2000's Islamic Fundamentalists=1930's Jews

Remove all ads!

An insinuation has been made on this board that the US is using the threat Islamic fundamentalists of today in a similar manner as to the way the Nazi Party used a threat of supposed conspiracies by people of Jewish faith in their rise to power. It is also been insinuated that it is "hyperbole" to consider radical Islam a threat to world peace.

EXCUSE ME????

How many buildings did the Jews bomb? How many hostages did they torture to death? How many thousands of innocent people did Jews kill?

This claim that the radical Islamics are the ones wronged here is absurd. This is a 180-degree twist of reality. The Taliban had Afghanistan under their control, and were working on Pakistan. They would not have stopped there. they would have moved on to Iraq, Iran, or some other Middle Eastern nation. Jordan kicked the Palestinians out of their nation after the Palestinians attempted to take over the Jordanian Government. The reason that Saddam kept the Taliban and al Qeada at arms length? Because he was afraid they would depose him.

Sorry, but the radical Islamics are acting more like the Nazi's, raising hatred and gathering support by using false claims and greatly embellished tales to frighten the rest of the Islamic people into supporting them, all the while their real goal is to transform the Middle East into their vision of Islam, and that only to increase their power. Will they stop there? I don’t think so. Historically, once a group goes on a quest for power, they rarely stop unless someone or something stops them. It is possible that the West could contain them in the Middle East, but at what cost, not only to us, but also to the people who live there? Have we already forgot that radical Islam does not believe in suffrage, free speech, presumption of innocence, and fair trials?

While comparison of the Western world to the weak position the Jews prior to WWII is preposterous, the Nazi analogy still works in regards to the actions of the extremist Islamic organizations.

 

You're missing my point, or I seem to have pushed the wrong button. I was referring to an in my opinion very, very hyperbole view, in general.

There could well be the implication that for some people an enemy out there, in shape of fictious islamo-fascist masses, comes in convenient.

Basically it is just about the demonisation of an enemy. I see that the threat by militant islam is vastly exaggerated.

 

Tell that to the 3,000+ Americans who died on 9/11.

That is pretty easy for you to say, since your nations ships aren't having holes knocked in them, your buildings havne't been rammed by airplanes, and your embassies aren't being bombed.

 

Oh come on. Sure 911 was a terrible act. But that's fortunately an exception, and not the rule. And anyway, the US are a people of some 300+ million iirc. That is not meant to belittle the loss and grief of the victim's families. But an existential threat is different.

That is, a limited threat requires a limited approach. And as that article I referred to said so well, that's what the US didn't do.

For those who don't know what I mean, here's the link again.

Terrorists are political animals in first place. Terrorism has a political root cause and that is the pivotal point where the conflict has to be adressed. Fighting terror sure requires tough action against the perpetrators, sometimes even military action. But without a political solution that alone will not be enough.

Israel's continuous military successes haven't brought it anywhere near peace with the terrorists. To the contrary.

And look to South-Africa where the ANC fought with bobmings as well. Terrorists methods, of course. The Apartheid regime used about the same methods as the israelis use against terrorists: Classical repression, assassination, restriction of movement. Did it stop or end the ANC resistance? No. The fighting will was still there, even though fighting got more difficult.

But as soon as apartheid was abolished and participation of blacks was allowed terrorism wasn't an issue anymore in South-Africa. With the root cause solved, there was no point in terror anymore. Had the bombings continued no one had accepted that anymore, as there was no more reason to bomb. For what? So, with the solution, the people who may have liked to bomb on, wouldn't have any following anymore.
With a grain of salt, liberalism, not tough action solved the problem of terror in South-Africa. Being tough and feared alone didn't work.

A good link on that: What is terrorism ?

That is what the author described as the two complementing elements of counterinsurgency:

 

I agree with the very clairvoyant Sir Blackthorne !

No, seriously, it's true that though the cast majority of muslims are not islamists, they accept, if not approve the islamist's radical points of view.
I am saying this from personal experience: I have spent a whole summer with a muslim friend of mine and many, many of her relatives and though they are far from being fanatics, sadly, they have some support for the "battle" of their "Muslim Brothers".
This phenomenon is easily explained (I have done some thorough research on the subject but, since the articles I read all came from French papers I cannot put a link here...).
Anyway, back to the point!
The fact is that the Muslim religion doesn't have a Religious Institution, a Church, as such (as opposed to the other major religions). Since the only concrete source of beliefs is the Koran, it has basically been left free to interpretation of the most various minds for centuries. This leads us to the major conflicts between Chiites and Sunnites (english spelling?).
This also leads to the main problem of the moderate muslims which is guilt. The guilt of not following to the letter the only guidebook provided them, that is why there is an underlying approval of the deeds of the minority of extremists who present themselves as true followers of the Law.
To end this rant: Islamists are a tiny minority in the muslim community, yet they recieve the support of a large number of the said community which, sadly, makes them the harder to defeat...

 

actually the conflict between shi'a and Sunnis started in 680, when the shi'a party supported Hussain a grandchild of muhammed as the leader of islam and the Sunnis supported the ruling kalif (from the family ummajjadern). the kalif killed Hussain in a battle in 680. and from that time the shi'a and Sunnis has bin enemies. so it has nothing or very little to do with the Koran.

By the way is it called shi'a or shi'ite muslims in english?

 

Terrorism isn't part of Islam. Neither is hurting innocents even if they're of another faith. Muhammad expressly forbids that.

Neither is it part of Judaism. Nor Christianity. Or any normal religion.

As for the question of how Jews could be compared to Islamic terrorists, that's not as simple as people tend to think. Let us just take Count Folke Bernadotte of Swedish royal family, UN mediator for Palestine. He wasn't exactly killed by the Palestinians, if you know what I mean. One of the men involved later became Prime Minister of Israel, and fierce opponent of Islamic terrorism That's not a single example.

I'm not going to go any further into this. Using God as an excuse to crave power and exterminate opposition is wrong, evil and violates the core principles of the religion.

 

I see your point, and I agree that 9/11 was a horrible day, but when you talk about numbers like that, lets take a look at the quite large amount of iraqi people who have died... Many more than died in 9/11...

And I also agree with Ragusa. A demonisation and an enemy against whom you can hold, not only politics but also religion. Makes a good foe, for a man (and government) who wishes to be reelected...

 

Again, if any one has been demonized, it is the US. Who was it that was proclaimed the "Great Satan"? The fact is we don't want to kill non-combatants, women and children. We agonize over every picture we see of people who have suffered because of this war, American and Iraqi alike. They celebrate in the streets when our innocent men, women, and children die horrible deaths. Civilian casualties are unavoidable during war, yet we go to extreme measures to minimize this, even at the cost of our soldier’s lives.

We tried years of appeasement, using special ops, and "Nintendo" attacks, and the terrorism did nothing but intensify. Look at history! If an enemy will not negotiate in good faith, cannot be appeased, cannot be killed by chopping its head off, then you are left with nothing but to attack its body. This is the same conclusion that the terrorists have come to, the difference being that we are still making every reasonable effort to spare the innocent, they are not.

They will not stand for our way of life, and we should not sit and watch them sink the Middle East into an theocratic base under which they will be in a stronger position to make demands and force their ideals and beliefs upon us, either through war or the continued escalation of terrorist attacks.

This is exactly the game plan that the Nazi's used leading up to WWII. They split the world with alliances and promises, as Saddam did with Russia and France (each veto holders in the UN), hoping to keep the US and the rest of the world at bay.

I do not believe that this is part of some master plan, it is simply the way that it is logically being played out. Saddam wasn't trying to protect or help al Qeada any more than it benefited Saddam himself. Al Qeada used Saddam and Iraq in the same manner. But ask yourself, as the pieces of the puzzle start to fit together, and the power struggles in the Middle East are inevitably resolved, who do you want to see in power, and elected government, or a group of Islamic clerics who believe that the west is evil incarnate, who also have enormous amounts of wealth due to the exploitation of the natural resources of the area?

Do we defeat terrorism now or face it later?

If there was a peaceful way to defeat this threat today, I would be all for it, but given all that we have tried in the past, I have yet to hear an idea that will accomplish this. This is where the reality of the real world and the theory of the intellectual world inevitably part ways.

 

The majority of muslims may not be extremists, but they sure as hell have deep sympathies for their cause. Those who think otherwise, should open their eyes for a change.

Right after the news got out about the Sept.11 attacks, the streets here were literally filled with dancing and cheering Turks and Moroccans. That sight made me sick to my stomach. The police just stould there, and did nothing, while they knew exactly what the celebrations were about. They should have beaten the crap out of those guys, celebrating such a deed, is the same as comitting the act in my book. It's sick, and doesn't belong in our society. If they hate us so much, then why did they choose to live among us ?

 

a side comment,
don't we need at least an actual muslim from a muslim state on board to join in this discussion?

 

Exactly! I guess free internet and game access is hard to come by in Islamic states.

 

BTA & Luthien

I have been pondering my reply a little, and as usual, sleeping over it helped.

You refer to the apathy of the Arab masses in face of Al Qaeda’s extremism and conclude that makes up an Arab threat.

I disagree. Actually the reply to understand that is right in the article I linked to in my first post here. The hostility towards the US and the sympathy for anti-American terrorists in the Arab masses are basically a result of the US failure to address legitimate Arab grievances.

What do I mean with that?

• Iran and the traditional flagburning ceremonies among Shi’ites. How come?
  Once upon a time the US toppled the legitimate Iranian leader and replaced him with the Shah, a despot, because the elected president wanted to nationalize oil. Unacceptable for Britain and the US. When the Iranians eventually toppled the Shah he took refuge, in the US. So the Iranians demanded extradiction to put him on trial for his human rights abuses. Naturally the US refused. Naturally the Iranians were pissed. The Iranians retaliated by shamefully occupying the embassy and the Mullah’s fueled anti-US sentiment: Who’s with our enemies is against us! The US were with the Shah, a brutal opressor.
  In the end the Iranians weren’t the only ones making stupid moves. But don’t expect the US to care about that, or change their policy – don’t waffle, be even standfast when you’re wrong – OR ELSE THEY WIN!. For Cheney and his ilk the mullahs are just plain evil. For them, there cannot be negotiations, just an Iranian surrender.
  
  The Arabs, and the Iranians too, who actually aren’t even Arabs, are very well aware of the US ambitions to determine who’s to rule them and who not. And the Arabs don’t like seeing themselves bossed around by the US promising democracy while installing and propping up despots as they did the last 50 years. Actually the only despots the US don’t like, the mullahs and Assad Jr. are those not on US payroll.
  Don’t the US preach democracy? Then why don’t they accept democratic decisions that conflict with their national interest? The US just reminded the Arabs on that part by putting that crook Chalabi to Iraq and painfully trying to avoid direct elections in Iraq as an elected Iraqi government very likely wouldn’t grant them the basing rights they seek. Democracy my a**.
  Moving themselves on on such old and trifling matters, as Bush likes to do (For me this is no longer an issue, byeee!), won’t help the US – the Arabs do care.
  .
• US support for Israel – US arms for Israel – failure to implement the roadmap (that is, the neo-cons killed it). When Israel kills Palestinians and conducts escalation strikes, Israeli forces use US made and paid-for arms - M60 tanks, and M113 APCs, they use American made M4 carbines (M16 derivatives) Apache and Cobra helicopters and reverse engeneered TOW missiles.
  And all the while, especially since Bush Jr and “We-love-Israel” neo-con crew took office they US basically just said “Amen” to Israel’s massacres, referring to Israel’s right for self defense? Self defense in Gaza? A strip of land the Israelis hold occupied even though it is a piece of Egypt? The US don’t take action against Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory or the Israeli confiscation (basically a slow ethnic cleansing). And they didn’t even seriously try to implement the roadmap.
  
  The US foreign policy under Bush has been staunchly pro Israel, whatever Israel did. The question wether Palestinians should have self determination on their own turf seemingly isn’t an issue for the US. New settlements? Assassinations? The Washington reaction under Bush usually was something like “ *YAAAAAAWN* … but next time not on prime time please … “ Since Sharon took office suicide bombs have killed some 300 Israelis. Sharons retaliations have killed some 2.700 Palestinians. The US don’t care.
  
  That is a legitimate Arab grievance. They feel compassion for their fellow Muslims. And the Arabs have long perceived it so. No sign of the US addressing that.
  .
• And recently the nonsensical invasion of Iraq, which was, and not only in Arab countries, perceived as an outrage, the ultimate poll-plunger. The fate of the Arabs in Iraq dying as a result of the occupation is also an issue Arabs feel compassion for – seemingly more compassion than, considering the OP-EDs, some Americans felt for the victims of Madrid – the victims nonwithstanding they are in US press being belittled as appeasers and cowards. What an idiocy.
  Maybe the spaniards just instinctively understand counter-terrorism, from their ETA experience, better than the US do (who never really had real terrorism at home until 911, Oklahoma City being the notable exception)? It's just that now old tune of the pro-war goons "Who's not with us is against us!" just with the new line "And who leaves our train to Bedlam is a traitor!" Propaganda.

That is, the US don’t understand the second rule of counterinsurgency: Deny the terrorists sympathy. As a matter of fact the US, especially under Bush, gave them just that aplenty - by willingly killing the roadmap and by invading Iraq. There is a change in the US approach needed.
That is why the sorry poll results in the Arab world scare the foreign policy establishment and anti-terror specialists like Cofer-Black – they directly result in support for terrorists and make it much much harder to find them in their sea of sympathizers. As the saying goes, when someone feels he has a problem with you, you have one with him. No signs of understanding that on the US administration’s side.

It doesn’t mean appeasement to listen to what the other side has to say – it just means that the US have to understand that Arabs are a factor in their foreign policy that has to be taken seriously. Listening to the Arabs and trying to find out why and where they criticize the US is a good start. The Bush crew has failed there hands down. They only talk to Arabs over the barrel of a gun.

The US must win the Arab hearts and minds, in order to turn the Arab apathy into pro-US sympathy. But that requires a change in US policy. It's not just about improving PR.

As long as the US don’t address this shortcoming the Arabs will continue to cheer and jubilate in face of the killing of Americans, just like whacky Americans cheer and jubilate for the death of Arabs in retaliation for Fallujah (not here, but I’ve seen just that elsewhere). Americans can be just as ghoulish as Arab mobs, moral superiority nonwithstanding

[ April 10, 2004, 10:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Perhaps, but i haven't seen them dancing around burned corpses hanging from a bridge.

And why should the US be concerned about Arab grievances ? Let them take care of their own petty problems, outside help isn't appreciated anyway. The US supplies Israel with guns ? Yeah, makes sense doesn't it ? That's what allies do, they help eachother in difficult times. Because if it wasn't for those American guns, Israel would have been erased from the the worldmap, by those grieving Arabs. Now Israel still stands, and that seems too hard for them to swallow. So now they take it out Israel's friends. Because Israel itself is too tough to crack.

 

Uhm, Pac man - maybe the US should be concerned about grievances the arabs experience because they are the ones causing it?!

The hatred in the middle east is caused by the hypocricy of the West.

 

And why is that ? Because they are friends with Israel ? The US, or any other nation can't be friends with Israel, because the Arabs say so ?

If that's their biggest grievance, than they have some serious issues overthere.

Or are there some other things we do that they don't like ? The fact that we are not Islamic perhaps ? Gimme a break

 

Well, the way I see it they are a bit pissed at us in general and the U.S. in particular because of double standards, manipulation, outright lies.

You know, like propagating democracy, but supporting obscure regimes (like the one in Egypt) at the same time. For further examples I recommend Ragusa's post above - which you have skipped, it seems.

And yes, of course, the Islamist's try to capitalize on the general grudge that many arabian people harbour against the one's who mess with their lifes. Iraq? A shining beacon of liberty and democracy? Dont make me laugh. We are doing a really wonderful job helping them gain followers.

 

Then you are wrong. i am a non muslim from a Islamic state under a federation which adapted Islam as the official religion. From where i come from, we have cyber cafes set up just for playing (interestingly) counterstrike for about USD 0.50 per hour.

i am just curious, while engaging in such discussion, have you been in contact with islamic culture at all? It is one thing you see them on TV; it is another thing you read them in books; it is a new thing you actually live in it. Recently i am planning to go to Iran to admire the romance of Persian empire but no one i know here in U.S. thinks Iranians are friendly people and want to come with me. i asked them to visit my country but under their parents' objetion they declined. With such limitations on what is islamic culture and who are muslims, i don't know how the argument of "muslims hate the west" can be justified.

 

Sorry Teeck I guess I should have been more specific.

Where are u from? Sounds like maybe Indonesia.

I've been to Turkey, but other than that not many places. I was supposed to go to Jordan along time ago. I went to school with King Hussian's daughter, and actually met the King once.

I'v had friends and customers who were Iranian (well they liked to say "Persian"), and they are very warm and friendly.

I guess my quick statement would have been better if I had merely mentioned that it is a little strange that these boards are so diverse, and yet, as far as I know, there are no posteres here from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Quater, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel(wasn't someone here from there a while ago?), Egypt...ect.