't agree with her is that she totally neglects to talk about foreign policy and the long periods of time of occupation of middle eastern countries...which obviously aggrevates and gives a reason for the fundamentals to preach jihad or whatever ideology based on islam...there has been a jump in the amount of suicides after the iraq invasion...
but in my view the majority of muslims are peaceful and are willing to follow the norms in other countries as well as follow their religion and its not islam per se
You'll actually find that a sizeable proportion of Muslim denizens throughout the Arab world believe that suicide bombings against unarmed civilians are justified, so your hypothesis seems more like a gut feeling, rather than anything based on facts: (A thorough analysis by the independent Pew research center here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world).
This means that there is a large proportion in the Muslim world who are passively willing to support terror, so stating that the majority of Muslims are really peaceful is utter nonsense and sounds like appeasement masked by political correctness.
http://snarla.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/if-they-hate-us-why-havent-they-killed-us-yet/
Islam is a political/religious ideology - this is what Hirsi Ali argues. Al-Quaeda, Hamas and Al-Shabab are just fundamentalist Islam in practice. That fact that the majority of Muslims are not actively participating in terror, doesn't mean they don't support terror.
One thing's for sure - condemnations of terrorism throughout the Muslim world are very few and far between.
-
What makes a Muslim country? Just a few things: Gender apartheid, dictatorship, poverty, rampant scapegoating, intolerance toward other religions, imported slave labour, government corruption, a bribe economy, and hatred toward Israel and The West.
Then is North Korea a Muslim country?
-
What makes a Muslim country? Just a few things: Gender apartheid, dictatorship, poverty, rampant scapegoating, intolerance toward other religions, imported slave labour, government corruption, a bribe economy, and hatred toward Israel and The West.
Then is North Korea a Muslim country?
I had a recent discussion with a refusenik from the former Soviet Union. He lived under communist oppression for 45 years, suffered imprisonment and no contact to the outside world. Speaking from experience, he told me that Communism, Nazism and Islamism are basically the same ideology with with different stakeholders.
All involve an "us" vs "them" mentality in a bid to unite people around a common cause: (i.e. class struggle, nationalism or Jihad)
All involve a scapegoat to blame all the worlds problems on
All are immensely destructive and have led to massive loss of life on a global scale.
The first two (Nazism and Communism) required prolonged war to defeat - ME analyst Daniel Pipes, is of the opinion that Islamism will always require similar measures.
So to answer your question: yes and no. There are many parallels between the communist regime in North Korea and the Islamist dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, as they each oppress the civilian population using a distinct ideology of government/theocratic control. On the other hand - NK still seems stuck in 1950, and is a lot more isolated.
-
The only way to prevent this from happening in Australia, is to ensure that Aussie Muslims are more integrated and assimilated into our multicultural society - ensuring they have high socioeconomic standards, an education and opportunities. When people have something to lose, they're much less willing to embark on a jihad.
Disagree. There is a myth that all jihaidsts are poverty-stricken and uneducated. The 'Christmas Day bomber' who tired to blow up the plane with his underpants, came from a wealthy family and had a good education. Also, almost all of the jihadists that have been caught in Britain have come from good socio-economic backgrounds, as have the few that have been caught in Australia. Jihadism in by no means a result of poverty, or poor education, or anger at America or Israel, it's a result of Islam.
-
The only way to prevent this from happening in Australia, is to ensure that Aussie Muslims are more integrated and assimilated into our multicultural society - ensuring they have high socioeconomic standards, an education and opportunities. When people have something to lose, they're much less willing to embark on a jihad.
Disagree. There is a myth that all jihaidsts are poverty-stricken and uneducated. The 'Christmas Day bomber' who tired to blow up the plane with his underpants, came from a wealthy family and had a good education. Also, almost all of the jihadists that have been caught in Britain have come from good socio-economic backgrounds, as have the few that have been caught in Australia. Jihadism in by no means a result of poverty, or poor education, or anger at America or Israel, it's a result of Islam.
That is true to a certain extent, although if people are content with their lives, have a house, a car, a job and an income, then there is little chance that even the most principled of people would risk it all for some nebulous mission. A perfect example is Bibi's "economic peace" in Shomron - terrorism in Israel hasn't just decreased because of the separation barrier, but because the Arabs can now spend their time in shopping malls and cinemas, rather than Hamas summer programs.
Poverty almost always fuels extremism. Look at Weimar Germany in the 20s - children carrying wheelbarrows full of money to use as a cheaper alternative to firewood, skyrocketing inflation and unemployment - and by that stage, the "enlightened Germans" were willing to lap up Hitler's every word - and inevitably act as his willing executioners.
The point is, when you have nothing to lose and your desperate, you turn to violence, irrational hatred and a group to blame your problems on - and this is true of any group/religion, not solely Islam. Your average Aussie Muslim who is well integrated into our society, more or less ambivalent about religion (think 'masorti'), and who has a high socio-economic standard will be less likely to pursue terror than some 2nd generation, religious Arab immigrant living in a poverty stricken Paris Muslim ghetto. There are of course exceptions to the rule, however on the whole, the Muslim enjoying the best of Western society is no hurry to get his 72 virgins up there, if he can get them down here.
Although I do agree that there is something unique about religious fundamentalisms such as Jihad - which can somehow convince people to do the craziest of things. I guess if you're are utterly convinced that you have God on your side no matter what you do, you can do anything you like.
-
Couldn't it go the other way? There are some poor people, most probably with a family to support, who would work hard each day to meet ends. While I'm not sure what percentage of Aussie Muslims fall in this category but wouldn't they be more concerned in finding a way to pay for rent than worrying about "the attack on Islam"?
I doubt that the socioeconomic background has that large of a role in terrorism as the problem lies within the immaturity of young adults. Germany in the 20s would have been quite a violent place considering the Depression. Hitler wanted a bunch of thugs so a bunch of violent teenagers signed up. Look at the Black Bloc Anarchists, I'm willing to bet that most of them are uni students from middle to high class families. Yet, they seem to enjoy property destruction and rioting.
-
You sound extraordinarily intolerant chavi..
-
Although I do agree that there is something unique about religious fundamentalisms such as Jihad - which can somehow convince people to do the craziest of things. I guess if you're are utterly convinced that you have God on your side no matter what you do, you can do anything you like.
and it would be easier to convince if you perceive your country to be occupied by foreigners or if your house got bombed and half your family is gone
-
You sound extraordinarily intolerant chavi..
I'm only intolerant of intolerance.
Although I do agree that there is something unique about religious fundamentalisms such as Jihad - which can somehow convince people to do the craziest of things. I guess if you're are utterly convinced that you have God on your side no matter what you do, you can do anything you like.
and it would be easier to convince if you perceive your country to be occupied by foreigners or if your house got bombed and half your family is gone
Or if you're surrounded by millions of people who want you and your people dead.
-
You sound extraordinarily intolerant chavi..
I'm only intolerant of intolerance.
Although I do agree that there is something unique about religious fundamentalisms such as Jihad - which can somehow convince people to do the craziest of things. I guess if you're are utterly convinced that you have God on your side no matter what you do, you can do anything you like.
and it would be easier to convince if you perceive your country to be occupied by foreigners or if your house got bombed and half your family is gone
Or if you're surrounded by millions of people who want you and your people dead.
what? so its easier to convince someone to do crazy things if the person doing the convincing is surrounded by millions of people who want you dead? ...mmm yeah but then why would they want you dead?motive?
-
Well, generally there are two motives behind extremism:
1) Circumstance - i.e. depriving someone of their basic rights/poverty/existential threats
2) Brainwashing and baseless hatred by one's society/religion/teachers
So, if you feel like your surrounded on all sides, under threat of nuclear war, and you're repeatedly called to be driven into the sea, then it's understandable (although not always justifiable) if one is driven to extremism based on reason 1)
Conversely, if one is raised in a society that glorifies death, hatred and war above life, then there would be a strong tendency toward extremism based on 2)
-
But you can agree most muslims just go about their daily life like we do right? It's only the bad apples that spoil it for the rest of them and for a religion that size theres bound to be a few bad apples... theres terrorists and people who kill other people from every walk of life
-
mmm yeah i would say a combination... circumstance well you have pretty bad circumstances in war situation where there is killing going on all the time and you often have corrupt leaders
hmm yeah brainwashing is easy in these circumstances too and often when your young
-
The lack of education creates fundamentalism which is a shame because it is so avoidable.
-
Mix of both but having bad circumstances certainly makes the "brainwashing" easier and good "brainwashing" wouldnt require many previous circumstances.
For instance im pretty sure the iraq war and all the destruction the Americans were causing only added fuel to the fire of people who use violence in a misguided way. No brainwashing required, would of turned a lot more people into people who don't use civil means to bring about change
-
yes... well if my mum and dad died because someone shot them because they thought they were evil or hiding people... i would be pretty pissed off .... oh maybe ill join some group whose fighting against them... maybe...
-
But you can agree most muslims just go about their daily life like we do right? It's only the bad apples that spoil it for the rest of them and for a religion that size theres bound to be a few bad apples... theres terrorists and people who kill other people from every walk of life
As I wrote earlier, the problem lies not with Mohammedans per-se but with Islam as a polito-religious ideology (which is why I wrote earlier that acculturation into Western society can pacify fundamentalism). It is one of the few political ideologies that still uses religion and belief to justify violence. In the scheme of world religions, Islam is a relatively new phenomenon - only 1400 years old. The people throughout the Arab world still maintain their same cultures and ethnicities to those prior to their forced conversions to Islam in the 7-8th centuries. Clearly the problem isn't with a group of people or a particular nation. The problem lies with a destructive, deadly ideology that deems most Australians as infidels who need to be either forcibly converted or killed.
This is one of the reasons why the peace talks being held now between Israel and the Arabs will end as they did with the Oslo Accords - inconclusive, followed by a wave of terrorism. The nature of the ME conflict, the 9/11 attacks and the Bali bombings isn't land based, and has nothing to do with grievances or oppression. Who is occupying Indonesia or New York? 'Land for peace' is a myth, that has been proven with the 2005 Gaza disengagement. The problem lies with Islam, an ideology conducive to terror that enables adherents to commit atrocities while justifying them with a black book.
-
no but they can attack other countries who they perceive as helping the "occupiers"
-
Okay, so if you're able to justify Islamic terrorism as a reactionary movement to 'occupation', how do you explain violence prior to 'occupation'?
-
well give me an example.
but there will always be a fringe group of "extremists" although it gets much exacerbated when these events occur and are more likely to be "brainwashed"
-
Example: The US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks, prior to the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
Chavi, you should have done international studies.
-
Example: The US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks, prior to the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
1991
-
I never heard the word mohammadean before... sounds like you're getting a whole bunch of invented concepts from somewhere or something... some of your ideas dont exactly reflect regular thought processes...
-
Example: The US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks, prior to the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
-
keyna bombing...interesting facts... the attack of Jamia Mosque (the symbol of Islam in Nairobi)
mistreatment of Al-Faisal at the hands of the Kenyan authorities who had a lot of support
Al Qaida (and Muslims alike) may interpret his nabbing in Kenya as the product of American/British influence thus the need to teach the Kenyan government a lesson one more time
and also they perceive Kenya government to be puppets to the American/British governments
During the Al Faisal demo in Nairobi, reports indicated that five Muslims were shot dead by police. According to a statement released through revolutionmuslim.com (which has posted the first interview with Al Faisal since his arrival in Jamaica) the prayer of Al Qaida is that Allah bestow upon the slain Kenyan Muslims the honor of martyrs. Be that as it may, Al Qaida will, most likely, want to revenge their deaths and there is no better way of doing so than exploding a huge car bomb at Nairobi’s Central Business District to kill as many Kenyans as possible or sending a suicide bomber to blast one of the five star hotels to kill “Kafirs".
also in why muslim extremists hate america
(1) the U.S. government’s ardent support of Saddam Hussein and the furnishing of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction to him; (2) the more than 10 years of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; (3) UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement to Sixty Minutes that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions had been “worth it”; (4) the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands, knowing the adverse impact such action would have on Muslims; (5) the “no-fly zones,” which were never authorized by either the UN or the U.S. Congress and which killed still more Iraqis, including 13-year-old Omran Harbi Jawair, whose head was shot off by a U.S. missile while he was tending his sheep in 2000; (6) and the long-time, unconditional financial and military aid provided the Israeli government.
oh and i found this on wikipedia on osama bin ladens motivation and theres others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden
"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless."
if you scroll down it has osama bin ladens transcript on a fatwah against americans and the reasons why
http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm
and theres probably others too but it would take quite a while to research them
-
There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. I'm sure if they all wanted to blow themselves up they would have by now.
So lets move on.
-
There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. I'm sure if they all wanted to blow themselves up they would have by now.
So lets move on.
+1
-
I never heard the word mohammadean before... sounds like you're getting a whole bunch of invented concepts from somewhere or something... some of your ideas dont exactly reflect regular thought processes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan
Ignorance is bliss eh?
Example: The US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks, prior to the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
So let me get this straight. The supposed anger over the Gulf War led otherwise peaceful Muslims to start attacking America? Let's not forget the Saddam Hussein
1) invaded a fellow Muslim country, Kuwait
2) Massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people (who are Muslim)
The rabid anti-Americanism found in the Muslim world has other, ideological reasons behind it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam#Dar_al-Harb_.28House_of_war.29
-
Example: The US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks, prior to the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
So let me get this straight. The supposed anger over the Gulf War led otherwise peaceful Muslims to start attacking America? Let's not forget the Saddam Hussein
1) invaded a fellow Muslim country, Kuwait
2) Massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people (who are Muslim)
The rabid anti-Americanism found in the Muslim world has other, ideological reasons behind it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam#Dar_al-Harb_.28House_of_war.29
You're right Chavi! How would invading a country cause anger among peaceful people! And as for the invasion of Kuwait: No ones EVER invaded a country for its resources before! That'd be utterly outrageous; that'd be like invading a land full of milk and honey!
Countries invade each other for stupid bullshit reasons and end up starting wars, and countries hate each other for not respecting that countries beliefs and laws.
A few ignorant Americans are hateful of the Muslim countries because a few bad-eggs flew into their towers. Muslims hate America for starting a war. The cycle continues.
-
Muslim terror started waaay before any 'occupation' ever started, real or perceived. For example, the 1929 Hebron massacre, in which 67 Jews were slaughtered by Arab mobs. Now these days, whenever Arabs kill Jews, it's considered the Jews fault for 'occupying' 'their' land. (See the lack of global outrage at last week's murder of 4 Jews including a pregnant mother.) However, 1929 was almost 20 years before the State of Israel ever existed; how then, do you explain the motivation for this unprovoked attack?
A few ignorant Americans are hateful of the Muslim countries because a few bad-eggs flew into their towers. Muslims hate America for starting a war. The cycle continues.
This view is both naive and ignorant. Muslim persecution of dhimmis has been going on since the days of Mohamed himself. Why, then, do you pretend it doesn't exist? Furthermore, the idea of establishing a global caliphate is well established in Islamic doctrine, again going back to the days of Mohamed. Now Muslims in general are a devout bunch, so why do you claim that they don't believe in this tenet of their religion?
The idea that 'they hate us because we hate them, and no one knows where the cycle started' is incredibly ignorant, because the cycle starts and finishes with the Koran. It's all there in black and white, take the time to read it sometime. Until you do, here's a snapshot:
Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve
Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
To paraphrase Chavi, your tolerance of intolerance is as naive as it is dangerous, because it is people like you who are apologising for Islamic terror worldwide, which has only one possible consequence, and that is an increase, as we are in fact witnessing.
-
\You're right Chavi! How would invading a country cause anger among peaceful people! And as for the invasion of Kuwait: No ones EVER invaded a country for its resources before! That'd be utterly outrageous; that'd be like invading a land full of milk and honey!
Countries invade each other for stupid bullshit reasons and end up starting wars, and countries hate each other for not respecting that countries beliefs and laws.
A few ignorant Americans are hateful of the Muslim countries because a few bad-eggs flew into their towers. Muslims hate America for starting a war. The cycle continues.
This is actually a terrible and naive comparison on may levels. It assumes that Muslims terror is justified because America starts wars, and that the terrorists and their apologists are just a few "bad eggs".
This is wrong because the majority of the victims of Islamic terror are actually Muslims, and many targets are not American (Israel, Europe, India). What do you suppose is going on now in Pakistan, surely the Ahmadis aren't being persecuted because they love America?
Also, as demonstrated by PEW research (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world), Islamic terror is widely supported throughout the Arab world. So if 57% of Jordanians believe that terror against civilians is justified for political gain, does that mean that 3 out of every 5 Jordanians are simply "bad apples"? It's a fallacy to assume that groups like Al-Shabbab, Jama Islamiyya and Hezbollah are just fringe groups with no support in the Arab world (let's not forget the pro-Hezbollah rallies orchestrated by Aussie Muslims in Melbourne during the 2nd Lebanon war). Clearly, there is wide support for terror amongst Muslims, and the picture isn't as 'milk n' cookies' as you make it out to be. But hey, we ought to be politically correct and give them the benefit of the doubt ye?
The answer to all of the above is no, and I brought them as examples to demonstrate your faulty reasoning. Islamic hatred toward America and the West has less to do with the 1st Gulf war, and more to do with an ideology that demands conquest and forced proselytism. To quote Geert Wilders, the problem is not with Muslims, it's with Islam.
-
I never heard the word mohammadean before... sounds like you're getting a whole bunch of invented concepts from somewhere or something... some of your ideas dont exactly reflect regular thought processes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan
Ignorance is bliss eh?
Example: The US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks, prior to the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
So let me get this straight. The supposed anger over the Gulf War led otherwise peaceful Muslims to start attacking America? Let's not forget the Saddam Hussein
1) invaded a fellow Muslim country, Kuwait
2) Massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people (who are Muslim)
The rabid anti-Americanism found in the Muslim world has other, ideological reasons behind it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam#Dar_al-Harb_.28House_of_war.29
You clearly know little about this. The message from America to Iraq in 1991 was RISE UP WE'RE COMING. They said to the shi'ites to rise up against the Sunni regime and they would come to liberate them from oppression.
They got in there and then BAILED after the shi'ites started rebelling. Once the Americans left they were SLAUGHTERED for it, and yes, that started a FUCKLOAD of anti-American sentiment.
THE SHI'ITES WOULD HAVE WELCOMED THE AMERICANS WITH OPEN ARMS IN 1991. THEY DID! But they got fucking burnt by George Bush snr and then when Bush jnr came back in 2003 they remembered what happened 12 years ago, that's one of the major reasons for the insurgency. The 9/11 attacks resulted from the spreading of Anti-American sentiment following the Gulf war. It was the catalyst.
-
Muslim terror started waaay before any 'occupation' ever started, real or perceived. For example, the 1929 Hebron massacre, in which 67 Jews were slaughtered by Arab mobs. Now these days, whenever Arabs kill Jews, it's considered the Jews fault for 'occupying' 'their' land. (See the lack of global outrage at last week's murder of 4 Jews including a pregnant mother.) However, 1929 was almost 20 years before the State of Israel ever existed; how then, do you explain the motivation for this unprovoked attack?
Because human beings are a shit species and will always find reasons to kill each other, whether it be religion or otherwise.
-
Muslim terror started waaay before any 'occupation' ever started, real or perceived. For example, the 1929 Hebron massacre, in which 67 Jews were slaughtered by Arab mobs. Now these days, whenever Arabs kill Jews, it's considered the Jews fault for 'occupying' 'their' land. (See the lack of global outrage at last week's murder of 4 Jews including a pregnant mother.) However, 1929 was almost 20 years before the State of Israel ever existed; how then, do you explain the motivation for this unprovoked attack?
Because human beings are a shit species and will always find reasons to kill each other, whether it be religion or otherwise.
That may or may not be true, but let's be honest here, right now it's Muslims doing a very large percentage of it.
-
So what do you two, Chavi and Yitzi, propose the world does about terrorism?
-
Kill everyone, start over
-
you guys sound like my history teachers :P
-
What makes a Muslim country? Just a few things: Gender apartheid, dictatorship, poverty, rampant scapegoating, intolerance toward other religions, imported slave labour, government corruption, a bribe economy, and hatred toward Israel and The West.
P.S. Geert Wilders isn't so much against Mohammedans as he is against Islamism as an ideology. What we're seeing now in Europe, is a process of Islamization, whereby fundamentalists are trying to replace the dominant culture and government with Sharia Law. Google up Tariq Ramadan, Eurabia, Aayan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh for more info on this. The only way to prevent this from happening in Australia, is to ensure that Aussie Muslims are more integrated and assimilated into our multicultural society - ensuring they have high socioeconomic standards, an education and opportunities. When people have something to lose, they're much less willing to embark on a jihad.
Not sure how much that's a factor. Much of the radicalisation in Britain ("inculcation" seems too benign a word) has happened on university campuses, such that: 32% of Muslim students believed killing in the name of religion was justifiable; 40% wanted to live under Sharia in the UK; 18% feel "little or no loyalty" to the UK; 36% supported the death penalty for apostates; 13% admired Al Qaeda. Of course, many students are hard-up, but uni generally isn't somewhere you go if you're for want of two pennies to rub together.
edit: Reading the thread further, it seems Yitzl made much the same point and Chavi made good points in reply. Oh well.
Also (Ch)avi, is this you? : http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/deconstructing-the-avi-lewisayaan-hirsi-ali-clip/
-
Also (Ch)avi, is this you? : http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/deconstructing-the-avi-lewisayaan-hirsi-ali-clip/
You think that I'm Avi Lewis the famous Canadian Media personality working for Al Jazeera? I'm insulted
but lol @ grave dig from September
-
Well there are some countries with a vast majority of its citizens being Muslim.
For example Turkey, a country of about 70 million people. It is known as a Muslim
country but it does not follow any ' Sharia law ' like the OP has said. The countries
which do follow that 'law' are generally corrupt anyway.
I am Muslim.
-
Also (Ch)avi, is this you? : http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/deconstructing-the-avi-lewisayaan-hirsi-ali-clip/
You think that I'm Avi Lewis the famous Canadian Media personality working for Al Jazeera? I'm insulted
but lol @ grave dig from September
You mean to say you're not *that* Avi Lewis? I assumed it was you doing a stellar job of puppetting the left-wing position so that Ayaan Hirsi Ali could shoot it down.
(one of the words I used isn't a word, in case you were wondering, twas simply convenient in getting my point across :))