Topic: Islamism

[Gnurglan]

A Nigerian Muslim thinks about religion, decides that Islam - like Christianity - is nonsense and becomes an atheist. But the authorities don't like that and section him claiming he must be insane. He's getting the word out though.

I know I shouldn't, but

Feel for the man, but it's pure comedy gold.

[potatomato33]

Reports that ISIS's marketing department have changed their name to just IS now, just in time for Ramadan.

P Diddy / Puff Daddy. You say tomato, I say tomato.

Maybe they don't want to be mistaken as a joke organization (Archer)

[viteslesrouges]

Not the first time he's tried it though, apparently sharia's not for him . 


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/omar-bakri-muhammad-islamist-leader-seeks-return-to-uk-after-being-banned-in-wake-of-77-praise-9570963.html

Sunday 29 June 2014

The family of Omar Bakri Muhammad are asking for the militant Islamist leader to be allowed to return to the UK, nearly ten years after he left the country for Lebanon, where he has since been arrested multiple times and where he claims to have been tortured.

Bakri’s family says that he has been tortured during his time in a Lebanese maximum security prison, though the claims have yet to be independently verified. The family says that he is close to death.

Bakri was permanently excluded in 2005 on the grounds that he was not conducive to the public good. The Home Office has said that because he is outside of the country he will not be able to apply for asylum.

The preacher received political asylum in the UK in the 1980s and stayed until 2005. He left the UK soon after the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, and fled to Lebanon. But he was arrested in Beirut towards the end of May for allegedly supporting terrorism.

Bakri has been accused of founding militant Islamist groups Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al Muhajiroun, and of glorifying terrorists including those that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7. He helped convert Michael Adebolajo, who took part in the murder of Lee Rigby and was a member of Al-Muhajiroun.

Bakri is understood to have been living in the Libyan city of Tripoli for some of the time since his arrest in 2010. Source: Getty
 “This person has contributed in every aspect in supporting terrorism,” Lebanon’s interior minister, Nouhad Machnouk, alleged after the arrest.

Bakri has been considered by some to court publicity, a view that his son Mohammad Bakri seemed to support.

“I think unless you know the character himself, like my father – I grew up with him – so therefore I understand the tactics that he uses to attract the media in order to pass the message of Islam,” he told Sky News. “You may find that distasteful, but at the end of the day he has not committed any crimes in the UK.”

He was previously sentenced to life in prison in Lebanon in 2010, but was released after witnesses recanted their testimony. He is thought to have been living in Tripoli in Lebanon for some of the time since, and has Syrian and Lebanese citizenship.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/21/syria.immigrationpolicy

Friday 21 July 2006 13.25 BST

Exiled radical Islamic preacher Omar Bakri was turned away from a Royal Navy ship evacuating Britons from war-torn Beirut, it emerged today.
The Muslim cleric, who left Britain for Lebanon abruptly in August last year, tried to board the British ship yesterday. He also claimed he had written to the British embassy asking to be allowed to back on "humanitarian grounds".

Mr Bakri, who founded the now-disbanded radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun during his 20 years in Britain, was barred from the country for good by the then home secretary, Charles Clarke, days after he left.

Mr Bakri said today he was refused a place on the Royal Navy ship because he did not have a British passport.

He insisted he was only appealing for help on behalf of his family and stressed: "I have never been charged or sentenced in Britain."

Speaking to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme by mobile phone from Beirut, Mr Bakri said: "I am not appealing now against the decision to give me the right to stay in Britain. I am not appealing for that.

"I am appealing on behalf of my children who are worried and they want to see their own father. Do you want my little sons or my little family to come now to Lebanon? I don't think you want that."

Mr Bakri was born in Syria and is believed to hold joint Syrian and Lebanese citizenship. He was granted political asylum in the UK in the 1980s because of his involvement with Islamist groups opposed to the secular government of Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of Syria's current president.

Mr Bakri had praised the September 11 attackers and called for Britain to become an Islamist state, and is regarded as the spiritual leader of Al-Ghurabaa, the organisation responsible for February's Danish embassy protests against cartoons of Mohammed.

He voluntarily left Britain last August days after the Home Office announced it was looking at using treason charges to prosecute him over inflammatory comments made by his Islamist group al-Muhajiroun.

Two of Mr Bakri's associates also mentioned in connection with the treason investigation, Abu Uzair and Abu Izzadeen, were not prosecuted and are still living freely in Britain. But Mr Bakri's departure allowed the home secretary, Charles Clarke, to revoke his indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Foreign office minister Lord Triesman, who is in Cyprus to observe the arrival of evacuated Britons, told BCC Radio Five Live he thought Mr Mohammed was trying to gain publicity.

"The decision was taken by the home secretary that his presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive given his attitudes and given the way he's spoken of this country, the United Kingdom. It was not conducive for the well being of the country.

"We've got about 30 immigration officers from the Home Office processing people who've got legitimate visas and no doubt they will be taking appropriate decisions but so far as I'm aware, he's made no application whatever to us to come in any case. It's a bit of theatre to be candid with you."

Mr Bakri's former student Anjem Choudhary, a former leader of Al-Muhajiroun, said that a letter Mr Bakri had written to the British embassy had gone unanswered and that there was "no harm" in the application.

"He has written to the British Embassy, asking either for a temporary visa to come over until the situation returns to normality, or to seek permission to go to Cyprus and maybe be reunited with his family there," he said, adding that Mr Bakri had a wife and six children still living in the UK.

"As a fellow Muslim, I think he has the right on humanitarian grounds to leave Lebanon - after all, he lived here for 20 years.

"He left on his own accord, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to return. He was not deported or extradited. He has never committed any offences in this country."

[Corkboy]

It will Fletch. Maybe not in our lifetimes. But people in the afflicted areas will demand an end and become organised enough to affect it. Just like we did once upon a time. Religion will cease to tyrannise people like it does today.

[Corkboy]

source

[Narwin Dunez]

Good old religion.

[Yorkykopite]

Not behind the usual pay wall.

'Moderate Muslims - It's time to be outraged'

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4137012.ece?shareToken=88a156e56a55e00441728bf2b672b532

[jooneyisdagod]

source

It says something when Pakistan and Indonesia appear to be the sensible ones.

[Libertine]

The tragedy of the Arabs

A civilisation that used to lead the world is in ruins—and only the locals can rebuild it


A THOUSAND years ago, the great cities of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo took turns to race ahead of the Western world. Islam and innovation were twins. The various Arab caliphates were dynamic superpowers—beacons of learning, tolerance and trade. Yet today the Arabs are in a wretched state. Even as Asia, Latin America and Africa advance, the Middle East is held back by despotism and convulsed by war.

Hopes soared three years ago, when a wave of unrest across the region led to the overthrow of four dictators—in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen—and to a clamour for change elsewhere, notably in Syria. But the Arab spring’s fruit has rotted into renewed autocracy and war. Both engender misery and fanaticism that today threaten the wider world.

Why Arab countries have so miserably failed to create democracy, happiness or (aside from the windfall of oil) wealth for their 350m people is one of the great questions of our time. What makes Arab society susceptible to vile regimes and fanatics bent on destroying them (and their perceived allies in the West)? No one suggests that the Arabs as a people lack talent or suffer from some pathological antipathy to democracy. But for the Arabs to wake from their nightmare, and for the world to feel safe, a great deal needs to change.

One problem is that the Arab countries’ troubles run so wide. Indeed, Syria and Iraq can nowadays barely be called countries at all. This week a brutal band of jihadists declared their boundaries void, heralding instead a new Islamic caliphate to embrace Iraq and Greater Syria (including Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and bits of Turkey) and—in due course—the whole world. Its leaders seek to kill non-Muslims not just in the Middle East but also in the streets of New York, London and Paris. Egypt is back under military rule. Libya, following the violent demise of Muammar Qaddafi, is at the mercy of unruly militias. Yemen is beset by insurrection, infighting and al-Qaeda. Palestine is still far from true statehood and peace: the murders of three young Israelis and ensuing reprisals threaten to set off yet another cycle of violence (see article). Even countries such as Saudi Arabia and Algeria, whose regimes are cushioned by wealth from oil and gas and propped up by an iron-fisted apparatus of state security, are more fragile than they look. Only Tunisia, which opened the Arabs’ bid for freedom three years ago, has the makings of a real democracy.

Islam, or at least modern reinterpretations of it, is at the core of some of the Arabs’ deep troubles. The faith’s claim, promoted by many of its leading lights, to combine spiritual and earthly authority, with no separation of mosque and state, has stunted the development of independent political institutions. A militant minority of Muslims are caught up in a search for legitimacy through ever more fanatical interpretations of the Koran. Other Muslims, threatened by militia violence and civil war, have sought refuge in their sect. In Iraq and Syria plenty of Shias and Sunnis used to marry each other; too often today they resort to maiming each other. And this violent perversion of Islam has spread to places as distant as northern Nigeria and northern England.

But religious extremism is a conduit for misery, not its fundamental cause (see article). While Islamic democracies elsewhere (such as Indonesia—see article) are doing fine, in the Arab world the very fabric of the state is weak. Few Arab countries have been nations for long. The dead hand of the Turks’ declining Ottoman empire was followed after the first world war by the humiliation of British and French rule. In much of the Arab world the colonial powers continued to control or influence events until the 1960s. Arab countries have not yet succeeded in fostering the institutional prerequisites of democracy—the give-and-take of parliamentary discourse, protection for minorities, the emancipation of women, a free press, independent courts and universities and trade unions.

The absence of a liberal state has been matched by the absence of a liberal economy. After independence, the prevailing orthodoxy was central planning, often Soviet-inspired. Anti-market, anti-trade, pro-subsidy and pro-regulation, Arab governments strangled their economies. The state pulled the levers of economic power—especially where oil was involved. Where the constraints of post-colonial socialism were lifted, capitalism of the crony, rent-seeking kind took hold, as it did in the later years of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. Privatisation was for pals of the government. Virtually no markets were free, barely any world-class companies developed, and clever Arabs who wanted to excel in business or scholarship had to go to America or Europe to do so.

Economic stagnation bred dissatisfaction. Monarchs and presidents-for-life defended themselves with secret police and goons. The mosque became a source of public services and one of the few places where people could gather and hear speeches. Islam was radicalised and the angry men who loathed their rulers came to hate the Western states that backed them. Meanwhile a vast number of the young grew restless because of unemployment. Thanks to the electronic media, they were increasingly aware that the prospects of their cohort outside the Middle East were far more hopeful. The wonder is not that they took to the streets in the Arab spring, but that they did not do so sooner.

These wrongs cannot easily or rapidly be put right. Outsiders, who have often been drawn to the region as invaders and occupiers, cannot simply stamp out the jihadist cause or impose prosperity and democracy. That much, at least, should be clear after the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Military support—the supply of drones and of a small number of special forces—may help keep the jihadists in Iraq at bay. That help may have to be on permanent call. Even if the new caliphate is unlikely to become a recognisable state, it could for many years produce jihadists able to export terrorism.

But only the Arabs can reverse their civilisational decline, and right now there is little hope of that happening. The extremists offer none. The mantra of the monarchs and the military men is “stability”. In a time of chaos, its appeal is understandable, but repression and stagnation are not the solution. They did not work before; indeed they were at the root of the problem. Even if the Arab awakening is over for the moment, the powerful forces that gave rise to it are still present. The social media which stirred up a revolution in attitudes cannot be uninvented. The men in their palaces and their Western backers need to understand that stability requires reform.

Is that a vain hope? Today the outlook is bloody. But ultimately fanatics devour themselves. Meanwhile, wherever possible, the moderate, secular Sunnis who comprise the majority of Arab Muslims need to make their voices heard. And when their moment comes, they need to cast their minds back to the values that once made the Arab world great. Education underpinned its primacy in medicine, mathematics, architecture and astronomy. Trade paid for its fabulous metropolises and their spices and silks. And, at its best, the Arab world was a cosmopolitan haven for Jews, Christians and Muslims of many sects, where tolerance fostered creativity and invention.

Pluralism, education, open markets: these were once Arab values and they could be so again. Today, as Sunnis and Shias tear out each others’ throats in Iraq and Syria and a former general settles onto his new throne in Egypt, they are tragically distant prospects. But for a people for whom so much has gone so wrong, such values still make up a vision of a better future.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21606284-civilisation-used-lead-world-ruinsand-only-locals-can-rebuild-it

[Haemoglobin]

Good little piece that, though quite sad in its sense of hope-without-hope for all the beleaguered sane civilians and courageous progressive activists in that fucked neck of the woods.

This in particular is something that very few people you talk with in the office or pub about 'them arabs/muslims' are ever properly aware of:

Meanwhile, wherever possible, the moderate, secular Sunnis who comprise the majority of Arab Muslims need to make their voices heard. And when their moment comes, they need to cast their minds back to the values that once made the Arab world great. Education underpinned its primacy in medicine, mathematics, architecture and astronomy. Trade paid for its fabulous metropolises and their spices and silks. And, at its best, the Arab world was a cosmopolitan haven for Jews, Christians and Muslims of many sects, where tolerance fostered creativity and invention.

Scientific advancements in those regions at one point in history put the rest of the world to shame. And some of the art and architecture of the 'golden era' is just so incredibly, profoundly beautiful; we all respond inside to romantic, exotic, adventurous Eastern visions as told in the old stories. If only they could all truly liberate themselves from this oppressive, regressive shite that's plagued them in more recent times, in a lasting sense, let their new generations, men and women alike, feed their minds.

There should be jihad, only against those who don't believe in a world where we can all get along with one another, regardless of differences in our religious beliefs or lack thereof. That may sound naive, but few would argue that the fanatical extremists are the single most destructive force within the faith, the warmongers and hell-bringers. It terrifies me to think that they could just seize power simply because they have the mad zeal to keep pushing relentlessly, and keep recruiting. Ordinary people now need to summon extraordinary amounts of daily courage to defy these viscious loons, sack off the suffocating insularity of tribal politics for good and create a free world for themselves full of promise, something actually inviting to the other inhabitants of this planet once again.

[outlaw_nas]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/isis-destroy-kaaba-mecca_n_5547635.html

Isis wanna blow up the Kaaba next.....

[Yorkykopite]

29 more people murdered in Kenya by Islamists who feel very strongly that Mohammed is good for everyone and should be imposed on them by force.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28181246

[The Gulleysucker]

Tolerance in action.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28177841

There's little hope is there?

[Narwin Dunez]

That's horrible. Some lovely buildings torn apart by some of the biggest c*nts in the world.

[Yorkykopite]

Those are incredible, frightening pictures.

It proves once again that the biggest threat to religious freedom comes from religious people, not atheists.

It proves once again that Islamists are a bigger threat to people with brown skin than white.

Hopefully it does not prove - once again - that mainstream Muslims get more exercised by someone drawing a picture of Mohammed than the wholesale destruction of mosques & shrines by fellow, if fanatical, believers. 

People wanting to know where Fascism is in the modern world, it's here. This is it. It's called Islamism.

[Weby72.]

The tragedy of the Arabs

(snip)

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21606284-civilisation-used-lead-world-ruinsand-only-locals-can-rebuild-it

Good in parts, but in its haste to deliver a kick to 'lefty economic theory', it neglects to mention that much of the post-independence leftist agenda arose from a simmering anger over the economic inequality that western Imperialism imposed (although this itself was merely perpetuating the even more inequitous feudal systems in place previously)

When secular-leftists like Mossadegh, Nasser, etc were viewed by the West (read the US, with the UK doing the lapdog role even back then) as a threat to their economic interests, or too close to Moscow, the US moved to destabilise/remove them as part of their proxy Cold War.

Of course, it didn't remove the antipathy amongst ordinary people against socio-economic systems that kept them in poverty. As the article rightly points out, crony-capitalism took over from half-arsed progressive reforms & nationalisation, and was then enforced with authoritarian oppression.

The US in particular viewed militant Islam as a weapon in its proxy Cold War, and propagated Islamist groups against the secular-left well before Afghanistan, but it was here they took it to a new level, first against the populist Afghan government, who were fighting an insurgency of a vested interest of Islamists and tribal powers, then against the USSR, who had belatedly answered the pleas for assistance from the Afghan government.

Having ultimately shown itself to be a strong movement, born from the Middle East itself, militant Islam became the new beacon for disaffected people of the ME to look to and, in some cases (especially for angry young men), rally behind. Which brings us to where we are today - the Islamists have usurped the old homes for angry disaffection, like leftism or even secular pan-Arab nationalism as espoused by Nasser.

And yet, without the leg-up from the US, does anyone else suspect that militant Islam would still be very much an insignificance?

[Yorkykopite]

Good in parts, but in its haste to deliver a kick to 'lefty economic theory', it neglects to mention that much of the post-independence leftist agenda arose from a simmering anger over the economic inequality that western Imperialism imposed (although this itself was merely perpetuating the even more inequitous feudal systems in place previously)

When secular-leftists like Mossadegh, Nasser, etc were viewed by the West (read the US, with the UK doing the lapdog role even back then) as a threat to their economic interests, or too close to Moscow, the US moved to destabilise/remove them as part of their proxy Cold War.

Of course, it didn't remove the antipathy amongst ordinary people against socio-economic systems that kept them in poverty. As the article rightly points out, crony-capitalism took over from half-arsed progressive reforms & nationalisation, and was then enforced with authoritarian oppression.

The US in particular viewed militant Islam as a weapon in its proxy Cold War, and propagated Islamist groups against the secular-left well before Afghanistan, but it was here they took it to a new level, first against the populist Afghan government, who were fighting an insurgency of a vested interest of Islamists and tribal powers, then against the USSR, who had belatedly answered the pleas for assistance from the Afghan government.

Having ultimately shown itself to be a strong movement, born from the Middle East itself, militant Islam became the new beacon for disaffected people of the ME to look to and, in some cases (especially for angry young men), rally behind. Which brings us to where we are today - the Islamists have usurped the old homes for angry disaffection, like leftism or even secular pan-Arab nationalism as espoused by Nasser.

And yet, without the leg-up from the US, does anyone else suspect that militant Islam would still be very much an insignificance?

That's a good question.

I share your misgivings about the article that Libertine posted for exactly the reason you said. I also share your contempt for US foreign policy during the Cold War which, driven by anti-communism (sometimes fanatical anti-communism), was all too willing to destabilise or overthrow representative governments which leaned to the left. It was more important to the State Department that capitalism survived than democracy. If that involved making common cause with thugs - even Islamist ones - then that was considered a price worth paying.

But I don't share your 'suspicion' that without a US 'leg-up' militant Islam would have remained insignificant. Militant Islam was a mass movement in certain regions of the Middle East long before the Cold War started and therefore long before America became interested. You mention Nasser. The opposition to his rule came, if you remember, from the Muslim Brotherhood which had had a huge presence in Egypt since before the war. Despite being thoroughly Islamic in nature, the Brotherhood drew both organisational and ideological inspiration from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Under Nasser of course its leaders were imprisoned and often executed and the organisation went 'underground'.  But it certainly didn't disappear - and most certainly didn't need American help to sustain itself. That was true of the Nasser years. It was even more true of the Sadat years.

The key event in the rise of Islamism, in any case, was surely the Iranian revolution of 1979 - or more accurately Khomeini's counter revolution of 1980. You mention Mossadegh and while I agree with you that his overthrow was a crime, it's good to remember that the remains of his party (the National Front) were destroyed by Khomeini in the first year of his rule. The same happened to the Tudeh and all the leftist parties under the Iranian theocracy. The US, needless to say, had no responsibility for giving Khomeini a leg-up (they were too busy supporting the Shah) or for sustaining him in power (quite the opposite). But the example of Iran seemed to show the Muslim - mainly Arab - world that religion and politics could be fused and that a secular state could be transformed and actually run according to die-hard Islamic principles. That lesson was learned by Sunni fundamentalists as well as Shia ones. As communism died young militants in the Muslim world looked increasingly to the principles of theocracy espoused in Iran for their inspiration. I think we are slowly coming to realise that 1979 is perhaps the most important year of the 20th century (I used to think it was 1917). In 50 years time people will probably look at it in the same way as they now look at 1789: a turning point in history.

The years after 1979 saw an explosion of Islamist groups, both Sunni and Shia. Secular oppositions in the Arab world retreated before them - in Palestine, in Algeria, in Egypt, in Syria. The American support for the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan turns out to have been a mistake of historic proportions, but the Islamist surge was well under way by then. As I said in the opening post it's a mistake to think of Islamism as a product of Cold War policy. One should respect its indigenous roots, the pull of its theology, and the local, and not just international, context with nourished it.

By the way I'm not sure I agree with your description of the Afghan government of Najibullah as "populist" (it was hard-line Stalinist) nor your description of the Soviet Union coming "belatedly" to their "assistance" (it was straightforward imperialism, every bit as unwarranted and cruel as America's "assistance" to the Diem government of South Vietnam.  If anyone gave a 'leg up' to the Afghan Muhajadeen (and eventually the Taliban) it was the USSR for turning Afghanistan into a 'Vietnam'. 

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

The only good thing about religion is gospel music. But then you have to take points off for Christian rock.

[Yorkykopite]

The only good thing about religion is gospel music. But then you have to take points off for Christian rock.

You don't like Gothic cathedrals or Caravaggio?

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

You don't like Gothic cathedrals or Caravaggio?

too sophisticated for the likes of me...

[The Fletcher Memorial]

Sufi music is fantastic.

[HarryLabrador]

You don't like Gothic cathedrals or Caravaggio?

Caravaggio's "The Incredulity of Saint Thomas" or rather "Doubting Thomas" is the most moving depiction of that biblical tale. 

[Yorkykopite]

too sophisticated for the likes of me...

We're Liverpool supporters. We ARE sophisticated.

[Weby72.]

You mention Nasser. The opposition to his rule came, if you remember, from the Muslim Brotherhood which had had a huge presence in Egypt since before the war. Despite being thoroughly Islamic in nature, the Brotherhood drew both organisational and ideological inspiration from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Under Nasser of course its leaders were imprisoned and often executed and the organisation went 'underground'.  But it certainly didn't disappear - and most certainly didn't need American help to sustain itself. That was true of the Nasser years. It was even more true of the Sadat years.

There was certainly contact between the CIA & MB in the Nasser years, with some assistance (financial, intelligence) provided by the former to help destabilise Nasser, especially post-Suez.

The key event in the rise of Islamism, in any case, was surely the Iranian revolution of 1979 - or more accurately Khomeini's counter revolution of 1980. You mention Mossadegh and while I agree with you that his overthrow was a crime, it's good to remember that the remains of his party (the National Front) were destroyed by Khomeini in the first year of his rule. The same happened to the Tudeh and all the leftist parties under the Iranian theocracy. The US, needless to say, had no responsibility for giving Khomeini a leg-up (they were too busy supporting the Shah) or for sustaining him in power (quite the opposite).

Whilst certainly not supporting Khomeini, the US helped the Shah as you said, and that regime's SAVAK secret police not only sought to eradicate the leftist opposition & its structures, but solidified a groundswell of hatred toward the Shah's corrupt & murderous regime. Khomeini actually offered an olive branch to the leftists, a pact to help rid Iran of the Shah, which the embattled leftists agreed. Once in power, Khomeini turned his rabid Islamists on his leftist allies. A case of unintended consequences for Washington.

But the example of Iran seemed to show the Muslim - mainly Arab - world that religion and politics could be fused and that a secular state could be transformed and actually run according to die-hard Islamic principles. That lesson was learned by Sunni fundamentalists as well as Shia ones. As communism died young militants in the Muslim world looked increasingly to the principles of theocracy espoused in Iran for their inspiration. I think we are slowly coming to realise that 1979 is perhaps the most important year of the 20th century (I used to think it was 1917). In 50 years time people will probably look at it in the same way as they now look at 1789: a turning point in history.

I'll give you that the example handed  to Islamists, but the Iranian Islamic revolution was relatively contained within its own national boundaries. It's the Wahabbists, financially backed by the cesspit that is the House of Saud, who have been the evangelists for militant Islam

As I said in the opening post it's a mistake to think of Islamism as a product of Cold War policy. One should respect its indigenous roots, the pull of its theology, and the local, and not just international, context with nourished it.

I don't think militant Islam is a product of the Cold War - but several events/policies within the framework of the Cold War have boosted its position & appeal to disaffected people within the Middle East.

You mention Palestine, and the PLO was a secular group, opposing the de facto theft of Palestinian land & subsequent ethnic cleansing. This group was targetted by the US, who sought to assist Israel in eradicating the PLO. Once the fledgling peace process broke down in 1995 (thanks again to a religious fuckwit), Arafat became marginalised as the Islamists of Hamas showed more of an aggressive approach and took advantage of the US's policy not to lean on Israel to concede the land it was [illegally] building settlements on.

By the way I'm not sure I agree with your description of the Afghan government of Najibullah as "populist" (it was hard-line Stalinist) nor your description of the Soviet Union coming "belatedly" to their "assistance" (it was straightforward imperialism, every bit as unwarranted and cruel as America's "assistance" to the Diem government of South Vietnam.  If anyone gave a 'leg up' to the Afghan Muhajadeen (and eventually the Taliban) it was the USSR for turning Afghanistan into a 'Vietnam'.

The secular-leftist Afghan government rose to power on the back of a populist movement - the Saur Revolution - within the urbanised areas of Afghanistan. They set about breaking the cancerous hold that both Islam and tribal leaders had over less educated Afghans in the rural areas. They were opposed by a loose coalition of these tribal leaders, intent on perpetuating their fiefdoms, along with Islamists who, in rural Afghanistan, enjoyed the patronage of tribal leaders in return for the Mullahs' support.

The Afghan government had repeatedly and unsuccesfully begged Moscow for military assistance in the face of guerilla war waged by the terrorists, increasingly funded by Saudi & the US, using the Pakistani ISI to train, brainwash & arm Islamist militants. Moscow only accepted once the fractious coalition of the Kalq & Parchem factions of the PDPA exploded once and for all with Hafizullah Amin siezing power, as they believed the government would collapse and they didn't want a radical Islamic government on its borders, probably agitating amongst its -stan regions.

Both the PDPA and Moscow tried to eradicate the Islamists, whilst the US facilitated their arming, funding & training. So I don't see how the USSR gave militant Islam a leg-up

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Sufi music is fantastic.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/x2KRpRMSu4g" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/x2KRpRMSu4g</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/8jYgctXpajs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/8jYgctXpajs</a>

I like these 

Sorry, I have derailed a perfectly good thread with an ill-thought-out opinion, I'll get me coat (thinking lightweight jacket, quite warm out now)...

[Yorkykopite]

Both the PDPA and Moscow tried to eradicate the Islamists, whilst the US facilitated their arming, funding & training. So I don't see how the USSR gave militant Islam a leg-up

I think it's odd that you now blame America for Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, but you "don't see how the USSR gave militant Islam a leg-up" in Afghanistan (or Nasser's Egypt). Perhaps you're making a subtle point about how armed invasion is less reprehensible and has less dire consequences than diplomatic and financial support. If that's true I'd be interested to hear the logic behind such a bizarre claim. But if that's not the case then you're clearly judging Soviet behaviour during the Cold War far more generously - even by completely different standards - than you're judging American behaviour.  That's not good.

More importantly, the larger point still stands. Islamism predates the Cold War and in any case cannot be reduced to the foreign policy fiascos of either the USA or the USSR. It has indigenous roots in the Middle East and it has the example of the Iranian revolution.

The Ayatollah, incidentally, murdered far more leftists and liberals than the Shah ever did. He also didn't have to. He wasn't made to kill his opponents by previous American 'mistakes' in Iran. He chose to do it. He was happy to do it. 

[Weby72.]

I think it's odd that you now blame America for Islamic fundamentalism in Iran

Only I didn't. I clearly concluded the rise of Khomeini was an 'unintended consequence' of the US's policy toward Iran (starting with Operation Ajax against the Mossadegh government)

More importantly, the larger point still stands. Islamism predates the Cold War and in any case cannot be reduced to the foreign policy fiascos of either the USA or the USSR. It has indigenous roots in the Middle East and it has the example of the Iranian revolution.

Of course it pre-dates the Cold War. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab lived in the 18th century, and his brand of militant Islam was merely reviving older conservative Islam.

My point is that in the mid-20th century, militant Islam was an enfeebled movement, shunned by the vast majority of those living in the Middle East. It has since received a 'leg up' by  events within the Cold War (IMO, principally the short-sightedness of US foreign policy). As I said in my previous post:

"I don't think militant Islam is a product of the Cold War - but several events/policies within the framework of the Cold War have boosted its position & appeal to disaffected people within the Middle East."

The Ayatollah, incidentally, murdered far more leftists and liberals than the Shah ever did. He also didn't have to. He wasn't made to kill his opponents by previous American 'mistakes' in Iran. He chose to do it. He was happy to do it.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this.

[AA1122]

The topic of Israel is a massive issue for most people in the Middle East and around the world. Many people are keen to tell you their feelings on Israel very quickly. Usually very binary opinions.

However, militant Islamism will still be an issue before or after the state of Israel. Getting rid of Israel will not solve militant Islamism and it doesn't justify militant Islamists' actions of murdering innocent people.

Personally, I feel this is a cultural and societal problem of people feeling alienated from society, or people who feel a great need for repentance for actions earlier in their lives, or people who feel they're fulfilling their obligation to God, or people who feel avenged and use these Islamist groups as a funnel for their anger. But, who's to say who's right. I'm sure there any many conscious and subconscious reasons as to why someone would join the Islamists' version of jihad.

I don't think anybody has a problem with Muslims observing and practising their religion. There is a massive difference in practising a religion and then deciding to take up arms against civilians. Whether these people (militant Islamists) think that is an obligation or not, whatever they think... It honestly fascinates me how seemingly sane rational people can believe these atrocities are God's will.

It is not as simple as religion is all bad. The majority of people who follow religions will do so to become better people. Like my mother helping out at a foodbank for the church, or people in mosques collecting for charities. I'm an atheist myself, but it honestly does my head in the 'religion is the biggest killer in the world' line, when the people are almost completely ignorant of any religions anyway. It is just downright disrespectful and patronising in my opinion

Anyway, I'm ranting now.  I don't doubt that the issue of Israel is a contributing factor to the majority of the Islamist recruits, however, it is one of many. Militant Islamism isn't going to stop with Israel. A solution, if possible, will help, but it won't stop militant Islamism. For me, the only answer is better education, equality, tolerance and understanding in as many ways as possible (yes, I know Israel could learn this). It is a problem for a global society. However, it's difficult to fight the avenged with belittling idealistic dreams of peace.

I'm not sure if that rambling added anything to the thread but I just felt I had to say it. This thread's about Islamism, I'd like to think it's about learning about it and understanding about why these people choose to commit these crimes against humanity.

[kavah]

heartbreaking vandalism. soft bastards.

Wahabbi ISIS in Syria destroy Assyrian statues and artifacts believed to be 3000 years old




http://lubpak.com/archives/313608

[Yorkykopite]

heartbreaking vandalism. soft bastards.

Wahabbi ISIS in Syria destroy Assyrian statues and artifacts believed to be 3000 years old

There shall only be one Book. Anything not in that Book shall be destroyed.

How these bastards would love to get their hands on the Pyramids.

[The Gulleysucker]

That statue was one of these...



More details here on the BBC

It really is unforgivable cultural vandalism.

...How these bastards would love to get their hands on the Pyramids.

It's worrying to think of what they'd do in say Mecca, Jerusalem, Istanbul or even Rome if given the chance.

 

[viteslesrouges]

That statue was one of these...



More details here on the BBC

It really is unforgivable cultural vandalism.

It's worrying to think of what they'd do in say Mecca, Jerusalem, Istanbul or even Rome if given the chance.

Turkey and Azerbaijan have been doing this for decades.

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/news/58209/Worlds_largest_body_of_scientists_confirms_destruction_of_Armenian_khachkars_in_Nakhijevan

PanARMENIAN.Net - The world’s largest body of scientists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, just released satellite image comparison and analysis confirming the complete destruction of the ancient Djulfa cemetery, located in an historic Armenian exclave currently occupied by Azerbaijan, Asbarez reported.
”A high-resolution satellite image of a medieval Armenian cemetery in Azerbaijan taken in September 2003 shows hundreds of khachkars, intricate 15th and 16th century burial monuments. In a satellite image from May 2009, however, the khachkars are missing, suggesting that they were either destroyed or removed. A comparison of the images by analysts from the AAAS Geospatial Technologies and Human Rights Project found evidence of significant destruction and changes in the grade of the cemetery’s terrain. The image from September 2003 shows rocky and uneven terrain, as well as shadows cast by the khachkars, while the May 2009 image shows a much flatter landscape and the khachkars’ absence,” the AAAS conclusion reads.
Five years ago this month, more than 100 uniformed Azerbaijanis were caught on tape destroying the burial monuments of the medieval Djulfa cemetery, founded in the Armenian province of Nakhichevan during the 9th century and thriving as late as the early 1600s. The soldiers were smashing Armenian monuments with sledgehammers, using a crane to remove some of the largest monuments from the ground, breaking the stones into small pieces, and dumping them into the River Araxes by a large truck.
Overall, an estimated 3,000 khachkars, or intricately carved burial monuments, the craftsmanship of which is a UNESCO Intangible Heritage Tradition, were erased from the face of the earth.
Azerbaijan’s President called the destruction report an “absolute lie,” and has maintained that official denial ever since.

Photos on this link:

http://hellektor.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/nakhijevan-destruction-part-i.html       

[Haemoglobin]

The heritage of the region, such beautiful things which have stood proud for hundreds/thousands of years, some of them painstakingly cleaned and maintained and cared for by each passing generation.. gone, just like that.

It's all just so easy to destroy. This is how they eventually break people down, isn't it? It's depressing enough with all the needless and merciless loss of innocent lives, but the systematic dismantling of their local history, their regional identity, things we can all appreciate and share to some degree, that really gets to me too. New generations, strangers of various beliefs from all over the world, will now never be able to visit many of these historic monuments, never be able to take an important step back into the world's past by wandering through and around them, and taking in their vibes, experiencing their atmosphere. Irreplaceable.


This picture pretty much broke my heart:




^ That's some poor guy walling up a prayer spot dating from the 13th Century, in a desperate attempt to preserve it for better days. The sheer stark symbolism of it. Wall up your ancient places of prayer, hope to save them for a time when you'll be able to pray there again like your ancestors did, because your prayers alone will serve to protect nothing of worth.


If Indiana Jones was whipping about now, surely these would be the mad philistinic cartoon villains.

[Libertine]

More details here on the BBC

In March the Syrian air force bombed the world's best preserved Crusader Castle, the 12th Century Krak des Chevaliers (above) in Homs province.

Its strategic location - guarding the only corridor from Syria's interior to the coast as well as the entrance to Lebanon's Bekaa valley - guaranteed that it would be a fiercely contested stronghold in this war, just as it was for the Knights Hospitaller in Crusader times.

The elegant Crusader cloister inside the castle bore an inscription carved in Latin: "Grace, wisdom and beauty you may enjoy but beware pride which alone can tarnish all the rest."

The loggia became a ruined shell after MiG fighter jets were used to dislodge rebel fighters who had based themselves there. The Latin inscription has been blown to smithereens.



Somewhere I've always wanted to visit. Tragic that such treasures are being destroyed.

[Narwin Dunez]

It makes me feel sick, the fact these idiots with tiny dicks can use some fictional book to make a grab for power. The world's superpowers should step in.

[gamble]

It makes me feel sick, the fact these idiots with tiny dicks can use some fictional book to make a grab for power. The world's superpowers should step in.

Same could be said for Israel, but nobody is doing anything there either. Until there's a good financial reason to get involved then don't expect anything to happen.

You an expert in tiny dicks then? Someone should tell the NSA and Parliament today, would save a whole heap of time

[BarryCrocker]

That statue was one of these...



More details here on the BBC

It really is unforgivable cultural vandalism.

It's worrying to think of what they'd do in say Mecca, Jerusalem, Istanbul or even Rome if given the chance.

Mecca has been obliterated over the past few years by the Wahabis to accommodate pilgrims.

[Narwin Dunez]

Same could be said for Israel, but nobody is doing anything there either. Until there's a good financial reason to get involved then don't expect anything to happen.

You an expert in tiny dicks then? Someone should tell the NSA and Parliament today, would save a whole heap of time

I agree, I was just reacting to what I'd seen above

[vagabond]

Mecca has been obliterated over the past few years by the Wahabis to accommodate pilgrims.

Very true. 90% of the buildings that had been preserved from Muhammad's day have been razed to the ground. It's enough to make one weep at the loss to human culture.

[Keith Lard]

Such a sad thread

I'll stick to the liverpool forums and stick to footy. Threads like these upset me these days. Just wish the world was a fairer place and everyone could get along. Wish there were no borders, everyone had a square meal, treated eachother with respect and compassion ... Sickening to see what we do to eachother. I put it all down to greed ... Extremism has it's roots in desperation and hopelessness. Established power brokers in this world created extremism by creating conditions for hopelessness, poverty, and desperation. This world we live in disgusts me and delights me in equal measure.

LFC mean so much to so many people because it is our release.