reply to post by andy1972
The "radical fundamentalism" that we are told drives the majority of these Islamic terror groups didn't exist until 6 months prior to the russian
invasion of Afghanistan on the 24 December of 1979 and was included in a package deal worth between 3 and 6 billion dollares of arms bought from
China, eygpt and Iran over the 10 year period.
Hassan Al Bannahs Muslim Brotherhood was either sponsoring or directly carrying out terror attacks against Egyptian secularists in the 30s, 40s, 50s
and 60s. Not to mention the terror of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohommad Aimin Al Husseini, the mastermind of the Safed and Hebron Massacres, as
well as the 1936-1939 Jaffa riots. Islamism was built in the 1920s. First, as a response to the westernization of Islamic society (which hardlined
Muslims saw as the subjugation of Islam, and thus, a calamity), and second, as a response to the Zionist movements interest in procuring land in
Palestine. The Brotherhood concentrated mostly on the former, while Husseinis goons dealt with the latter. But make no mistake, religious-fueled
rhetoric spurred violent activity against infidels in both cases.
As for the terror organizations that proliferated after the soviet invasion - very few of them were actual responses to Soviet aggression. In fact,
the soviets were merely regarded as one among many kafirs who threatened Islamic civilization. The others were the European powers, and eventually,
America. All together, Russia, Europe and America = westernization.
Israel too is both rightly and wrongly interpreted as westernization. In one sense, they are an ambassadorial western presence in the middle east. In
another sense, Israel is reflective of the ancient Jewish aspiration for self governance. As such, you have Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews, bringing with
them both European and Arabic culture, with their own Jewish twist, to the middle east.
Hezbollah and Hamas (amongst others) are religious extremist responses to Israel's existence. As any thoughtful analyst knows, there opposition to
Israel is fully religious, but to make it seem legitimate to atheistic westerners they have to cloak it in humanitarian terms. This means, as
scandalous as it sounds, either fabricating evidence of genocide, or, actually generating civilian casualties by luring soldiers into precarious
scenarios. The Islamists are smart: the end always justifies the means. The death of the poor saps who stand in crowds while terrorists shoot at IDF
soldiers are termed "martyrs" by extremist clerics.
Note the dates, the USA started to arm the mujahadeen 6 moths BEFORE the russians invaded, knowing that this would guarantee a soviet military
intervention, which was anyway inevitable.
No offense, but I fail to see the salience of this point. Brezinski, like Kissinger dealing with China, was right to prefer the Mujahadin to the
Soviets. It was a catch 22. In such scenarios, you choose the lesser of two evils.
In fact, if it weren't for their failure in Afghanistan, one wonders whether the Soviet Union would be around today. Would Iran have been safe? How
bout China??? China had to deal with a million plus Soviet troops on their northern border. How would they feel about their western provinces if the
Soviets succeeded in Afghanistan? Surely, there would have been war between them, as many feared.
It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam.
Everyone except those with their heads buried in the sand understand that Islam is a problem. But the west really has no sure 'policy' to deal with
it. To even say so betrays a lack of knowledge of the situation. On the right, you have people with more bellicose, or "hands on" ideas about how to
deal with Muslims. After all, the eastern world is catching up, even though the west exploited jus as handedly as they did the Islamic world. But the
Eastern world is not as dogmatically hamstringed as the Islamic world. The Eastern world in inclusive - it's able to accommodate western ways without
feeling like they're surrendering their identity. The Islamic world conversely, by and large, is struggling with it's self identity. Some Muslims -
the ones promoted and encouraged by western countries - are trying to bring the Islamic world into modernity; some have tried to so through
secularism, others have tried to do so through reformism. Even though, scripturally speaking, the reformist attempt is incoherent from the traditional
orthodox perspective, there's no fundamental reason why the core ideas of Islam (God, morality) and modernity can get along. But again, Islam is so
radically different from Judaism and Christianity. Christianities scriptural apoliticism set up the reformation, which prepared the Christian world
for the enlightenment. Judaism had 2000 or so years of political subjugation, enough time to extirpate from the tradition grandiose ideas nowadays
associated with Islam. Rabbinic Judaism is rather apolitical; it forfeits political rule to another time (some indefinite future). It therefore
prepared the way for reformation. But Islam has had no such precursor. Islam had only caliphates - kingdoms ruled by Islamic rulers, structured around
Islamic ways of thinking and living.
Note the progression: first there changes at the theological level, and then comes ideological shifts in society. Without a theological shift -
without discrediting earlier modes of thought, how exactly is a new way of thinking going to emerge? This is Islam - and the worlds - dilemma. This is
why Islamic radicalism exists. America is not the cause, anymore than science, technology, and democracy is the cause. America is a vehicle of
societal transformation called "westernization", just as Europe was the century before. It is predominately THIS which Islamic fundamentalists have a
edit on 25-4-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)