Topic: Islamism

[bigbonedrawky]

This is a very peculiar post, but quite interesting! I'm still trying to decide if I agree with any of it!

By some strange coincidence this is exactly how I view the concept of Religion. I find it peculiar but interesting and I'm still trying to decide if I agree with any of it 

It was based on listening to a discussion between members of all five of those Religions who happened to be doing the same IT course at college. (During the first week of the invasion of Iraq) One guy said something about the five finger on the hand of God been the Religions of the world but there was only one God.
It was all very cordial until I asked "So which one was the Thumb ? " Thing got very heated after that 

[Fat Scouser]

Goodfella, I'm probably boring the arse off people in here by stating the same thing all the time. But I want to say this, so I don't give a toss... I was in my early and mid 20's when the Soviets were in Afghanistan. Things were pretty woeful. I was unemployed, skint, living on an estate that looked like modern day Baghdad, with kids to feed. That's the last and only time I've been on the dole. I used to have plenty of time to watch the news inbetween Mr and Mrs and Indoor League.

I can't think of his name right now, but that fat arsed news reader fella in the white suit, went on to become MP for chester, I think, was doing the Kate Addie bit back then. He went riding off down the Khyber Pass with the Mujhadeen, white suit and head dress come turban, Carmen Miranda, Laurence of Kipling type thing, on a donkey.

I'm not arsing about. It was hilarious. I should try and dig it up. It must be on youtube or something. Anyway, he went riding off for weeks on end, regalling us daily with wonderful exciting tales of Aghan bravery as they pluckily brought down Russian tanks and Helicopters with their bare teeth and indomnitable spirit... "Nobody, not even Napoleon, has ever beaten the ferociously valiant Afghan freedom fighter."

The soviets went home. A couple of months later, our estate was riddled with smack. I fucked off to find work round about then. But, oh that media, eh. And I'm not even being sarcastic. That's basically what I was told. In fact, I wish I had a punchline. The only ones I can think of, are right downers. Maybe, somebody should start a lying-shite-media thread.

I used to like watching David Attenborough, finding new, or long thought extinct, species. Now it's just rednecks jumping on aligator's backs. I used to go to work in a van with about 15 fellas in a van. They all used to carry the Daily Mirror. The only tits in it, were a few football writers and George and Lyn. The lads used to talk about the sports and politics. They were boss aul socialist fellas. They taught me. I still agree with what they told me. Except for the years I was away, I've seen our media being systematically dumbed down. From Joe Strummer to the X-Factor, in six easy steps.

Sorry, I'm home alone and I'm enjoying the chat in here... fuck that telly.

[thegoodfella]

I was a little boy back then, and all I remember is how honorable the men going from this side of the border to that side were. They were baptizing my entire generation with the narrative of that conflict and the piety of General Zia. His time is remembered by the 'Kalashnikov culture' that prevailed across the land and of course, smack. But more than that, the madressah's that he set up with the help of the money men provided good cannon fodder for their conflict, but nothing else.

But I don't see these neanderthals as a danger to the entire civilization, far from it. All they have is a weak narrative that even a marginally educated kid punctured it on live TV that drove them to try and assassinate her, which they failed and are now bending over backwards with their stooges to reclaim the narrative.

[The Gulleysucker]

I can't think of his name right now....

FS, Sandy Gall? 3.11 on. 3.46 on horse and other clips from his Afghan documentaries.
He was actually alright, I first remember seeing him reporting on the Vietnam war and I think also maybe the withdrawal from Aden.
Quite a career.

[Fat Scouser]

FS, Sandy Gall? 3.11 on. 3.46 on horse and other clips from his Afghan documentaries.
He was actually alright, I first remember seeing him reporting on the Vietnam war and I think also maybe the withdrawal from Aden.
Quite a career.

Yeah. I know mate. I couldn't remember his name. I should have, Sandy Gall, it was a punch line of it's own back then. I'm just on me todd, and a bit fed up. But it's been alright in here, and I'm not arsing about. I don't think it's even out of place. I really do mean it... what the fuck has happened to our media?

Systematically murdered and watered down. From Kitchen Sink Dramas to Love Actually? I used to read the Guardian now and again. I don't now. I don't read any newspaper now. But I know it's gone down the nick, and not just from the comments in here.

In truth, I never really did read that much. I should have. I'm sorry I didn't. I'm not playing the thicko. I don't really know any good political commentators. I regret that. I remember reading a few articles by a fella called Alexander Cockburn. I only read them for a couple of reasons... I read the blurb, and it said his father was a mate of Robert Morley's. I love him. The other thing... one of the articles was called The Accountant Of Calcutta. It was about Mother Theresa shuffling off the mortal coil. I couldn't stop laughing. It was brilliant.

My point is, I'm an average fella. I'm 57. I still like footy, music, clobber, a few pints. I would be watching Towie if I was young. Thank fuck for small mercies. That shite just didn't happen to be about. So, I watched them great kitchen sink dramas. I had aul fellas like Shankly teaching me proper values. I asked my 7 year old grand daughter what she wanted to be. I don't know why I bothered. And I was right... "A celebrity." That's from a kid that we try and teach right. And she's a lovely kid. The point, or should I say, my opinion, is, our media is a bloody disgrace from top to bottom.

I don't know much about art, but beds with snotty tissues and knickers, sharks in brine, diamond skulls, Michael fucking MacIntire, Little bastard Britain, Jezzer, Gaza, Up the whazzer. I know I'm ranting and I know it doesn't belong in here. But I have a point... disenfranchised young men swept up in a populace death cult, well, I don't know how we can alter their lives one jot, let alone dramatically. But reforming our own banking system, let alone the global Zionist/Facist central bank system, would alter my grandkids immeasurably. And if so many of our youth weren't being left without hope, we mightn't have so many of them hating the state, be they muslim or not.

That's not  a dig at you, Armchair. I enjoyed your post. It's just me stating the same point over again. It must be tedious. I'm even boring meself now, so I'm off to smoke a bit more of that hasshashine malarkey. It's easier on my guts than the ale. But anyway, I think it's worth saying. My generation, on the estates and in the huge comprehensives, were just cast aside and abandoned by Thatcher. Didn't think I'd see it again. But the world seems an even nastier, and much crowded place, nowadays. So, I know fanatics won't be appeased. But I also know, we can't go into other people's countries and win their hearts and minds by shooting at them. And how can we expect them to listen, when all we do is lie to our own and teach them Towie reality.

Oh well, pass the peace pipe. Looks like we're pretty much fucked.

[thegoodfella]

I often struggle with cynicism myself but fuck me I want to have some joy and hope in this world. And this girl is just pure joy FS, you should check the videos out, she is the best Pakistan has to offer at the moment and she came out of a small town in North, doesn't have private education like the elite but boy she got a big heart.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/66995/watch-malala-yousafzai-s-inspiring-daily-show-appearance

I first saw her a few years back on one of the mainstream news channels, they were out in Swat asking people what's it like living under the religious local government and she spoke out that they have closed her school and are threatening to destroy it. Everyone on the screen squirmed and looked around at each other because the fascist twats were sitting right there and she battered them again and again. I wish more kids were like her, and tell it how it is rather than muck around with the Beibers and Mileys of the world.

[zero zero]

It's all a bit pop psychology, but is latching on to this bizarre death cult, just something that gives young lads (and it generally is young lads) some feeling of belonging (the way some of us latch on to Liverpool FC?) some way to simplify a horribly complicated world, some way to feel powerful and important?  I can (almost) see the appeal.

I think it's a sense of purpose. They have a 'just' cause and a role to play in it.

[Ziggy09]

It's all a bit pop psychology, but is latching on to this bizarre death cult, just something that gives young lads (and it generally is young lads) some feeling of belonging (the way some of us latch on to Liverpool FC?) some way to simplify a horribly complicated world, some way to feel powerful and important?  I can (almost) see the appeal.

I believe that is what may attract a certain section of them. A need to belong. But its not just one reason - as with most things in life, there are a multitude of reasons.

For instance, Ive noticed some of these men seemed to have strayed from the path of Islam at younger ages due to drugs/alcohol/substance abuse and then their guilt has been preyed upon and they are told that by believing in a much harsher version of Islam, and then I guess ultimately committing an act of terror somewhere, is what will redeem them.

Some Im sure are attracted because of political reasons - eg the way certain countries ensure their interests are protected no matter what has really started to become clearer and I guess some people see the only way of stopping that or changing it is to become a terrorist and fight against these countries.

Others just have psychological/mental problems (Richard Reid etc) and are just preyed upon and conned.

And Im sure there some who just want to see the world burn.

But whatever the reason/attraction the end result is the same - they join these groups and some of them go on and kill innocent people.

And that is what the world leaders need to address. Blowing them up in return works but only for the short term. In the long term, all you do is give them more propaganda and a bigger recruiting tool. Killing innocent people in villages far away - even though you may kill your main target - will only create more people you have to kill in the future. But then again, may be the people in charge of the drones want this cycle to happen as it feeds their goals?

[Ziggy09]

It must be tedious. I'm even boring meself now, so I'm off to smoke a bit more of that hasshashine malarkey. It's easier on my guts than the ale. But anyway, I think it's worth saying.

Definitely worth reading and Ive enjoyed it too! Thanks!

[Fat Scouser]

Definitely worth reading and Ive enjoyed it too! Thanks!

I really should stay in the aul arse thread when I've got nothing else to do and I'm a bit fed up.

Goodfella, I have seen the young girl Malala on a few things now. I honestly don't know what to think. But I mean that concerning our own media. They will exploit her to the hilt. I happened to be channel flicking the other night before bed. That American thing, The Daily Show came on. As the host fauned all over the kid, all I could keep thinking about was the other little Muslim girl that was paraded in front of the senate or congress, some official thing or another. I really should stay away from that pot. But someone with better short term memory will remember the details. The gist being, they paraded this young girl for the western media, and it turned out she was an Evertonian, or a member of the Saudi Royal Family. But whatever it was she was, she wasn't quite what we were led to believe.

No doubt, brainwashing and propaganda plays a huge part in attracting hopeless young men to radical Islam. That's how gangs work. But have we really moved on much from the King's Shilling and Your Country Needs You? Seems to me they really don't have much need or use for angry young men of all religions.

Anyway, I've said me piece time and time again. So, I'll try and stick to the aul arse thread if I get fed up with the telly tonight.

[BarryCrocker]

What's the biggest threat to world peace today?

People not being treated equally.

[hansen6]

But it was one they kept on making. In fact the day before, on September 12th 2001, they invited this well known nut to put his (ever venal) point of view. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/sep/12/september11.britainand9112?guni=Article:in%20body%20link.

Note too how the headline - 'Reaping the whirlwind' - continues the 'it's all blow-back' theme.

It's nothing to do with western intervention in their countries then?

[outlaw_nas]

since when did the middle east become a problem?
since the demise of the ottomans?
and who put these leaders in charge of the middle eastern countries?
wasnt it the british and lawrence who gave power to the saud/wahabi ideology?
and aint most problems coming from the hardline wahabis from saud who are funding majority of terrorist groups?

questions questions questions indeed

[mactifosi]

since when did the middle east become a problem?
since the demise of the ottomans?
and who put these leaders in charge of the middle eastern countries?
wasnt it the british and lawrence who gave power to the saud/wahabi ideology?
and aint most problems coming from the hardline wahabis from saud who are funding majority of terrorist groups?

questions questions questions indeed

That's it unfortunately, Al Qaeda itself owes it's existence to oil wealth enjoyed by the Wahhabi movement - actually Al Qaeda and Wahhabism are more or less the same thing in my opinion.

Quite Simply Saudi Arabia is the main problem - Israel in as much as I oppose what they are doing are not the main problem.

For example:
The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years. The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrasas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports imam training; mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). Some of the hundreds of thousands of non-Saudis who live in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf have been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon their return. Agencies controlled by the Kingdom's Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance are responsible for outreach to non-Muslim residents and are converting hundreds of non-Muslims into Islam every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html


So what are we doing about this threat?

[Yorkykopite]

since when did the middle east become a problem?
since the demise of the ottomans?
questions questions questions indeed

Why not since the RISE of the Ottomans? I mean what were they doing in the Middle east in the first place?

[jambutty]

FS, microbanking has a good chance of changing the face of banking across the third world and possibly elsewhere.

But Malala is a Prime Minister in waiting.

[outlaw_nas]

That's it unfortunately, Al Qaeda itself owes it's existence to oil wealth enjoyed by the Wahhabi movement - actually Al Qaeda and Wahhabism are more or less the same thing in my opinion.

Quite Simply Saudi Arabia is the main problem - Israel in as much as I oppose what they are doing are not the main problem.

For example:
The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years. The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrasas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports imam training; mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). Some of the hundreds of thousands of non-Saudis who live in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf have been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon their return. Agencies controlled by the Kingdom's Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance are responsible for outreach to non-Muslim residents and are converting hundreds of non-Muslims into Islam every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html


So what are we doing about this threat?

couldnt agree more.
wernt the 911 guys mostly saudi arabians?but thats another topic

its a vicious circle, with sauds throwing money about, no one is going to say anything to them

[outlaw_nas]

Why not since the RISE of the Ottomans? I mean what were they doing in the Middle east in the first place?

what were the british doing ruling most of the world?

[Yorkykopite]

Was wondering why the name Martin Jenkins was familiar to me, and of course it's because of Test Match Special!

I just re-read Simon Jenkins' Nairobi piece, and have to confess I agree with every word if it. He criticizes the West's response to a succession of terrorist atrocities, and contends that their actions have been counter-productive, "refreshing rather than diminishing extremism". You may not agree that that is the case, but it is a perfectly reasonable way of examining the evidence in my view.

Yeah a bit of TMS sneaked in there and caused a glitch. But, yes, it was Simon Jenkins I meant.

I admit I'm surprised anyone could "agree with every word of it". It seems so self-evidently barmy. I mean what do you make of this comment?

Sometimes we should stop and ask why terrorists commit outrages like that in a Nairobi shopping mall. The answer is the west always over-reacts to big, sensational gestures of extreme violence.

He's saying - unambiguously - that the Nairobi terrorists murdered all those people because they knew we in the West would "over-react". You don't think that's odd, even mad? First of all because it begs the question of what constitutes 'over-reaction'. I mean how should we react when we are confronted by mass murder on the streets of Nairobi or London or New York? Just brush it under the table for fear that anything else might provoke another attack? But secondly because once again we see a Guardian columnist failing to consider the real - and documented - reasons why Islamists often resort to mass terror. It's as if for Jenkins they have no agenda other than to get attention. That's to say no agenda about sharia law, the rooting out of heresy, the desire to create theocracies, the plan to subjugate women. They just kill people because the West "overreacts" and they like to watch us squirm.

And what's his solution - the one you apparently agree with?

The modern urban obsession with celebrity buildings and high-profile events offers too many publicity-rich targets. A World Trade Centre, a Mumbai hotel, a Boston marathon, a Nairobi shopping mall are all enticing to extremists. Defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them. A shopping mall not only wipes out shopping streets, it makes a perfect terrorist fortress, near impossible to assault.


Talk about surrender! Don't build shopping malls, don't stage marathons (and prestigious football tournaments too presumably), don't build nice hotels. And has Jenkins never heard of Islamist terrorists letting their bombs off in crowded bazaars - or "shopping streets" as he has it? It happens frequently in Iraq.

At least he does sort of go on to recognise that not all Islamist targets are in 'westernised' places like hotels and shopping malls. That's to say he recognises - as Seamus Milne never does - that these bastards also attack mosques and churches and markets. But then he has the same extraordinary solution which is based upon the same abject defeatism:

There is nothing anyone can do to prevent suicide bombers hitting civilian populations. The slaughter of Christians in Peshawar this weekend showed that wherever crowds gather they are vulnerable to any group with a brainwashed youth and a bomb. It might be sensible to discourage like-minded crowds from gathering in one place, be they co-religionists or party faithful or merely the wealthy.

And you agree with this too? That Christians should stop worshipping in churches because they provoke Islamists to attack them? That crowds should be discouraged from meeting (even 'anti-war' crowds?)

If we left it to the Jenkins of the world we'd simply do the terrorists' job for them. We'd close down churches they don't like. We'd change our hedonistic cultural habits they don't like. We'd empty the schools of Muslim girls. We'd stop staging major sports tournaments. We'd stop shopping. Hell, why not bring in Sharia Law and make ourselves really safe?

I read Jenkins and begin to understand the mentality of those Conservatives in the 1930s who were hell-bent on appeasement. It wasn't just that they were afraid of Hitler. They actually didn't like what he didn't like. They had no affection for or pride in democracy. They were classic self-haters.

[outlaw_nas]

Have just been reading an article in the New Yorker about the Iranian operative said to be running Assad's war efforts. Was interesting to read how the US and Iran were cooperating against the Taliban, how the US withdrawal from Iraq effectively put it under Iranian control, how that has meant Iranian planes can use Iraqi airspace to transport arms to Syria, and how that has prolonged the Assad regime. Iran feels it has to protect Syria as a last line of defence, the article says. In Iraq, the government 'dislikes' the Iranians but 'hate' the Islamists. Hezbollah acts sometimes alone, sometimes in concert with Iran. All a mess of groups acting in their own interests, as is natural. It's a big, bad world out there, with everyone looking out for themselves.

and its the sunni syrian people who are getting killed from all corners
assads alawaite, iranians,hezbullah and al qaida extreamist

[Yorkykopite]

what were the british doing ruling most of the world?

That's right. Change the subject.

[RojoLeón]

since when did the middle east become a problem?
since the demise of the ottomans?
and who put these leaders in charge of the middle eastern countries?
wasnt it the british and lawrence who gave power to the saud/wahabi ideology?
and aint most problems coming from the hardline wahabis from saud who are funding majority of terrorist groups?

questions questions questions indeed

  Shhh, whatever you do, don't mention the oil - somebody did, but I think they got away with it

[hide5seek]

You should all give the looming tower a read, very good book explaining the lead up to sept 11.

[jason67]

I really should stay in the aul arse thread when I've got nothing else to do and I'm a bit fed up.

Goodfella, I have seen the young girl Malala on a few things now. I honestly don't know what to think. But I mean that concerning our own media. They will exploit her to the hilt. I happened to be channel flicking the other night before bed. That American thing, The Daily Show came on. As the host fauned all over the kid, all I could keep thinking about was the other little Muslim girl that was paraded in front of the senate or congress, some official thing or another. I really should stay away from that pot. But someone with better short term memory will remember the details. The gist being, they paraded this young girl for the western media, and it turned out she was an Evertonian, or a member of the Saudi Royal Family. But whatever it was she was, she wasn't quite what we were led to believe.

Anyway, I've said me piece time and time again. So, I'll try and stick to the aul arse thread if I get fed up with the telly tonight.

I really hope that you are not suggesting that our media (governments) would lie and use somebody to further their agenda?

I think you should take a break and read up on another young heroine like Jessica Lynch.

Shame on you. 

[outlaw_nas]

That's right. Change the subject.

sometimes you got to look at the bigger picture in order to get your answer

[Yorkykopite]

sometimes you got to look at the bigger picture in order to get your answer

Ah, I see. You're a wise and knowledgeable man. Too wise and knowledgeable for me.

[JTK]

sometimes you got to look at the bigger picture in order to get your answer

I read that in a hippy voice.

[Chakan]

sometimes you got to look at the bigger picture in order to get your answer

Confucius say " man who has hole in pocket is feeling cocky all day"

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Yeah a bit of TMS sneaked in there and caused a glitch. But, yes, it was Simon Jenkins I meant.

I admit I'm surprised anyone could "agree with every word of it". It seems so self-evidently barmy. I mean what do you make of this comment?

Sometimes we should stop and ask why terrorists commit outrages like that in a Nairobi shopping mall. The answer is the west always over-reacts to big, sensational gestures of extreme violence.

He's saying - unambiguously - that the Nairobi terrorists murdered all those people because they knew we in the West would "over-react". You don't think that's odd, even mad? First of all because it begs the question of what constitutes 'over-reaction'. I mean how should we react when we are confronted by mass murder on the streets of Nairobi or London or New York? Just brush it under the table for fear that anything else might provoke another attack? But secondly because once again we see a Guardian columnist failing to consider the real - and documented - reasons why Islamists often resort to mass terror. It's as if for Jenkins they have no agenda other than to get attention. That's to say no agenda about sharia law, the rooting out of heresy, the desire to create theocracies, the plan to subjugate women. They just kill people because the West "overreacts" and they like to watch us squirm.

And what's his solution - the one you apparently agree with?

The modern urban obsession with celebrity buildings and high-profile events offers too many publicity-rich targets. A World Trade Centre, a Mumbai hotel, a Boston marathon, a Nairobi shopping mall are all enticing to extremists. Defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them. A shopping mall not only wipes out shopping streets, it makes a perfect terrorist fortress, near impossible to assault.


Talk about surrender! Don't build shopping malls, don't stage marathons (and prestigious football tournaments too presumably), don't build nice hotels. And has Jenkins never heard of Islamist terrorists letting their bombs off in crowded bazaars - or "shopping streets" as he has it? It happens frequently in Iraq.

At least he does sort of go on to recognise that not all Islamist targets are in 'westernised' places like hotels and shopping malls. That's to say he recognises - as Seamus Milne never does - that these bastards also attack mosques and churches and markets. But then he has the same extraordinary solution which is based upon the same abject defeatism:

There is nothing anyone can do to prevent suicide bombers hitting civilian populations. The slaughter of Christians in Peshawar this weekend showed that wherever crowds gather they are vulnerable to any group with a brainwashed youth and a bomb. It might be sensible to discourage like-minded crowds from gathering in one place, be they co-religionists or party faithful or merely the wealthy.

And you agree with this too? That Christians should stop worshipping in churches because they provoke Islamists to attack them? That crowds should be discouraged from meeting (even 'anti-war' crowds?)

If we left it to the Jenkins of the world we'd simply do the terrorists' job for them. We'd close down churches they don't like. We'd change our hedonistic cultural habits they don't like. We'd empty the schools of Muslim girls. We'd stop staging major sports tournaments. We'd stop shopping. Hell, why not bring in Sharia Law and make ourselves really safe?

I read Jenkins and begin to understand the mentality of those Conservatives in the 1930s who were hell-bent on appeasement. It wasn't just that they were afraid of Hitler. They actually didn't like what he didn't like. They had no affection for or pride in democracy. They were classic self-haters.

He isn't saying that they murdered those people because hey knew the west would over-react.  He says that they selected a western-owned shopping mall full of westerner sbecause they knew that this would provoke more of a response than alternative targets. Nor is he saying that the Kenyans shouldn't have malls - he's saying that the west shouldn't be going and putting them there. If they are going to have malls, they should be Kenyan malls. It is neo-imperialism which heaps up resentment.  The West is fleecing the wealth out of the Middle East and Africa. His comments on Christians are just pragmatic, a realization of the current situation. One suspects that Christians would have much less to worry about if the west desisted from its constant economic and military meddling.

[Yorkykopite]

He isn't saying that they murdered those people because hey knew the west would over-react.  He says that they selected a western-owned shopping mall full of westerner sbecause they knew that this would provoke more of a response than alternative targets. Nor is he saying that the Kenyans shouldn't have malls - he's saying that the west shouldn't be going and putting them there. If they are going to have malls, they should be Kenyan malls. It is neo-imperialism which heaps up resentment.  The West is fleecing the wealth out of the Middle East and Africa. His comments on Christians are just pragmatic, a realization of the current situation. One suspects that Christians would have much less to worry about if the west desisted from its constant economic and military meddling.

There you are . It is all the West's fault.

In some ways, I have to say, you're actually worse than he is. Jenkins doesn't actually distinguish between western-built shopping malls and Kenyan-built ones. That's just your gloss, saying Kenyan-built ones would be immune from terrorist attack. Brilliant. But how do you know? Is that what Al-Shabab said? I thought they said that they were hitting Nairobi because Kenya had deployed troops in the African Union force that was engaged in Somalia? But maybe you're right and it was actually a protest against western-built shopping malls being constructed in Nairobi.

Like I said in the previous post, Islamist terrorists have frequently targetted bazaars (and not Western-built ones if there is such a thing). They have also often targetted mosques (again not Western-built ones, again if there is such a thing). The constant desire to ventriloquise on behalf of the Islamist terrorists and to make them 'green', or 'anti-imperialist' or 'against consumerism' says more about the mind-set of certain disillusoined westerners than it does the realities of Islamism and politics in the Muslim world.

This leads you eventually to the degrading idea that Islamists attack Pakistani churches because of 'economic meddling' by the West. 

[Corkboy]

In some ways, I have to say, you're actually worse than he is. Jenkins doesn't actually distinguish between western-built shopping malls and Kenyan-built ones. That's just your gloss, saying Kenyan-built ones would be immune from terrorist attack. Brilliant. But how do you know? Is that what Al-Shabab said?

Al Shabab said the Westgate attack was in retaliation for the deployment of Kenyan troops in Somalia, as far as I can make out.

[The Fletcher Memorial]

Al Shabab said the Westgate attack was in retaliation for the deployment of Kenyan troops in Somalia, as far as I can make out.

Didnt you read a line further on corky?

I thought they said that they were hitting Nairobi because Kenya had deployed troops in the African Union force that was engaged in Somalia?

[Fat Scouser]

I really hope that you are not suggesting that our media (governments) would lie and use somebody to further their agenda?

I think you should take a break and read up on another young heroine like Jessica Lynch.

Shame on you. 

Yep. It's a dirty business. That's why I'm going to do my best to stay out of it. I've said my piece and it won't be resolved in my time, anyway.  When's the oil going to run out? Maybe, if Israel have the water they need by then, there might be some peace. Mind you, when that money's gone, and the desert is reclaiming the hotels and world cup stadiums, there's going to be some really pissed off Muslims about. Maybe we should just nuke em, turn the place to glass and be done with it.

[Corkboy]

Didnt you read a line further on corky?

Nope. Sorry.

[The Fletcher Memorial]

Nope. Sorry.

Naughty boy, in your bed. No virgins for you!

[Yorkykopite]

Naughty boy, in your bed. No virgins for you!

I thought it was 'raisins' anyway? If it is I don't mind him having some raisins.

[Corkboy]

I thought it was 'raisins' anyway? If it is I don't mind him having some raisins.

Virgins in my bed would raise all sorts of awkward questions from my wife. I think she'd be ok with raisins, though.

[bahrainexpat]

He isn't saying that they murdered those people because hey knew the west would over-react.  He says that they selected a western-owned shopping mall full of westerner sbecause they knew that this would provoke more of a response than alternative targets. Nor is he saying that the Kenyans shouldn't have malls - he's saying that the west shouldn't be going and putting them there. If they are going to have malls, they should be Kenyan malls. It is neo-imperialism which heaps up resentment.  The West is fleecing the wealth out of the Middle East and Africa. His comments on Christians are just pragmatic, a realization of the current situation. One suspects that Christians would have much less to worry about if the west desisted from its constant economic and military meddling.

How exactly is the West fleecing the wealth out of the Middle East? As for Africa it is China leading the fleecing by a country mile.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

There you are . It is all the West's fault.

In some ways, I have to say, you're actually worse than he is. Jenkins doesn't actually distinguish between western-built shopping malls and Kenyan-built ones. That's just your gloss, saying Kenyan-built ones would be immune from terrorist attack. Brilliant. But how do you know? Is that what Al-Shabab said? I thought they said that they were hitting Nairobi because Kenya had deployed troops in the African Union force that was engaged in Somalia? But maybe you're right and it was actually a protest against western-built shopping malls being constructed in Nairobi.

Like I said in the previous post, Islamist terrorists have frequently targetted bazaars (and not Western-built ones if there is such a thing). They have also often targetted mosques (again not Western-built ones, again if there is such a thing). The constant desire to ventriloquise on behalf of the Islamist terrorists and to make them 'green', or 'anti-imperialist' or 'against consumerism' says more about the mind-set of certain disillusoined westerners than it does the realities of Islamism and politics in the Muslim world.

This leads you eventually to the degrading idea that Islamists attack Pakistani churches because of 'economic meddling' by the West. 

Worse than Simon Jenkins? I've been called worse names.

Again, you twist words, this time mine. I didn't say that the attacks were because of the presence of the mall. I said that the mall was selected as a target because it is an obvious symbol of economic imperialism. Would you deny this?

I wish I could see the world in such black and white terms as you. Your view seems to be that terrorism is the fault of the terrorist and therefore it can't possibly have any other contributing causes. In my view, that is simplistic and plain wrong. I believe that terrorism is the fault of the terrorist too. I also believe that the philosophy and aims of the terrorist is by definition absolutely fucked up, whether it be ties to religious fanaticism, nationalism or whatever. I think it is important to ask ourselves the question, then, why do these nutters find an audience? I think it is because they preach their message to the poor and disenfranchised. Why are there so many poor and disenfranchised people in the world? Because there is so much inequality.

Western activities are not the cause of terrorism, but they do encourage a world in which extremism is more likely to take root.

That is my position simply stated, and I hope you do not find it too offensive.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Apologies for the typos, written on my phone with autocorrect doing its worst.