Islamic cultural terrorism

I'd also point out the racist part mostly comes from the fact a lot of people in the US think "Islamic" and "Middle-eastern" are the same thing.

^ Not just in the US, and not just Middle-Eastern (remember all the hate Sikhs came in for post-9/11?).

^ True.

hell, in the midwest I heard of an Italian man being told to "go back to the desert" because being Italian, he was dark skinned enough to apparently look "arabian"

Adding to this: if you want one set of laws for your country you should get out of the US, because here you already live under at least two and probably three sets of laws. (The two are federal and state unless you live in DC where they're federal and local. )

I feel that we shouldn't believe scientists and accept that terrorism indeed kills more people than climate change. Our politicians are national truth-spewers.

I think he was referring to Sharia.

I like to see evidence of imposing Sharia (Hudud, a subset of Sharia actually) on the US constitution. Also all the brouhaha about stealth jihad spread or hidden using taqiyya.

edited 18th Jun '11 9:42:28 PM by Blurring

As I understand it, radical Islamic terrorist groups are not trying to impose their religious values onto the West so much as they are engaging in preemptive strikes and force projection under the assumption that it is justified self-defense. Islamic extremists vary in their ideologies, but they do tend to consistently believe that Islam is under attack from excessive Western influence. The logical next step is to prevent further Western influence by attacking the source of that influence. This is a common line of tactical and strategic thinking that has been used by fighting forces of all stripes for quite some time, and it really shouldn't be surprising now.

The notion that Islamic extremist groups want to "take over" the West, while not totally false, is largely exaggerated and misallocated. Many terrorists in those organizations view the Western world as tainted and beyond salvaging. As a result, recruits in these organizations view themselves as a sort of religious pest control service in the name of what they think to be Islam.

edited 18th Jun '11 10:03:50 PM by Aprilla

Islam is under attack from excessive Western influence.

Which part of Islam are you talking about? Its like saying that "Catholicism is under attack by Western Ideas", whilst you could make an arguement for it it massively oversimplifies what is actually happening to create a simplistic narrative.

The moral authority of the Quran, and of Imams, Mullahs etc. is fading; traditional forms of Islam are losing their appeal, and Islam isn't the center of social life any more. On the world scene, Muslim countries lag behind economically and militarily. Islam has to compete with consumerism, pop culture, the scientific worldview, west-inspired liberal interpretations of religion, etc.

So yeah, by pretty much any standard, Islam is getting harmed by Western influence. It may be a simplification, but that doesn't mean those who care about Traditional Islamic Values and Civilization are less pissed out about it.

edited 19th Jun '11 12:53:48 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

..which is ironically one thing Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist islam have in common. Theyre both terrified of traditional values being destroyed and therefore go to insane extremes.

Got ninja'd. Part of the problem is that various Muslims have contrasting opinions of what constitutes "traditional" Islam, and this man's video reflects that misunderstanding. The conflicting interpretations of truly traditional Islam have led to the vast bulk of sectarian and tribal violence in that particular religious community. Not all of it, but a big chunk of it.

I'd be more inclined to agree with the video if it addressed that issue instead of making blanket statements about the Muslim community as a whole.

edited 19th Jun '11 3:44:54 PM by Aprilla

"traditional" Islam can mean anything from the initial "rush" that took egypt and took over from the Zoastrian Persian empire, to the Ottoman empire. Its rather a large degree of difference.

Personally although the Quran WAS an important document you only have to look at the various palaces to see how the "no alcohol" went down with the upper crust.

edited 19th Jun '11 5:24:29 PM by JosefBugman

Islam isn't under attack really (it evolves just fine, just like any other major religion). The mindset is actually because ARABS as a community have felt under siege ever since the Crusades. Notice that for the most part, "Islamic Terrorism" comes from the Arab world. By contrast, the non-Arab Islamic World hardly contributes to terrorist violence.

Basically, its a confusion of regional terrorism for religious terrorism (by both sides).

Not making it easier, the terrorists are using their own interpretation to justify their act, drawing in people who doesn't have strong religious knowledge in the first place.

edited 19th Jun '11 8:23:04 PM by Blurring

^^

Um...What about Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iraq? The Philippines? Indonesia? South Africa? There's been quite a bit of Islamic terrorism in all these countries.

Unless you mean Islamic terrorism directed against Western countries, in which case, yes, most has come from people of Arab ethnicity. And how exactly have Arabs been under siege since the crusades? The people most affected by them were the Ottomans, who aren't ethnically Arab, and who were being just as aggressively expansionistic.

And I think it's pretty clear that the dude in the video is talking about Britain and Europe, where there really is a lot of scary stuff being allowed by the government when it comes to things like the treatment of women in Muslim neighborhoods. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but he's not coming completely out of left field.

edited 19th Jun '11 8:58:34 PM by ungelic

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq have sectarian violence. The Muslims in the Philippines wants independence, they do have a case. The terrorists in Indonesia wants to overthrow the government to impose their brand of religion.

But the sectarian violence is divided along religious lines. In Iraq, at least. Afghanistan and Pakistan are definitely facing violence almost purely motivated by religion. (I mean, gassing a girls' school? How is that sectarian violence?) And I don't understand how "wanting independence", clearly based on religious beliefs, excludes something from being religious terrorism.

edited 19th Jun '11 9:01:25 PM by ungelic

Blurring: How would they have a case?

Historically, the island of Mindanao had been predominantly Muslim. After independence the mostly Muslim southern region is annexed by the mostly Christian northern region. Long and complicated legal case, they believe the annexation is unlawful.

^

Are they being oppressed? Or are they just being denied the right to oppress their women and gay people with impunity? You'll pardon me, but the types who tend to use terrorism generally don't like anyone but heterosexual men having any freedoms.

edited 19th Jun '11 9:08:01 PM by ungelic

Since when women and gays is a factor here?

Since when are they not a factor when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists?

Blurring: Thank you for answering my question.

edited 19th Jun '11 9:12:45 PM by TuefelHundenIV