Here's what the radical Islamic threat is and is not

[KingOrfeo]

First of all, radical Islam is no threat to Western values. It certainly does exist, and certainly is hostile to Western values, but it is no threat because its appeal in Western nations is so very limited -- and its appeal in Islamic nations not much greater. That is why jihadists resort to terrorism. It is a tactic of the politically weak. When a faction knows it is not strong or numerous enough to have any hope of winning its goals on the battlefield or at the ballot box, then it may turn to terrorism as a way of inflating its perceived strength. That is the whole point.

And Islam as such is not going away. Today, one human being in five is a Muslim. 100 years ago, one human being in five was a Muslim. 100 years from now, one human being in five will be a Muslim. Radical Salafist jihadist Islam may or may not survive that long, but the Islamic faith certainly will.

Now it is a problem that some Muslims who grew up in the West are disaffected from it and sympathetic to the jihadists. Glen L. Carle reviews Radicalized: The New Jihadists and the Threat to the West, by Peter R. Neumann:

And what of the “foreign fighters” — the jihadists from Europe and elsewhere of whom so much is made? There have been upwards of 21,000, with upwards of 4,000 from Europe, more than all previous jihads of the past 30 years. Two points bear noting:

First, Neumann fears that perhaps 300 of them may seek to commit acts of terror like the attacks in Paris and Brussels in 2015, which killed 130 and 39 people respectively. But Neumann quotes other experts, too, some of whom are former colleagues of mine, with whom Neumann takes issue. Their research has found that none of the foreign fighters — zero — who have returned home from their jihads have sought to commit acts of jihad. Neumann is surely right to state that the return of foreign fighters from the Syrian war will call for the close attention of every country’s law enforcement and intelligence authorities for years to come. I personally find zero an unlikely number, and would evaluate the number of individuals of real concern for intelligence and law enforcement agencies to be in the hundreds in the West. This does not mean that hundreds will commit terrorist acts in the coming years, but that hundreds merit attention.

Second, Neumann points out that “what unites [jihadists] is not some demographic or socio-economic marker, but their lack of identification with the Western societies they (or most of them) were born and grew up in.” In my own counterterrorism work, counterterrorism officials I met with in numerous countries described the jihadists we were pursuing in almost identical terms. We knew the profiles of many of the individuals. In my discussions I often called them “little losers.” In other countries my counterparts referred to them with some variation of the expression popularized by terrorist scholar Marc Sageman: as a “Bunch of Guys” or “the BOG.” In every case this meant that they were singularly unimpressive guys. These men could still kill — and some have. But the phenomenon remains one of marginal men. Neumann gets it right:

[The] “Salafists’ pitch is aimed squarely at the stranded, the directionless and the left behind… young people with an immigrant background who don’t know where they belong, children from broken homes, petty criminals, drug addicts and outsiders.

It is clear from reading Neumann that what we face at home is not that “Islam is the problem,” and thus those Muslims among us are not “the problem” (just as Islam is not the “solution”), although there are small numbers of Muslims who are and will be inspired by the Islamic State and will act as “inspired” jihadists. This is a distinction and description of the nature of the threats facing us that the would-be Crusader for Western purification and world terrorism expert Donald Trump would do well to learn. (Perhaps Neumann should put it in a tweet, and thus increase the chance of educating the new commander-in-chief.) Neumann is as clear as one can be about what will happen if our leaders continue to seek bogeymen and to misunderstand how to fight the Islamic State and jihadism in general.

So what is to be done? The most important thing is to realize that there is no simple, quick solution — and certainly no purely military one. Instead of solving the political, sectarian and social problems in Iraq and Syria, it would further exacerbate those tensions. The result: more chaos, not less — and an even more successful Islamic State.

Trump needs to understand — as unlikely as it is that he will — that the miserable and desperate Muslim refugees now condemned to purgatory or death are not the ones trying to kill us and impose a perverted version of Sharia Law on infidels and believers alike. Treating them as a bacillus and locking them out confirms the jihadists’ view of the United States, even among the nearly 1.6 billion Muslims who are hostile to “radical Islam,” and makes terrorist attacks far more likely. It is as though Trump were taking his orders from the jihadists, so as to strengthen them, rather than taking steps to weaken and defeat them.

The crisis we confront is found among those Muslims dislocated psychologically by modernism, globalization, secularism — the inevitable trends of social and economic development. These men need to be watched, and stopped. But they are less a coherent movement than they are a potentially lethal sociological phenomenon of anger, perverted idealism and anomie. What we face with the Islamic State is not a primarily religious phenomenon of jihad — “radical Islam” — breaking out in global strength. It is, as Neumann notes, the marriage “between chaos and desire for order” among the Sunni populations of Syria and Iraq, exploited by absolutely ruthless jihadists, many of whom are sincere believers and many of whom are opportunists.

So, ISIS and jihadists pose a big problem to address; but not the makings of a religious war, no matter what the jihadists believe and say, despite the existence of a strain of radical Islamists, and no matter what the Islamic State proclaims and does. Unless our fears make them larger than they are.

 

[hashtag46]

First of all, radical Islam is no threat to Western values.

What about being a threat to some of women's rights, that early western feminists fought so hard for only decades ago?

You guys consistently gloss over the clash of cultures: patriarchal Islam and western feminism.

 

[Ms_Ann]

And Islam as such is not going away. Today, one human being in five is a Muslim. 100 years ago, one human being in five was a Muslim. 100 years from now, one human being in five will be a Muslim. Radical Salafist jihadist Islam may or may not survive that long, but the Islamic faith certainly will.

Yet the decline in Americans identified as christian has declined almost 10% over the last 10 years. How can one be so stable whereas another is not?

 

[KingOrfeo]

What about being a threat to some of women's rights, that early western feminists fought so hard for only decades go?

Jihadists are hostile to women's rights. But they are too weak to do much about it in the West. Hostility does not always amount to a threat.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And Islam as such is not going away. Today, one human being in five is a Muslim. 100 years ago, one human being in five was a Muslim. 100 years from now, one human being in five will be a Muslim. Radical Salafist jihadist Islam may or may not survive that long, but the Islamic faith certainly will.

Yet the decline in Americans identified as christian has declined almost 10% over the last 10 years. How can one be so stable whereas another is not?

We're ahead of the curve in secular-society terms. Someday the number of actually believing Muslims in the Islamic countries will decline -- without any actual apostasy, just growing indifference, as with Christianity in Europe. But those countries will remain Islamic in cultural-civilizational terms, in the same way Europe with an atheist majority will always remain Christian.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Jihadists are hostile to women's rights.

So is mainstream Islam.

Islamic countries dominate the list of worst women's rights violators consistently year after year from pretty much every institution and organization paying attention to women's rights on a global scale. Women are still the property of men throughout the vast majority of the Islamic world.

Mainstream Islam is without question the gnarliest, most br00tal patriarchy currently oppressing women on planet Earth at this point in time.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Neumann makes a good case with regard to the roots of terrorism deriving from abnormal psychology and social and economic deprivation.

But the element he is leaving out of the equation is the brutality of Sharia law as practiced as a function of state administered justice systems. At least some of the impetus for the international exportation of militant jihad has to do with how Muslims have treated each other in violation of Islamic law since its inception.

It is unlikely ISIS itself would have formed it not for the murderous regime of former Iraqi prime minister Nour al-Malaki.

There is far more involved here than just disaffected poor Muslim men. They would get nowhere without the aid of other radicals with wealth and power. Osama Bin Laden was hardly a former street beggar.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So is mainstream Islam.

Islamic countries dominate the list of worst women's rights violators consistently year after year from pretty much every institution and organization paying attention to women's rights on a global scale.

Mainstream Islam is without question the gnarliest, most br00tal patriarchy currently oppressing women on planet Earth at this point in time.

No doubt, but it's no threat to the rights of Western women.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Pretty much.....the real threat comes from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait...but, that's hardly even mentioned, let alone discussed.

Woof!

 

[hashtag46]

No doubt, but it's no threat to the rights of Western women.

1.Both Christianity and Islam started by being patriarchal religions that often impinged upon human rights.

But whereas Christianity has undergone a lot of public scrutiny and has brought many of it's values (with the known exceptions of course) in line with the values of the 21'st century
- Islam has only started this process (and only in a few muslim countries mainly due to protests of their own muslim feminists).



2.Re muslim immigrants:
Moreover, western liberals are keen to criticize Christianity but don't allow any criticism of Islam, because they confuse the latter with islamophobia and racism.

But even if a religious group holds a minority status and it's members face discrimination in western countries, that shouldn't preclude people from being alert to it's less than ideal values (attitude towards women).

As long as it's done for constructive purposes ie asking them to assimilate like other immigrants do, aka to bring their attitudes towards women in line with values of the 21st century.
They might be a disempowered minority now with little to say in public affairs now in Europe, but that will change decades from now. Now is the time.

 

[hashtag46]

So is mainstream Islam.

Islamic countries dominate the list of worst women's rights violators consistently year after year from pretty much every institution and organization paying attention to women's rights on a global scale. Women are still the property of men throughout the vast majority of the Islamic world.

Mainstream Islam is without question the gnarliest, most br00tal patriarchy currently oppressing women on planet Earth at this point in time.

Exactly.
Islam's clash with western feminist values is a completely separate issue from the fact that the everyday muslim is peaceful and doesn't pose a physical threat.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No doubt, but it's no threat to the rights of Western women.

Unless you start importing that culture and give it an equal voice at the table of western civilization in the name of diversity.

Giving it special privileges like not having to cater gay weddings, because fuck white Christians and all their evil whiteness.

Don't bother the rape gangs that's racist!!! It's cultural diversity!! Like they did in the UK.....don't offend them just let them rape everyone's kids. Because PROGRESS!!


Then it absolutely will be.

Probably not for you though, I'm sure you'll just look the other way and pretend it never happened.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Moreover, western liberals are keen to criticize Christianity but don't allow any criticism of Islam . . .

Not in my experience. I'll be one of the first to tell you what a bad and regrettable thing is the mere existence of the Islamic faith.

But then, I don't much approve of Judaism or Christianity either. This would be a better world if Abraham had been an atheist.

 

[hashtag46]

Not in my experience. I'll be one of the first to tell you what a bad and regrettable thing is the mere existence of the Islamic faith.

But then, I don't much approve of Judaism or Christianity either. This would be a better world if Abraham had been an atheist.

I was judging by what I've seen in the GB ever since I joined. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Unless you start importing that culture and give it an equal voice at the table of western civilization in the name of diversity.

No, not even then. Muslims in the West will follow their traditional sexism for the first two or three generations, but they'll never be in a position to impose it on infidels, and very few infidels will ever find it appealing or persuasive.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I was judging by what I've seen in the GB ever since I joined. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

You're not mistaken.

You literally have to post a picture of Muslims throwing gays off rooftops and butchering women for old testament shit to even get one of them to criticize the shit beyond "It's just as bad as Christianity." otherwise they are so terrified of being called a racist they will go out of their way to make sure they NEVER have to admit the evil white western 1st world is actually the most awesome fuckin' place to be a woman or a minority or anyone for that matter EVER.

 

[tnman03]

http://www.roguedynamics.com/blog/2017/2/3/takfiri-vs-muslim-vs-islamist-vs-salafi

Pretty good article. FWIW there's a lot more to Islam then the media head experts talk about. I had to study a lot of this stuff and won't even attempt to pretend I understand very much of the different sects and such.

 

[phrodeau]

BotanyBoy's slogan should be "Make America Good Enough."

 

[Bad_Doggie]

2.Re muslim immigrants:
Moreover, western liberals are keen to criticize Christianity but don't allow any criticism of Islam, because they confuse the latter with islamophobia and racism.

Not in my experience. I'll be one of the first to tell you what a bad and regrettable thing is the mere existence of the Islamic faith.

But then, I don't much approve of Judaism or Christianity either. This would be a better world if Abraham had been an atheist.

This^^^, but also this.....

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

That's what get conflated.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

BotanyBoy's slogan should be "Make America Good Enough."

Don't be harsh.....he's feeling all victimy!

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, not even then.

You're delusional.

Muslims in the West will follow their traditional sexism for the first two or three generations, but they'll never be in a position to impose it on infidels

Only if you're selective about it.

Drop 20 million Syrians off in Sweden with full rights and watch that fucker plunge into the god damn dark ages.

You have to be extremely selective and limited when considering the immigration of cultures that are hostile to your own or major problems will arise.

and very few infidels will ever find it appealing or persuasive.

Doesn't matter if they have the power or just decide to go Cartman and wuh eva wuh eva they doo whut they wawnt!!

 

[BotanyBoy]

BotanyBoy's slogan should be "Make America Good Enough."

Still better than the social justice democrat mantra of "Fuck America!!".

Ya'll are gonna win SO many elections with that one!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Drop 20 million Syrians off in Sweden . . .

That will never happen under any immigration policy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That will never happen under any immigration policy.

LOL have you told Empress Merkel that?

Point still stands...you have to control and restrict high conflict immigration.

Limited and restricted or shit storm will pop off.

If we really want to serve M'uricuhs best interest we wouldn't take anyone from these highly anti-western cultures....we'd let Europe eat that shit sandwich on their own or better yet we'd lean on SA and the other Muslim countries to help their neighbors out.

They won't though because they'd rather see Europe become Islamic.

Merkel is going to hang the moon and stars for them, and the EU will fall apart....it's already happening.

It's gonna be an awesome show.

 

[hashtag46]

We're ahead of the curve in secular-society terms. Someday the number of actually believing Muslims in the Islamic countries will decline -- without any actual apostasy, just growing indifference, as with Christianity in Europe. But those countries will remain Islamic in cultural-civilizational terms, in the same way Europe with an atheist majority will always remain Christian.

It's a nice utopian view and faith in humanity, that things will eventually mellow and settle and people might start getting along, and that in time women will naturally start gaining more rights in the muslim community,

But it seems like the reverse is happening: more and more countries are becoming increasingly nationalistic and conservative even radicalized (be they european, the US or the Middle East).
The main reason being a backlash against the globalization movement and the corporate-millitary
complex that led to enrichment of the 1% and war in so many countries
And it looks like most ideologies (political parties, atheism and religion) are becoming more radicalized and polarised.

Moreover, with the increased discontent over western intervention and destruction of the Middle East, I'd expect muslim religious leadeers to hang on to most Islam values, patriarchy included as a symbol of identity and resistance.
--- They won't let go of misogynistic practices and bring their religion more in line with western feminism, unless directly challenged by laypeople on both sides.