What's new

Is west instigating terrorism against Muslims?

I think the hypothesis is valid.

How Western media or personalities like Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Salman Rushdie and their ilks view Islam does have a significant relationship of the resulting actions committed by some American troops abroad and elsewhere (like that Anders chap).

Imagine an American soldier with little or no familiarity with other religions on cultures (as with most of American society), and at the same time fed with all manner of stereotypes from media and personalities. And a relatively low context culture at that.

It's pretty easy for any of them to commit extreme actions.

Sure, not all Western folks would listen to those people, but others will. Even if 1% of the US Army/Marines are extremists, that is a significant number considering the sheer power of their military.

Those are some of the reasons why a super power should never militarily get involved in any conflict unless it is a significant threat.

Let's not get into 'unholier than thou'.

But when things get as universally polarized as what we seem to be heading towards today, Muslims the world over need to ask themselves, as I'm sure they are - can everybody be wrong?

Well, no country is perfect. Most Muslim-majority countries aren't even Democracies. And yet the US thinks it alone decides what government is to be placed in the Middle Eastern countries. That's one of their challenges in Iran.
 
Well, no country is perfect. Most Muslim-majority countries aren't even Democracies. And yet the US thinks it alone decides what government is to be placed in the Middle Eastern countries. That's one of their challenges in Iran.

I am not speaking about country to country politics and war. The US does what is in the US's best interests. As would any country with the means of doing so.

I am speaking culturally. People to people. Community to community.
 
I don't see any western nutcases screaming "In the name of Christ" and commiting murder as is in the case of Muslim extremists. Also i don't see any western types blowing up skyscrapers, metros and similar.

True there are hardliners everywhere, specifically the US extreme right is just to be laughed at, but the actions speak louder than words and when it comes to propagating one's agenda under the guise of religion, you Muslims have come a long, long way.
Easiest is to point fingers at ze evil West.

Also it sems the Muslim world is utterly unable to stop it's own extremists, which tarnish it's image worldwide.
 
In today's world, a religion and its followers are judged not by how they behave when in a minority, but how they behave with others when they are in the majority.

Intolerance breeds resentment and a backlash of reverse intolerance.

Even in traditionally plural, multicultural, and tolerant societies.
 
The whole non-muslim world is collectively brainwashed and awash in hatred and bigotry, with what seems to be a global conspiracy to taint a people and religion by distorting history.

There are a lot of ethnic/religious conflicts around the world. It's just that, when Muslims are involved, the conflict is couched as a terrorism issue. The global domination of the Western media has made this labeling acceptable.

Why is this happening?

I know you guys won't believe me when I say that, if Israel had been forcibly created in India and Hindus/Sikhs had been resisting the occupation, the world would be demonizing Hindus/Sikhs.

Since you guys will dismiss anything we say as Muslim paranoia, here's a Western view of it.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-defence/170929-islamphobia-excuse-us-politics.html

I will quote the article here:

The Islamophobia Excuse by Philip Giraldi -- Antiwar.com

by Philip Giraldi, April 04, 2012
Print This | Share This

It seems that the Republican presidential aspirants’ fervor to confront Islam has receded a bit with the decline and fall of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, but one can likely still count on Rick Santorum to come up with some bon mots on the threat posed by Shariah law. Those who fear that hands will soon be lopped off shoplifters caught in Cleveland appear to be making much ado about nothing, but there is a much broader and more insidious agenda that is really playing out behind the scenes. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum are all smart enough to know that Islamic law is hardly poised to dominate the U.S. legal system, but they are using it as the wedge issue to deny the patriotism of Muslims in general and fuel the demands to exercise a military option against Iran.

Promoting fear of Shariah law is essentially a red herring. There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes. They are Saudi Arabia and Iran, one a close ally of the United States and the West and the other currently playing the cameo role of a threat to the entire world, to borrow a phrase from the eminent Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel. The countries that do not have Shariah as their criminal codes have modeled their laws on European and American models, some borrowing from Roman law and others from British common law.

Depicting Islam as manifestly medieval, backward, and cruel is not new, as it has been going on in one form or another since the Israelis and Palestinians first locked horns. Recognizing that the propaganda that is being ground out in the mainstream media derives from that conflict, it is easy to understand why Muslims are persistently portrayed in negative terms. And it should be equally unsurprising to learn that those who are denigrating Muslims and Islam are almost invariably among the most uncritical supporters of Likudist Israel and all its works.

The list of those who are passionate about how bad Islam is has a familiar ring to it. It is led by the truly vicious and fanatical like Pamela Geller and includes John Bolton, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Charles Krauthammer. Geller has written that there is “a systematic campaign to impose Shariah on the secular marketplace” and to pervert the justice system in favor of Islamic exemptions, a theme that has been picked up by Gingrich and Santorum, both of whom favor pointless laws banning Shariah in any form. In a milder form, the same viewpoint is reflected in both the news coverage and the editorial pages of newspapers like The New York Post, The Washington Post, and even The New York Times. The arguments being made are not necessarily intended to convince anyone other than those who are already more than half onboard, but they are designed to keep the issue of how Muslims are not quite like the rest of us on the back burner to so that the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians and other Arabs will somehow always seem suspect. It also fuels other narratives that the neoconservatives and their friends support, like perpetual warfare against Islamic countries to bring about regime changes, suggesting that there is something that is not quite right in the way that Muslim countries govern themselves. The real objective is, however, spelled out in the paper that the neocons presented to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, “A Clean Break,” advocating the breakup of Arab countries into smaller components that would be perpetually at war with themselves, thereby assuring Israeli predominance in the region. As is so often the case, the conversation in the United States is really all about Israel.

The broader agenda of Islamophobia also fuels arguments to continue to stay the course in places like Afghanistan. Urinating on corpses, hunting and killing local farmers for sport, shooting women and children in the middle of the night, and burning Qurans are all justified because American soldiers find themselves in a difficult and stress-filled environment where the enemies are everywhere and are manifestly not quite real people in the same sense that boys from Kansas are. Muslims become abstractions, and there is the undercurrent of “Don’t they know we are there to help them?” The rarely spelled-out subtext in all the narratives that seek to explain or mitigate the barbaric behavior on the part of America’s finest is that the Afghans are not quite like us and they are not being grateful enough. Their otherness comes partly from the perception that they are primitive but even more from the fact that they are Muslims.

Moving beyond Shariah, those who wish to marginalize Muslims in American life point to the terrorism arrests of Muslims who are American citizens or legal residents of this country. There have indeed been such cases, but a careful reading of the court records suggests that the arrests are mostly what once would have been considered entrapment. A disgruntled young man toys with jihadist websites, is identified, and suddenly finds himself with a new friend who presents him with an unusable bomb to blow himself up in Times Square. He is then arrested and finds himself facing 20 years in prison. The reality, however, is that of 14,000 murders in the United States in 2010, not a single one was attributed to a Muslim terrorist.

So why should Americans hate or fear Muslims? If it were only the idiosyncrasies of their culture that were an irritant, one would reasonably observe that the United States has absorbed plenty of cultures and lifestyles equally outside of the Western European mainstream. The fact is that the Islamophobia we are currently seeing really has two objectives. First and foremost it is to protect Israeli interests, making Muslims appear to be a threat and a group that is irredeemably un-American, while Israelis are presented as people who are more or less just like us. That means that only one voice will be heard on the Middle East, which is precisely what has taken place. The second objective is to justify the seemingly unending series of wars in Asia, presenting the local people as lacking in the civilized moral and political values that we all hold dear. Ironically, this latter argument is self-defeating, as it is the foreign wars of the past 11 years that have stripped Americans of many of their liberties and constitutional rights. What we choose to fear in Islam and deplore in Muslim regimes — the lack of individual rights — has come home to us.
 
I don't see any western nutcases screaming "In the name of Christ" and commiting murder as is in the case of Muslim extremists. Also i don't see any western types blowing up skyscrapers, metros and similar.

True there are hardliners everywhere, specifically the US extreme right is just to be laughed at, but the actions speak louder than words and when it comes to propagating one's agenda under the guise of religion, you Muslims have come a long, long way.
Easiest is to point fingers at ze evil West.

Laughed at? Some idiots may actually buy that stuff seriously :lol:

Nobody is saying that the whole West is evil.

Also it sems the Muslim world is utterly unable to stop it's own extremists, which tarnish it's image worldwide.

That's funny. According to your country, my country (a Muslim-majority nation) is doing fine against extremists.

It's best not to believe everything on the media.

The point of this thread is that some nutcases may commit extreme actions as a result of the media.
 
Laughed at? Some idiots may actually buy that stuff seriously :lol:

Nobody is saying that the whole West is evil.

No? Funny, im seeing it all over. From institutions to people to governments, all comes with a prefix "West" and a suffix "oppress Muslims"



That's funny. According to your country, my country (a Muslim-majority nation) is doing fine against extremists.

Are you sure you are not letting the mass media to determine your perceptions of the Muslim World failing to contain them? :lol:

The point of this thread is that some nutcases may commit extreme actions as a result of the media.

Your country isn't the whole Muslim world is it?

And i have Muslim neighbours, i know damn well all aren't like the few nutcases. I also know damn well, in contrast to what Developeonub says that they are here because of a variety of reasons not only economic, freedoms and overall tolerance of Western culture come into play here.
There are also some that abuse and exploit our own system, but the vast majority are model citizens.

Point is, if you have something to live for, planning suicide missions is a no no.

Regarding my perceptions: Are you sure you can support the claim that the Muslim world has contained its various extremist elements and dealth with them on their own?
 
Is west instigating terrorism against Muslims?

Yes definately. Why anyone should doubt that ??? They are fighting the terrorists who are Muslims. So it's obvious point of view where Muslims are not domestic. Even in India though it has a big Muslim population if a new Muslim come people suspects him. But it's not the case who is domesticated there and people know him. So if you say USA they are over protective. They do things which are not required. Still they do it. SRK is a well know personality was they expecting him to blow up something ? APJ was president of India. But it's the FEAR that is making USA to do so. If these guies aren't exceptions then what can you expect for common man.
USA should comeup with more solid solution than seeing everybody as terrorist
 
No? Funny, im seeing it all over. From institutions to people to governments, all comes with a prefix "West" and a suffix "oppress Muslims"

Well...yeah some people overdo it considering that many Muslim nations accept both civilian and military aid from the US. And even export their products to the West.

I've even heard that some gun-trotting imams come up with fantastic lies like "the West does not allow Muslims to build mosques, and there are no mosques in the West"

That's partly how they attract young people with no education or job to be fighters and suicide bombers.

Your country isn't the whole Muslim world is it?

Actually, my country is small. I think for the most part, the Muslim nations have done a decent job at containing extremism. Malaysia, Indonesia and others in the region have done a good job.

I couldn't say much about the wealthy GCC states. Syria is screwed either way.

Although, it's understandable why Pakistan would be surrounded with a lot of controversy. Especially considering that OBL was living comfortably in an area exclusively designated for high ranking military officers.

And i have Muslim neighbours, i know damn well all aren't like the few nutcases. I also know damn well, in contrast to what Developeonub says that they are here because of a variety of reasons not only economic, freedoms and overall tolerance of Western culture come into play here.

^True.

Point is, if you have something to live for, planning suicide missions is a no no.

Only a fool would go on a suicide mission.

I'd say that this current WoT is more psychological than pure military unlike the Cold War. I'd recommend a bit more clarity before going to......any war.
 
^^

Good post. I agree with it all....
 
There are a lot of ethnic/religious conflicts around the world. It's just that, when Muslims are involved, the conflict is couched as a terrorism issue. The global domination of the Western media has made this labeling acceptable.

I know you guys won't believe me when I say that, if Israel had been forcibly created in India and Hindus/Sikhs had been resisting the occupation, the world would be demonizing Hindus/Sikhs.

Since you guys will dismiss anything we say as Muslim paranoia, here's a Western view of it.

The Palestine thing is a non issue frankly. There is no single Muslim voice on it in terms of action taken. Nor is there a single Christian voice. Nor is there a polarized world view on it.

The cultural backlash against Islam and Muslims I am referring to is longer in the making.

The West as you put it is surely an important opinion maker and driver, but that is more political than cultural.

You would no doubt appreciate that the US was equal opportunity philander when it was in bed with the Jews and Muslims for decades at the same time. Till their mainland was attacked.

I do not have a particularly strong vie on the Israel-Palestine conflict per se and I can appreciate both sides pretty dispassionately based on their actions.

But I do realise that historically Jews returning to what was originally their land cannot be compared to their being transplanted on to what for millenia was always the land of the Hindus.

The point I a making here is that the way I (and many non-Muslims see it) there is a basic incongruence in Islam that goes against the nature of mankind. An incongruence Christianity suffered as well till they decided to separate the Church from polity.

And that is that Blood will always be thicker than Religion. Blood flows through the veins of a people for millenia. Far pre-dating the religions that come in epochal waves and are accepted or rejected.

But Islam believes and exhorts otherwise its devoted. And that is where the BASIC rub across cultures is between societies and Islam, as Muslims polarize within their own ancestral society locally and as a people globally and politically across national and cultural lines.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, this is a cyclical thing. An evolutionary curve all religions go through. What we are seeing today is likely the throes of renaissance churn that is due for Islam, the youngest in line.

And the resultant friction, internal and external, that goes with it.
 
The Palestine thing is a non issue frankly. There is no single Muslim voice on it in terms of action taken. Nor is there a single Christian voice. Nor is there a polarized world view on it.

Sounds like you didn't read the article I posted. The Zionist lobby is absolutely dominant in Western affairs, especially the media and government. There have been other exposes by Western insiders about the Israel Lobby which show how Western foreign policy is utterly subservient to Israeli interests.

The cultural backlash against Islam and Muslims I am referring to is longer in the making.

There is a history of conflict going back centuries, but it was always on simmer. Sure there were extremists on both sides intent on perpetuating the conflict, but the mainstream communities would have learnt to coexist over time. The whole relationship went seriously off-track with the WW1 and, especially, after Israel was established.

The West as you put it is surely an important opinion maker and driver, but that is more political than cultural.

On the contrary, Western, specifically American, cultural dominance is supreme. Even other Western countries, like France, get all bent out of shape about American cultural imperialism.

You would no doubt appreciate that the US was equal opportunity philander when it was in bed with the Jews and Muslims for decades at the same time. Till their mainland was attacked.

The US was never a balanced, objective player in the Israel/Palestine conflict. It has always been staunchly pro-Israel. Only the Arabs, in their anti-Iran paranoia, carried on that silly pretense of 'neutral arbiter'.

I do not have a particularly strong vie on the Israel-Palestine conflict per se and I can appreciate both sides pretty dispassionately based on their actions.

But I do realise that historically Jews returning to what was originally their land cannot be compared to their being transplanted on to what for millenia was always the land of the Hindus.

2000 year old ancient settlements are not a valid legal basis to throw people out of their house and claim the land. Theodor Herzl, in his other Zionist friends, had a number of other regions in mind for a Jewish homeland, including Uganda and Ecuador.

My point about India was that the reason for the anti-Muslim demonization, as the article above also states, is the Zionist desire to portray enemies of Israel as barbaric enemies of all mankind.

The point I a making here is that the way I (and many non-Muslims see it) there is a basic incongruence in Islam that goes against the nature of mankind. An incongruence Christianity suffered as well till they decided to separate the Church from polity.

Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity or Judaism. There are many different strains of Islam, with varying degrees of tolerance for other views. The extremists in Islam are no more severe than those in other religions; it's just that the extremists in other religions are more media-savvy, and their agenda is carried out by official armies in the IDF and the USAF.

But Islam believes and exhorts otherwise its devoted. And that is where the BASIC rub across cultures is between societies and Islam, as Muslims polarize within their own ancestral society locally and as a people globally and politically across national and cultural lines.

This is again false. Iranian Muslims are just fine with their Zoroastrian roots. Egyptian Muslims have deep respect for their ancient heritage. If you are talking about South Asian Muslims, then there is a different dynamic at play. The reason there is friction between Muslims and Hindus is due to the Hindu resentment of the Mughal rule and the fact that some Hindus are stuck in these past grievances. This creates a backlash from the South Asian Muslim community and the bad blood continues.
 
Funny.

That's exactly what the terrorists say about their convictions!

And that's where the similarity ends.

One just has to scratch the surface and one can see the obvious differences.

Anyway, now Tamizhan has done an excellent job of that already.
 
And the likes of Netanyahu or Meir Kahane are the reason the Anjem Choudrys come into existence.

Extremists on both sides feed off each other. They need each other to justify their existence.

No! They have nothing to do with any of that!

They want Shariah not only in UK but in India and Canada as well (and all of the world)!

They are Islamofascists and they have no outside reason for what they are.

Well, you guys are the masters of self-delusion. Just like the ostrich thinks he has 'conquered' the situation.

Sometimes I really think that we think so alike.

Just the shoe on the other side issue. A minor detail?
 
Back
Top Bottom