Islamic terror: the solution

[IDMclean]

Indeed, the Japanese Kamikaze are just a sub set of a much larger class.

 

The Samurai, or The Holy Knights, Paladins. Through out history there have always been those who gave rise to the pharse "It is a glorious day to die.".

 

I myself built my belief structure off of many of these factions. Also, it's never glorious to just die. It's Glorious to die in the defense of that which you hold dear. Weather it be beliefs, your friends or family, your country, or your god. Think about war. Many who go to war, like WW II, do not expect to come back, but know that their cause is righteous and is worth dying for.

 

Martyrdom is not exclusively a terror tactic, and in fact, in my opinion, and that of which I have gleened from the religious texts, Martyrdom as a terror tactic is fundamentally wrong. It invalidates the act as moral to use it in such a way.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Also:

 

I challenge you to provide neutral third party evidence to support these assertions.

 

1) That Islamic Terrorism "thrives" in moderate Islamic cultures.

 

2) That the three beliefs you cite

1) Global Caliphate, or "everyone under sharia"

2) Okay to kill civilians in some circumstances

3) No concept of objective truth

 

Are actually present in Moderate Islam to a degree they are not present in other cultures.

 

By "neutral third party evidence" I require numbers or polls that indicate the opinions of "moderate" Muslims. Internet sites with an agenda (Palestinian Media Watch) do not qualify. The Pew Report you cited earlier is a good example, but I did not find evidence of the three facts you claim.

 

TFS

[Michaelangelica]

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

Solutions are always easy:) !

We stop buying oil

and/or

we stop swapping oil for arms

 

Three comments on the discussion

one

America USA is hardly the home of the free of democracy etc. it is a very poor example if not an urban myth.

see:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/

Latest appeal: Under the Radar

 

Since 2001, the United States Government has abducted hundreds of individuals and secretly flown them under the radar to face brutal torture in foreign jails and CIA-run detention centres. They call this illegal procedure "extraordinary rendition". We call it a grave violation of human rights, and we need your help to stop it.

 

two

Sorry kickarseClown but childhood psychology or sociology don't give us any models that would help predict terrorism.

Some of the work of Zimbardo (his prison experiment)explains Guantanamo Bay

And some of the in-group out -group experiments of social psychologists may help a little.

 

Three

I don't think we have a lot of tolerance exhibiting itself in either the jewish, christian or islamic religions. (They don't deserve capitalisation) Is that just the nature of the beasties?

We have along way to go in the tolerance stakes.

Fundamentalism and authoritarian thinking is not unique to islamic countries.

 

That's my 2c worth; now come out fighting when the bell rings:)

--

[IDMclean]

My opinion differs, and I aggree to disagree.

 

The basis of Psycho-analysis to determine the cause of Sociological actions is to me a very sound base. Expecially given the strength of evidence backing it. This exact topic is covered extensively by deMause in his book "The Emotional Life of Nations" Chapter three. Covering this exact topic, and this exact zone (the Middle East).

 

Dependent Origin, once again. All effects have a cause. The cause of Terrorism is sociological acceptance of violence as a means of problem solving, which in turn affects the habits of children who grow into adults and then exhibit this acceptance of violence.

 

I am not going to start a side-track in this thread, so if you wish to dispute further than this, then please do so in my old thread: Chaos Theory, Sick Society and You

 

I think of it as the Kick Chain Theorm. Society kicks the Orginization, the Organization kicks the boss, who then kicks the father, who hits the mother, who spanks the child, who kicks the dog, who bites the cat, who eats the rat.

 

Except this is more extreame. Due to more extreame causes, and less linear. Terrorism arises from a desire to do harm unto those whom have (in psyche or in truth) wronged you in some way. Terrorism is an Extreame reactive mode, which usually follows from an extreame action.

 

I should know, I worked at figuring out how to develop a nuke when I was younger. Due to extreame (to me) curcumstances. I might note that I know how, in theory to build such a device, and that I could do so out of house hold materials. I know my reasons, and I know the Cause. I even know the Sacrifice that would have had to be made.

 

-When Vengence is the (cold) platter, you either eat it whole, or you push it away and order something else.

The KillerClown.

[Michaelangelica]

My opinion differs, and I aggree to disagree.

 

The basis of Psycho-analysis to determine the cause of Sociological actions is to me a very sound base

.

 

 

 

But that is not the basis of Psycho-analysis. Have you read Freud? I don't think sociology was invented when he was writing. Freud was trying to find out what motivated (often sick) individuals. Sure society influenced that but so too do a lot of other things.

Freudian Psycho-analysis is a bit passe. As a theory it was useful but most psychologists have moved on since then.

 

 

Expecially given the strength of evidence backing it. This exact topic is covered extensively by deMause in his book "The Emotional Life of Nations" Chapter three. Covering this exact topic, and this exact zone (the Middle East).

 

Demuse is not a credible psychological authority.

 

Dependent Origin, once again. All effects have a cause.

 

No. it does not necessarily follow,

**** happens.

 

The cause of Terrorism is sociological acceptance of violence as a means of problem solving, which in turn affects the habits of children who grow into adults and then exhibit this acceptance of violence.

 

No too "pat" too easy, an answer

Not all children grow up in violence (or watching Holliwood movies.)

 

I am not going to start a side-track in this thread, so if you wish to dispute further than this, then please do so in my old thread: Chaos Theory, Sick Society and You

Yes I disagreed with you there too

Yes we have done causes Now we are on to solutions

I think of it as the Kick Chain Theorm. Society kicks the Orginization, the Organization kicks the boss, who then kicks the father, who hits the mother, who spanks the child, who kicks the dog, who bites the cat, who eats the rat.

An example often used in books on Transactional Analysis. (now there is a interesting model!)

What happens when people give warm fuzzies instead of kicks?

 

Except this is more extreame. Due to more extreame causes, and less linear. Terrorism arises from a desire to do harm unto those whom have (in psyche or in truth) wronged you in some way. Terrorism is an Extreame reactive mode, which usually follows from an extreame action.

 

I should know, I worked at figuring out how to develop a nuke when I was younger. Due to extreame (to me) curcumstances. I might note that I know how, in theory to build such a device, and that I could do so out of house hold materials. I know my reasons, and I know the Cause. I even know the Sacrifice that would have had to be made.

 

-When Vengence is the (cold) platter, you either eat it whole, or you push it away and order something else.

The KillerClown.

I can't follow you logic here. Of course Terrorism is extreme it is inherent in the definition.So does that mean that terrorists have had extreme harm done to them? Real or imagined?

So you know how to build a nuke. So? what?

Give me enough plutonium and I'll learn too?!! Then we can have an extreme party.

[sebbysteiny]

Also:

 

I challenge you to provide neutral third party evidence to support these assertions.

 

1) That Islamic Terrorism "thrives" in moderate Islamic cultures.

 

2) That the three beliefs you cite

1) Global Caliphate, or "everyone under sharia"

2) Okay to kill civilians in some circumstances

3) No concept of objective truth

 

Are actually present in Moderate Islam to a degree they are not present in other cultures.

 

TFS

 

Oh not this again.

You have given me an impossible task. Social science is not a science like physics. You simply cannot prove every theory. Discourse theory for example has no 'hard' evidence. However, it can serve as a model to describe the behavior of civilisations and the mechanisms behind it. And if one of the most accepted models of social science has little 'hard, scientific, iffrefutable' proof, then my model for Islamic terrorism will do no better. To a certain extent, these various models are philosphical rather than scientific. However, one must try to see which model explains the facts best. In the case of Islamic terror, I believe that all the possible facts as we know them can be explained by my model. Therefore, it must be considered by anybody trying to solve Islamic terror even if not proven boyond doubt (reasonable and unreasonable).

 

Even if I were to provide a survey, that would be inadiquate because a belief cannot be summorised by one question. One needs to get inside moderate Muslim circles, talk to them in depth and then make conclusions. In other words, you must do your own survey if you want to prove facts sufficiently to convince yourself. Further, if a pole hasn't been done asking exactly the right question, then by your own admission, no evidence will satisfy you.

 

However, the evidence I present, without the very best evidence of an exact transcript of every conversation I have had with moderate Muslims, is thus: 1) I explained the argument justifying terror is some places used in moderate Muslim circles. By some unbelievable coincidence a moderate Muslim, nkt, totally independantly of me presented exactly that argument word for word. Coincidence you might say, but statistically it is very good evidence.

2) My theory explains all the key facts.

3) I have proven that moderate Muslims have little understanding of absolute truth by the survey indicating that many do not beleive Arabs were responsible for 9/11. I can assure you that almost every single one of those would have instead blamed a 'Zionist conspiracy'.

 

By "neutral third party evidence" I require numbers or polls that indicate the opinions of "moderate" Muslims. Internet sites with an agenda (Palestinian Media Watch) do not qualify. The Pew Report you cited earlier is a good example, but I did not find evidence of the three facts you claim.

 

I admire your desire to reach an objective truth. You have clearly thought about which sources to trust and which ones you do not. However, I strongly encourage you to review whether your evidence criteria is sufficient.

 

The major flaw with your criteria is that it is ad hominem :cup: . Tribunals of fact (courts etc.) adopt a totally different approach. They do not dismiss arguments and evidence simply because it was produced by the Prosecution or by the Defendant. Instead they actually listen to the arguments irrespective of the messanger and make up their own mind. You may not agree with the commentry of Palestinian Media Watch, but it is the only sight that has a detailed library of sermans made by the Palestinians. That sight has been quoted as accurate by numerous impartial sources including the BBC and the Guardian. There was even an article in the Guardian that argued that many people (including the author) were willfully blind to Middle Eastern hatred because although they did not dispute the evidence, they distrusted the messenger. He however felt that the holocaust denial and genocidal statements by the President of Iran was the final straw such that the overwhelming weight of evidence could no longer be ignored. There have been numerous questions at Prime ministers questions about it and I have even seen videos of extremist clerics like Abu Hamaza in English repeating the same words as the Palestinian Fatah clerics.

 

So in conclusion, I can't prove to you anything because your criteria of proof is not sufficiently flexible to extract truth. Further, your belief that unless every point in a political science theory is proven beyond doubt, the theory has no use makes genunine intellectual discussion difficult. I'm not saying I am definately right. I am saying my theory explains the facts. You however should acknowledge that even though I might be wrong, I also might be right and therefore it should be at least considered when trying to find a solution. Political science is not a religion: one does not need to devote ones intellect entirely to one view.

[sebbysteiny]

Perhaps I should add to my previous post that theFaithfulstone is correct. The evidence he seeks must be extractable if my theory is correct. However, until a detailed (and expensive) scientific survey is done on extracting whether moderate belief systems are how I say it is, then, unless your prepared to come with me and have discussions with moderate Muslims, the issue is largely a philosophical [ie unprovable] one.

 

Perhaps you could find a web chat / blog and you can join me in extracting these beliefs for yourself? You will need me because I know the questions to ask.

 

However, owing to popular demand, I will now present my solution. It is long and somewhat complicated but it contains fresh ideas I have not before shared. Hopefully, people will find it worth the read.

 

The solution: Changing the belief system

 

If I am right, the solution to Islamic terror is to change the belief system of the moderates. So the first question one must ask is what is a "belief system".

 

All individuals have very different opinions. One can find an individual from almost all cultures who will have almost all opinions. However, when people group together into a society (or culture), many people will start to share certain common beliefs. I suggest these beliefs can take two forms: positive beliefs, which are beliefs that are believed by the masses; and disgraced beliefs, which are beliefs that are so disliked that anybody who states the belief will become disgraced within that circle. A good example of a positive belief in Western culture is 'human rights'. A good example of a disgraced belief is racism.

 

A positive belief works because the majority of people strongly believe it. Thus, it will have a direct effect on the actions of the majority and any leaders elected by them.

 

Disgraced beliefs however are just as important. All beliefs are like a virus. They can spread from one person to the next until they find somebody in which it catches. Then that new person will continue to spread the belief. Thus, an argument, for good or for bad, can find its way to somebody willing to accept it. This means that an argument of fanaticism will find its way to someone willing to accept it. However, if that belief is disgraced, people will no longer discuss it openly and the argument will be unable to spread. Thus, the actions and numbers of extreme minorities will depend entirely upon the degree to which the belief that they follow is disgraced. In this way, the far right has been all but suppressed for 60 years. So to stop extreme minorities, one must disgrace their beliefs in the moderate majority.

 

However, throughout time, belief systems have changed. In the middle Ages, it was a disgraced belief that the world is round. Now it is a disgraced belief that the world is not round. In the middle ages, war was considered a good honourable thing that all great leaders must pursue. Now that belief is disgraced and war is believed to be terrible thing that all great leaders must avoid if possible. So the main thesis of this post is to find what is capable of changing a belief system.

 

Further, every culture has a different belief system. Although some are very similar (eg Jewish and Christian culture and values), even these close communities have slight differences in belief systems (eg Jewish culture has a a stronger emphasis on education and learning even than modern Christian society).

 

A perfect multicultral society imagines all cultures living together and learning off each other's belief systems and valuing their differences. A different perspective is often a great thing for finding solutions.

 

So how does a belief system change? A belief system can be influenced by a number of factors: fundamental events, religion, debate, engagement, the media, and the government.

 

The most obvious culprit for how belief systems change would be debate. After all, if there is a logical flaw in an argument, debate should expose it and then that opinion would be disgraced and the belief system of the culture irrevocably altered. However, I belief this is false. Having studied the famous holocaust denier David Irving, if he were to engage in debate, his knowledge is such that he could hold his own even against a very strong attack. Essentially, if he can move the debate into disputes of fact that are not immediately available for proving him wrong then and there, or if he can move into philosophical issues like 'what is truth', then he will survive along with his ideas. However, it took a full trial in a court of law before his argument was proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have been irrational including deliberately ignoring irrefutable evidence.

 

However, Tony Blair managed to change the belief system of the country to move from thatcherite policies to a 'third way'. This change has been so successful that the Tories have now jumped on the 'third way' bandwaggon. He did this by exposing problems in the old Thatcherite conservite model and arguing that things could be different and people believed him. However, the swing was only by about 20-30% and the debate took years. Further, although it made 'third way' politics more popular, it did not made Thatcherite conservitism a disgraced belief. Infact, many people still value Thatcher to the point where even Tony Blair is arguing that she should get a state funeral like Winston Churchill.

 

However, the above changes were not due entirely from Blair's debating prowess. The feeling had been growing in Britain that unregulated capitalism does not create a socially fair society, and this was partly due to the fundamental events of the day that proved Blair right.

 

So debate can change a belief system, but it is slow, and often needs to be backed up by events. Further, it is very hard to disgrace an opinion with debate.

 

Religion could be another choice. However, although many beliefs of a Culture arise from their religion, one often finds that when a belief from the belief system changes, the interpretation of the texts also change. People start to ask, 'surely god didn't mean that!!'. However religion can probably serve as a general resistance to any change of the belief systems but I do not believe it to be a significant factor.

 

Engagement is the pro active intrusion into one culture by another culture for the specific purpose of changing a belief system. Such an intrusion occured after WW2 to change the German belief system from the Nazi idiology to a Western peaceful idiology and with great success. However, one can question whether the fundamental events (the war etc.) had more of an effect. However, I believe this is just a special case of debating and so the same analysis applies.

 

The media is also a very powerful measure for deciding what people believe. A single provocative Sun headline can often cause a reasonable shift in public opinion. Although most of the time when people pick up a paper and read, their belief system does not change, if all the media expressed a single opinion on one issue, then eventually it will have a significant impact on public opinion and therefore the belief system. However, if we have freedom of the press, people will often find a paper that is most aligned to their own beliefs so the belief system will not change significantly. But in the Middle East where most news media are state censored, the media can have a major effect both in disgracing opinions and in promoting others.

 

The government can also play a significant role. As well as having the most powerful debating voice, it controls the school education system and with that, the minds of the young. If all children were taught that a certain idea is disgraceful, then that idea will probably end up being disgraced. For example, Nazi children even reported their parents to the SS because they were educated to do so when their parents expressed views disagreeing with Nazi ideology. The parents were then taken away and often murdered. Further, most mass hatred starts from demonisation contained within the school curriculum. However, a massive government campaign to stop people from smoking has had very little effect. This is probably because there is no shortage of ideas against the campaign (eg from older kids). Thus, using the educational system to support or disgrace beliefs probably can only be used in a country where the country does not have freedom of speech.

 

However, the factor I believe effects a cultures belief system the most is fundamental events. Unlike all the above factors, fundamental events has the power to radically change a belief of the population from one that is strongly supported to one that is strongly disgraced almost overnight. So what is a fundamental event? A fundamental event can be immediate, like war, human suffering, an economy collapsing, or it can be long term, like massive unemployment, growing crime, etc. However, all these factors have one thing in common: they are an event that gives irrefutable evidence of where a belief leads.

 

For example, in the 1900's, Britain believed war was a romantic and heroic thing. In WW1, people often considered war like a football match. 'I wonder how the Keizer likes our dear old tanks' was a common and very acceptable belief. However, when millions of soldiers were killed, millions of wives found themselves widowed and the economic and human suffering became unbearable and the political gains invisible, the support of war as a political tool evaporated entirely. Literally, from a nation happy to wage war, it became utterly petrified of war to the point that being called a warmonger had become an insult. The belief system of the UK had fundamentally changed as a consequence of WW1. Thus, in the 1930's, when Winston Churchill spoke out against appeasement of Nazi Germany, he was a singular disgraced voice from an MP going nowhere. Nobody took him seriously even though he was right. However, when Chamberlin's piece of paper only served to make the inevitable war worse, the belief system of the UK fundamentally changed yet again. Now, appeasement was also a disgraced belief to the point where accusing somebody of being an appeaser is still today an insulting term. Suddenly, from being a disgraced minority voice, Winston Churchill becomes prime minister and 60 years later he is voted the UK's greatest Britain.

 

Another fundamental event whose significance cannot be underestimated is the holocaust. Before the holocaust, racism was an acceptable ideology. However, after witnessing the devastation caused, human rights became a fundamental part of the Western belief system and within a few years the European convention to Human rights was written. Even today, even though most people do not have great knowledge of the holocaust, human rights remains a belief that goes right to the heart of Western Civilisation and every time human rights is used, one can trace the origins of the argument directly back to the holocaust. Further, racism has now become a disgraced belief.

 

More examples: After WW2, the Germans became one of the most war hating nations on Earth. The Japanese became a nation of pacifists. These are still true today despite the memories having faded.

 

If my model of belief systems is correct, then it can have profound implications on the entire interactions of the world. However, I will limit it to stopping Islamic terror.

 

From the above, one must disgrace the fanatical arguments and all arguments that come close. Further, nkt’s demonisation argument must be changed from a positive belief to a disgraced belief. This is a mammoth challenge because it comes straight from the school books and media of the Middle East.

 

Therefore, to stand a chance of stopping Islamic terror, we must engage the moderate Muslims in strong and serious debate to stamp out nkt’s argument (and the other 2 arguments) from being a positive belief to a disgraced one. Any amount to which that belief can be disgraced, even a small amount, could cause a dramatic reduction in Islamic terror. Further, we could use our minority moderate Muslim communities to help communicate this new belief system to the Middle Eastern countries.

 

I do not believe our governments can do any more than this (ignoring foreign policy).

 

However, I believe we must try and get the school syllabus of Islamic states changed. We must also encourage freedom of speech so that the media can discuss Western beliefs and stop forcing dangerous beliefs on their populations. Thus the spread of democracy to those regions could cause a dramatic reduction.

 

Lastly, and probably most controversially, if we want the chance to take advantage of the only mechanism that can reduce fanaticism very quickly, the fundamental events, if an extremist leader becomes democratically elected, we must do everything in our power to make sure their civilian populations suffer unless there is an overwhelming reason not to. The Palestinians who voted for Hamas should not receive Western aid even if this means that Palestinians starve. Iran must be made to feel real economic pain for voting in their extremist leader. As much as I hate human suffering, if we bail these countries out, they will never learn where Islamic fanaticism can lead them and they will never realise that fanaticism is an argument that should be disgraced. Most importantly of all, the world must make sure that no fanatical government can ever benefit from their fanaticism. If that is allowed to happen, we will have created a most spectacular own goal whereby instead of disgracing the opinion, it will become even more reinforced and almost certainly a positive belief.

 

 

As an aside, if my theory is right, then moderate Muslims must have a very different belief system to ours. They had no world war 1 and 2. Thus they have not had the opportunity to disgrace the idea of war and bloodshed. They have had no holocaust. Thus they do not fully understand human rights. Instead they have had brutal dictatorships and a massive humiliation of being a backward, ridiculed region and of getting absolutely smashed in the 1967 war against Israel, which was a war that materially, the Arab side should never have lost. Their pride is dented and a natural reaction is to cling to anything that gives the Arab world a chance to restore their pride even if that is fanaticism.

 

Wow, this post was LLOOOOONNNGG. This will be my last long post as I believe I have expressed all my theories, mechanisms and ideas on this matter.

 

Thoughts?

[TheFaithfulStone]

That's perfectly reasonable, and I don't think it requires that you prove any of your "points" that we found it necessary to argue for ten pages over.

 

For example it is not necessary to say - "Islam is different from any other world religion, and Muslim moderates are different from other people." in order to prove that the relative lack of cataclysmic nearly civilization destroying conflicts has some effect on their outlook.

 

This first statement is VERY general, and very difficult to prove. The second is much more specific.

 

Futhermore, it has nothing to do with the global spread of sharia.

 

I wish you'd made this post FIRST, as it contains some good ideas of substance, without the vague generalities you were offering.

 

As an aside, it is not an ad hominem attack to claim that your source is disreputable, and it is not an ad hominem attack on your source to claim that it displays bias, and therefore should not be trusted.

 

If I can find a source that claims that the world is flat, Linnaeus was right, and the moon is made of Green Cheese - but it also indicates that correct order of nucleotide binding in DNA, I'd say it's not unreasonable to demand a second source, as the first source has proved itself unreliable. Strictly speaking, this is an association fallacy, but since we are not examining the structure of your syllogisms, but the veracity of your postulates - and since I am not necessarily disputing the truth of PMW, simply requiring additional proof, I don't think it's unreasonable to request additional information than a source I consider to be biased, and by which it's own admission is neither neutral nor a third party.

 

TFS

[Edella]

They[the moderate Muslims] had no world war 1 and 2.Thus they have not had the opportunity to disgrace the idea of war and bloodshed.

How can you say this sebbysteiny?Unless I misunderstand ,you are completely wrong on this.What about the Ottoman Empire in WWI?North Africa,Iraq,and the Balkans in WWII?The world wars influenced the Middle East and Muslims big time.For starters ,check out these:http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/077.shtml

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_during_ww2.php

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

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

[TheFaithfulStone]

I think what he's getting at is that the WW's didn't have same kind of civilization reorganizing effect on the Middle East as they did on the Wester World.

 

TFS

[Edella]

Well,It certainly was different in the Middle East than the European mainland,but consider that the Ottoman Empire was disolved after WWI(big change),and that the Israeli state was created at the conclusion of WWII.

[sebbysteiny]

As an aside, it is not an ad hominem attack to claim that your source is disreputable, and it is not an ad hominem attack on your source to claim that it displays bias, and therefore should not be trusted.

 

I can see one of your points. If a source is bias, there is a possibility that it makes up facts. However, pmw for example, directs you to Fatah sights as well where their evidence comes from.

 

Would evidence that Palestinian Media Watch is a trusted source for an independant and definitely neutral body. For example, the UK government?

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmfaff/81/3120221.htm

 

Also, that program I previously presented (and provided some transcripts of yours) independantly varified the translations from pmw.org.il.

 

However, it is a logical falicy to say 'this side is bias, therefore it cannot be trusted'. Unfortunately, the very best evidence could come from those keen enough to find it. Those people are likely to be bias. Thus, it is ad homonem to disregard a potential smoking gun simply because of the source. However the best solution is to check the source for yourself to see if the evidence it presents is real or fabricated. You perhaps might want to use my method. Read the sight with everything it says and all the videos. Then, let 'life' verify it for you. For example, you will see the language, tone and exact words repeated by fanatical and sometimes moderates. Then you will know that there must be some truth (unless you believe in unbelievable coincidence). I

 

Also it is illogical to assume that simply because it came from an independant 3rd party then it is true. An independant 3rd party could simply have accepted the words of one side at face value.

[sebbysteiny]

Well,It certainly was different in the Middle East than the European mainland,but consider that the Ottoman Empire was disolved after WWI(big change),and that the Israeli state was created at the conclusion of WWII.

 

Firstly, and least importantly, your use of the phrase 'the Israeli state' portrays some internal biases. Israel is the neutral version, but I have found those who have an unfavourable view verging on hate tend to prefer the phrase 'the Israeli state' perhaps because it sounds more agressive. Logically, by using such phrasing, it adds nothing to your argument.

 

But regarding your opinion. 'Condiser, the Ottoman empire was dissolved after WW1'. Okay considered. It is not immediately obvious how an irrovocable change in belief system regarding the person on the street can arise from this. For example, when the opposition wins an election, this does not cause the belief system to change.

 

But it seems your getting what I'm saying. Any change could cause a change in the belief system if that change produces undenyable facts. Millions of people starving, a genocide and an economic collapse or just a massive rise in unemployment could provide such facts. So if you can identify what facts changed and what this might 'undenyably prove' to the man on the street, then one could actually 'work out' the belief system (if my thoery is correct).

 

That's perfectly reasonable, and I don't think it requires that you prove any of your "points" that we found it necessary to argue for ten pages over.

 

For example it is not necessary to say - "Islam is different from any other world religion, and Muslim moderates are different from other people." in order to prove that the relative lack of cataclysmic nearly civilization destroying conflicts has some effect on their outlook.

 

This first statement is VERY general, and very difficult to prove. The second is much more specific.

 

Futhermore, it has nothing to do with the global spread of sharia.

 

I wish you'd made this post FIRST, as it contains some good ideas of substance, without the vague generalities you were offering.

 

I think it is important to realise that my last post is totally independant of my other ideas. My first idea came because my experience of moderate Islam made me believe that there were some ideas that were disgraced amongst Western moderates but were actually a positive belief amongst moderate Muslims. In particular I found NKT's argument justifying terror in some cicumstances using demonisation particularly widespread. I also analysed it and realised that the same arguments could be applied to any nation with an army and noticed that fanatical clerics were doing exactly that. Then, I came up with my model of the cause for Islamic terror: that the belief system of the moderates allows fanatical Islamic terror to thrive. How this happened, it is not important.

 

The argument in my last post simply explains what a belief system is, how disgraced and positive beliefs work and how they change. If true, it therefore follows that the belief systems of different cultures MUST be different. However, although one should be able to work them out by measuring the fundamental events, it is not immediately obvious exactly which beliefs differ amongst moderate Muslim cultures. Nevertheless what matters is the mechanism for changing and spreading of beliefs, not what these beliefs are. Thus it does not make the 'evidential issues' that you feel are very important go away.

 

However, my latter theory is compatible with my first in that it could explain how the first came about or even (possibly) work out the belief system differences from first principals. I believe when two independant and different theories overlap it provides evidence that both are correct at least in some aspects. Also, both theories have potential applications outside of Islamic terror.

 

However the point about sharia is half right in my opinion. Whist sharia law is no different from any other type of religious law, the desire to mix religion and state particularly by imposing a religious law is a disgraced opinion in moderate Western culture. However I do not believe this is so in moderate Islam. If anything, I think it is a slight positive belief.

 

I wish you'd made this post FIRST, as it contains some good ideas of substance, without the vague generalities you were offering.

 

Thanks. Where are my rep points? :hihi:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Stebby, it is not an ad hominem, it is an association fallacy, but this is not an analysis of your syllogism - and therefore it's not terribly important whether or not it's logical. I'm calling into question your FACTS not your logic.

 

If you start with faulty facts, a perfectly logical argument can still lead you to something utterly untrue.

 

Anyway, unimportant. You're not really arguing from these points anymore. Can we please talk about something else?

 

You argue that without the kind of "that was close" cataclysm of the World Wars, that Islamic culture has not developed the aversion to violence that Western society has, and is therefore willing to condone things that the West finds abhorrent.

 

Point: Indications that Western Society has always been reluctant to engage in armed combat, or that they have always considered some acts "off limits" would indicate that it was not the World Wars that created the West's cultural aversion to violence.

 

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it." Robert E. Lee

"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it." — Desiderius Erasmus

"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." — Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all." — George Washington

 

These are all pre-first world war thinkers. (Of course, we were still fighting wars, even then.) Do you think that our claim of "peace-loving" is all just a show? That any cultures desire for peace is outweighed by it's desire for resources and survival?

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Whist sharia law is no different from any other type of religious law, the desire to mix religion and state particularly by imposing a religious law is a disgraced opinion in moderate Western culture. However I do not believe this is so in moderate Islam.

 

I think you could find evidence to back that up.

 

It might even be true.

 

that the belief system of the moderates allows fanatical Islamic terror to thrive

 

That still doesn't make any sense without a definition of "moderate" and "thrive." If by "thrive" you mean "exist" and by "moderate" you mean "majority" then it's kind of a tautology, since the same could be said of any "winger" movement.

 

The belief system of mainstream Christianity allows fanatical fundamentalist terrorists to thrive, for instance.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it." Robert E. Lee

"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it." — Desiderius Erasmus

"Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." — Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all." — George Washington

 

These are all pre-first world war thinkers. (Of course, we were still fighting wars, even then.) Do you think that our claim of "peace-loving" is all just a show? That any cultures desire for peace is outweighed by it's desire for resources and survival?

 

You make a good point. Arguements and ideas such as these have existed since well before WW1 and WW2, and even go back thousands of years. However, there is a difference between an idea existing and it forming part of the belief system of a culture. One also has to remember also that the belief system of Americans was also different to that of Britain since Americans were first hand victims of the British war machine. Thus they probably viewed 'fundamental events' differently. However the widespread view that war is good is a disgraced belief whose roots (at least in Europe) go back to WW1.

 

I do not believe our desire for peace is a show. You might be talking about the higher echelons of government who, as the left and the moderate Muslims would have us believe are secretly pursuing policies with the real aim of securing oil resources for the future. However, my 'belief system' theory only effects the behavior of the people on the street. What an elected individual decides to do is irrelevant. If you like, even if you believe the conspiracy theory above, that the leaders have to pursue their policies secretly is proof that the belief that war is justified for resource gains is a disgraced belief.

 

I think you could find evidence to back that up.

 

It might even be true.

Thanks for the aknowledgement. That was all I have been asking for. However, I am actually empty of ideas for how to actually prove that scientifically in a document that all can read. Even a survey is insufficient because it is not clear how a person with one belief would answer a particular question particularly if they realise that that belief is disgraced amongst the West. The only real evidence is my discussions with moderate Muslims but since I can't telepathically beam that to readers, I am all out of ideas.

 

That still doesn't make any sense without a definition of "moderate" and "thrive." If by "thrive" you mean "exist" and by "moderate" you mean "majority" then it's kind of a tautology, since the same could be said of any "winger" movement.

 

The belief system of mainstream Christianity allows fanatical fundamentalist terrorists to thrive, for instance.

 

Excellent point. You are most correct that my distinction between 'moderate Muslims' and 'majority Muslims' are sometimes blurred. The reason is you are right, my definition of 'moderate' is basically 'majority' but 'moderate' also describes that 'majority' as not posing a direct danger to others.

 

However, I have stated in this post that I believe moderate Muslims are not in general as moderate as a moderate Westerner. In other words, the gap between the mainstream and the fanatical wings (using both positive and disgraced beliefs as a guide) is not as large in moderate Muslim culture than in moderate Western culture.

 

I also very much like the style of your last argument. 'the same could be said of any "winger" movement'. I have found many falacies can be discovered when you test an argument to see if it could be appied to other cases in which the conclusions would amount to an absurdity.

 

I believe that the solution to your paradox lies in that, as I have pointed out right at the start and on numerous posts since, that Islamic terror has some major fundamental differences between the extremists of other cultures which, when all put together, makes it a major global threat.

 

According to my belief systems idea, all ideas will exist in a community but if the idea is disgraced it will be unable to spread. Thus I argue that the fundamental differences between IT and other extremists are caused by a small number of particular ideas (many of which are disgraced in most other cultures but Muslim culture) that can be combined together horribly.

 

If by "thrive" you mean "exist"

Basically yes. I would describe extremism like a virus. A virus can 'thrive' if its host population is particularly susceptible to it.

[TheFaithfulStone]

However the widespread view that war is good is a disgraced belief whose roots (at least in Europe) go back to WW1.

 

See, that's an assertion you'd need to provide evidence for.

 

that Islamic terror has some major fundamental differences between the extremists of other cultures which

 

What exactly do you think these fundamental differences are?

 

Can you list them succinctly?

 

TFS