Talk:Islamic Jihad

Specific to Iran

I have made some wording changes to the last paragraph on this page pertaining to a specific IJ organization. The comment of ‘’overseas militant operations’’ is, to my knowledge, unsubstantiated. The IJO, used as cover by the pasdaran, is known to have supported terrorist operations that destroyed the US embassy in Lebanon and aided the hijackers of a flight out of Europe. Overseas could include the terrorist attacks in New York city, but if Iran gave any direct assistance to these operations, well, will take many years to become semi-openly know if it is only plausible now.

Although Al-Qaeda gets credit for the September 11th attacks, it is unlikely that their terrorist network acted alone. Many radicalized Islamic terrorist groups exist, namely ones such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran may have happily turned a blind eye, or done more, but such hypotheses will not be elucidated in the short term.

Due to the broad use of IJ, and the known Iranian funding to Hezbollah, is it possible to make mistakes when attributing the title of militant or terrorist to particular organizations. More importantly, what the Iranian government says is not necessarily indicative of what their population as a whole believes. Case-in-point: the current president’s antics or rhetoric diverts focus from growing economic problems in Iran due to government mismanagement. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, although popular in rural areas of Iran, where education levels are low, is somewhat of a muted laughing-stock among educated young adults in urban areas. Elections in Iran are far from fair if important. Government kidnappings continue to this day (sept 2006), but surprisingly, the Iranian students I have spoken to here, refer to them merely as disappearances. Many Iranians are quite aware of how much freedom they have lost since the revolution. This is not a government that always has the best interests of their population in mind.

Dan 08:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I am not a terrorist, why should I?

The Iranian connection

I removed the line "Its financial backing comes from there and Iran."
One must provide valid evidence to this statement as Iran constantly refuses the allegation. Hiwamy

Rick. You have reverted edits again. This time I discussed it in this page but you didn't care to see it. You are wrong by your own standards. One must provide references to accuse Iran. Hiwamy 04:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I can live with this change until the other wording is documented. RickK 04:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Is there any particular problem if I edit the article to include "Islamic Jihaad is widely regarded as a terrorist organization"?

Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. Isaiah 17:1

Just so we're clear...you're waiting until Iran admits that is supplies terrorist oraganizations with weapons before you make reference to that? How about, "Iran has been widely accused of providing weapons to Islamic Jihad (among other groups) yet fiercly denies the charge" this is about as unbiased as i care to be, especially when one considers events in light of recent history. Iran sent the Karine A cargo ship laden with weapons bound for either lebanon or Gaza/West bank (there is some dispute as to who actually purchased the weapons since the Israelis borded the ship and confiscated its illegal cargo). Furthermore, there is significant documentation of Iranian weapons in use by Hezbollah in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Iran can deny all it likes, but that's like saying that Iran is not actually seeking to build nuclear weapons... they deny it, but it is generally regarded to be true. If you're waiting for iranian confirmation, it may be a while, (and possibly come in the form of a mushroom cloud)...

funny

I just like the name "Islamic Jihad".

You know, as opposed to all those non-Islamic Jihads running around out there. Thunderbunny 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jihad translates roughly to "struggle" or "striving" or "campaign" and is short for Jihad fi Sabeel Allah ("struggle for God's cause"). There is a Western connotation that Jihad necessarily refers to "Holy war" (that being the primary usage in the news media), but Jihad is also the word for other personal or community non-violent movements that are considered to be pro-Islam: take Lebanese Hezbollah's Jihad al-Bina ("Holy Reconstruction Campaign") for example. It appears that "Islamic Jihad" refers to Islam's lesser Jihad proper, which does certainly imply a fighting struggle and "Holly war". In this way, "Islamic" is prepended to "Jihad" not to differentiate it from the Jihad of other Religions (which WOULD be funny, since the phrase above refers to Allah and is in Arabic), but rather to distiguish is from the more general meaning and usage of the word.

For another example of a pervasive connotation, try using the word "molest" in a sentance (which has commonly used cognates in the romance languages that roughly mean "interrupt" or "bother") without making people squirm or raise an eyebrow.

Wow, thanks for the insight. Thunderbunny 22:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Kick in the Pants

The real irony is that terrorists sympathizers always claim to hate the words 'Islamists'...and 'Jihadists'...Check out the hezbollah discussion page, no one will agree to call them an 'Islamist terror organization' or 'Jihadist terror organization' or even a 'terror organization' at that, despite their claims to use terror tactics - deliberate attacks on civilians, in order to achieve political goals.

In the civilized world, we make a word to denote whats going on, then some lighthearted folks will make euphemisms so not to upset anyone. Among the terrorist sympathizers, however, a word that attacks the dignity of the terrorists, even if it's true, such as the words ISLAMIC JIHAD are eliminated from the language all together, unless referring to their heros. See no evil, hear no evil. Lets blame it on Israel.

Uh, no.

Way to generalise, numbnuts. I support Hamas, and not Hezbollah, I know what the word jihad actually means, and I use a variety of nouns to describe subtle differences in things most people lump into one, usually more politically correct, noun. All Western peoples are too afraid to be politically incorrect as well as to be wrong to gain education in matters that make a difference. You're just another Westerner with arrogant ideals ("In the civilized world") who not only is ignorant of what he's hot air blowing, but also an opinion forcing jackass. Hey, I can write like a prick too! Let's blame it on Defenders of religion, country or right to self determination!

I find it funny that the guy above me who calls others "arrogant" still uses petty insults like "numbnuts" and "jackass". Keep it civil, or else any legitimate points that you make become lost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.126.96 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Whether or not the comments were civil, the thoroughly legitimate points were certainly not lost, on my part at least, numbnuts.

NPOV?

Using broad and ill-defined comments such as, "The groups members reguarly violate the rights of innocent people" and "They target civilians and have no respect for international law" (complete with poor grammar and misspelling) illustrates a biased point of view. If this is not conjecture, it needs to be cited, and the wording should probably steer away from hypotheses about what a group respects or not. Kirkesque 23:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)