@Solid444 I don't think our positions are that far apart. I have the feeling that the main difference is that you look at Islam as an abstract thing whereas I look at its actual implementation in reality. In an abstract sense, Islam may not be prone to violence or terrorism, but the actual interpretations that people follow are. That's why I tried to point out that I'm talking about real life interpretations, not some concept. The big elephant in the room here is the question "what are the basic moral tenets of Christianity?" And the answer is that there is no such thing. Christians of all times and places have come to their own conclusions. You may believe that your particular belief is the true one, the one shared by Jesus and his followers, but the same is true for all those Christians that would disagree with you throughout history. It is therefore pointless to debate what makes a true Christian as there is no answer. And the same is true for Islam, which is why I go by the actual interpretations of people. And these interpretations have changed greatly, at least in the case of Christianty...not so much in case of Islam and therein lies the problem. Christianity has become tamer whereas Islam is still almost as archaic as it was in the middle ages. We don't kill adulterers or apostates anymore, but in the middle ages, most people would probably have said that this was the Christian thing to do. In the islamic world, there are still many countries where that's exactly what happens. So if that means that we have cheapened the Christian gospel, I gladly take it.
No, thats not it at all. I am looking at the actual implementation in reality, and that leads me to the conclusion that Islam is not the main reason for Islamic terrorism, whether it is prone to violence or not is irrelevant. The main reasons are sociopolitical factors. This is not abstract in any sense, this is completely based on reality. My other point is that based on your conclusion, you would have to make the same damning conclusion about other belief systems, such as atheism, and once again, whether atheism is prone to violence is irrelevant. The point is that, like Islam, atheism has been used as a foundational belief to bring about violence as shown in the examples that I gave. I think 1) you are completly wrong in making Islam the main culprit in for terrorism and 2) the reasons you have given for Islam being the main culprit for terrorrism are also condemnations of many other foundational beliefs that lead to violence, including atheism. To me, the way that you are approaching this is extremely simplistic.
Well, in that case, you're simply wrong after all It's a functional part of it though. If people in the middle east were radical followers of Jainism, there wouldn't be any terrorism. Or in other words, a belief system like Islam may not be a sufficient reason, but it's a necessary one. And what I'm telling you for the third time now is that you can't just disentangle sociopolitical factors from religion. Religion is part of the sociopolitical framework, at least in areas that are not secularized. You say you get the point, but once again you call atheism a belief system. It is simply not. It's not so hard. There are atheistic belief systems that are problematic, like communism, but that is not the same. Just as there are theistic belief systems that are peaceful, like Jainism. For one, I'm not saying that Islam is the main culprit for terrorism, if anything it's for islamic terrorism. Secondly, I acknowledge that there are many causes, but the particular interpretation of islam is a necessary component. On top of that, you cannot disentangle religion from politics, particularly not when part of the ideology of the terrorists is to have a theocracy. You're confusing things, see above. But even so, if the only reply you have is that my argument applies to more than just Islam, then you have done nothing to refute the argument. As for simplistic, the only simplistic thing here is that you insist on looking at religion separately from politics, culture and society.
You keep misrepresenting my view. First of all atheism can be a belief system and by that I mean that the foundational belief of atheism can lead someone to other beliefs. Bundy and Damher made several dangerous conclusions from their belief that god does not exist and that is a belief system (in this case a moral one) derived from a foundational belief (god does not exist). What you are trying to say is that atheism should not be a belief system and that is fine. However, like you said many times, it doesnt matter what a particular belief system should be, it only matter what people make it out to be. You havent even acknowledged that the belief that there is no god can lead someone to other dangerous beliefs, you instead say that this is not really what atheism is about. However, when looking at Islam, you state that it doesn´t matter what it is really about, only what (a minority of) people say that it is about. This is very hypocritical. Also, if it is true that your argument applies to more than just Islam, then it absolutely helps to refute your argument because if every belief system can be used to rationalize violence, then either this has little to do with the belief system itself or there is nothing unique about Islam. If Christians, buddhists, sihks, jews, muslims and atheism use their foundational beliefs to cause harm, then the real problem is probably not these belief systems. Your claim that without Islam there would be no equivalent to islamic terrorism is laughable. Non-muslims have no problem justifying violence without their islamic beliefs. Christians have no problem justifying murder and this goes for just about every other group, including atheists. George Bush is quoted as saying ¨God told me to end tyranny in Iraq¨ and his decisions killed more civilians than any single terrorist group. Now no one really believes that this is the reason Bush went to war, but he justified it within the contraints of his belief system without any problem. Islam is not necessary for this level of violence. So to summarize: Yes, religion is part of a sociopolitical framework however it is not the main reason for islamic terrorrism. There is no reason to think that the terrorism attributed to Islam would not exist without Islam, history tells us other wise. Almost all belief systems, including atheism, can be used to cause destruction.
what you wash hogs with... Christianity always was and always will be training oneself to live as Jesus did, in the culture and time where one finds oneself. the "basic moral tenets" are found in the simplest of statements: "Love God and love your neighbor (as yourself)." You can harangue all you want about your particular take on the issue, but your basis for your position has nothing whatsoever with the teachings of Jesus. You're evaluating the idea of discipleship based on its manifestation in the lives of people who haven't embraced the concept. I would hardly vault myself into the position of a fully-fledged exponent of what Jesus taught, but I know I'm not merely a talking head.
this is among the most ignorant statements i've ever heard from you. if the overwhelming percentage of the world's population lived as Jesus lived, the impact would be so positive that you would think you were in a dream world. imagine people being kind and selfless, generous to a fault, honest, forgiving. what we have instead is largely pettiness and self-centeredness. it runs across all lines. probably some conscientious atheists and other people are kind, selfless and honest, but it's a rarity otherwise. the Scout Oath is a good example of the sorts of qualities we would see displayed if the gospel were lived out in the common man: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
I do? Wait, so I'm not misrepresenting you by pointing out that you erroneously claim that atheism is a belief system. You just did exactly that. Which it can't. You cannot get from "I don't believe in any god claims" to anything. Only once you couple it with other beliefs can that happen. It's like the difference between deism and theism. Deism alone doesn't lead to anything. Only once you add specific properties and beliefs about the deity can it have actual consequences. Right, and nobody has ever killed in the name of atheism. Nobody has ever claimed to commit a violent act because he doesn't believe in god. So that's that. Your really running against a wall with your argument. Again, atheism is to communism what deism is to Islam. Atheism isn't a belief system and neither is deism. One is a singular belief, the other is a lack thereof. Nothing can follow from either of them. See, it is you who is misrepresenting me. Or maybe I couldn't explain my point well enough. Of course it matters what Islam is about. The question is: How do you know what it's about? And my answer is: Listen to the believers! And its by no means a minority that has crazy beliefs. For example, every single poll shows that a majority of muslims in this world today support sharia law with all its corporal punishments. Similarly, when you want to know what atheism is about, you should listen to atheists. And none of them (or at the most a handful of lunatics who can't even read an entry in a dictionary) ever said that atheism is about anything but a lack of a belief in a god. Everything you said here is wrong, and it is wrong on multiple levels. 1) You can't get from "it may apply to more than Islam" to "it applies to every belief system". That's just poor logic. 2) I clearly pointed out that NOT every belief system can be used to rationalize violence, something that you even acknowledged and agreed with. 3) Even if it would apply to more or all belief systems, it still wouldn't refute my argument. All it would do is to show that all belief systems are inherently dangerous. You know, like when you confront your kid with the claim that it beat up another kid and his response is that a lot of kids ave beaten up other kids. That might be the case, but it doesn't refute the original claim. It's really not that hard. 4) Furthermore, even if all belief systems could be used to rationalize violence, I have repeatedly stressed the point that what matters is the actual reality, not an abstract one. And fact of the matter is that Islam is used more often (by a big margin) than other belief systems, both in absolute as well as relative numbers. A vast majority of acts of terrorism are committed in the name of Allah. Similarly, when you look at any metric Amnesty International or anyone else comes up with to rank the freedom/security of individual countries, you'll find that muslim countries always make up the vast majority near the bottom. So while Christianity CAN be used to rationalize violence, Islam IS used. That's the big difference here. But do they really? Well, maybe they do, but the degree of "harm" is vastly different. Fundamentalist Christians will teach their children crap like creationism, which admittedly is bad and harmful, but it's nowhere near what happens in fundamentalist Muslim families, let alone countries. Then keep on laughing, so far, I haven't heard a single argument of yours. Correct. All acts of violence are justified in the eyes of the perpetrators or they wouldn't commit them. But once again, that's a non-sequitur. Only with faulty logic could you possibly use this as an argument in your favor. good idea That may or may not be the case, but it's not what I argued. I argued that it's a necessary reason. Though I happen to believe that in a round about way, it's also the main reason as it brings about the conditions in which terrorism can flourish, like an unfree society, bad education, little potential for economic growth, the suppression of women, etc. Where does history tell us that? It told me no such thing! Could you for once give an actual argument? Like for example, how would the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been possible if it wasn't for Islam? Those terrorists were no freedom fighters and didn't creep out of some refugee camp or slum. They were well off, well educated people who happened to believe that the Western world was decadent and corrupt and that Allah would reward their sacrifices. Similarly, why would Sunnis blow up Shias if it weren't for Islam? On the other hand, why don't suppressed Buddhists turn to terrorism like in Tibet? Why don't the heirs of the Germans that were the victims of ethnic cleansing in Poland and the Czech Republic bomb Polish and Czech civilians? Why didn't the suppressed South Americans turn to a theocratic regime that was worse than the previous dictators? You are denying reality for the sake of some abstract argument of what could be. Yes, Tibetans COULD POSSIBLY justify terrorism with their belief system, BUT THEY DON'T. Lutheran Germans COULD POSSIBLY justify killing Catholic Poles with their religion, BUT THEY DON'T. But Muslims do across the board. There are people living under terrible conditions in China, India, South America, even in the so called Western World, people live in terrible conditions, like for instance many Australian Aboriginals who have been suppressed, mistreated and killed for sport for generations and who still often live in the gutter. Yet, none of these groups need your excuses because they don't turn to violence and terrorism. They don't kill their own for apostasy, they don't hack off hands for stealing, they don't kill their daughters for wanting to live a better life. Now tell me, how can you still hold on to your claim that Religion has nothing (or little) to do with all of this? Big FAIL once again. Atheism isn't a belief system, it can't be used to cause destruction, you still haven't shown that "almost all" belief systems can be used and even if they can, what matters is whether or not they are.
They haven't embraced the concept according to YOUR interpretation of Christianity. And many of them would say the same about you. Can't you see the dilemma here? And how do you explain all the different denominations if this was supposedly such a clear cut thing? How come such a small number is actually Christian (according to you)? Are they all liars and hypocrites? Are they too dense to see the truth? And if so, how can they all get away with it? You see, the much easier explanation for the state of things is that there is no obvious truth about Christianity, rather it only gains life in interpretation and interpretations vary. Sure, and if we'd all live in the Dār al-Islām, we'd also all be happy and satisfied and have heaven on Earth. But the real test of character is how to deal with people who don't share your convictions. In that regard, Christianity has come a long way (though it's still not perfect by any stretch of the imagination) which I'm very glad about.
You can't possibly be so obtuse to use such a ridiculous semantic argument. I actually looked back at my last posts and saw that I defined what I meant by atheism 4 different times. No i do not mean a lack of belief in a god, I used it to mean a belief there is no god. Both of these are acceptable defenitions of the word and I made it painfully clear what defenition I was using. Here i'll make it easier for you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism You either have comprehension problems or are being disingenous.
Even if you only use atheism to mean "the belief there is no god" you can't get from there to anything else without adding other baggage. OK so I believe there's no god. Now what? Some religious people might say life loses meaning or that there is no such thing as morality and you can do whatever you want. But if you're not a religious person and you never believed those things or no longer do, you're just left with "there is no god". Again, now what? You would have to accept other premises (premises about god or the difference between a universe with a god and without) before that could lead anywhere else. As for the other recent point of discussion, let's never throw religion out of the discussion. It is part of the "socio-political" factors and should never be spared from being examined as one of the causes of any number of problems.
OK, so now you have posted a definition of atheism. Great. Now please show how that can lead to ANYTHING else. Ombak is absolutely right there. Secondly, I thought we agreed that we should listen to what the actual (non-)believers say, and no atheists have ever justified any acts of violence with their non-belief. So where is your argument? So far, you couldn't show some logical pathway from atheism to dangerous ideologies like communism, let alone one in real life. All you do is to keep asserting the same bogus claim. Thirdly, it's telling that you once again ignore all the arguments made and focus on the one point that other groups also commit despicable acts for whatever reason. That is still a non-sequitur.
I have defined it several times, here is a quote from 7 posts ago (scroll up, it is on this page). There it is, twice in one sentence, I don´t know how I could be more clear. It is almost as if you just read the first sentence of a paragraph and then automatically post a canned response. I do not think you are being disingenous, I think you are either completely ignoring what I have written or are so eager to go to a talking point that you have read somewhere on the internet, that you are not even taking the time to respond to what I am actually saying. And I have shown how that can lead to something else. I am not surprised you missed it.
I agree with you 100% and I do not think that I have said anything to the contrary. The belief that there is no god by itself does not lead someone to murder, but the same can be said about the belief that Jesus is the son of god or that Allah is the only god and Mohammed is his prophet. These beliefs by themselves do not lead to terror, but together with other beliefs, these can act as foundational beliefs for some people to rationlize terror and murder. However, people have no problem calling Islam dangerous without acknowledging that 99.9% muslims do no rationalize killing from the foundational beliefs of Islam and that the belief that god does not exist can lead to same level of distruction. If you want a concrete example on how a naturalistic world view can lead to the same level of violence, look no further than nihilism. Nihilists believe that in a naturalistic world there is no ultimate value and that there is no objective order in the world besides what we give it. Nietzhe wrote extensively on this. And while this alone does not lead to chaos and destruction, it can definetly do so (see Dahmer and Bundy). To be clear, I do not think that this level of terror is usually a result of any of these foundational believes. I think people murder for other reasons and then rationalize their actions based on their deeply held beliefs. All I am saying is that if you are going to condemn Islam as the main reason for terrorrism because people draw certain conclusions from it, you must also condemn other foundational beliefs that can lead to the same level of violence and destruction.
The fact that you are using Psychopaths\Sociopaths as an example of Atheist 'beliefs' leading to dangerous\violent conclusions is hilarious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy I also had no idea that Nietzche and all nihilists were sociopaths. I guess you learn something new every day.
Now you're just being obtuse. You haven't been arguing, in this whole thread, that Islam and Christiantiy are limited to the above. There's a context they exist in and that's important. Benztown has pointed that out. The fact that atheism is limited to either the lack of belief in gods or the belief there is no god does not mean we must have a parallel definition for religions that only handle that basic belief. What we are dealing with is descriptions of things as they are today. Also, I'd say at least benztown and myself acknowledge most muslims don't rationalize killing from the foundational beliefs of Islam. All we are saying is don't exclude religion from the conversation. You want to deal with the socio-political reasons people commit violence, deal with them. Don't separate out one of many reasons and say "don't pay attention to this big elephant in the room". It's a factor. Allied with others it can allow some people to do worse than they would if they only had the other factors. That some people are capable of doing just as bad or worse without it, does not exonerate it or mean that it can be set aside and ignored in every case. Since that is the context that many commentators start from - a world where religion experiences this status as a taboo subject that cannot be poked and prodded as if it were just another social phenomenon - it is no surprise that it feels like to these people religion is the only thing they are considering. Relative to previous conversation it's easy to feel that way.
But how does that definition change anything? Whether you don't believe in any god claims or that you believe that no gods exist, neither can possibly lead to anything. You still haven't established a connection, because you can't. Which is my point the entire time! Once again you refer to an abstract notion of what Islam or Christianity are, whereas I referred to actual real life interpretations that include these dangerous beliefs. I made that abundantly clear the entire time. I'm not talking about an abstract Islam, or true Islam (whatever that may be) but actual beliefs. It's not up to me to define what real Islam is or what the real foundational beliefs are. When someone says that he believes that apostates need to be beheaded, all I can do is to take him by his word. You obviously don't know your philosophy. For one thing, nihilism as its generally understood is a straw man. Furthermore, Nietzsche not only rejected nihilism, he accused Christianity of being nihilistic at its core. Nihilism was something that needed to be overcome. According to Nietzsche, the absolutization of christian metaphysical values with their belief in an afterlife causes the emergence of schizoid people, leading to opportunism, mediocrity, weakness ("slave morality") or the unscrupulous exploitation of others. Or in short, if the real life is that which awaits you after death, this life is necessarily unimportant with little value whatsoever. In one word: Nihilism. I don't know Dahmer, but Bundy was a psychopath with an antisocial personality disorder. These kinds of people are unable to feel any empathy, hence they don't need justifications of any sort anyway. So if this is the best you can come up with...also, that Bundy was a nihilist is news to me, not that it matters... BOTH exists. But then you haven't even tried to address the points I made in that regard. NO! I don't have to condemn other beliefs that CAN lead to the same level of violence and destruction, rather those that DO lead to the same level of violence and destruction. Once again you want to move this away from reality and towards some abstract debate. You are constantly resorting to a classic bait and switch maneuver. On the one hand, we're talking about real life beliefs and their consequences, on the other whenever you want to make a point, you go back to POSSIBLE beliefs and their consequences. These are two very different subjects.
I am not dealing just with the way things are today, I am dealing with the ways things are today and the way things have been during history. And to be clear, I do not think Islam is something separate from the socioeconomic factors that lead to terrorrism. I do not even think that Islam has nothing to do with terrorrism, it obviously does. All I have said is that Islam is not necessary for this level of terrorrism and that it is misguided to think that without Islam, this level of terror would not be present. If Islam did not even exist, history tells us that these extreme fringe groups would find another cause to motivated their followers against the people that they consider their oppressors because the main reason for attacks like 9/11 was not theology, but economics. I agree that religion should be prodded, I also agree that religion can be a necessary condition to bring about violence. I simply assert that when it comes to modern Islamic terrorrism, Islam is not the necessary condition for its presence. Sure it would not be ¨Islamic¨ without it, but the body count would still be indistinguishable from what it actually is. Benztown would say that if they say this is about Islam, then Islam truly is the necessary condition for this level of violence. To me, this is ignorant. Likewise, if someone says that their belief that god does not exist leads them to conclude that there are no moral values, only social constructs and that therefore, it is ok to feed their inner urges to murder and rape people, it would be wrong for me to attribute this to atheism, simply because this is how they rationalize it. Just because religion is part of a socioeconomic construct does not mean that you can´t try to look at different factors in that construct and see how they influence a specific event. Here is a great clip of Rachel Maddow dissecting Osama´s motivations and mindset about 9/11 and keep in mind that according to a lot of people, conclusions made from Islamic fundamentalism attributed to Islam were the main reason for these attacks.
You would be wrong, because otherwise we'd expect to see the same kind of reaction everywhere were the same conditions are present. But the big discriminatory factor is religion. I'm not sure this says what you think it says. First of all, this doesn't show Osama's motivations at all, it shows where his focus was and of course it was economic. He wanted to destabilize the West and particularly the US and the way to do it was with economics. And that's smart thinking too. It was also how his Taliban friends beat the Russians in Afghanistan. They couldn't possibly win militarily, but they could make the costs for the Russians prohibitively large. At the same time, if Religion had nothing to do with it, we would expect rich kids around the world to turn to terrorism. But that obviously isn't happening. Now explain to me please, why would a rich kid who can have everything he ever wants go to a sh*thole like Afghanistan, live in caves and orchestrate terror attacks first on Russia and then on the western world if it wasn't for his religious beliefs? America was even his ally, so it's not like he was fighting an invasion.
No, not at all, this is terrible logic. This would be as terrible as saying that for your view to be true, we should see the same kind of reaction everywhere where the same conditions are present and the last time I checked, most fundamentalist muslims with an agenda to grind were not blowing themselves up and killing civilians. And if you really think that the main discriminatory factor between South Americans that have been opressed (example you gave earlier) and muslims in the middle east is just religion, then we have a lot of work to do. This is a lot more complicated than the simplistic view you just offered. You did it again. Please quote where I said that religion had nothing to do with it. You might want to start in my previous post where I said that religion has something to do with it. And actually, most terrorrism is committed by rich kids around the world and they do not cite any religious dogma for their actions. Mao is a clear example of a rich kid, with no religious motivations, who killed 45 million people. Surely there is something else that could spurr this besides religious beliefs, no? How about the US support of Israel, sanctions against Iraq, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting attacks in Somalia against Muslim, etc, etc, etc. I could ask you the same question, if Osama was mainly driven by the Koran, why was he first an ally and then an enemy? He was a fundamentalist muslim before and he was a fundamentalist muslim after 911. I dont really want you to answer this question, because it is a stupid question that leads from a very simplistic mentality of someone´s motivations and very analogous to the question you just asked.
It's not terrible if you don't indulge in special pleading. All things being equal we'd expect equal results. The fact that we don't see that is because there's one big differentiator: Religion. We would indeed expect the same reaction. But there you go again with your bait and switch, as the same reaction is not ALL muslims turning to terrorism, but a certain percentage. Whereas in non-muslim areas that percentage is much lower. I would post a link I posted on here before by the National Counterterrorism Center which broke all acts of terrorism world wide down to who committed them and for what reason. Suffice it to say that islamic terrorism far overshadowed everything else, both in terms of victims as well as in terms of absolute numbers. Unfortunately, access to this data has since been restricted (thanks Obama). Maybe you're onto something here. However, the next question would be: Why are the situations different? Could it be religion? Or is it a coincidence that no matter where you are in the world, be it in Africa, the Middle East or Asia, all the way to Indonesia, that it's always the muslim countries that are particularly problematic, despite all the differences between say Sudan and Pakistan, Syria and Bangladesh. When the British Raj was divided into two countries, India for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims, was it a coincidence that India progressed whereas Pakistan has devolved into a medieval terrorist nest, headed by a government in name only? Or how come a rich country like Saudi Arabia with all the potential for great economic development is still medieval in terms of all its laws? You see, politics and economics can only explain so much and even then they're directly influenced by religion. For example: Why is the situation in palestinian refugee camps still so terrible so that they foster more terrorism? Why is Jordan to this day not letting their palestinian brothers becoming a part of their society? Since you brought up Nietzsche before, his explanation seems to be spot on if you ask me. Now that's something we can build upon. To me your claim that even without Islam we wouldn't see any change at all in terms of violence and terrorism sounded like you believed that it had indeed nothing to do with it. But ok, let's move forward. Since you agree that religion plays a role, do you then also believe that the type of religion could make a difference? Say Islam vs. Christianity while we're at it? Ok wait, so which conditions exactly do you believe encourage terrorism? Apart form being rich? This is getting really interesting. Are you making this up as you go along? At this point, I do kinda feel trolled to be honest... Good, now take a step back and look at the connecting factor here...that's right, MUSLIMS. Now tell me again: would this make any sense without Islam? Also, why don't we see Christians rallying against countries that discriminate against their fellow Christians. Why don't American rich kids fund Christian terror cells in Sudan for instance? Because he's also an opportunist. First he concentrated on the Soviet Union, then on America. But unlike you, I could answer it. It's baffling that you try to construct all kinds of excuses when the obvious truth is staring you in the face. I mean he said explicitly that his religion was his main motivator. Why don't you believe him? In fact, ignore everything else, this is the question I want you to answer before all others.
The one fly in the ointment on that score is if islam is so likely to produce terrorists, why wasn't anybody really worried about muslim terrorists until 9/11. Sure, they still had their moments, but the thought of Jihad as some kind of mindset didn't exist. You can, on the other hand, point to the rise of Wahhabism as being critical in the rise of extremism.
But people were. AFAIK, Bin Laden was America's #1 wanted terrorist even before 9/11. The main thing that has changed with 9/11 was of course public awareness. All of a sudden, it was rich, white Americans dying in large numbers, whereas before, nobody cared about yet another 100 deaths in Kashmir or Sudan, nobody cared about the cruel rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan or about Women's rights in Iran or Saudi Arabia. I would slightly rephrase that. In fact, since Wahhabism is a form of extremism, that would literally mean that the rise of extremism was critical in the rise of extremism. But then I don't even see how there was a rise in extremism. The spreading of communism may have temporarily taken a bit of steam away from islamism within muslim countries while the cold war has put a lid on it so that a lot of it went on unnoticed by a large majority who were more concerned with communists/capitalists. However, I think I know what you're getting it. The fact that the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia has become insanely rich due to their oil exports has helped financing islamist extremists so that they are now more easily transformed into actual terrorists who can operate globally. Iran is even more open about them financing terrorism, most notably Hizbollah, but also elsewhere. At the same time, it's important to remember that the vast majority of victims of terrorism and even more so of fundamentalism and Sharia Law are still fellow Muslims.
He was, but the general public didn't worry in the slightest about the threat of muslim extremists Only if you choose to label military action and puritanical beliefs as the same thing. Some have suggested that the rise of Wahhabism has more parallels with the rise of the religious right in the USA than of money from oil wealth, and the perceived threat of the "evils" of the capitalist west. The reason is that the thing that scares both groups is the rise of secularism. In islam though, where having islamic rules guiding everything is key, secularism is the desire for the removal of god's guidance. It becomes an attack on religion, and more or less seen as, for want of a better term, the work of the devil.
An a US Citizen, I'll chime in. Al Qaeda had bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He was Public Enemy #1. I knew it was his organization as soon as I heard the news of the 9/11 attacks.