The most important factor in the rise of Islamism is, IMO, its nature as a political ideology.
The point is you're writing long passages with lots of stuff in them punctuated now and again by rhetorical questions which often seem at best tangentially related to the debate and that I often genuinely can't answer because I can't figure out what they mean. When I write I'm at least trying to keep it simple and ask you direct questions which you are deliberately not answering, I think it's unfair to say that I'm dismissing things out of hand.
Firstly, I've answered all your questions.
Secondly, my questions are crucial to my argument. They relate to the situations which have given rise to Islamism. The fact that you don't see how they're related is puzzling to say the least. For instance, I asked, are people reading the Islamists themselves or at least studies of Islamism - no response. We're discussing the rise of Islamism, it seems pretty obvious how this relates to the discussion. I want to make sure that we have the same understanding of what Islamism is and what it represents. I'm not sure that we do.
But that's because you don't need to talk about an Islamist thinker to say that someone who has a bomb dropped on his house is going to be annoyed with the person who did it. If such a person then finds a load of fundamentalist nutters who hate the bombers for ideological reasons will he not be tempted to join them? That's basically the simple point I'm asking you to concede. Do you agree with me or not?
No such bomb exists, no such person and no such house. I am talking about Islamism, for fuxake, not about the wretched of the earth!
Tell me what you think here and why it is relevant?
Islamism is a totalitarian political ideology that seeks the Talibanisation of the world. It is not a rational response to a lack of political representation (or whatever), nor is it the natural and obvious outcome of Western intervention in the region (or whatever) but merely the latest fascist mass movement to come out of the Middle East. It's origins lie in the reactionary religious movements in Islamic history and with the crumblling of the Ottoman Empire. Islamists want a return to the glory days of Islamic Empire. At no point does Islamofascism seek to address the supposed wrongs of Western intervention (whatever they might be), but has its own positive programme of holy war and sharia law.
During the post-WWII years there was an influx of ideas (Fichte, Marx, Fanon, etc) from European romantic and socialist movements into the Middle East, as well as increased travel and study between the Mid East and the West. Mein Kampf was translated and remains popular to this day. Arab socialism and various nationalist and marxist movements arose (Baathism, Pan Arabism, etc). Anti-semitism became a serious problem in a part of the world where it had never existed before, basically as an import from Europe. Islamism arose as one of these many factions in the Middle East. It would be arguing for the same things even if there had never been any Western presence in the Middle East.
These are the two principle causes of Islamism: the fall of the Islamic Empire and the political milleu of the Middle East in the 20th century.
Regarding your straw man thing, you entered the debate saying,
"wouldn't it be truer to say something along the lines of "after all the years of non-leaving-alone we've done we can't just leave them alone 'cause they might be a bit annoyed"?"
You suggested that Islamic terrorism is an expression of annoyance at western "meddling" in Middle Eastern affairs. You said that the US stoked the fires that lead to 9/11. Those fires, as far as I can see, were basically the presence of US troops on al Jazeera (to defend a sovereign Muslim state, remember) and America's role as the seducer of Muslim minds (jahillya etc).
The demented nature of those reasons demonstrates Islamism's nature. Islamism is nihilistic, in love with death, it is violence in search of a cause and it doesn't matter what the West does, whether it seeks the appeasement or the destruction of it, Islamism exists on its own terms.
No. I've pointed out that you cannot say that Western Imperialism has not exacerbated and strengthened the ranks of Islamism. Once again, do you disagree with this?
Just a straight answer would be nice, I would be happy now if you only answer this question with a simple yes or no answer. I've asked this in several different ways at several different times and you have never given an answer, please, please do it now.
"Western Imperialism" entirely misses the point, as I think I've covered in a lot of depth by now.
