Huh? Terrorists???

[g4macdad]

A terrorist can only exist if someone fears them.

I have no reason to fear any man on this earth.

 

[Tony]

I'd like to ask you politically skilled people in here if you actually believe in this terrorists "War on Terror" Hype in here.

While I know that Terrorists are real, I don't believe that the Hype justifies legislative limitations of our Freedoms. Quite frankly, I believe it's a political game.

I also don't believe in a Al Qaida threat that is more dangerous than a pin in the ass for the western world in general who don't use to poke into a Beehive. The current politics also portrays that it's far away from being a priority and therefore I refuse to believe the Hype, especially because no one here in central Europe is afraid of them beside probably the UK.

And I will follow the arguments for and against it for a while for politeness reasons.

I believe the threat posed by islamic terrorism has been hyped for political purposes. Compared to our past enemies, The British Empire, CSA, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the USSR, Al Qaida might as well not exist. They are nothing, very small time. If the greatest threat to America, the West and the freeworld at large is a rag tag bunch of religous fanatics, we're in a very good spot.

 

[Oliver]

No- the threat in America was very different after 2001 than beofre.
the threat in the Uk went back to late 1990's levels.
We don't realy have politicians playing on public fear of terrorism here 9to any great extent) because the UK population and media got "terror fatigue" years ago.
This is not the case in the USA where terrorism is novel and frightening. Having 3000 citizens murdered on one day will tend to do that.

So? This is exactly what happened in the last presidential debate on side of the republicans:




It's just a summing but I see this quite a lot. And I don't believe the hype because it's nothing new in my media. 9/11 is the most biggest one, but I doubt that they could pull it off the same way again. Therefore everything else is a political "playball" to gain votes from people who are scared, isn't it?

 

[brodski]

T There's a reason Barbie is outlawed in Saudi Arabia, and it's not because of her support for Israel.

Yes, but Matel releasing Zionist Barbie didn't help

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope, I have no Idea who Qutb is

And yet, despite not even having heard of one of the most central figures in the creation of jihadi ideology, you still had the presumptuousness to imply I oppose it so vigorously because I myself am a radical jew. Well, Oliver, I'm vigorous in my opposition to jihadi ideology because, unlike you, I'm NOT totally clueless about it.

So, Oliver, if you don't know who Sayyid Qutb is, why don't you try looking it up?

so why did he hate America?

Figure it out yourself, Oliver. I'm getting bored with educating you.

 

[Oliver]

I believe the threat posed by islamic terrorism has been hyped for political purposes. Compared to our past enemies, The British Empire, CSA, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the USSR, Al Qaida might as well not exist. They are nothing, very small time. If the greatest threat to America, the West and the freeworld at large is a rag tag bunch of religous fanatics, we're in a very good spot.

This sounds very wise - how do you explain this threat regarding foreign policies and if you don't see the connection, what's your explanation for this kind of hate?

And why do some people believe in a Cold War-like threat anyway?

 

[Oliver]

And yet, despite not even having heard of one of the most central figures in the creation of jihadi ideology, you still had the presumptuousness to imply I oppose it so vigorously because I myself am a radical jew. Well, Oliver, I'm vigorous in my opposition to jihadi ideology because, unlike you, I'm NOT totally clueless about it.

So, Oliver, if you don't know who Sayyid Qutb is, why don't you try looking it up?

Figure it out yourself, Oliver. I'm getting bored with educating you.

Sayyid Qutb is one of the fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood - if I remember it correctly. The reason why he hated America was because he actually lived there for a while. He was concerned about the open society but I don't see the connection to Al Qaida in general - this argument about "freedoms" wouldn't attract any Terrorist nowadays, would it?

 

[Walk The Line]

That doesn't affect me and since I believe that 9/11 couldn't happen anymore in the way it did, I doubt that there is a threat against the US from terrorists swimming over the atlantic.

It's a hype - and I don't understand why people actually buy it.

Maybe because:

Terrorists tried to take down the World Trade Center buildings in 1993 but failed.

Terrorists tried to take down the World Trade Center buildings in 2001 and succeeded.

 

[marksman]

Nope, I have no Idea who Qutb is - so why did he hate America?

I think a more central figure is Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, the founder of Wahabbism and the doctrine that almost all the Sunni terror groups follow.

Because America represented tolerance, cultural diversity and democracy. Wahab, and by extension, the group he founded, wants a restoration of the Caliphate. They want an absolute monarch governing all the lands that Muslims ever occupied. This includes Israel, Spain, Portugal, Greece and much of Eastern Europe.

They want shari'a (or at least their interpretation of shari'a) to be the law of all of these lands. To the extent that religions are tolerate dwithin these borders, they will be fellow religions of the Book and they will all pay the jaziya (or head tax), which is not to be paid by believers. They will not be allowed to practice their religion freely, though, unlike true infidels, like Hindus, atheists, and Buddhists, they won't face execution.

They will not tolerate equal rights for women. Women must comply with all modesty laws and will have to remain covered whenever they are int he presence of any men other than their husbands.

Qutb founded what would become Al Qaeda in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Since that was the last government that could claim some sort of legitimacy from the prior Caliphates, the Muslim world was in disarray and demoralized. Some wanted to appease the new rulers (United Kingdom and France). Some wanted to fight them under the banner of the new philosophy, socialism. But Wahab rejected both these approaches. He wanted a new Caliphate and claimed the Ottomans fell because they had become decadent and had rejected the laws of the Quran. He envisioned a righteous blessed Caliphate.

However, a new philosophy was sweeping the world: Wilsonianism, with its priciples of plurality, democracy, self-determination and tolerance. These principles were anathema to Qutb.

9/11 was not an accidental date. It was the anniversary of the handing over of the territory in the Ottoman Empire to the West. It was the anniversary of when Wahab felt the Muslim world hit its nadir.

Since America (then represented by none other than Woodrow Wilson) envisioned a world in which people (rather than Mohammed) choose their own leaders, where multiple religions are tolerated, where people can express themeselves freely, even if it means expressing oneself immodestly and where (gasp) women were even given the right to vote, Wahab saw America and the UK as the main impediment to his plans.

And that's why Al Qaeda hates us. It's not because of Iraq (since 9/11 predates Iraq). It's not because we supported Kuwait against Iraq when Saddam invaded in the 1990's and then stationed troops there. It's not even because we make Hollywood movies and export McDonald's and Mickey Mouse (though they don't like that either).

It's because we have two radically different views of the world and because America is the most prominent representative of the Western views of tolerance, democracy and diversity. (Yes, even Bush's United States with the Patriot Act, homophobic rightwingers and allegations of election fraud, still appeat to Al Qaeda to be a festering hotbed of licentiousness, democracy and liberty.)

 

[Oliver]

Because America represented tolerance, cultural diversity and democracy. Qutb (and by extension, the group he founded, wants a restoration of the Caliphate. They want an absolute monarch governing all the lands that Muslims ever occupied. This includes Israel, Spain, Portugal, Greece and much of Eastern Europe.

They want shari'a (or at least their interpretation of shari'a) to be the law of all of these lands. TO the extent that religions are tolerate dwithin these borders, they will be fellow religions of the Book and they will all pay the jaziya (or head tax), which is not to be paid by believers. They will not be allowed to practice their religion freely, though, unlike true infidels, like Hindus, atheists, and Buddhists, they won't face execution.

They will not tolerate equal rights for women. Women must comply with all modesty laws and will have to remain covered whenever they are int he presence of any men other than their husbands.

Qutb founded what would become Al Qaeda in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Since that was the last government that could claim some sort of legitimacy from the prior Caliphates, the Muslim world was in disarray and demoralized. Some wanted to appease the new rulers (United Kingdom and France). Some wanted to fight them under the banner of the new philosophy, socialism. But Qutb rejected both these approaches. He wanted a new Caliphate and claimed the Ottomans fell because they had become decadent and had rejected the laws of the Quran. He envisioned a righteous blessed Caliphate.

However, a new philosophy was sweeping the world: Wilsonianism, with its priciples of plurality, democracy, self-determination and tolerance. These principles were anathema to Qutb.

9/11 was not an accidental date. It was the anniversary of the handing over of the territory in the Ottoman Empire to the West. It was the anniversary of when Qutb felt the Muslim world hit its nadir.

Since America (then represented by none other than Woodrow Wilson) envisioned a world in which people (rather than Mohammed) choose their own leaders, where multiple religions are tolerated, where people can express themeselves freely, even if it means expressing oneself immodestly and where (gasp) women were even given the right to vote, Qutb saw America and the UK as the main impediment to his plans.

And that's why Al Qaeda hates us. It's not because of Iraq (since 9/11 predates Iraq). It's not because we supported Kuwait against Iraq when Saddam invaded in the 1990's and then stationed troops there. It's not even because we make Hollywood movies and export McDonald's and Mickey Mouse (though they don't like that either).

It's because we have two radically different views of the world and because America is the most prominent representative of the Western views of tolerance, democracy and diversity. (Yes, even Bush's United States with the Patriot Act, homophobic rightwingers and allegations of election fraud, still appeat to Al Qaeda to be a festering hotbed of licentiousness, democracy and liberty.)

So - how can they be a threat anymore since they can't do it the way they did on 9/11? It's a political hype to gain votes and support. That's a political fact, isn't it? And if not, why?

 

[Oliver]

Maybe because:

Terrorists tried to take down the World Trade Center buildings in 1993 but failed.

Terrorists tried to take down the World Trade Center buildings in 2001 and succeeded.

And? These holes in the system are plugged. Where's the generally propagated threat?

 

[TX50]

I have no reason to fear any man on this earth.

You must have lead a very sheltered life then.

 

[brodski]

So - how can they be a threat anymore since they can't do it the way they did on 9/11? It's a political hype to gain votes and support. That's a political fact, isn't it? And if not, why?

There is more than one way for terrorist to attack. yes ok using planes as missiles is unlikely to ever be successful again, but regular bombings can still be devastating.

And the trouble is, you never know when security is realy working, you only get to see the results when it fails.

 

[Tony]

This sounds very wise - how do you explain this threat regarding foreign policies and if you don't see the connection, what's your explanation for this kind of hate?

I think the foreign policies play a part. I agree that the Muslim world has some legitimate grievances against America and the West, however, I think the fanatics use these grievances to build a powerbase not so much to rectify or address the grievances, but to pursue their own agenda of religious supremacy.

 

[marksman]

The reason why he hated America was because he actually lived there for a while.

No, Qutb was a radical and fundamentalist Muslim even before traveling to America.

this argument about "freedoms" wouldn't attract any Terrorist nowadays, would it?

Um... that's their biggest pitch. Their recruitment tapes are replete with accusations that America wants to denude your women (which means to allow them to ignore modesty laws, not an accusation that American will rape).

They often claim that America is going to Christianize the Islamic world, will bring cheeseburgers and indecent cinema and women's rights or tolerance of Jews and homosexuality.

The threat of freedom is one of Al Qaeda's great stalking horses.

 

[marksman]

So - how can they be a threat anymore since they can't do it the way they did on 9/11? It's a political hype to gain votes and support. That's a political fact, isn't it? And if not, why?

Um... because most human beings are clever and plugging one hole doesn't plug them all?

Look, I'm not a supporter of the war. I also think security is being overhyped and is best handled through diplomacy and trade abroad and heightened security at home.

But nor am I sticking my head in the sand and assuming that because they blew up their target (and thus cannot blow it up again) that they aren't trying to strike us again and don't have the means. That's fallacious arguments at its worst.

I live in New York. I remember people on this board claiming that because Al Qaeda failed to blow up the WTC, that they're really just the gang that can't shoot straight and why should anybody be worried about it. Now they did blow it up and people are still claiming terorrism isn't something I should be worried about.

I remember seeing the planes hit the Towers and I didn't see it on TV. The threat is real, though I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a productive reaction to the threat. But pretending the threat isn't real is foolhardy.

 

[marksman]

As anaside, Oliver, are you even going to acknowledge that I answered your question.

You wanted to know why they hate us, and I told you. The reasons have little to do with America's foreign policies.

Your response was not on topic. You merely changed the subject to "Well, they can't really hurt you can they?"

Try to keep on topic, okay?

 

[Oliver]

There is more than one way for terrorist to attack. yes ok using planes as missiles is unlikely to ever be successful again, but regular bombings can still be devastating.

And the trouble is, you never know when security is realy working, you only get to see the results when it fails.

So you agree with the broad political view that it's okay to spy on you to avoid any threats? Why didn't they focus on the real threat then - meaning a broad Afghanistan and Pakistani intervention? My opinion is: Hype.

I think the foreign policies play a part. I agree that the Muslim world has some legitimate grievances against America and the West, however, I think the fanatics use these grievances to build a powerbase not so much to rectify or address the grievances, but to pursue their own agenda of religious supremacy.

The last news I heard was that they build this resistance in Iraq - using payed forces. Isn't this ironic and furthermore a completely "War on Terror" disaster in terms of focusing the threat where it came from?

No, Qutb was a radical and fundamentalist Muslim even before traveling to America.

Um... that's their biggest pitch. Their recruitment tapes are replete with accusations that America wants to denude your women (which means to allow them to ignore modesty laws, not an accusation that American will rape).

They often claim that America is going to Christianize the Islamic world, will bring cheeseburgers and indecent cinema and women's rights or tolerance of Jews and homosexuality.

The threat of freedom is one of Al Qaeda's great stalking horses.

So you believe that anyone down there doesn't have bigger problems than the freedoms of the western world? I apologize, but this sounds pretty naive, doesn't it?

 

[g4macdad]

Looks like this forum is comprised of a bunch of little b**chs.

This would explain a lot.

 

[fuelair]

The mainstream leftist opinion about this (which I agree with) is that al-Qaeda is a result of "blowback" --- the only reason they have any support is because the US is in the Middle East: supporting Israel, bombing Iraq, etc. Basically, the more people we kill over there, the more people we recruit to al-Qaeda. This is an over-simplification, but it's true enough. You don't win very many friends by killing their families.

Al-Qaeda is a criminal gang. They should be handled like one. The tactics that Bush uses to root them out is like using a rocket launcher to combat an infestation of fleas. (e.g., bragging about taking out one leader of al-Qaeda, and downplaying the fact they took out an entire neighborhood to do it....)

The US can't even handle the gangs in the US! Why does anybody think they can take out a gang halfway around the world?

We need to take out the US gangs too. Completely. With predjudice.