Jihad and terrorism are different. Jihad is based on theology, terrorism is a strategy that is applied in warfare and which, according to the vast majority of Muslim theologians/jurists, is contrary to the teachings of Islam as indiscriminate killing of random people is strictly forbidden. I can quote from both classical and contemporary sources if you really want to debate this.With all due respect, this is a load of hogwash. Jihadism has deep roots in Islamic theology. Jihadis themselves constantly cite Islam as justification and when they do cite foreign policy it's only tangentially. What does using Yazidis war prisoners as sex slaves have to do with Western foreign policy? What does massacring gay people have to do with US foreign policy?
With that said, there is a clear causal relationship between US foreign policy and the rise of Islamic terrorism. The man who committed this heinous act had apparently swore allegiance to ISIS. How did ISIS come about? Who constitutes the top leadership of ISIS? Would there have been an ISIS had it not been for the Iraqi invasion?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 29274.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 12236.html
http://time.com/4086381/tony-blair-isis-iraq-invasion/
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/04/ ... -bush-isis
If you had any intellectual/emotional maturity, you would not be accusing me of "justifying terrorism" for simply explaining a causal relationship. As the above articles show, I'm clearly not the only person who holds that view.
You state the above yet you still don't think that US policies in the region are at fault for the rise of Islamic terrorism? Do you realise that there were once communist groups who were doing the exact same thing that the jihadis are doing now? Weren't the first Arab suicide bombers from the communist PLO? The jihadis aren't some crazy, nihilistic death cult. They have actual objectives and are actually quite calculating.You need more nuanced and mature reading of international affairs. We all know the history of the Middle East so there is no point in regurgitating it for us. I know and agree with you the US should never have overthrown the Mossadegh government. But that's not realpolitik, is it? Great powers have always sought to maintain and expand their power and the US is no exception. During the Cold War, either US intervened in a region or the Soviets did.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 29274.html
They are primarily driven by political motives (end US occupation of Muslim lands, free Palestine, the usual). Is it a coincidence that their political objectives are the exact same as the Communists? What's funny is that the top leadership of ISIS, as stated in the above article, is actually made up of "former" Ba'athi communists who have simply exchanged Karl Marx for the Holy Qur'an. They use religious rhetoric to incite the gullible youth, but their objectives are clearly political.
Nobody asked you to. All I said was that the US had committed far more atrocities in the region than any jihadi group and that US foreign policy is the primary driver of anti-western sentiments in the region which in turn leads to terrorism. You, on the other hand, believe that everything can be reduced to scripture and "beliefs". You don't want to deal with the fact that these jihadis aren't some bloodsucking vampires who "hate us 'cause they hate us". It's much easier to subscribe to such an oversimplified image of reality. The real world is way more complex than you seem to realise.I'm all for holding the US (there's really no "the West," just the US and its satraps) accountable for its foreign policy. I was against both the Iraq and Afghan wars. I fully support the Palestinian people's struggle for self-determination and staunchly against Zionism.
I think both Tony Blair and G. Bush are war criminals who should be in the Hague and not appointed as "peace envoy" or feted as respected elder statesman. I'm all for fighting injustices around the world and siding with the oppressed and the wretched of the earth. But not in a million years would I subscribe or seek solace in Jihadism as a remedy.
And western/US politicians and military leaderships say that they invade foreign nations and kill innocents as "collateral damage" in the name of secular democracy and liberalism. Why don't you just take their word for it and condemn the ideological foundations of secular democracies for producing such callous, greedy, bloodthirsty politicians who cause so much death and destruction? Why don't you apply your principles across the board?.Islamists themselves say we commit atrocities because that's what Islam enjoins..
As for the causal relationship between foreign policy and the rise of anti-Western sentiments which in turn causes terrorism, here is what the Task Force report commissioned by the Rumsfeld Pentagon on what causes terrorism had to say:
This should pretty much put an end to this discussion!American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists , while diminishing support for the United States to
single-digits in some Arab societies.
• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing
support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in
order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.
• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy
among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian
boundaries that divide Islam.
What on earth are you on about?? Many religious leaders and average Muslims alike have criticized these groups and attacked them using nothing but Islamic theology and jurisprudence! I myself have been vilified and threatened by these lunatics for speaking out against them. You seem to be out of touch with the Islamic community. I was debating these guys many years ago before most of you had even heard of them.This is why Islamists feel confident in rolling out ever-more outlandish ideas such as slave-taking in 2015. No Muslim can stand up to them lest they risk being branded as heretic.
Just because I'm trying to present a nuanced picture which challenges your overly simplistic worldview, it does not mean that I do not criticise what I view as clear violations of my Islamic way of life!
