Another Brick in the Wall...Another Domino Falls...
Hate to say I told you so, but...
I have been writing for some time about the rising and increasingly unified fundamentalist Muslim theocracy that Bush is losing to. This theocracy seems closely linked to Saudi oil interests, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Sunni fundamentalists around the world. They use all tactics, including terrorism, and their main targets are the West, Sunni moderates, and Shi'ites. Bush claims his "Forever War" is all about defeating these people, but far from defeating him, he is enabling them. They are winning and the history of Republican errors when it comes to the rise of Muslim extremists continues unabated.
This rising Sunni theocracy, which I refer to as a nascent, new Caliphate, has scored a victory it has been wanting for some time. To most Americans it means nothing, but just as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan managed to make a major attack on the US, al-Qaeda and a new Taliban-like government now has a new nation to use as a base of operations.
From BBC News
Islamists claim Mogadishu victory
An Islamist militia says it has seized Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, after weeks of fighting against an alliance of warlords supported by the US.
...
The violence began earlier this year when a group of warlords, who had divided Mogadishu into fiefdoms, united to form the Anti-Terrorism Alliance to tackle the Islamic Courts, who they accused of sheltering foreign al-Qaeda militants.
The Islamic Courts deny this. They were originally set up in Mogadishu as a grassroots movement by businessmen to establish some law and order in a city without any judicial system.
Their stated goal is to restore a system of Sharia law in the city. Last month in Mogadishu a teenager stabbed his father's killer to death before a large crowd, after a death sentence was passed.
The head of the BBC's Somali service described the rise of the Islamic Courts group as a popular uprising.
The Islamic Courts have long said the warlords in the Anti-Terror Alliance were being backed by the US.
Washington merely says it will support those trying to stop people it considers terrorists setting up in Somalia but stresses its commitment to the country's transitional government, which functions from Baidoa, 250km (155 miles) north-west of the capital.
Analysts say it is not entirely certain where the Islamic Courts militia has obtained its substantial weaponry and financing - some fingers have pointed towards Saudi Arabia, others to wealthy foreign supporters of Islamic militancy.
But they have also had the support of many Mogadishu citizens, desperate to back anybody able to re-establish order.
President Abdullahi Yusuf had urged the US to channel its campaign against Somalia's Islamists through his government, rather than the warlords and came under heavy pressure from some MPs to sack the warlords because of the fighting in Mogadishu.
Saudi-influenced, extremist Islamic theocracy...just like the Taliban. And it happened right under our noses. The link to al-Qaeda is being denied by the Islamists, but al-Qaeda has a long connection to the Islamists in Somalia. It is hard to believe that their connection to al-Qaeda is any less than it used to be or any less than the connection al-Qaeda has with the Taliban.
Afghanistan has never really ceased being al-Qaeda/Taliban controlled except in Kabul itself. And we don't seem to be doing so well in Kabul now either. Pakistan is slipping. Iraq is becoming more amenable to al-Qaeda...in fact the real choice in the eyes of most Iraqis is al-Qaeda or Iran...not the US. Somalia, a palce I have said since our invasion of Afghanistan should be our next target of diplomatic or military attention because of the strong al-Qaeda presence, now is becoming dominated by a Taliban-like group.
Is this "Mission Accomplished" Mr. Bush? Is this what victory looks like to you? Looks to me like the enemy is stronger than ever.
Post to TwitterGood points
Sorry I didn't see this earlier...I hope you get to see my response.
You make good points. I try to choose my words carefully to indicate that I am not attacking Islam in general. I use the term fundamentalist in a negative way. Extremist may be a better term for all the reasons you suggest. "Fundamentalist" has become synonymous with "extremist" in the US because Christian extremists like Pat Robertson are called fundamentalists. Truth is, most extremists are fundamentalists, but, as you point out, not all fundamentalists are extremists.
I am very aware of what Islam is all about. I am familiar with its history and have had several good friends who have been Muslim, including a Shi'ite co-worker who adheres strictly to most of the rules of Islam. In that sense he is fundamentalist...but I have never viewed him as fundamentalist because he is also a thoughtful, moderate person. Again, I too often simply lump fundamentalists and extremists together. I think your admonishion regarding this is good.
I will counter with one point, however. Too often fundamentalists are willing to protect extremists because of their shared beliefs. I have known Christians who were very religious who looked favorably on Pat Robertson because he was "a good Christian" even though they didn't really like the politics he espouses. Similarly, Muslim fundamentalists ally with extremists or protect extremists. There is common ground between the two groups, so there is too often a sympathy that makes the extremism of the extremists somehow acceptable to some who wouldn't believe in it themselves. And sometimes there is a logic to it. For example, if America adds to the chaos in Afghanistan or Somalia by helping corrupt warlords and allowing a breakdown in government, then the only stabilizing force will be what amounts to a coalition between extremists and fundamentalists. The Fundamentalist underpinnings that extremists use to justify their actions give them a broad appeal, particularly in places where life is otherwise chaotic. If extremists, using extreme tactics, are able to bring stability, they will be accepted by people whose only goal is to live in peace. This is part of how the Taliban gained power. My fear is that a similar thing is happening in Somalia: extremists using fundamentalism as their moral jusitification for an extremist policy that is accepted widely in Somalia because at least they bring stability. This isn't good for America, who is at war with Muslim extremists in the al-Qaeda coalition, nor is it good for Somalia who may (it isn't certain, but seems likely) be welcoming extremists in the hopes that at least they will bring peace. To refer to a bad movie, it is like the Emperor in Star Wars III bragging that he is bringing peace to the galaxy.
My main criticisms in the above article is for America. We were attacked by Muslim extremists in al-Qaeda. They are the ones we should be fighting with ALL our attention. Instead, we ignored long-standing al-Qaeda organizations in places like Somalia so we could put all our effort into invading Iraq, a nation with little or no al-Qaeda link before we invaded. We were stupid because we let Somalia sink back into a chaos where extremism looks preferable to existing conditions, and because we allowed Bush to con us into invading a nation that, bad though Saddam Hussein may have been, had never actually done anything to America. We took our eyes off those who attacked us so we could conduct an illegal and immoral invasion. So, though I obviously am opposed to extremism of any religion, and I admit a suspicion of fundamentalism in any religion, my main criticisms were directed at America.
I may turn this into a diary so that you are more likely to see this since I think your comments deserve an answer.
- 0 points
My two cents...
As a Muslim I wish to ask the following. What does the mainstream media and all of those whom repeat like a parrot what the mainstream media says, what do the imply or mean when using the term "Muslim fundamentalists" or "Islamic fundamentalists"? What are they trying to say? Or should I ask, what is their agenda?
First of all, what is a "Muslim"? I do not wish to turn this into any form of preaching, or try to use this site as a platform in order to patronize and press upon others my beliefs. So keeping it short and sweet, as a Muslim myself, a Muslim is one who beliefs in Allah as the one true and only god, whom is alone and has no partner. A Muslim is also one who beliefs that Muhammad is the last prophet chosen by God for all of mankind, in order to deliver God's message for all of us to adhere to Islam as our religion and our way of life. In other words, a Muslim is one who follows the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammad.
These two beliefs, the one of believing in Allah as your one true god and of believing in Muhammad as his prophet, are two in one and inseparable. You as a Muslim can not claim to believing in one while denying the other. To deny any of the two is to deny them both, an act which keeps the individual outside the fold of the religion of Islam.
Now there are other acts or tenets to Islam that a Muslim must do, like praying 5 times a day, paying a poor's alm from his income, fasting, and performing the pilgrimage. With this last four tenets we then have all five tenets of the religion, or the five pillars of Islam that every Muslim believes in and must follow. We can consider these five to be the fundamentals to the religion of Islam. Failing to perform some of these last four does not constitute that a Muslim ceases to be one (but that is a whole different topic that I am not going to get into at all), but performing all of these last four without believing in the first one does not mean that the person performing these acts is a Muslim.
So when mainstream media says "Muslim fundamentalist" are they implying that this is a Muslim who adheres strictly to the fundamentals of the religion, to the five pillars of Islam? Because as a Muslim myself and based on what I know of my religion, that's what I understand from this statement from the media.
So why is it that the media always uses this term to label criminals, murderers and terrorists who commit all type of acts which are not in accordance to to the teachings found in the Qur'an and the example of our Prophet, acts which totally contradict Islam and our way of life?
Why can the media simply leave the labelling and start calling a spade "a spade"?!
From George W. and his trained monkees in the "White" House and the Pentagon, to all of the overpaid clowns sitting in the House and the Senate whom can't tell the difference between their navels and that one spot where the sun doesn't shine (unless they indulge in mooning each other behind closed floor doors and see whose got the most dimples; would not surprise me if that's going on!), to every media outlet available around the globe.
So what did I missed? Or is this one of those cases in which "I'm the only normal guy here and you all are just crazy"?! Because the funny thing is that I don't think I'm the only one feeling like this. In the good 'ol US of A to whom I, by the way, gave thirteen long years of my life as a soldier in the US Army, there are another 50 million Muslims whom I dare to say a good 95% of them feel the same way that I do. But it is to the other 5% that the media has an interest in and wants to bring into every American household as the true image of what the media depicts as Muslims and the religion of Islam.
I am referring to the 5% going around ranting about bringing death to all unbelievers and bringing back the Caliphate. The ones who would not have a problem and would not think about it twice to blow themselves up in middle of a crowd at Times Square, or putting a bullet hole on my head or any other Muslim like me and all of in the name of Allah and the religion of Islam. Thank you very much ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and CNN along with TIME and Newsweek, the NY Times, etc., etc. Thank you very much for making everything to me all so clear. Never knew how wrong I was.
To some it may seem that my two cents are more like two bucks right about now. Just so you know, there is plenty of change in my pockets...