Org Mobile Site
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...bin-Laden.html
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?
Originally Posted by :
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.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".
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?
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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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 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?
The focus of militant Islamism is, as it always was, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. How's the fight going there?
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.
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.
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...
...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...
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.
But I doubt that millions, or even that hundreds of thousands have picked up arms in response to the iraq invasion in 2003.
Originally Posted by 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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
page 69 of this report makes interesting reading:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...r-decline.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...r-decline.html
Originally Posted by 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...
Is everything the United States' fault in your view?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...
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.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Is everything the United States' fault in your view?
NoIs everything the United States' fault in your view?
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
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.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.
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!
Has the tide peaked? Nope. This global recession is going to do wonders for radical ideologies everywhere, militant islam included.
Originally Posted by rasoforos:
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!
If I painted a polar beer blue, on a scale of one to ten how much would it inspire you to dance the Flamingo?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!
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
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.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.
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.
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.
on the other hand, you could see it as drawing out the poison of fifteen years of jihadist training prior to 2001.
Originally Posted by 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...
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.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...
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.
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.
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..
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..
Originally Posted by 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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by 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 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.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..
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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
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?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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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".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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
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. 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".
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.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
wow, you are making a big fuss about one successful attack.
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.wow, you are making a big fuss about one successful attack.
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.
It isn't just us that got attacked because of Iraq, look what happened in Spain!
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO