"Our insistence to lock Palestinians in camps ... is far worse a crime than Israel stealing land" : Asharq Alawsat (Arab media, not Zionist)

[Dan J 277]

Salafist/Wahabist extremism started during Ottoman times, preceding UK (let alone US) involvement.

True, extremism got its start a very long time ago. But policies of the west in that region have magnified the appeal of extermism as a way out of a poverty and violence.

There is Christian extremism in the US even. But it doesn't get very much support. We dont have an environment were religious extremism flourishes. But add in 20%+ unemployment, poverty, violent interference from outside states, a few charismatic leaders, and you would have much the same type of movement here in the US.

We didn't create the Islamic extremist movements in the middle east today, but we did quite a bit in increasing recuritment for those groups.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Salafist/Wahabist extremism started during Ottoman times, preceding UK (let alone US) involvement.

True, extremism got its start a very long time ago. But policies of the west in that region have magnified the appeal of extermism as a way out of a poverty and violence.

There is Christian extremism in the US even. But it doesn't get very much support. We dont have an environment were religious extremism flourishes. But add in 20%+ unemployment, poverty, violent interference from outside states, a few charismatic leaders, and you would have much the same type of movement here in the US.

We didn't create the Islamic extremist movements in the middle east today, but we did quite a bit in increasing recuritment for those groups.

Let's see the situation of India up to 1980's (and still true in considerable parts of rural India):

• large, illiterate labour force--in 1981, it was estimated that job-centres in India screened 1 million applicants each year
  
• high level of poverty (in 1951, around 80%; today officially around 25%--take more like 40%--of a population over triple that of 1951)
  
• on the "outside interference", the US has oft been charged by Indian governments and oppositions
  
• presence Muslim (and Sikh) extremist movements openly supported by Pakistan
  

Yet, Hindu extremism in India has never had anywhere near the same level of support (despite of extremist-tied BJP being able to cobble together a coalition government--it can never actually win a majority) that Muslim extremism has in Pakistan, Iran and Arab world.

IMO, you have a rather large hole to explain here.

Edited June 18, 2007 by CherryXS

[Dianna_and_Adam 0]

Fighting is the only thing they know how to do. If they actually got a state, all those militants in power would suddenly find themselves out of a job. Not that it's ever a problem for them - they can always find something else to be "outraged" about.

As the militants base their entire raison-d'etre on hatred, they would not be out-of-work after establishing a state, anymore than Naxalite movements would. They would simply become the enforcers and continue their killing.

(my statement on Naxalites has been proven already by the reigns of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot--and the analogy with Islamic militants also works has been proven by Taliban, Darfur situation and current Hamas).

such true words!

My mother always said to me- The only reason why there will be no peace in the world is that there's always someone making profit of it.

that's why ( and excuse me all the people who think otherwise) I still strongly believe there will be no peaceful solution to the problems in the middle east- unless one very powerful and peaceloving person would force the leaders and generals to put down their weapons and listen to the poor people (wich they never did).

But the odds to that happening is like the odds that Jimi Handrix will show up on my doorstep tomorrow and grant me a million dolars with a chiwawa attached to it. =]