Forum Thread

The roots of radicalization of Islam

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 31 Prev 1 2 3 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Jared -- Yes, and it's not only Europe, but the lack of employment and opportunities for young people throughout the Middle East. The Arab Spring had more than one catalyst, but disenchanted youth was perhaps the principle driver as this AlJazeera study suggests. There are differences between countries, however, and Muslim identity (except Egypt) could perhaps be considered a form of tribalism that united the youth to come together to protest. The study did not differentiate between Islam in general and radical Islam.

    AlJazeera, July 2103: Poll: Arab youth feel alienated from politics
    AlJazeera, July 2013: Interactive: The youth of the Arab Spring
    Schmidt; I don't think it is only that; a lot of people are against the US imperialism and what we are doing in the middle east; all these countries we meddle in want to get rid of us; the youth as any youth wants is peace, a job and a future. Now it is only ruins everywhere; Gaza is flat, cities in Iraq are flattened etc etc. We call this our gift to them?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    iirc, the main degree program undertaken by saudi youths is islamic studies. very useful, that. how much of the work in the petro-states is done by guest workers?

    if the u.s. wants a glimpse into its future it need only look at the disaffected youth in the middle east and elsewhere. much is written about how capitalism has created a middle class in china and elsewhere and also how it has lifted millions out of poverty. yet at the same time in china there are millions who are not and will not taste those fruits. the same applies elsewhere. capitalism is a winner/losers game no matter what any economist or pundit says. its purpose is private ownership of the means of production and nothing else. its purpose is not employing people. its purpose is not creating a middle class. and the capitalist relies on distortion of the political economy to maximize his/her profit why socializing the risks. the rentier class, john paulson et al, creates nothing when they make money by moving money. it is necessary for the government to step in where capitalism fails. government must be the employer of last resort. social stability is critical to the long term success of society. meeting the needs of the people goes a helluva long way to maintaining social stability. the last 30+ years in the u.s. have shown us the beginning of the end of social stability. the arab spring shows the likely next step. do we want to see more of that or do we want to see a healthy society where all members are productive?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: iirc, the main degree program undertaken by saudi youths is islamic studies. very useful, that. how much of the work in the petro-states is done by guest workers?

    if the u.s. wants a glimpse into its future it need only look at the disaffected youth in the middle east and elsewhere. much is written about how capitalism has created a middle class in china and elsewhere and also how it has lifted millions out of poverty. yet at the same time in china there are millions who are not and will not taste those fruits. the same applies elsewhere. capitalism is a winner/losers game no matter what any economist or pundit says. its purpose is private ownership of the means of production and nothing else. its purpose is not employing people. its purpose is not creating a middle class. and the capitalist relies on distortion of the political economy to maximize his/her profit why socializing the risks. the rentier class, john paulson et al, creates nothing when they make money by moving money. it is necessary for the government to step in where capitalism fails. government must be the employer of last resort. social stability is critical to the long term success of society. meeting the needs of the people goes a helluva long way to maintaining social stability. the last 30+ years in the u.s. have shown us the beginning of the end of social stability. the arab spring shows the likely next step. do we want to see more of that or do we want to see a healthy society where all members are productive?
    Good point. The system wants to take all our rewards for working and give them to the very rich, and inevitably creates a vast dispossessed and disfranchised class by doing so. In most countries the alternative - socialism - has been carefully concealed from the mugs, which is why, as with the anarchist terrorists of the late Nineteenth Century, the despairing turn to anything but what will change the world, bang-bang, like American 'conservatives'.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The constant colonialist interference with Arab politics doesn't help of course. Having driven all serious opposition into the Mosque, the West now continually insults Islam and murders vast numbers of Muslims, while supporting the Nazis of 'Israel' in their racist child-killing. What do we expect - roses?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    iolo Wrote: The constant colonialist interference with Arab politics doesn't help of course. Having driven all serious opposition into the Mosque, the West now continually insults Islam and murders vast numbers of Muslims, while supporting the Nazis of 'Israel' in their racist child-killing. What do we expect - roses?
    It should be clear to the US that all our meddling in the world has had a success rate of below zero. We never had colony's thus never have had the lessons Europe experienced. We just start dumb wars because of arrogance and lack of knowledge of the world and its inhabitants. Sorry to say, we live on an isolated island and think we can dictate the world. Lets clean up the mess at home first, before we dictate others.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Amen!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well said!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Well, Dutch, not entirely true. The Spanish-Cuban-American war left us with colonies and we claimed Hawaii for ourselves as well as the marianas. But we never had an empire a la the Brits. We do have a garrison empire though. What would we think if the prc asked for and received permission to build a base in Canada? What about in Germany? All empires are unstable including the garrison empire.

    As for radicalized politics using Islam as a cover we note that at the same time as the rise of Leo Strausse we had Sayyid Qtub. In the U.S. where he became inflamed against what he perceived as immorality which then morphed into a threat against Islam. This was in 1949 iirc. Iirc, there is a straight line between Qtub and the Muslim brotherhood and OBL. Strausse promulgated the theory, iirc, that it was necessary to tell the people lies in order to protect them. In essence that only the liars could keep the people safe.

    look into the documentary "the power of nightmares."

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:

    Well, Dutch, not entirely true. The Spanish-Cuban-American war left us with colonies and we claimed Hawaii for ourselves as well as the marianas. But we never had an empire a la the Brits. We do have a garrison empire though. What would we think if the prc asked for and received permission to build a base in Canada? What about in Germany? All empires are unstable including the garrison empire.

    As for radicalized politics using Islam as a cover we note that at the same time as the rise of Leo Strausse we had Sayyid Qtub. In the U.S. where he became inflamed against what he perceived as immorality which then morphed into a threat against Islam. This was in 1949 iirc. Iirc, there is a straight line between Qtub and the Muslim brotherhood and OBL. Strausse promulgated the theory, iirc, that it was necessary to tell the people lies in order to protect them. In essence that only the liars could keep the people safe.

    Sure lonely ,but not on the scale of Britain (as you said) or the Dutch or the French or Germans even the Italians ( Somalia) I certainly do not believe Hawaii still is being seen as a "colony". I'm just stating that the US imperialism never had any experience in occupying or running an other country; typical example Iraq and Afghanistan; we put puppets there without the tools to run their countries and made only these guys rich, ask Karzai, Maliki etc. No the US knows only how to bully and demand. like they do now with Europe and since WWII keep bases there, as well all over the place, ask Korea Japan etc.. Influence peddling is the name of the game, without positive result; however this is starting to backfire. ask Putin.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:

    Well, Dutch, not entirely true. The Spanish-Cuban-American war left us with colonies and we claimed Hawaii for ourselves as well as the marianas. But we never had an empire a la the Brits. We do have a garrison empire though. What would we think if the prc asked for and received permission to build a base in Canada? What about in Germany? All empires are unstable including the garrison empire.

    As for radicalized politics using Islam as a cover we note that at the same time as the rise of Leo Strausse we had Sayyid Qtub. In the U.S. where he became inflamed against what he perceived as immorality which then morphed into a threat against Islam. This was in 1949 iirc. Iirc, there is a straight line between Qtub and the Muslim brotherhood and OBL. Strausse promulgated the theory, iirc, that it was necessary to tell the people lies in order to protect them. In essence that only the liars could keep the people safe.

    Sure lonely ,but not on the scale of Britain (as you said) or the Dutch or the French or Germans even the Italians ( Somalia) I certainly do not believe Hawaii still is being seen as a "colony". I'm just stating that the US imperialism never had any experience in occupying or running an other country; typical example Iraq and Afghanistan; we put puppets there without the tools to run their countries and made only these guys rich, ask Karzai, Maliki etc. No the US knows only how to bully and demand. like they do now with Europe and since WWII keep bases there, as well all over the place, ask Korea Japan etc.. Influence peddling is the name of the game, without positive result; however this is starting to backfire. ask Putin.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Formal colonialism means taking some responsibility for a territory. American colonialism means just going in and robbing it, as in Iraq etc.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    iolo Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:

    Well, Dutch, not entirely true. The Spanish-Cuban-American war left us with colonies and we claimed Hawaii for ourselves as well as the marianas. But we never had an empire a la the Brits. We do have a garrison empire though. What would we think if the prc asked for and received permission to build a base in Canada? What about in Germany? All empires are unstable including the garrison empire.

    As for radicalized politics using Islam as a cover we note that at the same time as the rise of Leo Strausse we had Sayyid Qtub. In the U.S. where he became inflamed against what he perceived as immorality which then morphed into a threat against Islam. This was in 1949 iirc. Iirc, there is a straight line between Qtub and the Muslim brotherhood and OBL. Strausse promulgated the theory, iirc, that it was necessary to tell the people lies in order to protect them. In essence that only the liars could keep the people safe.

    Sure lonely ,but not on the scale of Britain (as you said) or the Dutch or the French or Germans even the Italians ( Somalia) I certainly do not believe Hawaii still is being seen as a "colony". I'm just stating that the US imperialism never had any experience in occupying or running an other country; typical example Iraq and Afghanistan; we put puppets there without the tools to run their countries and made only these guys rich, ask Karzai, Maliki etc. No the US knows only how to bully and demand. like they do now with Europe and since WWII keep bases there, as well all over the place, ask Korea Japan etc.. Influence peddling is the name of the game, without positive result; however this is starting to backfire. ask Putin.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Formal colonialism means taking some responsibility for a territory. American colonialism means just going in and robbing it, as in Iraq etc.
    Yes you understand it. thanks
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Today I read in the local newspaper an article of newsworthy importance in creating acceptance of Islamic religious people. It's a humanitarian approach to community acceptance and it's an option to recognize that not all Islamic people are radical terrorists. In fact, it is a way to spread the goodness of people that come to America expecting the same life that all Christian, Jewish, other religions, agnostic and atheist desire to have.

    Omaha, Nebraska, is where a groundbreaking effort is being made by the Buffet billionaire family. At this planned location there will be a three religious buildings together in a single real estate area. A Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue, and a Islamic Mosque, three faiths united on common ground. Here's an example of a billionaire that recognizes that humanity needs to come together for peace and practice their faiths. Maybe more of this will happen in other parts of America.

    What a wonderful idea when a special gift to humanity ignores the hate and lies of people denouncing others simply out of ignorance, racist and bigoted actions.

    I recently saw where Warren Buffet endorsed Hillary. So, is this an action approved by Democrats and an example of where Republicans ignore hate and demeaning actions on people of different faiths in humanity. Actions are much more in a character of our nation. Anybody who believes Muslims and/or Islamic people are all terrorists and want to destroy anybody not Islamic are without doubt ignorant, stupid and mentally ill.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:

    Today I read in the local newspaper an article of newsworthy importance in creating acceptance of Islamic religious people. It's a humanitarian approach to community acceptance and it's an option to recognize that not all Islamic people are radical terrorists. In fact, it is a way to spread the goodness of people that come to America expecting the same life that all Christian, Jewish, other religions, agnostic and atheist desire to have.

    Omaha, Nebraska, is where a groundbreaking effort is being made by the Buffet billionaire family. At this planned location there will be a three religious buildings together in a single real estate area. A Christian Church, Jewish Synagogue, and a Islamic Mosque, three faiths united on common ground. Here's an example of a billionaire that recognizes that humanity needs to come together for peace and practice their faiths. Maybe more of this will happen in other parts of America.

    What a wonderful idea when a special gift to humanity ignores the hate and lies of people denouncing others simply out of ignorance, racist and bigoted actions.

    I recently saw where Warren Buffet endorsed Hillary. So, is this an action approved by Democrats and an example of where Republicans ignore hate and demeaning actions on people of different faiths in humanity. Actions are much more in a character of our nation. Anybody who believes Muslims and/or Islamic people are all terrorists and want to destroy anybody not Islamic are without doubt ignorant, stupid and mentally ill.

    Sure; this will backfire; read the history books; "beliefs" through the centuries always clashed; just to have these three churches together means nothing, if the rest of the world keeps killing each other because of it. Sorry "religion" remains the curse of humanity; Just wait till this experiment blows up in Buffets face. As long as death is not accepted as it is, then all kind of fantasy and lies continue ruling/indoctrinating people as used by the these churches; it is impossible to paint lies over so the frictions continues as it has done for centuries.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The biggest problem for any religion is that each have many that do not adhere to their doctrine beliefs. So as people congregate in their Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Cathedrals they attend worship without amending their belief system. They think they know better than their doctrines and the Word of God. That is why religions are so prone to damaging media releases, because people conduct themselves without actin in the true nature of their belief.

    What the Buffet family has accomplished is an attempt to get people to analyze their differences and realize they are not much different and treasure beliefs that make people humane. In accordance to God's/Allah's Word, we search for peace from a history of violence toward each other. There has to be a moment in time that all people will recognize peace is so much better than violence.

    So, if religion you think is the problem , than what is the alternative? Non-religious people care very little about others and think only of themselves. To give one's life for others is a religious tribute. Without religious conciliation how would Christian, Jewish and Islamic people come together in peace? The Buffets have it most correct in their attempt to bring people together.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:

    The biggest problem for any religion is that each have many that do not adhere to their doctrine beliefs. So as people congregate in their Churches, Synagogues, Mosques and Cathedrals they attend worship without amending their belief system. They think they know better than their doctrines and the Word of God. That is why religions are so prone to damaging media releases, because people conduct themselves without actin in the true nature of their belief.

    What the Buffet family has accomplished is an attempt to get people to analyze their differences and realize they are not much different and treasure beliefs that make people humane. In accordance to God's/Allah's Word, we search for peace from a history of violence toward each other. There has to be a moment in time that all people will recognize peace is so much better than violence.

    So, if religion you think is the problem , than what is the alternative? Non-religious people care very little about others and think only of themselves. To give one's life for others is a religious tribute. Without religious conciliation how would Christian, Jewish and Islamic people come together in peace? The Buffets have it most correct in their attempt to bring people together.

    Like I said many times; please read the history books; do you think there will be less wars because of Buffet's experiment? Ask ISIS and our fanatic evangelicals like Cruz, Huckabee and others. This is a joke!!