Shariah is coming! Shariah is coming!

[J Wolfsberger]

...

Al Qaeda is a symptom, an organization for their times. They are political opportunists with an agenda to advance and a willingness to employ any degree of illegal violence necessary to achieve it. ...

Which agenda, to bring this back to the original post, is their own, radical version of Sharia.

There have been a lot of good points raised on this thread, but one that should be added is that Nations (in the capital letter sense) have interests. They also have culturally determined morals and ethics to govern how those interests are pursued. For all the talk of "international community," there is absolutely no consensus on what those morals and ethics should be. (which is why I've always thought talk of "international community" a useless form of intellectual [self satisfaction].)

Whether we like it, or want to acknowledge it, or not, there are:

a. Groups of radical, violent ideologues who draw inspiration, or at least political cover, from a specific religion they have be interpreted as requiring intrusion into all aspects of life. (Not my interpretation, it's theirs.) These groups completely and absolutely reject any notion of internationally accepted morals and ethics in any dimension of human experience.

b. A significant number of people have adopted this radical interpretation as a way of explaining their circumstances in life, whether that be the unpopular American teenager or the impoverished and brutalized Yemeni peasant.

c. There are Nation states that find it in their interest to promote and even encourage these groups as a tool in advancing what they have determined to be their national interest. That interest may be establishing a regional hegemony (Iran) or a tool for redirecting domestic frustrations (Saudi Arabia).

I agree, it's not time to push any panic button over some grand international conspiracy to impose Sharia on the world. But I think it might be short sighted not to recognize that that is a major motivator to many of the people drawn to the violent movements.

[Bob's World]

Which agenda, to bring this back to the original post, is their own, radical version of Sharia.

There have been a lot of good points raised on this thread, but one that should be added is that Nations (in the capital letter sense) have interests. They also have culturally determined morals and ethics to govern how those interests are pursued. For all the talk of "international community," there is absolutely no consensus on what those morals and ethics should be. (which is why I've always thought talk of "international community" a useless form of intellectual [self satisfaction].)

Whether we like it, or want to acknowledge it, or not, there are:

a. Groups of radical, violent ideologues who draw inspiration, or at least political cover, from a specific religion they have be interpreted as requiring intrusion into all aspects of life. (Not my interpretation, it's theirs.) These groups completely and absolutely reject any notion of internationally accepted morals and ethics in any dimension of human experience.

b. A significant number of people have adopted this radical interpretation as a way of explaining their circumstances in life, whether that be the unpopular American teenager or the impoverished and brutalized Yemeni peasant.

c. There are Nation states that find it in their interest to promote and even encourage these groups as a tool in advancing what they have determined to be their national interest. That interest may be establishing a regional hegemony (Iran) or a tool for redirecting domestic frustrations (Saudi Arabia).

I agree, it's not time to push any panic button over some grand international conspiracy to impose Sharia on the world. But I think it might be short sighted not to recognize that that is a major motivator to many of the people drawn to the violent movements.

The Pied Piper is a fairy tale. Bin Laden is not leading the children of Islam to their doom with some magic flute of ideology. He is waging UW and his purposes, while twisted, are political. If the Muslim populaces of the Middle East in large, and Muslim populaces of the West in part, did not reasonably perceive that they were held in conditions of poor governance by the West, their would be little support to AQ.

It is easier to blame Islam and label it as evil than to take hard looks at our own approaches to foreign policy in the Middle East. I get it. That doesn't mean I condone it, and I certainly won't just push of responsibility for my own actions onto some convenient foil.

Radical Islam is no more and no less the problem for western governments today than Radical Christianity was 500 years ago. Sometimes governments bring these problems on themselves through their actions. It isn't about religion, it is about politics.

[SteveMetz]

I agree, it's not time to push any panic button over some grand international conspiracy to impose Sharia on the world. But I think it might be short sighted not to recognize that that is a major motivator to many of the people drawn to the violent movements.

No doubt but my point was that hysterical and nonsensical stuff like the Boykin/Soyster report detracts from our ability to recognize its real role. It's "crying wolf." People stop listening after a while and hence won't hear if there is a real wolf.