peterms Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 9/11 pre-dated whichever invasion these people wish to use as a pretext for violence against the west. That reads as though you think 9/11 was some inexplicable act of random aggression, coming out of nowhere. From other things you've written over a long period, I know you're very aware of all sorts of grievances against decades of western interference in countries in the Middle East, including installing corrupt and pliant regimes, setting up US military bases, and exploiting local natural resources (usually in conjunction with whichever corrupt regime the US has supported). It's resentment of the actions the West has taken over decades that's the issue, not some kind of blind hatred of anyone who's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 9/11 pre-dated whichever invasion these people wish to use as a pretext for violence against the west. That reads as though you think 9/11 was some inexplicable act of random aggression, coming out of nowhere. From other things you've written over a long period, I know you're very aware of all sorts of grievances against decades of western interference in countries in the Middle East, including installing corrupt and pliant regimes, setting up US military bases, and exploiting local natural resources (usually in conjunction with whichever corrupt regime the US has supported). It's resentment of the actions the West has taken over decades that's the issue, not some kind of blind hatred of anyone who's different. I think you're massively understating the role of religion in this. As the poster said on the previous page, by far the biggest number of casualties have been people in the Middle-Eastern countries themselves, usually for minor variations in the way they worship the same sky fairy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 16, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2014 9/11 pre-dated whichever invasion these people wish to use as a pretext for violence against the west. That reads as though you think 9/11 was some inexplicable act of random aggression, coming out of nowhere. From other things you've written over a long period, I know you're very aware of all sorts of grievances against decades of western interference in countries in the Middle East, including installing corrupt and pliant regimes, setting up US military bases, and exploiting local natural resources (usually in conjunction with whichever corrupt regime the US has supported). It's resentment of the actions the West has taken over decades that's the issue, not some kind of blind hatred of anyone who's different. Not to speak for AWOL as I'm in no position to do so but I think you are arguing against a point he wasn't making. The point he was responding to from Blandy seemed to be suggesting that the actions of various Islamic terrorist groups can be traced back purely to the invasion of Iraq which is simply not the case. I can only assume that Blandy meant Islamic (a term I'm not entirely comfortable with as a catch all so pardon its use) terrorist attacks on Western soil post date Iraq because that is certainly true, but the history of Islamic terrorism and attacks against Western interests clearly pre-dates that. Now that isn't to say Western foreign policy (another lose term I hate) pre-dating Iraq didn't influence those events, clearly it did and I think AWOL would probably agree with that. I do though think it is fair to say, that with any terrorist organisation the 'cause' is for some a pretext and handy call to arms and excuse for the actions of people who are otherwise motivated. That was true in Ireland and it is true here. The ethnic cleansing in Iraq and Syria has little or if anything to do with Western policy, military bases or puppet regime's or indeed Iraq. Yes the actions of some people from the US or Uk either in domestic actions or in travelling to take part in Jiihad may be influenced by Iraq, almost without question they will be to some extent but that isn't to say that none of this would be happening but for Iraq. The Iraq war may have let the genie out the bottle but it didn't put it in there in the first place, religion and religious differences did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 9/11 pre-dated whichever invasion these people wish to use as a pretext for violence against the west. That reads as though you think 9/11 was some inexplicable act of random aggression, coming out of nowhere. From other things you've written over a long period, I know you're very aware of all sorts of grievances against decades of western interference in countries in the Middle East, including installing corrupt and pliant regimes, setting up US military bases, and exploiting local natural resources (usually in conjunction with whichever corrupt regime the US has supported). It's resentment of the actions the West has taken over decades that's the issue, not some kind of blind hatred of anyone who's different. I think you're massively understating the role of religion in this. As the poster said on the previous page, by far the biggest number of casualties have been people in the Middle-Eastern countries themselves, usually for minor variations in the way they worship the same sky fairy. Yep including one today in that Pakistani school. How about the actions of Boko Haram? Don't think they've attacked any western targets but are wreaking havoc in Nigeria. Fair enough attributing the terror threats here and in the US and Aus to anger over the West's actions but it does only make up a tiny portion of the violence carried out by these organisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 But the discussion is on attacks on Western soil, no? In which case the justification is almost always a retaliation to perceived Western transgressions. Sectarian violence in the Middle East is sort of a red herring. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 16, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2014 Well no, it wasn't really obvious that that was the limited confines of the conversation given that blandy's post re Iraq was in reply to one referencing the decapitation of a child which is clearly not something that has happened in an attack on Western soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Well I mean the overall discussion, seeing as this thread is about an attack on Western soil. I'm assuming, and I could be wrong, that it all ties back to the original incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 16, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2014 But one not carried out by someone from the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) My original question was how do we reduce the terrorist threat? I meant here in the West. However, fully agree on the points around inter Muslim fighting. It is mainly down to fighting over the difference sects i.e. Shia and Sunni. Not sure how you get over that. It is embedded in that part of the world. I mean maybe if they actually educated themselves on their own religion they would understand the fighting was futile, wrong and against the teachings. It is completely religious differences that cause those problems. Well when I say that I mean the interpretation of religious differences stemming from events that happened post the death of Muhammed pbuh. Edited December 16, 2014 by omariqy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 An important point is that may have been missed is the interference of the West in the splitting up of the Arab nations and the fall of the Ottoman empire. If Islam had a recognised and legitimate Caliph (not ISIS obvs) then I believe things would be very different. There is no leadership in that region. The capital of the Muslim world, Mecca, is run by the Saud family. The most corrupt and horrific regime around. There is no unity in that region. Something I think the US are very happy about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 My original question was how do we reduce the terrorist threat? I meant here in the West. However, fully agree on the points around inter Muslim fighting. It is mainly down to fighting over the difference sects i.e. Shia and Sunni. Not sure how you get over that. It is embedded in that part of the world. I mean maybe if they actually educated themselves on their own religion they would understand the fighting was futile, wrong and against the teachings. It is completely religious differences that cause those problems. Well when I say that I mean the interpretation of religious differences stemming from events that happened post the death of Muhammed pbuh. If they educated themselves away from religion, it would probably be a happier outcome. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Well they ain't following their so called religion right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 16, 2014 Moderator Share Posted December 16, 2014 An important point is that may have been missed is the interference of the West in the splitting up of the Arab nations and the fall of the Ottoman empire. If Islam had a recognised and legitimate Caliph (not ISIS obvs) then I believe things would be very different. There is no leadership in that region. The capital of the Muslim world, Mecca, is run by the Saud family. The most corrupt and horrific regime around. There is no unity in that region. Something I think the US are very happy about. How can there ever be unity when two branches of Islam are at each others throats? I think religion is the problem and therefore I don't think a Caliphate is the solution personally although you are right the fall of the Ottoman empire is the starting point for much of the problems. When children are being slaughtered in the name of god, then religion is the problem not the answer what is needed is education but in various countries these people seem desperate to stop it, perhaps for that very reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I don't see how it is in the name of God though. It seems they were killed as they were military children. I don't see where God comes into that? If it is then I am not sure how you can link the Islamic religion with that. I can't see even one sentence in the Quran or Hadith that could remotely justify that. I agree on your point re unity. There would still be problems no doubt. However, the majority of Shias and Sunnis believe in the same fundamentals. Therefore, technically they are not a different sect in Islam. They would fall under the same Caliph whichever country they were in. I can't see that ever happening in our lifetime though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Not to speak for AWOL as I'm in no position to do so but I think you are arguing against a point he wasn't making. The point he was responding to from Blandy seemed to be suggesting that the actions of various Islamic terrorist groups can be traced back purely to the invasion of Iraq which is simply not the case... Well, aplogies to awol if I've misinterpreted him, it wasn't my intention. Yes, his point may be purely in response to Blandy's comment and not meant to be taken more widely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Well they ain't following their so called religion right now. "It's all about interpretation". They'd probably say the same about you. Therein lies the problem with religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omariqy Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 There's no way you could interpret anything in Islam that would justify you killing innocent children. Nothing at all. In fact it specifically prohibits it many times. On the general terrorist threat and issues then yes I would agree with you. I don't know how you solve that. If everyone was atheist would the world be a better place or would we fight over something else trivial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Anyone who follows the stories of a 2000 (or whatever) year old book and calls is holy, but then decries actual evidence and science is a loon in my opinion. I think organised religion, such as helping people out, people who are suffering and need the help of others whether that be charity or someone to hug, is absolutely fine. I think there's definitely room for spiritualism in this world, there are still questions we don't know the answer to, and probably human kind probably won't find the answer to, but the needless aggression, killing, suffering over holy land, territories and because of what another mad bloke said 2000 (or whatever) years ago is ignorance and blind stupidity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 9/11 pre-dated whichever invasion these people wish to use as a pretext for violence against the west. That reads as though you think 9/11 was some inexplicable act of random aggression, coming out of nowhere. From other things you've written over a long period, I know you're very aware of all sorts of grievances against decades of western interference in countries in the Middle East, including installing corrupt and pliant regimes, setting up US military bases, and exploiting local natural resources (usually in conjunction with whichever corrupt regime the US has supported). It's resentment of the actions the West has taken over decades that's the issue, not some kind of blind hatred of anyone who's different. I think you're massively understating the role of religion in this. As the poster said on the previous page, by far the biggest number of casualties have been people in the Middle-Eastern countries themselves, usually for minor variations in the way they worship the same sky fairy. I agree that religion is a big factor in a great deal of the violence taking place. I disagree with what some people suggest, that it's the root cause. By way of comparison, the violence in Northern Ireland was conducted in relation to religious groups, but the conflcit was about access to power and resources, not doctrinal differences and conflicting interpretation of religious texts. In the Middle East, various religions co-existed peacefully for many generations in places like Syria and Lebanon, but when civil society breaks down and militias and wardlords are unchecked, atrocities have happened against people of different religions or sects. Again I don't see it as religious at base, more that religion may be the fault line dividing certain groups. Ethnicity and language are other dividing lines, but aren't necessary causes of conflict. There seems to be a current of thought in this country and some others that Islam is opposed to other religions and that Muslims are dangerous. The explanation for terrorist attacks is sometimes given, on this line of reasoning, as an inevitable consequence of the religion of the attackers. It's no coincidence that this interpretation absolves western countries from any responsibility; but it's simply wrong. So while religion is clearly a big factor in the form specific acts of violence take, the idea that it's either the main factor or a bigger factor than things like colonialism and military intervention seems wrong. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 With no intention to trivialise recent events, can we just temper any thoughts on 'modern' madness or any one root cause of terrorism and violence. the colour of a flag may change, but essentially little else does 103 year ago, The Siege of Sidney Street. Remarkably similar and at the time, anarchism was seen as the major threat to civilisation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts