How much of a threat to the world does radical Islam really pose?

[Allen773]

Hi all-newcomer here, with this being my 2nd post.

It seems to be that a lot of people see radical Islam as an enormous threat to democracy and the world in general. I'm not about to deny that it is a significant threat, and the terrorist groups that have spawned from this ideology certainly have proven themselves capable of killing large amounts of people in a seemingly never ending-string of attacks around the world-with 9/11 being the most spectacular and destructive.

But I don't see them as the massive existential threat to our entire way of life that states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union certainly posed. And while the thought of Al-Qaeda and its associates getting their hands on WMDs is certainly extremely scary, where would they get the means and opportunity to use such weapons? In other words, who would be willing to sell deadly weapons to groups that the majority of the Islamic world-and the overwhelming majority of the non Islamic one-despises and wants to see destroyed?

Also, how many supporters do they actually have? They seem to be more despised than ever nowadays. From Iraq, where the Sunni tribal leaders have, with the assistance of American troops, killed or driven out a great deal of Zarqawi's disciples and taken back control; to Pakistan, where support for Osama has plummeted from around 40-50 percent to less than 10 percent in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's murder; to Saudi Arabia, where much of their manpower, finances, and religious support comes from, with the crackdown on jihadis after the Riyadh bombings in 2003 and subsequent decline in public support for bin Laden, to Indonesia, where the jihadist networks have been nearly extinguished after the Bali and Marriott bombings. It seems that the more they bomb, kidnap, and kill, the more the Islamic terrorists lose support and become villains in the eyes of their fellow Muslims.

One point of concern that has been mentioned frequently is Europe, where a number of devastating attacks have occurred and which is home to a gwoing number of Muslim immigrants-many who become radicalized by extremist clerics in mosques in Europe. While this certainly cause for worry, even if extremist Muslims somehow manage to become the majority population in Europe and take control, how would they govern? Sharia law? I'd imagine that even most Muslims would get tired of that. Look no further than the Iranian government, which, according to most sources (including my next-door neighbor, a highly-educated man who lived in Iran until the Revolution) is despised by the vast majority of Iranians. This is perhaps the greatest problem that the jihadists face; Lawrence's Wright's novel The Looming Tower discusses the great difficulties faced by Islamic terrorists when they try to take over a country, because they have been trained to kill, not govern. They have little to offer people besides death and destruction. Therefore, I don't think it's plausible that the highly liberal European countries would accept a millennium-old Islamic government.

Furthermore, the jihadist groups consist of a wide variety of Muslims from different countries and backgrounds who disagree in many ways in regards to strategy, tactics, and even the extent to which they should carry terrorism out at all. They often have significantly different viewpoints and objectives. Would they be able to unite like the Nazis did? Let's hope not.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic about this subject. But I know that others share my view, including some who are extremely qualified and well-read and traveled in the field of Islamic extremism. Peter Bergen, the man who interviewed Osama bin Laden in 1997, said in one interview that I can't find at the moment: "If I were to rate the threat posed by al-Qeada on a scale of 1 to 10, with the Soviet Union representing an existential threat at level 10, I'd rate them (Islamic terrorists) at about a .5." That's not an exact quote, so I apologize if I've misrepresented Mr. Bergen's views.

To sum it all up, I guess I don't see radical Islam as being as great a threat as many others see it. What are the opinions of the members of the JREF forum (aka NWO online hotspot )

[UnrepentantSinner]

Is it a threat? Yes. It it as big a threat as "I don't want to wear a burkha" alarmists are making it out to be? IMO No.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Allen773

But I don't see them as the massive existential threat to our entire way of life that states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union certainly posed. And while the thought of Al-Qaeda and its associates getting their hands on WMDs is certainly extremely scary, where would they get the means and opportunity to use such weapons? In other words, who would be willing to sell deadly weapons to groups that the majority of the Islamic world-and the overwhelming majority of the non Islamic one-despises and wants to see destroyed?

I agree with your overall point that Islamacists are a significant but not overwhelming threat. However, I do not discount the likelihood of AQ having the means and opportunity to get WMDs. The means would come from rich, extremist Saudis, for example. The opportunity could be some rogue elements from failed ex-Soviet state who don't give a crap who hates who but would sell their mother if the price was right. Or maybe a Pakistani who gets thrown out of a fat job when the new government takes over and decides to get revenge.

[Darat]

I think there is as close to zero as to make no difference that "radical Islam" can by force convert the world to be an Islamic world.

Can it convert the world by other means? Well I can't see (in principle) why not since other religious groupings have successfully converted large numbers of the world's cultures throughout history. However as a significant and real threat of it happening "anytime soon" (i.e. a hundred years or so) - can't see any evidence to support it being a credible threat for most of the world.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had a half page reply to this last night when the board went down for maintenance and ate the post! Darn you board pixies!

So the short version:

We lack data because the the cultural/language barriers prevent us seeing some of the information.

We can't rely on a lot of the information because of the propaganda campaign by our government to exploit the fear.

I don't think 9/11 means there has been some huge leap in risk, I think it means we had a bunch of incompetent asleep at the wheel leaders in power at the time and a small increase in overall risk.

I don't think Iran getting a nuke means the risk increases. It's hard to blame them for just wanting to prevent being attacked by us. Radicals getting a hold of a loose nuke increases with each new bomb produced but there are already a lot of bombs out there in a lot of dangerous places.

And most people are not radical religious extremists. The ones we see ranting death to cartoon producers on TV don't represent most people in most countries.


Oh, and welcome to the forum.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The ones we see ranting death to cartoon producers on TV don't represent most people in most countries.

But they certainly do represent most people in some countries.

[Travis]

Anti-war demonstrators have clearly shown that no radical-Muslim has ever, or will ever, bring any harm to anyone or anything.







...now where's that darn straw hat?

Originally Posted by Allen773

To sum it all up, I guess I don't see radical Islam as being as great a threat as many others see it. What are the opinions of the members of the JREF forum (aka NWO online hotspot )

Just because they may not bring about world wide Armageddon or forcibly convert everyone doesn't mean they aren't capable of inflicting an incredible amount of pain, suffering and death on a lot of people on every continent.

However if no one chose to resist or fight them then they actually could achieve their aims. Vigilance is what is necessary to keep them in check. Apathy is their ally.

[Fiona]

I wonder if getting out of their countries and attending to our own affairs might tend to reduce their support?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I wonder if getting out of their countries and attending to our own affairs might tend to reduce their support?

If you can figure out a way to do it that doesn't let the entire region break out into a giant *************** war and ensure the supply of petroleum to first world economies........maybe......perhaps.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

But they certainly do represent most people in some countries.

I would wager this is a gross misperception of reality. Maybe when Germany was on the march, and maybe the Palestinians after half a century of oppression or something, but those frequent news shots of religious fanatics burning American flags, etc., still represent a vocal minority in most countries. Heck, half the time if the camera were to pan out, you'd only see a handful of people.

[Fiona]

I have no idea if it would lead to more wars or less wars or the same amount of wars. I do not see that first world economies have a right to take resources by force. I do not really see much reason to suppose that trade would stop, either.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Fiona

I have no idea if it would lead to more wars or less wars or the same amount of wars. I do not see that first world economies have a right to take resources by force. I do not really see much reason to suppose that trade would stop, either.

Who's taking the resources by force? Seems to me we're paying through the nose for them.

[JoeEllison]

Two things:

1) Threat to the world? Pretty close to zero.

2) Much of the current problem comes down to Western meddling. If/when we finally kick our addiction to oil, I imagine the problem will disappear... not for the people who live in the Middle East, but most likely from our consciousness.

[Policenaut]

Their ideology is a threat to our way of life. A worldwide caliphate would put a damper on things like freedom and rights. But luckily right now they don't seem to have the numbers or means to impose this on moderate muslim countries let alone any country outside the middle east. As for who would be willing to sell them wmds you don't have to look very far. North Korea may have with Syria. And they don't necessarily need to be bought. In Pakistan wmds could just fall in to the lap of terrorists.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Policenaut

Their ideology is a threat to our way of life.

Yes, in the same way that whackjob fundamentalist Christian ideology is a threat to our way of life... except the Christian lunatics have the ear of our politicians, and are responsible for many more terrorist attacks and threats of attack on American soil. Funny that people take one thread much more seriously than the other.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Travis

Who's taking the resources by force? Seems to me we're paying through the nose for them.

The USA attempted to take Iraqi resources by force. Witness the oil sharing agreement that was a sweetheart deal for USA companies. That the USA is paying dearly for this attempt does not in any way mean that the attempt was not made.

By the way, consider Basra. The occupation by the Brits was the third time they have been a military presence in that area in order to secure a source of oil. So add the UK to the list of "who's taking the resources by force."

[Travis]

Originally Posted by SezMe

The USA attempted to take Iraqi resources by force. Witness the oil sharing agreement that was a sweetheart deal for USA companies. That the USA is paying dearly for this attempt does not in any way mean that the attempt was not made.

By the way, consider Basra. The occupation by the Brits was the third time they have been a military presence in that area in order to secure a source of oil. So add the UK to the list of "who's taking the resources by force."

We obviously have very different ideas of what "taking something by force" means. I thought it was theft through means of violence but apparently you think heavy handed negotiation is the same thing.

Is a Union "taking resources by force" when they threaten to go on strike to get a better contract?

[Fiona]

Is it taking by force if someone gives you his wallet when you are holding a gun to his head? Of course not. It is "heavy handed negotiation" Silly me

[SezMe]

I'll go along with "theft through means of violence". Good thing the invasion of Iraq was not violent. Nor the subsequent occupation. Nor the coercion of the Maliki government.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Travis

Anti-war demonstrators have clearly shown that no radical-Muslim has ever, or will ever, bring any harm to anyone or anything.







...now where's that darn straw hat?



Just because they may not bring about world wide Armageddon or forcibly convert everyone doesn't mean they aren't capable of inflicting an incredible amount of pain, suffering and death on a lot of people on every continent.

However if no one chose to resist or fight them then they actually could achieve their aims. Vigilance is what is necessary to keep them in check. Apathy is their ally.

You make a good point, but at the other extreme, too much vigilance on our part is exactly what the terrorists want. Al-Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 hoping to drag us into overreacting by launching large-scale invasions of Muslim countries that we'd get bogged down in, much like the Soviets in Afghanistan. With our invasion of Iraq (Afghanistan was a lot more justified in my view), we gave them precisely what they wished for.

Some sort of middle ground between apathy and overreaction would seem ideal.

[KeyserSoze]

They might seem like they are not a huge threat now, but I'm still afraid of what is going to happen when they run out of oil.

Think about it. What is the most logical outcome for when millions of people out in the blazing hot desert run out of their main source of income, and all they have left are hungry stomaches, a Koran, and a massive stockpiles of weapons. Do you think they will lay down to die, or will they take a last ditch effort to take over the world?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Travis

Who's taking the resources by force? Seems to me we're paying through the nose for them.

The US and Britain both have a century of history of overthrowing democratically elected governments which were threatening to interfere with foreign corporations profiting from local resources.

We are paying now. It's been called "blowback" by some.

[XBoxWarrior]

Quote:

How much of a threat to the world does radical Islam really pose?

None.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by WildCat

But they certainly do represent most people in some countries.

Which countries? Pakistan, a country of 150 million people (and growing)? Even if just 1 percent of Pakistan's population were violent religious zealots/rioters, that would mean a whopping 1.5 million people in Pakistan alone would fall under such a category.

Is there any evidence that anywhere near that number of people total-out of a world of well over 1 billion Muslims of dozens of countries-fall under the above category, let alone that amount in a single country?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

None.

So, as implied by your answer, Radical Islam poses no threat to anyone anywhere?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The US and Britain both have a century of history of overthrowing democratically elected governments which were threatening to interfere with foreign corporations profiting from local resources.

We are paying now. It's been called "blowback" by some.

Yes and France killed a lot of innocent people in Algeria. Do Algerians have the right to kill any French citizens they come across? That would be "blowback" after all and if its okay for Radical Muslims to kill any American they can shouldn't other nations be subject to the same type of radical retaliation?

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Travis

Yes and France killed a lot of innocent people in Algeria. Do Algerians have the right to kill any French citizens they come across? That would be "blowback" after all and if its okay for Radical Muslims to kill any American they can shouldn't other nations be subject to the same type of radical retaliation?

I don't think skeptigirl was implying that anyone had the right to kill anyone. She was just explaining one of the key reasons for the animosity towards the Western world in the Islamic world.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Allen773

I don't think skeptigirl was implying that anyone had the right to kill anyone. She was just explaining one of the key reasons for the animosity towards the Western world in the Islamic world.

Perhaps she, individually, doesn't but the entire notion of "blowback" is that the US, and US citizens, entirely deserve to be attacked by Radical Muslim Terrorists and that the victims of those attacks, civilian or not, deserve to die in them.



So you can see why I get a bit testy whenever the "blowback" justification for terrorism is brought up.

[Fiona]

How do you reach that conclusion, Travis? I cannot at all see that seeking to understand a situation in all its complexity is the same thing as condoning the bad outcomes which follow from it. I do see that refusing to attempt to understand it is not very likely to be helpful in fixing it, though

[gtc]

Which democratically elected governments has Britain overthrown in the last century and which of those were countries 'which were threatening to interfere with foreign corporations profiting from local resources'?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Travis

Perhaps she, individually, doesn't but the entire notion of "blowback" is that the US, and US citizens, entirely deserve to be attacked by Radical Muslim Terrorists and that the victims of those attacks, civilian or not, deserve to die in them.

So you can see why I get a bit testy whenever the "blowback" justification for terrorism is brought up.

Originally Posted by Fiona

How do you reach that conclusion, Travis? I cannot at all see that seeking to understand a situation in all its complexity is the same thing as condoning the bad outcomes which follow from it. I do see that refusing to attempt to understand it is not very likely to be helpful in fixing it, though

I want to expand on what Fiona said.

That there is blowback to USA policy does NOT in any way imply that the US or its citizens "deserve" to suffer under that blowback. IOW, blowback is observed as a factual consequence of USA policy but noting that fact does not in any way justify terrrorism.

IMO, this is a common problem often seen on the right. If the USA wants to minimize terrorism, then it would be incombent upon our agencies to undertand its roots at the most basic level and try to rip out those roots. But trying to understand basic driving forces is mistranslated to condoning them. That mistranslation is a core problem.

We can see this phenomenon at work right here at home. Some organizations are trying to understand the root causes of urban crime, illegitimate birth rates, unemployment, etc. and rectify the problems. Others characterize these efforts as being soft on crime.

So next time you feel "testy" about a blowback justification for terrorism, ask youself if that justification is real or is maybe a figment of your own political perspective.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Travis

Perhaps she, individually, doesn't but the entire notion of "blowback" is that the US, and US citizens, entirely deserve to be attacked by Radical Muslim Terrorists and that the victims of those attacks, civilian or not, deserve to die in them.



So you can see why I get a bit testy whenever the "blowback" justification for terrorism is brought up.

Y'know, this is why these issues get all emotional and have very little logical arguments available. Talking about consequences does not mean that you say that someone "deserves" to be attacked, or that it is "justification" outside of anything but a logical conclusion from following events.

To put it another way: If I said that if you hit a grizzly bear over the head, you would find yourself mauled, mean that I truly felt you DESERVED to be mauled, or that the bear was "justified" in mauling you? No. I'd feel that you would deserve to get smacked upside the head myself, but outright crippled or killed? No, I don't think that you "deserve" it. But I would say that if you hit a grizzly over a head, you'd find yourself soon regretting it -- this is cause and effect.

If I said that if you dived into water that you didn't know the depth of, you could find yourself with a broken neck, do you automatically take that to mean that you DESERVE to have a broken neck, or that the river bank was "justified" in killing you? No.

The attempt to interject such language as "deserve" or "justification" is added in by opposition as an attempt to interject emotions to fight down any contrary viewpoint. We live in a world of causes and effects. Some of these causes and effects include human society. If you kill someone, there will be an effect. If you declare war, there will also be an effect. If you give weapons and military training to a bunch of people that have their own agenda... guess what? You have another effect.

There is no need to interject "deserve" or "justification" -- to list that if you set fire to paper, that it will end up as ash doesn't mean that the paper "deserves" to be turned to ash. This is just language interjected to confuse the issue, rather dishonestly at that.

The United States does not live in a one-way vacuum. It is not a reclusive entity just minding it's own business as complete strangers attack us for no apparent reason. We influence the world, and we know it; we've involved ourselves in more than one issue, and men in power have made decisions that, on hindsight (and sometimes even with foresight) are quite regrettable, in regards to other countries. We have directly meddled in the politics with lands in South America, in the Middle East, and in almost any country or region that we have had problems with. To deny that any of these actions could possibly have had consequences, and that this could very well be a lesson for future intervention plans, because you have to claim that someone "deserved" to be attacked to demonstrate that previous actions are at least partly responsible for the present situation, is dishonest.

[gtc]

By the same token, I think 'blow back' is an overly emotive term. The term consequence could be used instead, I think.

[Lonewulf]

Emotive? I don't really see it as very emotive, personally.

I certainly don't see anything written in that could lead one to conclude that one party "deserves" something or other.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Yes, in the same way that whackjob fundamentalist Christian ideology is a threat to our way of life... except the Christian lunatics have the ear of our politicians, and are responsible for many more terrorist attacks and threats of attack on American soil. Funny that people take one thread much more seriously than the other.

*lol* True. And let's not forget that even Iran didn't go to war for God [or anything else] in contrast to some American Presidents who heard God's voice telling him to go to war.

So it's safe to say that American Presidents are the deadliest threat to civilization nowadays. Maybe Islam should get more democratized/westernized to meet that challenge?

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Emotive? I don't really see it as very emotive, personally.

I certainly don't see anything written in that could lead one to conclude that one party "deserves" something or other.

Blowback does not, necessarily, indicate that one party deserved it; but if you google the term you will see that it is often used in the same sentence as terms like 'American empire'. I think that a word like 'consequences' is not as easy to misinterpret by people who are used to seeing 'blowback' used in overly emotive contexts.

Originally Posted by Oliver

*lol* True. And let's not forget that even Iran didn't go to war for God [or anything else] in contrast to some American Presidents who heard God's voice telling him to go to war.

So it's safe to say that American Presidents are the deadliest threat to civilization nowadays. Maybe Islam should get more democratized/westernized to meet that challenge?

Your use of the confused smiley is the most honest thing in your post. Iran has gone to war.

[Travis]

Well, at least everyone here was correct on calling me on not adequately explaining what I meant. I'm not trying to assert that the search for reasons behind Terrorist actions is not valid and that retaliation for foreign policy decisions, embodied by the phrase "blowback," did not play any part in motivating those behind Terrorist acts.

My issue is that it is a simplification of matters. Many, many.........many people on here have objected to the idea that the Terrorists "hated us for our freedoms," despite the mountains of evidence that they did hate a lot of our freedoms. Similarly I object to the idea that "blowback" is the end-all be-all explanation behind things like September 11th.

Nineteen individuals had the patience, cunning and determination to enter an enemy country, prepare for and then execute an attack on that enemy and yet were radically fanatical enough to kill themselves in the process of that attack whose aim was of killing many innocent people. Not the actions of emotionally stable individuals but also not the actions of dunderheads.

Trying to fit the motivations of such unique and complex individuals into tidy idealogical bottles is what irritates me. I sincerely doubt that Mohamed Atta was thinking of avenging Mohammed Mosaddeq when he piloted American 11 into WTC1. I also sincerely doubt he was thinking about our Playboys and beer when he carried out that act. What he really was thinking about is something I'll never know and probably none of us could really wrap our heads around what such an individual would be thinking and feeling as they did something so ambitious and yet so terrible.

I first heard of ideas approximating "blowback" in the first days after the attacks happened and they were always in the context of "the USA got what it deserved." So it has been hard for me, since then, to approach the subject in a completely academic and unbiased sense. I should, of course, try harder to distinguish legitimate analysis from anti-American platitudes and in the future I will endeavor more diligently to do so.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well, at least everyone here was correct on calling me on not adequately explaining what I meant. I'm not trying to assert that the search for reasons behind Terrorist actions is not valid and that retaliation for foreign policy decisions, embodied by the phrase "blowback," did not play any part in motivating those behind Terrorist acts.

Of course you always want to understand the motivations of your enemy, but we want to make the distinction between understanding them so we can better combat them, and understanding them so we can appease them. One is very good, the other is very bad.

The problem with the term blowback is it implies that 9/11 is a natural result of our own policies and thus our fault. This carries both the assumptions that there is something so seriously wrong with our middle eastern foreign policies that we deserve terrorist attacks and that the actions of OBL and these 19 men really do represent the righteous anger of the billion or so Arabs and Muslims worldwide.

Which is obviously wrong because as we all know Islam is a religion of peace and these terrorists only represent a tiny minority.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Of course you always want to understand the motivations of your enemy, but we want to make the distinction between understanding them so we can better combat them, and understanding them so we can appease them. One is very good, the other is very bad.

The problem with the term blowback is it implies that 9/11 is a natural result of our own policies and thus our fault. This carries both the assumptions that there is something so seriously wrong with our middle eastern foreign policies that we deserve terrorist attacks and that the actions of OBL and these 19 men really do represent the righteous anger of the billion or so Arabs and Muslims worldwide.

Which is obviously wrong because as we all know Islam is a religion of peace and these terrorists only represent a tiny minority.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this post.

However, while the number of actual Islamic terrorists is probably less than a million total, many millions of Muslims sympathize with their grievances, even though most are appalled by their tactics (as they should be).

It is this majority that we should be reaching out to. Some people see that as "negotiating with terrorists", but that's the same type of black-and-white, good vs. evil thinking that bin Laden and his ilk (not to mention other historical monsters like Hitler) subscribe to. I'd like to think that we should be above that.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by gtc

Blowback does not, necessarily, indicate that one party deserved it; but if you google the term you will see that it is often used in the same sentence as terms like 'American empire'. I think that a word like 'consequences' is not as easy to misinterpret by people who are used to seeing 'blowback' used in overly emotive contexts.

Guilt by Association is not a kind of guilt I am quick to leap upon.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Of course you always want to understand the motivations of your enemy, but we want to make the distinction between understanding them so we can better combat them, and understanding them so we can appease them. One is very good, the other is very bad.

The problem with the term blowback is it implies that 9/11 is a natural result of our own policies and thus our fault. This carries both the assumptions that there is something so seriously wrong with our middle eastern foreign policies that we deserve terrorist attacks and that the actions of OBL and these 19 men really do represent the righteous anger of the billion or so Arabs and Muslims worldwide.

Which is obviously wrong because as we all know Islam is a religion of peace and these terrorists only represent a tiny minority.

Originally Posted by Allen773

I think you hit the nail on the head with this post.

How? Mycroft just repeats the meme that "blowback" automatically suggests that we "deserved" the terrorist attacks.

Just repeating something doesn't make it true.

I'd certainly say that giving arms and training to certain individuals during the Cold War has led to rather undesirable consequences, that could very well be seen as blowback.