Shouldn't it be Wahabi extremists???

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it really wahabism that is really the root and stem of "Islamic terror"???

So why are we calling it "Islamic terror" and "Islamic extremism" if that is not accurate??

One of the main criticisms against the anti terrorist speech, is that it includes all Muslims usually.. or at least sounds like it does..

The theory being that your helping the extremists recruit by being the realization of their world view where there is a war between Islam and the rest of the world, over Islam..


Well wouldn't it be more accurate and fix that problem if we all started calling out wahabism as the problem SPECIFICALLY!!

You kind of instantly uninclude all the other factions of the Islamic world that are not blowing them selves up...


It really would be the equivalency of if mormans were causing a lot of terrorism, and the media called it Christian terror, rather than morman terror...

Seems inefficient and even obviously misleading.. maybe how they swapped Muslims on us when they shifted to Iraq after 911..

I'll see your practical point and raise you "Southboro Baptist Extremists", "Mormon Unification Extremists"(child brides, et al) or "Branch Dividian Extremists"(just that one time...).

People tend to slam the parent organization for a larger picture, happens on both sides.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wahhabism is just as much a religious doctrine as it is a movement. (there is a great deal of information about that)
eg. ISIS is deeply Wahhabist but much more Salafist...

IMO, why the term will not be fingered is that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab made a pact with the House of Saud. The State leadership to the House of Saud and the religious matters that of al-Wahhab. All of this helped to found current day Saudi Arabia.

mg

a reply to: JoshuaCox

That's a simplistic viewpoint to say the least.

I suggest you look at the origins of Wahhabism and Salafism and the influence of Qutbism as well.
Then perhaps you should look at the Deobandi and its influence on The Taliban etc.

And then bear in mind all the various schisms within these branches of Sunni Islam.

And then you have to take into consideration the hardliners in Shia Islam who believe they are duty bound to actively bring about the conditions that will force The Mahdi out of Occultation and to reveal himself in order to bring justice to the world.

Islamic extremism and terrorism has taken inspiration from many, many sources.

ETA

Just one source of information that may help you realise just how complex and deep rooted Islamic extremism is.
jamestown.org...

a reply to: missed_gear

That's pretty much the whole anwser right there : Whabbism is straight outta Saudi
If that were to be acknowledged, then it'd mean we'd have 'a problem' with the house of Saud ...

but but but... oil ... but but ... arms deals ... but but ... building consortiums
but but but ... we need a pretext for continuos war
and fear, and potential false flag attacks

A usefull enemy, then.

Anyhow, it's so much more easier to lump everything as 'Muslim' terrorism

Just because someone is a Shiite doesnt make them a Muslim terrorist
Whereas, someone who follows Whabbism is definitely going to be Sunnah
But being Sunnah, doesn't automatically mean following Whabbism or Suffism !

Suffism and Whabbisbm do, however, go hand in glove.

So yeah, we really should be syaing 'Whabbite terrorists'
but again, that leads straight to the House of Saud..

...and around we go again ;p

a reply to: Damiel

But just to state "Wahhabi Terrorism" as a blanket to cover "Islamic Terrorism" in general would be incorrect.

To my earlier point, Wahhabism is an element and certainly does not cover all the sects and sub sects...Whahabism is a doctrine and a movement ...not THE doctrine or THE movement. And that is a very simplified version of an answer to your question.

mg

a reply to: missed_gear
It's the other way around :
'Islamic' terrorisme is a blancket lable for the whole of the islamic faith

At a push we could say 'Sunnah muslim terrorists',
but even then it would mean tarring all Sunnah with the same brush

As i said above, not all of the Sunnah 'branch' is Whabbite in nature

How about 'Whabbite-slafiste terrorism' ?
That would actually be a lot closer to the truth

But, it's too hard to retain
aaaand the nuances would need to be explained

explained to the dumbed down masses
which could end up raising questions
that no-one wants to anwser
(re house of Saud)

* just to add after reflection
Tke term 'fundamental islamic terrorism' is starting to gain traction
and is getting nearer to the truth

"Mommy what does the fundamental part mean ?"

The "Islamic Terrorist" term is accurate.

The Plan to destroy the Middle East has no limits.

So a simple term works best.

Iran has its own brand of "Islamic Terrorists" too.

a reply to: missed_gear

My thoughts too on why they landed on Islamic terror in the first place..

a reply to: missed_gear

Isn't Islamic terror an even more simplistic view??

originally posted by: Butterfinger
I'll see your practical point and raise you "Southboro Baptist Extremists", "Mormon Unification Extremists"(child brides, et al) or "Branch Dividian Extremists"(just that one time...).

People tend to slam the parent organization for a larger picture, happens on both sides.

You need to remember that the Wahabis are a British creation to replace multi cultural and multi religious Khalif of Ottoman tradition with a desert dwelling semi nomadic obscure tribe of Saud of Arabia .

Ottomans with their Byzantine inheritance were a threat to British Emperialism of those years and after defeating the Ottomans , Brits set out to create eternal division in the society which they were to rule .

Saudi Arabia and Wahabism are fruits of these efforts .

You are fighting a straw man ; muslims do Jihad , not terrorism and that is a historical fact which can't be revised with an Act .

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it really wahabism that is really the root and stem of "Islamic terror"???

So why are we calling it "Islamic terror" and "Islamic extremism" if that is not accurate??

One of the main criticisms against the anti terrorist speech, is that it includes all Muslims usually.. or at least sounds like it does..

The theory being that your helping the extremists recruit by being the realization of their world view where there is a war between Islam and the rest of the world, over Islam..


Well wouldn't it be more accurate and fix that problem if we all started calling out wahabism as the problem SPECIFICALLY!!

You kind of instantly uninclude all the other factions of the Islamic world that are not blowing them selves up...


It really would be the equivalency of if mormans were causing a lot of terrorism, and the media called it Christian terror, rather than morman terror...

Seems inefficient and even obviously misleading.. maybe how they swapped Muslims on us when they shifted to Iraq after 911..

They don't call out Wahhabism as the culprit because its a Saudi 18th century cult. The Saudis have a hold on the American government through their oil wealth so they don't want to offend them. You saw how Trump kissed their asses.

That's because they brought 350 billion dollars of weapons

Terrorism is a big dirty business

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it really wahabism that is really the root and stem of "Islamic terror"???

So why are we calling it "Islamic terror" and "Islamic extremism" if that is not accurate??

One of the main criticisms against the anti terrorist speech, is that it includes all Muslims usually.. or at least sounds like it does..

The theory being that your helping the extremists recruit by being the realization of their world view where there is a war between Islam and the rest of the world, over Islam..


Well wouldn't it be more accurate and fix that problem if we all started calling out wahabism as the problem SPECIFICALLY!!

You kind of instantly uninclude all the other factions of the Islamic world that are not blowing them selves up...


It really would be the equivalency of if mormans were causing a lot of terrorism, and the media called it Christian terror, rather than morman terror...

Seems inefficient and even obviously misleading.. maybe how they swapped Muslims on us when they shifted to Iraq after 911..

They don't call out Wahhabism as the culprit because its a Saudi 18th century cult. The Saudis have a hold on the American government through their oil wealth so they don't want to offend them. You saw how Trump kissed their asses.

That's because they brought 350 billion dollars of weapons

Terrorism is a big dirty business

Trump also promised to work to help set up an " Arab NATO " too .



Does Israel fit in your narrative , anywhere ?

a reply to: 23432

You need to remember that the Wahabis are a British creation to replace multi cultural and multi religious Khalif of Ottoman tradition with a desert dwelling semi nomadic obscure tribe of Saud of Arabia .

What a surprise; its all the fault of those bastard British!

What a load of utter bollocks!!

If so many Muslims weren't willing to blow themselves and other people up in order to impose their particular brand of Islamic extremism on anyone and everyone there simply wouldn't be this problem.

Sunni's and Shia have been killing each other since the moment Mohammed died.
Even when Mohammed was alive they were hell bent on extending their control as far as possible.

Saudi Arabia and Wahabism are fruits of these efforts .

Please do some basic research; the roots of Wahhabism go back to around 900AD.
Wahhab formed an alliance with the Saud family in 1744, well before any real British interest in the region.
The dominant force in Arabia and the surrounding area at the time was The Ottoman Empire and it was they who were the intial source of Wahhabi anger.

Yes, the British did get involved a bit later but by that time the link between Wahhabi's and the Saud's was firmly established.

You are fighting a straw man ; muslims do Jihad , not terrorism and that is a historical fact which can't be revised with an Act .

Some Muslims use acts of terror to further their aim or to highlight perceived wrong doings, these acts include killing innocent people.
Wrap it up and spin it any way you want but that's terrorism in my book.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: 23432

You need to remember that the Wahabis are a British creation to replace multi cultural and multi religious Khalif of Ottoman tradition with a desert dwelling semi nomadic obscure tribe of Saud of Arabia .

What a surprise; its all the fault of those bastard British!


Actually , no . The answer is Emperialism , it just so happens to be British at this instance . Since I am also British I take offence in you calling British people bastard too .

What a load of utter bollocks!!

Your reading and understanding is astounding I would say onto thee Dog's bollocks indeed.


If so many Muslims weren't willing to blow themselves and other people up in order to impose their particular brand of Islamic extremism on anyone and everyone there simply wouldn't be this problem.

Really ?

first : the suicide bombing is not exclusive to muslims .
second : if England was under tyranny and my community was being oppressed and killed , the least I could do is take out few of the enemy with me .
third : if you don't follow the rule above , you must be French .
fourth : intelligence reports suggest that most of the suicide bombers are in a state low alertness before they carry out the act and bombs probably are remotely detonated .




Sunni's and Shia have been killing each other since the moment Mohammed died.
Even when Mohammed was alive they were hell bent on extending their control as far as possible.

How is that any different than any other religion ? Crusaders actually grilled and ate children so that the locals would not have the heart to fight back .
It was ordered and ordained by Church .

Where the hell you think gatherers at Jerusalem Inn were off to ?

Pot meet the kettle comes to mind .

Saudi Arabia and Wahabism are fruits of these efforts .

Yes, the British did get involved a bit later but by that time the link between Wahhabi's and the Saud's was firmly established.

Emperialism has no Nationality that's what I will point out and underline your false presumption that it was the " bastard British " .
Without the Emperialists efforts , Saudi Arabia would have had Byzantine influence and not an Emperialistic influence in it's development .
Same Emperialism gifted Palestine to Israel and jumped ship to US .

You are fighting a straw man ; muslims do Jihad , not terrorism and that is a historical fact which can't be revised with an Act .

Some Muslims use acts of terror to further their aim or to highlight perceived wrong doings, these acts include killing innocent people.
Wrap it up and spin it any way you want but that's terrorism in my book.

Terror is not a religion based entity ; it is a tool to usher in the NWO thru Consent obtained under Duress and Stress .

They are " rushing the Law " while you blame Mohammed .

You are a sleep , wake up .

a reply to: Freeborn

That's not true at all..

There has not been constant fighting between Sunni and Shia since the split...


"Although the origins of the Sunni-Shiite split were violent, over the centuries Shiites and Sunnis lived peacefully together for long periods of time.

But that appears to be giving way to a new period of spreading conflict in the Middle East between Shiites and Sunnis."


www.npr.org...


These idiots were spawned in the russian /Afghan war....when Saudi Arabia and the west doubled down on using religious extremists to fight their wars..

There is even quotes from Regan supporting "a new religious state.."

Because see them it was pointed at his enemies the Russians...


Shouldn't have surprised many they turned on us.. they need a bad guy to keep the peasants in line , just like American politicians do..

a reply to: 23432

Actually , no . The answer is Emperialism , it just so happens to be British at this instance .

Strange, it only ever seems to be British Imperialism that gets mentioned on these pages, but that's another topic altogether.

Since I am also British I take offence in you calling British people bastard too .

Err, so am I.
Your 'offence' is noted.
If I have to explain to you why I used that phrase then its pretty much pointless attempting to have any sort of reasoned and informed discussion with you.

first : the suicide bombing is not exclusive to muslims .

It is pretty much so nowadays...care to show me other examples?

second : if England was under tyranny and my community was being oppressed and killed , the least I could do is take out few of the enemy with me .

I don't think those people killed in Manchester were anybody's enemy, unless of course you know otherwise?

third : if you don't follow the rule above , you must be French .

Ha ha - the worst possible insult to be levelled at an English man!

fourth : intelligence reports suggest that most of the suicide bombers are in a state low alertness before they carry out the act and bombs probably are remotely detonated .

Any sources?
7/7 Bombers?
Salman Abedi?

How is that any different than any other religion ?

Give me an example of any other religions that have been fighting with each other far anywhere near as long as Sunni and Shia.
Please don't insult my intelligence by saying Catholics and Protestants.

Crusaders actually grilled and ate children so that the locals would not have the heart to fight back .
It was ordered and ordained by Church .

Almost a thousand years ago.

If it wasn't so serious it'd be laughable that people mention The Crusades to justify current Islamic terrorism.

Emperialism has no Nationality that's what I will point out and underline your false presumption that it was the " bastard British " .

Err, but it was under the control of The Ottoman Empire.....isn't that Imperialism? Or is it only Imperialism when it's related to European expansionism.

Without the Emperialists efforts , Saudi Arabia would have had Byzantine influence and not an Emperialistic influence in it's development .

As pointed out above; Yes it would - Ottoman, or Turkish, Imperialism.

Same Emperialism gifted Palestine to Israel and jumped ship to US .

A different subject altogether and one that I certainly can't be arsed to get involved in this late at night.

Terror is not a religion based entity ; it is a tool to usher in the NWO thru Consent obtained under Duress and Stress .
They are " rushing the Law " while you blame Mohammed .

Like I said before, you can wrap it up and sugar coat it as much as you want but the fact remains that using terror tactics to further one's political and religious aims is terrorism, pretty straight forward.

You are a sleep , wake up .

Ha ha, because I disagree with your narrative and interpretation of things I must therefore be a sheep or brainwashed or asleep.
Absolute and utter bollocks!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Sure, there were periodic periods of peace between Sunni and Shia in various parts of the Muslim world over the years, but never for a substantial length of time..

a reply to: 23432
Wow!
Do they not teach modern history at school where you come from ?