rrrajesh.yadav
Regular Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2016
- Messages
- 128
- Likes
- 515
......................
This is not a right categorization of extremism because it slots a massive group into just two set of binaries : gun wielding Muslim and unarmed Muslim. It does not account for the several layers of indoctrination and behavior patterns.The question to be asked is, who is the root cause of this problem? Who created, funded, and tried to use these extremist groups for their geopolitical goals?
Your three stages exclude those Muslims who are actually fighting Islamic terrorists, unlike you and me who are pontificating from the comfort of our homes.The first stage is where most mainstream Muslims are by default of being Muslim. The second stage is where the peaceful seculars Taquiyya-baaz people are, the third is actually a minority who wields guns who are nothing but cannon fodder for the cause of Islam but it is the first two stages which is the cause of the problem.
Not agreeing is not the same as not acknowledging. 'Acknowledging' assumes that it ought to be true by convention. It's only an opinion, not a hard fact. I read your post and disagree with it.Alternatively, you have read my post but don't want to acknowledge these Muslims who are fighting Islamic terrorism,
Yup, I agree...MOD should make a dedicated thread about attack like this.
I see more of them happening like a new norm in UK.
They will talk about solidarity, defiance and strength and light candlesi am more interested to see how britards handle the situation at hand...
start forming kill teams like they did in IRA days, kill teams are similar to our encounter specialists..
or
continue with this multi-kulti bullshit...
one thing is certain, jihadis are yet to start the victimhood narrative yet. it will be fun to watch how britards handle it once it starts. victimhood narrative is fundamental to jihadi narrative...
i think this time there will be a change...They will talk about solidarity, defiance and strength and light candles
For the west, now it's political correctness before death.i think this time there will be a change...
there is no EU pressure of human rights from now on...
let's see..
Every non Dharmic religion sir, every Non Dharmic religion.No one is denying the violent aspect of Islam, but it is there in every religion.
Even worse: "gunmen". Makes my blood boil to this day.The title is apt...Didn't BBC refer to the 26/11 terrorist pigs as rebels/militants.
The debate is not about determining between agreeing and acknowledging. My point was simple. You mentioned three stages of Muslims, and you excluded those Muslims who are actually fighting Islamic terrorists. You had the opportunity to correct yourself and accept your mistake in omission. That you refuse to do so proves that it was not a mistake in omission, but a deliberate omission.Not agreeing is not the same as not acknowledging. 'Acknowledging' assumes that it ought to be true by convention. It's only an opinion, not a hard fact. I read your post and disagree with it.
Already answered.RE : It is easy to spread chaos with brainwashed zombies.
RE : Who or what dragged so many progressive and liberal Muslim countries back to the stone ages?
Of all the Muslim countries who were 'dragged' into chaos, there is none which didn't get dragged voluntarily. They themselves created fertile ground for the CIA to recruit them. In the end, can you say that the CIA forced reluctant Mujahids to take their offer of free AK47. I've seen those before-after images of Afghan girls going to college in the pre-Soviet era, but those are caricatures created to create shock value. Quantitatively the number of Afghan girls attending formal schooling in 1970 was less than 10% of the total population. Incidentally, the total literacy rate in Afghanistan in 1970 itself was 18% (reverse google this phrase, there are multiple citations for it).
________________________________________No one is denying the violent aspect of Islam, but it is there in every religion.
Who said American meddling is the "prime" and "only" reason? Who used the words "prime" and "only?" Please answer this question.Taquiyya-baz narratives cite American meddling as the prime and the only reason for the downfall of erstwhile liberal Muslim states by parading these before-after photos but they weren't any more liberal back then either.
Agree.RE : why don't we have these so called "rebels" in Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia has a more homogeneous demography than any other state. It is nearly 90% Sunni.
Ok, but I am not sure how this relates to what I am trying to say.The other 'liberal states' had a wider fault line so they fell first. The US may have been an enabler but the biggest argument that goes against the Muslims is that, for example, in case of Afghanistan, if they didn't want to willingly become Mujahids, they could have simply cut a deal with the secular Soviet Union, could they not? why did they take weapons from CIA if they were so liberal and peaceful? Soviet Union could have given them protection from the CIA AND they would have also helped the secular Muslims finish off the Islamists and then the Afghans could have claimed credit for being liberal. The fact that they took up the jihad route at the drop of the hat, and this applies to all Muslim nations which collapsed, shows that the external enabler was only auxiliary, at best.
In the cold war, if the Afghans allowed the Soviets to place missile defense system in Afghanistan and the US was stopped in its tracks, then the subsequent US interventions of Iraq, etc wouldn't have happened. Even the collapse of Soviet Union itself is a good example of Muslim treachery. Most of the Soviet desertions happened because the appeal to religion proved stronger than their national or political identity.
The following Soviet Republics were first to leave the USSR:The first people to desert the Soviet Union were the secular Muslim principalities of Soviet Union.
Read whatever I have posted above and let that sink in.RE : I could cite Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. Who is doing this, and why?
Just let that sink in.
They were touted? No, they were liberal.Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan These people were touted to be the LEAST radicalized and most liberal sections among all other Muslim groups and even they were susceptible to a call for religiously influenced betrayal of their motherland. Compared to them, Afghanistan and Egypt were relatively more notorious. Even Egypt had the Islamic Brotherhood which predates the CIA's plan to topple Islamic countries by several decades.
So were many other countries. I have written a lot about Saudi financing of the spread of Wahhabi ideology. Let's not waste time on things that we agree on.I can accept that Syria and Libya were legitimate victims of Western greed, the former for oil and influence and the latter because Gaddafi was going to start the gold coin standard. But the others? Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, they are victims of terror in the same way Pakistan keeps claiming to be victim of terrorism. They are a victim of their own terrorism.
Of course, it was solidarity motivated by religion.What are your views on Indonesia? Indonesia was a supposedly liberal nation which has held on to its Hindu roots, Sanskrit names etc, but when war broke out in 1965, Indonesia sent a cable to Pakistan volunteering to attack and capture Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
What about Jordan? their secular prince actually supplied planes to Pakistan during 1965 and 1971 war against India. UAE sent a squadron of planes.
Iran supplied free oil to Pakistan to fight 1965 war. This was when the secular Shah was ruling Iran much before the Islamist revolution.
Yes, they do. Religion is certainly a motivator. My very first comment was about jihadis so no one is denying the motivation provided via religion.What does this indicate? even when they appear to be peaceful, secular and docile, they still see Indians as enemies.
You are asking questions here. What is the answer? What are the facts? Provide links and make sure they are correct, not conjured up like some of the instances I have pointed out in red above. Yes, the Muslims Brotherhood faction won today, just like the Secularists have been winning since Ataturk. History is not ending today.What about Turkey? who meddled in Turkey? The military tried and tried hard to keep Turkey secular as per Ata Turk's wishes, but eventually their innate jihadi tendencies have won. There is no CIA ploy here.
No human being born on this earth is innocent. The question is, who is causing the most of the harm.The CIA is no saint but give credit to the jihadis for their jihad, they might feel offended. There are hardly any innocent Muslim sects, except maybe the Yazidis, Baloch or Kurds, incidentally, none of them are nation states (yet).
No, I cannot accept something that is not proven to be true. I cannot only look at the examples you want me to look at. I will look at the big picture. It is not a binary. It it far more complicated.The only way to stop jihad is to first accept the fact that there is a problem and that mainstream Muslims are the cause of it, and not look at them as victims.
I am not aware that "The Clash of Civilizations" is a Wahhabi narrative. Where do you get these from? What is your source?Not doing so actually fuels the Wahabbi victimhood narrative of clash of civilizations. If global jihad has to be stopped, then the dissidents among them must be given a platform (read : a nation state of their own). Whatever be the case with Syria, now that it is destroyed, it is better to use it as an opportunity to carve out Kurdistan instead of rebuilding Syria to its former size. Then use Kurdistan as a launching pad to keep Turkey on the boil. This will keep them out of India-Pakistan affairs. Use this opportunity to snatch Balochistan.
So did Alexander. He was not a Muslim. So did Chandragupta Maurya. He was not a Muslims. So did the Americans with the Native American territories. Territories are almost always obtained by military conquest (I did not use the word "only," lest you claim so at a later time.). So, your attempt to insinuate that it is a purely Muslims' problems is disingenuous at best.Whatever land the Muslims have acquired is by military conquests. It needs to be reversed for the ideology to be contained. It cannot be contained using counter-propaganda narratives alone.
So, we have come to the end of this long collection of hypotheses, with a lot of unsupported claims and deliberate omissions of facts.To that end, the US meddling in these nations is a welcome development. One never knows when a war may break out between India and Pakistan, and when that happens, it is necessary that all Muslim nations be busy licking their wounds, to prevent them from ganging up on us like they did in 1965 and 1971.
India should play both sides against each other. One one end we must accuse the US of violating international norms, and on the other end we must not take any concrete steps to prevent the US from continuing to do so.
Of course, it was solidarity motivated by religion.
Now, since you will only cherry pick those examples that further your hypothesis, I will post some counter examples:
Iraq and India: A forgotten love story - Firstpost
Saddam Hussein played down Babri Mosque incident
How Iran saved India – in 1994