Islamic terror: the solution

[sebbysteiny]

Response to Buffy

 

It's good that you've come out with some good arguments against my theory rather than simply attacking me and I am happy to recipricate by putting forward suggestions. Even better, your arguments have been laid out in a clear way so that they are easy to see what points you wish me to repsond to.

 

I would encourage other criticisors to adopt this format.

 

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.

 

I can see many people are saying that I have not been listening. However, this is not through want of effort on my part. Perhaps it is because you don't make clear what you want me to address or consider and why. Either way, I have been trying to address the points made to me.

 

I think it's best to make absolutely clear what my theory is. I do admit that I have been ambigous.

 

My theory is that there is something about the moderate Muslim belief system that allows fanaticism to thrive. Thus most of the solution lies with the moderates not with fanatics.

 

That is the model and anything that it does not explain or even proves it wrong or will destroy my theory in it's entirety. Other models are that it lies with desparation and things like that.

 

I have backed this up with the statement (that we are still heavily debating) that Islamic terror is a phenominon unique to Muslim culture. This statement is reasonably critical to my theory. If another culture exists that has something very similar to Islamic terror which does not exhibit a similar belief system in the moderates (at least with regard to the beliefs responsible) then it will be a critical blow to my theory.

 

However, in this post I have tried to go further by actually suggesting the particular beliefs responsible. In particular I have suggested 1) the support for Palestinian Islamic terror in Israel, 2) the support for sharia law imposed on the whole world (ie worldwide a Muslim Calophite), and 3) the lack of understanding of absolute truth such that conspicicy theories run rampant are all beliefs amongst moderate Muslims that might, when combined in the same person, make a person particularly prone to fanatical indoctrination though a fanatical cleric who acts as a catalyst.

 

These beliefs do not need to be supported by the majority of the moderate Muslim community. Even a figure as low as 20% could be sufficient. However, what does matter is whether the above arguments are considered acceptable in moderate Muslim discourse. For example, if I say 'the holocaust never happened', in Western society I would be disgraced (rightly). However, if I were to say it in moderate Muslim circles and I were not disgraced and even had some kind of support or sympathy, then that is enough to let that belief spread with ease.

 

However, if you can prove that one of these beliefs are wrong, then it does not destroy my theory that the cause of (and solution to) Islamic terror lies with a change in the belief system of the moderates. What it does show is that I got the particular belief wrong. Instead, it could be another belief that causes the problem. If, after extensive study, I still could not find any beliefs that do cause Islamic terror, then my theory becomes damaged irreparably.

 

However, the hardest thing about this is proof. Finding opinion is particularly difficult, and finding deep nested beliefs as well as the degree in which an opinion is considered 'acceptable' takes more than a simple questionaire that consists of most survays.

 

The reason I believe these particular beliefs are responsible come down to my knowledge of Palestinian Islamic terror, the moderate Muslim support given to the Palestinians which will almost always go as far as to justify suicide bombings indirectly, the large amount of anti Western feelings throughout the Arab world, wahabism, and conversations I have had with many Muslim people from around the world. If you like, my experiences have shown me that these beliefs could be the culprit.

 

I do not think I have been any less evidentially vague than any other competing theory. As I said, there is only so much one can do to prove what is going on in the head of another. However, this theory seems to explain significantly more than any other competing theory I have found.

 

Lastly, I was questioned whether the beliefs posed were really so far away from Western values. To illustrate that they were, I put forward examples of how such beliefs could be used to produce conclusions that were plainly at odds with moderate Western values (eg zionist conspiricies and holocaust denial as an example of the lack of belief in objective truth and other similar traits for the other beliefs). These are where I have got the majority of flack. However, these are also only a footnote to the theory and even if some of the examples cannot be proven, or even are proven wrong, it still gives a good illustration as to how the main three beliefs I have mentioned are not acceptable to moderate Western society.

 

My theory explains all the key facts. Some of these facts are:

 

1) Islamic terror occurs entirely from the Muslim populations.

2) There is no Christian terror that tries to kill non-Chistian infadels, nor any other similar terror from another culture.

3) Those indoctrinated into Islamic terror are often, but not necessary, wealthy and come from good families. Thus, the mechanism must be independant of class and economic success.

4) There are many countries in the world that are poor and desparate. None of them have a phonomina similar to Islamic terror.

5) The people indoctrinated into Islamic terror are usually clever, sane, chaps.

6) The people intdocrinated into Islamic terror are usually willing volenteers who came to them of their own free will.

 

The above facts are usually enough to destroy some of the more obvious models.

 

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?

I think very few would support imposing Judeo-Christian laws on anybody let alone Muslims. Our laws do not come from the bible. We believe in a separation of church and state. If people wish to curse Jesus' name, then they will simply be bad christians, not criminals. Sharia law is the law from the Quoran and is a clear mix of Islam and Politics. If Muslims wish to obey Sharia law, then that is one thing: trying to impose it on those that do not wish to abide by it (Muslim or non Muslim) is quite another.

 

Also, trying to expand power or mix in another's political system is not the same as trying to enforce a religious law on people that do not wish to be party to that law or that religion.

 

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

 

1) This is a good point. However, I would add that there are some poor and uneducated who also take part. Islamic terror is skewed to the rich, but it still has no class boundaries. Also, whilst rich kids with a social concience trying to stop oppression could explain some things, it does not explain the religious aspect to it, eg: that their religion compells them to do it; that 'infidels' are the enemies of 'allah'; that Muslims have the right to steal from and murder 'infidels' because they aand re cursed by 'allah' to name a few. It also does not explain why they wish to replace Western governments with Islamic governments and kill all those who do not submit to 'the will of Allah'.

 

2) Again, Islamic terror is religious in nature rather than academic.

 

My head has turned into scrambled eggs, so I will finish this tomorrow.

[InfiniteNow]

At what point does one realize that it's not a mutiny, but that the captain of the ship is just wrong?

[IDMclean]

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.

 

The clown that laughs loudest wins, eh? In attempting to prove that Stebby is doing badly, you put this up? I would think this ad hominen.

 

Sebby here I think has been more than fair in trying to address each question brought to his attention.

 

So I guess "all that I'm saying, is give Sebby a chance." <- in sing song to Give peace a chance.

 

-He who laughs, shares mirth with the world. He who laughs at others, spreads animosity.

KickAssClown

[sebbysteiny]

At what point does one realize that it's not a mutiny, but that the captain of the ship is just wrong?

I love this. Just because you say I'm wrong does not make me wrong :eek: . Honestly, as Junior monitor you should know better. Perhaps you might like to MAKE A CONTRIBUTION and substantiate your claims :eek:.

 

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

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.

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.

 

cont from last post.

 

In essense, I am saying Islamic terror is not born out of good willed people trying to bring equality to the world: it is born out of religious people diven into a fanatical devotion to perform what they consider to be "allah's will" ie bringing about a global Muslim Calophate.

 

I suppose you will want evidence of this, right?

 

 

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."

 

There are three things here. Firstly, whether Islamic terrorists are fighting to bring about a global Muslim Caliphate. This is discussed above. Secondly, whether moderate Muslims wish this outcome albeit by peaceful means. Unfortunately the data is not clear on this. The closest I have found a telegraph poll that suggests 40% of moderate Muslims wish Muslim dominated areas to be subject to sharia law. However, this is not a majority and it does not cover sharia law on Britain. Most importantly, it does not reveal how acceptable / legitimate this view is to moderate Muslims who neverthelss disagree with it. Thirdly, whether the belief of establishing sharia law on the world is the same as a Muslim Calophate. I think by definition it is. A global Muslim Calophate simply means subjecting the whole world to the laws and will of Allah, which is basically just sharia law. Perhaps a global Muslim Calophate may also have harsh consequences for non-Muslims, but if non-Muslims are subject to sharia law, then they will probably get those harsh consequences anyway. Eg, celebrating Christmas is contrary to Sharia law.

 

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.

This is what I believe is one of the great misunderstandings of Islamlic terror. In particular, we are thinking of groups like Fatah and the PLO (as I know of no other apparently secular Islamic terror group). However, these groups are anything but secular.

 

The sight http://www.pmw.org.il/ gives numerous examples which, although I've mentioned 3 times, for some reason hasn't been looked at once.

 

The most common method of the apparently 'secular' groups promoting religious hatred is by using their officially appointed clerics. Fatah appointed official clerics have been saying things like

The believer was created to know his Lord - to fulfill Islam, to carry the banner, 'there is no god but Allah,' to be a shahid [death for allah] or intend to be a shahid. If the believer does not hope for Shahada, he will die as in the Jahiliya [i.e. the pre-Islamic, pagan faith in Arabian peninsula]. We must yearn Shahada and request it from Allah. If we truthfully request it of Allah, He will grant us its rewards, even if we die in bed... Allah planted within our youth the love of Jihad, the love of Shahada. Our youth have turned into bombs - they blow themselves up among [israelis] day and night.

[PA TV, March 22, 2002]

 

So how can a secular organisations appoint fanatical jihadi clerics, have a ministry designated to religious affairs, regularly broadcast the surmans of fanatical jihadi clerics to their populatation day in day out and use the word 'shihad' [death for Allah] whenever they discribe all suicide attacks?

 

My main point is that although they label themselves as 'secular' a religious jihadi idiology is still a fundamental part of their propaganda to motivate people into the culture of death.

 

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.

 

This is relying entirely on Palestinian statements (Hamas and Fatah) made in English. In arabic, what they say is very different. In particular, the idea that some segments of Hamas will tollerate Israel's existance and the idea that most of Fatah will as well is highly dubious. The site above give numerous examples of this.

 

I believe this quote will be suffice

One of Arafat's aides stated that he was speaking in the name of the Palestinian leadership, when he resurrected the P.L.O. "Phases Plan" saying at a public lecture that "The Palestinian State with its capital in Jerusalem is not the end of the journey" but is only a phase, "after which another phase will follow, notably the Democratic State in all of Palestine"[Arafat's Assistant for National Purpose, Uthman Abu Gharbia, Al Hayat Al Jadida (the official daily of the P.A.), 25 November 1999]. Amad Falugi, the Minister of Communications in the P.A., expressed the same position: "... our nation is full of hope regarding the future and the conquering state [israel] will not continue to exist, regardless of its strength or its arrogance...".[Al Hayat Al Jadida, 18 November 1999.]

 

This idea of a phased plan is often reoccuring. The idea is that they do not accept Israel, but will, as an intermediary, accept a temporary Palestinian state on the understanding that later they will finish the job and obliterate the state of Israel.

 

On the last Friday before the Sharm A-Sheikh peace summit between then-Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in February 2005, PA TV broadcast an official sermon which made clear to Palestinians the role, in Palestinian eyes, of peace talks.

...

"We might return to the 1967 borders by diplomacy, but we shall not return to the 1948 borders by diplomacy. No one on this earth recognizes [our right to] the 1948 borders. Therefore, we shall return to the 1967 borders, but it does not mean that we have given up on Jerusalem, and Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramle, Netanya and Tel Aviv. Never... Your father's blood was shed there, at the villages, at Ashqelon, Ashdod, Hirbia [Kibbutz Zikim] and hundreds of villages and towns that demand it from us. [Their blood] shall curse anyone who will concede a grain of earth of those villages. The land of Palestine will demand the Palestinians return as Muhammad returned - as a conqueror."

[PA TV, February 4, 2005]

 

I believe these statements made Arabic by official PA (in the days when the PA was controlled by Fatah) put overwhelming doubt as to the accuracy of claims like 'Fatah is an entirely secular movement' or 'only some parts of Hamas wish the destruction of Israel'.

 

I guess I would say that the real birth if Islamic terror was from the Palestinian territories. As knowning exactly what Islamic terror is was the first question posed in this thread, understanding Palestinian terror is very important.

 

I think that is about all on 'secular' Islamic terrorists.

 

...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?

 

My point is that although the TTs may have formed part of a terror network, the TTs have no wish to kill Westerners or Africans or even people who disagree with them. Their fight is limited to one territory. IT however wishes to kill all 'infidels' who do not convert to Islam and / or impose an Islamic system of government upon the entire planet. Do you at least see agree that this is a difference?

 

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.

 

My point is that there are two reasons why people might kill another. Firstly, their love for themselves and the belief that if they don't kill their enemy, then they will suffer harm. The second is hate for the enemy where the desire to kill the enemy supercedes any desire to improve the life of yourself. TTs seem more to be in the first catagory (as is most of humanity). However, IT is more in the second catagory which makes it fundamentally impossible to deal with. Let me know if you need 'evidence' of this.

 

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....

Duly noted. However I will say that I have become adapt at distinguishing between demonisation and legitimate debate. Legitimate debate does not mean what your are saying is legitimate per-se, but demonisation is when you say one apparantly credible thing but use subliminal techniques to feed messages of hate directly into the subconcious by the back door. Whist Islamic terror (even in their moderate guise) deliberately twists language to have exactly that effect, the TTs contain no such demonisation techniques.

 

Also, you may be right that there are 'irrational and crazy' ideas in America. However these are in the minority and are largely disgraced by the majority.

 

Nice opinion that just happens to align with your beliefs.

...

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.

The question I was posing is whether the existance of the TTs creates an absurdity in my theory. I cannot see any compelling reason why it does. Of course, that means that it must 'just happen to align with [my] beliefs', hence no absurdity. I believe there are many ways in which my theory can give an accurate descritpion of Islamic terror despite the existance of the TTs. I just gave one example of how it might fit in. There are others.

 

And I think I should explain the model I have suggested is not something deeply rooted to my beliefs. It is a model of Islamic terror which I think intellectually has a lot to add to the academic community. I do not dismiss other models as long as they explain all the key facts. Infact, I welcome them.

 

The mass murder / genocide comparison is a valid one. Yes I think there is a fundamental distinction. Mass murder is simply the killing of more than 1 innocent people. However, each 'mass murder' is a single event with a unique motive. For example, butchering a Muslim town as revenge for government actions of some form. However, genocide is even worse that that. Genocide is the desire to exterminate a race. This can take the form of a whole string of 'mass murders' all connected with the single disgusting aim of extermination and the thirst for blood is not satisfied by one singular act. Serious mass murders typically kill hundreds. Genocide typically kills millions. It is thus a totally different beast. IT believes that 'allah' would like to kill those who do not obey his (sharia) rules. It is therefore genocidal.

 

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. ... 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).

 

This may be true but the IRA still believed they were acting in the best interests of the host population. Your right that part of the IRA mutated into a criminal gang, but when that happened that part seised to be a terror organisation and therefore an example of any use to this thread. Perhaps an organised crime thread might be a better place to discuss IRA criminal extortion.

 

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?

 

If Bush really wanted armigedon he need only fire nuclear missiles at Russia. I mean really, this is a scientific forum. Was that really a serious point?

 

The extremist Christians are different from IT because IT are acting to bring their beliefs about, whilst the extremist Christians are merely giving their interpretation of the scriptures while allowing God to decide mankind's fate.

 

 

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.

 

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. Its not unique, we've seen it before. Where western society is today does not somehow erase history. ... If there's a distinction you'd like to make--especially with reference to your as yet unstated solution--please make it clearer.

 

I agree with your arguments here. My point is that in the modern world only IT has this mentality. Now, the historical evidence shows that Western civilisation had a similar belief system to many Muslim populations. Thus, finding out how Western civilisation changed its belief system will be very significant for finding the [as yet unstated]solution.

 

Three more points to go :). I'll be back in a few hours.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Secondly, whether moderate Muslims wish this outcome albeit by peaceful means. Unfortunately the data is not clear on this. The closest I have found a telegraph poll that suggests 40% of moderate Muslims wish Muslim dominated areas to be subject to sharia law. However, this is not a majority and it does not cover sharia law on Britain. Most importantly, it does not reveal how acceptable / legitimate this view is to moderate Muslims who neverthelss disagree with it.

 

Interesting, can you point us to the Telegraph poll. Also - does this indicate Sharia in addition to Civil Law, or in place of?

 

It seems to me that your entire first point, that terrorism perpetrated by Muslims is different than other terrorism rests on the assumption that all Islamic Terrorism is focused solely on the idea of forcing "unbelievers" to submit to sharia.

 

It seems to me there are lots of reasons that the Muslim world has turned to terrorism, and I doubt that you can ascribe the same motive to all of it's practitioners. How many suicide bombers in Iraq would not have been suicide bombers if we hadn't provided them with an excuse?

 

Let's reboot for a minute. Could you tell me if my understanding of your argument is correct?

 

A) That there is an element of Islam itself which makes Islamic Terrorism different from other forms of terrorism.

:eek: That this element is the wish of Muslims to establish sharia over the entire world.

C) That this means that Islamic Terrorists cannot be dealt with in the same way as any other terrorist, as any concessions less that total victory will not appease them.

 

D) That the implied solution is to change Islam itself so that they no longer have said expansionist zeal.

 

Is that right?

 

Thanks,

TFS

[pgrmdave]

TFS, if you're tired of reading his posts, then stop reading them, and don't be rude.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sorry.

 

I'm enjoying the conversation, but the posts are getting purty long.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Good GOD stebby. I am tired of reading these things!

 

OH for god's sake. On the one had you accuse me of not providing enough information to answer the questions you are posing, and then when I do, you accuse me of being too long. Make up your mind!!!

 

However, after I've answered Buffy's last few points, I'll try to change the rules by asking you guys to limit the questions to only the three most important ones. I think this will stop long tangental arguments. I suggest bullet points or numbering of points as good method of keeping things concise.

 

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.

 

Firstly, you have given no such examples of moderate Muslims having similar belief systems to the average 'Fox news' viewer. Secondly, you talk about the 'feeling of oppression'. This is a very interesting phrase since it overlaps both my theory and the 'Muslims are desparate' theory. However, there are many other nations that have much more rights to feel oppressed yet they don't resort to something like IT. However, you will say, 'yes but they don't feel as oppressed'. I will agree with that. However, why do they have the nonsense view that they are oppressed? I argue that it is because they have little understanding of absolute truth. Their media certainly does not value objectivity and truth. Also, this 'feeling of oppression' is identical to the feeling installed in every other demonising technique that brainwashes people into hatred. I mean, that is what demonising is: creating irrational feelings of hatred or victimisation that cannot be substatiated by the impartial evidence. Either way, I think we can agree, appeasing their nonsense views will not help.

 

 

 

I do not wish to go through that all over again, but Buffy did raise some important, (albeit at times somewhat tangental) points. Hopefully we can now try and focus on the important points.

 

I think the only two theories mentioned is mine, and buffy's 'feeling of oppression' theory.

 

Finally, lets get this thread moving towards solutions. If my theory is right, we must change the belief system of the moderates so that it is identical with ours for the particular beliefs causing the problem.

 

To summerise my approach to solutions, I believe that the only factors that might change belief systems are: fundamental events (war, etc); debate; engagement; the media; and the government. Further each factor interreacts with each other factor to some degree. However, I believe the most significant will be fundamental events. My next post will go through these. If anybody can think of any other factors, please mention them.

 

On a slight diversion, if I am right, then since every culture has had different fundamental events, it therefore follows that every culture will, as I have gone to great pains to suggest, have different belief systems. This means that my very different arguments regarding how belief systems change is self consistant with my argument that moderate Muslim cultures have a different belief system from moderate Western culture because logically they must.

 

Perhaps Buffy could expand on what the solution requires to stop the 'feeling of oppression' aka demonisation that you believe is causing Islamic terror. Perhaps we could find some overlap which would allow us to agree upon a solution even if we disagree upon the cause.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Let's reboot for a minute. Could you tell me if my understanding of your argument is correct?

 

A) That there is an element of Islam itself which makes Islamic Terrorism different from other forms of terrorism.

:( That this element is the wish of Muslims to establish sharia over the entire world.

C) That this means that Islamic Terrorists cannot be dealt with in the same way as any other terrorist, as any concessions less that total victory will not appease them.

 

D) That the implied solution is to change Islam itself so that they no longer have said expansionist zeal.

 

Is that right?

 

Could you address that please?

 

Thanks,

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

x

 

Immitation is the highest form of flattery :)

 

Let's reboot for a minute. Could you tell me if my understanding of your argument is correct?

 

A) That there is an element of Islam itself which makes Islamic Terrorism different from other forms of terrorism.

:( That this element is the wish of Muslims to establish sharia over the entire world.

C) That this means that Islamic Terrorists cannot be dealt with in the same way as any other terrorist, as any concessions less that total victory will not appease them.

 

D) That the implied solution is to change Islam itself so that they no longer have said expansionist zeal.

 

Is that right?

 

I will certainly address this surprisingly civil question

 

A) This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Islamic terror is different from all other forms of terrorism. However, what allows Islamic terror to thrive within moderate Muslim culture is the moderate Muslim belief system.

 

:doh: The most likely elements of the Moderate Muslim belief system that cause (a) I believe to be: 1) The belief to impose sharia law / a Muslim calophite, on the whole world (political aim); and 2) The belief that suicide bombings and deliberate slaughter of civilians can be justified in some circumstances (Israel, Iraq, Kashmir) (violent means). However these beliefs must be fused together by a catalyst (a fanatical Islamic cleric) into the fanatical belief to establsih a global Muslim Calophate using violent means. A third belief, 3) the complete lack of understanding of objective truth, makes that preachers job much easier.

 

So, as equations,

Belief 1 =====>moderate Muslim.

Belief 2 =====>moderate Muslim

Belief 1 + Belief 2 ======>moderate Muslim

 

Catalyst (fanatical cleric)

Belief 1 + Belief 2 ==================> Islamic terrorist

Belief 3

 

C) Correct. Also, I argue that other terrorist organisations are created by a different mechanism.

 

D) Not quite. The solution is to change the belief system of moderate Muslim culture (to get rid of belief 1 and belief 2). Islam as a religion I doubt is any more dangerous than Christianity as a religion. Both can be interpretted moderately or fanatically. The problem is in the culture of many of those that follow Islam.

[nkt]

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.

Having waded through this thread:

 

The Tamil Tigers and the Muslims have *exactly* the same motivation. They are both fighting for more autonomy and control over their lives. The Muslims aren't in control of anything, not even their own countries. Iraq still isn't under Iraqi control now, two years after the war was officially ended. So they kill for the same general reason as the TTs.

 

If your town was occupied by aliens that you could shoot square in the chest with the biggest gun you could carry, and they would then get up, and shoot back killing you instantly, or calling in a flying machine to destroy your entire street looking for you, and the only ways to get them with even a 20% chance of killing one were to either walk up to them and blow yourself to bits, or to be a terrorist, and bury a bomb in the street, I feel fairly sure that you would be in the line of volunteers.

 

This is exactly the situation in Iraq. The US army is there, with unkillable tanks, hidden behind layers of kevlar and steel and ceramic, and the very fact that they are there, with such superior firepower and defensive measures, is a slap in the face to every Iraqi who wants to re-build and get on.

 

I'm quite sure that if the terrorists could simply hold the US people hostage indefinately, as the US is doing with the terrorists, they wouldn't go in for beheadings and the like. But I'm also quite sure that if the US knew the terrorists would arrive with overwhelming force to free the Gitmo captives, they would be summarily executed in a similar manner.

 

I listened on the way home to exactly this situation being played out in Gaza by the Isreali army, who are hunting for a soldier. They apparently used an F16 to blow up a car to block a road today. From the report, it sounded like a random car that some poor sod was driving to work. Is that not an act of terror and against everything that "the side of good" stand for?

 

On a level of 1 to 10 for cowardice, it rates an easy 10. An advanced fighter plane using a state-of-the-art guided munition to take out a civilian car, the driver of which had no clue that he was even in a dangerous place (any more than Gaza is already dangerous). These levels of cowardice are the main reason that I don't respect a lot of these war efforts, and I believe that it is why a lot of Muslims, who are fearful of losing everything they live for, are so utterly afraid that they can rationalise blowing themselves up to make a difference.

[sebbysteiny]

If your town was occupied by aliens that you could shoot square in the chest with the biggest gun you could carry, and they would then get up, and shoot back killing you instantly, or calling in a flying machine to destroy your entire street looking for you, and the only ways to get them with even a 20% chance of killing one were to either walk up to them and blow yourself to bits, or to be a terrorist, and bury a bomb in the street, I feel fairly sure that you would be in the line of volunteers.

 

FINALLY, we have the moderate Muslim arguement justifying terror in some circumstances. This is what I've been calling 'belief 2'. I've heard this, or something like this, over 100 times in my discussions with moderate Muslims. I'll gladly tackle this argument and why I believe it is contrary to moderate Western values, but first, can I ask you a personal question? Are you a Muslim? If not, do you have some strong connection to Muslim causes or, if not, where did you first hear that argument? I notice you like to keep up to date about the goings on in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

I'm not going to take anything away from what you say if you are. Infact, if you are, we could all get the Muslim perspective and it would make a vital contribution to this debate.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm not going to take anything away from what you say if you are. Infact, if you are, we could all get the Muslim perspective and it would make a vital contribution to this debate.

Yes, exactly, because all it takes to understand an entire culture and a huge population of people is the perspective of one who we have pidgeon holed into that group. :D

[sebbysteiny]

Yes, exactly, because all it takes to understand an entire culture and a huge population of people is the perspective of one who we have pidgeon holed into that group. :hihi:

 

Say what you want. I have talked to literally hundreds of people from Moderate Islam. That aguement is entirely a moderate Muslim argument and if you talk to somebody from London to Saudi Arabia I have found they will almost always give that very arguement word for word. I have even read school text books from multiple Middle Eastern test books that actually teach people that very arguement. And out of the hundreds of arguments given to me in this post, somebody has given me that argument and I have recognised it and its origins. What's your point?

[TheFaithfulStone]

A) This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Islamic terror is different from all other forms of terrorism. However, what allows Islamic terror to thrive within moderate Muslim culture is the moderate Muslim belief system.

 

A) That there is an element of Islam itself which makes Islamic Terrorism different from other forms of terrorism.

 

That seems to be pretty fine grained distinction. I'm not sure I understand the need to draw it.

 

As NKT points out, intentional killing of civilians is not unique to Islamic Terrorist, and neither (as history demonstrates) are suicide missions.

 

As Buffy has pointed out, the idea that you should expand your belief system to cover the whole world, by force if necessary is not unique to Islam (and is even mirrored in the US)

 

So, could you address those two points, please?

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

could you address those two points, please?

 

Sure, since you asked so nicely :)

 

That seems to be pretty fine grained distinction. I'm not sure I understand the need to draw it.

 

It is entirely necessary to make this distinction. What the Quoran says does not bring Islamic terrorism. It is the people and the culture that potentially causes a small minority to become extremists. Even if the words of the Quoran were changed, Islamic Terror would remain.

 

As NKT points out, intentional killing of civilians is not unique to Islamic Terrorist, and neither (as history demonstrates) are suicide missions.

 

I'll deal with NKT's opnions separately to all others because NKT's argument goes right to the heart of what I am saying needs to be changed within moderate Islam. However, I will address those two quick points, though I think I have already addressed them. Briefly, Islamic terror is terror aimed at killing infidels as an aim in itself. Yes they [the extremists] want to establish a Global Muslim Calophite but they also want to see dead 'infidels'. This is unique to the world. Most terror orginisations use terror to bring about some kind of change to their own people. Islamic terror uses terror as an end in itself. They are also the only type of terror that aims to maximise civilian casualties. It's like serial killer meets terror orginisation.

 

Suicide missions are unique in the sense they require a culture of death. Yes suicide missions have happened in history but other than the Tamil tigers, there has been no actual idea that it is a great thing to die. Instead, only that it is a noble act to die saving others. The suicide attacks of Islamic terror are unique because they are not interested in saving others, they are interested in the honour of death as a personal goal.

 

As Buffy has pointed out, the idea that you should expand your belief system to cover the whole world, by force if necessary is not unique to Islam (and is even mirrored in the US)

 

Interesting analogy. However I believe the fundamental distinction is that Islamic terror wishes to deny us the right to think or act as we want. America wishes to encourage people to think and act as they want through democracy. One is encouraging and preserving human rights (the right to free thought and belief) one is trying to crush it. Also, America may justify its desire to spread peaceful beliefs to unstable places because they will keep Americans safe in the long term. Islamic terror does not have this justification. So it depends how confident you are in your belief that human rights are a good thing.

 

In the next two days, I will start a whole new thesis about belief systems and what it takes to change it. That thesis will be entirely independant of the one I have thusfar proposed. However, I hope to combine these two to give the solution to Islamic terror.

 

First, however, I'm going to deal with belief 2 of my theory which was put down word for word by NKT.

 

Thus far, I have not said NKT is wrong intellectually, only that his view is very common in the moderate Muslim world. I will now show that it is incompatible with Western values and human rights.

 

Essentialy his argument was this

If your town was occupied by aliens that you could shoot square in the chest with the biggest gun you could carry, and they would then get up, and shoot back killing you instantly, or calling in a flying machine to destroy your entire street looking for you, and the only ways to get them with even a 20% chance of killing one were to either walk up to them and blow yourself to bits, or to be a terrorist, and bury a bomb in the street, I feel fairly sure that you would be in the line of volunteers.

 

This is exactly the situation in Iraq. The US army is there, with unkillable tanks, hidden behind layers of kevlar and steel and ceramic, and the very fact that they are there, with such superior firepower and defensive measures, is a slap in the face to every Iraqi who wants to re-build and get on.

This argument is highly emotionally charged. I have learnt that were there is high emotion in such arguments, there is low logical argument.

 

So I'll attack it in two ways. Firstly, the overall conclusion and secondly the bit by bit flaws in this arguement. Firstly, the act it is describing are people walking into clubs, pubs, cafes and mosques strapped with bombs who indiscriminately and deliberately murder as many innocent people as they can. They turn children, women, men and old people into butcher meat. This act has been described as a crime against humanity and breaches the rules of war because it is murder with no purpose. In particular, the little children and their parents were in no way threatening the bomber or his community and by so murdering, they do not help one iota the lives of the people who they claim to be murdering for.

 

However, by the time you finish the argument, it suggests that the suicide bombers are necessary self defence and good men and from my 'Collateral damage: self defence or war crime' post, any act of self defence was considered morally justified. Therefore, as the purportrators of the terror turn out to be justified by his argument, there must be a logical flaw in that argument. In other words, its conclusions fly in the face of what we know to be true thus there must be a flaw in the arguement.

 

So, where is that flaw? Everywhere.

 

If your town was occupied by aliens that you could shoot square in the chest with the biggest gun you could carry, and they would then get up, and shoot back killing you instantly, or calling in a flying machine to destroy.

 

What he is saying logically is Country A invaded Country B. Country A had better armed forces. That is all that logically follows from this statement.

 

However, emotionally, he is using his language to demonise a people. Stage 1 of demonisation is to provide a group with whome one can sympathise, love and develope a great bond with ('the loved people'). The use of 'your town' creates that emotional connection and is used to make you feel very emotionally sympathetic to 'the loved party'. Another example might be 'imagine you were a country that had fought many wars and had much suffering (ie Germany 1930)'. Stage 2 of demonisation is to get the demonised party ('the demonised party')to create much suffering on the 'loved party' who one fell in love with in stage 1. Dehumanising is essential for this. The use of 'Aliens' provides exactly that dehumanising aspect and he will later by (false) analogy assign the identity of 'Aliens' to the party he wishes to demonise (America, Israel, UK etc). Another example of stage 2 is 'Now imagine that country only fought the wars because a devious people, (the Jews), created a conspiracy to force the country (Germany 1930) into all of those wars that caused such suffing. Stage 3 is to suggest a solution that will cause a great deal of suffering to the demonised party (eg the holocaust / final solution, or in this case, suicide bombings).

 

your entire street looking for you, and the only ways to get them with even a 20% chance of killing one were to either walk up to them and blow yourself to bits, or to be a terrorist, and bury a bomb in the street,

 

 

Logically, what he has said is, 'the only way of Country B defending itself is to use suicide bombers'. However, as later, when he applies this to Israel and Iraq, it is patantly false. Logically, this assumes that 1) suicide bombings of innocent civilians are effective at stopping the tanks (which they are not) and 2) that there genuinely are no other ways of defending yourself. Both in Israel and in Iraq, there are much better ways (mainly political) and in Iraq, the ballot box is more than sufficient to get ones will heard.

 

Emotionally, he increases the bond towards the 'loved party' by 'your entire street looking for you' and by using the phrase 'and the only way to ... kill one of them' dehumanises the demonised party further. He has also introduced the word 'terrorist'. This is stage 3 of demonisation whereby the only solution to stop the demonised party from inflicting suffering on the 'loved' party is to commit crimes against the demonised party.

 

This is stage 3 of demonisation completed. Solution: suicide bomb the demonised party.

 

I feel fairly sure that you would be in the line of volunteers.

 

In the unique situation that he has presented whereby Country A invades Country B AND Country B has a stronger military AND there was no conventional way of Country B defending itself AND the use of suicide bombers provided effective self defence THEN there would be people supporting suicide bombers. This is the entire logical substance of the argument and is nothing more than the non sequita that a country has a right to defend itself by effective means.

 

Emotionally, however, Country A has been demonised and despite all the potential flaws in the logic, the emotional pull is so strong that many people will bypass logic altogether and flow with the demonisation and the solution instead.

 

This is exactly the situation in Iraq. The US army is there, with unkillable tanks, hidden behind layers of kevlar and steel and ceramic, and the very fact that they are there, with such superior firepower and defensive measures, is a slap in the face to every Iraqi who wants to re-build and get on.

 

Here is the rather predictable analogy. Logically, the analogy is false. Suicide bombings are only effective at killing innocent Iraqis and are ineffective at defending Iraqis. It is rather bizaar to suggest the slaughter of Shias in mosques is an act capable of defending the shias. Further, there are other better ways of resisting eg by the ballot box. Also, the US is not currently 'invading' Iraq, it is there on request from a government that has full support of the Iraqi people and the highest religious authorities. Infact the only parallell is that America has better guns. Here lies the danger. This argument can be used to justify suicide bombings on any country that has even a rudimentary army.

 

Emotionally, one asks who should one hate? The answer is the US (and later Israel). There is no logical reason to hate the US, but emotionally one is compelled to do so. Demonisation complete.

 

And for those who doubt that the substance of the argument is demonisation rather than logic, ask yourself this: after reading and accepting the argument given, what emotion would you use to discribe your view of the aliens (or the US, Israel or whatever)? The answer will be something very close or identical to hate. However these feelings are masked by feelings of love for 'the loved party'. In this way, good people can support very bad things.

 

The Tamil Tigers and the Muslims have *exactly* the same motivation. They are both fighting for more autonomy and control over their lives. The Muslims aren't in control of anything, not even their own countries. Iraq still isn't under Iraqi control now

 

So Muslim leaders ruling Muslim nations is considered an oppression??? And if a democratic government including all three main ethnicities in Iraq is not called 'Iraqi control' I don't know what is. This, perhaps, could be Belief 3, the total lack of understanding of objective truth.

 

I'm quite sure that if the terrorists could simply hold the US people hostage indefinately, as the US is doing with the terrorists, they wouldn't go in for beheadings and the like. But I'm also quite sure that if the US knew the terrorists would arrive with overwhelming force to free the Gitmo captives, they would be summarily executed in a similar manner.

 

Notice the emotional demonisation needs to be accepted to accept this. The analogy is (again) false. How was Keneth Bigly's decapitation in any way similar to people caught fighting for the Talaban who have now been imprisoned? Further, the beheadings were a deliberately disgusting method of killing. Prisoners of war (who have never included civilians) when killed are normally killed quickly and painlessly if possible. There can be no justification for Zarqawi's brutal acts of terror in which the only crime of his victim was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

On a level of 1 to 10 for cowardice, it rates an easy 10. An advanced fighter plane using a state-of-the-art guided munition to take out a civilian car, the driver of which had no clue that he was even in a dangerous place (any more than Gaza is already dangerous). These levels of cowardice are the main reason that I don't respect a lot of these war efforts, and I believe that it is why a lot of Muslims, who are fearful of losing everything they live for, are so utterly afraid that they can rationalise blowing themselves up to make a difference.

 

This is the main thesis of the argument. Any nation with advanced weoponary deserves to have its innocent civilians blown to smitherines if one can be convinced that they are in anyway 'occupying Muslim lands'. When you say "I believe that is why a lot of Muslims ... [emotional stage 1 demonisation] ... can rationalise blowing themselves up" what you are stating is that you think a rational argument exists. Therefore by definition you think it is rational and it is therefore a justification of terror on people whose only crimes are to have a big army and to be interpretted by some to be 'occupying Muslim lands'.

 

Also, a common phrase amongst the military is 'where one has a close fight, one has a badly planned fight'. Overwhelming force in the right place is thus the main object in fighting any war. However, by saying how hard the terrorists must find it, he is trying to make the terrorists out to be noble and honest since they are prepared to fight using miliatarily suicidal tactics.

However, I have no doubt you believe this applies only to Israel and US (in Iraq). However, it can be seen that this same argument can be used (by a fantical cleric) to justify attacks on any other nation that has an army if that cleric can convince the moderate Muslim that that nation is 'occupying Muslim lands' and as we have seen, the standard of proof required to make such a belief is very low.

 

I listened on the way home to exactly this situation being played out in Gaza by the Isreali army, who are hunting for a soldier. They apparently used an F16 to blow up a car to block a road today. From the report, it sounded like a random car that some poor sod was driving to work. Is that not an act of terror and against everything that "the side of good" stand for?

 

Now we are getting into the Israeli Palestinian conflict which is not the main topic of this thread. However, I have argued in the Muslim word, Sucide bombings are widely considered justified in the particular case of Israel, which is the other nation that is supposed to be demonised.

 

"From the report, it sounded like" is the only proof needed to leap to the conclusion that the man in the car was the intended target and that man was innocent. If the man's work was terror and murder, or the man died as a result of a botched opperation (ie collateral damage) then nobody in the West would consider his death an act of terror. See my thread "collateral damage: self defence or murder". That does not make it beyond criticism, but terror it is not.

 

So by emotionally compelling the reader into hate, the argument justifys that which could not be tollerated in the West.

 

As a caviat, I do not believe that nkt actually intended the demonisation. The first person who wrote that argument and the governments that put it into almost every middle Eastern school text book however did. This also explains why moderate Muslims are so obsessed by the Israeli - Palestinian since every time somebody uses arguments that they have been taught or learned from someone who has himself been tought it, the moderate Muslim people are hypotically and unintentionally demonising Israel amongst themselves.

 

Lastly, when I said that the Tamil Tigers language lacked demonisation, it was extactly this [3 stage emotional but illogical arguments] that were totally absent. This demonisation is not just a fingerprint of moderate Muslim discourse, but it is also heavily present in fanatical Muslim doctrine as well.

 

I know that what I have said may be resisted by many, but if you look at the logical points, you will see them all to be correct. Infact, it was my analysis of this argument which made me think of the explanation of the cause for Islamic terror that I have presented in these 9 pages.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You're obviously pretty passionate about this Stebby - to write a post that long.

 

Anyway

Yes suicide missions have happened in history but other than the Tamil tigers, there has been no actual idea that it is a great thing to die.

 

Except for Japanese Kamikaze's.

 

Or Christian Martyrs.

 

TFS