terrorism and islamic extremism

adnans

since there is only one thread focusing on the Israel/Palestine region i've decided to start a new debate dealing with terrorism and islamic extremism in general. if youre gonna post please do so with some respect to other posters as i'd hate to see this thread turn into a "war of the words" between induviduals.

z magazine article, "The United States and Middle East: Why Do "They" Hate Us?"

extremists would usually appear after being failed by the religion and their leaders (who would be seen as bought out) and see no other way for better life. fanatics and militants see the recruitement for their cause easy as a result and extremist views are easier to preach (success of Afghanistan and the Taliban regime in fighting off the soviets, one of the superpowers).

the list in the article doesnt mention the complete set of examples because after the WW2 middle east region was divided into many territories in which some, more then others were not all oppresive in physical ways (some restricted cultural, political, and/or economic freedoms) towards the people whom they didnt represent (and in some ways respect).

would you consider the list mentioned above in any way to be a catalyst for the extremism and terrorism that we have seen to date?

adnans

Sand

Its an interesting link and certainly is accurate in what it details but it seems to leave holes and does not explain any reasoning behind the actions. The US prevented Sadat from making peace in 1972. Fair enough. However on March 26th 1979 a deal was signed between Israel and Palestine, after negotiations sponsored by President J. Carter. It mentions the US s failure to support the revolutions in Iraq. This is true, but it makes no mention of an understandable American preference to win and war and get out while the going is good, nor any mention of a lack of support amongst the UN and the Coalition allies to get involved. It makes no mention of the US setting up safe havens for the same victims of Hussein. It makes no mention of the US's role in protecting the Muslim communities in Bosnia or Kosovo.

I understand its not the purpose of the link to provide a balanced view of the US's role in the Middle East. That link provides probably the only information that the Arabs in general are allowed access to with regards to the US. The Arab dictatorships are happy to blame the US for the peoples misery as it reduces the threat to their powerbase. As part of that few to none of the positive influences the US has had are reinforced by the media in the Arab world. This in itself does not cause terrorism. It does provide the feeling of being wronged that a terrorist requires. It is something that the US should demand be rectified by the Arab dictatorships it deals with.

Religious fundamentalism, such as the Wahhabi movement which apparently guides Bin Laden, provides the self-confidence in ones beliefs that a terrorist requires. That cant really be fixed as such, but its promises of "utopia" will seem less appealing given economic prosperity- (when no doubt a modern left will arise to promise utopia for little or nothing:) ). The real problem is the Arab world hasnt really had an Age of Enlightenment. The fundamentalists cries of Holy Wars and so on remind me of the zeal of the Crusaders- whose views would not be shared by many (any?) in Europe since the Age of Enlightenment. Of course being unconventional in the Arab world can be bad for your health- As the author of The Satanic Verses might testify. Again the US and the west in general needs to demand its Arab alllies prevent the spread of this fundamentalism

Ive found a few links to articles that might help further illuminate what Arab thinking might be on the issues involved. I dont quote them as support for or against my own views which are probably well known at this stage, but rather in the interests of debate. Warning should be made that several are opinion pieces- If youve got a problem with an authors opinion bother them about it, not me.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/6/203915.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/7/191516.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/10/170105.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/6/184054.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/7/191240.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/11/18/194004

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/16/200105.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/8/143015.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/26/202032.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/29/155311.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2001/9/25/231148

I realise thats a hell of a lot of links but most of the articles are pretty short. Theyre all from the one (conservitive) source but this same source has defended Al-Jazeera, when its objectivity was called into question by Bushs administration. Also I again remind you that several are opinion pieces - not the word of God, so dont treat them all as such.

bonkey

I've deleted two posts because they were either empty of content, or just plain inflammatory.

---

Its an interesting link and certainly is accurate in what it details but it seems to leave holes and does not explain any reasoning behind the actions

Sand - no offense m8 - but the "reasoning behind the actions" is actually part of why so many people in the middle east bear at least a dislike for the US.

The US has two major reasons to be involved in the Middle East - their affiliation with Israel, and oil. Everythying they have done in the Middle East has been influenced by these two factors, but announced under vaarious guises of promoting peace, fighting tyranny, and so on.

Basically put, yes, a lot of the rhetoric spouted by the extremists about the US has as much in common with reality as Lord of the Rings has. Unfortunately, an equal proportion of American "reasoning" is equally dependable.

The problem is that while you can pick-out high-points of the US involvement in the Middle East, the simple fact is that their track record as a whole in the past 40+ years has been atrocious and, at best, highly erratic. I could just as easily say that the English occupation of Ireland was a good thing, because there were some highlights (which there were) in that too.

Again the US and the west in general needs to demand its Arab alllies prevent the spread of this fundamentalism

And here is simple proof of my point. The US' no.1 enemy in the Middle East at the moment is bin Laden. Many experts have tied him back to Wahabism, which oringinates (I think) from his native Sudia Arabia. A lot has been posted about the evils of this extremist religion, and how it is spawning rabid anti-American sentiment.

And who funds the major proponents of this? The SAudi government. The Saudis! One of America's staunchest allies in teh Middle East - a nation where the US has a permanent military base.

Let me get this straight. America will buy their oil, trade with them, pay them for allowing a base on their land, and protect them as a result. Now - they know that these people are funding the schools which they claim give rise to the terrorists they are spending so much time and effort fighting. Isnt this a bit strange?

The US alleges that Saddam is building WMDs, and so needs to be embargoed and bombed into the stone age. Saudi, on the other hand, is amongst the most oppressive nations, and is openly funding the schools and teachings which the US directly link to the rise in middle-eastern terrorism. Do these people get bombed? Embargoed? Threatened? Nope - they get paid. PAID.

Surely, as part of its "ear on terrorism" the US should be encouraging the Arabians to stop their funding of these extremist religious schools which are known to be breeding grounds gor terrorists? Oh - but hang on - that might drive oil prices up in the US, or lose them access to a strategic military position in the region.

You think this ridiculous situation is lost on the Arabs? Of cours eit isnt.

They see that the US dealings in the Middle East are about one thing - the US. Israel is supported mainly because of the political backlash politicans would face if they stopped. The oil-rich nations are courted in whatever hamfisted way is required to get the oil cheap for the current administration. The succesive administrations can deal with the problems.

This callousness is why the US is hated over there. The list on that z report is a simplistic view - the symptoms, not the cause. The cause is foreign policy.

For those who claim that the US are hated because these people dont want to blame their own governments or themselves....then asnwer me this...why the US? Why not the imperialistic nations who ruled that part fo the world long before the US ever went near it? Why not western society in general? Why one specific nation?

jc

Sand

I agree the US is certainly there for Oil and for Israel- That is the two basic concepts that frame its middle east policy over the past 50 years.

Thats probably why the US tip toes around SA. Its a major oil producer and the reality of modern economics demands that it is kept sweet. Sad but true. The US will probably keep it sweet until technology advances to the point where oil is no longer as important.

The craziness of being allies with a regime that funds terrorism is just that. The corrupt royal family is probably more pro- west than its citizens in general, a trend repeated throughout the middle east. Fear of the alternative, a host of Islamic states hostile towards the US and the west, most likely drives the US to support these regimes to ensure it gets its oil. Should such regimes come to pass it would be an economic disaster- think back to the 1970s. The US has influence with the Saudis however, the Royal Family is afraid of its own populace- hence the "bribing" of the fundamentalists- The US can encourage them to liberalise their regimes- not nessassarily out and out democracy by tommorrow, but rule of law and allowing free speech etc etc. That should hopefully reduce the attractiveness of the fundamentalists "utopia"

In the longterm the US needs to develop other fuel sources to give it greater independance in the middle east- With Bush however it is unlikely. It will eventually occur though.

Why the US in particular? Its probably answered by the fact that the US is simply the biggest kid on the block and most closely identified with Israel. France and the UK for example went on some milatary adventures in Egypt with Israel, the French in North Africa, The UK supports and polices the sanctions against Iraq.

There was another link to an article I couldnt find regarding an Al-Jazeera debate with a fundamentalist cleric who was denouncing the freedoms being denied to Muslims in the west. An Arab immigrant to Germany rang the show to complain that he was freer in Germany than he ever was in the Middle East. I think thats what the Middle East needs, greater freedoms. The US cant demand that this happens- and indeed might feel it threatens the stability of its oil supply- but it can certainly encourage them- These regimes need the US more than they let on.

BTW Newsweek had an article on the Middle East and how to reform it by Fareed Zakaria in its December 24th issue. Rather interesting.