Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Political Islam

We will be devoting three class sessions to the study of Political Islam, radical Islamist parties, movements, and ideologies, and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. Feel free to post what your thoughts are on these topics and what you think are important questions which should be addressed. How should the US and the West in general tackle the rise of Islamist movements and parties? How should it conduct its war on terror? This topic is purposefully vague enough to allow for different ideas and opinions to be debated.

90 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the most important question is how to fight against the terrorist attacks. In the film, they mentioned that the current U.S. strategy of just building up the army isn't going to work to fight the activist movements. It's not like we can invade one country, win a war, and be done with it. The Muslims who have such violent beliefs and intentions are everywhere, and almost always in hiding. I think the best way to deal with it is to hang on to any leads about threats or attacks and track down the hidden "cells" (much like they are currently doing in Europe). Since there's no visible leader or key force for the U.S. to directly attack, we have to use subversive measures of following the "webs" and sometimes spying in order to stop the attacks before they happen. At least for now, I don't see any way the U.S. can go completely on the offensive and eradicate the entire Political Islam movement (and especially not the religion) in order to cease their threats and plans completely.

--Katie Head

Unknown said...

While I agree with Katie that it is important to decide what our action should be in fighting against the terrorist attacks, I believe that it is not the most important question we should be asking. Rather, we should be focusing on what we're doing to evoke these attacks. America's ignorance (or rather our government's) is forming even stronger feelings of hatred in the Middle East. We are trying to impose the american dream of democracy on a world that is vastly different from ours. I believe that if we listen, and try to understand, rather than focusing on how to retaliate, not only will we progress farther, but fewer innocent lives will be lost. By better understanding a world we are trying to dominate, we can better prepare ourselves when we are attacked. I would also like to point out that not all muslims have "violent beliefs and intentions." Just because terroism is linked today with Muslims, doesn't mean all who are Muslim are terroists.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Heather; I think that it is incredibly important to ask ourselves: why is there an upsurge in terrorism from the Middle East (jihadists)? America has much to do with the creation of such sects, for, through intervention and stances (sometimes hypocritical),the United States has pushed itself further from peace with the Middle East and more toward an attitude reeking of disapproval and demanding change in the Middle East. For instance, America's former stance toward the Taliban: the aid the US poured into it for its own benefit.

In order to address the issue of terrorism, it is vital that our leaders, the government, and the people understand, as Heather also noted, that it is not Muslims, in general, that are executing terrorist attacks. Rather, it is the radical sects of society and the religion that are executing such atrocities. Such beliefs create a prejudice and discriminatory atmosphere in America and may only fuel terrorist organizations and the tension between the US and the Middle East.

--Ashley Mortimer

Anonymous said...

We need to recognize political Islam for what it is which is a direct challenge to the Western Liberal tradition and proceed accordingly. This is not the same thing as declaring an all out war, a new "crusade" if you may but rather a time for self discovery to see how seriously we take our values. This is not the same thing as intentionally trying to cause anger in the Middle East and the Muslim World towards the United States.

These values coincide with every part of our life and to go full detail into them would take forever so I will list a few and just discuss the most important one- Equality under the law regardless of ones religion, equality under the law regardless of ones sex, equality under the law to practice nonabrahamic faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, the Bahai religion, the right to not be hanged for being a homosexual, the right to not be stoned to death for any reason, the right to dress in a manner that makes you happy, the right to be a Muslim and leave Islam for a different religion if you so choose, the right to construct new houses of worship, the right to maintain old houses of worship, the right for nonmuslims to construct homes as large or larger than that of the muslims, the right of jews to not wear yellow identification patches (originated in Al-Andalus/Spain), the right of Jews and Christians and others to ride horses as well as donkeys, the right for all people to serve in the army, the right to not pay a "protection tax" , and many others.

These are all characteristics of the Islamist movement and many can be traced back to Umar's Declaration or the Umar Pact. The greatest issue though is the question of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Western Civilization has not made up its mind over whether or not individuals have the right to say whatever they want and publish whatever they want. We saw this last year I believe in Denmark with those tasteless cartoons. More improtantly, we see it throughout Europe in the form of blasphemy laws which make criticizing a recognized religion illegal. AS Americans we need to decide whether or not we want to continue having this freedom with the full recognition that losing this freedom along with the right to bear arms (another crucial freedom) will result in the decay of other freedoms as it has in Europe. For example, there was a march in Belgium against Political Islam that was put down by the Belgium government.

--Dan Greenbaum

Anonymous said...

the right for women to not have to endure female circumsion, a painful and humiliating process that girls go through around the age of ten in parts of Africa may be another one of the issues. This particular one I am uncertain about as it is a very old tribal practice that predates Islam and is only practiced in a small part of the world relative to the entire Muslim World. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken about this- she is also wanted dead by Islamists and actually had to flee her home in Holland to Washington DC where she has full time body guards. Her crime-
1) working on a film called "submission" about the treatment of women in the middle East with Theo Van Gogh. Theo van Gogh was murdered with a 5 page paper stabbed through his chest containing threats towards Ayaan, America and Jews
2) Being born a Muslim and leaving the religion. shes an atheist now..

-Dan Greenbaum

Anonymous said...

In contrast to Tony Blair and George W. Bush, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is pursuing a different strategy in dealing with terrorists (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/news/terror.php).

Brown's focus is on winning hearts and minds within the Muslim community, while being careful not to alienate potential allies with clumsy rhetoric. Obviously, Muslim extremists are a real threat and I do not believe, despite what critics might say, that Brown's approach is comparable to appeasing Hitler.

As the Frontline documentary pointed out, the Iraq War has been counterproductive in our goal of fighting terrorism. The idea of even declaring a war on terrorism seems somewhat ridiculous in and of itself. It elevates the jihadists to the position of an honorable soldier, of warriors who are fighting an empire. Do you think jihadists would rather be seen as Bush and Blair see them, as being important enough to declare war upon? Or do you think they would like being pegged as mere criminals and thugs as Brown is doing? The romantic ideal of the pious Islamic warrior is reinforced by the rhetoric and labels of the "war on terror."

Perhaps those who speak about the need to recnognize the threat for what it is need to look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

i just wanted to say to sara that you did a really good lecture i can tell you have a passion for what you are teaching but to the question about how the US and the west in general should conduct its war on terror has changed due to our discussion today .. at first i thought we should definitely stay over there until we straighten things out and the situation over there is more peaceful and things are more set up.. but after the discussion today i realize things over there will probably never be completely peacefull because they are trying to get rid of all the people that are not muslim in their land and due to the fact that everyone interprets the quran differently some people think the message is that they are still supposed to be killing the christians, jews, and infadels.soo i feel wether we stay there or not there will always be uphevel
Kristin iorii

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting topic with little constraints on it. Having said that, for us Americans it is obvious that our number one goal should be thus, how can we A-stop terrorism, and B - Give the Middle East in general a good view of America. Now by solving one of these problems you may very well be solving the other. To get America a good review several things are necessary. The War in Iraq must end. Currently there is no end in sight, but an end will come. The War in Iraq have made America look like nothing more than the figure head of the world. Though we were once the shining example for the world to follow, now we are no more than the country that is in charge. Now America is well known throughout the entire world for torture, wiretapping, hiring agencies that kill the innocent (Backwater,) and a host of other despicable things. American image may be forever tarnished, this does not help our war against terrorism. A war which one would assume should make others not want to attack us, rather than making others hate us for the things we have done to their countrymen and what we stand for. Although ending the war in Iraq is the number one thing that must occur for the Middle East to stop hating us, there are many other things America must do to lighten their image. Personally I believe that getting off of oil to power our cars would help. That alone would get Americans off foreign oil which would get Americans almost completely out of Middle Eastern business if we were also out of Iraq. It's just my opinion, but that's my opinion on how we could BEGIN to change the view of Americans in the Middle East.

-Christopher Fromme

Anonymous said...

Recently, there has been a proposal by the LAPD to execute a mapping program of Islams in the Los Angeles area. It has recently been denied, and I think for good reason. With the many political Islam movements taking place in our society today, singling people out for their religion is not the answer. The main concern that we should be focused on is uniting our country, regardless of religion, to eradicate those terroristic groups with radical ideologies. We need to educate our communities about the different types of Islamic movements and show that the majority actually hold moderate views. The jihadists in the Middle East attempt to distort the Quaran's teachings and use Islam as a political means to unify and create an entirely Muslim holy land. At the end of the day, the most important action we can take is to educate and inform citizens of our current situation to prevent future terroristic ideas and stop the emergence of these radical ideologies.

--Mike Poznansky

Anonymous said...

I think that one of the most important aspects of fighting a war on terror, is to make sure that there is a free flow of information involving the war - if you are dealing with an uneducated public (an audience that believes that all Muslims are terrorists, let's say) things may get blown far out of proportion, and sometimes even to the benefit of those same terrorist groups. For example, the perpetuation of a sentiment of hostility towards all Muslims (coming from such a belief that all Muslims are terrorists) only validates the objections of the jihadi/terrorist groups. If (for example) the United States shows hostility towards all Muslims without differentiating between those that actually pose a threat and those that do not, even those that had not posed threats, may view the opinions of the jihadi groups with a little more friendliness. After all, if we call them terrorists, treat them with suspicion, act as if they (those from Muslim communities in the US) do not have equal protections under the law, then why should the peaceful Muslims not become bitter and suspicious of US intentions? If we are calling them terrorists and discriminating against them, that perpetuates the idea that Americans are against all Muslims (even the those that are citizens) including the peaceful ones. Why should they not return the hostility? But if there were a freer flow of information, one that would seek and be successful in disseminating the truth, that not all Muslims are terrorists, this situation could be avoided to some extent.

~C. Faith Woodworth

Anonymous said...

I have really enjoyed Sara's lectures on Islam. It has changed my view on America's involvement in the Middle East. While I don't agree with terrorist's decisions to attack other states for being different or modern, I now have a better understanding as to their beliefs and rationale for doing so. what really scares me though is that we're fighting a seemingly endless war. If terrorists won't stop until the whole world harbors their beliefs, why aren't we changing our tactics? I believe that Bin Laden was glad we invaded Iraq. Our invasion stirred even more feelings of hatred for our way of living and our personal beliefs of freedom and liberty. The invasion strengethed his argument that we are indeed attempting to morph the Middle East using our ideals and standards. I believe that in order to start taking the right steps towards some kind of peace, we must leave Iraq.

-Heather Starner

Unknown said...

In the complex modern world, wars now adays are fought on numerouse fronts. The approach the current United States administration has taken toward Political Islam has had two completly undesired effects. We have strengthed the extremist leaders and weakened the moderate leaders of Islam. Although we may feel that our model of government and Democracy is the most fair and just form of governement we simply have to accept that it cannot be succesful everywhere throught the world. I think our current stragegy of aggression and hostility is heading nowhere. If we continue to fight fire with fire this war will never end. That is why something shurly has to be done and changed in order for their to be any form of peace in the future.

While I think the United States should continue its efforts in locating terrorist cells within our own boarders, I think we should scale back our military efforts outside of our own nation. Our military campaigns are doing nothing more than making us look like the bad guys. Rather than bring war to theese lands I think we should bring aid and humanitarian efforts. The majority of these Islamic movements become violent because their followers are poor repressed people who feel unrepresented. It is not the wealthy upper class that become suicide bombers it is the poor children who know they are destined to a life of poverty. We need to help these poor people and give them a better alternitive to life than blowing themselves up. This plan may seem a bit utopian but I think it is worth a try because our current policy is heading nowhere.

-Dan Shainker

Anonymous said...

hey, im very uneducated on islam, so i am glad we are discussing it in class, and am trying harder than ever to pay attention. however, one thing that stuck in my mind that frustrated me about islam is the offensive jihad i believe it was? where people of islam want to get rid of everyone else that is not a islam, just because? and in there minds, that is acceptable, and will not stop until everyone is islam or something? and they will always hate the rival tribes just because of who they think should have been the successor of the profit muhammed? That is the most stupid thing i think that i have ever heard that dictates politics, and apparently justifies a group for attacking innocent men women and children. for some reason, for the first time ever, i felt disgust for Islam, and filled me with rage. Am i paratly correct when i say that the reson for all the animosity and belligerence between the rival tribes is because of an opinion? I was dumbfounded when i heard this. I thought, screw it, get rid of all those ignorant uneducated morons that are responsible for causing so much death, pain, and suffering.
-Ryan Harrison

Anonymous said...

The problem with the western view of Islam is we lack a general understanding of the religion. Most Americans hear the word islam and quickly jump to the notion of terrorism. If we take a step back to look at Islam we can see that the basis of Islamic faith is very similar to Judiasm and Christianity. The media and politicians have generalized Islamics as a threat to America. The problem the west faces today is the extreme Islamics who carry out terror in the name of religion. We have waged war on the enemies of the U.S. but, our enemy is not clearly defined. In the times of WWI and WWII, there was a clear distinction between "Good and Evil". The good guys were the Allied powers and the bad guys were the Axis powers. Today we wage war on enemies that can be found in many countries all over the world. The current administration has chosen to wage physical war in areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq. We have been met with a very hard task of stabilizing peace in these regions. In order for the western world to wage a successful campaign we need to look toward alternate forms of warfare. I believe the best way to achieve success is by using the power of persuasion. The basis of Islam is to wage war on it's enemies until all are dead or converted. We know this will never come to be. Instead of waging physical war the western world needs to give radical Islamics a reason to reject their destructive ways. Better schools, living conditions, and money are all reasons that could potentially change such radical views.

-Tommy Luginbill

Anonymous said...

In all honesty, I believe that the methods the U.S. is currently employing in the War on Terror are entirely inappropriate and detrimental. The commentator in the movie we viewed in class was very correct in his assessment that the U.S. is trying to fight 1980s terrorism, or something like the IRA. The War on Terror is not a conventional military war. It is a war for the hearts and the minds of the Muslim people. Moreover, the very fact that we invaded two Muslim countries like we did only hurt our reputation as a benevolent country; the War on Terror is very much responsible for the surge in the number of Muslim terrorists, as it appears as vindication of the teachings of the radical, pro-Jihadi imams.

- Luke Kaczmarek

Anonymous said...

I find political Islam extremely interesting. I loved Sara’s lecture and was upset I had to miss last Wednesday’s class due to thanksgiving. I think that if our government took the time and learned what we were getting into instead of just acting we would not be in the situation we are now. Nevertheless, I stand by the idea that we need to stay in the Middle East and finish the job we started. We need a new plan that would be made for the Islamic world. We cannot continue to force our ideas of right and wrong on these people. Doing so will only lead to further hatred of the west. The only way to combat the extremists is to show the people that the west is not evil and that toleration is more beneficial to them.

Kaitlin Keelan

Anonymous said...

I think that it is important to ask ourselves if it is America's ignorance which is the reasons for even stronger feelings of hatred in the Middle East. I would agree with previous bloggers and restate that the Western Hemisphere is a completely different world than the Middle East. We can try to continue to impose our ideas of democracy but this will remain uneffective because the Middle East simply does not want our western beliefs a part of their lifestyles.

I deffinately belive, as Sara’s powerpoint mentioned, that our government needs to identify the terrorist groups of Muslims and not automatically assume that all Muslims are terrorists. I feel that when people become more educated and become less ignorant is when we can truly and effectively tacke the rise of Islamist movements and parties. However, I feel that from the lecture I better understand that there may never be peace in the Middle East whether or not our forces stay there, which is unfortunate but true.


I also really enjoyed Sara's lectures and I feel that I learned a lot.

-Erin Donahue

Anonymous said...

I believe that the main reason for a rise of Islamist movements is a resistence to globalization dominated by the West that is taking over the world. Those who want an Islamic state are for obvious reasons oppoed to connection and cooperation with the rest of the world. I do not side with them, but I think this is the main premise for their behavior. As for the war on terror, the biggest setback has been the war in Iraq. By eliminating an admittedly oppresive, evil regime, we set the stages for a civil war and massive amounts of terrorism, while at the same time tarnishing our reputation in the Middle East. Therefore, we must target terrorists if we are going to fight a war on terror, and if our goal is about human rights and removing tyrranical dictators, then we should commit to that. Our foreign policy priorities need to be straightened out.

-Brian del Guercio

Anonymous said...

The conflict between the Middle East and the U.S. will always exist. The ideals that Americans have such as democractic government and social equality are just plain incompatible with polical islam. The Jihadists who take a strict interpretation of the Koran, will continue their struggle to undermine the western way of life. Although the Jihadists are a somewhat small fraction of Muslims, they have proved to be a suitable force through terrorist acts like 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings as well as others. They believe that the world must be ruled under Islam and that no other way is right. Likewise, America believes that the only way to live peaceably is through democracy. Regardless of which political system would create a better world, these opposite poles are unwilling to compromise at the center and this is why there will never be common ground between these two ideologies.

John Dalo

Anonymous said...

In response to the last post-

I do not believe that a war on terror is limited to a war on terrorists - a war on terror is a war on the tyranny, hatred, and despotism that mark the actions and intentions of not only terrorists, but many leaders such as Saddam Hussein. Allowing regimes (such as Hussein's) to flourish and to continue in its destructive and oppressive manner, would in turn allow those very same terrorists the opportunity, resources, and support they need to continue their own belligerence. So, in overthrowing Hussein and committing ourselves to the war in Iraq, we are actually eliminating part of the terrorist base (the relative safety lands such as Iraq provided to terrorists) as well as removing one of the main forces perpetuating terror in its own right.

C. Faith Woodworth

Anonymous said...

That last post was in response to the second to last...

Faith

Anonymous said...

I thought that the power points in class on Political Islam were very informative and gave a good background on Political Islam. I did not really know a lot about Islam but now feel that I have a decent background on it. I also thought that the video in class was very good because it showed from first hand experience what the civilians in the middle east are going through. It showed, as well as the lecture that there are many different types of people in the middle east as there are anywhere in the world. I also thought that it was interesting that different types of Islamists practice different types of things inside the religion.

-Robert O'Reilly

Anonymous said...

To me, there really is no immediate way to solve the conflicts that we have faced dealing with the middle east. The struggle in the middle east and the one between the U.S. is not ending any time soon. There are so many different ideas of ways to approach this conflict of two completely different worlds if you would say. The U.S. strives to spread democracy around the world to prevent unjust killings, inequality, and terrorist attacks that the middle east is so strongly composed of. We all need to realize an important thing, that not all middle eastern Muslims are terrorists. Saying this, The U.S. needs to better identify what our objectives are in the middle east and to not lay dormant their because it is killing our troops and just spreading more animosity towards us. We need to stop terrorism which should be our number one objective rather than just trying to control everything. By stopping terrorism or just constricting it we would be able to create a better middle east and incorporate our democracy rather than incorporating religion with politics. Political Islam shouldn’t be able to co-exist in our world because it consists of many radical parties that want to spread the Muslim religion all over the world and will not stop until they do.

- James Squillante

Anonymous said...

There is a perpetual conflict between "western" ideas of government and statehood with those of Islamic ideas of government and state. The basic principles that each idealogy is founded on disagree with each other. The world has to figure out how these two systems can coexist when they are fudementally different and constantly conflict with eachother. I think the key to this is really education about the other side. For example, the U.S. can't just fight a war against radical Islamic ideas, the U.S. has to understand the goals and aspirations of such a movement if it is ever able to stop or gain any ground against it. I also think those radical movement wouldn't be as powerful as they are now if the members were educated about the U.S. goals too. The war on terror needs to be conducted with the Islamic movements that are fostering in change and reform to the regions that benefit the citizens and hurt the exremists. If we were able to make protagonist Islamic movements in the middle east more populair, the war on terror would be won easily. I think if the U.S. knew more about these movements and were able to give the people who support them what they want before the parties got it would give the U.S. credibility toward more muslims.

-Brendon Butler

Anonymous said...

When Sara mentioned the Jihadi groups and how they will never stop trying to make the whole world into an Islamic world, it made me think that maybe we should stay in the Middle East until all these groups are disabled. Knowing that they will never stop attacking all non-Islamic people, sometimes I think that it’s pointless to keep trying to get them to stop. Ultimately though, these groups cannot stay active. It also seems impossible to me that countries like Iraq can ever become truly democratic the way the US would like because of their ideology that God should be incorporated in all aspects of life. In the US there is a strong separation of church and state and that doesn’t seem plausible in Islamic countries. Sara did mention that Iraq used to be a democracy, but that was when there weren’t any legitimate opposing parties to the Islamic candidate. I really enjoy learning the history of political Islam because it gives me a better sense of what is going on in the present day and why certain things are happening with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-Katie Dunn

Anonymous said...

The concept of Politics and Islam is something that is realtively new on the to the modern world. As nations that are predominantly Islamic become more modernized we are faced with the radical difference in concepts between Western style governments and Islamic Governments. This will create challanges especially with the world climate as it is now. Many people have difficutly indistinguishing the difference between radical Islamists and how most people interpret Islam. Radical Islamists present a difficulty on the world seen because they are a very effective and violent orginization. As an orginization too they operate on self suffucient cells that can operate cooperatively or alone. The current war and fighting in Iraq and terriost activites are making it difficult for people to accept modern day potical Islamists. Until global misconceptions can be overcome Islam will never be fully accepted as a political solution.

~Kevin Wright

Anonymous said...

I think there are many different answers that are right concerning what to do with the war. My first thought was that we should go to war just to prove that we will not easily be attacked and we will defend ourselves and retaliate. But after we have gone to war I wonder was much actually accomplished? It seems that there will be no peace due to such strong nationalism between the 2 nations. We believe in different transformations but are fighting to accomplish the same objective. The United States are attempting to impose democracy while the Middle East is forcing Islam.

-Jessica Stecker

Anonymous said...

For starters, I do not want to get in a political debate with anyone...I will honestly not do well. I wanted to let Sara know that she did a great job with her lectures/powerpoints and I actually understand far more than I did last Monday about political Islam (I still don't know a lot, and that is why I don't want to debate with those who do :D )

The general idea that I got from reading all the prior posts is that Americans are uneducated concerning Islam, the Muslim religion, etc. Many people feel that if Americans were to actually understand why we do not approve of what the Islamists are doing then we would not be fighting this same war. I find "The War on Terror" is not cooperative enough.
I also think that some critics of our gov't our too harsh in their immediate reactions to Bush's decisions--again, I don't want to insult or anger anyone.
There is one post in here that mentions a long list of rights that, as Americans, we claim to protect. Muslims are often looked at disfavorably by the American population, and this does not help our cause as a benevolent country. All of this tension and hatred does not solve problems...

--Megan Pettingill

Anonymous said...

The war on terror is very controversial because you have the people who agree we should be over there to make peace and resolve the conflict but then you have the others who agree there really will never be peace over there because of the different sectors of the religion and of the country. I would say that I would have to question what are we really doing? We are fighting a country that is fighting themselves and we are trying to solve their problems but I think it has to be more understood that Islam will always have problems because of their religion and the radicals in the religion that are promoting terrorist.
The first discussion of Sara's lecture on Monday helped I think almost everyone better understand the Islam society and the movements within. It is not the muslims it is the groups within like the Jihadi groups that will use violence to achieve their means and the enemy is the state. But on the other hand you have the Revivalist movements that will not use violence to achieve what they stand for, and are not considered terrorist.
I think it will be a constant battle because there should be more education on this matter. People need to be able to further understand what really the problem is within the religion and the groups in Islam.
-Kelley Thompson

Anonymous said...

The rise of Islamist movements and parties is very troubling for the western world. In light of what we have studied in class, it is clear that no matter what foreign policy the west enacts, the Islamic world will still be out to destroy the west. There are members of the Islamic world that will not rest until the entirety of the western world is brought under Islamic rule. Just like the war on drugs, the United State’s war on terror is a scary idea. The United States thinks that I can win a war against an ideology using solely military force. This simply is not the case. The Bush administration simply does not understand the mindset of the people that they are fighting. After the September 11th attacks I could not understand the motivation of the suicide bombers that day. The story that was presented in class makes this all clear. The main leader of the attacks was approached by a beautiful woman at a party, and felt guilty about his feelings. He turned this guilt into hatred toward the west. The belief structure that this man was being affluence by was radically different than the one that people in the United States are being raised under. This belief structure caused this man to hate the west. From his point of view, keeping in mind that he believed in everything his god told him in his holy book, he was completely justified. The simple truth is that the average American would not be able to understand these ideas. The war on terror is really a war on fundamentalism. Ideas, and not guns, are the only way to win this war.

-Ryan Davenport

Anonymous said...

I agree with the thought that we are fighting a country that is fighting itself, which is a fact that I think many people would come to agreement on. However, even with the divide in whether or not to use violence to achieve its goals, we are still fighting a nation that has a history of disapproval of many Western notions. For over two decades, there has been a large outcry in the radical sectors of the Islam nation against Western civilization, with an stated intent to try and dismantle it in any way. I think one of the worst things people can do is claim that we have provoked the current situation, and that it is our fault, when this situation has been brewing for many years. The current situation we are in is one of a lot of misunderstanding, with both the West and Middle East making the wrong assumptions about each other. I feel as if a disappointingly large number of Americans would probably assume that we are just fighting every Muslim (obviously wrong) and a similar number of people in the Middle East would just assume that all Americans are against their religion and beliefs (also obviously wrong). Because of such misunderstandings and poor education on different cultures, a bad situation was made into a much worse one, leading us to where we are today. However, now it seems to me like there is a little more shared understanding about each other, which will hopefully begin to help the situation we are in.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, there is not one single way that the U.S. and the West can stop terrorism or even the spread of radical Islam. There are things that we can do to try to contain these threats. I think we have to try harder to understand these people and see what their reasons for believing this way are. Sara was able to give the class a good understanding about what may drive these people to have this mindset, but that is only a small class of college students. These things need to be taught to the country as a whole so we can begin to put together rational solutions to these problems. I do not know what solutions would be effective, but I do know that if we focus on what is really driving these forces as opposed to strictly focusing on the violent side of them, then we may begin to gain a greater understanding of what might help to slow down or even reverse the violent movements that are taking place all over the world.

-Ryan Pierce

Anonymous said...

When takling rise of Islamic movements and parties, the War on Terror is the right policy.
The War on Terror is nessicary because the agression shown by Jihadis cannot be left unchecked. When Jihadis are left unchecked, a small minority of the population, like in Afghanistan and Somalia can forcefully take over the country and silence all moderate voices. If the U.S. is going to be successful in defeating extremism, it needs moderate voices in the Muslim world.

The War on Terror has been criticized by many for making the U.S. less safe, but this argument has problems. The premise is based upon the fact that there was greater involvement in Al-Qaeda after 9/11 than before the attacks. I ask, would the alternative to the War on Terror, America caving into the demands of Al-Qaeda following the September 11 Attacks not have also increased involvement in Al-Qaeda? It would have given it a significant accomplishment to recruit new people around the World.

Britt Chalmers

Anonymous said...

The United States, in my opinion, should devote its efforts to allying itself with as many nations as it rationally can in the middle east. Those states that support terrorist groups or do little to stop them within their own borders like Iran, should try to be negotiated with to stop this mess. The U.S. should do its best to gain as much help as it can in dealing with the terror issue. This is why the U.S. should do its best to try to be more friendly towards middle eastern nations that have many cells operating on their territories. We cannot police the entire world and make sure every terrorist is brought down. We need the help of the middle east to be intolerant of these terrorist groups as they are taking the legitimacy away from their governments anyway. Perhaps it is not possible for this to happen, but it sounds like a good strategy if the circumstances were right.
Jordan Naftzinger

Anonymous said...

Fighting terrorism is a very difficult task. Anyone anywhere could be a terrorist, and identifying possible terrorist activity is not easy. Terrorism is rapidly becoming a grave concern in Europe. Like the film said, terrorists cross over the strait of Gibraltar into Spain, and from there can access the rest of Europe with much ease. Many social issues come into play when trying to fight terrorism, like the use of racial profiling and if unfair methods such as this should be used. It seems as if most terrorists we deal with are Arab, but that doesn't mean all Arab's should be treated like terrorists. Warring with Middle Eastern countries like Iraq only fuels the fire that terrorists run on. As stated in the film, the United States proved everything Osama Bin Laden claimed to be true when we invaded Iraq. That we were there for selfish gain rather than reform. It seems that every action taken against terrorism can also be seen negatively; this only adds to the difficulties faced when trying to stop terrorism. Unfortunately I see no end to terrorism in the near future.

Andrew Deinert said...

Political Islam is a very touchy subject in today's world. However, I recently was able to view a film made by a small time production company. The movie's title is "The War Within" if anyone has seen or would like to see it. I would greatly recommend it. The movie is about a Muslim who, like most Muslims, was religious, but did not follow the Koran exactly. He was living in France and was unfortunately related to someone involved in terror plots. He is kidnapped on the street by a government agency, and while spending time in prison and a torture chamber, he is converted to Islamic Extremism by one of his cell mates. When he moves back live with his family in New Jersey, he is planning an attack on New York City. The movie brilliantly highlights the differences between Islamic extremists and regular Muslims throughout the time he is living with his relatives. It shows the differences that most Americans cannot, or refuse to accept. Not all Muslims are bad people. Islam is a religion, not a terrorist recruiting program. Some Muslims take the word of the Koran to the extreme and are willing to take their own lives and the lives of many others to wage a religious war. This movie showed a lot of important information regarding Political Islam, in that their is a separation between extremists and regular Muslims.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to tackling the Islamist movements, the most important thing, in my opinion, is to combat the acts of terrorism. After watching the film, “Al Qaeda’s New Front,” in class I became more aware of the effects of terrorism on other countries other than our own. On March 11, 2004, 191 civilians were killed at Atocha Station in Madrid. This was a distinct act of terrorism, and what is even more frightening is the fact that it was supposed to involve more bombs and deaths. This is a huge problem that I think we had somewhat of a good idea when we engaged in the War on Terror. I think we need to allow for them to have their own ideas, but not to the point that it can cause harm to other people. In the movie, the question was asked if the Bush Administration underestimated Al Qaeda by using a purely political campaign. There are now 18 million Muslims in Western Europe, which a lot of are being bred into extremist groups because they do not feel welcomed. I think it is our duty to try to combat these extremist groups and keep the people safe. The hard part in doing this is that they are “like a web, there are no direct connections” (also from the movie). I think the police are doing what they should be in other countries and our own, it is important to be prepared and keep their power in check.

-Katy Johnson

Anonymous said...

In the war on terrorism is a very unique war. These jihadi terrorists live on spouting extreme hate in the name of god and because Islam itself is to 'submit' to god, they are consumed by their need to eradicate the western world. The war on terrorism is extremely difficult because terrorists can be anyone; even civilians. All they need are their beliefs and they can blow everyone up in the name of the great Allah. Can we really consider even the smallest possibility of eradicating the world of terrorism?
Probably not.

As we saw in the documentary, authorities in Europe dug deep into the terrorist world and found those responsible for terrorist attacks. By chopping down a terrorist tree in a terrorist forest, it would probably have saved many lives already. You probably didn't understand that but then again, I didn't really understand it either. What I'm trying to say is that if we cut down the terrorists one by one, we can continue in a domino effect where we catch their superiors and their superior's superior and so forth. Catching key leaders of this Jihadi movement is what I think will cut terrorism piece by piece.

-Ben Choi

Anonymous said...

Well, this is a packed issue. We learned that Islam is political, so if we want to respect the Islamist people, we need to come to terms with the fact that the will never have a government like ours, which in turn means that trade will have to be on their terms just as much as ours. When it comes to rebuilding an Islamic nation, we can't just plow through with Americn tanks, plant American seeds, water them with American money, and expect an American government to be in place the next spring. Hell, maybe we should have listened to Iran four years ago. They might have known more about their back yard than we did.

At the same time, there are Islamic extremists who want the world. Our being there is good for us and good for them. They fight us there rather than over here and we learn about their systems. They learn how to fight us and find fuel for the rage. Looking big and strong is not what we need when the issue is respecting diversity between people groups in the mid-east and between governments. And yet, acting defeated and pulling out would be giving the "bad guys" a lot of local political power. If we go away, they will fight the state. If they take the state, they will fight other states. We are stuck with a fight no matter how we look at it. We have life-blood economic interest where other groups have religious interests! What it comes down to is when and where. Pres Bush said "now and in your back yard". If the next pres says "next week at the flag pole", whats the diff? Were are going to throw down one way or another.

Stephane Stewart

Anonymous said...

A few weeks ago, I went to the panel of three professors in the Politcal Science Department on the future of the war in Iraq. What they had to say about the current situation there was extremely interesting and they had insight into what will happen there in the future. As we learned from Sara's lectures in class about the different groups in Iraq, the conflict between them is deep rooted and is hard for us to even grasp because it is so different from our culture and the way we think.

One of the panelists pointed out that while we are occupying Iraq, what we are doing is temporarily keeping some sort of peace between the groups but we are prolonging what is inevitably going to be a civil war between them. He also pointed out that our soldiers and innocent civilians are continuing to die and that we have basically opened up the country as a free roaming ground for terrorists to go wherever they want and test their newest weapons and explosives. Especially after watching the Frontline documentary about terrorist cells, I feel like our efforts are in a way hopeless, at least right now, and it seems like there will never a) be a way for us to realistically pull out of Iraq and try to keep peace there and b) prevent terrorist cells from spreading and causing future destruction.

- Katharine Gray

Anonymous said...

The PBS Movie: Al Qaeda's New Front, provided a scope into the severity of political Islam. The film made it clear that the United States’ current strategy against the war on terror is not working. Al Qaeda is everywhere, especially Europe. Europe seems to be a breeding ground for Al Qaeda to recruit poor, uneducated people who are willing to be brained wash to intentional commit mass murder on un-expecting civilians. These people see this kind of act as justified, saying "an eye for an eye" meaning we are killing their people so then can kill us. Currently, Muslims are the fastest growing population in Europe because they are allowed to gather freely and express their freedom of speech. No amount of military force is going to destroy radical behavior, if anything it will only cause more. I agree with many of the other posts in that the United States must realize that the people in the Middle East are vastly different than we are. Their mentality is far behind that of the people in the United States and therefore imposing Democracy on them is only causing stronger feelings of hatred towards the United States. In order to somehow gain peace in the Middle East we must listen and be open to understand the mentality of the people there. Also, we must understand that there are millions of Muslims that are not terrorists and do not wake up every day plotting to kill innocent people. There are millions Muslims that wake up every day and send their children to school and go to work just like everyone else.
Alison Burke

Unknown said...

Here's some of what I think about our war on terror: who is the enemy, really? Terrorism is a crime (obviously). It is also an abstract noun. How does one wage war against an abstract noun? I think that terrorists should be treated as criminals. It doesn’t make full sense to declare war on terrorism. It would make infinitely better sense to wage a campaign against terrorism with police and intelligence forces. The idea of a war on terrorism is much too grandiose to be effective or real. The Jihadists who create acts of terror should be criminalized, systematically weeded out, and tried and prosecuted over time. I think the US is foolish to try to go it alone too! Our campaign against terrorism should be set up in a way that other nations, who all have a vested interest against terrorism can participate. It should be backed up by military force rather than led by military force. I think that the Bush Administration has failed in key aspects of its leadership tactics as well, such as macho "patriotic" bravura over rational thinking, credibility, and most importantly honesty.

Gordon Lippincott

Unknown said...

The Islamists do not make any true distinction between religion and politics. They have never experienced a religious reformation/ enlightenment movement as Western culture has. The West makes the distinction of separation between church and state. Yet, for the Islamist there is no distinction to be made for the simple reason that no man-made law can be held higher than God’s law, as exhibited in the Quran. So, when we insist on a rule of law to be made up by the Iraqi parliament when the local religious leaders do not agree with it, the law of a secular institution is bound to be unpopular. For the most part, Sharia and the law of a secular state are incompatible. We have completely neglected all social, political, and religious understanding of such Islamists during our stay in the Middle East. We are at war, and when essentially attacking a topic as profound and astute as religion, how can there ever be an agreement? We are flying blind.

Gordon Lippincott

Anonymous said...

There have been a lot of interesting comments made here. I can say with certainty that I have no idea what the best course of action would be in dealing with terrorism and the inherent militancy of political Islam. On the one hand, these people live half way across the world and should be able to run their own governments without our interventions, and it seems that if we left them alone, they would do the same for us. On the other hand, even if we were to just ignore them and let them live their own lives, the human rights that are violated by political Islam are too great to ethically ignore. I think this is a case that can be related to our other November topic about constructivism. There are some things we can do and some things we cannot based on who we are dealing with. In this situation, I am very unsure what method is the best.

-Meg Gallagher

Anonymous said...

No matter how many wars we wage and how many victories we claim it is impossible for the United States and the western world to come to agreements on the major pillars of the problem because it is an ideological issue. It is impossible for them to understand our take on the situation and in our mind they are acting irrational because we do not fully understand their beliefs and views of the world. Our fundamental ideologies are not compatible and never will be compatible. The right action to take is not war but forming relations between the ideologies that foster cohabitation of the world we all live. I believe that eliminating the jihad groups that wish to spread their views over the entire world is impossible because people will always have few of hatred towards the western world and the United States. The key is forming relationships that allow both parties involved to receive some of the things they wish to have. Islamic people are extremely dedicated to their religion. They show this by praying five times a day and believing strongly in the prophet Mohamad. The United States must only military confront Islamic parties that are considered an offensive jihad. The United States can not confront every Islamic party because not all Islamic parties are interested in spreading Islam and using a terrorist agenda. At the same time I admit that it is hard to separate those Islamic groups who are associated with terrorism and those who are no. So in return I feel that American foreign policy regarding the middle east must be one that has strict regulation and control and leaves open the possibility for future military action if need be.

Drew Majerick

Anonymous said...

Although I did not read all of the blogs on this topic my opinions most closely resemble heather's (2nd blogger). The United States government spends too much time trying to make external moves such as negotiations with Islamist countries to combat the problem of terrorism. When new terrorist attacks occur the focus is always turned outward. The government however needs look no further than their own foreign policy to spot at least part of the problem. It is quite obvious that the U.S. current foreign policy does not mesh well with those of Islamist nations. If peace and strong relations are truly the things that are desired the United States might consider altering their way of thinking.It is very likely that the reason radical Islamist groups such as Al-Qaeda are founded is the disapproval of capitalist way of life that is so often pressed upon them by countries such as the United States. I do not disagree with measures taken internally to prevent terrorist attacks because obviously it is in the best interest people therefore I believe these actions should be continued. An educational program about the nation of Islam within our own country however would be an appropriate supplement. This would help avoid the "every Muslim is a bad Muslim" line of thinking. I do not totally disagree with parts of our foreign policy either such as Iraq. A nation who desires a democracy that cannot achieve one on their own should undoubtedly be assisted. It cannot come as a surprise though when the previously mentioned groups violently resist. This is pure speculation but the majority of Americans know very little about it. In fact I am willing to bet that the average Muslim knows more about American politics than an average American. Ignorance is not a good approach to solving any problem. Ecspecially not one as complex as the one found in the Middle East.

---Ryan Shaw

Anonymous said...

The idea of stopping terrorism is something I'm beginning to find fascinating. It seems most of the discussion by lay people involves stopping the terrorists in the here and now, meaning preventing terrorists from entering the country, bording planes, purchasing weapons, etc. But the idea of stopping a force so strong, yet so covert and invisible is obviously so much harder than that. It is far too late by the time they are actually caught. The idea of how these men, and sometimes women think is extarordinary. To stop the ongoing war on terror would mean to stop an entire ideology in a place where anti-west thought is ubiquitous. It would involve something that in essence is impossible. Salafism is not going to end because its followers are targeted, jailed and killed. Instead it only increases the fervor against the west and produces more men willing to martyr themselves. How can an entire way of thinking be stopped?

Eric Mortensen-Nemore

Anonymous said...

I am of the opinion that the best way to deter terrorism on our home soil is to keep terrorist occupied in the middle east. To this end, I agree fully with current US actions throughout the middle east and feel that an abrupt withdrawal of US forces from the region would result in a greatly increased terrorist threat on home soil.

Anna Post said...

My question would steer more towards how to avoid fighting all together rather than how we can fight against the terrorists. I am not unrealistic to the point that I believe we can create a world free of war and terror. But, I do not think that it benefits anyone to go on fighting this war in which there will be no winners when people are dying every day. The only way to peace would be if people could accept others for the way they choose to live their lives and try and cooperate enough to live together.

-Anna Post

Anonymous said...

the main thing i have against the political muslim society is the restrictions they set against women. why should women not be allowed all the same rights as men, such as the right to even show their hair. i know it wasn't a big topic in our class but i feel it is something that not only needs to be discussed, but also something that needs to be fixed. it only adds to the unrealistic view of women being inferior to men, which is untrue. although it may not seem like a main issue, this is something that needs to be looked at and needs to be taken care of as soon as possible.

corey wall

Anonymous said...

the muslim society controls a large amount of the oil in the middle east and all across europe. i feel that the muslim government are somewhat being greedy with their endowment of oil they have received. they shouldnt use their excess of oil to make themselves in a better condition that everyone else. they should contribute their excess of oil to the world market to benefit everyone else. this would drive prices down which would create a more stable market. oil is one of the most prominent resources and the way it is being used is wrong.

corey wall

Anonymous said...

I think that one of the things that America is taking for granted is that we need to be involved in middle eastern affairs. its inevitable at this point so i feel as though we should go with the path of least resistance (i.e. pulling troops out of the middle east slowly, as we did with Nazi Germany at the end of WWII.) It is a rational idea and, if carried out quickly and appropriately, should help us salvage so many of the political ties that we have so efficiently cut over the past 6 years.

-Mack Shane

Anonymous said...

I think that "the wall of separation" that Thomas Jefferson called for should not only be the basis of our nation, but rather an internationally agreed upon concept. So long as we have Islamic nations next to Jewish nations next to Christian nations we will inheritently have problems. America was created by a group of people fleeing religious persecution. This should be a priority for America when the US attempts to reform a country. Granted the framers were also seeking a democracy after living under a monarchy, religious freedom should be just as important as setting up democracy.

-Gabe DiPietro

(I REALLY thought I had posted this with my other two posts earlier today).

Anonymous said...

While many people may say that we should simply stay out of Middle Eastern affairs, I feel that that would cause a security threat to the United States. For one thing, we are much too involved to back out now. For another, Radical Islamists wouldn't really care if we kept to ourselves. They have been taught to believe that anything that is not Muslim is wrong. Backing out would only cause us to be attacked more and more. By remaining involved in the War on Terror, we are showing these Radical Islamists that what they did to us on September 11th was not tolerated and will never again be tolerated. While we cannot change their thinking or their will to hate us, we can simply wear the Islamists down. The United States needs to prove that it is not a nation to be trifled with and maybe, in doing so, however unlikely it may be, the radical Islamists will stop with their terrorizing. Even if they do not, the United States offensive in the Middle East atleast keeps them in check. They cannot come here and attack us if we are there containing them. So, however long it takes, I firmly believe in the Bush administration's agenda to stay until the job is done. Because do we really have any other choice?

--Jessica Jackman

Ashley Hayward said...

In the original post, it is asked how we feel the US should tackle the rise of Islamist movements and parties. While I see the problem, and threat, of those who take extremist views, I don't like this question's wording. Generally speaking, an Islamist movement wants to have Islam as both a religious and political entity, and does view anything else as wrong, and wants to replace those other views. However, it does not imply that all who believe in Islamism are taking those measures which we associate with these movements, namely terrorism. I will not be one to suggest that I know all there is to know about the subject, but the fact still remains that to lump all Islamists together, as Americans often mistakenly do, as terrorists, is completely unfounded. It is sad that as a country we have come to the point where the world is so binary: Us vs Them, East vs West... and this is another great example of these stereotypes being perpetuated. This being said, I don't think we have the right to "tackle" the rise of these ideas, when we say we promote tolerance and freedom to choose what you believe. At the same time, we should not stand idly by while some groups take these ideas too far with terrorism. It is a very fine line that we must walk to balance what we are doing - in not oppressing political views, but also not letting them go too far out of hand. As for how to do that, I wish I knew.

Anonymous said...

I think the most imortant thing that the U.S. must think about is "How can we stop terrors by the Muslims?" It seems no body knows when this war will end. No body knows that the Muslims would stop terroring, inspite of that we would withdraw the troops in Iraq. I think Muslims are very religious and it is hard to change their belief. In order to stop this war and remain peace, we should end the war and try to persuade the Muslims that the West is not evil. To be Frankly, war only causes revenge. However, it is hard to decide that whether we withdraw the troops there will not be any more terrors. I think at least we should end the war and try to think of how should we defend from the Muslims. So my point is that we should leave Iraq and also stop the enlarging amount of Muslims to prevent future terrors.

- Kim, Hyo Suk -

Anonymous said...

Personally, I feel as if the conflict going on in the Middle East is very prevalent in society and our lives. I think the main focus of the United States and the West in tackling the rise of the Islamist movement should be how we can accomplish peace throughout that part of the world. The terrorism going on throughout the Middle East is a huge dilemma not just for that section of the world, but the entire world. I feel as if the United States must respect the countries of the Middle East, but at the same time be very aggressive in its demands on how each country should conduct its work on declining terrorism throughout the world. As of right now the United States is the most powerful/hated country in the world and that is why for the safety of our country as well the world we must crack down on this radical Islamic movement to prevent further terrorism attacks like 9/11.

- Eric Goodman

Anonymous said...

I believe one of the reasons that the U.S. has been unsuccessful at dealing with Islam (in particular radical Islamists)is their perception that we are hellbent on imposing "western" values and our way of life on them (granted this may be true). To counter this perception we need to commit ourselves to understanding the specifics of what it is we are doing that makes them want to lash out at us. I think that Islam itself is emerging as a political power due to globalization because the power of the traditional nation-state has declined; and we must be committed to communicating with them (as they are a legitimate power in this sense). I also think it is important to note that Islam is not just a traditional ideology that is "anti-west", rather Islam has multiple identities that are different depending on the country. We would be wrong to categorize all Islamist states as the same in our strategy to communicate. Instead we should seek to understand the goals of each muslim society, and communicate accordingly.

-Mike Werch

Anonymous said...

I must admit before I took this class, I knew very little about Islam in terms of the groups within the actual religion. After that lecture Sara gave explain the different type of Muslims, it brought a lot of thoughts to mind, the first being that not all Jihadi groups should be considered terrorists, after that, the more passive, internal, non-violent Jihadi groups believe there are better alternatives than violence for both conversion and religious pride. My next though was why not target specific Jihad groups and remain in the Middle East until we’re able to dwindle the numbers of the more aggressive Jihadi groups. After thinking this through, I realized that this would be impossible, there’s really no possible way to pick apart Islam and only leave the parts that work well for us, because then it would turn political Islam into democracy, and in my opinion that’s already going to be nearly impossible to do in the Middle East.

-John Georges

Matt Swank said...

To agree with the post above me, I really was a bit ignorant as to what the big deal was with the Middle East and why many groups were unhappy with the United States. The tough part about fighting terrorists is that it is a relatively small group of muslims living in states that are cooperative with the United States for the most part.(On a side note Iran has said they have halted work on Nuclear devices). It is clear that after the war we havent done much but anger more people. A good strategy would be to try and understand Islam better because there is no way that they are going to be getting smaller anytime soon. Hopefully our next administration can try to become more friendly with the "good" muslims while still carrying out secretive mission to control the extremists.

-Matt Swank

Anonymous said...

The time spent studying Political Islam was very informative. One major problem is the fact that many people in the United States identify Islam as a whole to be terrorist. Once more people identify the lesser Jihadi groups and understand their claims more can be done to assist the problem. We are fighting a war on the mindset of these radicals that strongly believe they must preserve their land and move throughout the world. As the war on terror continues the United Sated is realizing it is difficult to change the mindset of these people. Therefore, besides military force other efficient methods are needed to win a war against such ideology.

Francesca Carregal

Anonymous said...

Someone posted above that the US is the most hated country in the world. According to this poll, thats not quite accurate, though not too far off (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17474900/). Its sad that North Korea has lower negatives than we do.


Here is another interesting poll regarding support for attacks on civilians (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html). Although the questions asked of the two groups (Americans and non-American Muslims) were different, it is quite revealing nonetheless. Of course, we have to be careful not to equate deliberate killing of innocents with unintentional killing (aka collateral damage). Still, if you bomb a city with the intent of killing only the "enemy", but you know that you will likely be killing innocent bystanders, is that moral?

Anna Post said...

In response to how the US and the West in general should tackle the rise of Islamist movements and parties, I think our powers are limited in a way. It is impossible to stop the formation of new parties, or even try to restrict the number of members they attain. How could we tell the Muslims, who are one of the largest and most influential groups in the world, how they can organize themselve? The only thing we can hope to do would be avoid having them spread, physically, outside of the Middle East and trying to make amends in order to control the terrorists. I'm not sure how this is possible, other than in our current solution, war, but I hope that some way will soon arise.

-Anna Post

Anonymous said...

Considering how accepting we are of Muslims in the United States and other counties in the world, it is amazing to think how unaccepting "outsiders" are in the Islam world. I believe there are many hypocritical views when it comes to Islam and their belief of being the religion to "clean up" the rest of the world. In every state there are laws and levels of authority. In that one instance in France where the two Muslims girls were not allowed to wear their head dresses in school, the Muslim population was livid. That is an example of when state laws overturn religious rules. Yet, if one goes to Islam and does not follow their rules to the dot, then they are accused of violating laws and much is made from nothing and next thing you know, death is being yelled for the accused. Although in France there is a seperation of Church and State and in Islam religion is state, laws must be abided by in whatever country one is in.

--Kristian Quiroz--

Anonymous said...

The "war on terror", which has been increasingly associated with negative criticisms, is viewed by many as a war of civilizations. The consistent goal of this war is to perserve Western values, which would ultimately destroy the values of others (Islamic movements). With that being said, I believe that our actions against the Middle East and other Islamic nations have been both unjust and immoral. George Bush and his "Republican Party" have steered away from true Republican values, which remain to be values concerned with limited government and not involving ourselves with other nations affairs. Untill there is some sort of change, our presence in Islamic states is uncalled for.

Kevin Moreno

Anonymous said...

I believe that one of the things we could do to deal with the rise of extreme islamic movements and groups is to rethink parts of our foreign policy. This is not to say we should be isolationist but to be smarter. For one we could ratch down some of the aggressive talk on Iran. We had every right to go into Afghanistan to capture those who attacked us. But then we started a war of choice in Iraq fueling claims extremists make against us to recruit more people to their narrow version of Islam. This saber rattling towards Iran is only making it worse.

I think in Europe as we discussed in class with the situation in France that more policies need to be introduced to try to integrate their muslim populations to prevent them from feeling alienated and more at risk to join terrorist organizations.

Charles (C.J.) Augustine

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7129307.stm

A new report just recently came out dealing with Iran's nuclear situation. Apparently there has been confirmed evidence they did have a nuclear plan up until 2003 when people found out about it, and stopped. However, Bush is saying that it isn't enough for us to have found it out on our own, and basically more communication is needed. In the article it almost sounds like more threats, with him saying if they continue on their "path of isolation" that things will continue to get worse. I agree with that concept somewhat, because the fact that they still aren't having a good flow of communication should be looked at as a negative thing in the diplomatic world. I also agree with ElBaradei's statement that if we show our interests as a friendly nation, they will cooperate. I think that we are going about the situation the wrong way, because there is no need to be hostile with Iran if the reports are saying they have no nuclear program anymore. The US should be more neutral in our dealings with this issue, because a lot of people are viewing this as just further acts of unnecessary aggression from us. Also, the fact that we're still trying to get further sanctions imposed against Iran can obviously not be viewed as friendly from them, which is another reason in my mind this doesn't make us look very good in the international world.

Anonymous said...

The Middle East is an extremely tricky situation. While I believe that we should be fighting against terrorism I disagree with the current policies/strategies that are employed in the Middle East. The U.S. cannot just continue to occupy the area. The war can never be won this way. Either a withdrawal or a massive increase in troop numbers is needed. There can be no in between. I also believe that in order to actually catch and hopefully eliminate terrorist threats lies in excellent intelligence which as seen before, we are lacking. Before we enter in another war such as in Iraq, the intelligence must be correct and the strategy perfect. Political Islam movements can never be fully eradicated, you cannot destroy their religion but enough force and a good strategy they can be quelled.

--Matt Atkinson

Anonymous said...

Currently, I have been analyzing the rise of militant Islam in Indonesia. Indonesia, for the most part, provides as with an great example of how democracy and Islam can coexist, which it has done successfully thus far. However, democracy can act as a double-edge sword not only in Indonesia, but in also rising democratic Islamic states. The reason for this, is that while democracy does provide necessary freedoms to those people looking for it, those same freedoms also unchain the capabilities of Islamic groups. For the first time since Suharto left power in Indonesia, these groups are able to assemble, speak out against the government, and even enter the political framework.

The Middle East and Indonesia also share the fact that they are are in bad shape politically and economically. Many of the lay people in both countries are seeking a savior, and that savior comes in the form of Islam. The people are more readily willing to give up certain freedoms or conform to radical Islamic parties is hopes of restoring their countries through Islam.

Tanner Herpst

Anonymous said...

I would like to add an additional thought concerning how the U.S. should conduct its war on terror. I believe that it is most important that we establish better relationships with the Islamic nations that provide a safe haven to these islamic terrorist groups. Our administration is quick to relate the entire islam community to terrorism. But if we take a close looks, the majority of muslims do not prescribe to these radical beliefs. I think we need to do our best to appeal to the traditional islam groups by limiting western influence in hopes of getting their help in identifying these groups.

Tanner Herpst

Anonymous said...

I agree that our government and Americans in general are very quick to relate all Muslim groups to terrorism and hostility. We know this is not the case and only a select few groups enter into these acts of terrorism. However, i believe it is too late to establish a working realtionship with these groups and people. These groups contain members that are completely brainwashed and have little or no fear of death, making them impossible to bargain intelligently with. The only possible hope for these groups was for the rest of the Muslim community to take action and it is quite obvious that such a time has long since passed.

-Ryan Adam-

Anonymous said...

Islamic fundementalism will dominate wolrd politics for decades to come. Their inhumane actions and brutal tactics have forced the United States to declare war on terror. Islamic fundementalist preech hatred and murder. This war needs to be faught like any other war the US has engaged in. We should fight it with absolute determination and vigor. The United States cannot just sit back and expect this problem to go away. It is essential that the US is proactive in our response. The United States should engage in intelligence gathering worldwide and we should use our allies to aid us in our efforts to prevent further attacks. IN addition we should work with non-fundementalists and states in the middle east so that those populations can better understand American policy. However, military action is necessary now and in the foreseeble future to preserve American security at home and abroad.

~Alex Campos

Anonymous said...

Similar to the Cold War, I feel as though a similar strategy will be used in the War on Terror. Despite years of effort to abolish terrorism, we can only contain it at this point. Radical Islmists are going to continue to challenge the western norms without question. With each terrorist eliminated, more arise to support their interpretation of the Qaran. It is impossible to think that we can change the people and eliminate terrorist actions when their thinking is inflappable. Their interpretation of the Qaran is set in stone, where our western society has the possibility to change. Instead of finding an end through changing people who do not fall in line with western thinking, perhaps we should look inward to see what it is that these radical groups hate so much about our culture.

Michael Molaski

Anonymous said...

I am not quite sure of how to stop the extremist Islamic groups. They are small, hidden and relatively unknown and impossible to trace throughout the world. The only idea I can come up with is to stop the problem where it starts. That is the reason why they target the west. The west infringes upon their traditions and lands and resources. We meddle with far to much of their issues mostly over oil. If we gave up our strangle hold on the oil in the middle east. Thus allowing them to live with out our constant interference , I feel many of the radicalists would stop their war of terror. Although some of the salafi groups interpret the Qur’ān directly. This however would call for the whole world to be converted to Islam and people who have this notion I do not have an answer on how to stop them.

-Ryan Wallace

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems that the American government has is trying to see things through the eyes of the Muslims. Of course they see things differently from the Western powers, and although the majority of people don't agree with their view point, there also needs to be some consideration of their freedom of religion. Because America is a nation that has such a strong belief in freedom of religion it is almost impossible for us to imagine living in a land governed by Islam, and although we hear things that horrify us, we need to realize that there is some limit to policing the world. It is a part of the nature of Islam to try to spread the Muslim Religion, however, there must be some way to balance the governments based on Islam, and those based on democracy. I feel that if we are able to find that balance we should be able to live together in a manner without terrorist attacks. This may be a idealistic and naive view, but it would be a wonderful thing to be able to accomplish.

-- bethany kravitz

Anonymous said...

I think when talking about Islam you will hear very strong feelings from different perspectives. I understand that there are many Islamic people who are not any kind of terrorists. But it is hard for most people to understand that. And I honestly think it is a shame, for a small part of a race or religion or what not to make it hard for the rest. But as seen through all of our history this has happened many times.
It is disturbing in many ways though to see how some the "activists" act. In the movie "Obsession" it is just so upsetting the way some feel about the United States and the Western world as a whole. Little children scream things about killing Americans and other very radical things. It is just bothering because it does not seem to be a real good way to ever end this violent movement.

-Kimberly Renner

Anonymous said...

The very nature of the radical Muslims can be scary to people. They preach death to America and will stop at nothing to see their wishes come true. I believe it will be very difficult to have peace with people who want us dead and will kill themselves to reach their goals. There would be no problem for us to leave the radical people alone in their part of the world except for two big things, they have the oil we want, and they want to kill us with weapons of mass destruction. The situation would be much better if we didn't depend on the middle east for oil.
-Geoff Andersen

Anonymous said...

It is interesting how it is portrayed as the war on terror. Such as that of World War I and II. There was a sense of nationalism and patriotism which fueled those wars on and spurred those nations into actions of violence and killings and war. So what exactly is different about the view of this war on terror. The Islamist radicals have this strong nationalism of sorts that do not pertain to any one nation or country but do have this strong faith in Allah and their interpretation of the Quran that unite all those who believe in it. With the world so small with its communication and technology it is easier to spread the word of their beliefs as was shown in the frontline documentary. With second generations of people who do not know where they belong it is easy to sway them and give them a sense of purpose.
With all these new people that Islamists can recruit from all over the world and spread across the world it is already more complicated than World War I and II where you knew where your enemies are. Could this also be a world war of sorts with nations dealing with radicals in nations such as the US, England and Spain?
Does globalization serve as a catalyst for terrorism to spread because of speed and access to educate one's view. If this is one way that Islamist radicals recruit people, than it should also be used by the US and the West to educate the people so that they have enough knowledge that they can judge for themselves and not be swayed.
-Michelle Rana

Anonymous said...

The U.S. should not focus all of their attention fighting against terrorists, but by embracing our own muslim population. Make them feel welcome, and that they are just as American as every other citizen in the United States instead of treating the Muslim population with suspicion. Then, perhaps we will not be so worried about Islamists and Muslims in the United States, attacking us here. Perhaps then we will be able to extend this welcome and kindness to not only Muslims in our own country but also to the Middle East as well. We should all try to understand their culture rather than trying to impose our own.

-Amanda McDonnell

Anonymous said...

It's very late to discuss now, but I was listening earlier to NPR as they discussed Iran. As our president states weekly that Iran is incredibly dangerous, seemingly pushing an agenda towards war against them, a new government report has stated that Iran is not nearly as dangerous as once believed. Apparently nuclear production was halted several years ago. This brings up all kinds of questions regarding what is true. Is Iran simply providing disinformation to throw off its enemies, or is America and the west once again spreading propaganda of a nuclear power being started in the middle east, just like Iraq in 2003. Bush has repeatedly said inflamatory statements like "avoiding WW3." Iran and its leaders are not right, but I do not believe the US is acting correctly either. What is the public supposed to believe?

Eric Mortensen-Nemore

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed Sara’s lecture on Islam, it has changed my view on America’s involvement in the Middle East. We need to realize that not all Muslims are terrorists. I think we should somehow end the war and try to think of how we can be secured from the Muslims. So I think that we should leave Iraq and also put an end to the increasing amount of Muslims to prevent future terrors. I agree with a previous post about how there are many hypocritical views when it comes to Islam and their belief of being the religion to "clean up" the rest of the world.

-Brittany Monteiro

Anonymous said...

I don't see the "war on terror" ending any time soon. This is an extremely difficult war to fight especially when the "enemies" are not easily identifiable. However, some steps should be taken to ensure national security. Muslim fundamentalists need to be found and punished for their crimes. The United States could also present itself as less antagonistic to the Middle East. For example, the U.S should not get involved in every little Middle Eastern dispute. Furthermore, the U.S could make its own Muslim population in America feel more welcome by being more accepting of other culutures and beliefs. THe war on terror should not just be fought with the U.S military, but also with policies and strategies that don't antagonize nations and cultures.
-Roopa Sabesan

Anonymous said...

First off, to stop terrorism and construct a war on terrorism, we need to stop the actual terrorists. Not attack people who look like terrorists. Not all Islamic people are terrorists, just like not all terrorists are Islamic. I feel that the western view is Islam can tend to be very stereotypical. People tend to be irrational when it comes to Islam. They see an Islamic person and think "terrorist" or "Al Qaeda." When in fact, Al Qaeda is only one Jihadi Group in the world, but they tend to be seen as the largest representation of an entire nation.

-Eric Boruta

Anonymous said...

All due respect, but I must take issue with Sara's characterization of Hamas and Hezbollah as "non-violent" jihad groups. We're talking about groups whose intent is to kill innocent civilians, who regularly bomb marketplaces, and who think nothing of blowing up buses full of Israeli children. I know she said that the groups are only acting violent because they are under occupation. We can leave the debate about who rightfully belongs on the land for another day, but we have to understand that Hamas and Hezbollah are not targeting the Israeli army as much as they target innocent civilians. Anyone who does that is a terrorist, should be called as such, and should be dealt with as such.

~Josh Shannon

Anonymous said...

In response to political islam there are a few key issues that need to be adressed. The United States felt that the previous goverment was not working in favor of the US, because of that a Democracy is being forced in that region. Democracy will never work in Islam for numerous reasons. In that region of the world there words that they already live by; the Quran and the Sunna. These two books are what most of the population basis a majority of their daily decisions on. This is a religion that is also a lifestyle. Democracy is a politcal system that demands the understanding and compassion for majority rules, and everyone has a voice. Within these religions it is the word of the book, not the word of the people. These ideals are perhaps what sheild the followers to the fact that the words in this book may harm others. Terroism if rooted out of radical JiHadi groups that think what they do is justified in the eyes of God. It is hard to say that we as people that live in Western Civilization can ever understand why people would fly planes into a building because it is God's will.

Elizabeth Lodge

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately today's views of terrorism have been purposely distorted to support such "War on Terror", and as a result the Islamic image has been disturbingly harmed at least in the United States as a result of the adminstration's misinformation.

When people like President Bush or Guliani stand up infront of millions of viewers and lie to them...when they say that these "terrorists" and "extremists" hate America for its "freedoms" and its "values" and its "democracy", they are essentially lieing. When they link things such as the unfortunate attacks on the World Trade Center to Islamic terrorists attacking us for our freedom, what they are failing to acknowledge is a recurring falacy in American (and ultimately, western) foreign policies.

A lot of the animosity that has grown in the middle east has risen almsot directly from US foreign intervention. Whether its overthrowing rulers, arming rebel groups, or turning its head at genocide, these different policies have created strong hate towards our country that has led to the rise of such terrorism. While there may be some resentment of US government that is the basis of Political Islam, ultimately it is the US foreign policy that has allowed them to not only take power, but grow in numbers and have somethign to rally behind. And as our administration continues to ignore this, as others have in the past, it is only likely to get worse (especially with war with Iran looming in the future).

-Nick Sarlo

Anonymous said...

i believe that the west should stop the main influentual islamic leaders from spreading their terrorist believes to more muslims thruout the world. Also the US should pull out of the war and reorganize the military and prepare for imvasion from more terrorist attacks. its better to keep forming allies and plan out a way to stop the spread of terrorist ideology. th terrorist have an upperhand because they take their time to form a plan and attack, but the US is making decisions along the way which is costing us billions of dollars and death of many soldiers without moving a step forward.

Anonymous said...

the last blog was mine

ddepina

Anonymous said...

I think that the way for west and the U.S to attack this issue of terrorism is to first back out of the middle east. I think that we as Americans think so highly of ourselves and that know country in the world hates us. The middle east for the most part hates us. We have to understand that they do no want to have there way of life the same way that we live our life's here in the states. It is proven that the Middle East does not like us from the Frontline show that we watched in glass on IRAN. For the U.S to benefit from this situation they need to pull out of the Middle East and beg for forgiveness and i feel eventually if we go back to being a neutral and understand the whole Political Islam movement then their threats will cease.

-Andrew Unthank

Anonymous said...

Somebody in this thread said something about an end to "the fight against terror" or something along those lines. This simply cannot happen, at least not with the way nations across the world are dealing with each other. The thing that should be kept in mind is, yes, while we have a newfound understanding about Islam because we learned it in class - do you really think the CIA hires somebody with no background on Islam as a culture, a religion, and the beliefs of its people? Do you really think that the people who are controlling the situation have no idea of the background of the area, or its people? Those people certainly already know, and are just uncertain as to how to handle things now. The fact is, the majority of people are becoming more and more aware of what everything that encompasses this situation, and I for one have an easier understanding of the fact that we really have no clue what to do anymore. What we thought would be a simple battle turned into something much more, almost a battle of the will. Whether or not we are willing to accept the fact that we are not treating many countries in the Middle East, while they may be doing the wrong things, the right way. There are certain ways to handle and go about things to get goals accomplished, and I would say that currently the US hopefully realizes, but sadly just doesn't care about that right way, because we have already chosen a certain path we must follow.