The Rise of Islamism

confuzzled dude wrote:An interesting discussion on the sequence of events that turned Islam, once liberal, into present radical conservative entity. Per this documentary, Musilm/arab world was liberal till the '70s; women wearing short sleeves was common, however, things have changed for good after Yom Kippur war in conjunction with high oil prices. Saudi Arabia with the help of western countries began exporting cheap oil, influenced the people of Arab world who were flocking to Saudi Arabia for jobs in oil industry, with its wahhabi/fundamental Islam. Then came 1979, three pivotal incidents took place that year; While Iran revolution inspired muslim world , Arab peace treaty angered them and the Afghan war proved to be the training grounds of Jihadists heeding the calls for holy war. The west (the US in particular) with its twisted cold war logic, anyone-who-is-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend gave birth to Jihadism, worked through Islamist organizations and encouraged Jihad against atheist Soviet communists; Afghanistan became the baptism by blood and far a new generation of Sunni Activists, all this created a new Jihadi wave whose effects are felt all over the world till this day. Al-Queda was born on the battle fields of Afghanistan, between Saudi Salafism & Egyptian radical Islam. After the Soviet defeat, they felt they've succeeded in the Jihad, the militant fighters returned to their native countries with the belief that they could achieve their next mission. They went onto install Islamic crews by force in their homelands, many Arab countries, especially Egypt endured a long decade of violence in the name of Islam, in the 80's & 90s religious attacks on tourists. They didn't bring up Kashmir but it definitely is another example of after effects of Afghan war.

It's a long one, about 30 minutes, 3rd of 4 episodes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01xhchn

confuzzled dude wrote:An interesting discussion on the sequence of events that turned Islam, once liberal, into present radical conservative entity. Per this documentary, Musilm/arab world was liberal till the '70s; women wearing short sleeves was common, however, things have changed for good after Yom Kippur war in conjunction with high oil prices. Saudi Arabia with the help of western countries began exporting cheap oil, influenced the people of Arab world who were flocking to Saudi Arabia for jobs in oil industry, with its wahhabi/fundamental Islam. Then came 1979, three pivotal incidents took place that year; While Iran revolution inspired muslim world , Arab peace treaty angered them and the Afghan war proved to be the training grounds of Jihadists heeding the calls for holy war. The west (the US in particular) with its twisted cold war logic, anyone-who-is-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend gave birth to Jihadism, worked through Islamist organizations and encouraged Jihad against atheist Soviet communists; Afghanistan became the baptism by blood and far a new generation of Sunni Activists, all this created a new Jihadi wave whose effects are felt all over the world till this day. Al-Queda was born on the battle fields of Afghanistan, between Saudi Salafism & Egyptian radical Islam. After the Soviet defeat, they felt they've succeeded in the Jihad, the militant fighters returned to their native countries with the belief that they could achieve their next mission. They went onto install Islamic crews by force in their homelands, many Arab countries, especially Egypt endured a long decade of violence in the name of Islam, in the 80's & 90s religious attacks on tourists. They didn't bring up Kashmir but it definitely is another example of after effects of Afghan war.

It's a long one, about 30 minutes, 3rd of 4 episodes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01xhchn

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
"Rise" of islam ??? So you agree and proud of the iSlam that has risen - the one that covers up women, bombs innocents, kills kafirs and infidels...

What matters most is the shape it is in now. If the ultra liberal and supposedly model, moderate muslim called Shamza iLmi can ask fellow muslims to become "more" communal, then the whole world clubbing all muslims into a terrorist clan is fully correct and justified.

Kris wrote:
>>>No, unless we are talking about the 1570s and in relative terms. There is no denying that the West was naïve or cynical, depending on how you look at it, in its cultivation of the Afghans against the broader goal of containing the Soviets. Yes, that may been a catalyst which engendered certain unintended consequences, one of which is the bundling of various terrorist outfits we see today, but there ends the blame. The turn inward, which forms the philosophical underpinnings of the current day grudge and anger towards modernism and pluralism, is firmly and for the most part rooted in missing the boat on the 'age of reason' which catapulted the West into modernity. The mullah-cracy took hold and extinguished any spirit of inquiry and openness to learning from others. The Islamic world, the custodians of knowledge while Europe was going through its dark ages, regressed and that reversal seems to be pretty much a fait accompli. Any catch up would require a fundamental change in world view and needs to come from within. It is a catch-22 unfortunately.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>No, unless we are talking about the 1570s and in relative terms. There is no denying that the West was naïve or cynical, depending on how you look at it, in its cultivation of the Afghans against the broader goal of containing the Soviets. Yes, that may been a catalyst which engendered certain unintended consequences, one of which is the bundling of various terrorist outfits we see today, but there ends the blame. The turn inward, which forms the philosophical underpinnings of the current day grudge and anger towards modernism and pluralism, is firmly and for the most part rooted in missing the boat on the 'age of reason' which catapulted the West into modernity. The mullah-cracy took hold and extinguished any spirit of inquiry and openness to learning from others. The Islamic world, the custodians of knowledge while Europe was going through its dark ages, regressed and that reversal seems to be pretty much a fait accompli. Any catch up would require a fundamental change in world view and needs to come from within. It is a catch-22 unfortunately.

Broader goal, really? Look what the world has been going through and suffering for such self-righteous and short sighted moves.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>No, unless we are talking about the 1570s and in relative terms. There is no denying that the West was naïve or cynical, depending on how you look at it, in its cultivation of the Afghans against the broader goal of containing the Soviets. Yes, that may been a catalyst which engendered certain unintended consequences, one of which is the bundling of various terrorist outfits we see today, but there ends the blame. The turn inward, which forms the philosophical underpinnings of the current day grudge and anger towards modernism and pluralism, is firmly and for the most part rooted in missing the boat on the 'age of reason' which catapulted the West into modernity. The mullah-cracy took hold and extinguished any spirit of inquiry and openness to learning from others. The Islamic world, the custodians of knowledge while Europe was going through its dark ages, regressed and that reversal seems to be pretty much a fait accompli. Any catch up would require a fundamental change in world view and needs to come from within. It is a catch-22 unfortunately.

Broader goal, really? Look what the world has been going through and suffering for such self-righteous and short sighted moves.

>>>So a communist-dominated world would have been a good thing?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>No, unless we are talking about the 1570s and in relative terms. There is no denying that the West was naïve or cynical, depending on how you look at it, in its cultivation of the Afghans against the broader goal of containing the Soviets. Yes, that may been a catalyst which engendered certain unintended consequences, one of which is the bundling of various terrorist outfits we see today, but there ends the blame. The turn inward, which forms the philosophical underpinnings of the current day grudge and anger towards modernism and pluralism, is firmly and for the most part rooted in missing the boat on the 'age of reason' which catapulted the West into modernity. The mullah-cracy took hold and extinguished any spirit of inquiry and openness to learning from others. The Islamic world, the custodians of knowledge while Europe was going through its dark ages, regressed and that reversal seems to be pretty much a fait accompli. Any catch up would require a fundamental change in world view and needs to come from within. It is a catch-22 unfortunately.

Broader goal, really? Look what the world has been going through and suffering for such self-righteous and short sighted moves.

>>>So a communist-dominated world would have been a good thing?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>So a communist-dominated world would have been a good thing?

Kris, that war went on for a decade i.e. till the end of the cold war. Do you really think those tactics used by the US have worked other than giving those militants a wrong idea that they won the Jihad. Sad thing is US still continues with the same strategy to this day, recently in Libya, now in Syria.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>No, unless we are talking about the 1570s and in relative terms. There is no denying that the West was naïve or cynical, depending on how you look at it, in its cultivation of the Afghans against the broader goal of containing the Soviets. Yes, that may been a catalyst which engendered certain unintended consequences, one of which is the bundling of various terrorist outfits we see today, but there ends the blame. The turn inward, which forms the philosophical underpinnings of the current day grudge and anger towards modernism and pluralism, is firmly and for the most part rooted in missing the boat on the 'age of reason' which catapulted the West into modernity. The mullah-cracy took hold and extinguished any spirit of inquiry and openness to learning from others. The Islamic world, the custodians of knowledge while Europe was going through its dark ages, regressed and that reversal seems to be pretty much a fait accompli. Any catch up would require a fundamental change in world view and needs to come from within. It is a catch-22 unfortunately.

Broader goal, really? Look what the world has been going through and suffering for such self-righteous and short sighted moves.

>>>So a communist-dominated world would have been a good thing?

Kris, that war went on for a decade i.e. till the end of the cold war. Do you really think those tactics used by the US have worked other than giving those militants a wrong idea that they won the Jihad. Sad thing is US still continues with the same strategy to this day, recently in Libya, now in Syria.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>So a communist-dominated world would have been a good thing?

Kris, that war went on for a decade i.e. till the end of the cold war. Do you really think those tactics used by the US have worked other than giving those militants a wrong idea that they won the Jihad. Sad thing is US still continues with the same strategy to this day, recently in Libya, now in Syria.

What the americans do to the muslims is no different from what the muslims are doing to the unarmed people in the rest of the world.

Kris wrote:
>>>Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. At that time, with the Soviets on the move, America had to counter. Both sides learned a bitter lesson in Afghanistan in their own ways. If there is one lesson to be learned, a society cannot be preoccupied with just one adversary. There are others flying under the radar. In this case, it was the jihadists ready to go on a rampage, one triggered by a more visceral hatred than simply a defense play to defend land. Osama's anger was not just at a foreign power that was invading. It was  driven by a visceral hatred of  'infidels' being on holy soil. To return to the original point, the jihadism we see today did not spring from liberal, open societies that made an about face in the '70s. The resentment and anger at societies bypassing them is rooted in a theocratic mindset that has been around for a very long time that has inculcated a false sense of superiority. When that is shown up, any imagined slight is enough to unleash the fury.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. At that time, with the Soviets on the move, America had to counter. Both sides learned a bitter lesson in Afghanistan in their own ways. If there is one lesson to be learned, a society cannot be preoccupied with just one adversary. There are others flying under the radar. In this case, it was the jihadists ready to go on a rampage, one triggered by a more visceral hatred than simply a defense play to defend land. Osama's anger was not just at a foreign power that was invading. It was  driven by a visceral hatred of  'infidels' being on holy soil. To return to the original point, the jihadism we see today did not spring from liberal, open societies that made an about face in the '70s. The resentment and anger at societies bypassing them is rooted in a theocratic mindset that has been around for a very long time that has inculcated a false sense of superiority. When that is shown up, any imagined slight is enough to unleash the fury.

Showing their place, imaginary slight! you mean like punishing muslims for the atrocities committed Hitler? Wonder if things would've been any different had Israel been carved  out of Italy (Rome) or something.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. At that time, with the Soviets on the move, America had to counter. Both sides learned a bitter lesson in Afghanistan in their own ways. If there is one lesson to be learned, a society cannot be preoccupied with just one adversary. There are others flying under the radar. In this case, it was the jihadists ready to go on a rampage, one triggered by a more visceral hatred than simply a defense play to defend land. Osama's anger was not just at a foreign power that was invading. It was  driven by a visceral hatred of  'infidels' being on holy soil. To return to the original point, the jihadism we see today did not spring from liberal, open societies that made an about face in the '70s. The resentment and anger at societies bypassing them is rooted in a theocratic mindset that has been around for a very long time that has inculcated a false sense of superiority. When that is shown up, any imagined slight is enough to unleash the fury.

Showing their place, imaginary slight! you mean like punishing muslims for the atrocities committed Hitler? Wonder if things would've been any different had Israel been carved  out of Italy (Rome) or something.

>>>So everything was hunky dory with Israel's neighbors before May 1948 and they were a bunch of liberal-minded folks and words like 'infidel' had no place in their lexicon up until May 13, 1948? And the conflicts in Kashmir, Thailand, Mindanao, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. can all be laid at the doorstep of Israel's creation?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>So a communist-dominated world would have been a good thing?

Kris, that war went on for a decade i.e. till the end of the cold war. Do you really think those tactics used by the US have worked other than giving those militants a wrong idea that they won the Jihad. Sad thing is US still continues with the same strategy to this day, recently in Libya, now in Syria.

What the americans do to the muslims is no different from what the muslims are doing to the unarmed people in the rest of the world.

In other words, both indulge in terrorist activities, so why only muslims are being blamed.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. At that time, with the Soviets on the move, America had to counter. Both sides learned a bitter lesson in Afghanistan in their own ways. If there is one lesson to be learned, a society cannot be preoccupied with just one adversary. There are others flying under the radar. In this case, it was the jihadists ready to go on a rampage, one triggered by a more visceral hatred than simply a defense play to defend land. Osama's anger was not just at a foreign power that was invading. It was  driven by a visceral hatred of  'infidels' being on holy soil. To return to the original point, the jihadism we see today did not spring from liberal, open societies that made an about face in the '70s. The resentment and anger at societies bypassing them is rooted in a theocratic mindset that has been around for a very long time that has inculcated a false sense of superiority. When that is shown up, any imagined slight is enough to unleash the fury.

Showing their place, imaginary slight! you mean like punishing muslims for the atrocities committed Hitler? Wonder if things would've been any different had Israel been carved  out of Italy (Rome) or something.

>>>So everything was hunky dory with Israel's neighbors before May 1948 and they were a bunch of liberal-minded folks and words like 'infidel' had no place in their lexicon up until May 13, 1948? And the conflicts in Kashmir, Thailand, Mindanao, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. can all be laid at the doorstep of Israel's creation?

No, that's not the only reason but why do you think these issues are prevalent only in oil rich countries that are not subservient to the west, and why do you think the rise of terrorism coincides with the rise of [military/arms seller] America.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:none of us here are experts on history, but the idea that religious radicalization is closely tied to political oppression (and this doesn't have to be oppression by a foreign agency) seems like a reasonable thesis. other religions too have some fairly nasty stuff in their holy books. the old testament sometimes reads like a torture manual. so also the garuda purANam.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:none of us here are experts on history, but the idea that religious radicalization is closely tied to political oppression (and this doesn't have to be oppression by a foreign agency) seems like a reasonable thesis. other religions too have some fairly nasty stuff in their holy books. the old testament sometimes reads like a torture manual. so also the garuda purANam.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:none of us here are experts on history, but the idea that religious radicalization is closely tied to political oppression (and this doesn't have to be oppression by a foreign agency) seems like a reasonable thesis. other religions too have some fairly nasty stuff in their holy books. the old testament sometimes reads like a torture manual. so also the garuda purANam.

Very goodly "secular" response. SOME/sometimes the key word here.

Garuda Puranam ????? How many hindus have even heard of this ? and how many swear by it on a daily basis.  

As the only expert on history here, I can tell you that Koran is the ONLY one that is sworn by all muslims.

Oh, BTW, you are right about political oppression being A reason behind religious radicalization. I will put it differently though. When political power is based completely on religious books, any govt/country becomes radicalized.

Again history quiz: which holy book is used as basis most by the governments ?  

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:none of us here are experts on history, but the idea that religious radicalization is closely tied to political oppression (and this doesn't have to be oppression by a foreign agency) seems like a reasonable thesis. other religions too have some fairly nasty stuff in their holy books. the old testament sometimes reads like a torture manual. so also the garuda purANam.

 Why this feeble attempt to equalize all religions? 

Religions may be similar with respect to hoodwinking people about the existence of supernatural powers and making believe the church/mullah / temple have some official role in helping ordinary people going to heaven. 

But if one is a non believer,  all religions are created by humans. At different points in time, under different cultures, and for different purposes.  So each of these vehicles are different.  Their  solutions or prescriptions for non believers and their cultural teachings are different.  Just like different political parties. So each must be judged by its writings, its leaders, its past and its present. 

Throwing some lazy sentences to suggest some equality among religions is nothing but providing cover for a religion that is particularly aggressive in terrorist activity at this time.

truthbetold wrote:Oh! What great purpose is the mention of violent prescriptions in all religions is serving?

Kris wrote:
>>I gave you five examples outside the middle east. The West's realpolitik-based moves may well have caused the coming together of the jihadists under a pan-terrorist umbrella, but that does not explain the existence of why they exist altogether. To pretend that they are like run-of-the-mill rebels anywhere else is to ignore the 900 lb. gorilla in the living room i.e. a close-minded world view that has come about due to a mullah-cracy with no sense of modernity and is one bound to archaic ideas of politics and living. This devolution started long, long before Iraq or Israel's establishment or the Balfour declaration. American geopolitics may well be contentious, but there is no one being beheaded or terrorized when questions are raised on that front. The symmetry imagined between the West and the Islamic world is a convenient one, but one that is disingenuous.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Oh! What great purpose is the mention of violent prescriptions in all religions is serving?

isn't it obvious? to make the point that the prescription of violence in a holy book is not unique to islam.

truthbetold wrote:But those LTTE folks are not fighting a religious jihad nor are they declaring that they are fighting jihad.  The very fact that most of us never associate those LLTE with hinduism itself speaks volumes of the difference between the two groups.  

Most of Prachanda's communist party of Nepal were also born hindus and so are most of India's Maoists. No sane person would confuse them with hindus.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Oh! What great purpose is the mention of violent prescriptions in all religions is serving?

isn't it obvious? to make the point that the prescription of violence in a holy book is not unique to islam.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:But those LTTE folks are not fighting a religious jihad nor are they declaring that they are fighting jihad.  The very fact that most of us never associate those LLTE with hinduism itself speaks volumes of the difference between the two groups.  

Most of Prachanda's communist party of Nepal were also born hindus and so are most of India's Maoists. No sane person would confuse them with hindus.

Why, have they been de-hindufied? was there a de-purification ritual involving a fire and priest that was conducted under TBT's supervision

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>I gave you five examples outside the middle east. The West's realpolitik-based moves may well have caused the coming together of the jihadists under a pan-terrorist umbrella, but that does not explain the existence of why they exist altogether. To pretend that they are like run-of-the-mill rebels anywhere else is to ignore the 900 lb. gorilla in the living room i.e. a close-minded world view that has come about due to a mullah-cracy with no sense of modernity and is one bound to archaic ideas of politics and living. This devolution started long, long before Iraq or Israel's establishment or the Balfour declaration. American geopolitics may well be contentious, but there is no one being beheaded or terrorized when questions are raised on that front. The symmetry imagined between the West and the Islamic world is a convenient one, but one that is disingenuous.

The root cause of all those examples you've provided is not the same, they're driven by the sociopolitical situation of each society which varies greatly. You cannot paint all those situations with a broad brush just because they all happen to be practicing islam. In fact you're making a grave mistake by lumping all of them together; each of those issues should be judged on its own merits. If you put all of them in the same country do you think they will co-habitate without any problems. Can you say the same about other religions, the issues of Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Burma and Tibet, are they all the same?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

>>>There were Christians as well. They also had no problems killing Hindu Tamils who they did not think walked the line. That in itself shows they are not a group inspired by Hinduism. If they had exhibited a religious chauvinism of that sort and there were other groups in Nepal or Guyana  or Fiji engaging in mayhem and expressed allegiance to the Gita or some other Hindu scripture, I would have no problem with the idea of  examining the religious angle and its effects.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:But those LTTE folks are not fighting a religious jihad nor are they declaring that they are fighting jihad.  The very fact that most of us never associate those LLTE with hinduism itself speaks volumes of the difference between the two groups.  

Most of Prachanda's communist party of Nepal were also born hindus and so are most of India's Maoists. No sane person would confuse them with hindus.

Why, have they been de-hindufied? was there a de-purification ritual involving a fire and priest that was conducted under TBT's supervision

Cd

is that how de hindufication is conducted?  with fire and priest? how many did you attend? 
Any way, What is your question?  I could interpret what you are asking but did not want to take a chance with high intellectual question. Please clarify.

truthbetold wrote:just a tidbit:  I remember reading an opinion poll conducted in mid 1990's .  Survey was conducted among  muslims of India, pakistan and other nations with large muslim populations on the subject of support to Bin Laden ( sometime after first attack on world trade center).  Support among Indian muslims is around 60 % and support among Pakistanis is around 90%. It is not accidental that terror camps flourish in Pakistan.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:But those LTTE folks are not fighting a religious jihad nor are they declaring that they are fighting jihad.  The very fact that most of us never associate those LLTE with hinduism itself speaks volumes of the difference between the two groups.  

Most of Prachanda's communist party of Nepal were also born hindus and so are most of India's Maoists. No sane person would confuse them with hindus.

Why, have they been de-hindufied? was there a de-purification ritual involving a fire and priest that was conducted under TBT's supervision

truthbetold wrote:Cd

You mentioned dehundufying and now you are trying to escape? 

Then you try to runaway from your own clarification? 

Not sure if your comments are strong enough to be defended?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

>>>There were Christians as well. They also had no problems killing Hindu Tamils who they did not think walked the line. That in itself shows they are not a group inspired by Hinduism. If they had exhibited a religious chauvinism of that sort and there were other groups in Nepal or Guyana  or Fiji engaging in mayhem and expressed allegiance to the Gita or some other Hindu scripture, I would have no problem with the idea of  examining the religious angle and its effects.

i guess the more general point is that religion alone doesn't have to be a cause for terrorism and the LTTE conclusively proves it. so why fixate on islam? other examples are the IRA and the basque separatists.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

>>>There were Christians as well. They also had no problems killing Hindu Tamils who they did not think walked the line. That in itself shows they are not a group inspired by Hinduism. If they had exhibited a religious chauvinism of that sort and there were other groups in Nepal or Guyana  or Fiji engaging in mayhem and expressed allegiance to the Gita or some other Hindu scripture, I would have no problem with the idea of  examining the religious angle and its effects.

i guess the more general point is that religion alone doesn't have to be a cause for terrorism and the LTTE conclusively proves it. so why fixate on islam? other examples are the IRA and the basque separatists.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:none of us here are experts on history, but the idea that religious radicalization is closely tied to political oppression (and this doesn't have to be oppression by a foreign agency) seems like a reasonable thesis. other religions too have some fairly nasty stuff in their holy books. the old testament sometimes reads like a torture manual. so also the garuda purANam.

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

>>>There were Christians as well. They also had no problems killing Hindu Tamils who they did not think walked the line. That in itself shows they are not a group inspired by Hinduism. If they had exhibited a religious chauvinism of that sort and there were other groups in Nepal or Guyana  or Fiji engaging in mayhem and expressed allegiance to the Gita or some other Hindu scripture, I would have no problem with the idea of  examining the religious angle and its effects.

i guess the more general point is that religion alone doesn't have to be a cause for terrorism and the LTTE conclusively proves it. so why fixate on islam? other examples are the IRA and the basque separatists.

Fanaticism of any kind is the cause of terrorism. wrt LTTE, it is linguistic fanaticism. wrt Hitler, it is cultural. wrt jihadi terrorists, it is religious fanaticism.

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

Did LTTE take their inspiration from Garuda Puranam?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:most of the members of kris's favorite terrorist organization, the LTTE, are hindus. they were probably the most successful kaboom folks prior to 9/11. in fact the 9/11 folks took inspiration from them.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:but just like there are political forces driving irish, tamil, and basque terrorism there are political forces driving islamic terrorism. here is really what i want to say -- the existence of the book with violent prescriptions alone do not lead to terrorism. there are other books with equally vile prescriptions. there needs to be something else besides the existence of the book and i am saying that that something is nearly always political oppression, internal or external.

Kinnera wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:but just like there are political forces driving irish, tamil, and basque terrorism there are political forces driving islamic terrorism. here is really what i want to say -- the existence of the book with violent prescriptions alone do not lead to terrorism. there are other books with equally vile prescriptions. there needs to be something else besides the existence of the book and i am saying that that something is nearly always political oppression, internal or external.

When 'the book' is their guiding force and they blindly believe in 'the book' and 'the book' suggests to them that it is ok to get violent with the ones who don't believe in 'the book', then the ppl who follow 'the book' can easily get violent.
Hindus don't have 'the book'. they have a whole library and they don't follow any of it blindly. there lies the difference.
political oppression and other reasons are just hogwash.