Radical muslime wars world wide

Religion of peace?


http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/muslim-world-conflicts.html

 

Interesting site. However - I think it simplifies the issues involved greatly. Is it religious wars or are we looking at sectarian/ethnic/regional strife?

MUSLIM ON-GOING CONFLICTS IN THE WORLD

AFGHANISTAN: The war in Afghanistan is ongoing. Since Soviet troops withdrew, various Afghan groups have tried to eliminate their rivals.

That first line pretty much sums up Afghanistan. It has been invaded repeatedly over history but never held. It has always been a contentious area of the world, full of different competing ethnic and tribal groups. The fact that the country is almost entirely muslim means that, by default any conflict there is going to be muslim.

ALGERIA: Armed Islamic groups formed and since 1992 have carried out attacks on key economic points, security forces, officials and foreigners.

Algeria is another country with a long standing history of colonialism, civil war, and economic hardship. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria#Post-independence gives a pretty good history of the war and conditions there. Is it an Islamic problem or is it less simplistic then that?

The Caucasus and Russia: The Central Asian republics have a long history of conflicts. Fighting breaks out regularly between warlords and religious groups calling for the establishment of Islamic states outside the Russian Federation.
That is an excellent example and a direct result of Russia's Soviet Policies. Again - is the problem Islam or is it more complex then that?

EYGPT: Fundamentalist Muslim rebels seek to topple the secular Egyptian government. At least 1,200 people have perished since the beginning of the rebellion. The conflict was primarily waged as an urban guerrilla/terrorist war. The opposition Muslim Brotherhood took part in elections in 2000, indicating that they felt armed force would not work.
Agree - the problem here is fundamentalist Islam though I suspect other factors are at play and the rise of fundamentalism is a symptom not a cause.

INDONESIA: The struggle on the Indonesia islands is complicated by leaders of pro- and anti-independence movements, and by religious conflicts. More than 500 churches have been burned down or damaged by Muslims over the past six years. Both the Christians and Muslims blame each other for the violence and attempts at reconciliation made little progress. After a bloody struggle East Timor gained independence in 1999. The hostilities on other islands continue to claim dozens of lives, to such an extent that the break-up of Indonesia seem imminent.

Interesting. It appears that this accounting ignores the damage done by Christians to Muslim institutions and labels this a "muslim conflict". I think we also have to blame the Christians too. However - if we want to be honest the Christians and Muslims in this case are different ethnic tribal groups that have been in conflict for some time. I think the issue is more ethnic and political then religous.

INDIA/PAKISTAN: Muslim separatists in the Indian section declared a holy war against the mostly-Hindu India and started attacks in 1989, mainly from Pakistan-occupied section of Kashmir, and from Pakistan and Afghanistan. The conflict continues, with Pakistan also crushing rebellions with brute force in their section.

Blame for the conflicts here can be spread equally among the Hindus and the Muslims.

IRAQ: Supports Islamic terrorist acts around the world. Differing culture and religious groups within Iraq continues to clash with Shiite Muslims.

We ****ed up Iraq. Plain and simple. It was an artificial country with artificial boundaries and powerful ethnic divisions held together by a despot.

ISRAEL: Within its own borders, Israel continues to battle various Muslim organizations that seek independence for a Palestine state, areas made up of the Gaza strip, West.Bank, and part of Jerusalem. There is heavy international pressure on Israel to recognise a Palestinian state.

Again, blame is put on Muslims when in reality this a conflict where Israel and the Arab states and the Palestinians bear equal culpability.


IRAN: After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 toppled the government of the Shah, the Mujahadeen Khalq soon began a bloody guerrilla war against the new Islamic government. The Mujahadeen are currently based in Iraq and conduct cross-border raids into Iran, as well as conducting urban guerrilla operations in the cities and conducting political assassinations. Iran occasionally launches raids against Khalq bases in Iraq.

But then again....we've been conducting covert operations in their country too trying to bring down their government. This is nothing more then international politics.

KOSOVO: The ethnic Albanian KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) in this Serbian province fought a guerilla war against Serbia to claim the region. Beginning in February 1999, Albanians were forced out of the province, prompting NATO to attack Serbia. By July 1999 Serb troops were forced out of Kosovo, only to open an avenue for Albanian Kosovars to attack Serb Kosovars. The Albanian Muslims have since burned down dozens of centuries-old Christian churches. In an effort to establish a Greater Albania, Albanian Muslim rebels also launched attacks in Macedonia.

Wow - the author completely forgets about the genocide perpretated by the Christian serbs against the ethnic Albanians. However even with that this is far more of a regional ethnic conflict in a country that was as artificial as Iraq and held together by a dictator.



It's not worth it to go on with the rest of the article - it is simplistic, ignores history and the regional nature of many of these conflicts. It totally ignores the actions of opposing non-muslim sides in some of it's examples.

 

My point in posting this was to illustrate that of all the conflicts in the world today, the vast majority of them involve Muslimes. Why is that?

 

Perhaps because the vast majority of Muslims inhabit third world, post-colonial countries with a legacy of war, corruption, dictarships, and poverty. A lot of the conflicts are the result of colonial-drawn borders for a start. Here is a list of ongoing conflicts. You also seem to ignore that many of them also involve non-muslims or were initiated or maintained by non-muslims.


Middle East
U.S. and UK vs. Iraq
Israel vs. Palestinians

Asia
Afghanistan: U.S., UK, and Coalition Forces vs. al-Qaeda and Taliban
India vs. Kashmiri separatist groups/Pakistan
India vs. Assam insurgents (various)
Indonesia vs. Christians and Muslims in Molucca Islands
Indonesia vs. Papua (Irian Jaya) separatists
Nepal vs. Maoist rebels
Philippines vs. Mindanaoan separatists
(MILF/ASG)
Sri Lanka vs. Tamil Eelan2

Africa
Algeria vs. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Côte d'Ivoire vs. rebels
Democratic Republic of Congo and allies vs. Rwanda, Uganda, and indigenous rebels
Somalia vs. rival clans and Islamist groups
Sudan vs. Darfur rebel groups
Uganda vs. Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)

Europe
Russia vs. Chechen separatists

Latin America
Colombia vs. National Liberation Army (ELN)
Colombia vs. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Colombia vs. Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC)

 

Interesting list......and until the rest of the world views this as more than a pissing contest, the list will grow.

-Castle

 

Just to put it into a realistic perspective consider http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

And just look at all the conflicts for the 20th century.

 

First Post.

As a Muslim I am embarrassed by the spelling of the word Muslim.
What is a Muslime...a fruit?

 

cheers.
great posts and great defense

 

Why is it that during the Age of Religious Warfare the Catholics and the Protestants couldn't stop murdering each other? Organized religions drive people to these types of things. Islam is highly susceptible to that kind of thing because of the language used encourages violence in those who do not interpret the meaning differently - or those who must follow the letter, every letter, of the Qu'ran.

 

Actually thats a good point. Catholic and Protestants killed each other, but for some reason that doesn't constitute it as a violent religion?

Anyway, just remember the thread starter can't even spell Muslim, so I don't know if we should regard him with high integrity. He seems to copy and post most of his arguments from news articles anyway, and starts more threads than he debates.

 

Look, we're not saying that radical Islam isn't a problem, because it quite obviously is. What we're saying is that you can't lump radical Islam and moderate Islam together, because that'll piss off the moderates - and more of them will become radicals.

I mean, what is the end result of all this "Islam is Evil" stuff supposed to be?

Are we supposed to wipe out all of Islam, so that which is "evil" is gone? Attempts at that have been made (think Crusades) and they didn't work then - how well would they work now when six million of them are legal citizens of the United States?

Are we supposed to just destroy the radicals? What then? Let's say that happens. Boom. Radicals all dead and only the moderate, peaceful Muslims remain. Those Muslims still follow the Qu'ran. Is Islam then still evil?

Are we supposed to convert them to a more modern way of thinking? Shaking a religious nut out of his faith is a difficult thing to manage, and if we start doing the whole "convert or die" dance then how would we be any better than the radicals?

I just want to know: where do you think this whole "Islam is evil" thing is supposed to lead?

 

If I ever open my own bar I'll totally make a drink called a Muslime.

Tell you what, it'll have a turban instead of an umbrella. What do you think?

And before anyone says anything, I'd like to throw it out there that most Japanese restaurants in my area serve a drink called a "Pearl Harbor." What is that all about?

 

Oooh, your treading pretty thin ice here, Muslims dont wear turbans.

 

Hmm. They must be evil then.

Actually, you'll find that the turban is quite common in Islamic culture. Islamic scholars, in particular, where them as a sign of status. The wearing of a black turban, or sayyid, is a way for people to say that they're descended from Muhammad.

Islamic tradition refers to the turban as the "imamah." It's one of those things from Arab culture that got so closely entwined with Islam that it's hard to tell the two apart these days.

 

What about Catholic Nons & Priests who wear black.
Does that mean the word Nons menas) never had sex?
Or Priests, does that mean they all love young boys?
Wearing Black is common.

this was in conjunction with 9sublime's quote Oooh, your treading
pretty thin ice here, Muslims dont wear turbans.
Explain...how are they evil?