Article

2005-08-06 Terror Networks & Islam

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2005-08-06 08:08|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This is the problem for âall-or-nothingâ fundamentalism: it usually ends with nothing. Ain't that the truth. Despite all of the planning, death and destruction, they have gained nothing and lost much. And with each attack, they lose more. You think at some point they'd get a clue - but they won't.

Just as an aside, I predict that we will soon see a shift in the rhetoric. Instead of "root causes, oil, poverty and the big bad Dick Cheney" we are going to start seeing the handwringers agonizing if Western decadence is to blame. I almost look forward to the day that the Beserkly crowd blames Bush for moral decay and praising the Islamists for saving them from moral decadence. LOL! It all makes sense when you understand that it's really all about hating America for these people.

Posted by 2b 2005-08-06 11:24|| 2005-08-06 11:24|| Front Page Top

#2 In Britain, the 1905 Aliens Act allowed for the deportation of undesirable immigrants.

By then, the anarchist terror threat had already abated.

WWI was sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

By an anarchist.

That threat had really "abated", hadn't it?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-06 12:30|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-06 12:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Princip was no anarchist. He was a radical Serbian nationalist. He was not acting alone either, he was one of an organized conspiracy by an irredentist group affiliated with the Serbian secret service, or of a faction therein.

Pretty much the opposite of an anarchist, ideologically.

Posted by buwaya 2005-08-06 13:02|| 2005-08-06 13:02|| Front Page Top

#4 Really? From what I remember, he's been consistently described as an "anarchist". I could easily be misremembering, though.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-06 13:16|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-06 13:16|| Front Page Top

#5 A good history argument is ensuing. Good because it cannot be resolved absolutely. Princip was a Serb Nationalixt. He was in the Black Hand. Was he an anarchist? I dunno. I doubt 2005 is like 1905 in that the Wahabbist threat has passed like the anarchist one didt, though.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-06 14:07|| 2005-08-06 14:07|| Front Page Top

#6 The money quote - The principal cause, though, was the realisation that while other socialist movements were making gains, the anarchists, by refusing to engage and cooperate, were not.

The so called anarchists were socialists for the most part - revolutionary socialists. They lost ground becuase socialism was gaining ground without terrorism. The article should logically conclude that we can stop islamic terrorism by ensuring enough people convert to Islam.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-06 19:31|| 2005-08-06 19:31|| Front Page Top

#7 In Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman argues that some of the facist roots of Muslim Brotherhood et al are not just Islamic but European imports, and he makes some links with the anarchist movement. One common theme is that one measure of the validity of a philosophy is how much you are willing to destroy for its sake. Are you willing to die for it? Blow up children for it?

Posted by James">James 2005-08-06 20:31|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2005-08-06 20:31|| Front Page Top

23:57 Jan
23:47 Jan
23:44 Chris W.
23:33 Jan
23:28 Choter Flith6810
23:26 Jan
23:23 Anonymoose
23:19 Jan
23:10 Jan
23:07 Jan
23:05 Seafarious
23:03 Bobby
23:02 Jan
22:59 GRock
22:52 Phil Fraering
22:52 Phil Fraering
22:48 Pappy
22:48 Jan
22:46 Jan
22:43 Sherry
22:39 Jan
22:38 trailing wife
22:36 trailing wife
22:33 Jan