Radical Islam is world's greatest threat - Tony Blair

reply to post by kiwifoot

What he fails to point out is that if it wasn't for Mr Blair, Mr Bush and Mr Cheney, there probably wouldn't BE radical Islamists as we know them in 2010.

That is quite false. Radical Islam, and attacks from Jihadist groups have been going on well and truly before any of those men were in office.

Here is a list of attacks on US soil by Islamic Radicals prior to 1988.

1979 Iran Hostage Crisis: seizure of US Tehran Embassy, Iran (Nov 4, 1979 for 444 days)
1983 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy, Lebanon (April 18, 1983)
1983 Bombing of US Marine barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (Oct 23, 1983)
1983 Bombing of US Kuwait Embassy (Dec 12, 1983)
1984 Bombing of US Beirut Embassy (again) (Sept 20, 1984)
1984 Kuwait Airlines Flight 221 hijacked to Tehran – American passengers murdered (Dec 3, 1984)
1985 Hijacking TWA Flight 847 hijacked to Beirut (June 14, 1985)
1985 Hijacking cruise ship Achille Lauro, wheelchair-bound American is thrown overboard & killed (Oct 7, 1985)
1986 Bombing Berlin disco frequented by US servicemen (April 5, 1986)
1988 Bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, 100′s murdered (Dec 21, 1988)

More of the list here: factreal.wordpress.com...

Another more chronological list: www.almidfarah.fanspace.com...


edit for spelling.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by NeutronAvenger]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Radical Islam, if you believe that there is such a thing is wholly a product of failed western diplomacy and mismanagement.

The climate that has produced this phenomena was stirred up under your watch Tony, just take your cheque and royalties and disappear will you.

I take it you are wholly unfamiliar with the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, then? Wahabbism ring any bells? Battle of Badr? No?

You should peddle this notion to the Byzantines, I'm sure they'll eat it up... no, wait, they CAN'T eat it up, being deceased at the hands of peaceful muslims as they are...

[edit on 2010/9/3 by nenothtu]

You're giving examples of conflicts and radical element WITHIN Islam for the most part, and using them as an argument for Radicals against the WEST today.

Nowhere did I say that Radical Islam was INVENTED by Tony Blair and Bush.

What I said was Radical Islamist as we know them, today in 2010 are primarily a by-product of neo-con policy and disastrous foreign policy of the last twenty years or so.

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Originally posted by zarlaan

Also, since you like history lessons fundamentalism has been around even before the Crusades my friend.

I'm sure it has, but since Islam has only been around since the 600's and the crusades started in the 11th century, most of the early fundamentalism was within the Muslim world, so my point still stands.

"Within the Muslim World" is the key phrase there. Taken at face value, that's true. A problem arises when you factor in all that bothersome expansionism of the muslim world from roughly 622 AD (starting with the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula) up TO the Crusades.

Yes, it was contained within "the muslim world", but the muslim world kept problematically expanding to include more territories and peoples.

Maybe if those people had just ignored the muslims, they would have gone away?

[edit on 2010/9/3 by nenothtu]

reply to post by NeutronAvenger


Yes of course, sorry, George Bush wasn't involved then...Oh wait, let me see, George H Bush was Vice President, he was also a former head of the CIA....c'mon, can you see the connection???

Originally posted by kiwifoot

You're giving examples of conflicts and radical element WITHIN Islam for the most part, and using them as an argument for Radicals against the WEST today.

Which examples do you consider to have been WITHIN Islam? I can only assume, until you point out more, that you are referring to my mention of the Battle of Badr. That was NOT WITHIN Islam, it was Islam vs the pagans of Makkah, who were decidedly NOT Islamic. It was the beginning of the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by Islam, against non-muslims.

What I said was Radical Islamist as we know them, today in 2010 are primarily a by-product of neo-con policy and disastrous foreign policy of the last twenty years or so.

"As we know them today". Nice qualifier to leave the back door open. Please specify what you mean by "as we know them today", and how that differs from, for example, how they were known in during the conquest of Andalusia.

Once I gain an understanding of what differences you're referring to, I may be able to formulate a more satisfactory answer.

I'm afraid I've got to call it a night everyone. it's 4 in the morning and I'm fighting you lot on several fronts!!!

Thanks for the debate, it's been a pleasure.

I'm calling it a night, time to get your cheap licks in while i can't reply!! Just kidding guys, thanks a lot.

You obviously missed my point.

Please enlighten me.

The point that I was making is in response directly related to the article you cited. Currently Islamic fundamentalists are the greatest threat.

Do you think that there is currently any other greater threat?

They don't just attack Western Civilization (America, Western Europe). They attack with barbaric tactics, and by any means to completely erase anybody, or thing that opposes their equally archaic views.

Religion by and in itself is fine. However, when thousand year old ideologies become the sole basis in which they want to govern a nation or world. Then it becomes a problem.

Also, one can argue that these radicals hatred for Western Civilization took its strongest roots with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. That is long before Blair, Bush and Cheney.

reply to post by nenothtu


Sorry, I had to answer this last one.

Let me get this straight, you're comparing the rise and spread of Islam 1,400 years ago to the situation we face in 2010. And you're also citing that as an argument against the role of George Bush(s) and Tony Blair in the spread of the current Islamic Fundamentalism that we see today?

Are you serious mate? Or are you just being pedantic and trying to show off your brilliant knowledge of the history of Islam?

Yes you may know a lot about Islam, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about Tony Blair my friend.

reply to post by kiwifoot

What I said was Radical Islamist as we know them, today in 2010 are primarily a by-product of neo-con policy and disastrous foreign policy of the last twenty years or so.

I contend that Radical Islamists today in 2010 are a by-product of technology and global economic and religious ties. The existence of the fundamentalists in general goes much farther back in history as has been pointed out in several posts.

Their tactics have evolved to what we know today because of technology. Their views and hatred have been prevalent longer than Blair.




[edit on 3-9-2010 by zarlaan]

Our biggest threat is actually our hypocritical foreign policy. We openly support dictators in the Middle East in Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. We send the CIA to overthrow democracy in Iran, and replace with a brutal dictator. We give unconditional support to Israel, even when they break international law.

They don't attack us because they hate our freedom. They don't attack because we're rich. They attack because of what we do. Bombing Iraq for 10 years killing over 500,000 children...overlooking Israel aggression toward citizens of Palistinians using weapons we gave them. Our foreign policy does cause blowback, and it actually makes us less safe. Anti-Americanism is at an all time high.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by contraband]

reply to post by contraband

They don't attack us because they hate our freedom. They don't attack because we're rich. They attack because of what we do. Bombing Iraq for 10 years killing over 500,000 children..

Problem with that statement is they attacked us BEFORE any of that you stated above happened....an obvious flaw in that line of thinking....

Not to mention there hasnt been a successful attack against the US since then....

as Neno has stated many many times, the moderate Islamic line of thinking has been going on for far longer then this current war or any of the last 100 years of administrations.....

They don't attack us because they hate our freedom. They don't attack because we're rich. They attack because of what we do

Actually yes they do, they hate our American Ideals, they HATE our culture, they hate how we are a melting pot of religions and most of all, they want to DESTROY us because we are not a muslim nation at the will of Sharia......

The same reason they have wanted to destroy and conquer other nations for thousands of years

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Manbehindthemask, do some research on the terrorism on what we have done in South America, Asia, and Middle East. Maybe read the book I suggested. Did you know unclassified documents show the CIA had plans to kill American citizens to blame it on Cuba in an effort to rally support for war....so to say that 9/11 might be a false flag is not that far out there.

The same kind of propaganda used in cold war is used today. But instead of communism, its toward Muslims. Once you create fear, then the masses will support war for any reason.

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Let me get this straight, you're comparing the rise and spread of Islam 1,400 years ago to the situation we face in 2010.

Comparing? No. I'm flat out stating that the situation we face today, vis a vis "radical" Islam, is a direct result and continuation of the mindset prevalent among muslims THEN. The same precise mindset is among the "radicals" now. As a matter of fact, it should be considered that the more "moderate" muslims we have now ARE in fact the "radical" element of islam. THEY are the ones who have departed (for the better) from the original tenets of the "religion", and may well be the element that eventually ushers Islam into being a religion in fact, rather than only in western theory.

And you're also citing that as an argument against the role of George Bush(s) and Tony Blair in the spread of the current Islamic Fundamentalism that we see today?

I don't believe Blair or Bush, much as I may dislike them, can be credited with the current spread of "radical" Islam. Modern means of communication and travel certainly factor in, as fundamentalists take advantage of them to spread their message in precisely the same way as they always have. It's just that now, those means are increasing exponentially.

I've made this statement elsewhere at ATS, but I think it bears repeating in this context: the man who taught me arabic, a Syrian, once stated to me that "The war don't stoppet. Same war, but the warriors always are changing." By that he meant to illustrate that what we perceive as a "new" series of events, muslims see as a mere continuation by other means, and new faces.

Are you serious mate? Or are you just being pedantic and trying to show off your brilliant knowledge of the history of Islam?

I can, upon occasion, perhaps MOST occasions, be tiresomely pedantic. In this case, I reckon I'm being both serious AND pedantic.

Yes you may know a lot about Islam, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about Tony Blair my friend.

To be honest, I know very little about Blair. From my perspective, he appears to have only been following Bush's lead, and I can't, for the life of me, give Bush credit for starting a war that has been ongoing , sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, for 1400 years.

[edit on 2010/9/4 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


There are not enough stars to give you on your wisdom on this issue........

You speak the truth as only those of us who have been there could see......


Some of us closer than others..................

Haha, wow! In my opinion radical anything is the worlds greatest threat. Christian, muslim, liberal, conservative, Jew, anything! From my understanding one definition of terrorism is extremism acted out...

Lets score a bottom line here.
1) Although extremist Islam is pretty damned awful as a concept, its no more awful than the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland, another bunch of zealot slime who couldnt identify the difference between the war of the spirit, and the war of the flesh.
Lets face it, fundamentalist terrorism is a product of psychotic leadership ONLY not any one religions wording, nor its doctrine.
2) Terror attacks only ever get through to western targets due to complicity on the part of the victim state. Western intelligence services are capable of tracking anyone they want, without fail, and without risk of loosing the target. The only reason they whine and moan about powers of arrest, and human rights getting in the way, and funding, is so that you and I think its a risk factor, when clearly the only real threat comes from your own intelligence services (which are above the law, cannot be bought to book, cannot be investigated, have no supieriors to report to, and in the case of Tony Blair , were in fact employing him).
3) The only reason any of this comes up at all is that at one point or another, someone who had a lot of oil stock, and wanted it to be worth more, decided that he would go and find some other guys who had a massive share in oil , and sound them out about getting EVEN more money out of the already overcharged oil buying population of the world.
" I know fellas, lets make billions more bucks, by threatening the supposedly dwindling oil resources with massive conflict! By the time we have our billions more dollars, from the oil, we will have convinced everyone that its a religious war, which suits us fine, because we'd rather like all those fancy minerals under afghanistan too !!"

This is about MONEY ! Greed and manipulation of prices of everything , from oil, to minerals ,to drugs and everything inbetween. If anything I think fundamentalist Islam is as much of a pawn in this as every dead soldier, and every western leader. Its FAKE , its CRASS, and above all its SIN. But what it is NOT is a holy war. You cant stop it by taking out muslims, because when they are all gone, you will have another target, another group deamonised by a corrupt and powerful elite of business men and leaders the names of whom you will never find out. But rather than at least try to find the names of the real culprits , most people would rather delve into the soft warm familiar blanket of hate . Well stuff that for a lark, I have better things to do .

[edit on 4-9-2010 by TrueBrit]

I do wish people would use the search function before posting news...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Parallex.

It is obvious, that Islam only became the enemy number one, when the cold war ended in the crash of the communist system in Eastern Europe.

To say, they were our worst enemies long before our nations existed is a weird argument. When the Muslims started to spread the tribes in Europe still were fighting for dominance either. The Franks succeeded and started to overthrow many people in Western and Middle Europe. Following this logic, the Franks were the enemies of our civilization and culture.
Indeed this was just one of the more important developments, that formed the European nations. Later the Franks' Empire parted into East and West and became a first raw shape of nowadays France and Germany - as the Muslim parts of Europe later became Spain and Portugal.

This is how nations develope and has nothing to to with extremism as we define it now.

It maybe true, that for Tony Blair Islamist fundamentalists are the worst threat. For the Islamist countries the worst threat are the USA and their followers, who don't accept and respect the souvereignity of their countries.

reply to post by contraband


Whilst it is true that propaganda is used to fuel opposition and gain public mandate for war, it is not true that all such opposition to the west is created by the west.

Islam is a very real threat to western ideals and freedoms. Not just via 'radical' terrorism and overt war but also through stealth.

No, according to Charles Martel, they don't go away, they just keep coming until you DO thrash them, and thrash them truly well and good. Like at Tours, for example.

Charles Martel? Are perchance you referring to Carolus Martellus? Aka Charles the Hammer? Frankish general of the Dark Ages? "...Often credited with the development of feudalism and knighthood." :-D:-D:-D

Seriously, if you are going to hold up someone who lived even before the Middle Ages as a philosophical basis to 'outwit' an opponent in an internet debate then you are going to have to excuse the rest of us for having a good laugh at you for coming over as an ideologically fuelled yet erudite fruitbat! :-D

If you don't mind that though then do keep your posts coming as I think we all enjoy a good laugh..! ;-)