PDA

View Full Version : latest poll on muslim opinion in ME



LeeG
02-27-2009, 07:12 AM
This should provide the opinionated conservative talk show hosts with material.


http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/591.php?nid=&id=&pnt=591&lb=


A study of public opinion in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. At the same time large majorities agree with al Qaeda's goal of pushing the United States to remove its military forces from all Muslim countries and substantial numbers, in some cases majorities, approve of attacks on US troops in Muslim countries.
....

Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, comments, "The US faces a conundrum. US efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for al Qaeda, even as most reject its terrorist methods."

The survey is part of an ongoing study of Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, with additional polling in Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Azerbaijan and Nigeria. It was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland.

In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians. "Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals" are rejected as "not justified at all" by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent. There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half now saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective.

At the same time large majorities endorse the goal of al Qaeda to "push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries," including 87 percent of Egyptians, 64 percent of Indonesians, and 60 percent of Pakistanis.

Asked specifically about the US naval forces based in the Persian Gulf, there is widespread opposition across the Muslim world. Across eight Muslim publics on average, 66 percent said it was a bad idea; only 13 percent called it a good idea. Opposition is largest in Egypt (91%) and among the Palestinians (90%), but opposition is also large in America's NATO ally Turkey (77%).

BrianW
02-27-2009, 07:42 AM
"Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals" are rejected as "not justified at all" by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent.

So 19 to 33% approve of bombing civilian targets.



At the same time large majorities endorse the goal of al Qaeda to "push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries

Yeah, I remember seeing al Qaeda in the UN, specifically requesting those reductions. Just can't recall the date... any help Lee?

George Jung
02-27-2009, 07:47 AM
Well, I think we should do what Al Qaeda wants... right?

I'm surprised by the high numbers in Egypt.

SMARTINSEN
02-27-2009, 08:02 AM
Well, I think we should do what Al Qaeda wants... right?


I'm surprised by the high numbers in Egypt.

I am not. I believe that they along with most Muslims blame the U.S for the incursion of Western lifestyles and values into their tradition-based cultures much the same way that Tinman resents the incursion of their values into ours. Of course, the Muslim influence on the West is much less profound.

Interesting that Saudi Arabia is not mentioned.

LeeG
02-27-2009, 08:06 AM
So 19 to 33% approve of bombing civilian targets.




Yeah, I remember seeing al Qaeda in the UN, specifically requesting those reductions. Just can't recall the date... any help Lee?

Nope, I think your reading comprehension is just fine. Folks over there don't want a US military presence.

BrianW
02-27-2009, 03:59 PM
Oh now I remember the date... it was in September 2001 I believe. Problem was they had the wrong address. Instead of going to the UN building, they went to the World Trade Center.

LeeG
02-27-2009, 04:26 PM
Brian,are you are saying that "large majorities" is synonomous with Al Qaeda ? You've just expanded GWs GWOT from those who support or harbor terrists to those who share similar opinions on specific topics. Well done!!

Captain Blight
02-27-2009, 04:30 PM
Well, I think we should do what Al Qaeda wants... right?

Having a common goal is neither surrender nor collaboration.

If we're going to end the conflict--with any outcome--at some point in each scenario save two we will have to sit down at a big polished table and talk. I see no reason why we shouldn't skip all the steps that lead to more people getting killed, and make with the jibber-jabber toot sweet.

Tinman
02-27-2009, 05:10 PM
The Captain continues his Chaimberlainesque line of thinking. If we all just "talk", we will all end up loving each other and peace will reign, and I am all for it. Too bad the other guys aren't.

George Jung
02-27-2009, 05:25 PM
Negotiations with Al Qaeda? I wonder if that's one of the options being considered by anyone, anywhere. Interesting; they're not representing any particular government or nation. What would you negotiate for, and what would you (we/anybody?) be willing to concede? Isn't their position the elimination of all western presence in muslim countries, elimination of Israel, and death to America? I don't know, some of those could be sticking points - but maybe there's some wiggle room in those demands. Which of those are options, in your opinion?

Captain Blight
02-27-2009, 05:55 PM
The Captain continues his Chaimberlainesque line of thinking. If we all just "talk", we will all end up loving each other and peace will reign, and I am all for it. Too bad the other guys aren't.
Excuse me, but no. We will not "Just 'talk,'" as you so blithely put it. We will probably not end up loving each other. And the other guys may very well be for it; we don't know; we haven't made that overture. Having the most powerful military in the history of the planet certainly lends weight to any diplomatic solutions we may postulate. But it's also time to own up to the fact that we have been fought to a standstill in two out of the past 3 wars we've been engaged in.

There are some excellent treatises and learned studies on guerilla warfare that have been printed over the years, and they all have some common points. One of them is that a guerilla force has the luxury of time; they have certainly demonstrated that they are willing to keep on fighting as long as it takes. But, like us, they would rather not have to.

We also have the luxury of time, as long as we don't squander it in useless spasms. We have been showing them for years what a society can be like, and enough Middle Easterners want it that it makes the taliban very very nervous.

I think we're going to have to redefine the old paradigm of "victory" for the 21st Century and beyond. There will be few parades and medals and certainly no embraided generals surrendering their swords in front of the serried legions they command. Having a military that can fight a two-ocean war is all well and good; but how do you train a soldiery to fight memes?


You can't. That's not what a standing military is for. That's a job for diplomacy.

Tinman
02-27-2009, 06:04 PM
Ok Captain, well said. I agree there is certainly a place for diplomacy. I just don't see how you be diplomatic with the likes of bin laden and pajamabad. Not to mention our god friend Kim in N Korea. The just don't strike me as interested in diplomacy.

Captain Blight
02-27-2009, 06:11 PM
Negotiations with Al Qaeda? I wonder if that's one of the options being considered by anyone, anywhere. Interesting; they're not representing any particular government or nation. What would you negotiate for, and what would you (we/anybody?) be willing to concede? Isn't their position the elimination of all western presence in muslim countries, elimination of Israel, and death to America? I don't know, some of those could be sticking points - but maybe there's some wiggle room in those demands. Which of those are options, in your opinion?

Good questions.

Okay. I think that if we just quit lending unequivocal, unwavering, unending support to Israel that would be a great start. Let me be very clear: I am not suggesting for one minute that we turn our backs on them. I am saying that we need to quit turning a blind eye to their more egregious temper tantrums and condemn their actions where appropriate.

I have no idea what to do about their (to me) very unreasonable take on "unbelievers on Muslim ground." I reckon that they could stomach it a lot better if the troops on the ground (and here I guess I'm talking about the brigade and divisional commanders, and the decisions they make semi-autonomously) made better choices: for example:
A couple years into our Afghan campaign, one of the things that percolated out was that the old feuds were continuing, for a very explainable and preventable reason. Many of the people who were being picked by Coalition commanders to be civilian liason and regional civic leaders were people who had been in positions of power under the Soviets. They were getting appointed because US Army commanders really have a boner for organization, and these Afghan communists were a lot more organized than the braying rabble around them. Absolutely (or so it seemed) no attempt was made to listen to the locals and their wishes.

So one may decry cultural sensitivity training as some useless time-waster dictated by an overly-sensitive population grown soft from listening to feminists; but even the most bigoted would have to recognize that there are definitely times when not going against the grain makes for easier work.

It's like the Vietnam mistake: Kennedy was convinced of his Domino Theory, and that if Nam fell to the Commies, the whole rest of Southeast Asia would go, and then who knows where it would stop? But as it turned out, what they were fighting wasn't capitalism but colonialism; they wanted to be their own masters.

So we would do well to listen to what they say: All of what they say, including the things Tinman inveighs against. We should be making better, and better-informed decisions. We need to be very careful who we put in postions of power. And we need to recognize that as soon as we're gone, it might just fall apart anyway.

What a tar-baby. What a pain in the ass. The whole thing, just totally avoidable.

Pugwash
02-27-2009, 06:18 PM
Ok Captain, well said. I agree there is certainly a place for diplomacy. I just don't see how you be diplomatic with the likes of bin laden and pajamabad. Not to mention our god friend Kim in N Korea. The just don't strike me as interested in diplomacy.

As far as Kimmie is concerned, now might be a good time to start. Given that, by all accounts, he's going to croak fairly soon and there are no mechanisms in place to appoint a successor. North Korea could get very ugly, very quickly. What with the nukes and all.

Captain Blight
02-27-2009, 07:16 PM
Ok Captain, well said. I agree there is certainly a place for diplomacy. I just don't see how you be diplomatic with the likes of bin laden and pajamabad. Not to mention our god friend Kim in N Korea. The just don't strike me as interested in diplomacy.Well, the thing is that we can use our intelligence apparatus and our diplomats on the ground to determine other people who may be more amenable to reason. We don't have to run away from al-Qaeda, we don't even have to go through them. We can choose to sidestep their issues entirely.

The first post showed that a sizeable majority of Muslims deplore the acts of al-Qaeda. We should exploit that as intelligently and transparenly as we can.

Kim in Korea is a problem and has been since 1987, when I was working above my grade doing photo analysis for S-2, 2d Bde, 2d Inf Div. I don't know how you negotiate with him; obviously there's an answer, because we're not at war with him.

Ahmedinejad is another problem, but as I understand it, the rhetoric coming from Tehran is fairly hollow. The Iranian people, if nothing else, are tired of conflict and threatened borders.


One thing's for sure: We need a hell of a lot more qualified people on the ground there. There is no substitute for actual human intel, coming hot from the souk. For all the bad press it gets, the CIA does just a heck of a job with what it has to work with.

Tom Montgomery
02-27-2009, 07:27 PM
al Qaeda's goal is to push the US to pull it's military out of Muslim countries? And all along I've been thinking they irrationaly hate us because we are free.

Tinman
02-27-2009, 08:22 PM
al Qaeda's goal is to push the US to pull it's military out of Muslim countries? And all along I've been thinking they irrationaly hate us because we are free.

That is still very true. however, the Captain does make some valid points. I am very worried about both Pakistan, and N korea. His recent missle tests don't do anything to appease my concern.

Tom Montgomery
02-27-2009, 08:30 PM
We should have been concerned about Afghanistan/Pakistan and North Korea all along. Tell me... do you think the US is more or less prepared for conflict on the Korean peninsula since we have lost so much treasure and lives in Bush's Iraq adventure?

Captain Blight
02-27-2009, 08:37 PM
Oh my. Less, far less. North Korea has the world's third or 4th largest standing military; crap navy, okay air force but some very dedicated and well-trained combat arms troops who can run up and down those ridges all day long on a bowl of rice and three fish heads.

The question really ought to be, "How well-prepared are the ROK troops." We are mostly an augmentation to their military, for all that the entire 8th Army is based there. They've got good troops and good equipment and they are in the field training more or less all the damn time.

One of the more educational things I'd done in my young life was take a Panmunjom tour. Very odd feeling, to know that in the UN building, I could walk about 20 feet into North Korea; to do so outside that building would have been sudden messy death and an international incident. Dull wet thud from me and then years and years of wrangling.

SMARTINSEN
02-27-2009, 08:42 PM
They hate us because our leadership is stupid.


The Iranian people, if nothing else, are tired of conflict and threatened borders.

There is one mention of Iran in the report that Lee G started this thread off with. Iran was the only country in the ME, at least of those mentioned in the report, where a significant majority of the population did not hate U.S. citizens. (Making the distinction between the populace and it's leadership.) Even in Turkey, the next most (in our eyes) moderate Muslim nation, a significant percentage of the population had negative views of U.S. citizens.

The whole report is a PDF about 35 pages, not much text, lots of charts, and worth the read. I would c&p the reference, but Acrobat is a PIA to re-format. The chart is on page 19 of the report (21 on the PDF).

PeterSibley
02-27-2009, 08:49 PM
Well, I think we should do what Al Qaeda wants... right?

I'm surprised by the high numbers in Egypt.

Well the US had been following the script pretty well under GB's leadership .
Attack Iraq , get rid of Sadam ,create chaos and give AQ at least a chance of radicalising the Sunnis there .

Kill lots and lots of civilians ,generate hate and loathing for the West .

BrianW
02-27-2009, 10:48 PM
Brian,are you are saying that "large majorities" is synonomous with Al Qaeda ? You've just expanded GWs GWOT from those who support or harbor terrists to those who share similar opinions on specific topics. Well done!!

First you ask a question, a misleading one at that, because we both know that I was talking about al Qaeda, not the Muslim population. After all, it is al Qaeda that are the terrorist. Then you move straight to judgement and congratulations. All despite the lack of an answer on my part, and based soley on your own purposefully misleading line of reasoning.

Well done Lee, you're getting to be an expert Bilge tactition!

johnw
02-27-2009, 11:01 PM
So 19 to 33% approve of bombing civilian targets.




Highest number I saw was 24%. Second highest 11%. You seem to be including the undecideds with the "approve" group.

Captain Blight
02-27-2009, 11:07 PM
. After all, it is al Qaeda that are the terrorist. Welllll... they're certainly one of the bigger,better known factions. But they're only part of a network, not always linked, of other organizations such as Hamas, Hizbollah, PLO (not much of a force anymore), Mahdi Armi, Ahla Sunna Waljamaca (recently having launched jihad against just about everyone who isn't them), and basically every goatherd with a rifle and an axe to grind.

One of the big gripes I have against recent US foreign policy is that it has been completely lacking in nuance, preferring instead a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Well, I guess your standard coffin fits most. But as a sustainable approach to diplomacy, this mindset has been sorely lacking.

PeterSibley
02-28-2009, 03:47 AM
Welllll... they're certainly one of the bigger,better known factions. But they're only part of a network, not always linked, of other organizations such as Hamas, Hizbollah, PLO (not much of a force anymore), Mahdi Armi, Ahla Sunna Waljamaca (recently having launched jihad against just about everyone who isn't them), and basically every goatherd with a rifle and an axe to grind.

One of the big gripes I have against recent US foreign policy is that it has been completely lacking in nuance, preferring instead a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Well, I guess your standard coffin fits most. But as a sustainable approach to diplomacy, this mindset has been sorely lacking.

If Sunni and Shia really cooperated to the extent you suggest , we would really have fight on our hands .They don't .

rbgarr
02-28-2009, 07:08 AM
Indonesia's Muslim population is 200 million and 30% (60 million) say they favor civilian attacks.

I hope that 30%, or 150,000, of the 5 million Muslims in the US don't, but perhaps there are as many non-Muslims here who do?

LeeG
02-28-2009, 09:09 AM
First you ask a question, a misleading one at that, because we both know that I was talking about al Qaeda, not the Muslim population. After all, it is al Qaeda that are the terrorist. Then you move straight to judgement and congratulations. All despite the lack of an answer on my part, and based soley on your own purposefully misleading line of reasoning.

Well done Lee, you're getting to be an expert Bilge tactition!

Brian, I presented information from the poll and you imply it was my interpretation moreover it was YOU constructing the erroneous argument that anti-occupation sentiment of a majority of muslims is synonomous with Al Qaeda as a political representative of that majority.
My asking a question was to nail down your meaning as it was clearly a ridiculous implication. "we both know.." is your device for not acknowledging that misrepresentation you made. No,, we don't "both know" because the statement comprises muslim attitudes, al qaeda and the issue of US military bases/presence.



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From the article:
At the same time large majorities endorse the goal of al Qaeda to "push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries
BrianW:
Yeah, I remember seeing al Qaeda in the UN, specifically requesting those reductions. Just can't recall the date... any help Lee?

BrianW
02-28-2009, 09:57 AM
Brian, I presented information from the poll and you imply it was my interpretation...

Here are my statements in this thread, before your misleading question and judgment post. You point out which one was me implying any interpretation you made...


So 19 to 33% approve of bombing civilian targets.

Yeah, I remember seeing al Qaeda in the UN, specifically requesting those reductions. Just can't recall the date... any help Lee?


Oh now I remember the date... it was in September 2001 I believe. Problem was they had the wrong address. Instead of going to the UN building, they went to the World Trade Center.





moreover it was YOU constructing the erroneous argument that anti-occupation sentiment of a majority of muslims is synonomous with Al Qaeda as a political representative of that majority.

Again, my statements are above, where did I say that the Muslim majority is synonymous with al Quaeda?

Captain Blight
02-28-2009, 01:10 PM
You didn't say anything of the sort. It wasn't even implied. It was just (sorry) sloppy construction on your part; if not deliberately misleading, it was a Grade-7-level error.

BTW, Mr Sibley, I didn't intend to suggest that these groups were aligned--so "network" is an erroneous term. "Part of a larger group that also includes" might be a better way to phrase that. Please forgive me for poor posting, eh?

LeeG
02-28-2009, 02:55 PM
BrianW, I have obviously made an error interpreting your initial comments as you apparently didn't mean anything by your comment about Al Qaedas voicing it's views in a public forum at the UN. It was a nonsensical statement and I tried to make sense of it.

seanz
02-28-2009, 04:27 PM
The Captain continues his Chaimberlainesque line of thinking. If we all just "talk", we will all end up loving each other and peace will reign, and I am all for it. Too bad the other guys aren't.

You have a very subtle grasp of history.........:rolleyes:


Does anybody know what Al Qaeda wants?


Show of hands, thanks.

Tinman
02-28-2009, 04:46 PM
You have a very subtle grasp of history.........:rolleyes:


Does anybody know what Al Qaeda wants?


Show of hands, thanks.

To begin with, you really otta read the subequent posts. The Captain responded with a very well thought out statement about my comment, and I agreed with him.

As far as Al Queda and what it wants? That's easy. You in a beard and turban, you wife and daughters in bedsheets, and if you don't like it they kill you.

PeterSibley
02-28-2009, 05:16 PM
To begin with, you really otta read the subequent posts. The Captain responded with a very well thought out statement about my comment, and I agreed with him.

As far as Al Queda and what it wants? That's easy. You in a beard and turban, you wife and daughters in bedsheets, and if you don't like it they kill you.

Now since that is an obviously unachievable goal and we can assume that for all their sins the brass at AQ HQ are not stupid ,their real goal was to motivate the USA to bring chaos to various ME states , break down the status quo and give AQ a chance to radicalise the Sunni population and maybe if they were lucky get a ME civil war going between Sunni and Shia .

The USA was very helpful .I'm sure AQ are grateful .:rolleyes:

Tinman
02-28-2009, 06:14 PM
Now since that is an obviously unachievable goal and we can assume that for all their sins the brass at AQ HQ are not stupid ,their real goal was to motivate the USA to bring chaos to various ME states , break down the status quo and give AQ a chance to radicalise the Sunni population and maybe if they were lucky get a ME civil war going between Sunni and Shia .

The USA was very helpful .I'm sure AQ are grateful .:rolleyes:
You and I may think it unreachable, but Al Queada seems to have a different opinion.

PeterSibley
02-28-2009, 06:38 PM
You and I may think it unreachable, but Al Queada seems to have a different opinion.

So you DO think they're stupid ?:rolleyes:

johnw
02-28-2009, 10:06 PM
So you DO think they're stupid ?:rolleyes:

Another subscriber to the "Terrorists are Dumb Theory?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2211994

Flying Orca
02-28-2009, 10:26 PM
Nick, a couple of serious questions. First, on what do you base your belief that Islamists want the whole world subject to Islamic law? My impression is that they want it for Islamic countries. Second, do you see any moral difference between Islamic proselytization and, say, Christian proselytization?

Captain Blight
03-01-2009, 12:07 AM
Nick, I read al-Jazeera Online (English Edition) almost every single day, have done so off and on for about 5 years, and I have yet to see anything remotely resembling what you say. Even reading as critically as my Pulitzer-Prize winnig English professor taught me to. There is nothing substantive in what you say.

OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!! Can you not tell when you are being used as a pawn?!? Can you not recognize agitprop when you see it? Why are you doing AQs work for them?

Tinman
03-01-2009, 06:26 AM
Nick, a couple of serious questions. First, on what do you base your belief that Islamists want the whole world subject to Islamic law? My impression is that they want it for Islamic countries. Second, do you see any moral difference between Islamic proselytization and, say, Christian proselytization?

Starting in reverse order, of course I do. I believe that the Christian way of life is the most profitable for mankind. If I didn't I would not be a Christian. When you look at countries that where evangelized by christians, and compare them to those that where established or "evangelized by Islam, it dosn't take long to decide where you want to live. However that does not mean I want o convert or kill everyone that dosn't agree with me. While that attitude is certainly part of church history, it is not now and hasn't been for quite a while. More importantly, it is not part of what Christ wanted. Contrast that to the commands of Muhammed. I base my belief in the idea of Islamic radicals wanting to run the whole planet on two things. What they say, pajamabad and other mulsims telling us this is their goal, and what they do. The protest yesterday in London being a case in point, but by no means is it the only example. There are litteraly pages and pages of other exaples I could cite, but that suffices for now. So to me at least, it is obvious what their intentions are, and I don't feel like sitting idly by while they go about their buisness. We have far too much to lose .

Flying Orca
03-01-2009, 09:45 AM
Starting in reverse order, of course I do. I believe that the Christian way of life is the most profitable for mankind. If I didn't I would not be a Christian.

Which "Christian way of life" would that be? Catholic? Mormon? Unification Church? Universalist Unitarian? The Brethren? The Church Of England? The Salvation Army? There appear to be a lot of different "ways of life", and some don't look any better than some of the many Muslim "ways of life"... at least to one looking in from the perspective of having no religion at all.


When you look at countries that where evangelized by christians, and compare them to those that where established or "evangelized by Islam, it dosn't take long to decide where you want to live.

Can you find me a country that was proselytized by Islam and not by Christianity? Can you find me a country that was "established" by either Christianity or Islam? Outside of the Vatican City and maybe Saudi Arabia, respectively, I can't think of any.


However that does not mean I want o convert or kill everyone that dosn't agree with me. While that attitude is certainly part of church history, it is not now and hasn't been for quite a while. More importantly, it is not part of what Christ wanted.

Well, I'm glad to hear it. Tell me, do you think every Christian agrees?


Contrast that to the commands of Muhammed. I base my belief in the idea of Islamic radicals wanting to run the whole planet on two things. What they say, pajamabad and other mulsims telling us this is their goal, and what they do. The protest yesterday in London being a case in point, but by no means is it the only example. There are litteraly pages and pages of other exaples I could cite, but that suffices for now. So to me at least, it is obvious what their intentions are, and I don't feel like sitting idly by while they go about their buisness. We have far too much to lose .

Hmmm. Again, do you think every Muslim agrees, or are we talking about a vocal wingnut fringe? Is this a stated goal of mainstream Islamism? I've done some reading on this, too, and I can't find the conversion or death of the non-Islamic world anywhere in mainstream Islamist texts.

Captain Blight
03-01-2009, 09:57 AM
Nick, I read al-Jazeera Online (English Edition) almost every single day, have done so off and on for about 5 years, and I have yet to see anything remotely resembling what you say. Even reading as critically as my Pulitzer-Prize winnig English professor taught me to. There is nothing substantive in what you say.

OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!! Can you not tell when you are being used as a pawn?!? Can you not recognize agitprop when you see it? Why are you doing AQs work for them?
One more time.

LeeG
03-01-2009, 10:12 AM
pajamabad??

seanz
03-01-2009, 01:37 PM
Oh, it was me? Not you? Your reference to Chamberlain was a witty and reasoned debating tactic to associate your opponent with one of the worst statesmen ever?
Please excuse my poor reading comprehension.
:rolleyes:


To begin with, you really otta read the subequent posts. The Captain responded with a very well thought out statement about my comment, and I agreed with him.

As far as Al Queda and what it wants? That's easy. You in a beard and turban, you wife and daughters in bedsheets, and if you don't like it they kill you.

Hmmm...that sounds like the Taliban.

Does anybody know what Al Qaeda wants?
What are their main aims and objectives?

LeeG
03-01-2009, 02:12 PM
google: Al Qaeda goals

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).

Al-Qaeda's ideology, often referred to as "jihadism," is marked by a willingness to kill "apostate" —and Shiite—Muslims and an emphasis on jihad. Although "jihadism" is at odds with nearly all Islamic religious thought, it has its roots in the work of two modern Sunni Islamic thinkers: Mohammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb.

Al-Wahhab was an 18th-century reformer who claimed that Islam had been corrupted a generation or so after the death of Mohammed. He denounced any theology or customs developed after that as non-Islamic, including more than 1,000 years of religious scholarship. He and his supporters took over what is now Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism remains the dominant school of religious thought.

Sayyid Qutb, a radical Egyptian scholar of the mid-20th century, declared Western civilization the enemy of Islam, denounced leaders of Muslim nations for not following Islam closely enough, and taught that jihad should be undertaken not just to defend Islam, but to purify it.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0911/p10s01-wogi.html

seanz
03-01-2009, 02:28 PM
Google?
Now, why didn't I think of that?


Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

Next question......and this one's 'open book' too. :)

What has been the main uniting force in the Muslim world in the past few years?

LeeG
03-01-2009, 02:34 PM
does anyone seriously think Sunni fundamentalists will unite Shia by targeting them with attacks?

seanz
03-01-2009, 02:39 PM
Well, no sane person.

But we're discussing the objectives of religious fundamentalist organization.

LeeG
03-01-2009, 02:57 PM
a terrorist fundamentalist organization,,there is a diffrerence.

Tinman
03-01-2009, 04:26 PM
So you DO think they're stupid ?:rolleyes:

Stupid? No. Committed, fanatical zealous yes, but stupid? No. The trap we fall into is that we think they think like us in terms of time. You and I think in days weeks and months, they think in terms of decades and even centuries. So as long as they see any forward movement in their goals and ambitions at all, they see it as a success and are encouraged by it.

Tinman
03-01-2009, 09:41 PM
Originally Posted by Tinman http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2118335#post2118335)
Starting in reverse order, of course I do. I believe that the Christian way of life is the most profitable for mankind. If I didn't I would not be a Christian.
Which "Christian way of life" would that be? Catholic? Mormon? Unification Church? Universalist Unitarian? The Brethren? The Church Of England? The Salvation Army? There appear to be a lot of different "ways of life", and some don't look any better than some of the many Muslim "ways of life"... at least to one looking in from the perspective of having no religion at all.

Many of the faiths you mentioned in that question, are not Christian. But in general, both protestant and catholic agree on 5 things. The divinity of Christ, the trinity, the virgin birth, the ressurection of the dead and the second coming. Anyone claiming christianity, but not adopting these beliefs, is by convention, not Christian. So the "christian way of life"' I speak of revolves around these 5 truths.

Originally Posted by Tinman http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2118335#post2118335)
When you look at countries that where evangelized by christians, and compare them to those that where established or "evangelized by Islam, it dosn't take long to decide where you want to live.

Can you find me a country that was proselytized by Islam and not by Christianity? Can you find me a country that was "established" by either Christianity or Islam? Outside of the Vatican City and maybe Saudi Arabia, respectively, I can't think of any.

Really? so I guess that almost all of North and south america was evangelized by someone else maybe? Not to mention all of Europe and large chunks of Asia as well. Now by evangelized, I mean taht the people who colonized, or converted indiginous people claimed the christian faith. People like the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, Christopher Columbus, Jaques Cartier, and so on. Islamic conversion covers much of what is already muslim now, but it also includes Spain, the balkans parts of Russia and so on. [ that is how the chechens got there as well as the serbian muslims. ]


Originally Posted by Tinman http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2118335#post2118335)
However that does not mean I want o convert or kill everyone that dosn't agree with me. While that attitude is certainly part of church history, it is not now and hasn't been for quite a while. More importantly, it is not part of what Christ wanted.

Well, I'm glad to hear it. Tell me, do you think every Christian agrees?

It dosn't matter wether "all Christians agree" any more than it matters wether all Americans agree with American foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Tinman http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2118335#post2118335)
Contrast that to the commands of Muhammed. I base my belief in the idea of Islamic radicals wanting to run the whole planet on two things. What they say, pajamabad and other mulsims telling us this is their goal, and what they do. The protest yesterday in London being a case in point, but by no means is it the only example. There are litteraly pages and pages of other exaples I could cite, but that suffices for now. So to me at least, it is obvious what their intentions are, and I don't feel like sitting idly by while they go about their buisness. We have far too much to lose .

Hmmm. Again, do you think every Muslim agrees, or are we talking about a vocal wingnut fringe? Is this a stated goal of mainstream Islamism? I've done some reading on this, too, and I can't find the conversion or death of the non-Islamic world anywhere in mainstream Islamist texts.

My answer to wether all muslims agree, is the same as wether all americans or christians agree. as far as wingnut fringes, unless the average blue collar muslims stands up and denounces the violence done in the name of his fatih, then by default he supports it. You say you can't find any calls for death ro conversion of teh world in mainstream islamic texts?
Well then, let me help you with that.

The Qur'an:
Sura (9:29) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Sura (9:5) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."

Sura (2:193) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html#002.193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

From the Hadith:

Sahih Muslim (1:33) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0033) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..."

Sahih Muslim (19:4294) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

There is plenty more, but I think that will do for now. I trust that the Quran and Hadith, are mainstream enough for you.

Nanoose
03-01-2009, 10:11 PM
Based on the writing/work of John Esposito*

The issue isn't about Islamic fundamentalism (per Huntington, Harvard), but Islam itself - convinced of their superior culture (and their cultural hatred and denigration of the West) and obsessed with an inferiority of power. Convinced of a superior view, they feel an obligation to extend it globally (interestingly, this is also the West's view i.e. taking democracy around the world).

The mission, succinctly, is to establish world peace via jihad.

Muslims divide the world into 2 regions: the regions of peace (where people live under shariah law), and regions of war (where people don't and need to be brought under shariah law).

Jihad is a universal religious obligation for all true muslims - they are to join jihad to promote the global Islamic revolution.

For most of Islam's 1400 year history, it's interpretation of jihad has included armed struggle.

Muslims therefore seek an intrahistorical victory, and all means must be used to bring it about.

We often equate the danger with only radical Islam, bent on annihilating all evil systems in the world in order to change the world social order.

What of moderate Islam? Why don't we hear them speaking up to condemn the actions of the few in radical Islam? Because the heart, the root, of their faith won't allow it. There may be a few, but Islam is not, from within itself, doing anything about its radical wing.





*John L. Esposito is University Professor, Professor of Religion and International Affairs, Professor of Islamic Studies and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University....Esposito is widely interviewed or quoted in the media, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and network news stations, NPR, BBC, and in media throughout Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

BrianW
03-01-2009, 10:23 PM
Standby for an equal opportunity/equal time/fairness doctrine rebuttal news flash about how Christians are evil and also seek to domintate the Earth.

Nanoose
03-01-2009, 10:43 PM
Perhaps, but at their roots, there are key differences.

Islam was founded on violence - it has violence at its roots. Violence is promoted by its founder, and in its scripture...it is understood as the means to accomplish its end intrahistorically. Faithful followers are expected to use jihad, traditionally interpreted to mean armed struggle.

Christianity has violence in its past, but not on the basis of its roots, its founder, its scripture. This violence must be understood apart from how Jesus called his followers to live. They were forbidden to use coercion to enforce it (doesn't work anyway, as it is a revelation/relationship based belief - Islam is deontologically based).

LeeG
03-01-2009, 10:46 PM
Nanoose, where did you c&p that from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002137.html

Nearly half of Americans have a generally unfavorable view of Islam, according to a 2006 Washington Post-ABC News poll, a number has risen since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That climate makes it easy to lose sight of the fact that the majority of mainstream Muslims hate terrorism and violence as much as we do -- and makes it hard for non-Muslims to know where to begin to try to understand a great world faith.
....
My years studying those attitudes suggest that Muslim hostility toward the West is mostly political, not religious, and that Muslims hope the West will show their faith more respect. In our post-9/11 world, the ability to distinguish between Islam itself and Muslim extremism will be critical. Only thus will we be able to avoid pushing away mainstream Muslims around the world, marginalizing Muslim citizens at home and alienating the allies we need to help us fight global terrorism.

seanz
03-01-2009, 10:47 PM
Standby for an equal opportunity/equal time/fairness doctrine rebuttal news flash about how Christians are evil and also seek to domintate the Earth.

In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety Two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

;)

LeeG
03-01-2009, 10:47 PM
Standby for an equal opportunity/equal time/fairness doctrine rebuttal news flash about how Christians are evil and also seek to domintate the Earth.

instead of creating a caricature how about sticking to facts?

Nanoose
03-01-2009, 10:48 PM
Nanoose, where did you c&p that from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002137.html

My years studying those attitudes suggest that Muslim hostility toward the West is mostly political, not religious, and that Muslims hope the West will show their faith more respect. In our post-9/11 world, the ability to distinguish between Islam itself and Muslim extremism will be critical. Only thus will we be able to avoid pushing away mainstream Muslims around the world, marginalizing Muslim citizens at home and alienating the allies we need to help us fight global terrorism.

Hi Lee - it wasn't a c&p; lecture based, from the work of Esposito, as noted.

I don't think a political/religious divide exists in Islam. Islam impacts all of their life...religion is not compartmentalized as it is for most in the West.

Tinman
03-01-2009, 10:53 PM
Nanoose, you better be careful. they would rather call you names than deal with the truth. It's easier.

Nanoose
03-01-2009, 10:55 PM
ah, yes....but its only the truth that sets us free....

Tinman
03-01-2009, 10:57 PM
Amen brother....

Nanoose
03-01-2009, 10:59 PM
...er...sister...;)

LeeG
03-01-2009, 10:59 PM
So that is your interpretation of Espositos lectures.

Really, "Islam" doesn't have political or religious divides. How unique.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_Islam

Nanoose
03-01-2009, 11:17 PM
Really, "Islam" doesn't have political or religious divides. How unique.


That's not what I said. There are obviously political and religious divides within Islam.

For an individual Muslim, their faith is not dualistic - there is not a "political" vs. "religious" aspect to their faith. Their faith is understood, and lived, as a whole, informing and impacting the totality of their lives - a complete way of life.

LeeG
03-01-2009, 11:22 PM
ok,yr the expert

Tinman
03-01-2009, 11:29 PM
ok,yr the expert

No Lee. He is just right. it would be nice if you took the blinders off and admitted it.

BrianW
03-01-2009, 11:31 PM
Nanoose is a "she", not a "he". :)

Tinman
03-01-2009, 11:33 PM
Nanoose is a "she", not a "he". :)

Oh, my aplogies Ma'am. No slight intended.

Paul Girouard
03-01-2009, 11:42 PM
Nanoose is a "she", not a "he". :)



Another 1/2 truth Brian. Nanoose is both , almost a mythical aberration :D

Now let them figure that out:D or explain it. :eek:

Tinman
03-01-2009, 11:56 PM
I will take Brians word for it until Nanoose tells me otherwise :o)

Paul Girouard
03-02-2009, 12:03 AM
I will take Brians word for it until Nanoose tells me otherwise :o)



Never trust Brian , Nanoose is thier boats name , their first names are Deb & Dave , they use the same log-in name . Deb rarely "signs off" with her name , Dave on the other hand almost always does.

Deb is the bilge rat , Dave not so much , or rarely posts in the bilge.

At least thats what "they" have said , it could be they are both Dutch:D

Tinman
03-02-2009, 12:05 AM
It is nice to see a husband and wife tag team :o)

LeeG
03-02-2009, 02:19 AM
What of moderate Islam? Why don't we hear them speaking up to condemn the actions of the few in radical Islam? Because the heart, the root, of their faith won't allow it. There may be a few, but Islam is not, from within itself, doing anything about its radical wing.

.

we don't hear it because it's a minority religion in the US and following 9/11 the rhetoric coming from the gov't cultivated superficial and associative reasoning.

"I don't trust him, he's,,he's ..an Arab!"

http://afpak.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-hope-for-pakistan.html

The Sunni Tehreek (Sunni Movement), a non-political religious organization that represents the moderate (Barelwi) Sunnis in Pakistan, has finally decided to join the political arena. This is a welcome change. One hopes that the Sunni Tehreek's political Wing, Pakistan Inqalabi Tehreek, will be able to offer an alternative to religious Pakistanis, majority of whom are peace loving moderates.


The Sunni Tehreek rejects violence, which has become the hallmark of the Taliban-style Islam in Pakistan. Referring to the violent struggle by the Taliban for enforcing Shariah in Swat, Sarwat Aijaz Qadri, who heads the Sunni Tehreek, said: "We condemn the implementation of Shariat on gunpoint." For standing up to the Taliban and other extremists in Pakistan, the Sunni Tehreek has paid dearly. In April 2006, the Tehreek's entire leadership was obliterated in a bomb attack, which killed more than 56 people, in Nishtar Park, Karachi. Earlier in May 2001, another batch of Tehreek's leadership was assassinated.

Kaa
03-02-2009, 02:25 AM
For an individual Muslim, their faith is not dualistic - there is not a "political" vs. "religious" aspect to their faith. Their faith is understood, and lived, as a whole, informing and impacting the totality of their lives - a complete way of life.

That is generally correct.

The common Muslim attitude towards the Christianity's "Render unto Caesar..." is that it is schizophrenic.

Kaa

PeterSibley
03-02-2009, 03:33 AM
Christianity has violence in its past, but not on the basis of its roots, its founder, its scripture. This violence must be understood apart from how Jesus called his followers to live. They were forbidden to use coercion to enforce it (doesn't work anyway, as it is a revelation/relationship based belief - Islam is deontologically based).

Unless, of course, you make the mistake of reading and taking lessons from the Old Testament ,one of the more bloodsoaked texts around .

Tinman
03-02-2009, 11:28 AM
There are many very valuable lessons in the old testament, but to understand it correctly, you need to read it in light of the New testament.

Flying Orca
03-02-2009, 03:07 PM
So cherry-picking apparently bloodthirsty quotes from the Quran is OK, but not from the OT?

PeterSibley
03-02-2009, 07:41 PM
So cherry-picking apparently bloodthirsty quotes from the Quran is OK, but not from the OT?

Of course !!:rolleyes:

Maybe we should start a thread about the OT and encouragement for genocide .

Tinman
03-02-2009, 07:48 PM
So cherry-picking apparently bloodthirsty quotes from the Quran is OK, but not from the OT?

Care to point out where those bloodthirsty qoutes in the OT are being acted upon by either Christian or Jew? Besides, I was not referring to those. I was thinking of things like the lessons about faithfulness found in stories like Abraham, and Job. Not every event in the OT drips with blood my friend.