I would beg to differ. The inability of Islamist movements to successfully operate a state is a sign of weakness.
I didn't say they *can't* operate a state. They certainly can. My point is their dispersal makes them harder to deal with.
I believe the mistake the west is making is that *only* states can be a threat.
It is important to remember that militant islam is not a single entity with clear goals: it is myriad political movements tied together by similar ideology.
Yup. As were militant islam and the Nazis. But they seemed to work together rather happily...
I suggest that you read up on the history of terrorism. You make it sound as though these tactics are new: although I suppose you could believe that the "post-modern" period started in the 19th Century
Would you mind citing some examples of significant military action carried out by foreign agents, for which the entire operation occured within the target nation, using resources provided by the target nation?
As to political figures receiving derisory punishment for crimes, that is hardly new either. As far as I can see the only way the current mob differ from previous groups is their willingness to die for the cause while killing innocents.
It was an example of the power these people have. They slaughter hundreds of people, and yet the country in which the killing took place is incapable of punishing the guilty.
The price of freedom is that some people will argue that it should be taken away and they should be put in charge. The only power these people have it to make the majority afraid of them. Their numbers are tiny relative to the rest of the population and they have no chance of enacting what they want.
I don't agree. Muslims are significant minorities in many western countries, especially in Europe (look at France's riots last year). Moreover, no other religion as such a significant direct influence (or even control) over as many nations. Lastly, Islam is the only major religion in the world which is growing as a percentage of global population.
Within two decades it will probably be the largest religion in the world. Not all Muslims are radicals (obviously) but radicals have considerably greater influence over other Muslims than they do non-Muslims, and I believe, in the absense of intervention, their influence will only increase thanks to very powerful propaganda.
He was a politician playing to different audiences. I certainly knew that he was not adverse to calling for and using violence but I was not aware that he had called for a jihad. Perhaps you could provide a source?
The documentary this thread is about presents video footage.
I was always under the impression that Saddam was considered secular. Perhaps you could give some sources for when he declared himself an islamist?
He was, certainly, for most of his rule. He may not ever have actually converted himself. But from the Persian Gulf War on he became more and more islamist (at least on the surface). "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) was added to the Iraq flag in his handwriting. He attempted to get Osama bin Laden's Mujahedeen fighters to assist him in fighting the US.
He consistantly funded Palestinian Islamic terrorists ($25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber), and he gradually began reinstating Sharia laws (which he had initially banned).
Possibly because the atrocities committed by the other side were on a much larger scale? I don't think that most of the muslims fighting in that war were militants.
A good chunk of them were Mujahedeen fresh from Afghanistan. And the atrocities they committed were so brutal that even the regular Muslim forces kept away from them.
Well I would say a claim that they ruled the world a thousand years ago is one big stretch
The Islam empires of the Abbasid, Umayyad and Ottomans are amongst the largest empires in history. They certainly ruled substantial expanses of the "known world".
While there may be problems with being over-sensitive toward particular views I don't think there is any turn toward their way of thinking. The last time I checked I don't think any non-muslim has called for the banning of alcohol and the introduction of sharia law in the UK.
Their influence is growing, however.
I said it early but I think it bears repeating: the only power that the islamists have over us is the power we give them. We are afraid of them, not because they are a real threat, but because they are useful foils for our politicians and press to play against. As soon as we realise that they are not going to overthrow our liberal democracies we can start thinking clearly about getting rid of them.
I don't believe we're afraid of them at all. Where did that come from?
I believe they are a threat, and I believe both the media and "our politicians" have underestimated the level of threat they pose. And I think as long as we feel they pose no threat at all to our way of life, no one will seriously make any effort to "get rid of them".
But I appreciate our difference of view.
With any luck you're entirely right.
-Andrew
