Radical Islam is world's greatest threat - Tony Blair

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Originally posted by zarlaan



Radical Islamist have been around a lot longer than the Western Civilization. You can't pinpoint their actions solely on those three men or any really. The extremists of that religion, or any religion for that matter, are just sickened with their own religious views and the reasons for their actions is more of a disease.

Possibly one of the most naive posts I have ever seen on ATS.

No, it's yours.

Do you actually believe that without the actions of the neo-cons, Tony Blair, Iraq & Afghanistan wars, the CIA (training Mujahadeen) and western manipulation we would have Islamists like we have today.

Yes, because I have read and understood history.

My friend, get off your xbox, go and do some research, preferably on ATS.

You first. It will save you looking like such a fool. These is actually quite a bit of history before you were born. You can start here.

It was summer 1917, and the Arab Revolt was in full swing.

The revolt, one of the most dramatic episodes of the 20th century, was a seminal moment in the history of the modern Middle East, the touchstone of all future regional conflicts.

Yes fundamentalism has been around since the Crusades ...

Try since the 7th century ...

but it is only under the guidance of the aforementioned that hatred for the West and all it stands for has been presented to the weak minded and impressionable as a target.

Again, just read the article I quoted to find the true roots of modern islamic fundamentalism.

My word, I'm shocked by your naivety.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by kiwifoot]

Before posting in the future, better for you to really get an understanding of the subject BEFORE you post and BEFORE you start throwing around personal insults.

A well deserved for you with a thrown in for good measure.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by centurion1211

Yes, because I have read and understood history.

Oh Christ, here's another one..!! Lol!

Yeah, what a fearsome sight Nenothtu, ManInTheMask, Centurion and the other Muslim-bashers here would present to any would-be invader...

There you are, rushing into battle to defend Europe from the Caliph, armed with your fearsome history books, ready to dispute the finer points of Euro-Islamic history right to the death... :-D :-D :-D

Just to get back to the point, Tony Blair is not the defender of Europe from wild-eyed, frothing Muslim hordes....but a maniacal war criminal who has a lot of responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, whom he lied about causing a threat to Europe with non existent WMDs.

reply to post by centurion1211



To begin with, I'd like you to find and post where I said that Islamic fundamentalists never existed before the neocons and Tony Blair, that would be a start.

You can't, because I didn't say it. What I said was "AS WE KNOW IT"...and I stand by that. We never had suicide bombers on Subways, Planes, insurgencies killing wantonly, massive buildings being destroyed on western soil until Bush, Blair etc took over. You can quote all the history you want but it is true, sorry.

This article from the BBC, is regarding Radical Islam being a threat to the WEST, hence the reason for me saying fundamentalism has been around since the crusades, because until then it hadn't affected the West, Europe. The crusades is where Islam and Christianity came to loggerheads, so in the CONTEXT of this debate, this is a key period.

Yes, Islam fought from the get go to spread and get a foothold in the region, but the threat of one and a half millennia ago is far different from the one we face today.

As for the Arab revolt, you're having a laugh aren't you?

As far as I know, (I'm not too big to not admit when I'm wrong so feel free to correct me)) they didn't blow up any restaurants, trains full of tourists (on FOREIGN LAND), high-jack boats, kidnap and decapitate innocents. I could go on. If you could get over yourself and see the CONTEXT of my assertions you'd be doing yourself a favour.

And I'm sorry, it is entirely naive to play down, ignore and paint over the role of Western Politicians in the God awful mess we call the War on Terror. If you think that current Radical Islam hasn't been pushed, cajoled, tweaked and guided to where it is now then sorry, you're naive too.

And as for personal insults, read down a few posts and see the apology I posted, I guess you missed that.

And as for naivety, it was regarding the truth about Western Diplomacy, the role of clandestine Western Intelligence in the Mid-East and the role of Blair and Bush(s) in Iraq, 9/11 and the War on Terror. You know, ATS type topics.

I grant you, I may not be as clued up as you about what happened in the Middle East 1,400 years ago, but buddy, there is far more relevant and pertinent information from more recent times that you ought to be worried about.


EDIT my initial post was rather sarcastic, a little offensive and rude. I'm basically sick of this argument being railroaded down a debate about the historical origin of radical Islam brought about by me saying

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

Now I still stand by that, but I edited out the distasteful stuff out of respect for my fellow member.

Apologies to any that read it, hard day at work, low tolerance of fussiness.

All the best Kiwifoot


[edit on 5-9-2010 by kiwifoot]

Just to get back to the point, Tony Blair is not the defender of Europe from wild-eyed, frothing Muslim hordes....but a maniacal war criminal who has a lot of responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, whom he lied about causing a threat to Europe with non existent WMDs.

Thankyou, I think it must be a slow week at Tony Blairs secret bunker (how I don't know with the book launch and all!), and all the pedantic history geeks have come out to see how may mistakes kiwifoot has made this week.

IMO they are all simply trying to steer the debate away from the real issue, which you highlighted above.

All the best, kiwifoot

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Siddharta

 

First, you make the claim that "that was just how nations expanded back then". Are you trying to change tack in midstream, and claim islam is somehow a "nation" now rather than a "religion of peace"? If so, where is the capitol of Islam, and what are it's current borders?

Of course, the Arabs of that time were a nation. What else do you think they were? A bunch of terrorists with box cutters?

I never talked about a "religion of peace", because I think there is none. All those preachers always misused their power to kill those, who have another belief. And this still goes on. Aren't you just trying to tell us, Muslims are bad people, because they have a different belief?

The Capitol of Islam indeed exists. It is called Mekka. But it is only a religious Capital. Not like the Vatikan, which is as much an illusion, but also is beseen as a state.

You sound as if you want to tell us, that it was planned from the beginning - 1400 years ago - that a group with box cutters would come and learn, how to fly Jumbos into the WTC, which would fall into ashes like that.

If that is the power of Islam, we really are in trouble.

The second problem I have with your "historical view" is that I live in peace and friendship with a lot of Muslims here. I guess, I am blind and deaf and they only pretend to be my friends, hiding their box cutters and waiting for the next Jumbo.

Thanks for warning me!

Let's cut through the BS here!

He said "Radical Islam" Not Islam as a whole.

People tend to ignore the distinction. Ones side cries "They hate ISLAM" while the other is simply stating the facts behind how "Radical" Islam is a threat.

It seems some people are more focused on killing the messenger than listening to the message. Believe what you may.

For the Record he didn't Say "Islam" is a threat.

Getting the message: Radicals are always dangerous.

I agree.

Including the radicals here.

Originally posted by Siddharta

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Siddharta

 

First, you make the claim that "that was just how nations expanded back then". Are you trying to change tack in midstream, and claim islam is somehow a "nation" now rather than a "religion of peace"? If so, where is the capitol of Islam, and what are it's current borders?

Of course, the Arabs of that time were a nation. What else do you think they were? A bunch of terrorists with box cutters?

Read what I wrote again, please. You've either missed something, or are misrepresenting what I said. I asked if you were making the claim that ISLAM is a nation, and you responded by saying ARABS of that time were nation. "Arab" is a sub-racial classifier (cultural subset of semites), and "Islam" is a religious classifier. Neither is a "national" classifier. At that time, arabs were fighting arabs over religious differences (not unlike NOW), with islam being the new kid on the block, and bent on the eradication of "polytheists", as typified by the Meccan arabs. Mohammed conquered Mecca in, I believe, 630 AD, two years prior to his death, and then set his sights further afield. It was not a national issue, nor a cultural one.

I never talked about a "religion of peace", because I think there is none. All those preachers always misused their power to kill those, who have another belief. And this still goes on. Aren't you just trying to tell us, Muslims are bad people, because they have a different belief?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I care nary a whit what another man's belief is. That is between he and his assumed diety. Nor are "muslims" bad people. None of my muslim friends are bad people. If they were, they wouldn't be my friends. As a matter of fact, you can probably never get a better friend than a muslim. Conversely, you'll never gain a more implacable enemy, either, if it goes that route.

When radical elements pervert what could be a decent religion into a political war-making enterprise, I tend to develop problems with that. Unfortunately, Islam is ideally suited to such a hostile takeover, and political manipulations. When that happens, a religion can be stagnated in past patterns, and halts development into it's full potential.

It takes a wrong turn, as islam has done. There ARE elements within islam that can remedy that, but at the moment they are not very vocal, for fear of the radicals. I think that will change, but can't say when, or which faction will win out in the end.

The Capitol of Islam indeed exists. It is called Mekka. But it is only a religious Capital. Not like the Vatikan, which is as much an illusion, but also is beseen as a state.

Again, islam is not a nation, and has no capitol. The Vatican IS a state as I understand it, and so is it's own capitol, but that should nor be confused with it being the capitol of catholicism, much less christianity at large. The vatican is a political entity masqeraing as a religion, much like radical Islam.

You sound as if you want to tell us, that it was planned from the beginning - 1400 years ago - that a group with box cutters would come and learn, how to fly Jumbos into the WTC, which would fall into ashes like that.

I'm not at all sure how you make that leap into the ridiculous from what I've said.

The second problem I have with your "historical view" is that I live in peace and friendship with a lot of Muslims here.

As do I. There are certain elements of my history that I'm forced to withold from them, but we get along swimmingly. Even to the point that one in particular always brings me a share of the goat sacrificed for Eid al-Fitr every year. I'm not as ignorant of the realities of the situation as you would have folks believe.

I guess, I am blind and deaf and they only pretend to be my friends, hiding their box cutters and waiting for the next Jumbo.

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm not saying any such thing. To restate, a muslim can be the best friend you'll ever have, or the most implacable enemy. I had one save my life one time, at some risk to his own, from radicals planning bad juju. He did it so well, that I had no idea what was going on at the time, and only figured it out afterwards. he couldn't actually tell me of the planned attack without chancing exposing himself, and so he found another way.

And he damn well made it work, or I might not be typing this right now.

Things are not as "all or none" as some here would have us believe. It's a little more complex than that.


[edit on 2010/9/6 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu


I see a lot more angles from your reply now, Nenothu,

still I don't understand why you say, it is inherent to Islam since the beginning, if you are seeing things much more differentiated - as I see now.

The term "nation" does not mean a country with boundaries and I don't talk about "Islam" as being a nation nowadays. The misunderstanding obviously came up, when I talked about the developement of nations. This was referred to the development of ALL nations. But nations first identify themselves by culture and language. Not by borders.

Honestly, after reading your last answer, I am even more confused, what you wanted to tell us about the history of Islam. They expanded, they won for some time, then settled, parted into different cultural regions, became different nations and states, lost some parts again. That's what happened to others before and after. Today they are losing. Losing makes angry sometimes.

So what makes them different from any other people back then up to now?

reply to post by Siddharta


It's inherent to Islam , I believe, because of the beginnings of Islam, the environment and attitudes of the day.

This is, of course, just my opinion, based upon studies and experiences. In the beginning of Islam, Mohammed thought it good to start a new religion, based upon what he apparently believed were conversations with an angel in a cave (if you're muslim, you can still visit the cave, just outside Mecca). That wasn't taken well by the surrounding people, for a variety of reasons.

The Jews outright laughed at him, which sealed their doom - or at least a few tribes of them local to them. The Meccans had what I believe to be other concerns, of an economic nature, which they disguised as religious differences. They didn't want polytheism, a proven money maker for them, to fall, and incited the simpler polytheistic folks to support it. The end result was the expulsion of Mohammed from Mecca. That HAD to stick in his craw, since he had previously been a respected Meccan merchant himself. Before the wars, he was VERY respected there.

After his move to Medina, he started preying on the Meccan merchants caravans, hitting them where it would hurt the most, in the pocketbook, as a bandit. That was the best way he could think of to fight a war, and it's as true now as it was then. In the end, he took Mecca, and abolished the idols in the Ka'aba. Then he turned to conquests further afield, believing due to his victory at Mecca that he had a mandate from Allah. He died during that conquest, after having ordered the conquest of the Byzantines, killed at the hands (poisoned) by a Jewish slave woman whose entire tribe he had destroyed, taking only the women and children for slaves.

During his lifetime, he swelled the ranks of his army by sharing out the booty of the conquered with them, which was the accepted practice of the day. Most flocked to the ranks in hopes of personal enrichment. Upon his death, his successor had a revolt on his hands, and had to re-conquer large portions of the Arabian Peninsula. When they thought the booty was going to dry up, they went home, back to their other gods.

After the reconquest of the Peninsula, the muslims got on with the business of conquest, probably in the beginning with heavily economic motivations, mixed with religious and political considerations. That was a dangerous combination, and it still is for any group of peoples, not just muslims. After a couple of generations, and decades of preaching it, the religious considerations came to the fore as the main motivational factor for conquest. Booty was of course still taken, but as a secondary consideration rather than a primary one.

"True Believers" of any stripe, religious OR political, are some of the most dangerous people on Earth. The muslims had become True Believers over time, rather than economic opportunists. That's where islam stagnated and stayed.

All of the foregoing is not meant to bash muslims, nor is it meant to give anyone a history lesson. It's just to set the stage of what the world was like at the time. The same or a similar synopsis could be given for a number of other religions, both living and dead, from the Sumerians and their city-state warfare based on what this state or that one's tutelary deity was perceived to want, right up through Canaanites, Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Christians, et cetera.

Now here is what I believe makes islam different from the others, from then up until now: Most of those other religions died, and are no threat to any one any more. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and a few others are still current, and so Could be threats. What makes Islam different is that it has been allowed to stagnate at that stage, while the others haven't. They have moved on, and for the most part are not as prone to violence to get their way, and then using their religion, or a facsimile thereof, as the excuse for their actions. For example, Jews practiced stoning, as muslims do today, but have long since passed that point, evolving from a more temporal to a more spiritual stance. Christians are a special case, since their inception was one of continuing persecutions at the hands of the others for a long time, until they developed a militant streak. Islam began with one, Christianity had to develop one, but then kept on developing, going the same way as Judaism - from temporal towards more spiritual. It's been a long time since Christians have gone to war to defend their faith. Islam hasn't gotten to that point yet, and appears to be suffering an arrested development.

I have hope for them, though. They will either have to press forward in their development, or join the Sumerians in oblivion. There are large numbers of muslims even today that are perfectly willing to do that, and I truly hope they win out in the end. The main holdup these days appears to me to be fear of what the extremists will do to them if they are too outspoken. That will probably eventually pass, and they will speak out in droves. Not yet, but I have hope.

That is the ONLY way they can defend and eventually save their religion - not from US, from within their own ranks, from those who would hijack it back to square one.

If THAT isn't done, I'm nearly certain that they will pass into oblivion.

Christianity is roughly 600 years older than islam, and still has issues in it's followers in some cases. The violent streak, however, is mostly gone, and it's more chauvenism being the problem now than anything else. I hope we don't have to wait 600 years to see a similar development in islam. I'm hoping they can find it in their religion to be better than that.

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.
....

Sorry but that is nothing more than an ignorant claim with no reality whatsoever...

Why don't you people read history books and make yourself more knowledgeable abut a subject you seem to know nothing about?...

Radical Islam has existed since the inception of Islam...

Apparently people like "kiwifoot" are unawares that by mandate of Muhammed, and "Allah" the newly converted Muslims began to spread Islam by the "SWORD" everywhere they went...

In case you didn't know the first crusades were done by the newly converted Muslims to spread Islam by the sword since the 7th century A.D.

Muslim forces invaded Spain and Portugal, and tried to invade Europe, and actually they succeded in taking over some regions in Europe such as parts of France and Italy, like Sicily.

Muslim conquests (632–732), (Arabic: الفتوحات الإسلامية‎, al-Fatūḥāt al-Islāmiyya) also referred to as the Islamic conquests or Arab conquests,[1] of non-Arab peoples began after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He established a new unified political polity in the Arabian Peninsula which under the subsequent Rashidun (The Rightly Guided Caliphs) and Umayyad Caliphates saw a century of rapid expansion of Muslim power.

They grew well beyond the Arabian Peninsula in the form of a Muslim Empire with an area of influence that stretched from the borders of China and India (Present day Pakistan), across Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, and the Iberian Peninsula, to the Pyrenees. Edward Gibbon writes in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

en.wikipedia.org...


en.wikipedia.org...:Age-of-caliphs.png

The Christian crusades were a response to the invasion and expansion of the Islamic forces.

Also in case you didn't know the first big wars that the United States of America fought right after we declared independence was with Muslim nations who had spread their living of raiding caravans to the seas. Several Muslim nations were pirates and attacked ships from Europe that were bound to the New World, and also raided ships from the New World which destination was Europe.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States of America and the North African states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

And as the Muslim/Tripoli ambassador himself told Thomas Jefferson..

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemys ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

en.wikipedia.org...


That was the cause of the Barbary Wars, and in case you didn't know the Marines' Hymn mentions the First Barbary War 1801-1805. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of TRIPOLI. We will fight our country's battles in the air, in land and sea.."

Moderate islam is a NEW CONCEPT as there are Muslim people who are trying to live with other people instead of trying to convert them and force upon them Islam.

Mohammed himself was a raider of caravans, who executed the men of tribes or caravans that they raided even after they surrendered, and took women and children as slaves.

Mohammed even went against the mandates that "the Arch Angel Gabriel" supposedly gave him. Gabriel supposedly told him that any Muslim man could have up to 4 women/slaves if they could feed them, and Mohammed had 12 including a child. Also Mohammed was the first one to choose from the women/slaves the ones or one he wanted, and he also took a fifth of all loot.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Sorry, but that is the truth.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by 19872012
The amount of people murdered by terrorists since 1970 is probably comparable, at best, to 3 or 4 years of deaths by automobile in the United States. But you don't see a war on cars.

Really?.... Tell that to the over 2.5 million Christians, and black Muslims who have been executed by Arab Muslims in the two Jihads in Sudan. From 1983-2003 which was the first Jihad over 2 million Christians were executed and millions were forced to flee. In the second Jihad which started in 2003 to present there have been at least 500,000 black Muslims who have been executed by the Arab Muslims...and that figure is from 2005, who knows how many more they have murdered all with the consent and help of the Islamic government of Sudan...

www.heritage.org...

And that is only in one nation, you want to know the other attrocities caused by Islamic nations?...





[edit on 7-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


"sigh"....

Here we go again, I'll try and explain but I know I'll get nowhere.

I didn't say anywhere that TB and GB were responsible for all Islamic Fundamentalist, Radical Islam or any such concept.

I didn't disregard the fact that Islam spread via conquest and radical ideals.

ALL I SAID WAS THAT RADICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AS WE KNOW IT IN 2010, have you grasped that key phrase? , has quite literally evolved into what we have today because of the actions of these men.

Never in my life have I seen such obstinate reasoning, where arguments have gone off on a tangent by pedantically picking on ONE PHRASE, derailing the key argument and citing the actions of centuries ago in an argument based in modern times.

If Italy attacked Greece tomorrow, would you say those damned Romans and their Empire, always looking to expand??? No of course you wouldn't.

But because I slighted your hero George Bush, and because you hate Muslims, this ridiculous line of argument has continued.

Mr. Blair should have retracted his statement in favor of a far more accurate one.

Radical Religious Extremism is the world's greatest thread.

To state that Islam is the only religion with extremists which are attempting to change the world to a draconic one is false.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Mr. Blair should have retracted his statement in favor of a far more accurate one.

Radical Religious Extremism is the world's greatest thread.

To state that Islam is the only religion with extremists which are attempting to change the world to a draconic one is false.

~Keeper

Yeah I do agree with that mate.

His comments are designed specifically to stoke the fire, he also said in the same interview that it might be necessary to use military force against Iran.

Scary times.

Thanks for posting mate, i know we haven't seen eye to eye lately!

reply to post by kiwifoot

ALL I SAID WAS THAT RADICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM AS WE KNOW IT IN 2010, have you grasped that key phrase? , has quite literally evolved into what we have today because of the actions of these men.

Dont you get it? The only thing that EVERYONE posting about Islams extremist past is saying is.........

NO IT HASNT.......only the technology to enable them to do far MORE has changed.........

The only thing that is different is your AWARENESS of it because of the war

[edit on 7-9-2010 by ManBehindTheMask]

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask



I disagree, not about the technology part, just about the awareness issue.

They are arguing that Islam has spread through violent and radicalism since its inception. I never disagreed with that, nor did I say anything contrary to that.

But these members have picked up on this one issue and made it an argument about that, which is wrong.

On second though, I would agree that the rise of the internet has increased our awareness but the main point I'm trying to make is this:

The fact that Islam has had radicalism throughout its history should not, and will not in my eyes cause me to look at GWB and Tony Blair as just unlucky leaders who happened to rule their countries at a bad time.

It isn't just "bad luck" that during their leadership we had 9/11, three wars, the war on terror and countless deaths.

I'm sorry, all of you who argued against the historical inaccuracies in the OP (which I maintain are not) have really not seen the actual issue at hand.




[edit on 7-9-2010 by kiwifoot]

Originally posted by kiwifoot

The fact that Islam has had radicalism throughout its history should not, and will not in my eyes cause me to look at GWB and Tony Blair as just unlucky leaders who happened to rule their countries at a bad time.

It isn't just "bad luck" that during their leadership we had 9/11, three wars, the war on terror and countless deaths.

I think it's nearly universally accepted that Blair and Bush, as "leaders", were pretty bad actors. As far as I'm concerned, they were just recent additions to a long line of the same, which continues on.

Even though I see that to be so, I still can't blame this mess on them. Sure, 9/11 seems to have been the cause of this latest round in the Islamic Wars. Without that stimulus, I can't see how it would have been sparked off, much less grown into an overall "War on Terror", whatever that's supposed to mean. So what you APPEAR to be saying, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that Bush and Blair somehow caused the events of 9/11, they did something prior to that that ticked off the radicals enough to cause them to fly planes into buildings - is that about what you're asserting?

It seems to be fashionable to lay the blame squarely at the feet of Bush, and pardon Islam for deeds done before Bush's tenure. "That was then, this is now" is the attitude I get a lot about that. People who have that stance tend to overlook Islam's history, and discount it when it's brought up, claiming it to be irrelevant.

My stance is that a duck needs some serious transplants to become other than a duck. Leopard changing it's spots, and all that. If we are willing to discount a violent Islamic history, then of course we can afford to be mystified if that history still continues. By ignoring the past, we are at a loss to explain the present, since even a giant tree grows from only a seed.

Regarding 9/11, Islam existed before that date, and ignoring that history does nothing to explain the current state of affairs, or steer us out of this morass. More germaine to the argument, though, is that 9/11 occurred 8 months into Bush's first term. What could he have possibly done in that amount of time to spark 9/11, and so the ensuing "War on Terror"? Further, 9/11, including planning and necessary training and emplacement of operatives, HAD to have begun before Bush's term ever began. There is no way that an operation of that complexity could go from zero to explosion in only 8 months.

Now, I entirely blame the war in Iraq on Bush. I've said it numerous times before, and will doubtless have to say it again in the future. I'm convinced that Iraq was a result of wounded pride, because daddy Bush allowed his butt to be soundly kicked when within hours of obtaining the objective. Further, it was bad military policy to open up a war on another, unnecessary, front when there was already one in progress needing attention and resources.

I believe just as firmly that it would eventually have to have been done, but that was NOT the time to shift needed resources into a zone that was already pinned down.

That's what the US gets for allowing non-military minds to handle the serious business of conducting warfare, just because they've inherited the title of "Commander in Chief" from George Washington, who I'm told knew a thing or two about winning wars. However, just having a hereditary title is no substitute for having experience.

Even without Iraq, perhaps especially without Iraq, the "War on Terror" would have happened, in response to 9/11. It would have likely just been better focused. Since I can't logically blame the 9/11 events on Bush and Blair, neither can I blame subsequent developments on them.

Had the seed not been planted, the tree would not have grown.

[edit on 2010/9/8 by nenothtu]

Radical Islam, Radical Christianity, radical Left, radical Right, adjectives for the same phenomenon: the fear of change.

Any religion that predefines the worshipers actions whether they think its the morally acceptable thing to do or not (according to the external viewer of course), tends to spawn extremists, some people don't understand nowadays what actually professing a religion really means.

One example close to homebase would be mormons, some people don't even know why they are called like that, and think that all they are is a bunch of weirdos, if you don't believe me ask people around, you'll be amazed , the church of Mormon, really "believes" in what they are doing, they are not mad they believe, just as we all believe in whatever we want,
how many say, yeah I'm Christian, but never attend church, and even less follow what the Vatican says as a guideline for running their lives, those who do that are called extremists right?
as has been wisely said in above posts, nothing but politics and smoke and mirrors

On their side, they have to believe, they don't have much a choice (as neither do we really in some other ways) in the end its a matter of control, for them for us,of infecting the collective word / thought space, polarizing our views, its just a tool to make us all believe in good vs evil, in us vs them, but really in the end, they are just as scared as we are of dying, even if they gloriously goad not to be so in front of a camera, in our side our government leader do the same thing, our terrorist videos are our news channels, our terror forces our navy seals, ours much more cooler by the way, with 120% more nukes.


Our minds are the real prize, the battlefield the way we are led to believe what is real from what it is not, its all semantic, its all power...
Its just one planet, its humanity, just one.

Whoever wins we loose!

Good post, Prophet.

The problem is, most radicals are not aware, that they are radicals, but think, the radicals are the others.

It is okay to look at the history of Islam only from the angle of expansionism and war. But we cannot ignore at the same time, that this is true for the history of human mankind. And we cannot ignore the reality of war and peace today.

Drawing the world in black & white is always an excuse for doing the wrong thing, pretending it is right and just. The irony is, that Blair's assertion itself is radical and in it's simplicity it uses every cliché to excuse even the worst actions.