In how many countries are radical Islamists waging war?

[_Jumper_]

According to CNN, just yesterday they burned 18 schools in Thailand. In how many nations are they conducting violent campaigns? We always hear about the major theaters of the international radical Islamist campaign, but what is the total number?

[htuttle]

1. Not nearly as many as the United States is...

I don't think that 'radical Islamists' have much penetration in Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa (ie., south of Nigeria)

The US has active duty troops in something like 100 countries right now, including paid-mercenaries.

[_Jumper_]

2. Relevance?

If you wish to bash America, please do so in another thread.

[htuttle]

11. Bash America?

Au Contraire.

You are coming out with a statement that there is:

a) An International Radicial Islamist Conspiracy, with little evidence of there actually being such. Sure, there are Islamic radicals in several countries, militant groups in many as well. But to assume that they are all part of one 'international conspiracy' is so awful similar to the 'International Communist Conspiracy' or the 'Elders of Zion' that this should be obvious. But apparently it is not.

b) This 'International Radical Islamist Conspiracy' (let's abbreviate to 'IRIC' for short) is determinted to destroy America and the West. But did you manage to grab the agenda of this IRIC so you know this? I'm sure, again, that there is a crazy Imam here and there that will say this -- hell, Falwell wants to nuke Mecca, what's the difference?

c) You are playing on people's fear of the unknown. I, for one, am fucking sick of this sort of thing. Yah, yah...9/11, 9/11. Once a full investigation determines exactly who the players were in that attack, then I'll listen.

By propagating and encouraging these fears by characterizing this as an 'International Conspiracy' instead of the various and sundry mostly regional outlaws people like Zawahiri are, YOU are the one bashing America, by making Americans more STUPID.

You are also empowering people like Zawahiri by making them a lot more important than they would have been had the US treated 9/11 as a criminal act, instead of an act of 'war' propagated by 'SPECTRE'.

[_Jumper_]

16. There is no conspiracy

However, the fact that Islamism has spread rapidly around the world in the past few decades can't be denied. Some Islamists are violent and we are seeing that results in many parts of the world. There is no conspiracy; these groups are independent. However, there is a reason that the Islamist ideology has suddenly started to spread across the globe and that is chiefly because of Saudi Arabia's exportation of it. Hence, I consider them separate but symptoms of the same "disease", just like white supremacists in several nations(of course, they haven't become violent--yet, except in Sweden).

Where did I mention "the West"?

What's the difference between Falwell and radical Islamist imams? Simple: no Falwell supported has taken up arms to spread his ideology; many radical Islamists have.

Zawahiri is a regional outlaw in your view? So Afghanistan, Iraq, Morocco, Turkey, Tunisia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, the UK, and the USA are all part of the same region?

9/11 was an act of war, not just a random criminal act. What would your response to 9/11 have been? Sending out an FBI bulletin and hoping that the Taliban extradited terrorists?

[sharkbait2]

32. Falwell doesn't have to take up arms

The US and other governments readily do that part. All he has to do is raise money for campaigns and send it preachers and bibles to devastated countries after the fact.

[_Jumper_]

36. Is the U.S. government waging a crusade?

How many forced conversions have been made at the hands of American troops in Iraq?

[htuttle]

40. The US is trying to convert the entire region

Only it's not to convert them to Christianity, it's to convert their economies to neo-liberal colonies. In the end, I don't think the US gives a damn about their religion. Religion is just a PR device as far as the US is concerned (actually, that's true for MANY parties in these various conflicts).

For example, are you watching what the US is doing to the Iraqi economy? Privatized WATER? :shrug:

[sharkbait2]

45. Is America waging a crusade?

What do you think? How about those claims from the right about being a "Christian Nation"? In fact, I almost seem to remember Bush using the exact word "Crusade".

You really think Falwell wants to convert Muslims? He's happy as long as the perceived worldwide growth of the religion is stemmed. Conversion isn't usually a priority with his ilk, especially when a difference in culture and skin color enters the equation.

I'm not say the US government is knowingly fighting a crusade. The US government is pursuing it economic interests, which just happen to serve Falwell, Robertson & Co.'s agenda.

[_Jumper_]

47. Yes

Falwell, a Christian fundie preacher, would love to convert non-Christians into being Christians.

[Rex]

74. Islam has been spreading around the world for hundreds of years

Maybe it is spreading because people like what they are hearing. Does that bother you? Yes, some of these people are violent. Like most religions, they too have extremists. Do you consider Pat Robertsons version of Christianity a "disease"? How bout the Popes?

Do you need another Holy War to make you feel safer?

[_Jumper_]

77. How did it spread?

Why hasn't Islam made inroads into areas that were not conquered by Arab or Turkish imperialists (there are a handful of exceptions)? I am not going to give imperialists a free pass on forcing their religion upon subjugated peoples.

I am opposed to all religion. If there indeed was a "one true religion" that religion would have a high rate of conversions to it, since its truth would attract hundreds of millions, if not billions to its fold. What percentage of the world has converted to another religion? 0.1%? What does the low rate of conversion tell you? Religion is a cultural, social tool that is passed down from generation to generation. Few people follow a religion because they believe in its unsubtantiated claims.

Yes, Pat Robertson's version of Christianity is a disease, in my view. It isn't as bad as radical Islamism, though, because it is not violent--yet. We need to stop Robertson and co. before they become violent like radical Islamism. Imagine if the spread of Islamism was nipped in the bud 20 years ago...

"Some of the people are violent"

So you do not make distinctions between mainstream Muslims, Islamists, and radical Islamists?

[DrWeird]

80. handful of areas?

Not only does your post ignore that fact that most of the growth of Islam from persia to Spain via North Africa was the result of economics and not forced subjucation (as white european christians would later become so infamous for) it also ignores the fact that arabs and turks account for only a small portion of muslims, notably Indonesian and Indian as exceptions.

Handful indeed.

[_Jumper_]

81. Arab and Turkish imperialists spread it

n/t

[Darranar]

85. When was the...

Arab or Turkish invasion of Malaysia or Indonesia?

[_Jumper_]

86. Exceptions

I said there are a handful of exceptions earlier.

Islam reached Malaysia and Indonesia via trade with Arab imperialists.

[Character Assassin]

105. Historically incorrect and noxiously PC

Not only does your post ignore that fact that most of the growth of Islam from persia to Spain via North Africa was the result of economics and not forced subjucation

This is so patently, obviously false and so easily countered with the readily available historical record as to question why you would consider posting it. It is, to paraphrase Churchill, unbelievably 'less-than-truthfull'.

(as white european christians would later become so infamous for)

Injecting race into this belies the bankruptcy of your claims.

it also ignores the fact that arabs and turks account for only a small portion of muslims, notably Indonesian and Indian as exceptions.

No, not a 'small portion' at all. Are they the majority? Absolutely not. But a 'small portion'? Your obvious agenda is quite telling....

[Westegg]

49. You wrote: "Falwell wants to nuke Mecca/what's the diff?"

You wrote: "Hell, Falwell wants to nuke Mecca, what's the difference? "

One big difference, I guess, is that Falwell's not actively seeking nukes. Plenty of people willing to use nukes are seeking them now. And they can pay for them, too. And yes, some of those people are Americans. But most aren't. And I'll bet you dimes to petro-dollars that one of the loose nukes floating around will end up being used in New York City, where I happen to live, in your and my lifetime. That's not paranoia. That's the law of averages.

[AliceWonderland]

68. Ah, well put, htuttle!

Excellent post!

[DrWeird]

14. Bash america?

So then this thread would be about bashing Islam, using your definition of bashing?

[_Jumper_]

17. Not quite

Are you saying Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamists are endorsed by a majority of Muslims?

[DrWeird]

18. Are you saying

that american foreign policy in latin america is endorsed by a majority of americans?

[_Jumper_]

19. Yes, indirectly it is

The government is elected by the people, with the exception of Selection 2000, but even Shrub has been accepted as legitimate by a majority of Americans. Thus, the policy of the U.S. government can be considered to be representative of the American people.

[DrWeird]

20. Then what's the problem with america bashing?

If what you say is true than Americanistyites are responsible for killing more civilians than islamistercans. And with a significantly smaller population.

[_Jumper_]

22. Hijacking this thread

I don't want this thread to be hijacked by the "Blame America First" crowd. Many non-Democrats read this board and threads such as this often morph into America-bashing threads. What kind of message does that send to non-Democrats? Do you think that some of the more extreme posts here are not circulated around the internet?

[DrWeird]

How about how this thread looks to muslims?

I'm more concerned about their vote than lurking nationalists.

[_Jumper_]

25. Are you saying Muslims support terrorism?

The vast majority of Muslims, and virtually all American Muslims, oppose Al-Qaeda and terrorism.

[DrWeird]

29. Most american muslims...

have been victims of bigotry by hateful and ignorant white christian americans since 9-11.

[morganlisle]

37. prove that

statement please.

[Character Assassin]

38. Don't hold your breath. You'll be waiting a long, long time.....

[DrWeird]

51. An opinion.

I consider any muslim who has been put through extra security at the airport, or who has heard bigoted statements from any public person, be it a washington official to a country music star to have been a victim of bigotry. Furthermore, I remember a poll from shortly after 9-11 with a full 30% of muslims reported that they personally had been a victim of bigotry.

And I would think that most muslims, at least the ones who haven't watched Lou Dobbs or read National Review would think that somebody who uses the term "islamism" is referring to Islam, or at very least would think that said person functionally illiterate, has questionable motives, and probably sees now distinction between muslims and muslimists.

[_Jumper_]

52. Square that with your singling out of white Christians

n/t

[DrWeird]

57. The plurality of americans are white christians.

And plurality rules.

The government is elected by the people, with the exception of Selection 2000, but even Shrub has been accepted as legitimate by a majority of Americans. Thus, the policy of the U.S. government can be considered to be representative of the American people.

Ergo, the white christian majority can be considered representative of the mass hysteria and racism since 9-11.

:evilgrin:

Should I have used the term: "whitey christianityistaniismist?"

Note I used the term "hateful and ignorant". If you had said fundamentalist hateful radical muslim instead of islamisisheter than I wouldn't have been so upset.

[_Jumper_]

60. Apples and oranges

The 9/11 backlash was not endemic to white Christians. Yet you implied that it was. Why?

Fundamentalist is an inaccurate term. Fundamentalists wish to follow an ancient book literally; Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose a certain form of government. Radical Islamists seek to do so through violent means.

Do you think Nazi's should just be called racist instead of fascists or Nazi's?

[DrWeird]

69. The nazis?

How about christianicans.

If you're going to call Al Qaeda islamis...

[_Jumper_]

71. Al-Qaeda isn't a radical Islamist organization?

Do you actually think that?

[DrWeird]

72. Well, they're radical, and muslim, and organized.

Just like the nazis were radical and christian and organized. Well maybe not so organized as the nazis.

Therefore the nazis were christianityists.

[_Jumper_]

76. Nazi ideology

Was it called Chirstinityism? Was it invented in the name of Christianity?

[_Jumper_]

65. Read this

http://pewforum.org/docs/print.php?DocID=30

[NickB79]

82. What I saw after 9-11 in my city

The campus I go to school at cancelled all classes for the day, and there were dozens of reports to Public Safety of threats, harassment and outright cursing and death threats thrown at students who just APPEARED to be Muslim/Arabic. I do not find it hard to believe what Dr. Weird said based on what I saw in my community. Not proof of what he stated, but anecdotal evidence.

[_Jumper_]

39. False

I am of Pakistani descent and 99.9% of my family is Muslim. Only three of them have faced overt bigotry since 9/11.

Poll data shows that Americans' opinion of Muslim Americans is actually more favorable now than it was prior to 9/11. Muslims are also viewed more favorably than Buddhists.

Why single out whites and Christians? Isn't that racially and religiously charged? I think that will offend whites and Christians.

[Westegg]

54. nonsense

What a silly statement! None of the many Muslims I know (I live in NYC) have been subjected to such treatment. I'm not saying it isn't worse elsewhere----I honestly don't know, outside of New York and L.A.---but to say "most American Muslims" is to paint with a rather broad brush, to be sure.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[_Jumper_]

44. Are you saying the left hates America?

?

[htuttle]

23. If I characterized Randy Weaver and the Army of God as...

...a radical Christian conspiracy, it might imply that they had widespread support from Christians, don't you think?

And, BTW, Falwell's followers HAVE in fact become violent, but so often it gets ignored. You are aware that dozens of medical clinics have been bombed or burned down in the last 10 years, right? Doctors killed by snipers? Envelopes of fake and/or ineffective anthrax sent to Planned Parenthood offices? Ring a bell?

Finally, referring to above, Zawahiri USED to be a regional militant. He still is to a point. His own power base is all in one region. The US response to 9/11 as an 'act of war' made Al Queda way more important, and WAY more international, than they should have been.

How about thinking of them as not much more or less important than the 'Medellin Cartel' (boogie men of the late '80s). All activity against the 'Medellin Cartel' was characterized as law enforcement in nature, whether backed by military personnel or not. That's why you didn't see too many 'Pablo Escobar' T-shirts being worn by disafected youth the world over, among other reasons. A person's reputation is partially defined by their enemies, and their enemies reaction to them. The actions of the US regarding Al Queda have done far more to build them up than knock them down. RED LIGHT! GREEN LIGHT! ORANGE ALERT!!!

[_Jumper_]

24. No

Radicals are a small fraction of any given group.

Has Falwell ever exhorted his followers to commit terrorism or even extolled other terrorists?

Zawahiri is an international terrorist. His influence extends beyond the Arab world.

Al-Qaeda was already international prior to 9/11. It was in approximately 90 countries, on six continents.

Al-Qaeda's popularity increased after 9/11 because people did not understand what exactly Al-Qaeda was doing. Most of them think Al-Qaeda attacked America because of American support of Israel. How many people in those countries even have access to basic news information? How much of that is state-controlled?

[DrWeird]

26. Didn't they?

I thought that's what Osama said, plus collusion with the Saudi government.

[_Jumper_]

28. He said that for PR purposes

Al-Qaeda's real goal is to overthrow Muslim governments and replace them with Taliban-style fundie authoritarian regimes.

[DrWeird]

33. Ahh, I see now.

Are you sure he doesn't hate us for our freedom?

[_Jumper_]

34. What do you think he is fighting for?

Let's stick to the issues and not resort to personal attacks.

How many times did he mention the Palestinians prior to 9/11? How many times has Al-Qaeda attacked Israel?

[SmokingLoon]

3. We have active duty troops

in every country where we have an embassy. The Marines are responsible for Embassy security.

[Character Assassin]

4. Ummmm.... didn't this thread already get locked once?

As in, yesterday?

[_Jumper_]

5. Yes

But I redacted out the one term that was deemed objectionable.

[SmokingLoon]

6. Off hand, I can think of...

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Malaysia, Thailand, United States, Indonesia, Israel (depends on who you talk to), Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, India, and Lebanon

[_Jumper_]

8. Thanks

What is happening in Lebanon?

I believe they are also involved in several African states.

[Yupster]

58. I would add

the Philippines, parts of Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, and even France has had a problem lately, especially with attacks on Jewish citizens, cemetaries and synagougues lately.

on edit, I should have added the former Soviet 'Stan' countries too.

[_Jumper_]

62. Sudan and France

In Sudan they recently made a peace agreement so I don't think that should be counted. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. In France we are seeing hate crimes but I wouldn't lump them with radical Islamism for they are not attempting to impose an Islamist government upon France, let alone with violent means.


What is happening in the former central Asian Soviet republics?

[izzie]

7. That is an interesting question.Been trying to think of the ones

I have heard of and it seems to be countries that have a lot of Islamist then I got thinking that is not so as I have not heard of any thing in England. I guess we would have to know more about what each of the countries are doing and have done to these people. That is way above anything I knew. Re read Tariq Ali I guess.

[_Jumper_]

9. They haven't been violent in the UK

There is a difference between Islamists and radical Islamists. Radical Islamists are violent; Islamists are just the Muslim version of the Christian Coalition. The UK has Islamists and a handful of radical Islamists, but the radicals have attacked foreign nations and not the UK.

[cosmicdot]

10. will the number and name of theatres be posted?

what are the major theatres of the 'campaign'

what is the point of asking the 3 questions?

is there a debate, difference on the number being asked to discuss?

[_Jumper_]

13. Response

The major ones are the USA, Israel, India, Russia (Chechnya), the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. These are the ones we frequently hear about.

Many places where they are fighting never make the news. I have heard that the number is in excess of 20 and I posted this to ascertain the exact number.

There could be some disagreements. For instance, do you count Morocco and Tunisia as targets of radical Islamists or not? I don't, unless there is an organized group seeking to repeatedly attack it. Hit-and-run attacks on a nation do not qualify a nation to be considered a target of radical Islamists, in my view.

[Aidoneus]

15. do you care about the histories of those subjects you mention?

[Scurrilous]

27. Who neeeds history?

Actually studying the root causes of all these far flung conflicts and ascertaining the reasons why these people are fighting is waaaaay too complicated. It's much easier to blame the whole shebang on some insidious international movement. Such timing too! Communism goes out the window and along comes Islamism to supplant it. No peace bonus for you, we got a new bogeyman to fight. :thumbsup:

[_Jumper_]

31. Enlighten us

Explain the "root causes" of terrorism in individual conflicts. Remember, that same logic has to apply across-the-board. You cannot cite something as a root cause of terrorism and then support a similar action in another instance. ;)

[Scurrilous]

42. Oh yes....

.....I'll get right on it. :eyes:

You want to be enlightened? Then do your own research. After all, it's your theory that all these conflicts are interelated. The onus is on YOU to prove it, not me.

[_Jumper_]

46. They are loosely related

They are all symptoms of the same disease.

Do you think racism in the UK, Denmark, France, and Australia is related?

[Scurrilous]

61. More questions?

In last nights locked thread you claimed (referring to this Islamism) "They are engaged in a worldwide fight to spread their ideology--by force. I have heard that they are engaged in war and/or terrorism in approximately two dozen countries."

I would like you to PROVE that there is indeed a worldwide movement called Islamism which seeks to spread their idealogy by force and that this worldwide movement is engaged in violence in two dozeen countries. I would like definitive proof. Not opinion. Remember, it has to be the same guys (the 'they' you allude to) behind the violence in each of these two dozen countries. Can you give me the name of the leader of this group and the general location of his headquarters and/or cave/hideout? Do these Islamism guys have a flag? Uniforms? Snappy salute? Secret handshake? Manifesto's? Website? Mascot? Whatever. Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

[_Jumper_]

63. False

I was referring to radical Islamist's, not Islamists. Islamists are like the Christian Coalition.

They are linked in the same sense that white supremacist groups around the world are linked. That is why I posed that question. Do you have different standards for different groups?

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. for those interested in events in Thailand

try googling thailand and pipeline.

here's a snippet and link to get you started

Recurrent armed violence with the gunning down of four guards and the burning of 19 schools in the predominantly Muslim southern Thailand has been linked to separatists still active in the region despite a severe clamp down by the local authorities against rebellion since the early 1990's....

Malay culture and Islamic education were being restrained while Thai based education, pubs and bars were being opened right in the heart of cities where Muslims live. "This leads to protests by the Muslims and the government ends up punishing large communities of farmers for example, by not granting them aid… etc," said Manaf. Islam is established in South Thailand for centuries but attempts are underway to undermine it

The Thaksin government has been accused of being autocratic and dismisses criticism with harsh treatments against protestors, in particular against Muslims....characterized political activists, non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups that disagree with his government’s policies as troublemakers and even traitors. He said on several occasions that these people are merely “receiving foreign money to stir unrest” within the Kingdom, wrote the nationmultimedia.com website Sunday.

The paper reports that the Thaksin Shinawatra government’s crackdown on the civil rights of those opposing the Thai-Malaysian gas pipeline as his regime celebrated its second anniversary at the beginning of 2003 is a perfect example of the current regime's policies. The Thai-Malaysia pipeline is being built in a region where Muslims are numerous and several protests were held against such a project which is said to be dangerous to both the wild life and to the livelihood of those living in the region.

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-01/04/article03.shtml

[_Jumper_]

21. Secular education, pubs, and bars?

Falwell and co. could list similar grievances. Would that justify terrorism by radical Xian fundies?

[DuctapeFatwa]

53. Most crime is motivated by economics

poverty or greed, depending.

I think that you are seizing an ideology that is a symptom and trying to turn it into a cause.

That has been the basis of many US activities in many parts of the world, one of the better known examples is Afghanistan in the 1980's proxy war with Russia.

When the CIA wanted some disposable brown bodies to take some Russian fire, decades of previous operations in the Middle East and Asia paid off - it was not difficult to find a plentiful supply of angry, alienated young men who had little to hope for and knew that their puppet governments were not putting their interests first.

Persuading them to go fight the godless Russians in order to save Afghanistan in the name of religion was cake.

Agent bin Laden (CIA, sabbatical) was an invaluable asset in this and other subsequent operations.

The raving mullahs are the best friend US business interests could ever dream of.

They keep the population in check at a tremendous cost savings. Just look how much of your tax money it takes to keep soldiers on every corner in Jordan. Uncle Sam can't afford to do that in big places like Iran :)

[economic justice]

55. ALWAYS a conspiracy involved..

"Agent bin Laden (CIA, sabbatical)"

You lost me there. That is conspiratorial fringe thinking that makes all of your other arguments moot. bin Laden was not, and never has been, an "agent" of this country.

[DuctapeFatwa]

66. No conspiracy, no secret, no fringe

Agent bin Laden has over a quarter century employment history with the Central Intelligence Agency. This is neither secret, nor a conspiracy, nor denied by the regime.

[economic justice]

70. Link?

Could you point me to where this government has EVER said that bin Laden was an American agent?

[alwynsw]

30. I only see a legitimate question being asked.

Some have offered (at least partial) answers to the question posed. Others have taken this thread as an opportunity to spout unrelated chants and war cries. Still others have elected to attack the questioner.

Amazing. I'd like to see solid answers to the question as well.

Do we brand all Catholics or protestants as terrorists because of the actions of a few in Northern Ireland and the UK? Every group has its extremists. Are all conservationists terrorists because of the ALF and ELF actions? Definitely not.

Please, let's stay on topic by avoiding hijacking the thread for our own personal soapbox issues and refraining from attacking the originator of the thread because we see flamebait through careful application of select semantics.

/end of rant

[htuttle]

35. I am not attacking the questioner

I am attacking the premise of the question.

I have no problems with the questioner, and find myself alternatively agreeing and disagreeing with them depending upon the subject matter at hand.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. All of them

No, that doesn't mean they have armed troops in every nation, but supporters, influence, money all are ways to wage war.

[_Jumper_]

50. True

They have supporters in over 100 nations but I am limited my query to nations that they are attacking. For instance, they have many supporters in Argentina but they are not attacking it so I do not consider that a target of radical Islamists.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. There I disagree

They are targeting everything, but just not actually physically attacking every nation.

[economic justice]

59. Ahh....good catch! Very good point!! <eom>

[_Jumper_]

64. Eventually they seek world domination

However, right now only a few countries are targets of radical Islamists.

[DuctapeFatwa]

67. Oh jumper, you're confusing Muslims with Pagans AGAIN!

Try the bubble bath. You'll feel better, and you'll smell really good too.

[economic justice]

48. Actually a VERY GOOD question

I have wondered the same. Especially after the bin Laden tape on Al Jazeera yesterday where he says that the answer lies "not in diplomacy, but in violence." That's a call to arms to radical Islam everywhere. So, good question, and I am curious as well....does anyone know WHAT countries have high ratios of radical Islam tendencies versus Muslims who reject violence? It would be like knowing in what neighborhood the mob works. That's all Jumper was asking and I think it was a VERY good question! This happens SO MUCH around here....so many questions that have to do with Iraq, Al Quada, Saddam, bin Laden, etc, are FIRST met with posts about how America has done this this, done that, (ie: had it coming) and THAT all has to be argued first before we get around to the answers to the root question. Has anybody else noticed this?

[Blitz]

73. Here are some answers

I posted this in your earlier thread. Here is the info again:

Here is a link to a good analysis of terrorist activity in 2002:

http://www.emergency.com/2003/ERRI_2003_Ann.pdf

It demonstrates that Islamist terror is a global phenomenon and occurs in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, South America, Australia ... really, everywhere.

Here is another useful report, by the State Department:

http://www.usis.usemb.se/terror/rpt2002/index.html


I'll see if I can find anything that is easier to take in at one sitting.

[thebigidea]

75. they could be in your BACKYARD RIGHT NOW! keep on guard...

SPOT THE ISLAMIST!

http://terminalproduct.com/spotenemy.rm

[_Jumper_]

78. Which candidate are you supporting?

n/t

[Forkboy]

79. and that makes any difference why?

this question is almost as silly as what you edited.

[thebigidea]

83. ah, what did I miss?

and yeah, what a bizarre question. I'm not a salesman and/or press agent.

[thebigidea]

84. Rufus T. Firefly.

[lapauvre]

87. last I heard

there were some 80 countries designated as having Muslim majorities. The cover the globe. And, if the US's Christian Right keeps on trying for Armageddon, they're gonna get it.

If they read their bibles half as much as the quoted from them, they might figure out that not every man on earth, i.e. ALL of mankind, cannot make the decision as to when Christ will come again. that is in "God's" hands.

[_Jumper_]

88. This isn't about Muslims

Only a small fraction of Muslims are Islamists and only a small fraction of Islamists are violent, radical Islamists.

[thebigidea]

89. but one must always be on guard near all Muslims- they often crave terror!

you can see it in their eyes - they hate freedom!

[DuctapeFatwa]

90. They will break into your house and steal all your terror

that you worked so hard to provide for your family, they will snatch it right out of the fridge and use it to make anti-American biryanis.

[_Jumper_]

91. This is a serious issue

Your ilk, who chose to ignore or downplay national security issues, are going to lead us down the road to a Bush landslide in 2004. :scared:

[thebigidea]

92. DOWNPLAY national security issues? I am all about national security

I make sure my workplace is free of foreigners with terrorist inclinations, and my years of experience watching television gives me a great background for serious work for serious progress. I love my homeland, and I love it even more when its secure. So do your part: watch an Arab for hours today!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

95. I Should Have Turned in My Taxi Driver Today

I think he was Moroccan and his cab smelled like couscous. I think he was one of those "Islamo-fascists". It could have been sarin gas for all I know. Come to think of it, I think I feel sick. :puke:

Oh, it's this thread that's causing the reaction.

/sarcasm on/

[thebigidea]

96. problems with gas?

http://www.terminalproduct.com/cleanhands.rm

always remember to wash your hands after dealing with a North African - terror can be spread through tiny particles that cling to what scientists call "nooks and crannies."

[_Jumper_]

97. This thread is making you sick?

Discussing the #1 foreign affairs/national security issue of our time makes you sick? How many e-mail boxes has your post been sent to by right-wingers who wish to paint Democrats as soft on defense? :eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

99. No, I'm well aware of the issues, pal

and I think you're missing the broader geopolitical context of Islamic fundamentalism. Since you used the right-wing term 'Islamo-fascist' in a previously locked post, I figured you'd eventually dig your own hole.

I'm off to bed-good night.

[_Jumper_]

102. Then discuss that context

Instead of resorting to personal attacks.

[Forkboy]

100. I dont see the connection between RR's post

and being soft on defense.If you're so worried about what the right-wingers think why not point out where their arguments are wrong instead of getting pissed at those on the left for not buying what they (and you apparently) are selling.

[_Jumper_]

101. RW propaganda

They claim that the left is soft on defense and is unable to realize that there is evil in this world. RR's post played right into their hands.

I am selling the same thing most Americans and Democrats believe in: stopping the spread of radical Islamism. If that is considered extreme by the Democratic base, we are doomed...

It isn't about what right-wingers think; what moderate, swing voters think is what decides elections. NO ONE will vote for a party they perceive as being soft on defense and oblivious to long-term threats.

[lapauvre]

106. Try your wings on political chat, friend

You would not believe what I have been called for such crimes as saying that the right wing disrespecting democrats, especially democrats who have some serving in Iraq, is totally un-American and insulting. And, don't forget, the troops have computers, too.

Your ILK doesn't give a diddly about the troops. You give a big DIDDLY about crushing the only viable party that might stop your progress to a totalitarian theocracy.

You wrap yourself in the flag and hide behind the cross. You really believe in the P.T. Barnum thing. Well, we aren't "some of the people, all the time."

I have met so many like you on Pol Chat, and your bias and ignorance are phenomenal.

Your ILK makes light of my grandson's possible death and, in so many words, have hoped he gets killed, so there will be one less democrat.
You want to talk about nasty? You want to talk about un-American?

Don't bother me.

[_Jumper_]

107. Wrong thread?

:shrug:

[Forkboy]

93. Yeah

you guys with your ilk and stuff!

[thebigidea]

94. my ilk will lead us all to a golden tomorrow where happiness is mandatory

the telescreens will only play FULL HOUSE reruns for maximum tranquility.

[KG]

98. got ilk?

:)

[Blitz]

104. Well, that's a question, isn't it?

No one seems to have a very good handle on just what those franctions are. If we accept the premise that the percentage of Muslims worldwide that supports terror is a minority (and what is the basis for that assumptions, anyway?), shouldn't we try to have some idea about what kind of minority it is? There is a world of difference between 2% and 8% and 37%. Regions also matter. For example, the great majority of U.S. Muslims may reject terror but in the PA, for example, polls have shown that terror is supported by an overwhelming majority of respondents.

It's been over 2 years since 9-11 and we still don't have a handle on the scope of the problem and the nature of the enemy that we're fighting against. The reason? The answers may be very, very disturbing and not in the least politically correct. For those reasons (and a couple of others) discussions, just like this one, are typically ridiculed and shouted down with accusations of racism, warmongering and everything else in the PC warrior's lexicon.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. What is your point? There are radicals railing against many countries

Not all are religiously oriented. Maybe you are concerned because this group has ORGANIZED and therefore SOME of their underlying gripes no matter how extreme or undesirable THEY may be, may eventually have to be dealt with by an alteration of our BUSINESS practices.

What is your deal with Islamicists or any of the other names you call these groups that you have now had to redact several times? Why is it blaming America first to comment that many of these groups are indeed armed by a black market that the American government is well aware of?

Where do you get off saying Americans by proxy support our policy based on their vote when most Americans are IGNORANT of our actual dealings in these nations and could not find Afghanistan on a map prior to 9/11?