The Birth of Militant Islam

Islamist terrorism literally didn't exist before the '80s. It simply wasn't a thing. Pre-'80s, post-war terrorism was mostly the deed of separatists or right-wingers. And even then, most '80s attacks were perpetrated by Iran-backed, Shia-dominated militias like the Hezbollah or the Islamic Jihad Organization with a modus operandi significantly different from what we're used to today.

Hamas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban were founded not earlier than 1987, 1988 and 1994 respectively. Attacks associated with fanatical Sunni Islam didn't become prominent until the '90s. The first major attack on Western soil was the WTC bombing of 1993, which left six dead — a relatively unimpressive death toll by current standards.

It would have to wait until the 2000s for Islamists to be associated with devastating attacks in the West — September 11, the Madrid train and London underground bombings. ISIS was founded as a splinter group from al-Qaeda in 2006, and that's the group most attacks are related with in the 2010s — including those in France.

So… What the fuck happened?

Other urls found in this thread:

CIA happened. You are forgetting that Russia was the very first and much earlier target of such attacks. There is some cosmic justice, that it eventually left Russia alone and diverted its' full attention to the ones who created it.


Are you thinking of the Russain hostage crisis of 1995-2004? I figured those were first and foremost associated with Chechen separatism even if it did feature an Islamist component.

The Iranian Revolution, the Soviet operation in Afghanistan and the Grand Mosque seizure happened, all in 1979. Also SU socialism lost its international appeal and was replaced by religious fanaticism as the base of the anti-imperialist movement in mid-east.

Chechen separatism morphed into Islamism due to the Saudis spreading wahhabism.

The Soviet Union had huge influence over the middle east and most of the area backed them in the cold war. funding islamists was a way for the US the undermine the Soviets.


One of the biggest contributors was some obscure Egyptian cleric formulating a religious justification for terrorism against Israeli civilians in the 90s. It just escalated things massively and it spread out from there. Kinda like a meme, it became a thing with a life of it's own, mutating and multiplying.

I have a hard time believing a single individual had that much influence over the course of events tbh.


Seriously, watch The Power of Nightmares, which also draws direct parallels between the foundations of fanatical Muslim terrorism and the origins of western neocons from disillusioned Trotskyites. For another bizarre accident of history tied into this, it is plausible that the current Muslim terrorist infatuation with suicide bombing can be tied directly to WWII kamikazes, through an infamously insane Maoist group called the Japanese Red Army.

Imagine how different the world would be if Marx was never born.

Uh? Makes no sense to me. The Japanese Red Army expressed nothing but utter disgust for Japanese nationalism and the country's conduct during WWII. They were allied with the secular Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and both were hesitant at best when it came to suicide bombing.

But Marx was not "obscure" by any stretch, if anything he was one of the foremost figures of his era.

Their attack on the Lod Airport is commonly cited as a key moment for the formulation of suicide tactics in the region.

I've never read such comment about the Lod Airport attack. Would you mind directing me to some article or study?

You're thinking of Sayyid Qutb and his interpretation of jahiliyyah.

I think you're leaving out the role Iran played during the Iran-Iraq War in popularizing the tactic.

Yeah it did, you fucking moron.

I'm not even denying that your narrative has some validity - the increase in Islamist violence was directly related to US funding and intervention, and in history overall the most extreme and violence-prone Islamic doctrines came about from the reformation. Just don't say stupid shit.

Those two attacks were irrelevant scuffles initiated by African-Americans loosely associated with Nation of Islam. The so-called "Black Muslim" movement and Shia or Sunni Islamism basically have nothing in common and you would know if you weren't historically illiterate.

Islamist terrorism was not a thing before the '80s and mining Wikipedia for a couple of obscure "counter-evidence" to prop up your contrarian credentials won't change a thing about it.

yeh nah you're a cunt m8

Terrorism is just a method.
Modern islamism, which literally has been influenced by european fascism, is a century old.

TBH suspect the us allowed a terrorist attack to be carried out, although they might not have known the details, which turned out to be 9/11
It fit their policy goals, it was a good moneymaker, it gave the Americans lisence to incorporate the Islamic world into their empire by "saving it from the terrorists"

hello where are the proofs

No, not Qutb. Qutb was not a cleric.


so who pays the bill?
there must be some accounting books
someone has to manufacture all the military grade shit they use

Saudi Arabia and the US

9/11 was a false flag

Are y'all really going to pretend that Islam wasn't spread by the sword when it was first created?

So was Christianity. Learn how historical materialism works user. Religion is a fundamental part of early power structures.

Illegal drugs play a bigger role in militant Islam than lefties care to admit. Lefties pray towards Mecca five times a day wishing that you never realize this, and that the Drug Wars end sooner than later.

Well, if the US didn't fuck with the middle east, and leave them a shitload of guns (thanks obama), they wouldn't be doing all of this
Also, If some country invaded yours, and killed your parents when you were a child, wouldn't you want revenge? You don't need religion for that…

christianity wasn't the state religion till 325 moron

pretty sure medieval muslims didn't use suicide bombers

I see no reason to discuss "original" Christianity since it was little more than strange little jewish cult prior to its institutionalization.


You're no false fag, tell you what

What even is "modern islamism" ?

Muslim brotherhood, islamic revival movement, etc.

I didn't mine wiki for the Hanafi Siege - my folks worked in DC when it happened, across the street. I'm well aware that the Nation of Islam is basically a load of shit mysteriously founded by a borderline Islamic illiterate.

Neither of the ones I cited were actually perpetrated by Nation of Islam members - Hanafis (Sunni) and Sunnis respectively, instead.

We can also look to the Mahdist Wars, maybe - which was a straight uprising, traditional warfare and thus not really terrorism. But a similar pattern - religious fanaticism pitted violently against colonial rule.

actually they employed a similar technique, the assassins against the crusaders. they were suicides attackers, not bombers though. explosives as we know them today didn't exist in the middle ages.

Yadzergazerd called he wants his empire back, plus he wants to live until puberty this time before being made halal

al-Qaeda is CIA, Bin Laden is alive and on a private island in the bahamas, hes an agent like Noriega
Taliban was the Muhjahadeen financed and supplied by both the CIA and China, the Taliban while not directly created was a result of American and Chinese war strategy like the Khmer Rouge was a result of American war strategy in Indochina
ISIS is a straight up Mossad operation working in conjunction with the CIA

the reason attacks associated with Sunni Islam werent a big thing until the last few decades is because most of the middle east was under the thumb of Ba'athist dictators and strongmen who kept these towelhead fanatics under the boot
before that they were insurgents causing trouble for the British and French mandates in the ME
and before that they were bandits raiding Turkish caravans and burning/attacking Turkish garrisons
it doesnt matter who starts what, Islam is inherently militant and violent it spreads the faith with the sword and only the sword
people throughout history convert to islam to gain the backing of islamic armies or because they are being oppressed by islamic regimes

in the Sudan colonial rule was very much more colonial administration
the native Sudanese would run to the British garrison for safety over the Mahdi any day of the week

no just the Hassassins a violent cult of fanatics who would commit suicide before being caught alive who would be hired by Islamic warlords to murder rivals
Hulagu Khan of the Mongol Empire had great difficulty removing their influence from the ME, in the end achieving it by capturing their leader alive and parading him around the ME making him tell his followers that their religion was bullshit and they should surrender

Christianity was jew offshoot cult for 400 years
it wasnt until Constantine I and the council of Nicene that it would become an institution
and it wasnt spread by the sword, it was oppressive to the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire and also adopted forced conversions but their demilitarizing influence, charity at the cost of bankrupting the state and meek demeanour pacified the Empire to such a degree it opened the gates to allow the Goths, Vandals and Huns to sack and destabilize large swathes Western Europe and North Africa

They did have early grenades, though.

Jesus was a fucking hippie, while Muhammed was a literal warlord. Shit comparison. Islam was always bad.


I just called him a religious fanatic. I didn't say anything about him being good or sane (though he occasionally was still more merciful than his followers, a la Gordon's fate). That doesn't make the British empire (or the Turkish one) infallible, either. The people who rose to challenge them were just crazy bastards.

they didnt rise to challenge anything
with islam its a constant my dick is bigger than yours game
if the Turks got soft on the tribes the tribes would loot, burn and raid until the Turks put the mad dogs down
same with the British Empire, learned early on the only way you deal with these people is with force
you have to force peace on these people
they have the mentality of a 5 yo, their holy book says they must reign supreme and the one who reigns supreme can do anything they like
they need to be fucked with the big long cock of Europe hard and raw just so they can have a semblance of an economy not reliant on selling slaves in return for gunpowder and rum

ok normally i laugh at thirdworldists but as long as people like you exist i guess their point is not completely invalid.

Now you're just being petty.

I don't think you understand how empire works.

Any empire worth its salt will eventually eliminate violent elements from an occupied nation who threaten the empire's legitimacy. The Thuggees in India, the Picts in Roman Britain, etc. They typically use this as proof of their own civilizing of their subjects, even when they may have contributed to the conditions which caused such practices to spread.

Even though it was mostly the U.Ss fault in the case of Afghanistan it was also sorta the S.Us fault tbh

Islam was also little more then a strange little Meccan cult prior to the hegira.

a pseudo-islamic cult of theives and murderers that terrorised the Indian subcontinent since the Mughal invasions?

the Picts werent eliminated, the Romans did use the exact strategy you describe but only on British Celtic tribes in Britain like the Brigantes, Cantevelluani and the Iceni, the Picts existed well into the 14th century until their independent culture was subsumed by the Dal Riata Gaels that had invaded Scotland and colonised it during the dark ages

a cult that attacked the caravans traveling across Arabia Minor to cut off the desert tribes access to food and fresh water and force them into submission
the first thing Muhammad did as soon as he got enough followers was form a bandit clan, and when the people he attacked had enough of his shit he begged the Himyarite Kingdom for protection so he wouldnt be hanged like the criminal he was

Nah, they didn't attack any caravans before the hegira in 622 they were just a strange little Meccan cult. That these cultists had no real power at this time, much as early Christians did, is no credit to them. They still were disrespectful and intolerant of the ancient Meccan religion.

Abrahamists were the human scum of the ancient world, they were completely intolerant of original pagan religions. The early Christians were this way in ancient Rome and the early Muslims were this way in ancient Mecca, neither of them were any better. It is ridiculous to pretend that the Christian cult was any better then Islam just because it was a slightly different Abrahamic sect.

Islamic states at the time were a lot more progressive than catholic kingdoms. That doesn't mean one is better than the other

Well, they worshiped Kali, so pseudo is kind of an understatement in my opinion.

No, no, they wuz good boys. And the British Empire, too. Everyone wuz good boys, nobody did anything.

They did build a big-ass wall to keep them out of occupied Britain, though, and they pretty successfully painted them as savages because their resistance overall was relatively successful.

Could we please not stoop to Holla Forums levels of retardation please?

Christianity was a destabilizing influence but it also held the Roman Empire together in some form
it destroyed knowledge and oppressed academic thought but it also preserved it, Aristotles Poetics and Metaphysics survived in libraries in Anatolia copied down by Orthodox monks
the Muslims?
800 years of constant bloody warfare in which tens of millions were slaughtered or enslaved
they destroyed Persia, turned North Africa into a dust bowl, annihilated entire kingdoms and cultures from the face of the earth like the Buddhist kingdom of Khotan
when they attacked Ctesiphon they took the scrolls from the Persian House of Wisdom, after the Library of Alexandria it was the largest library in central Asia
witnesses to the siege claimed the muslims threw so many of the scrolls into the Euphrates that the river was dyed black from the ink in the scrolls

is it progressive to enforce harsh religious law and taxes on a populace and do nothing but sit on your arse, grow fat and breed until you have enough men to conquer some other foreign land to acquire more slaves and wealth

do your research they claimed to worship Kali
they were the decievers in Hindi
most of the Thuggee caught and tried were Muslim

Two big ass walls
Antonine was further up
the point of the Antonine wall and Hadrians wall wasnt to defend against the Picts it was to restrict travel and prevent the tribes north and south of the wall of joining together to overthrow the Roman occupiers

Not nearly as harsh as byzantine laws and taxation, which is one of the reasons islam spread so quickly in the middle east.

No the Roman empire held together fine for centuries before Christianity came around. The Roman empire held on for years in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Christianity was always a destabilizing influence which attacked the foundations of the Roman empire. Well after the Roman empire collapsed, you could argue that Christianity continued to be a destabilizing influence in the holy roman empire with the church state conflicts. Christianity, and the church in particular, has always opposed the empire.
The Christians destroyed "pagan" knowledge at every opportunity. They were no different then Muslims in that regard.
You seem to be ignoring that when the Muslims were just a strange little Meccan cult with no power it was the orthodox Christians in Ethiopia (not the 'himyarites') that first offered them refuge. They were brothers in Christ, as Muslims also believe Christ is the messiah. Christians always support Muslims when they can over anyone else. The French supported the Ottoman Turks when they were conquering through Europe, well the Habsburgs supported the Safavids. Christians always supported Muslims throughout history. Their religions are the same, and come from the same place.

The Persians were weak from fighting the orthodox Christian Byzantine empire before they encountered the Muslims and North Africa has always been a desert.

ITT, retards who think it makes sense to compare the biography of Muhammad or the Umayyad conquests with modern-day jihadist terrorism and then derive a supposed ahistorical essence of Islam from that half-assed observation.

It's funny how Holla Forums's vulgar, doctrinaire historical materialism seems to vanish into thin air as soon as brownies are involved.

not everbody who questions the mainstream media narrative is a fascist retard my friend. isis is a creature of the west, enjoy reading these articles that provide evidence and also enjoy doing some digging yourself. hint: wsj is not the only source in the world.

SU shouldnt have been a bunch of imperialists in Afghanistan tbh

Or maybe most of the Thuggee caught claimed to be Muslim. Most sources don't seem to split hairs about either the devoutness of the cult to Kali or whether or not individual Muslim and Hindu Thugs were personally devout in their individual religious backgrounds. In fact, it appears that the most likely scenario in which Kali-worship wasn't involved would actually be one in which the British purposefully tagged the Thugs as Kali-worshipers in order to better scapegoat Indian religion and culture.

A giant wall would be pretty ineffective as an immediate tactical defense, and the Picts were predominant north of Hadrian's wall. It was effectively to keep them out of the area Rome could adequately hold.

There is a huge difference between carefully detailling the role the US played in deliberately destabilizing the Middle East, and claiming that ISIS was flat out created by Israel and the CIA as some sort of false-flag front group. Moreover, there was no mention of the Mossad in any of the link you mentioned. Learn some nuance, faggot.

attacking the source. i like your style. what's wrong with these?
and if you seriously believe the mossad is not as involved as all the secret services of the other powers in the situation that led to the rise of isis and you should contemplate suicide asap.

My greentexting wasn't meant to imply those articles weren't trustworthy, it was merely a way to refer to that part of your message as copy-pasting the links all over again would be unpractical. I have to say though that sometimes attacking the source is warranted when it is known to peddle misinformation.

You're moving the goalpost. You didn't claim the Mossad was merely involved in the conflict (which does obviously make sense), you claimed ISIS was literally created from scratches and propped up by Israel (which is something else entirely — and unsubstantiated).

You know, you can rightfully claim the US and their allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia knowingly turned the Middle East into a shitshow without having to resort to all sort of grandiose conspiracy theories about how I$RAHELL created IϟIϟ out of thin air from a cellar under the Knesset.

no i didn't that was some other guy. i just found your response to him fucking annoying because muh tinfoil XD go back to Holla Forums.

yeh, nah, you're a cunt. i won't dignify your ḱindergartenbullshit with a proper response.

What, the afghan opium trade? and Moroccan hash farms?
What did he mean by this?

this, some turbo-idealism going on here, then again I'm not sure if everyone arguing is a native of Holla Forums

And how the fuck am I supposed to know that? Telepathy?

That's what it is. Claiming Israel somehow outright created ISIS is conspiracy-mongering and that sort of mind process is best left to Holla Forumstards and their pals.

It takes very little to trigger you, it seems.

Soviets WERE imperialist you tankie fuck

easy now little buddy, I didn't make any claim either way on that subject
whether they were really imperialist or not is irrenevant in this case, soviet-supported socialist movements were on the forefront of the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movement pre-80s


The pagans Muhammad killed weren't angels. Just saying.

I'd be pretty pissed too tbh



theism is a mental disease

I always love Will Laren drawings but could never adequately explain why. They're just delightfully absurd and charming.

They weren't evil because they were pagans. They were evil because they were in control.

in control of what? in control of the byzantine empire? nope it was the christians who were in control, closed the academy in athens and the last isis temple on the egypt border in control of the persian empire? nope it was controlled by the zorostastrians who were monotheists armenia? ehthiopia? you guessed it christfags


Terrorism is an adaptation to a world in which naked conquest no longer works. The wider phenomenon of Islam attacking Christendom is 1400 years old, and only temporarily subsided due to the unquestioned dominance of European empires which put attempted jihads down ruthlessly. Shills will blame American imperialism, but the truth is imperialism is the only thing which ever put a damper on this shit.

nice of you to come in with your idealistic 'clash of cultures' garbage but that kind of ignores the fact that most of islamic terror is aimed at other muslims

There's video of Barack Obama admitting that he sent special forces to train ISIS troops.

care to post a link?

Would love to see that.

While not wholly wrong in theory, the misinterpreted accusation you're parroting is far from honest, let alone proven.
At 5:20

In the context of the rest of the speech it's obviously a slip of the tongue. Wouldn't close the book on this one just yet.

damage control much?

I don't know what context are you talking about
but I know that someone invested in the ISIL project, someone propped them up

and I also know that here we have a nigger who "slipped" that it was usa

This is a pretty generic single-word slip of the tongue within a speech about fighting ISIS, it's not even an entire meme-worthy poorly composed remark that sounds terrible even in context.

generic? really?
it was not out of context and it was not random
it doesn't really matter that it happened in a speech about fighting ISIS

you're not doing your cause an favor here. as much as i'd love to have proof out of the mouth of obama or a similar figure of the us establishment that they supported/created isis, this video is clearly a slip of tongue.

We can speculate. Frustration about the Middle-East's position was bound to come out one way or another, it just happened to come out this way. I'd stress militant islamism's clandestine nature; it seems that there's the idea that modern Islamic states are corrupted, and fallen to Western influences. Since these states will not (openly) purify through violence since they need the West, frustration either channels through legalist Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, through the state, or semi-clandestine violence.

Why the Islamic world in particular seems susceptible to rather spectacular violence, at this moment? I couldn't say for sure. It's lazy to deny that something like jihadism, even though the concept has a lively history, would have ethical precedents in how Islam grew. Mohammed, the super-guy you can't say anything bad about, grew the Ummah through outright conquest and his 'rightly-guided' successors continued it. If you are a consistent Muslim, you have to agree at least partly that such rapid and aggressive conquest was somehow justified at the time.

The Islamic Middle-East also has a rich history of violent upheaval; polities replaced one another which a speed and intensity unheard of in Christian Europe (where states like France, England, and the Holy Roman empire lingered on in some state for centuries). In 1000 the Middle-East was (politically) dominated by shiites like the Buyids and the Fatimids. In 1200 the sunnis had competely reversed the situation, and the map was drastically changed. The Ottomans conquered land in Europe, but much more in the Middle East. Again, it's hard to say whether Islam has anything to do with this, but we can say that jihadis can point to a precedent of volatility.

Not helping the situation is the fact that many states in the Middle-East are postcolonial and quite artificially divided, grease for the jihadi mill which declares itself against such artificial borders. This is sometimes hard to get for Europeans, who live in uniquely homogeneous and cohesive societies.

Jihad is a word with a lively historical connotation and development. I believe it is as much about inner purification (or can be exclusively so) as outer violence towards threats to (your version of) Islam. Modern jihadism has its roots in salafism, which is itself a purification movement that wants to go back to the 'roots' of Islam. And how best to purify the Ummah by unshackling it from the colonial-imposed borders, from the 'degenerate' influence of the West, than by glorious violence?

So, to conclude: it's naive to say that Islamic history doesn't give jihadis arguments for violence, and they are probably inclined towards violent jihad due to a yearning for societal purification, perceived to be inachievable outside of violence do to the compromised nature of Islamic states.

Good post, I think the point about lack of legitimacy of the muslim states is especially poignant. AFAIK the Islamic canon contains some texts about how to rule and what the position of the ruler is in general, and that a gud muslim should submit to a (muslim) ruler. A big driver behind these 'revivalist' or purification movements was the decadence and then destruction of Ottoman Empire and thus the Ottoman Caliphate and the Caliph's status as the ruler of the muslims.

Thx for the compliment. Yeah, the Saudi are actually the product of an alliance between the Sauds and Salafists (Wahabis) that then rose up against the Ottoman empire (AFAIK first unsuccesfully).

I think that most muslims do desire 'purity' in their society if Sharia is a good indication of said desire.

Outside of Europe and Central Asia, a strong majority of muslims wants Sharia law as law of the land. Sharia law is another excellent of the Islamic faith: Christian Europe mostly based itself of Roman law AFAIK while sharia law was around basically from the beginning and strenghtens the jihadi argument that islam is political and has a pure form.

Oh, added thought to that last post of mine. I wonder if the harsh secularism of communist regimes dampens the current-day enthusiasm for sharia in European and central-Asian muslims? The lack of enthusiasm seems to be a post-communist characteristic in the pew statistics


>Christians always supported Muslims throughout history

Oh boy.

Christians always support Muslims when they can over anyone else. The French supported the Ottoman Turks when they were conquering through Europe, well the Habsburgs supported the Safavids.

Yeah, for political reasons: they might be a hated enemy, but not the one they were fighting at the moment. The Safavids fought the Ottomans, who threatened the habsburgs, ergo… the Ottomans threatened the Habsburgs, and the French feared habsburg power in Europe, ergo… Christians either viewed Mohammed as a miserable heretic or as a pagan.

Blatantly untrue. It just changed (through Augustine in particular) the idea of Rome from a city, a worldly state, to a divine community of all christians. This is how the Byzantines claimed Rome; through right of law and of being the true and orthodox christians, the leaders of the Christian community. The Russians copied the latter argument when Byzantium fell. Christianity was a glue tying Rome together into a single chosen community, and Rome fell due to centrifugal forces that existed before it became Christian.

Oh and this sentence: Christians always support Muslims when they can over anyone else. The French supported the Ottoman Turks when they were conquering through Europe, well the Habsburgs supported the Safavids – was a quote

thing about sharia is that it contains the brutal shit like chopping off hands and killing apostates but also things like inheritance laws and so on, and impressions of things like that obviously impact how it is seen by individuals and societies. I don't think a SEA muslim is going to first think of beheaded apostates but something rather more mundane when asked about sharia, unlike westerners whose ideas of it are centered on the most unacceptable parts.
after a quick look on wikipedia there's a claim that the legal systems of many modern islamic countries are a mix of sharia and code Napoleon, the latter of which also replaced Roman law in most of Europe apart from some shitty islands
The post-soviet 'stans repress any and all political islam, even of relatively moderate and innocious nature. Perhaps it is for the best, if the Turkish experience can be extrapolated from.

gotta purify the ummah before you expand the Dar al-Islam bro

I think because they're unique in having tremendous wealth, while completely lacking any actual development (not just culturally or politically, but even industrially or educationally), floating idly atop a sea of high-paid Western consultants and near-slave SE Asian migrant workers. Also, the Mideast isn't IMHO infamous for its violence (Africa, and to a lesser extent parts of SE Asia and C./S. America have been far more violent), but for its ability to project that violence across the globe like a plague. The fact that it's full of wealthy globetrotters who are simultaneously Bronze Age tribal warlords causes all of this.

I keep hearing of plans by various regional petrostates to stop kicking the (oil)can down the road and start transitioning their economies against the prospect of sustainable energy killing their golden goose, in particular the new king of Saudi Arabia. That would eventually fix the problem, by forcing their people to actually do something useful, with consequent reforms to their society. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Thx for the answer. To clarify, I was mostly thinking of the shockingly fast rise of ISIS, with its ability to turn violence into literally spectacular executions, propaganda, and expansion. So another way of putting the sentence you responded to is: why does the Middle East seem so tense, so potentially explosive? I think ISIS is rather unique right now in how explosively it rose and how far it could extend its violence.

ISIS is definitely an exception to the norm in the Mideast, a level of antiquarian brutality unknown today in that volume anywhere on earth outside a few berserk warbands like the LRA in Africa. Obviously, the opportunity was simply the failure of so many nearby states at once (nuTaliban in post-invasion Iraq right next door to Syria having a civil war, in the context of the MENA-wide political upheaval that was the Arab Spring), but as for the actual cause, I'm not familiar enough with the region's sociopolitical zeitgeist to know why it erupted into something so insane, considering no prior modern jihadist conquest (Afghanistan, Iran, etc.) approached that level of depravity.

It's not like the pagans of that era werent infamous for child sacrifice and rape or anything. No. Also


I'm going to shill a blog that details how life in Afghanistan was before modern fundamentalist Islam. It's from a Shia women, but what Iran did was pretty much the same what the Saudi's tried only better organized as all Iranian things tend to be.

do you have down syndrome OP? yes it did

What about the Partition of India, Hindus and Muslims on both sides attacked one another. Sri Lanka?

source: my anus

It's a documented fact, altars for human sacrifice among other evidence are well known throughout the Mideast. That said, #NotAllPagans did these things, and even those that did, didn't necessarily do them most of the time (an example from Europe being the Romans, who beyond their first couple centuries frowned on sacrifice even during extraordinary circumstances).

Wow, what an argument

quit moving goalposts. you talked about late antiquity. there was no pagan human sacrifice in the middle east for centuries when muhammad appeared.

daily reminder that Sam Harris is right about islam

oh and show me the scieentific papers backing up your claim, thanks.

Sam Harris isn't right about anything

ITT: People desperately defending Reagan era and subsequent neocon policy directly tied to Islamic terror just so they can give their shitty fedora-tier idealist opinions on religion.

t Ben Affleck

Hamas/Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations. When is the last time you heard "Hamas/Hezbollah attack in America"

They are defensive. Not Wahhabist

Lol give it a rest. Even his buddy Dennett knows he's a retard, as does anyone with even beginner philosophy knowledge
Knock yourself out

no human sacrifice in late antiquity, like i said. contemplate suicide, christcuck

oh yeah if you're not familiar with the term, google "late antiquity"

Different poster. Looking back at the reply chain, I see you weren't saying anything I disagree with.

Gonna be a dissenting voice here and say that Islamism is older than that, and not necessarily the fault of imperialism.

Up until about when the old Ottoman territories were partitioned between Western powers, there wasn't militant Islamism because there hardly was anything else. What few socialists and anarchists rose up were exemplarily crushed, the nourgeoisie was nearly non-existant, and there were really no paradigms competing with the Islamic way of life that had been there forever. With European colonization, and especially after decolonization, political alternatives appeared. Socialists of some hue in virtually all new countries, and in a handful there were also nascent nationalist movements. On hindsight, it was inevitable that Islamists would have to organize and become militant in order to fight these competitors.

By now, nationalists have been neutralized, and every time the conflict in a country came down to socialists against Islamist fundies, the West supported fundies, every single fucking time. Now the socialists are gone too, and militant Islamists are the only coordinated political forces in most Muslim countries West of India.

So yeah, Western imperialism was definitely a big factor, but not the primary cause for the rise of militant Islam.

Who gives a shit? Both sides were in the wrong
The US funded terrorists
and the SU invaded a sovereign nation

couple of vids from someone who actually knows what he's talking about

Yeah the Soviets shouldn't have meddled in the internal politics and all, it was obviously imperialism. But after that, the damage was done anyway, and the war was more than justified, seeing as the enemy was the most reactionary band of pederasts in the world.

Woah, you sure got me there. Care to provide even the slightest shred of evidence?

The motivation for such attacks was ethno-religious nationalism, not religion per se. That would be like calling the bombings in Troubles-era Northern Ireland "Christian terrorism", it doesn't make sense.

How do you call armed organizations that deliberately targets innocent civilians? Besides, the Hezbollah was particularly active on an international scale during the '90s — they were notably responsible for the 1994 Buenos Aires Jewish community center bombing which left 80+ dead. As for Hamas, they routinely carried out suicide bombings in civilian areas of Israel and still do — unless you believe firing missiles at school bus qualify as "defensive".

I largely agree with what you stated. Note that I didn't argue Islamism just popped out of nowhere in 1980 — the Muslim Brotherhood already existed in the early '30s and Sayyid Qutb was dead by 1966. My point is that they basically never used terrorism as a tactic until the '80s and that jihadism was nowhere as ubiquitous as it is today.

Look up "The ABCs of Jihad".
The US produced a bunch of pro extremist text books and propaganda for Afghan school children to encourage them to fight the Russians. These books are still being used today to encourage them to fight the Americans.

Exerts from the books include.

Alif [is for] Allah.
Allah is one.

Bi [is for] Father (baba).
Father goes to the mosque…

Pi [is for] Five (panj).
Islam has five pillars…

Ti [is for] Rifle (tufang).
Javad obtains rifles for the Mujahidin…

Jim [is for] Jihad.
Jihad is an obligation. My mom went to the jihad. Our brother gave water to the Mujahidin…

Dal [is for] Religion (din).
Our religion is Islam. The Russians are the enemies of the religion of Islam…

– If out of 10 atheists, 5 are killed by 1 Muslim, 5 would be left.
– 5 guns + 5 guns = 10 guns
– 15 bullets – 10 bullets = 5 bullets, etc.


The west began falling apart after 9/11, is it fair to say he was successful?

Christ alive this is monstrous
I hope Hezbollah again catches some CIA spooks one of these days and gives them the ol' power drill massage, they will never not deserve it

this is what makes me a little bit curious about ISIS as a phenomenon
it's like they are trying to be maximally evil, like objectively evil
so nobody would ever object if they were forcibly removed, via intervention or even invasion, a completely justifiable power grab, a shift in power balance or maybe something to unite countries or heal internal rifts
I'm really not one for conspiracy but I think they had at least media help at least from some intelligence organisation

USSR/Russia was probably the biggest cause of militant Islam. As much as you want to blame it on America, who obviously have done way more to fester the wound since then so are equally if not more responsible, it was the USSR/Russia that created the problem.

How? The PDPA wanted to abolish feudalism and fundamentalism in Afghanistan and to have a secular government, but reactionaries wouldn't have it.

you sound just like people who defend American interventionism. It doesn't matter if their intentions were good, it was still uncalled for and created a bigger problem.