What is the answer to Radical Islam?
ArmsinaV
Posts: 108
I'm curious what people's thoughts are.
Do you think that if the West essentially abandoned the region (left Iraq, withdrew support from Israel), the jihadist movement would die down significantly? Or, do we need to defeat the ideology some other way?
Do you think that if the West essentially abandoned the region (left Iraq, withdrew support from Israel), the jihadist movement would die down significantly? Or, do we need to defeat the ideology some other way?
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's a cliché answer but, education. Let hope and eductation flow in the region and no one will be interested in the fundamentalism point of view anymore.
Someone said education was the key to changing this, but British governments need to fund education better in poorer areas around the UK, in the first place.
However, in the case of these recent attacks, we're dealing with hospital consultants, so even the comparatively affluent seem set on destabilising British infrastructure.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Golden Rule (modified): Do Unto Others as You Would Have Done to You... But Do It First!!!
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
The Sword has always been the West's answer to the Islam "problem" since the founding of that religion. New answers are needed.
Maybe once we stop supporting and protecting these brutal and oppressive regimes, in the region, we can start curbing radical Islam.
How do we stop the Saudi abuses from our standpoint?
Here is a good quote that refers to the recent plot in Britain that sums up why the US leaving Iraq and the region all-together will not suppress the jihadist movement.
"The bombers are not only reacting against the worst in our system of government: the torture and the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, support for Arab dictators. They oppose the best in our system of government too: the intellectual freedom to write novels that question religion, the sexual freedom of women to pick their own partners. When I receive my own tedious drizzle of jihadi death-threats, they always mention my homosexuality long before they get to my views on foreign policy. In his "Address to the American People" in October 2002, Osama Bin Laden said "the worst kind of event" committed by America was not a foreign policy atrocity - of which there are many - but "your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval Office" with Monica Lewinsky. To them, this is a war against blowjobs and novellists as much as a war against occupation.
So what can we do to defuse the ticking bomb of British jihadism? On all fronts, the solution lies not in abandoning the values of liberal democracy, but in adhering to them much more scrupulously. If we restrain our leaders whenever they try to violate our values by using torture, or chemical weapons, or arming tyrants - indeed, if we put them on trial for it - we will choke off the more obvious blowback. But that's not enough. We also need to unpick the totalitarian ideology of jihadism by democratically opening up Islamic theology, so that over a generation, fewer and fewer young men can convince themselves they are "good Muslims" when they murder innocents."
We can't force them to stop but we can stop supporting them and/or turning a blind eye to their brutality and rapant abuse of their citizenry.
The first step that can be taken to lessen, or completely sever our support of the Saudi government is to cut our dependency on Saudi oil. If Brazil can start using sugar ethanol instead of petroleum to fuel their vehicles I don't understand how a country like the US, which is supposed to be far more advanced, can not find a way to free ourselves of our dependence on Saudi oil. We knew back in the 1970's, during the Oil shortages that relying on the Middle east to fuel our country could be a problem. You can't tell me that a country that took a little more than a decade to put a human being on the moon could not have come up with a viable alternative to petroleum in 30 years. We ignored the warnings signs because too may powerful people where making too much money.
Second would be to stop protecting them. The largest buyer of US military hardware in the world is the Saudi government. The Saudi Royal Security force is trained and armed by the US military. Without our protection the Al Sa'uds would have been publicly beheaded in Riyadh a long time ago. (Note: I'm not advocating that they be beheaded.) While we criticize other governments for the manner in which they treat their people we allow Saudi Arabia to get away with the same acts. Iraq is a perfect example of this. Our government constantly mentions how Iran and Syria are supplying weapons and helping to finance the Sunni insurgents or Shi'ite militias. this is true but you never hear a word about the same support Saudi Arabia is offering to the Sunni insurgents. Saudi Arabia has a Shi'ite minority that it treats like second class citizens. The last thing the Al Sa'uds want to see is another Shi'ite controlled government in the region bolstering the hopes of the Shi'ites within their own borders.
The disenfranchised people in Saudi Arabia see this. They see the US supporting this corrupt oppressive regime. While they live in slums barely able to support their families the royals live in opulence. The know that our governments knows this but still we continue to give them more money so they can buy more yachts and more palaces. To top this all off then the governments build religious schools and staffs them with radical Wahabis who take in the young men off the streets feed them, cloth them and teach them to hate the West. Yet we continue to pump billions of dollars into that country and sit around with this idiotic agape look on our face when they fly planes into our buildings.
The only way to curb, I say curb because I don't think we will ever be able to completely elimenate radical Islam, is to stop supporting the countries that create it. Saudi Arabia is the biggest culprit and as long as we keep suckling on the Saudi petro tit and protecting the royal family we will never make a dent on curbing radical Islam. We can bomb them day and night and invade/occupy country and country and it will not make a difference. It will only continue the circle of violence.
I pretty much agree, but at the present moment, I think the best way to reform Saudi Arabia is through stablizing Iraq. Not to say converting to alternative, green energy shouldn't be a priority. I just think that more hearts and minds will be won/lost, more jihadist emboldened/reformed with the outcome of Iraq.
What that country needs is more soldiers on the ground. And I'm not talking about American soldiers. America needs international support. We need help! Iraq isn't just our fight, it's the world's fight.
And if we are looking for 'The Answer'... why not look at what Japan and China are doing. I mean, Why aren't Japan and China in these extremist's crosshairs? They do a lot of business with them... why aren't car bombs going off in Tokyo or Beijing?
Hail, Hail!!!
Well you and I will always disagree on Iraq. I don't think the solution is more boots on the ground, though it wouldn't hurt. The problem there is the ineffectiveness of the central government and the fact that we waited too long to address the sectarian divide in that country. Had we had a plan for that from the get go instead of the notion that we would be greeted in similar fashion to when our troops liberated France in WWII, we may have been able to control some of the violence and allowed a middle class to form and flourish in that country. As it stands now there is no middle class in Iraq, because they all left. there is only wealthy and poor, and the poor make perfect recruiting targets for the Sunni insurgents, Shi'ite militias, and foreign Jihadist.
The delay in action is costing us dearly and I don't think we will ever be able to re-cooperate from that. There may still be time to fix the problems with the central government but it is going to be an uphill battle. There is also the infiltration of the military and police forces by the militias, insurgents, and jihadists. There are reports that in certain provinces they simple will not do their job because of their religious loyalties.
I hate to say it but I think iraq is bordering on a lost cause. I know the implications our pulling out may have but I honestly don't see how we can turn that country around. I don't honestly see the jihadist winning though. Both the Sunnis and Shi'ites are tired of them and have even aided in their capture. the main problem is that these same people will probabaly turn and kill each other and their is nothing we can do to stop that.
Great point.
I'd guess that Japan and China aren't prime targets of the Extremists because they don't have military bases built all over the middle east.
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
i saw an interview on cnn friday with a converted islamic in britain. he said that all non-islamics must be killed and attacks will continue.
since they drew the line in the sand it's now kill them before they kill you.
china and japan didn't "deface" their religion by modifying it. have we forgotten the islamic takeover of northern india? this isn't something new. they have better weapons and easier access to further countries with modern air travel. that is why we see the increase now.
Well aren't THEY attacking and killing US? There are many reasons why there aren't bombs going off in Japan and China.
One of them is the same reason American's are fighting in the streets of Baghdad and not Rhiyad. We need the Saudi's right now although they stand in stark contrast to everything we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East.
In the same way, a terrorist group like Hezbollah needs the support of their state-sponsor Iran - who needs the petro-dollars it gets from china, although they stand in stark contrast to everyting the Jihadist stand for and are trying to accomplish in the world.
Another reason is that the Chinese and Japanese have no significant historical or religious ties to the region... they don't serve as a good scapegoat like the Brits and Americans do.
And why do we have bases in the Middle east?
To protect the Saudi government and the oil fields.
I would agree that Iraq is teetering on a lost cause and that we truly let the golden moment slip through our hands to rebuild that country.
I think we will most likely fail in the long run in Iraq becuase of of a severe lack of American leadership and the miss-trust that has formed between the government and a lazy, pampered citenzenry that isn't informed or concerned about the well-fair for the world at large.
What we need is about an extra 20 to 30 thousand troops each from countries like England, France, Germany, Russia, China, etc... That would say to the Sunni and Shia militants that the world is tired of your bullshit, and we are bringing authority to stop the bloodshed once and for all.
No we cannot fix wounded pride, or religous differences - but we can say that there will be no more killing because of it. If we have to put troops on every street corner of every town in Iraq and confiscate every weapon down to the last sling-shot in Iraq - we can bring the rule of law to that country. It just takes the will power.
Iraq suffers from the same disease that many countries in the Middle East are embroiled in. If we can fix Iraq, then we can bring hope and the prospect of prosperity to a large corner of the world. I wish people would realize this and support the effort.
we have bases everywhere to protect our allies. this was done mostly after WWII when we had to pull the world's ass out of the fire for the second time in 26 years. we got tired of sacrificing thousands of american's lives to save people that hate us. now we keep them in line.
I think people realize but they don't support it because many feel that the opportunity is lost. Why keep sacrificing our troops for a goal that is practically unattainable and for a people that don't really seem to be doing their share of the work.
This new strategy of clearing and holding neighborhood by neighborhood is a good one with one exception, the Iraqi military is not holding the neighborhoods we clear. The negative elements in the country have so permeated the military that they can not even perform their most basic function. We can't do it ourselves, most other countries aren't going to help us, because of the arrogant manner in which this administration handled their objections, and the Iraqis just don't seem to care enough about a unified Iraq to put their differences aside. i mean for Christ's sake we basically had to force them to stay at work instead of taking an extended vacation while their country was fucking falling apart. To me that does not seem like a government that wants to do all that is necessary to stabilize the country.
well put and well thought out.
for me it seems like the problem will never go away, because terrorists are people, ordinary people who might live next to anyone of us and be a normal and then gradually or however they do get into extremism.
by going away problem won't be solved, but even by staying problem wouldn't be solved either. Eastern people's attutudes to Western people should change, because picture this in your head.....
A mother talks about Western people and how bad they are infront of her children, what do you think this child will grow up to think about all the Western people??
there are people who think the way they want to think, but there are also people who will grow up on father's & mothers words.
Well first off we didn't save the world's ass. It was an equal effort by several countries, as far as WW II is concerned. In WW I we basically entered the war after the outcome was pretty much decided, so we didn't do much ass saving there.
Saudi Arabia is not an allie. Saudi Arabia is a fucking liability. How can you call a country that teaches and finances the very people that kill us an allie. I understand our dependence on their oil and the necessity in order to maintain our economy and way of life. My point is that 30 years ago we saw this coming and did nothing. We knew that depending on oil from that region was going to create massive problems. We knew 30 years ago that supporting the Saudis was going to be a huge liability but at the present time, and to this day, the financial pay-offs where beyond comprehension.
Much of what is happening today could have been averted if we had only acted 30 years ago. If we had only payed attention to the warning signs instead of the dollar signs. But what do you expect when our government's policy is dictated by lobbiest and think tanks who have only their interested to serve.
Then, You've anwered your own question... Japan and China do not mix their economic endevours with their political ambitions. That is, Japan and China just buy the fucking oil and say, "Arigato, Senior Fahd..." and don't seek to influence their politicians and meddle in their internal affairs. And Japan and China do not automatically side with Israel on every issue and incident that crops up over there. The Chinese and Japanese at least admit that Israel makes mistakes sometimes.
If we didn't do certain things, such as meddle in their internal affairs, we would NOT be their targets. It is possible that they would focus their energy and hatred towards their own governments... who they now percieve as puppets to our best interests.
Hail, Hail!!!
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
-- Al Capone
That was a good plan... note, I said WAS.
We already blew it by 'Going it on our own' and not looking at other possible outcomes than the sequel to Gulf War of 1991.
And why should Russia, Germany, France and anyone else step in now? I mean, if this were Russia's gig, would you be supporting a plan to send in our military to help them out of their mess?
We bought this shit when we broke it... just as Colin Powell had warned. We own it, we need to fix it. and trying to fix it one the cheap didn't work for the past 4 years... why would it work today?
You're right.. we need more soldiers on the ground over there. Not 20 to 30 thousand... more like 120 to 130 more U.S. troops. That number should be able to provide the security for the entire country, instead of the hit and migrate mission we have tasked our military with.
Hail, Hail!!!
The fundamentalist quarrel has been going on in Islam just about since it becamse a religion. The Shia have been more extreme and they set the tone, historically, for dying in the name of their religious values in the face of overwhelming odds. Their fight with the Sunnis - based on who should be the Islamic caliph - has been pretty harsh over the centuries.
It's also interesting to note that in order to unify the different Muslim sects, the caliph often turned to expanding the empire. Conquering and converting helped to build the base and keep everyone happy in a sense. I see no reason why some Islamists today would not try to do the same thing.
Historically speaking, when there has been a caliphate, (Islamic State) it has only been stopped through military force. The original caliphs and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. That defeat - and its embarrassment - is a common thread with groups such as Al Qaeda. They want a return to world dominance via an Islamic state that is ruled by strict sharia.
The question is how to deal with that ideology. The West has made big mistakes to that end. The Iraq war was a strategically stupid decision, in my opinion. We walked into a war that will not bring the results Bush, et al, hoped for. It's just who is willing to die more for Iraq. It's a war of attrition. An ideology that values the afterlife more than life is going to win that battle, and it is spreading in the region.
But that is not to say the world should give up the demands of the Islamists. If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq, etc., the movement would not die out. I doubt we are "fueling" it as much as some think. As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it exports more terror and terrorists than any other Muslim state, period. But our economy would go under without its oil.
My take is that we leave Iraq. Not because Bush is the Lex Luthor figure so many make him out to be, but because his goal is not working. It's not going to work. Muslim countries do not separate government action and religion. Culturally, they are the same. Thus, we will always on some level be seen as an invading Christian force, trying to "fight Islam." This rallying cry is false, but it is true that we want a Western democracy. Well, many Arabs will never surrender to that because A) we want it and
After leaving Iraq, I think we need to support dissidents in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere as much as possible without looking like a puppet master. The radical Islamists will try and seize Iraq to turn it into an Islamic State, and I am sure Iran will do its part to help the Shias take control.
Unfortunately, I think the next step will be waiting for some other catastrophe either in the West or in the Middle East that compromises world stability. After that, the international community will have to get together and form a true coalition to go in and solve the mess again. If the international community stepped in today and helped, perhaps it could change things. But they won't, so we will have to wait for the next shoe to drop.
Because, radical islam is not going away. It's not simply the product of the West - though some of our policies have been helpful to it. Its goal is to establish an empire and take on the world in the name of Allah. It stops there, not somewhere in Iraq or even in Jerusalem.
The good news is, I don't think a truly Islamic caliphate could ever be established. Too much quarreling inside the Arab community. (Who would be the caliph? That is what the Shia and Sunnis have disagreed about since the 7th century) Plus, I imagine there would be a resistance to the kind of totalitarianism Al Qaeda-type groups want to install.
It's a loaded issue, but I think it's the most serious issue of security since the Cold War.
Edit:
Oh, and I should I add that I wish I was wrong about the Iraq situation. I really wish it would work out the way the administration has planned, actually. But I don't see it happening, and I think it was naive on their part to assume an idealistic situation like that - that was defended with dubious reasons and communication - could happen.