|
War on Scientology (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Perhaps he meant 'in retaliation to America's rather aggressive foreign policy? |
That makes little sense as the US had no aggressive foreign policy toward Afganistan since they provided the funds and weapons to liberate it from the Soviets. Even if they did; however, the west is really just a useful fool for the Islamists to acheive their goals as opposed to the target of their ambitions. The real goal of the Islamists is to overthrow the political regimes that presently control the Arabic world in favor of Salfist Islamic theocracies... the US is the main target because most of these governments are friendly toward the US (good old capitalist greed) and portraying the US as an enemy of Islam creates conflict between the people and their governments. Drawing the US into armed conflict with the Arabic countries and thereby creating more opposition toward the US and by extention the local governments is the real goal of terrorism.
(I'm paraphrasing Gwynn Dyer) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I would hazard to guess that most Islamists would strongly disagree with you on this point. Whether or not we see "any meaningful conflict" is immaterial; they do. |
yes, which is exactly my point. whether peace exists or no, there'll always be a war to fight in the name of allah, because there's always somebody, somewhere, that is oppressing/insulting/mocking/destroying islam. hell, if islamists were into trance i have no doubt i'd have been marked for death a while ago :p
where western powers might distinguish their strategic concerns along the lines of national borders or militia outfits etc, its always a religious war as far as the islamists are concerned. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes, which is exactly my point. whether peace exists or no, there'll always be a war to fight in the name of allah, because there's always somebody, somewhere, that is oppressing/insulting/mocking/destroying islam. hell, if islamists were into trance i have no doubt i'd have been marked for death a while ago :p
where western powers might distinguish their strategic concerns along the lines of national borders or militia outfits etc, its always a religious war as far as the islamists are concerned. |
The war to fight has never actually been a religious one, it is a political one... the leaders of which have just been really successful in using religion to incite the faithful to action. Ultimately, the suicide bombers and religious extremists are marginal people that have been manipulated into zelots who believe they are fighting for one thing but are really just tools in another fight all together. Make no mistake... outside of the Arabic world (including those who identify themselves as Arabic ethnicly if not geographicly) very few Muslims actually believe that "the west" is "the great satan" (note... satan means rival, not devil/Lucifer/Barbara Streisand, as we believe it to mean).
The good news is that it will be over in 25-50 years anyway. The US is going to abandon their relationships with the Arabic states as oil becomes less important, which will result in "the west" no longer being a useful fool in whipping up discent against the established regimes in the region. Alternatively, the established regimes will order western military presences out and make moves to appear less friendly toward "the west" thereby removing "the west" as the useful fool (you can already see this happening in Saudi Arabia). Eitherway, the utility of seeking conflict with "the west" to bolster revolutionary sentiment within the Arabic world will dwindle rather rapidly in the very near future; subsequently, the rhetoric against "the west" will die down in favour of rhetoric against the estabished regimes (which has always been the real target). |
|
|
| montana |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
(note... satan means rival, not devil/Lucifer/Barbara Streisand, as we believe it to mean).
|
:haha: |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| Scientology is about to be dissbanded in France, which is a very good thing. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| If I remember correctly, bin Laden's stated reasons for the WTC attacks were the presence of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia and American support of Israel. It had nothing to do with Afghanistan. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
Scientology is about to be dissbanded in France, which is a very good thing. |
Burquas, Scientology, religious symbols in schools... they've been doing things right recently |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
Scientology is about to be dissbanded in France, which is a very good thing. |
I read about this recently. They are on the fast track to banning it. Germany is moving towards this also. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
Burquas, Scientology, religious symbols in schools... they've been doing things right recently |
Scientology is deemed as a cult in France. Judges are about to dissband scientology, not the executive or legislative powers. So, it has nothing to do with religious symbols in schools (secularism in France is a founding tradition of our democracy, we even have a word that can't be translated in English: la laïcité), or burquas (the French council of the Muslim Faith won't disapprove a law against burquas). |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
Scientology is deemed as a cult in France. Judges are about to dissband scientology, not the executive or legislative powers. So, it has nothing to do with religious symbols in schools (secularism in France is a founding tradition of our democracy, we even have a word that can't be translated in English: la laïcité), or burquas (the French council of the Muslim Faith won't disapprove a law against burquas). |
Bien compris ;)
/pied noir :D |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
Bien compris ;)
/pied noir :D |
:p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The war to fight has never actually been a religious one, it is a political one... the leaders of which have just been really successful in using religion to incite the faithful to action. |
im not so sure its that easy to separate the religious-political divide. i mean, take al qaida. their avowed goal is to create an islamic state covering most of the middle east (and after that probably the world, god willing).
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Ultimately, the suicide bombers and religious extremists are marginal people that have been manipulated into zelots who believe they are fighting for one thing but are really just tools in another fight all together. |
agreed, but what do you think this other fight is though?
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Make no mistake... outside of the Arabic world (including those who identify themselves as Arabic ethnicly if not geographicly) very few Muslims actually believe that "the west" is "the great satan" (note... satan means rival, not devil/Lucifer/Barbara Streisand, as we believe it to mean). |
lols. i didnt know the satan term had another meaning. where i come from satan is a relatively unambiguous expression!
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The good news is that it will be over in 25-50 years anyway. The US is going to abandon their relationships with the Arabic states as oil becomes less important, which will result in "the west" no longer being a useful fool in whipping up discent against the established regimes in the region. Alternatively, the established regimes will order western military presences out and make moves to appear less friendly toward "the west" thereby removing "the west" as the useful fool (you can already see this happening in Saudi Arabia). Eitherway, the utility of seeking conflict with "the west" to bolster revolutionary sentiment within the Arabic world will dwindle rather rapidly in the very near future; subsequently, the rhetoric against "the west" will die down in favour of rhetoric against the estabished regimes (which has always been the real target). |
yeah, not so sure about the oil part, i think oil will become MORE important before it becomes less, but they're definitely using the great barbara streisand as a recruiting tool/poster child for their more realistic goals against wishy-washy islamic states that exist currently. |
|
|
|
|
