Bush alters rules for CIA interrogations

[JJC]

All I will say is no matter how much you will try to blame the victim for rape, that rapist will onctinue to rape. Radical Islam is not a recent phenomena and it has nothing to do with West meddling in their business.
If you blame British for Imams preaching Koranic thought of justification for killing the Kufar, than by your logic all African nations that Britain once colonized should be preaching hate and should be understood if they too murder people on buses and iarports...

[SBL]

But we aren't a part of their society! Do you seriously think that they'd be attacking western countries unless they were meddling in their business? And why haven't there been any attacks on countries that have taken a neutral position in the Iraq/Afghanistan war such as Finland?

I more-or-less agree with JJC. Someone on this board characterized jihadism as a "supremacist ideology" which I agree with totally. The issue is that it's a multi-faceted movement involving persons of various degrees of commitment and motivation. But it's stated pretty clearly by their own propoganda that the end-goal of the movement is to establish a 'global caliphate' and to spread Islam by the sword. The reason why the US and Britain and such nations are being targeted is because they are (rightfully) seen as being the greatest obstacles to their ends.
Islamist-fueled attacks occur all over the globe and to all stripes of people including other Muslims; not just against westerners. Chechnya, Kashmir, Indonesia etc. have all suffered Islamic terrorist attacks. I wouldn't say that some individuals haven't been influenced to take up arms against the US/UK et. al. because of our involvement in the Middle East, but the core of the problem is the radical wahhabism/Islamism that plants these ideas in the heads of people to begin with.

[Guggenmauer]

Since you are claiming that this "supremacist ideology" is at fault, can I politely ask you to provide me with unbiased (non-coalition based) proof that shows that terror attacks in western countries are caused completely by radical islam, and dismisses the western foothold in the region as having anything to do with it?

Like with everything every action has a reaction. I need to be convinced that these radical islamists who blindly hate western freedoms are at fault.

[SBL]

Since you are claiming that this "supremacist ideology" is at fault, can I politely ask you to provide me with unbiased (non-coalition based) proof that shows that terror attacks in western countries are caused completely by radical islam, and dismisses the western foothold in the region as having anything to do with it?

Like with everything every action has a reaction. I need to be convinced that these radical islamists who blindly hate western freedoms are at fault.

I don't think it has anything to do with our freedoms sufficed to say that western-style 'freedoms' is an obstruction to, and in conflict with, radical Islamic thinking- those who want to sweep away the system in place and replace it with one styled after their own beliefs.
Now having said that, I don't believe this wave of terrorism we're seeing is completely and directly caused by jihadism/wahhabis, or whatever. The discontent and anti-western sentiment is a culmination of several factors- into which Western interests have played a role. But directly attributing the whole mess to Western actions would be incorrect imo. Anytime an outside group asserts its interests, it's going to breed some resentment, but I would personally lay the blame on middle easterners' apparent inability to "get it together" than on western meddling, as the whole region seems to be a microcosm of conflict unto itself.
But I would suggest the jihadists are the root of the terrorism, as they're the ones who are directing the ire towards the west. It's their opportunity to ride the wave of public discontent to power, and as I said, the West is currently the largest obstruction to that end.

[Guggenmauer]

Guggenmauer, there were no attacks on Finland yet.

You think that Finlands stance in Middle-Eastern affairs doesn't have anything to do with it?

[Guggenmauer]

I don't think it has anything to do with our freedoms sufficed to say that western-style 'freedoms' is an obstruction to, and in conflict with, radical Islamic thinking- those who want to sweep away the system in place and replace it with one styled after their own beliefs.
Now having said that, I don't believe this wave of terrorism we're seeing is completely and directly caused by jihadism/wahhabis, or whatever. The discontent and anti-western sentiment is a culmination of several factors- into which Western interests have played a role. But directly attributing the whole mess to Western actions would be incorrect imo. Anytime an outside group asserts its interests, it's going to breed some resentment, but I would personally lay the blame on middle easterners' apparent inability to "get it together" than on western meddling, as the whole region seems to be a microcosm of conflict unto itself.
But I would suggest the jihadists are the root of the terrorism, as they're the ones who are directing the ire towards the west. It's their opportunity to ride the wave of public discontent to power, and as I said, the West is currently the largest obstruction to that end.

Doesn't saying that the Western foothold acts as a catalyst instead of the jihadism, sound a bit irrational to you? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Western presence in the Middle-East has provoked a heightened amount of jihadism and islamic extremism? Why is the jihad concentrated on a region where the amount of western influence is the greatest?

The definition of jihad doesn't solely include the expansion of islam through force, but also the defense of islam and the muslim lands through force. Which one of those seems more fitting in this case?

And please do not mis-interpert me as a pro-radical islamist here, because I hope to remain as neutral as I personally can. We are humans and war is natural to our species. I'd just like more people to take an educated look at their "enemies" as well as at their own along with the preceding history of the current events.

[SBL]

Doesn't saying that the Western foothold acts as a catalyst instead of the jihadism, sound a bit irrational to you? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the Western presence in the Middle-East has provoked a heightened amount of jihadism and islamic extremism? Why is the jihad concentrated on a region where the amount of western influence is the greatest?

The definition of jihad doesn't solely include the expansion of islam through force, but also the defense of islam and the muslim lands through force. Which one of those seems more fitting in this case?

And please do not mis-interpert me as a pro-radical islamist here, because I hope to remain as neutral as I personally can. We are humans and war is natural to our species. I'd just like more people to take an educated look at their "enemies" as well as at their own along with the preceding history of the current events.

When did I suggest there was no correlation? I'm saying the jihadist movement is responsible for focusing the ire on the West, but that doesn't make the West responsible for its inception.

[Guggenmauer]

Ah sorry I misread a segment of your post. I agree with what you said in your previous reply.

[Atlantic Friend]

This seems to be political window dressing more than anything else. The only new item that sticks out to me - is that we can't make fun of people's religion. Of course South Park can do it on TV to millions of people every day in an effort to boost corporate advertising revenue - but we mustn't do it to save lives. Other than that, all this other stuff is already on the books.

I agree that the "do not denigrate their religion" is rather stupid. First, I doubt it does wonder to break a suspect to attack his religion. Second, as there probably are Iraqi troops or police around, and since they are Muslim too, i'm sure it has already crossed the mind of every interrogator that gravely offending Islam was a big no-no already.

On a darker note, it is rather disturbing that one should feel the need to insist there should not be ****** abuse. I'm sure the Iraqis have seenmore than enough "rape rooms" under Saddam.

[number nine]

You think that Finlands stance in Middle-Eastern affairs doesn't have anything to do with it?

No I don't. But I suppose because of nature of radical islam fundamentalists have spared them from their usual rampage only because they are after bigger fish, not because Fins are not meddling in their business.

[Guggenmauer]

Ah. So you got any unbiased data to prove this?

[number nine]

No. But you don't have any data to deny it too, and somehow I feel I'm right.



By the way, how come many mujahideen from arab states fought in Chechnia when Russia was usually helping ME countries? Those fanatics who blow themselves in suicide bombing are on holy war dude.

[Abrahamsen]

Finland does have troops in Afganistan, just so you know.

[SBL]

Finland does have troops in Afganistan, just so you know.

Oh snap.

[Beowulf]

Finland does have troops in Afganistan, just so you know.

I was just thinking the same thing, I thought I remembered them having a swimming pool in kandahar....