Well Seagoon, I thought it faintly ridiculous that you (and Lazs but he doesn't really count) condemned as socialist my suggested solution based on a massive expansion of
capitalist prosperity into the region. I also find it funny that you frequently bring up your academic credentials as relevant when you're openly a member of a profession that by any measure elevates faith above reason. For example, can you tell me on which course at St Andrews you learnt that:
..we know that Islam is a religion of demon worship (1 Corinthians 10:20-21) created by a frustrated would-be conqueror named Muhammad. Muhammad claimed that the contents of the Koran where dictated to him by an angel; I fully believe that it is conceivable that either Satan or one of his fallen angels was an agent by which part or all of this "new revelation" was transferred.
Your words? Just so we know where you're
really coming from..right?
Ok, Iraq. You've stated that the insurgency there has attracted all the global jihadis who would otherwise be attacking the west. The so-called flypaper theory. More than one person but most recently myself has posted sources that undermine this assertion; that being that the insurgency is almost overwelmingly being run by Iraqis themselves, not some kind of jihadist international brigade, and that it is largely the consequence of the invasion and occupation. You still haven't even tried to deal with this point. Please do so before digressing again.
Staying with Iraq, another question that has been previously put to you that you haven't answered. Assuming your scenario is correct, and that it is Islam
per se that poses a threat to the West on the scale you are suggesting, how do you reconcile this alleged threat with the fact that the most likely outcome from our enforced regime change in Iraq will be an Islamic state dominated by pro-Iranian shia Islamists, and under your scenario, how is this a good outcome? Again, reasonably straightforward question, please could you answer it?
Palestine. It appears that you think this is religious conflict and that all other considerations are secondary. I disagree and here is why.
Firstly, as previously mentioned, the role of Arab Christians in the resistance movement certainly detracts from the fact that this is just a jew vs muslim issue, and that for the arabs at least the conflict only took on an overtly religious tinge with the emergence of Hamas some
four decades into the conflict. Of course, there's no mention of obviously religious motivation of the other side in this conflict, but they seemingly get a pass once again for reasons I can easily imagine.
Secondly, to see that this remains a conflict over land and political rights expressed in religious terms, once has to look no further than the Arab Israelis. Those muslims who were
not disposessed of their land nor denied most political rights by the subsequent jewish state have singularly failed to imitate the violent actions of their disposessed co-religionists. Again, how do you reconcile this fact with your thesis regarding the Palestinian arab attitude to Israel?
Now for some of your points.
In a May 2004 poll, conducted by Zogby International and Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, a majority of Arab respondents in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and a plurality in Morocco and Jordan, identified themselves as Muslims, not Saudis or Jordanians.
Frankly, so what if people elevate religion above nationality? How does this have a relation to whether they support violent attacks against non-believers? Oh wait, it doesn't ; its a total red herring.
Religion is central to the identity of European Muslims. With the exception of Muslims in France, they tend to identify themselves primarily as Muslim rather than as British, Spanish, or German. In France, Muslims are split almost evenly on this question. The level of Muslim identification in Britain, Spain, and Germany is similar to that in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Jordan, and even higher than levels in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. By contrast the general populations in Western Europe are far more secular in outlook. Roughly six-in-ten in Spain, Germany, and Britain identify primarily with their country rather than their religion, as do more than eight-in-ten in France."
It would make it easier if you linked directly to the article in question but I did manage to track it down. I find it ironic that you label me as disingenuous when you omit some fairly relevant findings from the same article that actually
undermine your argument. Did you think I would be too lazy to look for it or did you just not read the whole thing beofre cutting and pasting?
The poll finds that Muslims themselves are generally positive about conditions in their host nation. In fact, they are more positive than the general publics in all four European countries about the way things are going in their countries.
That just passed you by did it? Also:
The greatest concern among Muslim minorities in all four countries is unemployment. Islamic extremism emerges as the number-two worry generally, a concern shared by Western publics as well as Muslims in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan.
European Muslims show signs of favoring a moderate version of Islam. ... they tend to see a struggle being waged between moderates and Islamic fundamentalists.
Muslims in France, Great Britain, and Spain are substantially more likely than their general publics to say that Muslims want to adopt the customs and way of life of the country into which they immigrate.
Thanks for the reference, it's a goldmine. Moving on..
I was counting prosperity by GDP not by per capita income. Prosperity in Saudi Arabia can hardly be assessed by per capita income because out of a population of 27 million, 5.5 million are mostly poorly paid foreign laborers. But in any event Saudi Jihadis have overwhelmingly come from the well-off indigenous population.
Ok, well apart from begging the question as to why no action has been taken against the Sauds for their role in the proliferation of extremism, I still don't think that Saudi Arabia qualifies as a modern prosperous state in the sense any reasonable person might understand.
But set aside that example. I'll give you a better example to show that it has almost nothing to do with economics and everything to do with religion. The Jihadis recently busted in England were second generation Pakistani Muslims and at least two caucasian converts. Clearly economic oppression or lack of education wasn't the driving factor.
No, if the accounts relating to the 07/07 bombings are anything to go by, radicalisation stemming primarily from the invasion of Iraq may have been to blame, which was a point I made in my first post in this thread that you largely still haven't answered.
Actually, I didn't bring it up, your statement was ", show me a single modern prosperous society where extreme fundamentalism of any creed has ever held sway I pointed out that evangelicalism (which is fundamentalist Christianity) has a proportianately large number of adherents and continues to grow in two of the most prosperous modern societies in the world. Unlike Islam, most fundamentalist religions don't have an integrated political theory so they don't have the capacity or the desire to "hold sway."
The point (which you missed again) being that US fundamentalist christianity, although popular, doesn't form part of the basis for the running of the country (despite the best efforts of some of its adherents).
Notice how in every theory above the blame lies at the doorstep of the West and Israel, you know come to think of it you're right, we are the problem! If the Dar-El-Harb would just cease to exist, we'd have worldwide peace and tranquility under the reign of a single Caliphate ruled according to Sharia. Our continued willful refusal to submit really is the big impediment to peace.
Yes, why should we let reality get in the way of dogma? The problem for you is that the foundation of Israel DID create a huge refugee problem that festers to this day. Support for the Shah DID contribute to the ascendence of the iranian mullahs. Both are uncomfortable truths for you because they undermine your underlying position that the entirety of muslims are evil by nature and not at all a product of the context in which they occur. That's why you dismiss it out of hand I assume?
..along with the 40% mentioned in the Jakarta post../
A source for which you still haven't provided any reference. Have that 40% indicated a willingness to commit violence against non-believers? If not it's a moot point really.
the rioting crowds carrying banners saying behead all blasphemers
For which you still can't provide any source at all to suggest represents anything more than a disturbed minority.
I know, I know, its a coincidence that almost everywhere in the world we have people being slaughtered Islam is a factor..
You forgot to mention the thousands of dead in Iraq killed by allied air action, the huge casualties sustained over years of fighting in Sri Lanka, the Rwandan genocide, the mass killings of muslims at the hands of christian serbs, sectarian violence at the hands of Indian hindus, many thousands of dead to decades of political violence in Latin America, massacres of muslims by christians in Nigeria etc etc.
