Who out there thinks Radical Islam will....

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I know some here do not like how the U.S. is pursuing the War on Terror. My question to everyone is: If the U.S. did not go after the Taliban or Iraq, what do you think Radical Islam, al-Qaeda ect would do.

Do you think they would still attack the U.S. and western interests? Or do you think that their would be peace over there without any attacks on the U.S. or the West?

My take on it is that Radical Islam will not cease using terrorism as a means to achieve their goals no matter what the U.S. does in response. It makes no difference to them if the U.S. were to lay down and sue for peace, they would just be embolden to take more and more drastic actions to achieve their goals.

What do you think Radical Islam would have done if there was no Afghan or Iraq conflicts?




posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
~~

imho, there would have continued bombing of overseas embassies,
and American troop barracks anywhere in the Muslim World lands,

even night clubs in any westernized nation...
after all- - Jihad will always be around

perhaps in a decade or so, the over-the-top, high profile targets
would have become rarer, as the ferver and passions of many
Jihadists would have cooled off as they peeled off from the
passionate warrior profile for any number of reasons...

prior to the emasculation of the Ottoman Empire of modern times,
and the obtuse nature of the British & then Americans in the middle east,
the Muslims & Islamic factions concentrated their Jihads between their own sects & branches....but also political figures like Sadat, the Shah of Iran, etc etc

the westerners opened this type of 'Pandoras Box', to our dismay,
AND it will take a long time for all this mess to Unwind &/or play itself out...defuse itself.....



[edit on 11-7-2006 by St Udio]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
this war is probably based on centuries old hatred. besides the fact that america protects israel. how can america stay out of it. also they did not seem to like it that america used saudi arabia for a base during gulf war 1.

the arabs seem to blame the worlds ills on the only super power left = america.

i think with israel there there is just no way america can pull back, if israel did not exist maybe so, but then the islamic countries could still play there ransom demands with there oil reserves.

i personally believe like many that israle and america and britain taking over all the islamic countires is the only way to bring peace in the long term. though the islamic people may not like israel having a say in there countries(they probably already do at the mo anyway)

[edit on 11-7-2006 by andy1033]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Had there not been a western government conspiracy to attack the Middle East for decades such as arming dictators, creating militant groups, installing puppet government leaders, and faked terror attacks aimed at framing Middle Easterners, I believe there would be very little violence in the region.

Even if the only thing done differently today was for western militaries to leave the Middle East, the violence certainly could not go very far given the limited armaments available to militant groups. There just isn't any threat there.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

posted by Frith
There just isn't any threat there.


Naivete is a strange thing. Requiring long walk's down flower strewn pathway's, with the fragrance of fresh cookie's wafting by, under marmalade sky's.

Ah, the memorie's. Unfortunately, once left, there's no going back. Reality is rather hard on the sense's. Kinda like when the nucleus of an atom splits.


[edit on 11-7-2006 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033also they did not seem to like it that america used saudi arabia for a base during gulf war 1.

That's how Osama bin Laden came to power through al Qaeda. Osama told the Saudis to use the Mujahideen from Afghanistan to fight the Iraqis who had just invaded Kuwait and were eyeing Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis opted to ask for protection from the US. Osama got pissed off and fell out with the Saudi royalty and left the country.


i personally believe like many that israle and america and britain taking over all the islamic countires is the only way to bring peace in the long term.

Yea, that's pretty much how it was until the mid-tweentieth century. People seem to forget that most countries in the Middle East are relatively knew, a lot of them newer than even Israel. By the way, I guess you aren't a big fan of democracy then? Want to go back to colonial times?

[edit on 11-7-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
Had there not been a western government conspiracy to attack the Middle East for decades such as arming dictators, creating militant groups, installing puppet government leaders, and faked terror attacks aimed at framing Middle Easterners, I believe there would be very little violence in the region.

Even if the only thing done differently today was for western militaries to leave the Middle East, the violence certainly could not go very far given the limited armaments available to militant groups. There just isn't any threat there.


YES there has. I think ever since 1942 there has been a plan between Briton and America to face and deal with theocracy in the region.

Now in 2000 were still trying to deal with theocracy but at the same time trying to deal with things withing the nation. I asked myself many times over after realisation that WTC and pentagon attacks were either staged and deliberate or allowed why???

Heres the conclusion I've come to. WTC buildings went to instill mass fear in the population and because they had to go. They attacked the pentagon to instill fear and convince the people in the government.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
That's how Osama bin Laden came to power through al Qaeda. Osama told the Saudis to use the Mujahideen from Afghanistan to fight the Iraqis who had just invaded Kuwait and were eyeing Saudi Arabia.


You are not saying that Bin Laden and the Mujaheddin were ever willing to leave the West alone are you? We were no more than convenient allies at a certain time in history you know, "the enemy of my enemy is my ally". Once the Soviets were defeated the Mujaheddin moved on to the next Great Satan.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   


There just isn't any threat there.


Well I wouldn't go that far, on the other hand I'd argue the threat is minimal compared to that posed by the Soviets during the Cold War, or that posed by the Axis in WW2. The Soviets in particular - people seem to forget that for decades, we lived under the very real threat of an attack that would have made 9-11 look like a firecracker in your mailbox.

People consistently seem to overstate the threat posed by OBL and his cronies, and the degree of support they have in the Middle East. We are dealing with a fringe movement of extremists, not with a mass movement. While significant numbers in the Islamic world may be to some degree sympathetic with his goals, few seem to be willing to join his Jihad. Considering that Moslems worldwide number some 800 million, and with Sunni Moslems by far the majority of that number, were even 1% willing to fight with him we'd be facing a huge threat. I don't think it comes anywhere close to that number, however.

As it is, even in places where extremist fundamentalist Islam is the rule, such as Saudi Arabia, his followers are hunted and jailed or shot. Unlike the Axis or Warsaw Pact, no major military or industrial powers are willing to enlist in any Islamist play for world domination.

As for the initial question, I think the answer is very different for Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan, the US was clearly reacting to a an attack. The government of Aghanistan sheltered our attackers. And Afghanistan proved to be very a costly war for Al Quaeda.

In Iraq, we attacked a country that, while clearly hostile, had not attacked the United States. It was billed as a "preemptive" war, but much of the world saw it as an unprovoked invasion, and certainly the vast majority of the Islamic world did. In this sense it's proved to be a major recruiting success for the fanatical Islamists. Much like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was in the 1980's.

So I think the situation with the two wars is best summarized as on step forward, two steps back.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
If we hadn't already had to go to war against radical islam, I believe that there would have been a pattern of escalating attacks against the West. It seems that radical islam wants this confrontation with the West and would have kept up their provocations and attacks until some other war started.


[edit on 7/11/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Did we go to war with radical Islam or did they goto war with us?
I tend to think it is the latter.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavilYou are not saying that Bin Laden and the Mujaheddin were ever willing to leave the West alone are you?

How many radical Islamic terror attacks do you see in, let's say, Iceland?

Sure, the radical Islamists probably don't like Iceland that much (who does? J/K), but they have no reason to attack them. The West has a history of interference in the Middle East, just as the Middle East has historically influenced parts of Europe. You think either region has been totally in the right? You set up military bases in one of the most radically religious countries in the world and you think people will be OK with that? You keep the region colonized until just half a century ago and you think they will forget tomorrow? You support dictatorships and foreign colonization of the region and you expect people to remember the good times? Give me a break.


We were no more than convenient allies at a certain time in history you know, "the enemy of my enemy is my ally".

Philosophically speaking, which enemy should become your ally?


Once the Soviets were defeated the Mujaheddin moved on to the next Great Satan.

And the West moved on to their next quest for "fr'dom". So what?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
How many radical Islamic terror attacks do you see in, let's say, Iceland?


How many radical Islamic terror attacks do you see in, let's say Kenya or Tanzania. They don't have a history of meddlling in the affairs of the Middle East do they? They didn't do anything like you state in the previous post, yet what happened?

In the past month nearly a dozen nations have suffered attacks by radical Islamic terror groups and more nations have been plotted against. To single out the West or the U.S. as the sole focus of their attacks is incorrect. Radical Islamists are at war with many nations around the globe.





top topics
 
0

log in

join