Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia and Islam: The End of Peaceful Coexistence?
The Economist ^ | 9/1/12

Posted on 09/29/2012 3:50:42 PM PDT by marshmallow

Until recently traditional Muslims and Salafists lived harmoniously side-by-side in Tatarstan. No longer

FOR years Tatarstan was held up as a model of stability and tranquillity as the Muslim-majority republics of the Russian north Caucasus became embroiled in a separatist conflict that spawned a still-continuing civil war along religious lines. More than half of Tatarstan’s 4m people are Sunni Muslims who have long enjoyed friendly relations with the rest of Russia. Kazan, the regional capital on the Volga river 450 miles (724km) east of Moscow, is a prosperous and attractive city.

That sense of calm has changed since July, when assassins shot dead a prominent Islamic leader, Valiulla Yakupov, and nearly killed Tatarstan’s chief mufti, Ildus Faizov, with a bomb detonated under his car. The exact motive remains unclear but many in Kazan seem to think it is related to the public campaign of both men to combat the rising influence of Salafism, a fundamentalist form of Islam.

In Soviet times, Islam in Tatarstan was largely a means of ethnic identification and had something of a “folk” character, says Akhmet Yarlykapov of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Yet in recent years Salafism, which has gained followers throughout the Muslim world, has made inroads in Tatarstan, especially among the young. Migrants from the republics of the north Caucasus and the post-Soviet countries of Central Asia have also spread more conservative interpretations of Islam.

Estimates of the number of Salafists in Tatarstan vary. A local mufti, Farid Salman, says the public figure of 3,000 is probably far too low. The older generation and those in official religious structures are wary of the Salafist groups, seeing them as imports and gateways to radicalisation. After he came to office in early 2011, Mr Faizov started to remove conservative imams and banned religious textbooks from Saudi....

(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Islam; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: alqaedarussia; globaljihad; islam; israel; russia; russianmuslims; terror

1 posted on 09/29/2012 3:50:44 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Islam and Russia have been co-existing peacefully?

Then who the hell are the Chechens? Or in some parallel Orwellian universe, have the Russians and Chechens always been at peace?

They NEVER had these kinds of problems under Stalin.


2 posted on 09/29/2012 3:59:19 PM PDT by alloysteel ("You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

A bit misleading. Political Islam is largely an invention of Moscow itself, which used Islamo-Marxism is a tool to turn the Muslim world against the United States and its allies. Many known Muslim terrorist leaders have had ties with the Russian KGB/FSB. In fact, Alexander Lintvenenko, the fellow who was poisoned by Polonium 210, had alleged that Russia had recruited and trained Al-Qaeda’s former number two man (now number one).


3 posted on 09/29/2012 4:00:21 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

There is no living peacefully with islam - ever.


4 posted on 09/29/2012 4:13:00 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
There is no living peacefully with islam - ever.

Yep.

Even muslims can't do it.

5 posted on 09/29/2012 4:14:26 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1348 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I was in Tatarstan in 1994. Tatars flew fighter jets over their capital, there were green flags, crowds of muslims gathering here and there to listen hate speechs from crazed imams. They looked on infidels like predators on their prey. It was pretty scary for non-muslims who knew about atrocities being commited by Chechens at the time, which has started in exact same manner a few years earlier.
All of this islamist crap disappeared in a few days after the First Chechen War started. BBC aired airstrikes and all the dead and devastation. As a rational people, tatars shaved their beards and got rid of hijabs that same moment. Instead of attacking infidels they kicked imams’ behinds down to Saudi Arabia.
My idea of islamism it’s pretty controllable in middle class societies among people who has something to lose. Fear is a main factor. Muslim are pretty calm and friendly people as far as they know that their traditional behavior will bring them hell.


6 posted on 09/29/2012 4:45:34 PM PDT by cunning_fish (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

In fact both political islam and islamist terrorism are British invention. British intelligence is all the way behind Hizb-ut-Hahrir a first of it’s kind terrorist organization designed to deter Israel back to late 40s. Brits viewed Israel a threat and an American tool to take an upper hand over the British influence in the Middle East.
Soviets took a bit advantage from this crap in 70s, true but it was alive and well earlier.
If you really want to look into a Russian-designed regimes and Islamo-Marxism learn about Baathism and look at Saddam’s Iraq, Assad’s Syria, pre-Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and Lybia.
All of the above were secular lower middle class societies to some extent. Islamic extremism was brutally controlled and non-muslims were protected via KGB-style institutions.


7 posted on 09/29/2012 5:11:28 PM PDT by cunning_fish (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I tell ya, wherever Islam goes peace follows.


8 posted on 09/29/2012 5:28:53 PM PDT by yank in the UK ( A liberal mocking Christianity. I asked "why don't you mock Islam?" he replied "Muslims are violent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

It looks like it backfired on the Russians.


9 posted on 09/29/2012 6:48:52 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

The title does not match the fact in the article.

The coexistence in question is (or was) between radical Muslim in Tatarstan and the traditionally (*) quite docile Tartars; in other words, the subject of the article is the ethno-religious politics of a relatively small region inside Russia.

This docility is apparently coming to an end due to the influx of more radical Muslims from, for example, Chechnya.

Tatarstan was a model of peaceful coexistence also in the sense that the relationships between Russia proper, Christian Orthodox overwhelmingly, and Tatarstan, overwhelmingly Muslim, were indeed harmonious. But unlike in North Caucasus, the tension is between two kinds of Muslims, not, so far, between the ethnic Russians and the ethnic Tartars.

However, none of that can be projected to a wider theater of relations between Russia proper (i.e. culturally Orthodox ethnic Russians) and various Muslim lands in the Russian Federation. There, the picture varies region to region: two brutal wars in Chechnya, tense but not violent anymore rest of North Caucasus, peaceful Tatarstan and Bashkorstan.

Of course, Russia lost her satellite formerly Soviet republics, that are now independent.


(*) Speaking of the past few centuries, not the Middle Ages.


10 posted on 09/29/2012 7:39:32 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Tartars are remnants of Great Mogols hordes who invaded and dominated Russia for a few centuries. At the end Russians subverted their culture and government structure making them kind a vulnerable and then militarily destroyed their urban centers. It become possible as soon as Russians fond a way to corrupt some of their aristocracy and Russians also had a firearm technology while Tartars still relied on bows. A lot of people initially welcomed Russian subversion as their lifestyles seemed to be an improvement over their spartan military-style islamist regime. By mid 16th century all the remaining Mogol Khanates were incorporated into Russia and their leadership were killed or forcefully baptized.
Tartars were calm for centuries but some closet revanchism emerged in earlier 1990s.
I think it is very important for Russians to contain it because Tartars are actually a huge minority just like African-Americans in US. They are present in every part of the country in huge numbers.


11 posted on 09/29/2012 8:57:10 PM PDT by cunning_fish (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

This presumes that peoples keep their identity for many centuries. The Tartars were a strategic enemy of Russia throughout the Middle Ages, but at the present time they are one Muslim minority among many, and are much easier to live with than North Caucasian Muslims. The “revanchism” of the 90s was simply asserting the ethnic identity free of Communist lies; every people in the Russian Federation did that, yet only in Chechnya rebirth of ethnic and religious institutions lead to war.


12 posted on 09/30/2012 8:06:03 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain; All
A bit misleading. Political Islam is largely an invention of Moscow itself, which used Islamo-Marxism is a tool to turn the Muslim world against the United States and its allies. Many known Muslim terrorist leaders have had ties with the Russian KGB/FSB. In fact, Alexander Lintvenenko, the fellow who was poisoned by Polonium 210, had alleged that Russia had recruited and trained Al-Qaeda’s former number two man (now number one).

This bears repeating (and remembering)!

13 posted on 09/30/2012 8:19:06 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Especially since the American Left is eager to remember that while Reagan armed the Mujaheddin in the Soviet-Afghan war, but forgets how Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the PLO were all clients of the USSR before that.

The Soviets never considered religiosity of the Third World a big problem as their real enemy was not religion in general but specifically Christianity. As the author rightly notes, Islam was treated as simply a charming folk culture.

On the other hand, Arafat, Nasser, Assad the Dad, and Hussein were not religious man in the Wahhabi mold either.


14 posted on 09/30/2012 12:37:38 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: annalex
while
15 posted on 09/30/2012 12:38:55 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The Soviets never considered religiosity of the Third World a big problem as their real enemy was not religion in general but specifically Christianity. As the author rightly notes, Islam was treated as simply a charming folk culture.

Communism changed after Lenin, who originally still believed in a universal, stateless world system. Gradually under Stalin, and especially after World War II with the anti-colonial movements, Communism morphed into a many-faceted nationalist platform in which jingoistic nationalism was exalted for "oppressed peoples" and their religions championed against that of the "foreign devils," who were usually chrstians of one sort or another. I suppose this is why today our post-Marxist Gramscian Left exalts the shamans and spiritualities of "de, 'ow you say, indigenous pipples" every bit as often as it slams chrstianity with "science" and rationalism. Then there are some combinations of the two: the American Black church, for instance, worships in a fundamentalist style but its ideology and concerns are those of European naturalism.

At the risk of being misunderstood and causing offense (and it is not my intention to hurt or offend anyone here), there is a certain similarity between historical chrstianity and post-WWII, anti-colonialist, Third World Leftism: a "universal" ideology becomes inculturated to various ethno-cultures all over the world, is blended with the folk-beliefs that preceded it, and exalts a Jew (in this case, Marx) who becomes a universal nationalist symbol for every country and people on the earth except for Jews and rednecks.

16 posted on 09/30/2012 2:44:19 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
there is a certain similarity between historical chrstianity and post-WWII, anti-colonialist, Third World Leftism

No, what offense? You are exactly right. All leftism is a mirror-image of Christianity: a worldwide pseudo-religion where the state is worshiped, that picks the social tools of the Church and perverts them into service of its pagan gods.

The anti-Christ will be believed because people will confuse him with Christ. That's all by design.

17 posted on 09/30/2012 6:34:14 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel; RaisingCain
you are correct, alloysteel, Russia has defined itself as being at war with Islam right from the battle of Kazan when Muscowy overthrew the Tatars

Since then Russia has continuously had the Ottoman turks, the Turkic Central Asians as their enemy

In the 1700s they fought 7 wars with the Turks and Iranis, pushing them back slowly

In fact Russia right from 1453 saw itself as the successor to the Byzantine Empire hence locked in a holy war with the Turks. They believed this right until World War I, when one of their aims was to conquer constantinople.

RaisingCain -- I'm sorry but political Islam is the invention of Mohammed

Islam has been political right since its inception. Islam has continuously been against the US and its allies, even before the USA came into being

18 posted on 10/01/2012 1:43:42 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
The problem is that this is Wahabbiism, virulent islam, spread by the Saudis. They do this with the oil money they have been awash in since the 1970s.

The Saudis are the enemy -- they have spread this virulent Wahabbism to the Maghreb, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia etc. etc.

19 posted on 10/01/2012 1:45:35 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish; RaisingCain
about Baathism and look at Saddam’s Iraq, Assad’s Syria, pre-Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and Lybia.

Correct -- all were secular and the jihadis were killed off. The problem is, thanks to Obama, all of that is changing

We should never have taken out Saddam in Gulf War I -- he was threatening the Saudis and they got their "blue eyed slaves" to protect them. By keeping troops on SAudi soil, Osama got the excuse to attack on 9.11

WE have been played for fools since 1990

20 posted on 10/01/2012 1:47:29 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cradle of freedom
Not really -- the Russian supported Saddam and Assad and Ghaddafi -- all are murderous slime but they are secular murderous slime

Now the Russians are supportin Assad while we want to replace Assad with Islamic jihadis...

21 posted on 10/01/2012 1:48:40 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
The Economist is one of the more moronic old media journals still putting out a dead-tree edition.

Have they not heard of Beslan?

Where were they when the Moscow theater thing happened in 2003? I remember being thrilled to read how the Chechen women were executed point-blank while anesthetized by the Fentanyl the KGB pumped in prior to raiding.

22 posted on 10/01/2012 1:59:06 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish; RaisingCain
Also note that many Tatars were forcibly Christianized by the Russians
23 posted on 10/01/2012 2:03:25 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
Have they not heard of Beslan?

The article is about the Tartars, and the peaceful coexistence that had existed in Tatarstan, not about the Chechens. They are about 800 miles apart.

24 posted on 10/01/2012 5:25:27 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Especially since the American Left is eager to remember that while Reagan armed the Mujaheddin in the Soviet-Afghan war, but forgets how Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the PLO were all clients of the USSR before that.

The Soviets never considered religiosity of the Third World a big problem as their real enemy was not religion in general but specifically Christianity. As the author rightly notes, Islam was treated as simply a charming folk culture.

On the other hand, Arafat, Nasser, Assad the Dad, and Hussein were not religious man in the Wahhabi mold either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It’s worth mentioning that Egypt, Syria and Iraq under Russian influence were SECULAR nations. Islamists were jailed and executed there.
As for a Palestinian terrorism it is of British design just like all the political islamism. British idea was to deter Israel as a US client and US itself to keep influence in Middle East. It hasn’t worked for the British and their Frankenstein has broke free. United States made just same mistake in 1980s supporting obvious islamists against Soviets.
Russians HAS considered religiosity of the Trird World a problem and specifically Islam. It was the main reason why an Afghan resistance has gained popularity at the time.
In fact Christianity was a single religion barely recognized by the Soviets. They declared peace with Orthodoxy soon after German invasion in 1941.


25 posted on 10/01/2012 9:16:25 AM PDT by cunning_fish (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

While all that is true, the fact remains that many terrorist/Islamic leaders and movements have been agents of Moscow, and today there exists a not so secret alliance between the Islamo-Marxists and the international communist movement, which, by the way, still lives in Moscow through the “former” KGB and communist party members who have claimed conversions to being mild-mannered politicians.

This is a good article on the subject:

http://leninandsharia.com/docs/preobrazhensky.pdf


26 posted on 10/01/2012 9:46:43 AM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

That is true: the Soviet satellites in the Middle East were largely secular. Militant Islam started to be a problem for the Soviets only after they invaded Afghanistan; but as the other side of the coin, modern militant Islam grew out of the Afghani resistance.

The Orthodox Church of Russia fell to Sergianism — collaboration mode with the Soviet regime in the late 1920’s, I believe. This did not purchase them much if anything: the priests were murdered, parishes closed and churches blown up all the same. There was a small reprieve when Stalin had to hustle the war with Germany; the moment the war was over the reprieve was over also. Khruschev “predicted” that the last church in the USSR would close in 1980; it came close to that.

It is also true that with all atheistic brutality that the Orthodox faced, other Christian churches and denomination in the USSR fared much worse. Baptists and Catholics were simply seen as foreign agents and ended in the prison system massively.

I am not aware of any comparable oppression of Islam. Perhaps I am not informed. Serious oppression of Judaism started when the Jews began to emigrate, in 1970’s. Of course no religion was viewed favorably in the USSR, but the Christians, and especially non-Orthodox Christians or Catacomb Orthodox Christians were markedly worse off than any other religion, in my observation.


27 posted on 10/01/2012 5:32:19 PM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

That is not the point if both KGB and CIA had terrorists as their agents sometimes for some tactical reasons. That is how intelligence works. The truth is Soviets were less likely to ally with islamist terrorists comparing to the West which supported and still supports “freedom fighters” of the worst kind. Ideology was everything for Soviet alliances and militant islam is as far from commie values as possible.
And there are tonns of terrorists who are agents of Washington. The entire Saudi Arabia which is the main sponsor of terrorism is a US client, here goes Pakistan and what?
Once again, it is wrong to equal Soviet-backed Baathists and traditionally Western-backed Jihadists. Baathism proved to be a single way of barely civilized nation-state existance for muslims and it worth supporting for that single reason despite many cons. Jihadism on the other hand is opposite. And it won’t be a friend no matter how much support they got.


28 posted on 10/01/2012 6:11:26 PM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

“That is not the point if both KGB and CIA had terrorists as their agents sometimes for some tactical reasons.”


The CIA, so far as I know, does not use mass killing of civilians as an instrument of global communist revolution. The KGB/FSB has and does. Arafat, for example, was a KGB puppet, as was the entirety of the PLO. They did not belong to the CIA.


29 posted on 10/01/2012 7:22:52 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: cunning_fish

Can you give a few examples over the course of the cold war to the present day?


31 posted on 10/01/2012 8:29:40 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

Since my last comment was removed I think I’ll keep examples from being posted. Anyway, I think US authorities including intelligence agency could play a different role during these Arab Spring events which already led to a numerous innocent deaths, including US citizens. And it seems to be only beginning.


32 posted on 10/01/2012 9:15:39 PM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

Yet remember the we (stupidly) supported the Islamic leaders in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets and we still support the Saudis who are the font of jihadiism


33 posted on 10/01/2012 10:13:16 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
As for a Palestinian terrorism it is of British design just like all the political islamism

Yes, just as that other Islamic nightmare -- Pakistan is also a British creation

34 posted on 10/01/2012 10:16:28 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
United States made just same mistake in 1980s supporting obvious islamists against Soviets.

Correct.

35 posted on 10/01/2012 10:17:17 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: annalex; cunning_fish
I am not aware of any comparable oppression of Islam. Perhaps I am not informed.

Mosques were shut and turned into sheds etc. The crackdown on all religions was hard, but Islam was a particular threat to the communists due to its link with nationalism.

36 posted on 10/01/2012 10:19:40 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish; RaisingCain
c_f . Baathism proved to be a single way of barely civilized nation-state existance for muslims and it worth supporting for that single reason despite many cons. Jihadism on the other hand is opposite. And it won’t be a friend no matter how much support they got.

cunning_fish is correct

37 posted on 10/01/2012 10:20:56 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish; RaisingCain
c_f . Baathism proved to be a single way of barely civilized nation-state existance for muslims and it worth supporting for that single reason despite many cons. Jihadism on the other hand is opposite. And it won’t be a friend no matter how much support they got.

cunning_fish is correct

Right now the best game we could have played was to have the secular murderous dictators in the Arab world fight and kill and be occupied with the jihadis and Moslem brotherhood (ok, the jihadis and Moslem brotherhood are one and the same)

38 posted on 10/01/2012 10:22:17 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thank you Cronos.
The problem with secular Middle East regime is they’ve lost credibility after Arab Spring.
Sand monkeys aren’t afraid of dictators anymore. They won their freedom to kill and rape as far as they aren’t interested in classic freedoms much.
At first it were neocons who stolen the key from stability in a muslim world. But Zero&Hitlery went firther and neglectly lost this key chasing some false political goals. Just to make future generation busy changing the locks or building another door there.


39 posted on 10/01/2012 10:35:18 PM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

Obama has created a much more dangerous world for everyone. However, just imagine what would happen if he gets a second term. boggles the mind, doesn’t it?


40 posted on 10/02/2012 2:20:25 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

It is.


41 posted on 10/02/2012 2:54:20 AM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; cunning_fish
Islam was a particular threat to the communists due to its link with nationalism.

What time frame and geography are we talking about? In the 50-s and 60-s the USSR was happy to promote every nationalism except on its own territory, due to its support of colonial uprisings. Was Chombe nationalist and Lumumba internationalist? They'd go with whoever asked them, and put ideological veneer on it.

In International period (20s-30s), yeah, that was the ideological imperative.

42 posted on 10/02/2012 5:35:29 AM PDT by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

“Yet remember the we (stupidly) supported the Islamic leaders in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets and we still support the Saudis who are the font of jihadiism”


I fail to see how that was stupid,unless you wanted the Commies to have total control over the Middle East, though admittedly they pretty much have that today through proxies and they didn’t have to dominate these countries one at a time either. And it is a myth that Osama Bin Laden was trained or armed by us.


43 posted on 10/02/2012 2:59:19 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: yank in the UK

No, where Islam i made to leave, peace can follow..


44 posted on 10/05/2012 7:35:06 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yank in the UK

No, where Islam is made to leave, peace can follow..


45 posted on 10/05/2012 7:35:13 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson