The group in the story you linked to isn't "going around the world". They're in Nigeria.

another expert .... glad to have you aboard, what this forum needs right now is another smartarse, is it blankThucy or MeepThucy?

I think there is an element of truth in what Niggee is saying. There is a radical element to Islam, that seems to cross national and ethnic boundaries, with the common theme being the creation of a/an Islamic state(s) and/or the destruction of Islam's perceived enemies.

Sure you could argue there are radical Christians or Buddists or Jews (all of the above), but these don't seem attract the same level of attention (with the exception of Israel).

This is not to say that all Muslims are radical (they're not) or a majority (not even close) - BUT there is enough of a radical movement in enough countries to make the world sit up and notice. And it seems to be attractive not just to obviously marginalized groups but middle class kids living both in predominately Islamic countries and in western countries.

Why does this exist? How long will it exist for. How successful is it likely to be in achieving its aims in the long run?

I don't think this is a stupid question.

... that said. The thread title is overstating the case and is unfair to Islam in general.

My Muslim friends are not only disgusted by the actions of these self-proclaimed Islamists (which of course they are not if you believe the Koran) but they also have to live daily with the negativity that surrounds their religion.
Is it just the Western Christian media that highlight these events or is there a preponderance of violent armed groups claiming Islamic ties?
Maybe the Koran they read is slightly different?

What is stupid is the OP - the title, "why Islam is not trusted"

Who is it that doesn't trust Islam? Krellin? Someone's bigoted grandmother?
What's stupid is the idea that Islam is untrustworthy or not trusted.

The underlying culture and socioeconomic conditions are what make a terrorist... not a religion in particular.

Don't make me just trawl the internet for links about non-Muslim terrorist violence. Just do it yourself. Ireland, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Burma, Uganda.... and not to mention countless gun massacres in America. How those were not terrorism escapes me. They were attacks on the civilian population carried out for shock value.

I know Muslims who are entirely assimilated and treat their religion with all the modern hypocrisy of most Christians and Jews. There was a Muslim in my pledge class we called the Oil Tank, for what should be obvious reasons. I knew several Muslim girls in college, and only one wore the veil and all were wild left-liberals. I think people like that are the real future, what with the decay of religious observance in our wonderfully decadent modern culture.

But at the same time it is a reality that you sure see a hell of a lot more people killing people in the name of Islam than you do killing in the name of, say, Jainism or Salvation Army-ism. Terrorism and violence and political authoritarianism obviously aren't inherent, inseparable parts of Islam, but it certainly seems to lend itself to these things more often than other faiths. For all the bad things Christians do, there is no Christian-majority country that has the same sort of draconian religious legal system that Saudi Arabia and (to a lesser extent) other sharia-using Muslim majority states have. Public opinion in Europe and the Americas would never support a Christian terrorist group they way that Islamic ones sympathized with are all over Asia and Africa.

Out of a billion Muslims if even just one percent are all-in on this nuttery that's still ten million people. That's a huge pool of both fighters and sympathizers for international terrorist organizations to pull from. And the number is likely higher than one percent considering how people put up with tyrannical regimes in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia out of submission to their faith, and try to establish even more oppressive ones elsewhere. We should not treat people unfairly simply because of their faith, but it's the height of folly to pretend that there isn't a real problem here and we need to be vigilant and proactive about it.

"Is it just the Western Christian media that highlight these events or is there a preponderance of violent armed groups claiming Islamic ties?"

^ this. Muslim terrorism gets headlines. Mass murders of Muslims by non-Muslims gets a shrug - when it's even noticed at all.

"But at the same time it is a reality that you sure see a hell of a lot more people killing people in the name of Islam than you do killing in the name of, say, Jainism or Salvation Army-ism. "

The mistake you're making is to assume that Islam is the defining characteristic of all (or most) violence committed by Muslims.

"there is no Christian-majority country that has the same sort of draconian religious legal system that Saudi Arabia and (to a lesser extent) other sharia-using Muslim majority states have."

No - and the fact that Westboro Baptist Church isn't being funded by foreign governments and billions of dollars of oil money is largely why.

"Public opinion in Europe and the Americas would never support a Christian terrorist group they way that Islamic ones sympathized with are all over Asia and Africa."

I imagine if the Saudi military had bases throughout Christendom, propped up oppressive dictators in Christian countries, and killed people by the scores at Christian weddings with drone strikes, Christian terrorist groups would spring up like wildflowers and enjoy very broad support.

"considering how people put up with tyrannical regimes in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia out of submission to their faith"

People 'put up with' tyrannical regimes because they don't want to be thrown in prison or murdered. To suggest that Islam demands obedience to corrupt governments is absurd - the religion (and especially shi'ism) has had a very strong and healthy anti-government streak almost since the beginning. The third and fourth Caliphs, after all, were murdered by Muslims who thought they'd strayed from Islam's demands for political justice.

"We should not treat people unfairly simply because of their faith, but it's the height of folly to pretend that there isn't a real problem here and we need to be vigilant and proactive about it."

I agree with this sentence 100% - but the source of the 'real problem' isn't Islam.

"Muslim terrorism gets headlines. Mass murders of Muslims by non-Muslims gets a shrug - when it's even noticed at all."

Tolstoy is correct on this.

We "terrorize" villages in western Pakistan every day. But since we're a government, it's not terrorism, it's not extremism, whatever.

People kill each other. People are fucked like that. Muslims happen to be similarly, you know, fucked.

You forum-ites probably hate Noam Chomsky but you should read his pamphlet called "Manufacturing Consent" it's highly relevant.

"Public opinion in Europe and the Americas would never support a Christian terrorist group they way that Islamic ones sympathized with are all over Asia and Africa."

This is really interesting and can help us understand terrorism. The IRA was a nationalist cause and Irish Catholic's tended to support nationalism. This isn't to say that the IRA was a Christian terrorist organisation (the IRA were threatened with excommunication) but many Catholics who saw the British and in particular the north of Ireland's Protestants as oppressors supported the political wing of the IRA which added to its legitimacy.

I'm sure that many Catholics would either have not supported nationalism and/or violence but many observers at the time (including my younger self) saw Catholism and IRA as being one and the same. I think many people today who see Islam being connected with terrorism are falling into the trap my younger self fell into. The media certainly had a part to lay in formulating my views.

it turns out those muslim terrorist organizations were mostly created by western intelligence. and actually the british were behind the ira bombings. so who knows how these religions would act in the absence of this intervention. but as they control the media they have made this connection and now everywhere there is the associaton between the religion and terrorism. so it is almost self-fulfilling. kind of like judaism and the state of israeal. the elites are the ones connecting the government of israel with judaism, but without this intervention it would not be the defining characteristic of judaism. i dont think judaism is any more genocidal than any other religion. but due to the media making this strong connection between the religion and the state, a lot of jews feel that an attack on the genocide happening in israel is an attack on their religion.

so... it is intervention by governments not the religions.

"and actually the british were behind the ira bombings." Not according to the daily mail blank flag : ) If you have a source post it, otherwise I'll assume you're on the sauce.

i dont know, here is one - http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_mi5terror_4.html

british intelligence were all over those bombings. just like how italian intelligence were all over the bombings in italy. pretty much every single terrorist attack in the world had intelligence involvement.

and now we hear that the fbi were following those brothers for 3-5 years before this attack? i dont understand why people are so naive to think these attacks are all done by some random non-state actors. things like 9/11 were particularly embarrassing to the official storiers, because it is so ridiculous to think it could have been pulled off by some terrorists in a cave in afganistan.

and further we keep getting leaks coming out proving this or that terrorist attack had intelligence involvement. and as more and more of it is uncovered, some of the particularly brainwashed do not even take that evidence and reevaluate their beliefs. sure the italian government officials had a conscience and spilled the beans on the bombings in their country. or sure that 93 wtc informant somehow got away with secretly recording conversations he had with the fbi, but what about when these operations go according to plan? you all assume they are non-state actors unless there is such a serious error that it is irrefutable that state actors were involved. i dont think this is the best course to find the truth.

Thanks for the link.

Now suppose everything in the article is true. The British Govt had a man on the inside who told the RUC about the bomb and the RUC did nothing to protect their spy. Firstly I want my govt to have people on the inside of suspected terrorist cells, and I alone on this issue? I don't equate having a spy on the inside as "being behind" the bombing. It can never be right for spies to act as agent provocators and such things if proven should be universally condemned.

There is another conspiracy here that you may have missed - unlike you. Suppose there was never an inside man. Suppose the Govt wanted the IRA leadership to become paranoid, secretive and start infighting. How would they do that? I know, plant stories saying the Govt has a spy at the highest level in the IRA. Is this as far fetched as the story itself? You decide.

yes. that is exactly what happened. they planted a story in the media that they could have stopped a bombing that killed 29 people in an attempt to trick the ira leadership (who are probably their agents anyway but lets let that slide).

Think about it Blankflag. You and others like you will believe the story anyway even if it was never published. You also think everyone else ignore the truth even if it is put in the newspapers. On that basis the govt leaking a false story doesn't affect their standing 1 iota.

Also why have double agents in an organisation that is full of your agents?

"i dont understand why people are so naive to think these attacks are all done by some random non-state actors. things like 9/11 were particularly embarrassing to the official storiers, because it is so ridiculous to think it could have been pulled off by some terrorists in a cave in afganistan."

Airplane travel in 2001 was very free. When I was a child, the pilots of any airplanes would let us into the cockpit. Once, they even let my little brother turn a button. It tilted the plane at an angle of about 10° instantly. Pretty frightening. The pilots found that very amusing.

All the regulations came afterward.

"why have double agents in an organisation that is full of your agents?"
what do you mean by double-agent? the media would call them all 'double agents'. it is a scam to convince people that sure, they worked for our intelligence, but secretly they were working for the terrorists all along. or some crap like that.

ok redhouse, then how did they take control of all those planes with combat trained fighter pilots in control of them? if they suspected a hijacking they could do a sharp turn on the joystick to incapacitate anyone standing on the plane. they train for this type of thing. and many of them had military experience.

and how does that explain them being able to pull off the descending corkscrew turn into the pentagon all by themselves when they failed their basic pilots tests and were some of the worst pilots the instructors saw... and nearly all trained pilots cannot do that maneuver.

and of course, how did they manage to knock down three buildings with two planes. the third being reinforced above standards because it was housing sensitive government documents. that is another one.

how did they convince the military to not shoot down the planes - how did they turn off the transponders at the right time - how did they even get all these guys in the country and have them pull this all off at once without a hitch (apart from maybe the hitch of not hitting wtc7 with a plane, as they probably hoped to, but somehow it fell by itself...)

Blankflag - just so I'm clear. You think IRA high command were state appointed people. The state then infiltrates that puppet organisation and that spy rings another arm of the state to tip off what the original puppets are up to and the organisation taking the call turn a blind eye so that the states puppets can bomb innocent people. Do you think any of the protagonists are real IRA members?

but i dont even think it was as simple as just one government. maybe the spies in the american government were told a plane was going to hit wtc7 but whoever was in control of the planes said 'fuck it, we can get more press if we hit the white house' or something so decided to send that plane somewhere else, but the corrupt people in the white house saw it was going the wrong way and shot it down.

because there was that plane that went down over that field. i havent looked too much into it though as to where it was going. all i know is the official story is a complete fabrication.

to maniac, i dont know to what extent was the state and how much were 'useful idiots' that is people thinking they were fighting for what was right. but my guess is it is the same as these 'foiled plots' in america by the fbi.

they go around, find the craziest and poorest and most desperate people they can. they then give them food and money and promise all these things to them. and supply information and bombs and things like that. although in the 'foiled' plots, they stopped the attacks before they happened. but what i am saying is that this also happens with them not foiling anything.

the government typically provides the means to carry out the attacks. there are plenty of crazy people in this world, but without brainwashing by a really good spy and equipment provided they are not likely to go around bombing innocent people.

My blankmind sense is tingling....

oh i forgot another great one, how did they give the bbc psychic powers to report wtc7's magical collapse a half hour or something before it happened. thats another great one to add to the list.

how did they get the timing perfectly to coincide with a military drill of hijacked planes hitting the twin towers happening at the same time? they must be some super-powered cave-dwelling afganis. or saudis. i forget what the deal is with the current official story. because those hijackers are now claimed to be saudi so im not sure how it was all orchestrated from caves in afganistan...

oh that reminds me of another bonus, how some of those alleged hijackers were found alive, oh oops, i guess this guy wasn't a hijacker, ok update the list, the (new)official story still cannot be questioned though.