Islamic terror: the solution

[IDMclean]

The clown would like to cite a Time-Out warning, The call is Foul on both sides, The foul is Ad hominem, and Argument from ignorance.

 

Ok now as for proofs, let's get something from people who study these kinds of things.

 

Moderate Muslims

 

Islamic Beliefs

 

Does Moderate Islamic Exist?

 

Men and Women of Muslim Culture

 

Hidden world of Muslim women

 

Chew, drink, swallow, repeat as nessessary. I would comment more, but I have other threads and duties to attend to. Play nice now.

 

-Laughing all the Way...

KAC

[Edella]

If you are challenging my knowledge of the moderate Islamic community, perhaps you could explain from where you developed your insight?

Certainly:

 

-Four yrs.U.S army Fort Bragg N.C 8th PSYOPS Battalion(At least 15% of the battalion was Muslim)

-Graduate, Presidio of Monterey Defence Language Institute(Farsi).

-Graduate,U.S army Interrogation school Ft. Huachuca AZ.

-Isreali interrogation training.

-Travels to Jordan,Turkey,Somalia as soldier,Lebanon,Egypt,

Tajikistan as a civilian.

-Very basic understanding of modern standard Arabic.

-English instructor to Jordanian troops.

-Instructor-Information dissemination and psyops in Turkey.

-Interrogation resistance instructor at U.S.army s.e.r.e.course.(many students were from the middle east)

 

And probably most importantly,many Muslim friends,and one family member.None of this is to show I'm an expert,I'm not.

 

I'm sorry you find the ideas of finding an alternative idea so difficult. Must be tough coming up with original thought. However, the purpose of this post is to find solutions to Islamic terror.

I've read all your posts sebbysteiny,and disagree with your interpretation of the data.You are correct though that I should be more respectful in my posts,but understand I have read your posts and find them full of generalizations.(If you want examples I will give them).Just because I disagree doesn't mean I am unable to understand.All the demands for proof are not frivolous.Are you still sure I made no effort to understand the problem?

 

The problem is, every other suggestion for the cause mentioned thus far fails to account for material and obvious facts and / or contains absurdities.

Every single one sebbysteiny?

[sebbysteiny]

My evidence that most people are tolerant simply comes from the fact that the majority of people are not violent.

 

That doesn’t follow. Just because somebody likes to hit people doesn’t mean they hit people of one race more, and if someone does not hit people, it doesn’t mean they don’t make unwarranted judgements about somebody and then act on those judgements with non-violent means.

 

The belief that people are tolerant is from having been fortunate enough to be born in the only tolerant society that has ever existed which has only existed for about 60 years combined with a blind faith that other societies have developed in the same way as the European society.

 

Similarly, the belief that terrorists killing civilians is the same as armies killing terrorists and some other often hostile civilians as an unavoidable accident of war is born out of living in a society that has not experienced war for 60 years and has lost touch with victims of atrocities.

 

This may not be a court of law, but it is a science-based website, where any 'fact' provided should have evidence behind it. It is not the way of science to produce a theory and force other people to disprove it, it is up to the person who provides the theory to support it with evidence.

 

This is valid, but only up to a point. A scientific theory need not be supported by any evidence whatsoever to be seriously considered. However, it must be able to account for all the facts as we know them. The concept of the Higgs Boson, for example, hasn’t been ridiculed simply because there is no hard evidence for its existence yet.

 

My theory does account for all the known facts, which is why I’ve put it up for scrutiny. All others do not. Further, the facts you are asking me to conclusively prove are not facts that can be proven easily. Further, they are not fundamental to my theory.

 

My theory about the mechanism and cause of Islamic terror is this.

1) Most moderate Muslims have beliefs which albeit not extreme are fundamentally different from moderate Westerners. The three crucial beliefs are firstly that suicide bombers are justified in Israel (ie support the violent means in some examples). Crucially, the reasons for their support can easily be applied to any Western nation. Secondly, that it would be a good thing to establish a global Muslim Calophite in place of Western civilization although violent means to bring this about are totally wrong (ie the political aim through non-violent means). Thirdly, moderate Muslims have very little concept of absolute truth.

2) If you accept the 1st and 2nd (illogical) beliefs (violent means in some places, political aim in all places) then it logically follows (for the same reasons) that the violent means of 1 are legitimate to bring about the political aim of 2. A fanatical cleric acts as the catalyst by merging these two arguments together and the 3rd belief makes the cleric’s job much easier.

 

However, somebody here asked why the three beliefs I mentioned were so different from moderate Western beliefs. I then posed a number of reasons based upon what most moderate Muslims belief and what most Westerners believe. A number of people have asked me now to prove these differences exist. However, we are forgetting the purpose of those examples was to illustrate how the main 3 beliefs are fundamentally different to those held by moderate Westerners rather than make any new claims in their own right.

 

Also, what you are asking me is to find proof that a large proportion of moderate Muslims think a certain way. However, this is infact almost impossible to prove beyond doubt. In an election, nobody knows who is going to win even though thousands and possibly millions of pounds is spent by news organizations trying to forecast it. And that is simply a matter of whether people will pick one box or a very different box.

 

However, I do believe I have accumulated enough evidence in my life to be 99.9% certain this is the truth. I have had many conversations with moderate Muslims all over the political spectrum specifically on these issues. Further I have seen many TV programs. One was about how British gay Muslims and Muslim converts were subject to the most obscene threats from the entire Muslim community to the point that their parents even kicked many of them out and threatened thier children themselves. Another was where newsnight asked on 4 guests to discuss Islam. 1 was a fanatical preacher, 1 was an MP, 1 was a moderate Muslim leader and 1 was a moderate person representing Muslim youth. The two moderates were specially selected as being more moderate than most. They all condemned the 7/7 attacks (except the fanatic) but when it came to Israel, they all voiced strong support for suicide bombings. Then we had the most significant moderate leaders of the most significant moderate organisation (the Muslim Council of Britain) describe suicide bombings as just (in the program I mentioned) and refuse to banish a group supporting terrorist strikes against Britain from the ‘moderate’ organisation because ‘it was a legitimate discussion and a legitimate difference in points of view’.

 

There is widespread demonisation of Jews in the entire Middle East and the 5th most popular book in Syria is the protocols of the Elders of Zion. Further, holocaust denial is widespread and all middle Eastern politicians who deny the holocaust get a massive boost in popularity. Thus there are strong grounds to suspect that moderate Muslim minorities deny the holocaust in the West and when all leading moderate organisations boycott holocaust memorial day, conclusions can be drawn. Also, 90% of moderate Muslims I have talked to say ‘yes the holocaust happened, but not 6m killed. Probably between 100,000 and 1m only’.

 

There was also (in the program I mentioned) a person who had resigned from the Muslim Association of Britain since he believed they were not sufficiently moderate. That person said that disgust of the ‘kuffar’ is widespread amongst moderate Muslim society and although the moderate Muslim community say in English they believe in co-existance, privitely, their children are often told never to mixing with the ‘kuffar’ and any child seen doing so is often beaten. There is also undeniable total self segregation whose only logical explanation is that they choose not to mix with ‘kuffar’.

 

The program mentioned above also showed how amongst moderate Muslim leaders, almost all believe that a global calophite should be established and the survey I found (which is irrefutable proof) shows that a majority wish to subject their host countries to Islamic law. Put 2 and 2 together.

 

In my life time, I have seen mountains of evidence (often piece by piece) that convinces me moderate Muslims have most of the beliefs I have mentioned and especially the 3 on which my theory depends.

 

I believe this evidence is more than I will ever need in a thread like this and unless somebody wishes to fund £1m in getting a survey done, I suggest that we permanently move away from trying to evidence public opinion polls of any ethnic group. Now, we can finally get this thread back on track and discuss the cause of Islamic terror rather than play the ‘prove this prove that’ game.

 

it is not just who these people are but how little backlash they have recieved that matters

 

The same can be said of our leaders. President Bush led us into Iraq claiming that we knew where the WMDs were.

…

He called North Korea, Iran, and Iraq the 'Axis of Evil'. And yet there wasn't massive backlash.

 

Well, lets see. President Bush is at a record low in terms of public opinion. When no WMDs were found there was a major swing of popular opinion against the war and against Bush. I would say there has been a pretty big backlash. And that ‘Axis of Evil’ point is bazaar. There are many people that agree with it, eg me. When a leader says something people agree with, there will not be a ‘backlash’. Thus you agree with me. When a leader says something and there is no backlash, it is a strong indicator that the population which that leader represents agrees with his opinions.

 

Al Zarqawi was a terrible person who helped kill many innocent Iraqis and US Soldiers. As such, he deserved to be punished, but not killed. I mourn less for him than I do for the 9/11 victims, but that is more because he chose to be in war than because he killed others. I do not believe that anybody deserves death. Life in prison without parole, probably, but not death.

 

This is another debate entirely. Infact, this point was well discussed in a thread of mine called “ Collateral damage: self defence or murder?”. We should discuss it there. Safe to say that I hope you realise that by denying Iraq a moral right to kill Zarqawi, you are denying Iraq it’s only means to defend it’s citizens thus committing many innocent Iraqis to certain death.

 

If you are challenging my knowledge of the moderate Islamic community, perhaps you could explain from where you developed your insight?

 

Edella: lots of examples

 

I can see lots of examples of contact with moderate Muslims. However, has any of this contact involved probing moderate Muslims for their beliefs on certain topics. Did you ask them about the holocaust, suicide bombings in Israel, desire to impose peacefully Islamic law on Western civilization etc.?

 

I've read all your posts sebbysteiny,and disagree with your interpretation of the data.You are correct though that I should be more respectful in my posts,but understand I have read your posts and find them full of generalizations.

 

I’m afraid you have misunderstood the main thesis of my post. I’m trying to explain how Islamic terror spreads in moderate Muslim society. I have argued that this happens because of the moderate Islamic Belief system. If those particular beliefs are generalizations, then your right, they are. But the existence of the generalization is not the point, only the effects they have on moderate Muslims particularly regarding susceptibility to fanaticism.

 

If your trying to demonise my arguments by using the word 'generalisations' knowing that, thanks to political correctness, it has hidden connitations of 'racism' and 'stupidity' then your comments are misleading and perhaps a better phrase is 'cultural differences' rather than 'generalisations. It is a non sequiter that different cultures have different traditions and belief systems. Political correctness simply beleives that different cultures can and should learn from each other rather than confront each other over their differences. This is what tollerence is. You don't have to pretend we are all living in a utopian harmony free from 'cultural differences' to be tollerant.

 

Kickassclowns links

 

Kickassclown has provided some kickasslinks.

 

The first one is the best.

 

In contrast to the view of Islam advanced by Pipes, which we might call "ecumenist" because it looks forward to an ultimate harmony and even union between Islam and the West, there is a perspective that we might call "civilizationist," because it insists that there are essential incompatibilities between the two civilizations. These different understandings of Islam imply diverging strategic concepts. For the ecumenist school, the only aspect of Islam that represents a danger is the radical, false Islam. We must therefore empower the true, moderate Islam, so that under its guidance the Islamic countries will re-make themselves into decent and free societies. But for the civilizationist school, the problem is not "radical" Islam but Islam itself, from which it follows that we must seek to weaken and contain Islam, rather than try to create some new, nicer Islam.

 

The issue is momentous. If we subscribe to the promise of a moderate Islam, we will make its cultivation the central focus and goal in the war against militant Islam. If this moderate Islam in fact exists, our efforts may help Muslims transform their civilization for the better and relieve the world of the curse of Muslim extremism. But if moderate Islam does not exist, yet we delude ourselves into thinking that it exists, we would inevitably find ourselves trapped in a cultural equivalent of the Oslo "peace process," forever negotiating with and empowering our mortal enemies in the pathetic hope that they will turn out to be friends. Alternatively, if we understand that there is no such thing and can be no such thing as moderate Islam, that would obviously result in very different policies.

 

I believe that my theory is neither “ecumenist” nor “civilization” but a hybrid of the two in which Islam is approximated to be somewhere in between those two extremes. It was great reading nevertheless.

 

However one needs to be very careful with the ‘islamic beliefs’ link. This is a website designed to convince Westerners that Islam is as moderate as most Westerners. However, this is only what is said in English to us. Most Islamic orginisations however say one thing to us and another thing amongst themselves. Think about it, it makes good PR sense. To get a genuine answer for what moderate Muslims believe, one must find information that has a direct link to the Moderate Muslim population. Surveys and statements of moderate Islamic leaders and measurements of backlash from those statements are the only reliable evidence.

 

The problem is, every other suggestion for the cause mentioned thus far fails to account for material and obvious facts and / or contains absurdities.

 

Every single one sebbysteiny?

 

 

Yes, every single one. You can see for yourself. I believe we’ve had the ‘Muslims are treated badly’ theory, and the ‘Quoran text encourages violence’ theory but they have all been exposed in this thread as being incapable of describing all the facts. Only mine remains.

 

I believe we are reaching a consensus that the cause for Islamic terror lies mainly in the belief system of the moderates making them prone to brainwashing but also the large numbers of fanatical clerics who do the brainwashing.

 

If you wish to propose your own theory for the cause to Islamic terror, now is the time to do so. Otherwise, we will move on and discuss potential solutions.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I believe we are reaching a consensus that the cause for Islamic terror lies mainly in the belief system of the moderates making them prone to brainwashing but also the large numbers of fanatical clerics who do the brainwashing.

 

I can't wait until I can reach a consensus by ignoring or belittling everyone else.

 

Come on. :hihi:

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

I can't wait until I can reach a consensus by ignoring or belittling everyone else.

 

How can you say I have ignored everybody when I have answered every point posed. Nor have I belittled people. I've just said we have taken too much time discussing the concept of evidential certainty and been diverted from the thrust of the post, finding the cause and then solutions. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've dealt with the concept of evidential certainty entirely anyway.

 

Note particularly that the only possible evidence one can get proving facts of moderate Muslim opinion are 1) opinion polls (very expensive unless they have already been made) 2) Statements of moderate Muslim leaders, and 3) any backlash from statements made by moderate Muslim leaders. And when I gave extremely strong evidence for 2 and 3, it was brushed asside as if it was nothing. Conclusion: no amount of evidence will satisfy some people.

 

Also, the points I was asked to 'prove' were only a footnote to my theory anyway.

 

I can only conclude that since nobody has posted any alternitive explanations for the cause of Islamic terror and since nobody has actually found any facts or arguments that expose an absurdity in my theory, then, although some people don't like it, my explanation is the only game in town.

 

However, I do want to return this post from intellectual jousting to consensus building because I am hoping at the end of it, we will have a real solution for Islamic terror.

 

So please, if you find a phenominon of moderate or fanatical Islam that would contridict my theory (ie one that exposes a fundamental flaw) or if you find an alternative explanation that explains everything mine does but in a different way, or even if you just wish to make a slight modification, then I invite you to mention it now. Otherwise, regardless of whether you 'like' the conclusion, we have by definition reached a consensus on the cause of Islamic terror.

[Edella]

The tamil tigers... They exhibit almost all of the traits that fanatical Islamists have. Why? Because they are fanatical Islamists themselves.

Wrong.I can't belive I missed that!The leading instigators of suicide attacks in Sri Lanka between 1980 and 2001 were the Tamil Tigers,a nationalist group whose members,though from Hindu families, are adamantly opposed to religion.They are not fanatical Islamists.If part of your theory is that modern suicide attacks are an exclusively Islamic phenomenon,it is wrong.

 

 

As a mater of fact,thousands of Muslims in northern Sri Lanka were ordered to leave their properties by the LTTE in 1991.http://www.lankalibrary.com/cul/muslims.htm

we have by definition reached a consensus on the cause of Islamic terror.

A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.How have we reached a consensus?

 

Nor have I belittled people.

In response to my (admittedly) snide comments:

I'm sorry you find the ideas of finding an alternative idea so difficult. Must be tough coming up with original thought.

[sebbysteiny]

Nor have I belittled people.

 

In response to my (admittedly) snide comments:

 

I'm sorry you find the ideas of finding an alternative idea so difficult. Must be tough coming up with original thought.

 

Lol. Now now, forgive me if my grammer is wrong, but isn't 'people' a plural word???? :)

 

A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.How have we reached a consensus?

 

If you guys can't find any new flaws / arguments against my theory or supporting another, then we have reached a consensus simply by exhausting all ideas regardless of whether you agree.

However, see below.

 

Wrong.I can't belive I missed that!The leading instigators of suicide attacks in Sri Lanka between 1980 and 2001 were the Tamil Tigers,a nationalist group whose members,though from Hindu families, are adamantly opposed to religion.They are not fanatical Islamists.If part of your theory is that modern suicide attacks are an exclusively Islamic phenomenon,it is wrong.

 

Do I sense a bit of triaumphantism in your tone? I don't see why you have taken my theory so personally (ever since the start), but, for once :hyper: , you have made a good point.

 

So we have found another culture in which suicide bombings exist. This does not mean my theory of how Islamic terror is caused falls apart. However, I said that one of the advantages is that it explains why fanatical Islamic terror is a phenominan that exists exclusively in the Muslim world, and although one now must change the word 'only' to 'mostly', it could certainly weaken the evidence supporting my argument.

 

Much depends on the similarities between Islamic terror and Tamil tiger terror. For example, Islamic terror calls for the killing of all 'infidels' globally. The TT's might limit their destruction to one locality. IT also aims to maximise casualties as an aim in itself; TT's may aim for economic targets such as the European terror orginisations, or high ranking targets such as generals.

 

However, it could be that the belief systems of the moderates in that area hindu's may have similarities to that of the moderate Muslims globaly. If that is the case, then if by isolating the beliefs and combining them together, we can explain the differences, then my model is strengthened, and if not, potentially weakened.

 

Also, TT terror could be drawn from a totally different mechanism altogether, in which case we would have to of course check whether that mechanism explains IT better than my theory.

 

However, it would be helpful if you guys could come up with alternative theories or modifications.

 

I'll analyse TT in more detail tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

[Buffy]

Well, we might all be better off if we let Sebby declare victory.

 

It certainly does appear that there's no chance that any of the posters here will ever make any headway in challenging the argument since they are all invalid and easily dismissable analogies (Like one of my earlier silly points, where Sebby rightly pointed out that Commies are completely different because they all want to live while binLaden and his compatriots are committed to martyrdom: he's not hiding in the mountains like some Commie coward, he's personally leading his Army of Martyrs right to the front lines in Afghanistan. And those Hamas leaders aren't hiding in Syria, they stand out on the front lines in Gaza wearing bright orange Kaffiehs daring the Israelis to martyr them. They do don't they?) or are the product of "leftist thinking" (heck, like Ann Coulter says, we should probably all be fragged along with Sen. Murtha for some of the weak-minded counter arguments presented here).

 

I'll just restate one of the first objections posed in this thread: Okay, lets just *grant* you your thesis that Islam is a source of a new kind of homicidal-maniacal terrorism that due to some unknown force resists any ability by the majority of Muslims to resist its wiles, and that has never ever been seen before and cannot be dealt with in any previously tried mechanism to ameliorate the unstoppable and increasing effort by all Muslims to kill or advocate killing all non-Muslims:

 

So given the title you gave this thread, Sebby, what's your solution to your profound and original analysis of this conundrum? Hmmmm?

 

We easily dismissible "leftists" want to know....

 

Master of the Suidae Choir,

Buffy

[Edella]

If you guys can't find any new flaws / arguments against my theory or supporting another, then we have reached a consensus simply by exhausting all ideas regardless of whether you agree.

Alright alright,I'll agree if for no other reason than I'm anxious to see your solution.You know sebbysteiny,I am impressed with the amount of thought you put into this...just wish you would consider some of our points.

[sebbysteiny]

It certainly does appear that there's no chance that any of the posters here will ever make any headway in challenging the argument since they are all invalid and easily dismissable analogies (Like one of my earlier silly points, where Sebby rightly pointed out that Commies are completely different because they all want to live while binLaden and his compatriots are committed to martyrdom: he's not hiding in the mountains like some Commie coward, he's personally leading his Army of Martyrs right to the front lines in Afghanistan.

 

WTF??? If you disagreed with what I suggested was a fundamental distinction between Islamic Terror and Communism, then you should simply say so, preferably at the time it was being discussed. Once again, I'm faceing criticism that is high on emotive wit and low on any actual arguements. You have neither produced an argument countering my model nor put forward another suggestion.

 

I can see some people are pushing for a solution. I will suggest one which I hope people will contribute to. However, if one reads Kickassclown's link (particularly the bit I quoted) one can see that even a reasonably slight misjudgement as to the cause of Islamic terror could lead to a fundamentally different solution. If someone is able to establish a competing theory that also explains all the facts, then we could look for potential solutions that would work for both models.

 

Okay, lets just *grant* you your thesis that Islam is a source of a new kind of homicidal-maniacal terrorism

 

I do wish some people would actually read my arguments. I've gone to great measures to avoid exactly that conclusion.

 

Alright alright,I'll agree if for no other reason than I'm anxious to see your solution.You know sebbysteiny,I am impressed with the amount of thought you put into this...just wish you would consider some of our points.

Why thank you Edella. However, dinner over a candlelit table and french food may have to wait :eek:. I believe I have considered all of your points. I have considered concepts of evidential certainty despite my wishes not to go off in a tangent. However you have brought forward the idea of the Tamel Tigers. It is my belief that even if one potential flaw exists, however small, it should be explored. Thus I can't feel confortable that I've got the cause of Islamic terror correct until I've researched the Tamil Tigers and looked for similarities. However, this could take some time.

 

Instead, I'll progress on both tacks at the same time.

 

When moving this debate forward to solutions, I'll give all theories mentioned in this thread combined with the facts which I have argued (and nobody has counter argued) reveal an absurdity. I'll then briefly suggest what the solution would be were the theory to be correct. Then, I'll talk about my theory and go into great depth about how to change belief systems of populations.

[TheFaithfulStone]

When moving this debate forward to solutions, I'll give all theories mentioned in this thread combined with the facts which I have argued (and nobody has counter argued) reveal an absurdity. I'll then briefly suggest what the solution would be were the theory to be correct. Then, I'll talk about my theory and go into great depth about how to change belief systems of populations.

 

:sigh:

 

7 pages of discussion and the only person who has said anything worthwhile is you?

 

You can (and will) believe whatever you want - but let's see what your "solution" is.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Tamil Tigers update

 

http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=18263

 

It seems apparent that the language of the TTs is fundamentally different from that of Islamic terror. The TTs did not mention religion once during their long summery of the 'acheivements' of one of their 'fighters'. Further, there was no demonisation that is an unmistakable fingerprint of fanatical Islamic terror (and even amongst the moderates albeit for causes that do not directly endanger the lives of the West). Also, from the statement, it appears the TTs are actually grieving for the loss of their commander rather than celebrating their martyrdom. In otherwords, I see no evidence that, like Islamic Terror, the TTs actually love death. Instead it looks like they love life instead.

 

However, I have not yet found the direct motives of the suicide bomber nor any explanation from them about what it is they want.

[sebbysteiny]

7 pages of discussion and the only person who has said anything worthwhile is you?

 

I appologise if you think I've ignored people. I have not. There were a number of posters especially at the beginning who made some very valid points. Some people even put forward some alternative theories, but when I revealed absurdities, they have not repsonded to defend their model. However, I think that the last 2 or 3 pages concerning either personal attacks on myself or demands for evidence that is theoretically impossible to provide added very little to the debate.

 

The tamil tigers point however is an important one.

 

Lastly, I don't claim to be perfect. I am simply summarising the debate as I see it by combining the ARGUMENTS and POINTS that everybody has made including myself. If you think I have ommitted something in my summary, please point it out rather than hiding in the long grass taking pot shots at my character.

[TheFaithfulStone]

If you think I have ommitted something in my summary, please point it out rather than hiding in the long grass taking pot shots at my characte

 

Yes. You have omitted facts. Your assertion that something is a fact does not make it so. You have failed to provide any support for the assertions (wild ones) that you made in the "Most Moderate Muslims Believe" bit a while back.

 

The only thing that you've established so far, and I'll grant you that it's a disturbing fact is that many Muslims don't believe the 9/11 attacks where perpetrated by Arabs.

 

Other than that, what you've mostly done is draw conclusions based on statements made by "Muslim leaders" and conjecture based on "your own experience" or "common sense"

 

And you've ignored everyone who has tried to tell you this and it's frustrating!

 

But I don't think we're going to convince you, so go ahead and tell us what the solution is, ok?

[sebbysteiny]

Yes. You have omitted facts. Your assertion that something is a fact does not make it so. You have failed to provide any support for the assertions (wild ones) that you made in the "Most Moderate Muslims Believe" bit a while back.

 

The only thing that you've established so far, and I'll grant you that it's a disturbing fact is that many Muslims don't believe the 9/11 attacks where perpetrated by Arabs

 

It would be great if some of you guys could stop really digging in on what was basically merely a footnote to my theory. The question was posed to me 'what is wrong with these beliefs' and I gave illustrations of what is wrong. Also, if you look at the report again you will see that about 50% of moderate Muslims believe that imposing shria law on Western society would be a good thing, which is pretty much the same as establishing a Muslim Calophite ruling over the West. This latter belief is one of the three fundamental beliefs that I argue separates moderate Muslims from all other moderate societies and is one which, when mutated slightly to include violent means, is at the heart of fanatical Islamic terror.

 

Other than that, what you've mostly done is draw conclusions based on statements made by "Muslim leaders" and conjecture based on "your own experience" or "common sense"

 

I have also dealt with the idea of providing evidence. I have argued that the evidence you have criticised (statements by moderate Muslim leaders combined with a measurement of backlash) is the only possible evidence that one can provide on an internet site such as this. You however have, for some bizaar opinion that this is insufficient. You therefore make it theoretically impossible to prove unless you are prepared to spend millions of dollars funding an extensive survey on this issue.

 

Please suggest the type of evidence that you might actually find more convincing.

 

Also, the other models for Islamic terror, ie the famous 'desparation' theory in which moderate Muslims are 'pushed' into terror by socio-economic 'desparations' are widespread despite no evidence backing up that claim whatsoever.

 

Perhaps you should remember, evolution did not have extensive evidence on every point when it was first proposed. However, over the last few hundred years, the evidence built and built until even the footnotes were fully accounted for.

 

I find it a shame that although I make an effort to understand every other point made, people don't seem to be giving me the same respect. I've repeated myself about 3 times on the above points.

 

Tamil Tigers update

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Tigers

 

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...93862,00.html/

 

Okay, I think I'm reaching a conclusion on the Tamil Tigers.

 

Their language and motivations are totally different from that of Islamic terror. They are an extreme terror orginisation, but their aim is not for world domination nor are they using a religion to justify their acts. They are fighting to have more control over their lives. This is illustrated by the TTs changing one of their demands for an independant state to just having autonomy over their area. Such a concession would be unthinkable for Islamic terror.

 

They have a group called the Black Tigers who engage in suicide attacks that consists of willing volenteers. There does appear to be a culture of death that is typical of Islamic terror. However, the group itself is still fighting for 'freedom'. Islamic terror is not fighting for 'freedom' it is fighting for world domination.

 

The TTs have committed massacres against Muslim civilians. This makes them extreme and a terrorist orginisation. However, outside sri lanka, they pose no threat whatsoever and they value human life making them an organisation that, like the IRA, can be talked to. Fundamentally, they do not believe that killing non-hindus is an act of greatness. Instead, they consider dying for freedom an act of greatness. Also, having listened to their language, they show no signs of demonising the enemy using irrational and crazy conspiracies and arguments.

 

The culture of death is almost identical to Islamic terror and may have even been stolen by them. TTs are very motivated and often happy to be 'selected' to die, just like Islamic terror. But, it does not appear that this is motivated by any religious mentality or out of a hatred for others but about a desire to protect their own population. Thus, they have significant differences from Islamic terror, but also significant similarities.

 

So, my conclusion is that one has Islamic terror and one has all the other terror orginisations. The TTs who have the culture of death, but lack the genocidal irrationality, are a special case that sits somewhere in between. The TTs may even be an 'evolutionary missing link' between Islamic terror and other terror. However, Islamic terror is still fundamentally different in that it poses a threat to every non-Muslim citizen on the world. Further, other terror orginisations, and the TTs, can often be relied upon to care about their host populations and thus can be talked with. However, Islamic terror believes that armigedon needs to occur for the second coming of the profit.

 

It is my theory that Islamic terror is created by a different mechanism from other terrorist organisations. However, the TTs are an interesting case in that their cause may be due to both mechanisms working together. I could therefore try to seek the mechanisms behind normal terror orginisations and see if by combining the two somehow we can explain the TTs. However, this is scope for a whole other thread.

 

Lastly, I thought I might add that the Islamic terror mentalitiy is not unique to the world. In the middle ages, the crusade mentality had a lot of similararities to the Islamic terror of today. However, Western civilisation has moved on since then. Also, since Islamic terror is still distinctly different from all other organisations including the TTs, it is (today) a phenominan unique to the Muslim world and since there are no similar Christian or other groups posing a similar global threat, the origins of Islamic terror must still lie in the moderate Muslim world.

 

If that is true, then it is simply a matter of finding the particular beliefs that are responsible for allowing Islamic terror to thrive and the solution is to find a way of changing those particular beliefs.

 

That is the next massive question. How does one change the belief system of a population? The answer to this, I believe, is the solution to Islamic terror.

 

Thoughts?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Also, if you look at the report again you will see that about 50% of moderate Muslims believe that imposing shria law on Western society would be a good thing, which is pretty much the same as establishing a Muslim Calophite ruling over the West. This latter belief is one of the three fundamental beliefs that I argue separates moderate Muslims from all other moderate societies and is one which, when mutated slightly to include violent means, is at the heart of fanatical Islamic terror.

 

Could you site the page number on that please, I didn't see it in the Pew Report.

 

What are the other two beliefs?

 

Also, as for facts that would convince me - anything published by a reputable neutral organization with support numbers will convince me. You have for example, convinced me that muslims don't believe the 9/11 attacks were committed by Arabs. (This is still different from the way you characterized it as believing it was a "zionist plot.")

 

And for the record, I tend to agree with you. I don't think it is an attribute of Islamic culture which creates an acceptable climate for terrorism, but an attribute of Western Liberalism which prohibits terrorism as an acceptable tactic. (I mean that in the classical sense, not the welfare and peacenik sense.)

 

I still think, however that you arel doing a poor job of defending your argument. Partially because of what is basically a refusal to provide neutral third party evidence. (Or a total lack thereof.) And partially because of the way you keep insisting that you've answered all objections, and everyone now agrees with you, when we don't agree that you've answered all objects, and it quite clear that not everyone agrees with you.

 

TFS

[Buffy]

... You have failed to provide any support for the assertions (wild ones) that you made in the "Most Moderate Muslims Believe" bit a while back...

It would be great if some of you guys could stop really digging in on what was basically merely a footnote to my theory. The question was posed to me 'what is wrong with these beliefs' and I gave illustrations of what is wrong. Also, if you look at the report again you will see that about 50% of moderate Muslims believe that imposing shria law on Western society would be a good thing...

Here is an example of the frustration of the participants and why you're being dissed here: in the span of two sentances you say that this point is minor and then immediately use it to justify your position. It is or it isn't a major point. Througout this thread your main point is that Muslim society is somehow different, and whenever someone points it out, you say that's not important. Then if its hinted that there's evidence against it, you dismiss it outright and never address it. Example, my post above, excuse the snide frustration, but while seeming to acknowledge that I might have a point, you don't even try to address the evidence that no, Muslim *leaders* are no more suicidal than their communist counterparts. You'll now proceed to tell me that that's just a minor issue and I shouldn't worry my little head about it. This is an extremely frustrating tactic, and you need to work to gain some awareness of it. Its not just all of us being mean and irrational. This thread has been a great exercise in talking to a wall.

Please suggest the type of evidence that you might actually find more convincing.

Its not only the evidence that you provide that has been called into question because of lack of validation, or simply because you make statements without evidence, its that you're not addressing the objections!

 

But lets try to continue:

...that about 50% of moderate Muslims believe that imposing shria law on Western society would be a good thing, which is pretty much the same as establishing a Muslim Calophite ruling over the West.

Huh? How do you justify that conclusion? If you polled Fundamentalist Christians, the vast majority would say that imposing our Judeo-Christian laws on Muslim society would be a good thing, but only a few of them think we should take over their governments, however quite a few--they're called neo-cons--do indeed think that America should expand its power to control--at least indirectly--all unfriendly states. Why does this point make Muslims different?

Also, the other models for Islamic terror, ie the famous 'desparation' theory in which moderate Muslims are 'pushed' into terror by socio-economic 'desparations' are widespread despite no evidence backing up that claim whatsoever.

This is one of the points of disproof I mentioned in an earlier post which you chose not to address. Two points:

1. I said earlier that the notion that terrorists are all desperately poor is a straw man: in fact most are wealthy and its the poverty of *others* that drives them. The extreme nature of their poverty or oppression and their lack of *actual* familiarity with it can make them *more* fanatical.
   
2. This is not unique to Muslim society, and the leftist extremists of the 60s and 70s right up to Shining Path in Peru and the Nepalese Communist insurgents all point to the same justification, and are similarly often from the upper classes

You have not really addressed the core assertion that this point is not a refutation of the objections posed above.

Perhaps you should remember, evolution did not have extensive evidence on every point when it was first proposed...

Yes we know you're being unfairly attacked for being out of the mainstream. Realize though that by bringing up this point you're basically simply dismissing the objections without responding to them.

Their language and motivations are totally different from that of Islamic terror. They are an extreme terror orginisation, but their aim is not for world domination nor are they using a religion to justify their acts.

I will agree that the Tigers do not seek "world domination," but in fact neither do "Muslims". As I pointed out above, your equating "world would be better under Sharia Law" with "Muslims seek a global Caliphate" is totally specious, and relies on no facts other than your enlightened opinion. Excuse us for disagreeing, but the polls do not show "most Muslims support a Global Caliphate."

This is illustrated by the TTs changing one of their demands for an independant state to just having autonomy over their area. Such a concession would be unthinkable for Islamic terror.

Well yes, there are segments of Hamas that do not want to conceed Israel's right to exist, but its obvious that the tyranny of that minority is indeed shifting. This is again a baseless conclusion, where you are making a broad generalization that is countered by many facts, like the one cited in this sentence. There are many more.

They have a group called the Black Tigers who engage in suicide attacks that consists of willing volenteers. ... However, the group itself is still fighting for 'freedom'. Islamic terror is not fighting for 'freedom' it is fighting for world domination.

Same issue. You need to defend your generalization that "Muslims want world domination". Even if you ask *extremists* they are fighting America *only* because it backs Israel which is opposed to the "freedom of the Muslims".

...outside sri lanka, they pose no threat whatsoever and they value human life...

Which is not true, in that their militancy has taken place in the Tamil state in India, including being behind the assasination of Rajiv Ghandi. Is there a reason that you can dismiss incidents like these as irrelevant?

Also, having listened to their language, they show no signs of demonising the enemy using irrational and crazy conspiracies and arguments.

Mostly because they don't need to, but you should note that their propaganda used internally is not the same as is published to the world. In addition, "irrational and crazy" is in the eye of the beholder. I'd just point you to "loose change" for "irrational and crazy" right here in America....

The culture of death is almost identical to Islamic terror and may have even been stolen by them.

Arab terror has indeed been secular, not "Muslim" in its formation in the 60s and 70s, and the Tamils terror is contemporary, so this statement is mere conjecture, and would be based on a non-religious influence.

TTs are very motivated and often happy to be 'selected' to die, just like Islamic terror. But, it does not appear that this is motivated by any religious mentality or out of a hatred for others but about a desire to protect their own population.

Not out of hatred for others? Huh? They hate the Sinhalese majority. They hate those (like Ghandi) who support them. They know they kill people other than "soldiers" involved in battling them, so how is it that they don't have generic hate for all Sinalese? You also still need to say why it being "religious" is at all significant.

The TTs who have the culture of death, but lack the genocidal irrationality, are a special case that sits somewhere in between.

Nice opinion that just happens to align with your beliefs. Unfortunately you need to deal with the fact that you are talking about these groups as if they are monolithic and they are not. Not even the majority of Muslims align with this notion of "genocidal irrationality" and most would claim that setting off bombs indiscriminately to kill innocent women and children is indeed genocidal and irrational. It appears you are trying to find a distinction between "genocide" and "mass-murder" but to a lot of us, this is splitting hairs.

Islamic terror is still fundamentally different in that it poses a threat to every non-Muslim citizen on the world.

Again, the leftist extremists of the 60s and 70s attacked every capitalist country indiscriminantly. And there were strong divisions between the Maoists and the Trotskyites that meant threats even to apostate communist regimes. No, they did not have scale of the Muslim terrorists, but that's luck, not ideology or sociology.

Further, other terror orginisations, and the TTs, can often be relied upon to care about their host populations and thus can be talked with.

The IRA had to be brought to its knees before it would talk. So did Arafat (and your earlier argument about Fatah being religious is totally specious). This has *nothing* to do with "caring about the host populations" and the IRA in particular were well known for murdering anyone who refused to support them (they were not only terrorists, they were a criminal gang engaged in massive extortion).

However, Islamic terror believes that armigedon needs to occur for the second coming of the profit.

Ya mean like "Left Behind"? A lot of people think that this notion of Armageddon is *exactly* why the Bush administration is acting as recklessly as it is with the middle east, and while no one in the administration says so, there are plenty of extremist Christians who say so openly. So how's this different?

It is my theory that Islamic terror is created by a different mechanism from other terrorist organisations....I could therefore try to seek the mechanisms behind normal terror orginisations and see if by combining the two somehow we can explain...

We all kinda wish you would.

 

The problem we all see in your arguments is that you're not recognizing any points of commonality except where you dismiss them as trivial. Your language is nice and calm, but this is still tantamount to saying we're all a bunch of idiots who make no sense. If you're getting some of that back in a less polite manner, its probably because of this.

Lastly, I thought I might add that the Islamic terror mentalitiy is not unique to the world. In the middle ages, the crusade mentality had a lot of similararities to the Islamic terror of today. However, Western civilisation has moved on since then.

See what I mean? You've actually admitted the objection, but somehow the fact that "Western Civilization has moved on" means that we can't explain anything by it. That's dismissive. Why not? Isn't a lot of the extremist rhetoric *based on* railing against "the Crusaders?" Its not unique, we've seen it before. Where western society is today does not somehow erase history, and make the Christian/Muslim conflict any different today than it was 1000 years ago. If there's a distinction you'd like to make--especially with reference to your as yet unstated solution--please make it clearer.

it is (today) a phenominan unique to the Muslim world and since there are no similar Christian or other groups posing a similar global threat...

Extremist Christian groups do indeed in some cases seek a form of "world domination" and are committed to Saving all in the Name of the Lord. No, they do not always resort to terror (but those Operation Rescue folks sure support terror, oh but that's not relevant is it), but they also are the most lacking in oppression by others: Christians control the world already! Lack of motivation is a much simpler excuse for not practicing terror--which you have to admit has a big downside cost--than some ephemeral "Muslim Culture of Extremism".

... the origins of Islamic terror must still lie in the moderate Muslim world.

Why? Again we point out numerous examples of lack of extremism, and the fact that the beliefs of the moderates are no worse than your average Fox News viewer, but somehow its these moderate folks that cause terrorism. Terrorists exist whereever there is a *feeling* of oppresion, and there is oppression in spades in the Muslim world, much of it perpetrated by Muslims who manipulate the media Fox-News-Style to misdirect attention from their own oppression and point it at the West. And this is from countries that are our *friends* (Saudis) who are in many cases *secular* (Egypt).

If that is true, then it is simply a matter of finding the particular beliefs that are responsible for allowing Islamic terror to thrive and the solution is to find a way of changing those particular beliefs.

Now the forgoing indicates that we all still disagree with your conclusion here, but go ahead and please tell us how you want to change those beliefs...

The answer to this, I believe, is the solution to Islamic terror.

Still waiting...

 

Thinking Critically,

Buffy