Dare we hope that the tide of militant islamist ideology has reached its peak?

[Furunculus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/4736358/Al-Qaeda-founder-launches-fierce-attack-on-Osama-bin-Laden.html


Twenty years ago, Dr Fadl became al-Qaeda's intellectual figurehead with a crucial book setting out the rationale for global jihad against the West.

Today, however, he believes the murder of innocent people is both contrary to Islam and a strategic error. "Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers," writes Dr Fadl.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive, he writes. "Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?" asks Dr Fadl. "That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11."

He is equally unsparing about Muslims who move to the West and then take up terrorism. "If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum," writes Dr Fadl, then it is "not honourable" to "betray them, through killing and destruction".

militant islamism is an ideology like any other, that develops a life of its own until it serves no purpose or is thoroughly discredited.

on the one hand it requires the west crush the ideology wherever it threatens our interests, repeatedly and every time successfully, so that the ideology is seen to be a failure. this in effect is what the coalition did when it rammed a flag into into secular and dictatorial baghdad and issued an implicit challenge; democracy or theocracy? likewise with afghanistan, we walked into a militant islamist theocracy and said; "this shall be no longer".

on the other hand it needs those within the ideology to begin to question the dogma, and ask themselves and their 'comrades' if the pursuit of the ideology is really worthwhile. this in effect will be the of militant islams mentor in his public repudiation of the ideology, he's saying it isn't achieving what they set out to achieve all those years ago.

the surge in iraq has been a terrible blow to the perceived potency of militant islamism, whither the maelstrom of blood and fire decorated with a multitude of western corpses in combat gear? iraq is not won however, and the battle for afghanistan is barely started, but if they are won then the west will have demonstrated that militant islam can neither hold an existing theocracy or take secular country, even if they are arab muslim countries! at that point the idea of a global caliphate is indisputably bankrupt.
now we have jesus saying it wasn't really worth pinning the muslim world to the cross.

personally i believe that every ideology has its time, and essentially agree with those who said it would take a generation to win the fight, but is that generation going to span twenty years or thirty?
i certainly don't believe militant islam could ever win, it stems from parts that far too incompetent to manage their own affairs let alone dominate those of others.

so yes, we may be witnessing the turning of the tide but if we lose the challenge in afghanistan it will take 30 years to beat rather than 20 if we 'win' in afghanistan.

what do you think?

[Fragony]

It's done for, Gilles Kepel who I pretty much consider to be the authority has been arguing this for quite some time. Or we are done for, but dhimmitude has outstayed it's welcome, things are going to be just fine. It's natural selection militant islamism is too primitive for the modern era and it will die or become insignificant, we just need to yank out the leftist life support, 10 more years or so.

[Pannonian]

the surge in iraq has been a terrible blow to the perceived potency of militant islamism, whither the maelstrom of blood fire decorated with a multidude of western corpes in combat gear? iraq is not won however, and that for afghanistan is barely started, but if they are won then the west will have demonstrated that militant islam can neither hold a country or take a country, even arab muslim countries! at that point the idea of a global caliphate is indisputably bankrupt.
now we have jesus saying it wasn't really worth pinning the muslim world to the cross.

personally i believe that every ideology has its time, and essentially agree with those who said it would take a generation to win the fight, but is that generation going to span twenty years or thirty?
i certainly don't believe militant islam could ever win, it stems from parts that far too incompetent to manage their own affairs let alone dominate those of others.

so yes, we may be witnessing the turning of the tide but if we lose the challenge in afghanistan it will take 30 years to beat rather than 20 if we 'win' in afghanistan.

what do you think?
I never thought the danger in Iraq was militant Islamism, unless something went really, really, badly wrong. Right from the start my reading of the primary danger was what happens when Saddam was gone, and the Americans after him? Is Iraq strong enough to stand against the pressure of its neighbours? Is there a strong enough Iraqi identity to hold it together against its neighbours, and not be taken over or Balkanised?

The focus of militant Islamism is, as it always was, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. How's the fight going there?

[Furunculus]

that's kind of the point. iraq was a secular nation so a perfect place for a CNN/BBC/Al-Jazeera live broadcast battle of two opposing ideologies struggle for supremacy.

In the red corner you have al-quaida promising death to the imperialist ambitions of the west and the end of corrupt western styles of governance in the ME.

In the blue corner we have the west saying watch and weep as we turn arab/muslim countries into nice western style parliamentary democracies.

Its a high stakes games.

[rasoforos]

You may hope all you dare...


...In the meantine the Swat valley in Pakistan will effectively become a Wahabi utopia.

(For those who have not heard, the Pakistani government has signed a cease-fire with the Taliban in exchange for Sharia law implementation in the Swat valley...)

Islamic militarism is gaining millions of supporters mainly due to U.S action or support of certain regimes. In the meantime the heart of Wahabism remains intact and uncriticised. There are only so many years/decades that the U.S can maintain its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anyone doubt that they will not become Islamic hellholes after their withdrawal?

So, no, we haven't seen the worst of militant islamism...

[Furunculus]

I will certainly admit that Pakistan and Saudi are exactly the kind of regimes that breed revolutionary ideology.

But I doubt that millions, or even that hundreds of thousands have picked up arms in response to the iraq invasion in 2003.

[Pannonian]

that's kind of the point. iraq was a secular nation so a perfect place for a CNN/BBC/Al-Jazeera live broadcast battle of two opposing ideologies struggle for supremacy.

In the red corner you have al-quaida promising death to the imperialist ambitions of the west and the end of corrupt western styles of governance in the ME.

In the blue corner we have the west saying watch and weep as we turn arab/muslim countries into nice western style parliamentary democracies.

Its a high stakes games.
This reminds me of the British command in the Desert War, when they sought to engage Rommel on their chosen ground, only to be ignored when they got to their chosen ground, because it was strategically pointless. Unless you lose it, Iraq is utterly irrelevant as a battlefield against militant Islamism, because that's not where their focus is. If you lose it, which there is still significant chance of doing, for reasons explained above, it is disastrous, but if you win it, it still makes no difference in the fight against extreme Islamism. Because that's not where they are. They're in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Only by addressing those two countries, can there be any kind of direct fight against militant Islamism - I said this in 2002, I'm saying it in 2009. So how's the fight there?

[Furunculus]

i disagree, we live in a global world were the victories and defeats of struggle play across a billion TV-sets and vie for time and attention with a million other distractions.

militant islam exists in a public spotlight, and global public awareness of its failure will lead to apathy in those tempted by what it offers. it could cease to be a potent ideology that inspires millions and simply remain as a creed for the die-hards in repressive arab/muslim regimes.

militant islam is a threat as a global ideology, without that its just another bunch of terrorists, and its ability to remain a potent ideology hinges on success beamed into the houses of billions via CNN/BBC/Al-Jazeera.

[rory_20_uk]

More extreme views are easier to propagate, and the number needed to cause massive damage decreases too. As long as countries and their shadowy intelligence agencies - be it the USA, UK, Pakistan or wherever these will prosper.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

page 69 of this report makes interesting reading:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/reports/2/101915/cia-sees-us-strength%2C-leverage-set-for-decline.html

[Devastatin Dave]

You may hope all you dare...


...In the meantine the Swat valley in Pakistan will effectively become a Wahabi utopia.

(For those who have not heard, the Pakistani government has signed a cease-fire with the Taliban in exchange for Sharia law implementation in the Swat valley...)

Islamic militarism is gaining millions of supporters mainly due to U.S action or support of certain regimes. In the meantime the heart of Wahabism remains intact and uncriticised. There are only so many years/decades that the U.S can maintain its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anyone doubt that they will not become Islamic hellholes after their withdrawal?

So, no, we haven't seen the worst of militant islamism...

Is everything the United States' fault in your view?

I belive the radicals are the ones that are practicing the true religion on Islam. I'm sure Muhammed would be very dissapointed at the "moderates" if he were alive today.

[rasoforos]

Is everything the United States' fault in your view?

No



I belive the radicals are the ones that are practicing the true religion on Islam. I'm sure Muhammed would be very dissapointed at the "moderates" if he were alive today.

Classical NeoCon mantra.



Oh and by the way, since I last posted Shariah law was enforced in Somalia too! Great victories on the war on terror! We really showed them radical Muslims this time! :wall:

[Spino]

Has the tide peaked? Nope. This global recession is going to do wonders for radical ideologies everywhere, militant islam included.

[Fragony]

Oh and by the way, since I last posted Shariah law was enforced in Somalia too! Great victories on the war on terror! We really showed them radical Muslims this time! :wall:

If I painted a polar beer blue, on a scale of one to ten how much would it inspire you to dance the Flamingo?

[caravel]

I belive the radicals are the ones that are practicing the true religion on Islam. I'm sure Muhammed would be very dissapointed at the "moderates" if he were alive today.
Extremists and fundamentalists are not the same thing.

[LittleGrizzly]

We created an artifical peak in militant islam in Iraq. Seen as there was no real miltant Islam* there before we came and in our early years we managed to create alot of it, now it is receeding i suppose it is accurate to call militant islam receeding. The problem is it creates a victory out of nothing, we have managed to get militant islam closer to where it was under Saddam. There is no victory to celebrate here...

I doubt militant Islam has reached it's peak, with the Israel Palestine and other issues still going strong we have a way to go yet...

and Spino hit on one of the main reasons...
Has the tide peaked? Nope. This global recession is going to do wonders for radical ideologies everywhere, militant islam included.

[Furunculus]

on the other hand, you could see it as drawing out the poison of fifteen years of jihadist training prior to 2001.

[Sarmatian]

We created an artifical peak in militant islam in Iraq. Seen as there was no real miltant Islam* there before we came and in our early years we managed to create alot of it, now it is receeding i suppose it is accurate to call militant islam receeding. The problem is it creates a victory out of nothing, we have managed to get militant islam closer to where it was under Saddam. There is no victory to celebrate here...


You hit the nail right on the head here. A lot can be said about Saddam's Iraq but there was no militant Islam in there. Even though it is receding, this Iraq is still relatively fertile ground for religious radicalism, much more than Saddam's Iraq ever was.

[Furunculus]

depends on why you think we went there.

i personally believe people in washington and london discretely decided that we would eventually have to fight islamist militants, so there would need to be a battlefield upon which to defeat and discredit the islamist creed, andwhat better way than demonstrating the total failure to recapture the lost territories of the caliphate.

so we turned iraq into a mincing machine wrapped in a giant yankee flag, designed to draw every nutcase like a magnet whilst the rest of the worlds watches an ideology die before their eyes.

i'm not saying that it has or will succeed, but that i believe was the intention, justified publicly by removing belligerent tyrants who wield weapons of mass destruction.

[LittleGrizzly]

on the other hand, you could see it as drawing out the poison of fifteen years of jihadist training prior to 2001.

The only problem with that is it created the majority of the extremists it destroyed, the foriegn ones that did get involved were people who mostly wouldn't have made the effort to come to the west. A chance to take a pop at nearby infidels is too easy an oppurtunity to miss though...

We had alot of talk about an Al Qaeda Iraq link, once that fallacy had finally been brought to rest we had some discussion on extremist training camps in Iraq, it turned out the very few there where in Iraq where not in the Shia part of Iraq which is where most of the Al Qaeda action took place...

So these Shia Iraqis were already militant islam they just hadn't realised it or been trained yet, thankfully the visionary Bush and Blair realised these un militant Islam shia were about to explode into militancy and attack all over the west... thankfully we got our troops there quickly, conincidentally just as they started becoming militant islam

The only thing i can think is that either you have vastly overestimated the foriegn component of the Iraqi insurgency* or that you think Iraqis were already militant Islam

*this still wouldn't validate your point too much as it is entirely possible for someone who wasn't militant at all to become so because they are angry at the invasion... and its a hell of a lot easier popping 'next door' than halfway around the world...

To sum up there was no jihadist posion to drain from Iraq, any jihadist posion that exsists since we intervened is of our own making..

[Spino]

We created an artifical peak in militant islam in Iraq. Seen as there was no real miltant Islam* there before we came and in our early years we managed to create alot of it, now it is receeding i suppose it is accurate to call militant islam receeding. The problem is it creates a victory out of nothing, we have managed to get militant islam closer to where it was under Saddam. There is no victory to celebrate here...

I doubt militant Islam has reached it's peak, with the Israel Palestine and other issues still going strong we have a way to go yet...

and Spino hit on one of the main reasons...
Has the tide peaked? Nope. This global recession is going to do wonders for radical ideologies everywhere, militant islam included.

Well militant Islam has existed in Iraq for quite some time, Saddam simply had it wedged under his jackboots the entire time he was in power. Our presence in Iraq simply let the animals out of the cages and attracted some new ones from the surrounding region. And as you stated, Israel and the Palestinian issue never fails to fuel the flames.

[Furunculus]

on the other hand, you could see it as drawing out the poison of fifteen years of jihadist training prior to 2001.

The only problem with that is it created the majority of the extremists it destroyed, the foriegn ones that did get involved were people who mostly wouldn't have made the effort to come to the west. A chance to take a pop at nearby infidels is too easy an opportunity to miss though...
We had alot of talk about an Al Qaeda Iraq link, once that fallacy had finally been brought to rest we had some discussion on extremist training camps in Iraq, it turned out the very few there where in Iraq where not in the Shia part of Iraq which is where most of the Al Qaeda action took place...

The only thing i can think is that either you have vastly overestimated the foriegn component of the Iraqi insurgency* or that you think Iraqis were already militant Islam
*this still wouldn't validate your point too much as it is entirely possible for someone who wasn't militant at all to become so because they are angry at the invasion... and its a hell of a lot easier popping 'next door' than halfway around the world...

To sum up there was no jihadist posion to drain from Iraq, any jihadist posion that exsists since we intervened is of our own making..

iraq wasn't just about iraq in my opinion, it was a chance to fight GWOT on territory other than american/british cities in that it drew the nutters from all over the world who wanted precisely a chance to take a pop at the nearby infidels.

would you care to quantify how many islamist militants have died in iraq? even if it was only a few thousand don't you think we'd rather have them dieing from airstrikes in iraq than suicide bombings in london/washington? it is certainly common knowledge that plenty of 'british' citizens are to be heard on talibanfm, and i'm glad they're dieing in droves over there, if any survive then charge them with treason for fighting the forces of the Crown.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

iraq wasn't just about iraq in my opinion, it was a chance to fight GWOT on territory other than american/british cities in that it drew the nutters from all over the world who wanted precisely a chance to take a pop at the nearby infidels.

would you care to quantify how many islamist militants have died in iraq? even if it was only a few thousand don't you think we'd rather have them dieing from airstrikes in iraq than suicide bombings in london/washington? it is certainly common knowledge that plenty of 'british' citizens are to be heard on talibanfm, and i'm glad they're dieing in droves over there, if any survive then charge them with treason for fighting the forces of the Crown.

Hey my small-time thief friend, I agree with you. The "opposition" would argue that the US presence in Iraq created most of those Islamist militants, who would not have become militant but for our invasion. What say you to that typical counterargument?

[Furunculus]

i would say they certainly have a point, however a good part of the local element was inevitable at the fall of a dictator that held the country together by stamping on the various ethnic groups for such a long time, especially at a time when the ideology of militant islam was in the ascendant.

as to those from abroad who felt strongly enough to go and involve themselves in iraq in the cause of anti-western sentiment, they were definitely the people that cheney and Co would have wanted to knock on the head.

the purpose being to draw the posion whilst discreding the ideology........... on someone else's front lawn.

[Pannonian]

i would say they certainly have a point, however a good part of the local element was inevitable at the fall of a dictator that held the country together by stamping on the various ethnic groups for such a long time, especially at a time when the ideology of militant islam was in the ascendant.

as to those from abroad who felt strongly enough to go and involve themselves in iraq in the cause of anti-western sentiment, they were definitely the people that cheney and Co would have wanted to knock on the head.

the purpose being to draw the posion whilst discreding the ideology........... on someone else's front lawn.
I don't particularly see London, and the tube network I use, as someone else's front lawn. Circle Line, Piccadilly, Northern Line, Liverpool Street, The Oval, etc. All names I'm familiar with, and stations I regularly go through, at similar times to both attacks (both the 7/7 bombings and the 21/7 attempts). So no, I don't buy the argument that Iraq resulted in our being able to fight them "over there" rather than "over here".

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

My opinion is that it is unlikely that the 'tide' of militant Islam has reached its peak. Personally I believe that Spino makes a very good point regarding the recession, and not just for radical Islam. People are always more likely to 'fight' perceived oppressors if they are suffering some sort of hardship. The article above is certainly encouraging but hardly a major turning point. Now in response to some of the above...

I find it hard to believe that Bush and Blair would make a decision to invade Iraq purely to discredit militant Islam on non-US/UK soil. In fact I would argue that it has done almost the opposite, on both counts. Try for a moment Furunculus to look at the Iraq War from a non-UK perspective. Many Islamic Jihadists would have indeed rushed to Iraq to die a martyrs death, and fight the American 'Imperialists'. Unfortunately this is the point to many of them. In fundamental terms martyrdom in the cause of Islam is one of the premier ways to be assured of a place in Heaven. I'm fairly sure that this is said in the Qur'an, and if not it is certainly written in some radical texts. Many innocent, more orthodox Iraqis have died in a ideological struggle, causing some of them to join the cause. With a return to some sort of order it is these that are ceasing the fight. More importantly while there was a number of miliant Islamists in Iraq the accusation of a link to Al Qaeda, prior to the invasion at least, was a fallacy. I do not believe that many of these would have found the energy to take the fight to the West without an, in this case literal, declaration of War. All the War in Iraq has acheived in my opinion is toppled a dictator, who admittedly was an unpleasant, harsh and undesirable ruler, forced a system of government on the people, who resented the interference, and gave militant Islamists a more legitimate platform from which to launch their attacks. If anything I would argue, like Pannonian, that the struggle in Iraq has made it more likely that attacks would happen in the West.

If Blair and Bush did invade mainly for the reason you set out above, then they were making a decision for the wrong reason. Policies motivated by fear never bring any good, and increase the risk of reprisals.

[Furunculus]

I don't particularly see London, and the tube network I use, as someone else's front lawn. Circle Line, Piccadilly, Northern Line, Liverpool Street, The Oval, etc. All names I'm familiar with, and stations I regularly go through, at similar times to both attacks (both the 7/7 bombings and the 21/7 attempts). So no, I don't buy the argument that Iraq resulted in our being able to fight them "over there" rather than "over here".

wow, you are making a big fuss about one successful attack. :juggle2:

considering that we have been breeding our own head-hackers for the same 15 years in our multicultural ghettos.

that we managed to export so many of the ingrates to iraq and the 'ghan is an achievemnent in itself, let alone the number of other countries head-hackers who might be tempted to have a pop at the little satan.

[Pannonian]

wow, you are making a big fuss about one successful attack. :juggle2:

considering that we have been breeding our own head-hackers for the same 15 years in our multicultural ghettos.

that we managed to export so many of the ingrates to iraq and the 'ghan is an achievemnent in itself, let alone the number of other countries head-hackers who might be tempted to have a pop at the little satan.
Except that, prior to Iraq, they'd never targeted us before. And now there are oodles of them, in Iraq, and here, looking to cause trouble. The Burnley riots were solvable, given time, as a social problem. What we have now is radically different, and much more unpredictable. An absolute failure of the argument that we fight them over there so we don't fight them over here - we're currently fighting them in both places, and I'm not sure we know how to, while remaining recognisably Britain.

[LittleGrizzly]

It isn't just us that got attacked because of Iraq, look what happened in Spain!

[Subotan]

Radical Islam is the Arab/Muslim world's response to the collapse of Arab Nationalism/Socialism after the defeat of Nasser in the Six Day War. The causes of Radical Islam are extremely similar to the causes of Arab Nationalism.

[Furunculus]

Except that, prior to Iraq, they'd never targeted us before. And now there are oodles of them, in Iraq, and here, looking to cause trouble. The Burnley riots were solvable, given time, as a social problem. What we have now is radically different, and much more unpredictable. An absolute failure of the argument that we fight them over there so we don't fight them over here - we're currently fighting them in both places, and I'm not sure we know how to, while remaining recognisably Britain.

except that 911 was a declaration of war, they just hadn't got around to launching the global jihad before 2001.

and there already were oodles of them.

the burnley riots are a domestic problem, inflamed by an ideology that has no place in Britain, time to decide if they are British or islamist.

an no, one successful attack out of dozens (including the foiled ones) is not any kind of failure on the principle of fighting them 'there' rather than here.

as to how we remain British and still fight the good fight; we recognise that some things are worth dieing for, which includes missing a few 'preventable' terror attacks as a price worth paying to secure our liberties.

[Furunculus]

Radical Islam is the Arab/Muslim world's response to the collapse of Arab Nationalism/Socialism after the defeat of Nasser in the Six Day War. The causes of Radical Islam are extremely similar to the causes of Arab Nationalism.

agreed, in the same way that environmentalism and progressive internationalism were the lefts answer to the failure of communism which represented the most 'successful' expression of socialism going*.

ideologies are like rectums, people need 'em.






* awaits the furious rebuttal :furious3:

[Subotan]

environmentalism and progressive internationalism were the lefts answer to the failure of communism which represented the most 'successful' expression of socialism going


Except that such concepts existed in the modern world pre-1990. Radical Islam was pratically unknown Pre-Khomeini and certainly Pre-Nasser (In the modern era of course.)

[Scurvy]

an no, one successful attack out of dozens (including the foiled ones) is not any kind of failure on the principle of fighting them 'there' rather than here.

there have been several major successful attacks so far by Islamic terror groups, in the UK, Spain and Russia - Islamic terrorism is a globalised problem, hence the US is fighting a 'war on terror' not a 'war on afghanistan...etc.' - its also a war fought for hearts + minds as much as casualties, and judging by statistics over people allegiance/ support to terrorist groups in the UK etc. it seems the US is losing



as to how we remain British and still fight the good fight; we recognise that some things are worth dieing for, which includes missing a few 'preventable' terror attacks as a price worth paying to secure our liberties.

i'd rather not die as a result of a terrorist attack - a governments first priority should be the whelfare of its own electorate

as for the British comment, even if we accept 'Britishness' exists in any unanimous sense, the government needs to define it properly (as opposed to the ridiculous citizenship tests etc.) and try to help develop communities and especially education, as opposed to pointless flag waving (British jobs for British workers!)

[LittleGrizzly]

i'd rather not die as a result of a terrorist attack - a governments first priority should be the whelfare of its own electorate

I happen to agree with Frunc here (hell just got a bit colder) It is more important to maintain our civil libertys, innocent until proven guilty, trail by civilian court, jury of 12 ordaniry citizens, ect.

If we abondon too much in an effort to beat them we can become the monster were fighting... or more accurately we can become something similaly nasty to what we are fighting...

Edit: the first bit i agree with though..

[Scurvy]

I happen to agree with Frunc here

:fainting:



It is more important to maintain our civil libertys, innocent until proven guilty, trail by civilian court, jury of 12 ordaniry citizens, ect.

all of which have been reduced in the course of the war on terror, governmental/intelligent at least (tacit) support of Guantanamo, terror laws etc. - its selective use of ideals

the (UK) governments actions in Afganistan and Iraq have put citizens in further danger than they were previously - i wouldnt rule out military action against terrorist groups, but both have been badly planned, with little thought given to the consequences, and have increased the internal and external threat to the country



If we abondon too much in an effort to beat them we can become the monster were fighting... or more accurately we can become something similaly nasty to what we are fighting...

not sure I get this.... the UK government is unlikely to ever become a militant religiously driven regime

[Furunculus]

there have been several major successful attacks so far by Islamic terror groups, in the UK, Spain and Russia - Islamic terrorism is a globalised problem, hence the US is fighting a 'war on terror' not a 'war on afghanistan...etc.' - its also a war fought for hearts + minds as much as casualties, and judging by statistics over people allegiance/ support to terrorist groups in the UK etc. it seems the US is losing

i'd rather not die as a result of a terrorist attack - a governments first priority should be the whelfare of its own electorate

as for the British comment, even if we accept 'Britishness' exists in any unanimous sense, the government needs to define it properly (as opposed to the ridiculous citizenship tests etc.) and try to help develop communities and especially education, as opposed to pointless flag waving (British jobs for British workers!)

that's not really saying anything in the context of islamist militancy pre-existing 911 or the British gov't duty to respond to it.

a lot of people would say that it is the electorates job to oppose the gov't accruing powers, whatever the justification, that are totally incompatible with the liberty of the citizenry. for example; RIPA, ID cards, 40 days detention, DNA database that includes innocent people, etc. i am willing to accept the possibility of a 85% success rate against terrorist attacks rather than 90% in order to remain a free-born englishman (pardon the sentimentality of that idiom).

that doesn't actually say me either, even if i accepted that this gov't had acted in an overly nationalistic way rather than promote the poisonous creed of multi-culturalism.

[Furunculus]

:fainting:

all of which have been reduced in the course of the war on terror, governmental/intelligent at least (tacit) support of Guantanamo, terror laws etc. - its selective use of ideals

the (UK) governments actions in Afganistan and Iraq have put citizens in further danger than they were previously - i wouldnt rule out military action against terrorist groups, but both have been badly planned, with little thought given to the consequences, and have increased the internal and external threat to the country

not sure I get this.... the UK government is unlikely to ever become a militant religiously driven regime

you'll get over it i'm sure.

none of which de-legitimises the war-on-terror, only the powers gov't has sought for itself in the name of the war on terror.

i disagree, in that i accept it has boosted the short term risk, however i believe it is necessary to confront and discredit the ideology to ensure that ideology fades in the medium term, rather than lingering in the long term.

i'm sure the people of weimar germany thought the same. one thing we have always been good at in the UK is imposing limits on what we expect of the state, we have also had a fantastically stable civil society, what a co-incidence.............

[Hax]

I belive the radicals are the ones that are practicing the true religion on Islam. I'm sure Muhammed would be very dissapointed at the "moderates" if he were alive today.

Utter nonsense. Do yourself a favour and try to read something on what Muhammed and his descendants said before you judge.

======================================

I personally think that radical Islam is not so much a matter of religion but more a matter of how the Arabs feel how they have been treated (whether they are right or wrong does not matter) after the formation of the state Israel and the defeat in the Six-Day war. I mean, what we see as terrorists mostly come from Arab countries, not Indonesia (which has the largest Islamic population in the world).

[Pannonian]

except that 911 was a declaration of war, they just hadn't got around to launching the global jihad before 2001.

and there already were oodles of them.

Ideologically, no there weren't. That you missed that point is seen below.


the burnley riots are a domestic problem, inflamed by an ideology that has no place in Britain, time to decide if they are British or islamist.

an no, one successful attack out of dozens (including the foiled ones) is not any kind of failure on the principle of fighting them 'there' rather than here.

as to how we remain British and still fight the good fight; we recognise that some things are worth dieing for, which includes missing a few 'preventable' terror attacks as a price worth paying to secure our liberties.
The Burnley riots were about Britishness, and the Asian community's exclusion from such by the established communities, who defined them with the p-word. At that time, they lacked the British identity which was denied to them, and they hadn't yet been given another that was popularly accepted. The situation was similar to the Tottenham riots of the early 1980s. The difference was that the Asians already had a strongly driven underlying historical identity to turn to, and with an unpopular war (which Iraq undoubtedly was) to confirm their beliefs, a fair number turned to the modern militant form of that identity. Where the Burnley riots could have been dealt with and resolved in the same way that the Tottenham riots were, we now had a section of the populace who no longer claimed to be part of Britain in their own way, but sought to be apart from Britain.

I do not think that these few "preventable" terror attacks to be a price worth paying, for they were a price that never had to be paid, had we done things right in the first place. Since those troubles, and certainly since Iraq seemed inevitable, I've made some observations, which differ from yours. In nearly every instance, my predictions have been more or less accurate, despite my very different worldview from yours, so I'd say that my view of things reflects the world more. Eg. you say that Iraq was the place where Islamists could be flushed out and destroyed, away from home. I say, even if we ignore the effect Iraq has on homegrown nutters, Iraq is an irrelevance unless we lose, and that the two countries to focus on are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It looks like we're going to decisively lose Pakistan. Do you think Iraq, even if it turns out as rosy as could be hoped for, could compensate?

In any case, your idea of having Iraq as a convenient foreign battleground utterly goes against what I see as the absolute strategic necessity of having a stable Iraq, whoever ruled it (as long as it's not Bin Laden's gang). If we did go into Iraq so we can fight them over there, that is folly beyond all belief.

[Furunculus]

Ideologically, no there weren't. That you missed that point is seen below.

The Burnley riots were about Britishness, and the Asian community's exclusion from such by the established communities, who defined them with the p-word. At that time, they lacked the British identity which was denied to them, and they hadn't yet been given another that was popularly accepted. The situation was similar to the Tottenham riots of the early 1980s. The difference was that the Asians already had a strongly driven underlying historical identity to turn to, and with an unpopular war (which Iraq undoubtedly was) to confirm their beliefs, a fair number turned to the modern militant form of that identity. Where the Burnley riots could have been dealt with and resolved in the same way that the Tottenham riots were, we now had a section of the populace who no longer claimed to be part of Britain in their own way, but sought to be apart from Britain.

I do not think that these few "preventable" terror attacks to be a price worth paying, for they were a price that never had to be paid, had we done things right in the first place.

Since those troubles, and certainly since Iraq seemed inevitable, I've made some observations, which differ from yours. In nearly every instance, my predictions have been more or less accurate, despite my very different worldview from yours, so I'd say that my view of things reflects the world more. Eg. you say that Iraq was the place where Islamists could be flushed out and destroyed, away from home. I say, even if we ignore the effect Iraq has on homegrown nutters, Iraq is an irrelevance unless we lose, and that the two countries to focus on are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

It looks like we're going to decisively lose Pakistan. Do you think Iraq, even if it turns out as rosy as could be hoped for, could compensate?

In any case, your idea of having Iraq as a convenient foreign battleground utterly goes against what I see as the absolute strategic necessity of having a stable Iraq, whoever ruled it (as long as it's not Bin Laden's gang). If we did go into Iraq so we can fight them over there, that is folly beyond all belief.

don't really know what that means, in that it appears to bear no relation to my statement that a) 911 was a declaration of war, and b) that prior to that they were building up their strength in preparation for a DoW.

you want me to admit that ghettoising the muslim community via multi-culturalism was a stupid idea that has caused 30 years of social strife and will take another 30 years to repair? strangely i am agreed with you. regardless of that, immigrant communities who happen to be muslim have a duty to act the part of a civil & lawful british citizen just like the rest of us, if they feel they can't be british then they need to move to somewhere more agreeable to them.

so you are happy to see id-cards, dna databases, restrictions on photographing the police, regulation of investigatory powers, 40 days detention, email & website logging of all britons? you are willing to lose all this for a tiny percentage increase in the prevention of terror attacks? some things are worth dieing for, civil liberty is generally agreed to be one of them.

you have made what observations that have been more accurate?
i work on the premise that islamic militancy from whatever group is perpetuated and sustained by the ideology of militant islam as an ideology. if we discredit the ideology then that which provides glamour to islamist terror groups fades away from the public consciousness. at that point those groups can only sustain themselves via whatever local grievances they have, which can be dealt with locally.
after all the collapse of communism as an ideology certainly made our fight against the ira easier, all of a sudden they did not enjoy the aid and support of the commie east and its far-flung satellites. the ira became a domestic terrorist group rather than a subversive lever to be applied against the west.

pakistan is its own problem, most of which i have listed above, and if it cannot maintain a cohesive and lawful society that is its own failing. what they need to know is that being a failed state ain't fun (afghan in the nineties), and exporting head-hackers to other powerful countries won't be tolerated anymore (afghan in the noughties).

stable states are fine as long as they don't threaten or otherwise export instability to their neighbours. if such states happen to have a repressive regime then it just makes intervention all the easier to justify. now we will have a non-repressive 'democracy' that does not threaten or export instability to its neighbours, which at the same time acted as a fantastic CNN battleground where we showed the entire world that militant islam cannot even recapture westernised arab states, let alone bring about the global caliphate.

[caravel]

except that 911 was a declaration of war, they just hadn't got around to launching the global jihad before 2001.
I don't see it as a global issue, nor were the WTC attacks a declaration of war. It was never linked to any sovereign state, but to small a group of mainly Saudi nationals.


as to how we remain British and still fight the good fight; we recognise that some things are worth dieing for, which includes missing a few 'preventable' terror attacks as a price worth paying to secure our liberties.
In fact the opposite is true. Missing attacks has meant a constant erosion of civil liberties, ID cards, detention without charge, etc.

[Furunculus]

I don't see it as a global issue, nor were the WTC attacks a declaration of war. It was never linked to any sovereign state, but to small a group of mainly Saudi nationals.

In fact the opposite is true. Missing attacks has meant a constant erosion of civil liberties, ID cards, detention without charge, etc.

you may not see it as a global issue if you see only disparate groups, my opinion differs perhaps because i see the whole as they use a global ideology to legitimise and promote their actions. your dancing on the head of a pin there to say that 911 was not a declaration of war just because the enemy was not a state actor.

so to prevent the erosion of civil liberties, you would introduce all necessary measures to prevent attacks that might allow the gov't to justify the introduction of measures that reduce civil liberties, even if those measures reduce civil liberties? do i understand you correctly?

[LittleGrizzly]

agreed, in the same way that environmentalism and progressive internationalism were the lefts answer to the failure of communism which represented the most 'successful' expression of socialism going

Furious rebuttal!!

Im not sure what exactly your trying to say here....

Are you saying that leftys saw communism failing so decided to become enviromentalists and progressive internationalists instead ?

If so it is completely innaccurate....

Firstly you will notice that communist movements in western countrys pre 1990 were far smaller than the number of enviromentalists we have now

Secondly why would these people need to abandon communism, communists don't automatically look to the USSR as the communist state that defines its success or failure as an ideaology.... for one any communist worth his salt will tell you the Soviet Union was not a communist state...

Infact the soviet union could be seen as an awesome propaganda campiagn against communism, any communist should be celebrating the dissolution of the USSR as it would be something like having Nazi Germany as the poster boy for capitalism....

People who are not communists and have never been communists care are enviromentalists, and there are people who are communists who couldn't care less about the enviroment....

Im not exactly sure what you mean by progressive internationalism....

Enviromentalism is not socialism.... don't really now what else to say here... that should be enough...

If of course you mean that the groups can overlap somewhat then you are completely right...

Just like racists and conservative groups overlap... they are distinctly different and to call one a continuation of the other is insulting and wrong... but it seems along the same lines as grouping those various groups together...

[Furunculus]

agreed, in the same way that environmentalism and progressive internationalism were the lefts answer to the failure of communism which represented the most 'successful' expression of socialism going

1. Are you saying that leftys saw communism failing so decided to become enviromentalists and progressive internationalists instead ?

2. If so it is completely innaccurate....
Firstly you will notice that communist movements in western countrys pre 1990 were far smaller than the number of enviromentalists we have now

3. Secondly why would these people need to abandon communism, communists don't automatically look to the USSR as the communist state that defines its success or failure as an ideaology.... for one any communist worth his salt will tell you the Soviet Union was not a communist state...
Infact the soviet union could be seen as an awesome propaganda campiagn against communism, any communist should be celebrating the dissolution of the USSR as it would be something like having Nazi Germany as the poster boy for capitalism....

4. People who are not communists and have never been communists care are enviromentalists, and there are people who are communists who couldn't care less about the enviroment....

5. Im not exactly sure what you mean by progressive internationalism....

6. Enviromentalism is not socialism.... don't really now what else to say here... that should be enough...
If of course you mean that the groups can overlap somewhat then you are completely right...
Just like racists and conservative groups overlap... they are distinctly different and to call one a continuation of the other is insulting and wrong... but it seems along the same lines as grouping those various groups together...
first of all, mea-culpa: i meant to write transnational progressivism rather than progressive internationalism.

1. In general, yes i am saying that.

2. i said; "communism which represented the most 'successful' expression of socialism going", and you tacitly admit this by stating "lefties", so your point about the size of the communist party membership doesn't really matter.

3. Because by 1991 it should have been apparent to even the dullest that as an ideology it was worthless, if only because it ignored the perversity of individual human nature and thus every attempt to create the utopia had become distorted into repressive and inefficient regimes.

4. absolutely true, and? some people ignore reality, some find one new cause, and others another, some abandon causes altogether. but most people need ideologies just like they need religion to help them cope with the hardships of their life.

5. My bad: transnational progressivism (the unofficial ideology of the EU ruling class):

Transnational progressivism is a term coined by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte in 2001 to describe a movement and political view that endorses a concept of postnational global citizenship and promotes the authority of international institutions over the sovereignty of individual nation-states.

Fonte argued that the core beliefs of this view include:

* Advocating the goals of an identity group rather than individual: "The key political unit is not the individual citizen...but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born."[1]

* An oppressor/victim dichotomy: "Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy," with "immigrant groups designated as victims."[2]

* Proportional representation by group: "Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."[3]

* Change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions.

* Change in the assimilation paradigm: "The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism."[4]

* Redefinition of democracy: "Changing the system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens."[5]

* Deconstruction of Western national narratives and national symbols in favor of post-modern multiculturalist views.


6. Hopefully now clearer resulting from the above.
i have no data to prove my contention that many hard-core euro/enviro enthusiasts are previously disillusioned let-wing inadequates who can't cope without a guiding star in their lives, and i don't expect others to believe me, but i myself have a lot of sympathy for the notion.

[Fragony]

Are you saying that leftys saw communism failing so decided to become enviromentalists and progressive internationalists instead ?

I'd say that lefties succeeded and that they no longer have a real cause, and decided to become enviromentalists and multiculturalists. What is there to fight for, nada. But the left is too big a movement to just say 'it's done'. Compare us to the situation of the industrial revolution, the situation for workers was horrible, the Thames was so dirty that someone wrote a protest letter using water as inkt, the workers union was surpressed. What, exactly, can the left contribute in our times? It's little more then looking for the highest building one can find and demanding an additional floor, it's not idealism it's perfectionism, and we are all all the poorer for it, because the left is no longer the proletariat it's the elite, it's the new aristocracy that desperately hangs onto their privileges.

[LittleGrizzly]

2. i said; "communism which represented the most 'successful' expression of socialism going", and you tacitly admit this by stating "lefties", so your point about the size of the communist party membership doesn't really matter.

I was basically wording the question for you benefit, i was asking for your view with the lefties comment. I wasn't stating facts but asking you for your belief...

but seen as you mentioned it a left wing capitalist and a communist are completely different things. You can have a communist who goes for all kinds of 'conservative' values, like being tough on crime, gun ownership, family and anti gay values. Whilst you certainly wouldn't call them conservative lefty isn't exactly an accurate term either...

I think the point about the size of the communist partys is essential!

Look at the wide ranging support enviromentalism and the other one (on euro mainland niot so much britian) with support like this communists should have been winning elections left right and centre....

The other thing backing me on this is the various left wing partys throughout europe before the collapse of the SU, labour for example won one or two elections before '90 when they were actually a left wing party... but they never attempted or did anything like turning the country communist

Look at Scandanavia... filled with what most people might think of as leftys... not a communist bone in thier bodys..... but strong enviromentalist movement and they seem to favour the EU

3. Because by 1991 it should have been apparent to even the dullest that as an ideology it was worthless

Only to conservatives and people who don't understand the difference between communism and what the soviet union had. In other words communists would be unaffected by the SU's fall.....

Stalinists may have suffered a little heartbreak but they are/were a small inconsequential group anyway...

Though if we are to assume communism is whatever a party that declares itself communist does.... then communism has had 1 superpower just gone and another one on the rise...

This previous superpower and then the one to come are not communists though...... CINO you could call them ~;)

4. absolutely true, and?

and it proves that there is a cause there without people who simply gave up on something else and simply decided to transfer thier political activity to some other front...

Though you don't seem to be arguing that the whole movement is based off that... simply that communists decided to transfer themselves to these issues ?

some people ignore reality, some find one new cause, and others another, some abandon causes altogether. but most people need ideologies just like they need religion to help them cope with the hardships of their life.

This would be true of conservative nationalists racists socialists capitalists and just about every other ideaology you can think off...

5. My bad: transnational progressivism (the unofficial ideology of the EU ruling class):

Wouldn't communists generally be Transnational progressivists by thier very nature ?

One world goverment ties in quite nicely with communism, though im not even sure the rest of the list is general left wing thinking let alone ex communist thinking...

i have no data to prove my contention

Good, as i have no will to search in an attempt to disprove any such accusation ~;)

i have no data to prove my contention that many hard-core euro/enviro enthusiasts are previously disillusioned let-wing inadequates who can't cope without a guiding star in their lives, and i don't expect others to believe me, but i myself have a lot of sympathy for the notion.

Edit: accidently hit 'enter' here.... post continues...

An easy way to find out may be simply to ask patrons here, as i didn't start becoming intrested in politics until about '97 im probably out of your time range to be a disgruntled ex commie, but why don't we ask other patrons who support both enviromental legislation and further eu integration if they are disgruntled ex commies... i see the answers being largely no...

If you argument is that some small element realised stalinism was a failure after the fall of the SU and those people simply transfered themselves to other goals then there is no argument.... Very similar to how racists and xenophobes realised they were onto a lost cause and transfered thier ideaology over to conservatism and anti immigration and anti eu policys... i refer of course to UKIP

Im not saying UKIP is racist or xenophobic... similar to your not saying enviromentalism and further EU integration aren't commie... its simply people transfering thier political beliefs to something more workable/realistic...

[LittleGrizzly]

I'd say that lefties succeeded

If lefties had succeeded we would not have the world as we do in the present day. USA the worlds superpower is far from anything euro's would describe as left wing. Britian is not left wing and apart from a recent spate of nationalisation have been privatising things for years...

I would say in Britian and America at least the left hasn't done much of anything, Conservatives and Republicans have been the partys of power in these countrys

and that they no longer have a real cause,

Of course they do... as proven by my usa and britian example the left still has a lot of work to do before its get to where it wants to be....

and decided to become enviromentalists and multiculturalists.

What exactly do you mean by this ?

A bunch of left wingers woke up one morning... realised they had got any legislation they wanted.... and so simply decided to become enviro's and multi's ???

Edit: time is an issue... ill finish up later...

[Fragony]

A bunch of left wingers woke up one morning... realised they had got any legislation they wanted.... and so simply decided to become enviro's and multi's ???


Nah not decided, just did because there was nothing else to do an idealist must keep justifying himself. We are ruled by people that never had any setbacks, and are better educated then their parents and aren't used to receiving critism, all change is for the better it's all they know, and you better not get between them and their ideals, they love all of humanity but hate the people.

[Idaho]

Radical Islam is the Arab/Muslim world's response to the collapse of Arab Nationalism/Socialism after the defeat of Nasser in the Six Day War. The causes of Radical Islam are extremely similar to the causes of Arab Nationalism.

Quite so.

There was also another factor involved in it's creation. In most ME states, democratic institutions were actively suppressed with the approval of the western powers. They far preferred a dictator they can deal with and keep the oil flowing over a less predictable democracy - especially one who may well be inclined to retain oil wealth.

In these countries the only political expression allowed was that with an expressly religious flavour. Hence radical preachers became the focus for political discontent.

Bin Laden never really gave a toss about the western world. He was making a play for the Saudi state.

[Furunculus]

2. i said; "communism which represented the most 'successful' expression of socialism going", and you tacitly admit this by stating "lefties", so your point about the size of the communist party membership doesn't really matter.

I was basically wording the question for you benefit, i was asking for your view with the lefties comment. I wasn't stating facts but asking you for your belief...

but seen as you mentioned it a left wing capitalist and a communist are completely different things. You can have a communist who goes for all kinds of 'conservative' values, like being tough on crime, gun ownership, family and anti gay values. Whilst you certainly wouldn't call them conservative lefty isn't exactly an accurate term either...

I think the point about the size of the communist partys is essential!

Look at the wide ranging support enviromentalism and the other one (on euro mainland niot so much britian) with support like this communists should have been winning elections left right and centre....

The other thing backing me on this is the various left wing partys throughout europe before the collapse of the SU, labour for example won one or two elections before '90 when they were actually a left wing party... but they never attempted or did anything like turning the country communist

Look at Scandanavia... filled with what most people might think of as leftys... not a communist bone in thier bodys..... but strong enviromentalist movement and they seem to favour the EU

3. Because by 1991 it should have been apparent to even the dullest that as an ideology it was worthless

Only to conservatives and people who don't understand the difference between communism and what the soviet union had. In other words communists would be unaffected by the SU's fall.....

Stalinists may have suffered a little heartbreak but they are/were a small inconsequential group anyway...

Though if we are to assume communism is whatever a party that declares itself communist does.... then communism has had 1 superpower just gone and another one on the rise...

This previous superpower and then the one to come are not communists though...... CINO you could call them ~;)

4. absolutely true, and?

and it proves that there is a cause there without people who simply gave up on something else and simply decided to transfer thier political activity to some other front...

Though you don't seem to be arguing that the whole movement is based off that... simply that communists decided to transfer themselves to these issues ?

some people ignore reality, some find one new cause, and others another, some abandon causes altogether. but most people need ideologies just like they need religion to help them cope with the hardships of their life.

This would be true of conservative nationalists racists socialists capitalists and just about every other ideaology you can think off...

5. My bad: transnational progressivism (the unofficial ideology of the EU ruling class):

Wouldn't communists generally be Transnational progressivists by thier very nature ?

One world goverment ties in quite nicely with communism, though im not even sure the rest of the list is general left wing thinking let alone ex communist thinking...

i have no data to prove my contention

Good, as i have no will to search in an attempt to disprove any such accusation ~;)

i have no data to prove my contention that many hard-core euro/enviro enthusiasts are previously disillusioned let-wing inadequates who can't cope without a guiding star in their lives, and i don't expect others to believe me, but i myself have a lot of sympathy for the notion.

Edit: accidently hit 'enter' here.... post continues...

An easy way to find out may be simply to ask patrons here, as i didn't start becoming intrested in politics until about '97 im probably out of your time range to be a disgruntled ex commie, but why don't we ask other patrons who support both enviromental legislation and further eu integration if they are disgruntled ex commies... i see the answers being largely no...

If you argument is that some small element realised stalinism was a failure after the fall of the SU and those people simply transfered themselves to other goals then there is no argument.... Very similar to how racists and xenophobes realised they were onto a lost cause and transfered thier ideaology over to conservatism and anti immigration and anti eu policys... i refer of course to UKIP

Im not saying UKIP is racist or xenophobic... similar to your not saying enviromentalism and further EU integration aren't commie... its simply people transfering thier political beliefs to something more workable/realistic...

this entire reply rather hangs on the supposition that i consider some portion of euro/enviro enthusiasts as ex-commies.

i do no such thing, i accuse them of being SU sympathising lefties, of which there were a multitude to be seen in trade unions and student unions all over the country.

the sympathy was understandable from the workers union membership in that they received comradely support from the SU in their 'struggle' against the industrialist oppressors to improve working conditions, often in the form of money funneled in via the CooP building society.

the sympathy was inevitable within student union given the propensity for young intellectual teen-agers to rebel against the 'system'.

so this is about the cruelly dashed sympathy of the lefty towards the SU, the resulting disillusionment, and the re-birth having discovered a new cause.