jedidia
shoemaker without legs
I found this to go into an interesting direction, but I didn't want to hijack the moon-thread for good, so I opened up a new one. here was the last post by Urwumpe:
It might be that the militaric action were counted upon to definitaly inflame the whole thing (after all, the bombings you mentioned wouldn't have occured if the U.S. wouldn't have taken Afghanistan and Iraq). It is also possible that they wanted the U.S. as an outside threat with which muslim nations could associate and eventually unite. Hard to tell.
If you're thinking of others, I don't see how it could have helped the cause. The kind of civil war the islamists have in mind is not waged like we'd wage it. We would establish a different state and them remove those who don't fit, while they rather start killing those who don't fit, which will in the end result in the desired state (at least they seem to think like that).
Apart from that, pressure from Wahabism on gouvernements in islamic nations is increasing steadily. Look at egypt for a very nice example how things can turn when someone manages to convince a people that their leaders are not following the ways of god. The more they manage to convince the average muslim that their teaching is the only real one, the more gouvernements will have to give in.
With all the current trouble with Ahmadinedshad we too lightly forgett that Iran is still a Theocracy, and the true power lies not with the prime minister, but with the Ayathollas. I can't quite figure out what Ahmadinedschad is currently doing. For one, he has to find a way out of the oncomming economical crisies, for which they'd need a lot they can't get due t embargoes, on the other hand he might have to demonstrate that he is on the same political side as are the Suni nations (otherwise it might happen that they become a target for terrorist activity too), and on a third hand he might just like the attention. Difficult to say with a man like him. We can be pretty sure about one thing however: Iran does not support the Isalmists. Their theocracy might look similiar, but they're still Shiites, a fact that can't be taken lightly in an islamic context.
It might look like it, but the statement of Bin Ladin was just too clear... for someone bothering with Wahabi theology at least (which I do only superficial, but I have a lot of friends who are pretty specialiced in this area).
It might be that the militaric action were counted upon to definitaly inflame the whole thing (after all, the bombings you mentioned wouldn't have occured if the U.S. wouldn't have taken Afghanistan and Iraq). It is also possible that they wanted the U.S. as an outside threat with which muslim nations could associate and eventually unite. Hard to tell.
If you're thinking of the Saud family in particular, forgett it. They are the ones financing the whole thing, and they'd be top candidates for the caliphate. After all, the current Isalmistic Ideology is derived from Abdel Wahhabs teachings, who in the middle of the 19th century allied with the Saud tribe, granting them to become caliphs when they spread his "true islam". They were delayed a bit, eventually succeeded, and with the oil findings got everything they could ever need to promote wahabism all over the (islamic) world. They invested BILLIONS in missionary activities through the last years.
If you're thinking of others, I don't see how it could have helped the cause. The kind of civil war the islamists have in mind is not waged like we'd wage it. We would establish a different state and them remove those who don't fit, while they rather start killing those who don't fit, which will in the end result in the desired state (at least they seem to think like that).
Apart from that, pressure from Wahabism on gouvernements in islamic nations is increasing steadily. Look at egypt for a very nice example how things can turn when someone manages to convince a people that their leaders are not following the ways of god. The more they manage to convince the average muslim that their teaching is the only real one, the more gouvernements will have to give in.
First, Iran is Shiite (very homogen), and therewith only involved in the conflict as a potential victim. Shiia theology is in some points quite different fron Suni theology, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the caliphate. A caliph, after Shia teching, can only be a direct descendant of Ali, son-in-law of Muhammed. Therewith, the Saud family is disqualified. On the other hand, Shia Islam is not recogniced as Islam by the Islamists. They are infidels, and would be exterminated if the Islamists ever reached their goals (which they won't. Their strategy simply cannot succeed...).
With all the current trouble with Ahmadinedshad we too lightly forgett that Iran is still a Theocracy, and the true power lies not with the prime minister, but with the Ayathollas. I can't quite figure out what Ahmadinedschad is currently doing. For one, he has to find a way out of the oncomming economical crisies, for which they'd need a lot they can't get due t embargoes, on the other hand he might have to demonstrate that he is on the same political side as are the Suni nations (otherwise it might happen that they become a target for terrorist activity too), and on a third hand he might just like the attention. Difficult to say with a man like him. We can be pretty sure about one thing however: Iran does not support the Isalmists. Their theocracy might look similiar, but they're still Shiites, a fact that can't be taken lightly in an islamic context.
