Skip to main content

View Diary: Thoughts on the Greenwald/Harris debate over Islam (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Muslim are far more a effective killing each other (0+ / 0-)

    than the Americans, British or French have ever been.

    •  Your ignorance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JDsg, Fire bad tree pretty

      It burns. So does your racism. You sound just like white racists who talk about how black people are so good at killing each other.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:46:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you're referring to the Iran–Iraq War (0+ / 0-)

      it wasn't fought over religion per se. Saddam Hussein saw the chaos of the Iranian Revolution as an opportunity to snatch border territory that had long been in dispute. He was a secular leader put into power by the Brits and the US, like all other Iraqi leaders since WWI. He went rogue by misinterpreting our signals and invading Kuwait, also not for religious reasons. We protected our interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and invaded. This led to a quick victory and ten subsequent years of bombing. 9/11 provided the excuse for the neo-cons to replace him permanently.They assumed Iraq would be the ideal place for permanent US bases from which to exert more direct control over Middle Eastern politics (i.e. oil). Bin Laden despised Hussein, but was really pissed at the Saudis for allowing the US to establish bases there during Gulf War I. The formation of Al–Qaeda was largely a response to the American invasion of the peninsula in that war.  


      I never liked you and I always will.

      by Ray Blake on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:42:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I actually completely agree with your analysis (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kane in CA

        which may surprise you.

        I do think Sadaam went rogue beyond just invading Kuwait, by starting a nuke program (which was admittedly abandoned by 2002 when Bush II was getting ready to invade) and by genocidal actions against his own people, including use of poison gas on entire towns of Kurds, and routine mass executions of opponents.

        Also, while the first Iraq War and the retention of American bases on the Arabian Peninsula provided much of the political motive for Al Qaeda, that group's motive is inseparable from its radical Muslim theology, one that includes an extremely strict interpretation of sharia law and a militant Pan-Islamic jihadi world view.

        •  Yes, Al–Qaeda is the most radical (0+ / 0-)

          manifestation of Islamist ideology. But they are way, way outside the mainstream of the Muslim faith. You can't judge Islam by Al–Qaeda any more than you can judge Christianity by IRA terrorism. And Islam–flavored terrorism is a relatively recent phenomenon. The PLO, for example, was a secular organization, likewise the Abu Nidal org and the Baath Party. Nidal ironically was assassinated in 2002 on the orders of Saddam Hussein. Nidal was behind most of the notorious hijackings and bombings of the 70's and 80's.

          I never liked you and I always will.

          by Ray Blake on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 11:15:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now we agree again (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kane in CA
            they are way, way outside the mainstream of the Muslim faith. You can't judge Islam by Al–Qaeda any more than you can judge Christianity by IRA terrorism.
            A couple of things:

            Obviously the IRA were a purely secular, nationalistic organization with zero religious underpinnings.  No extreme Christian/Catholic theology has ever been mentioned as being one of the characteristics of the IRA.

            One other important distinction: Al Qaeda and its like-minded colleagues are far, far, far more numerous, and are spread across the world, with many, many more threatened targets, than the IRA ever was, and than any other extremist religiously driven terror group is today.

            So in that sense Al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim terror organizations are a particular threat; not unique, but undeniably important and ruthless.

            •  To say that Al–Qaeda affiliated groups (0+ / 0-)

              are Muslim terror organizations would be misleading, however. The motivations for these groups are primarily political and economic, not religious. Most people in the Middle East are Muslim, just as most people in the West are Christian. US military bases have chapels, religious services and chaplains. Many soldiers and commanders are passionately Christian. It's common for our political leaders to say God bless this or that. Many right-wing leaders strongly support the Israeli government because they think it will help bring Jesus back. But our military doesn't take its orders from priests or ministers, and Al–Qaeda isn't directed by religious leaders either. I don't mean to equate them with our military, except in the sense that they're a military organization (though unaligned with any state). BTW, Muslims to a large degree perceive the various American invasions of the past 20 years as being inspired by religion. George Bush was a self-proclaimed born again Christian, after all.

              I never liked you and I always will.

              by Ray Blake on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 02:27:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site