Islamic Terror, brainwashing, new thoughts.

[ughaibu]

Southtown: Perhaps you've been hypnotised by Sebbysteiny's posts.

[Buffy]

I am suggesting that everybody born human has at least some disposition to hypnotic suggestions. I am saying that only moderate Muslim discourse contains hypnotic suggestions encouraging moderates into extremist Islamic terror. Other cultures may or may not also contain hypnotic suggestions into some kind of extremism, but they do not encourage people into Islamic terror, which is the issue in this post.

Oh, you're right. Being a moderate Oaxaxan who is susceptible to the hypnotic suggestion of the local indigenous extremist movement *definitely* will not become *Islamic* extremists! No argument there!

 

Now you've got the problem that your argument is simply a silly tautology, so its *really* boring. It adds *no* explanatory power that would help find solutions, indeed, it actually *impairs* the ability to see why "moderate Muslim discourse" is "unique" in containing "hypnotic suggestions." But I'm pretty conviced that that's your point: you're more concerned with supporting your premise than in finding solutions....

 

Free at last,

Buffy

[Southtown]

Southtown: Perhaps you've been hypnotised by Sebbysteiny's posts.

Or perhaps I arrived that way. =P

[sebbysteiny]

This single line allows me to prove that you simply ignore that which does not support your theory. Hello? 2) says "there are many arguments ... that are unique to Muslim culture" and then you agree that they could apply to other cultures and then later you continue to base your argument on the basis that 2 is still true? You don't appear to have any understanding of logic whatsoever! Not A does not imply A! Hello? And all you can do to respond is say I'm "just disagreeing to disagree?"

 

You might want to try harder to understand what I'm saying and stop reading small snipets of sentences and leap to conclusions about the rest.

 

There are many arguments that are unique to Muslim culture. There are many [obviously different] arguments that are unique to Western culture. There are many arguments that are unique to Aboriginee culture. Saying this is not racist, it's a truism.

 

The correct logic that proves you agree with 2 is that you say 2 applies to all cultures. Therefore, it follows that it must also apply to Islamic culture just like I have said. Do you get it now sweety?

 

The problem is that you seem to be unable to come to terms with the dichotomy between the notion "I am not racist" and "I think Muslims are all different than all other faiths in that they are all much more likely to promote terrorism." Sorry, that IS racism pal.

 

I'm not convinced you understand racism properly. Saying blacks are better runners in general is not racism, it's a truism. Pointing out cultural problems like black people underachieve significantly in British education is not racism, it's true. If you do not address the issue, you can't resolve it.

 

And finally, pointing out that the minority of extremists engaging in dangerous terror is noticably larger in the Muslim community than in any other community is also a true.

 

I personally do not believe it is racist if it is true.

 

I also personally think that there is an inherant danger with pointing out these racial differences because of the predjudice and madness that follows. But in the case of the problems within Islam at the moment, I think it is more dangerous not to talk about them. If we don't locate the cause of Islamic terror soon, we could end up in nuclear holocaust.

 

And remember, nothing can disgrace your argument more than dismissing somebody as racist when they are making legitimate points. Further, next time sombody is a genuine victim of Islamophobia, people will be less responsive. You should read the parable of the boy who cried wolf.

 

which shows you trying to step away from what is so obviously racist to everyone else.

 

Nice hypnotic suggestion. Nobody else has come forward as agreeing with you that my attempts to disect Islamic culture to find the cause of Islamic terror is racist so on the logical level your sentance is very puzzling.

 

Slightly manipulative, but nice :sun:.

 

you are trying to make the argument that Muslims are uniquely susceptible to "bridging" from hypnotic suggestion to extremism.

 

Erm, no. All people are susceptible to hypnotic suggestion to some degree. Unfortunately, arguments common in moderate peace loving Muslim culture contain hypnotic suggestions to Islamic extremism. Does this happen in other culture's? Perhaps. But this is not the topic of the thread.

 

However, if what I am saying is right, there may be potentially numerous other applications of this theory to other very different political issues in very different cultures. Start a new thread if you want to see how far this theory can go.

 

But if what I am saying is true, this mechanism could infact be true for all kinds of extremism in all societies. My belief is that Islamic extremism has its roots in the moderate but it might be that all extremism has it's roots in the moderate which is why some cultures extremists have a very different character to others.

 

So you disagree with yourself. Good! I have used my feminine wiles to hypnotize you into seeing the error of your ways! I told you so!

 

I suspect that you did not appriciate my observation that your apparant criticism was infact an agreement so you feel you have to get some kind of revenge and here it is.

 

Unfortunately, this is the position I have held right from the very start. The only problem is that you did not read what I have said properly. However, thanks to your femine charms, I would like this to be a thaw in our relationship whereby we agree to actually read what the other says.

 

He [Hitler] didn't have any choice about his scapegoats. In fact your own theory seems to indicate that it doesn't matter what the scapegoats are. There *were* scapegoats, and actually you have argued in the past in trying to separate out how "Islamic extremism is different" by saying that they *have no valid* scapegoats! Again the point I was making here was that it *is* about the existance of scapegoats, and they got them in spades.

 

One point I like to make, which is independant of the theory discussed above, is that some societies and people can make scapegoats up out of thin air. You say Hitler's scapegoats were "valid". I would love to know what makes you think the Jews genuinely were responsible for all of Germanies ills.

 

And the idea that the Muslims have "[valid] scapegoats in spades" is patently rediculous. Many moderate Muslims are so obsessed with the idea that they are a victimed race that they see things that are not there.

 

I'm not saying they have no problems. But all societies have problems. However it's how societies choose to *deal with their problems* that really matters. Most societies try to isolate the problems in their system of government and sort them out. Middle Eastern Muslim societies however are far too prone to blaming scapegoats like Israel, Jews and the West rather than the truth, their own incompitance. I am thus saying it is the predermined propensity to find scapegoats rather than face unconfortable truths that is to blame, not the particular scapegoat that they manage to find.

 

In my view, this dangerous and agressive culture of victimhood has to stop.

 

Anti-semitism was widespread throughout Europe going way back, so it was latent, and it really did not become an item of policy pushed by the Nazi party until the movement started to spread in about 1930.

 

Germany was the most Jewish friendly country in the world until about 1930. 10 years is more than sufficient to fundamentally change the beliefs of the nation from one of tollerance to hate. The critical time is the time it takes for a young child to go through the education system and every year it goes on, the problem becomes exponentially worse.

 

I don't belittle the evidence at all. How can I belittle the evidence when there is no evidence to belittle?

 

And there you have it. "There is no evidence that I'm wrong, so I can't respond to it." Did I mention intellectual dishonesty?

 

Let me make this clearer. There is no evidence suggesting any link between poverty and Islamic extremism. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence proving this link to be false. Check out Wikopedia's profile of a suicide bomber"]

Huh? Poverty and lack of jobs are the top issues in all Arab countries. Their governments utilize "oppression of the Palestinians by Israel and America" to distract people from complaining about it or worse, seeking to overthrow their dictators (cf. parallels to "Democrats support Terrorists" in America). These governments are belatedly figuring out that by doing so, they are playing into the hands of the extremist dissident parties like Hamas and Hezbollah who get their power not by some genetic weakness among Muslims that causes them to be more likely to be hypnotized, but by *paying them cash* and *giving them jobs*. Hitler did the same thing! Where's the evidence that there "is no link?"

 

Right. Here is where you propose your own mechanism. I'll try honestly to phrase it more logically and scientifically for you. Am I not nice :cup:. If you think I have misrepresented your mechanism, then feel free to point out where it has been misrepresented.

 

1) Arab / Muslim society has the "political problems" of poverty and unemployment.

2) Arab leaders "distract" their people from the "particular political problems of poverty and unemployment" "making" them think it is the fault of Israel, US and the West and not the truth, that it is the fault of their leaders.

3) Muslim extremists give out money and jobs.

4) Moderates "respond" by bridging the gap between moderate and extremist Islam.

 

The quotation marks are the bits which I think are very suceptible to attack, but I will refrain from doing so until you confirm this is how, from first principals, Muslims become extreme.

 

Without analysing for weaknesses, step 1 seems to occur in all cultures as all societies have political problems. Any solution will thus not involve addressing step 1. Steps 2 and 3 seems to me to be the only thing that is, according to you, unique to Islamic culture.

 

This is, of course, the fundamental position of the left: that a problem within society has it's roots in an uneven wealth distribution. Whist that may be true for some problems, it is not true for others.

This is a *neocon* argument! Call me a liberal, I don't care, its not a pejorative in my book, but its not really even true! I'm a card carrying Republican and always have been! Is calling my argument "Liberal" the *best* you can do?

 

For one thing, it is ad hominem to argue that simply because it is a liberal argument, it must be false.

 

But what I am saying is that sometimes somebody can be so obsessed with the leftist premise that the solution to a particular problem lies in distribution of wealth that they will not be put off arguing it by the inconvenience of evidence, figures and reason to the contrary.

[sebbysteiny]

Predispostion based on *circumstances* not something *inherent* in being a Muslim. That's exactly what I'm talking

 

Again, I ask you to substantiate your claim that predisposition to hypnotic suggestions can based on circumstances. I say everybody has predisposition, circumstances or not.

 

I'm talking about in pointing out the fact that just about *all* Muslims in Indonesia are *not* radicalized by the same propaganda that is now easily accessible even there due to the media communications. That's *exactly* why the argument steiny is making is so abhorent

 

Yet another claim I've never made.

 

Oh, you're right. Being a moderate Oaxaxan who is susceptible to the hypnotic suggestion of the local indigenous extremist movement *definitely* will not become *Islamic* extremists! No argument there!

 

Which was precisely why I found it so confusing that you were disagreeing with it. Glad you've seen the light. It's pretty obvious to me that the cause of Islamic terror lies within Islamic society, not Oaxaxan society. So it's just a matter of finding it.

 

Now you've got the problem that your argument is simply a silly tautology, so its *really* boring. It adds *no* explanatory power that would help find solutions, indeed, it actually *impairs* the ability to see why "moderate Muslim discourse" is "unique" in containing "hypnotic suggestions."

Which

 

Not so fast darling. What I was saying was that hypnotic suggestions contained with moderate Islamic discourse everywhere are unique in the dangerous message they send. I say that they are the sole cause of Islamic terror.

 

I don't know how many hypnotic suggestions are contained in other cultures eg Western cultural discourse, nor do I know how widespread and repeated those arguments are nor what effect the hypnotic suggestions contained within may have. However, if my theory is correct, there are many arguments containing hypnotic suggestions in moderate Muslim cultural discourse that spread the entire globe from Britain to Indionesia whose effects are to subconsciencely change the mind of a moderate to become extremism.

 

I have never heard this before from anybody and the effects were this to be true are pretty scary and ground breaking, not to mention the fact that almost every political idea being tried is barking up the wrong tree and will amount to curing the symptoms but not the cause.

 

Further, every step of the mechanism seems to me to be extremely difficult to challenge by people with sufficient knowledge of hypnotic suggestions.

[Buffy]

There are many arguments that are unique to Muslim culture. There are many [obviously different] arguments that are unique to Western culture. There are many arguments that are unique to Aboriginee culture. Saying this is not racist, it's a truism.

 

The correct logic that proves you agree with 2 is that you say 2 applies to all cultures. Therefore, it follows that it must also apply to Islamic culture just like I have said. Do you get it now sweety?

Your cognitive dissonance is continuing to show. Yes, the *specific* arguments are different, but the *usage* you are making of this statement is not that the argument's *content* is unique but rather that the *effects* (its hypnotic power) is unique. Saying that "the Jews persecute Palestinians" is a different argument than "the Brits persecute the Irish" are "unique to Arabs or Irish" is tautological but saying that the former group is "inherently more susceptible" to it--when again, there's lots of counter-examples that I'm throwing at you-- is indeed racist, dear.

I also personally think that there is an inherant danger with pointing out these racial differences because of the predjudice and madness that follows.

Especially when they're unsubstantiated!

But in the case of the problems within Islam at the moment, I think it is more dangerous not to talk about them. If we don't locate the cause of Islamic terror soon, we could end up in nuclear holocaust.

Fear! Great hypnotic motivator! Two points!

And remember, nothing can disgrace your argument more than dismissing somebody as racist when they are making legitimate points.

We continue to ask you to make a legitimate point.

 

You have continued to repeat your argument without showing ANY of its usefulness in preventing "the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud."

 

You'll have to excuse us for seeing you do nothing here but say that Muslims are BORN more dangerous: they're genetically incapable of resisting hypnotic suggestion. According to the peanut gallery (11 to 0 PMs in support), this is all that's coming out of you. If you were to actually suggest some reasonable conclusions and course of action to take, you might actually get some folks agreeing with you!

One point I like to make, which is independant of the theory discussed above, is that some societies and people can make scapegoats up out of thin air. You say Hitler's scapegoats were "valid". I would love to know what makes you think the Jews genuinely were responsible for all of Germanies ills.

 

And the idea that the Muslims have "[valid] scapegoats in spades" is patently rediculous. Many moderate Muslims are so obsessed with the idea that they are a victimed race that they see things that are not there.

Be very careful of your interpretation of the word "valid": "valid is as valid does." Valid in this case only means that these examples of scapegoats were real, thus allowing even *skeptical* observers to agree with the interpretations and causes claimed by the extremists. Your statement here is wonderful strawman: its not that Hitler's claim that the Jews were responsible for Germany's ills that was the scapegoat, it was the feelings of persecution and inferiority created by *very real* ills. In your theory, its the *assignment of blame* to the Jews that is the hypnotic suggestion. Ditto in the Arab argument. What matters in suggestion is that the *givens* are things that are "obviously true" to the targets of the message. The interpretation can be manipulated because its always less clear--posing it as a revelation in fact makes it a stronger argument--and that's precisely why your entire argument is such a great example of itself.

Middle Eastern Muslim societies however are far too prone to blaming scapegoats like Israel, Jews and the West rather than the truth, their own incompitance.

And as I said above, the fact that this activity is has been foolishly exploited by the *Governments* for political reasons has made it far more effective in "radicalizing" the masses if you want to call it that--with the Saudi's supporting the Wahabbi's--but this isn't *hypnotic*, this is actually no different than Cheney continuing to insist that there were WMDs in Iraq: it allows *rational* people to come to *logical* conclusions because an *accepted* authority says its true.

 

So the problem that you really have to address here is to explain why these types of actions--shown repeately to be no different than anywhere else--show "predeterminism":

I am thus saying it is the predermined propensity to find scapegoats rather than face unconfortable truths that is to blame, not the particular scapegoat that they manage to find.

I'll just point you to your local political party (I don't care which, they both have issues with "scapegoating") and I can show you the Dittoheads on either side *right down your street* who are reacting in the same illogical way.

In my view, this dangerous and agressive culture of victimhood has to stop.

I agree. Go tell that to Ken Mehlman or Ted Haggard. Or Jesse Jackson. Or pick your favorite *American* scapegoater, or fools that listen to them. The only difference between Peoria and South Lebanon is that the standard of living is an order of magnitude higher and you don't have Hezbollah next door and Israel across the street with itchy trigger fingers. Oh wait, that should have *no* effect on them unless they're genetically predetermined to be more susceptible to Hezbollah's siren song, right? :sun:

10 years is more than sufficient to fundamentally change the beliefs of the nation from one of tollerance to hate. The critical time is the time it takes for a young child to go through the education system and every year it goes on, the problem becomes exponentially worse.

There ya go proving my argument. Its the same in both situations! Where's this difference you're talking about?

There is no evidence suggesting any link between poverty and Islamic extremism. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence proving this link to be false. Check out Wikopedia's profile of a suicide bomber

Excuse me, I've said this before: those who take radical action *are often* not the persecuted (my example from the other thread was the SDS, who were mostly rich white kids with the brains to figure out how to bomb the ROTC building). Oddly enough, this turns out *not* to be the case when you start to look at the demographics of Palestinian or Tamils, who don't really have much of a middle or upper class. But in any case, your argument is not about the actual extremists but those who support them, so this is completely irrelevant.

1) Arab / Muslim society has the "political problems" of poverty and unemployment.

2) Arab leaders "distract" their people from the "particular political problems of poverty and unemployment" "making" them think it is the fault of Israel, US and the West and not the truth, that it is the fault of their leaders.

3) Muslim extremists give out money and jobs.

4) Moderates "respond" by bridging the gap between moderate and extremist Islam.

Not bad! Maybe I do get through to you sometimes, but its obvious that there are continuing definitional problems that continue to bedevil your arguments....

step 1 seems to occur in all cultures as all societies have political problems.

Woohoo! Yup!

Any solution will thus not involve addressing step 1.

Here's where I think you have a bit of a problem: You seem to be saying here that the only solutions that are worth thinking about are those that are based on attributes *unique* to the problem. You seem to be saying that no solution that is based on similar problems seen elsewhere should ever be considered. Do you see how that might be something that others could disagree with?

Steps 2 and 3 seems to me to be the only thing that is, according to you, unique to Islamic culture.

No, and again, that's my point: its *not* unique! 2) *exactly* what the Somoza did in Nicaragua and 3) is *exactly* how the Sandinistas responded, with *wide support for its terrorist actions among the populace!

 

I *know* now that you don't want to talk about anything except things that are *specific* to Muslim culture and you think that Santayana was probably a blithering idiot.

The quotation marks are the bits which I think are very suceptible to attack, but I will refrain from doing so until you confirm this is how, from first principals, Muslims become extreme.

Some definitions and justifications thereof:

• "political problems": poverty and unemployment are political problems insofar as people blame the government for them. Example is Egypt where while the Muslim Brotherhood is ruthlessly supressed, the papers are filled with invective against Israel and the US (albeit much less than you see in Iran).
  
• "Distraction": Wahabbism being given free reign in a cynical agreement not to attack the House of Saud.
  
• "making": again the "free" press. If its all you ever hear, it becomes the truth, as long as those premises are obviously true (video of children with blown off limbs). Imagine if all of our news sources sounded like Fox News: do you think there'd be *any* dissention against the war in Iraq right now? Probably not...
  
• "respond" by bridging: Turn out for Hezbollah rallies, vote for them in elections. Repeating the radical words they hear. Just like the Dittoheads do with Rush.
  

I'll again ask you what you really mean by "bridging": I have perceived this to be "support of radical action" but I'll tell you that a great deal of that "support" is soft. The you'll see it more strongly in the Palestinians because everyone at least knows someone who has been wounded or even killed by the "evil Israelis". To the extent the Israelis do too, you'll see strong support for invading Gaza. But face *either* group with "is it okay to indiscriminantly kill children" you'll get a *lot* of equivocation. In spite of their supposed "radicalism" you can get very few Arabs to say that "9/11 was justified": the vast majority either believe that bin Laden "betrays Islam" or that it was an Israeli or American plot, but the extremism is *not* justified.

 

So I'm not really sure how you can make much of anything about this "bridging" at all. Its meaningless blather as far as I can see. Sure, people take actions, some are posessed to take more radical action. To the extent that there are a very small number who are radicalized to the point of extremely violent action, this can be explained by *both* the unassailable facts ("children being maimed and killed in the West Bank") in *conjunction* with propaganda ("the attacks are entirely unprovoked and action is justified"). But even in this Arab world that you call "predisposed to extremism" there is abhorence of the actual terrorist acts when they go beyond the power of the propaganda itself. There is widespread belief in the US that abortion should be limited; there is widespread but lesser belief that abortion is baby killing; there's almost no one who supports the actions of people who blow up abortion clinics or assassinate the doctors who perform them. Is this "bridging?" Why or why not? What's the difference?

What I was saying was that hypnotic suggestions contained with moderate Islamic discourse everywhere are unique in the dangerous message they send. I say that they are the sole cause of Islamic terror.

And I keep pointing out through the counter examples I'm giving that these messages are *not* unique, and if anything as I just said, they are *highly ambivalent* about truely extreme actions. You do see the Syrian press spouting about how evil Israel is, but there's *nothing* there about justifying the extermination of Israel. Even Hezbollah has learned that there is a fine line between "not accepting Israel's right to exist" and actually *advocating it*, and Hamas is paying the price bigtime for the former stance, thus resulting in lots of political infighting *in public* *precisely* about the wisdom of this stance.

if my theory is correct, there are many arguments containing hypnotic suggestions in moderate Muslim cultural discourse that spread the entire globe from Britain to Indionesia whose effects are to subconsciencely change the mind of a moderate to become extremism.

Which would be disproved by lack of radicalization in *all* Muslim societies. It appears that you believe that extremism *is* as common in Indonesia as it is in Nablus. I suggest you visit there and find out. Think that all British Muslims are just as radical? My favorite hotel in London is in the middle of one of the Arab districts there and I hang out in some of the local restaurants there with the hookahs going on the sidewalks. There may be fewer blond-haired Anglos like me than there are Pakistanis, but everyone is very nice to everyone else and the *fear* of the recent bombings is simply about being a direct victim, not about anti-Muslim backlash.

 

It is exactly these sorts of attitudes--expoused in complete contradiction to the facts--that are the hallmark of, yes, racism. Maybe you're not a racist, but again you should not be surprised to find yourself being called one!

I have never heard this before from anybody

I think that's because its a wacky idea, but its hard for me to tell, because you've not shown much proof for any of your theory except to cite stereotyped descriptions that are not supported by evidence.

Further, every step of the mechanism seems to me to be extremely difficult to challenge by people with sufficient knowledge of hypnotic suggestions.

Maybe, but I and others keep pointing to the fact that "hypnotic suggestion"--while it may be a factor, and I'll even grant that it is insofar as it is the mechanism that propaganda works--is not the *only* factor in creating the problems you cite, and that there's nothing that shows that use of this "suggestion" mechanism is "unique" to Muslim society in any way.

 

Sorry to be so obstinant about this, but to tell you the truth, I find the mild-mannered demonizing of Muslims that you are trying to espouse here is just as scary as you find Muslim "moderate radicalism" to be!

 

There really are only two ways to take your argument:

1. The specific statements of Muslim radicals are unique in their promotion of radical action, or
   
2. The Muslim moderates are genetically predisposed to falling for such statements
   

1) is patently false, and you just need to look at Tamil Tiger or Sendero Luminoso literature to see similar examples, and 2) is similarly disproven by the actual reactions of the vast majority of the Muslim community mentioned above *and* by virtue of the fact that its false, its only justification really is racism. Statistics can justify arguments, but arguments based on false or non-existent statistics are prejudice.

 

Really steiny, what is your motivation for seeming to say that consideration of all these similar examples from history is irrelevant to finding any solutions? Why do you want to make this all "unique" to Muslims?

 

The worst homophobes are all gay,

Buffy

[sebbysteiny]

This post sums up everything I’ve already said so if it’s a beast, don’t worry.

 

I'm really sorry to say this to you Buffy but what you write about what I say has no relation whatsoever with what I actually write.

 

I have not made one steriotype at all. No 'genetic disposition' to anything. I have infact made as one of my key assumptions that Muslims are humans just like everybody else and are genetically susceptible to the same things in the same way as all other races / cultures / people.

 

Yet you claim I say the contrary as the key stone of your attack and I have no idea at all where you got that from.

 

I also don't think you understand at all what it is I am trying to do. I think it is because you lack training in physical sciences so you do not understand the concepts and approach I am making nor what I actually mean by a mechanism.

 

Question to everybody

 

Is it me who is being bad at explaining or Buffy who is being particularly thick in reading?

 

So, with respect, I am going to try and spell it out very simply in the hope that this time you finally get it.

 

Take a "normal" person. This "normal" person happens to be a moderate Muslim. He / she is in no way a danger to anybody. Now we put that "normal" person through a *process*. That process converts moderate Muslims into Islamic terrorists. Those extremists are now in every way a danger.

 

It is absolutely obvious, as I'm sure you would admit, that almost all extremist Muslims were once moderate and that something happened to make them extreme. Unless of course you are saying that they are born extremist, which simply does not happen.

 

So the question is, what is this process that turns a "normal" person who happens to be a moderate Muslim into an extremist. What exactly happens and what are each of the steps in that process. That is what I call 'the mechanism'.

 

mechanism

So giving a scientific equations: Sugar + Oxygen -----------> co2 + water + energy.

 

The mechanism involves the swapping of electrons from one particular electron orbital to another, activation energy and perhaps some kind of catalyst.

 

 

So analysing the "normal" person who is a moderate Muslim in the same way.

 

Mechanism

Moderate Muslim ------------> Islamic extremist

 

We should also bear in mind the next equation never happens.

No possible Mechanism

Moderate non-Muslim ---------------------------> Islamic extremist.

 

Both the above equations are in my opinion simple truisms and not really denyable even though you seemed to have been trying to do so for the last 6 pages. You seem to read controversial statements where there are none.

 

All other types of extremism are not the subject of this thread.

 

Do you finally now see how assuming all people respond similarly is fundamental to my whole approach?

 

Since non-Muslim moderates never become Islamic extremists, it stands to reason that the cause of Islamic extremism must lie within moderate Islamic culture.

 

So we are now left with the question, what is the mechanism?

 

Other people have tackled this problem from the macro scale. If you read that entry in wikopedia, you would see that that author focusses on what types of societies are most likely to have Islamic terror. I however am focusing on the micro scale by trying to see how a single individual can bridge the gap to Islamic extremism and what influences are necessary.

 

I'll again ask you what you really mean by "bridging"

 

Erm, it's exactly what it says on the tin. There is a moderate. He is different to an extremist. There is a gap between them. The gap consists of ideological and political differences. When the moderate becomes an extremist, that gap has been bridged. What's the problem????? Now I know why I refused to go into teaching.

 

 

So what's my mechanism that I'm proposing that assumes all people to be equal?

 

1) Hypnotic suggestions work on many people [Muslim, Jewish, Christian or anybody] if one comes into *constant repetitive contact* with them (see brainwashing thread).

 

Note the key here is the *constant repetitive contact*. Step 1 isn't really the first step but because so few people understand hypnotic suggestions, step 1 is really about establishing the facts about hypnotic suggestions.

 

2) There are many arguments that are used all the time amongst moderate Muslims that are unique to Muslim culture. Almost all moderate Muslims are in constant repetitive contact with these arguments.

 

Note that almost all people within a culture will come into constant repetitive contact with the arguments in it's discourse. So after step 2, we now have moderate Muslims coming into constant repetitive contact with certain arguments. Nothing controversial so far.

 

3) Many of those arguments contain hypnotic suggestions encouraging moderates into extremism. It is irrelevant if the speaker does or does not know of the hypnotic suggestion. It will work regardless.

 

Note here that not all hypnotic suggestions within an argument will result in anything meaningful if those hypnotic suggestions are purely accidental and random. However many of the hypnotic suggestions within Islamic discourse encourage moderates to do extremist acts or become more extreme. This may be accidental. It may be deliberately constructed by Islamic governments in their media and education. Either way, all that matters is that they are there. The particular part of the discourse that encourages extremism I will now call 'the menace' [i'm defining 'the menace']. Once the arguments containing the menace are part of the discourse, most moderate Muslims will be in constant repetitive contact with it. So from 1, SOME MODERATES MUST BECOME EXTREME if moderate Muslims are normal human beings like the rest of us.

 

Also note that the hypnotic suggestions ARE NOT IN THE FORM OF PROPAGANDA. They are contained WITHIN THE LANGUAGE of moderate Muslim discourse. Every time a family of Muslims sit down to watch and discuss the news, they may end up sending numerous menacing hypnotic suggestions to each other without ever being aware of it.

 

Further note that no particular blame is placed on the moderate Islamic community for they are often not aware of the menacing message within their communications. Nor is there any sense of superiority since we would all behave the same way in the same situation.

 

4) Moderates bridge the gap into extremism.

No notes needed here. It really is that simple.

 

 

Now please finally tell me you understand this. Read every word of it at least 5 times before responding because I am sure that your first read has a tendancy of being lackluster at best. And if you think that my words may either be saying something complicated and / or racist or something so simple and obvious it's almost not worth saying, the chances are I am just saying the simple thing. Perhaps the arguments I am making are so obvious that you miss them altogether?

 

Now once you have understood the approach and the theory, I welcome you to attack it. I might be wrong but I think the only place where this theory can be attacked (because much of it is based on truisms as you discovered), is by asking whether arguments common in moderate Muslim discourse do indeed contain hypnotic suggestions into extremism. All the rest seems solid to me.

 

I noticed you tried to widen this into the Israeli Palestinian debate. But this really is an unnecessary tangent for my proposed mechanism. Only the science of people and communication, and the exact arguments used in moderate Islamic discourse are relevant in testing this theory.

 

You will also find that my theory is simple and testable, which makes it a scientifically good theory even if it turns out to be wrong.

 

 

I would also like to say something about my strong use of truisms. You might find that saying something like 'non-Muslims do not become Islamic extremists' is patently obvious. But that does not mean it cannot be insightful.

 

From my science background, I have seen that sometimes the most obvious of observations can hold an extremely profound secret. For example, the truism above strongly suggests that the cause of Islamic extremism lies within moderate Muslim culture.

 

 

 

Okay, now for your model.

 

1) Arab / Muslim society has the "political problems" of poverty and unemployment.

2) Arab leaders "distract" their people from the "particular political problems of poverty and unemployment" "making" them think it is the fault of Israel, US and the West and not the truth, that it is the fault of their leaders.

3) Muslim extremists give out money and jobs.

4) Moderates "respond" by bridging the gap between moderate and extremist Islam.

Not bad! Maybe I do get through to you sometimes,

 

You see, I actually read what you say to try and extract the INTENDED meaning. I would be exceedingly greatful if you paid me the same privillage and respect.

 

I will now explain my main disagreements with the above alternative mechanism.

 

Step 1) Firstly, all societies have problems. I do not think the particular problems of poverty and unemployment are anything so unique that it forms a significant part of the mechanism. And remember, if the moderate Muslim is not in any particularly unique situation, then step 1 applies to all cultures and is therefore totally meaningless. The only thing which would then really matter is HOW that Muslim deals with his/ her problems, not what the problem is. And that is problem independent.

 

You have said that the problems in the Middle East are almost 10 times worse than the problems in the West so it is the extent of the problem that makes the situation in the Middle East 'unique'. However, as Islamic extremists are in every country with a sizable Muslim population including very rich nations like Britain, the extent of the problems in step 1 seems to be independent of the creation of Islamic extremists.

 

So for any mechanism to work, it must be applicable to Muslims in Leeds and Paris just as much as it is to Muslims in Palestine. And there are no 'unique' problems amongst the Muslim communities in the West either in existence or in extent. Unless you can find something unique your suggested mechanism already has a fatal flaw.

 

It would take even a very intelligent at least 3 readings to properly understand the points I have just made.

 

Step 2)

This is far too vague. I know that it was me that phrased it, but this was my best interpretation of the facts you gave me. A working mechanism must explain exactly how the distraction occurs, who says what to who and what effect that has. If your mechanism geniunely does occur, then there must be an answer to my questions. Remember, I'm looking at the micro level mechanism which involves saying exactly what influences cause what effect.

 

You also need to explain how they then “make” Muslims think Israel and the West are the source of all their problems and not the Islamic leaders. Also you havn’t explained why the Muslim community cannot see what we all know to be the truth: that most of the Arab problems are caused by incompetent leadership.

 

Step 3)

Again, no detail. So what? Just because somebody pays me money doesn’t mean I’m going to kill innocent women and children for them. If I already had a disposition to kill innocent women and children, then perhaps step 3 might buy my allegiance. But I don’t see how step 3 can contribute in any way to the creation of an extremism; only their allegance.

 

Step 4)

No problems here.

 

So comparing our mechanisms, I think on close scrutiny your one does not stand up as it requires too many leaps of faith. You can’t for example, explain how one action causes a belief or why. Infact, it is your mechanism, not mine, that assumes Muslims to be inferior beings for you do not credit them with the same questioning power and soundness of mind as us. It’s as if you think their mind is so simple that they will, like contract killers, kill for anybody that gives them money and jobs. That in my belief is patently ridiculous.

 

I’m not saying that you actually think that, but it is an absolutely necessary assumption for your model to work.

 

My one is mostly based on truisms so it is already harder to attack. It is also a much simpler process. Mine simply requires moderate discourse to contain menacing hypnotic suggestions. Yours requires a whole host of events to occur at the same or similar time. Scientifically, this makes your mechanism much rarer in the same way that higher order equations occur much more slowly than lower order ones. If you don’t understand what I mean by that, just ask.

 

Mine also assumes that moderates have exactly the same questioning power as Westerners. Yours does not. Now isn't that ironic!!!!

 

Again, please read my criticisms with a fine tooth comb BEFORE leaping into a robust and somewhat disrespectful defence.

[Buffy]

You're spending a lot of time avoiding the key problems I'm trying to point out. In order to try to get you back on track, lets try something simple. Lets just talk about your basic approach to the problem rather than the specific theory you have (we'll get back to that later).

 

Please let us know:

• What is your goal in disregarding all the other examples cited by me and others that are similar to the Islamic Extremism? Note here, the question will require you to restate something you've not successfully done according to many observers here, namely distinguish "Islamic Extremism" from other forms of extremism.
  
• How is that strategy going to assist in finding a solution to the problem?
  

I'll withold trying to respond to the rest of your post, not because I can't find lots of issues to discuss, but it just gets in the way of the point I'm really trying to make here.

 

Obvious is not logical,

Buffy

[sebbysteiny]

In response to post 59.

 

Your questions are, for once, fair enough. I do notice that the issues that you had a problem with were nothing to do with the original theory.

 

And I love the way that you keep on talking for the whole group. Us at hypography are having great fun with that.

 

What is your goal in disregarding all the other examples cited by me and others that are similar to the Islamic Extremism?

 

I believe that Islamic terror right now is the single greatest political threat we face other than global warming.

 

I want to find the solution. To do that, we must find the cause.

 

I do not wish to disregard a theory if it stands a chance of being correct. However the most common one, that it is caused by 'desparation', which is the most obvious suspect, has in my view errors of facts at every stage and seems to me to rely on faith over reason. It's almost like saying the world is flat. And everytime it's been properly scrutinised using any credible test i think it's come up short. And if that is correct, there is only one explanation for this; it's not even remotely the cause.

 

So I think new thinking is desperately needed here especially since nothing is worse than saying 'theory A is rubbish' without proposing an alternative theory B yourself, .

 

And I think my current theory fits the bill as from first principals down to last principals, working backwards and forwards, it seems to me that it must work.

 

How is that strategy going to assist in finding a solution to the problem?

Southtown raised a great point. How can one change the speaking habbits of an entire culture that spans the globe?

 

Admittedly, if it were as easy as just illeviating poverty, the solution would be much easier.

 

But one should not prefer a theory that stands almost no chance of being correct simply because it offers a quicker fix.

 

We also do not want to spend our anti-politicial correct / Islamophobic points in the wrong currancy. If we are going to make a criticism of a faith and culture, we must make sure we hit the right spot at the right time. Otherwise, hostility will grow and the problem will get worse and it will be harder to make the correct criticisms later.

 

So in conclusion, if I am right, we must 1) find the arguments that cause the manace and 2) launch a carefully aimed public debate both within the Western world and the Islamic communities. It would be great if this was backed up by the findings of an iquiry (which should be a formality if and only if I am right). Because if we eliminate the menaces (as defined above) from Islamic discourse, this world will be much safer for both us and the Muslim community.

 

Note here, the question will require you to ... distinguish "Islamic Extremism" from other forms of extremism.

 

I think that is an entirely different question. I don't think I need to 'distinguish' personally. That we do not have an answer for one problem is not a reason to stop solving another.

 

However, since you ask, I think the character of Islamic extremism has significant differences even if others disagree.1) IT is global in its effect in that it is not limited to any particular geographical area or group of people; it is happy to kill anyone anywhere anyhow even their own and is one of the most indescriminate extremist ideologies around. 2) It has a culture of death. Few other extremists are prepared to 'celebrate myrterdom' in the same way though there is one exception; the Tamil Tigers. 3) It is the only extremist ideology whose aim, not means, is to kill as many innocent civilian casualties as possible. All other extremist groups I know are trying to fight for a cause (howsoever twisted) and do not view themselves as murders. IT however openly rejoices in spilling the blood of infadels. IT seems to me to be more of a group of psycopathic seriel killers than an extremist organisation that makes at least some attempt to be 'freedom fighters'. The Tamil Tigers for example, usually attacks military targets. The IRA and ETA ususually attack economic targets, often with warnings. But IT creates complicated schemes whose aim is to truely maximise civilian casualties. If you don't believe me, look at the Madrid bombings. You don't need to be MI5 to see that the twisted and indescriminate nature of the thinking behind it dwafs ETA in barbarity even at ETA's height. Even the IRA, who have been lacking a real political to exist for almost a decade, have at least been motivated by the desire for power and money in organised crime.

 

Question from me: what do I want from you guys and why am I posting this theory here

I am trying to put forward a scientific like theory, not cause offence. I would like people to read it like any scientific theory and find 1) flaws with the logic, and 2) ways of testing it to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

 

Don't get offended, just see if it might be true or if you can prove it false. Or possibly, you could contribute to it and take it further or in a new direction. I'm not saying it is THE ONLY ANSWER, merely an alternative answer that fits all the facts. Einstein didn't agree with quantum mechanics yet he was still made great inroads into the theory.

 

My way of testing is to say 'what if it is correct? What would that mean in the world and how would we be able to notice it's effects and measure them?' but of course everybody has their own way of testing arguments. Anything constructive is most welcome.

[sebbysteiny]

On a point about Islamophobia.

 

Buffy, do you consider the following point of view to be Islamophobic and based on ignorance, or do you think it is legitimate, well thought out view?

 

Muslims have a dual psychology in which they desire both victimhood and domination. Because of this view, it can never be possible to satisfy all their demands. Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Boosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq.

 

Given the world view has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made.

 

The failure to counter such beliefs meant that radical Islam has flourished.

 

 

You might also be interested to learn that an 18 year old female student at

Gaza's Islamic University, Mervat Masaoud blew herself up near Israeli soldiers today on behalf of Islamic Jihad.

[Buffy]

Your questions are, for once, fair enough. I do notice that the issues that you had a problem with were nothing to do with the original theory.

Oh but they do! The provenance of a theory can show on first principles why the theory itself is unsound. One of the most important elements of the scientific method is to try to remove bias from the analysis of the data, and knowing the scientists biases going in is quite useful.

 

I do not wish to disregard a theory if it stands a chance of being correct. However the most common one, that it is caused by 'desparation', which is the most obvious suspect, has in my view errors of facts at every stage and seems to me to rely on faith over reason.

This statement shows that you have a strong bias against the "most common" theory, and it is manifested as a *strawman* version of several differing theories, conveniently thrown into a single bucket so that they can be dismissed without much discussion because you belittle them as "faith." This is really no way to win friends and influence people.

 

Now here's the first problem: In any social science theory, there are unknowns in a particular situation. However great insight can be found and much wheel spinning avoided by looking at similar situations in other places and times. This is exactly the meaning of George Santayana's line "those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But you seem to be doing everything in your power here to "define away" evidence that has direct bearing on the validity of your theory. That's precisely why it has met with much derision.

 

Secondly, there's a nasty side effect of this: no matter how much you argue that "insight" might be gained by looking at this situation in isolation, it begs people to see your intent not as simply trying to find a "specific solution." Since you dismiss similar situations elsewhere as being irrelevant, you show that you have a *premise* that the issue here is *unique* to Muslims, and that at the very least betrays unsubstantiated bias that is indeed interpreted by many as racism.

 

Now you really haven't answered my question, which is why you think that *ignoring* facts presented as counter-arguments is justified simply because you're "only talking about Islamic Extremism." Its the scientific method as practiced in the social sciences, and if you want to participate and be taken seriously, it really doesn't help your case to come in and imply everyone should just play by your rules.

 

Now you seem to want to back this up by saying that you can ignore these datapoints:

And I think my current theory fits the bill as from first principals down to last principals, working backwards and forwards, it seems to me that it must work.

You dismiss these objections by trying to pin them as "alternate theories" when in fact they are data that you're being asked to explain using your theory which you can either do by demonstrating how your theory handles it or by showing how they do not apply. Either one is fine, but dismissing it as an alternate theory which must be proven on its own is *not* the scientific method even if it suits your goals. You are the one proposing the theory, I am under no obligation to prove a separate theory in order to disprove yours.

 

Now finally, its important to note that throughout your argument, you do seem to be aware at least at a subconscious level of the fact that it is posed in a way that can be interpreted as racist:

We also do not want to spend our anti-politicial correct / Islamophobic points in the wrong currancy. If we are going to make a criticism of a faith and culture, we must make sure we hit the right spot at the right time. Otherwise, hostility will grow and the problem will get worse and it will be harder to make the correct criticisms later.

You seem to be saying that you believe that any solution to the problem will be perceived as racist, so you advocate some variation of "shock and awe." Whether or not that is true actually remains to be seen, but it shows that you have a strong bias that one of the most important weaknesses of your theory--that it can easily be viewed as Islamophobic--cannot be avoided by any other workable theory. And again, that is a bias that is easily interpreted as racist.

 

How can you avoid this problem? By realizing that "defining away objections" is considered by scientists to be the first refuge of a bad theory. Stop avoiding the problem and take the objections head on. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT, but you're not going to get anywhere by avoiding the objections. You need to be careful of course because "that's old thinking" or "that's liberal rhetoric" are not objections. It may take some work on your part.

 

You also need to realize that fundamental to the scientific method is that theories are not "whole". You need to be looking at this criticism not as "attacks on your theory" but as opportunities to modify it so that it makes sense. An example of this is the objection that "hypnotic suggestion" alone does not hold up to scruitiny where it has been used in the past. This does not destroy your entire theory (I hope) it shows that you need to incorporate other factors *in addition* to hypnotic suggestion.

 

Now compare what this last paragraph says to this somewhat confusing conclusion you posed:

So in conclusion, if I am right, we must 1) find the arguments that cause the manace and 2) launch a carefully aimed public debate both within the Western world and the Islamic communities. It would be great if this was backed up by the findings of an iquiry (which should be a formality if and only if I am right). Because if we eliminate the menaces (as defined above) from Islamic discourse, this world will be much safer for both us and the Muslim community.

First you put the cart before the horse: you need to find the arguments first and show how your theory explains them *before* its proved right: its not what comes after. What is the point of launching a public debate about something that has not been thought through enough to explain all extant facts? Theories are worthless unless you do the work up front to show that all known datasets are explained by them, and only then does it make sense to try to implement them.

 

What really bothers me about this particular conclusion is that it shows that you see the "solution" as an "implementation detail". You've never said what the implications of your theory are at all, and of course these would be held up to scrutiny that may disprove your theory. The frustration you've seen is to a great extent due to the fact that you don't seem to want to undergo this scrutiny, but theories not only have to explain what's happened, they have to have predictive power as to how things that we don't have data for *will* act. Thus you really need to explain what plan of action is indicated by your theory. Saying "get a public discussion going" is not a plan: showing what actions to take to allow Musilms to avoid being hypnotised is.

 

------

 

Now your explanation of how "Musilm Extremism is different" demonstrates these points, and rather than dwell on the specifics of the arguments, try to see them not as specific issues to be addressed (yet) but as examples of the problem with your approach that need to be addressed:

I don't think I need to 'distinguish' personally. That we do not have an answer for one problem is not a reason to stop solving another.

This is an example of your dismissing any similar situation elsewhere, and it shows strong bias in being posed as "the alternate theory does not work." You are dismissing the fact that there are alternate approaches that do indeed work elsewhere, and this is necessary to your intent to avoid scrutiny of your theory by implying "all other theories everywhere have failed so there's no point in considering them."

I think the character of Islamic extremism has significant differences even if others disagree.

Good start, you need to address the objections that are raised though:

1) IT is global in its effect in that it is not limited to any particular geographical area or group of people; it is happy to kill anyone anywhere anyhow even their own and is one of the most indescriminate extremist ideologies around.

The objection has been raised that there are in fact examples of such extremism today that are not by Muslims (e.g. Tamils, see below) and in past history, religious fervor has resulted in exactly the same homicidal death and destruction (e.g. the Crusades).

2) It has a culture of death. Few other extremists are prepared to 'celebrate myrterdom' in the same way though there is one exception; the Tamil Tigers.

First of all "culture of death" is pejorative. Your characterization shows bias. Second, you grant the Tamil example but do not even try to explain it when it is a perfect example of how there must be more to "desiring martyrdom" than Islamic Culture being unique. Further, although we have to go back in history (which again you seem to dismiss because its not today), religious or nationalist fervor has been used *more often than not* to get people to sacrifice their lives for a cause. Its arguable that *not* doing so is *only* a late 20th century phenomenon, and you only have to go as far back as WWII to see widespread belief in America that dying for one's country is good was a widely held belief.

 

If you want to see hypnotic suggestion raised to the level of "causing" martyrdom, take a look at the opening scene of "All Quiet on the Western Front."

3) It is the only extremist ideology whose aim, not means, is to kill as many innocent civilian casualties as possible. All other extremist groups I know are trying to fight for a cause (howsoever twisted) and do not view themselves as murders.

Neither do the Tamil Extremists, and neither did the Crusaders.

 

More importantly, you've started talking about the extremists themselves here, when this view is not shared by the "moderates" as I mentioned in a previous post. Your tendency here is to conflate extremist views into moderate views without much evidence although this linkage is central to your argument.

IT seems to me to be more of a group of psycopathic seriel killers than an extremist organisation that makes at least some attempt to be 'freedom fighters'.

Here you're dismissing the wide evidence that the extremists themselves *do* use oppression and other arguments common to freedom fighters (just look at their martyrdom tapes), and the leaders are seeking political power (establishing a Caliphate is exactly the same as liberating Northern Ireland). You show no evidence to support your argument and you seem to simply ignore the counter-argument.

The Tamil Tigers for example, usually attacks military targets.

This is patently false. They blow up trains and set off bombs in downtown Columbo. Again you are avoiding counter evidence.

The IRA and ETA ususually attack economic targets, often with warnings.

First this is not completely true, and second *they are constrained by their supporters*. Now this actually *supports* your argument because it shows that indeed affecting the attitudes of the moderates can control the extremists, but you seem to simply want to do away with all comparisons so that you don't have to deal with the implications that may disrupt your theory.

But IT creates complicated schemes whose aim is to truely maximise civilian casualties. If you don't believe me, look at the Madrid bombings.

This brings up one of the most notorious attacks of recent times, the Aum Shinrikyo chemical attacks in Tokyo. It failed because they weren't very good at it, but this had the potential to kill thousands. No, not much of a following, but the reason this is a good counter example is that 1) you're talking about the extremists here, not the moderates and 2) it is undeniably indescriminant, complicated and designed to maximize casualties, but has nothing to do with Islam.

 

Remember, the whole point of this question is to show how Islamic Extremism is different, yet there are lots and lots of counter-examples. We can continue to argue the merits of these counter-examples, but lets leave that for later: the point here is that if these counter-examples are valid, you are at the very least wise to start to modify your theory to account for them.

My way of testing is to say 'what if it is correct? What would that mean in the world and how would we be able to notice it's effects and measure them?'

Great! And that's what many of us have asked you over and over and over again to do: lets talk about the real implications of your theory. What do we *do* about this problem. This may cause you to make further changes in your theory. That might even be a good thing!

 

Everyone shares your desire to solve the problem of Terrorism, and Terrorism by Muslims is indeed more pressing that Terrorism by other groups today. But you do yourself a disservice by blinding yourself to historical data that can *help find a solution*, and in your unwillingness to discuss this data, make it easy for others to "misinterpret" your intentions. Its something you may wish to consider.

 

Change is good,

Buffy

[sebbysteiny]

I am pleased by the more co operative turn this thread has taken as are we all. Slagging matches are fun but ultimately pointless.

 

Your questions are, for once, fair enough. I do notice that the issues that you had a problem with were nothing to do with the original theory.

Oh but they do! The provenance of a theory can show on first principles why the theory itself is unsound. One of the most important elements of the scientific method is to try to remove bias from the analysis of the data, and knowing the scientists biases going in is quite useful.

 

With respect but that couldn't actually be more wrong. It is a logical falacy because you are using two different versions of the word 'bias'. One does not want 'biased data'. That is true. Scientists go to great effort to make sure that their evidence is not biased by some other experimental factor. Eg, one does not do experiments on photons in a sunny room. But the personal political views or favoratisms of the scientists are totally irrelivent. One looks at the data and whether the facts support the data. That is all.

 

Anything else is ad hominem as you are now judging the message by the messanger.

 

Further, everybody has biases of one kind or another so the idea that one has to investigate the messanger's bias' before even considering the scientific validity of a theory is non sensicle and unworkable.

 

I do not wish to disregard a theory if it stands a chance of being correct. However the most common one, that it is caused by 'desparation', which is the most obvious suspect, has in my view errors of facts at every stage and seems to me to rely on faith over reason.

 

This statement shows that you have a strong bias against the "most common" theory.

 

Of course I have a 'strong bias' against the theory. Just about anybody who forms an opinion on anything suddenly gets 'a strong bias'. So by that logic, everybody who looks at something and gets a conviction is biased.

 

Unless by bias you mean forming a view over and above what the facts I have seen legitimately allows me to conclude. In that case, I am not bias.

 

So lets stop saying you're this and I'm that. Lets just set out the facts and the arguments and make an informed opinion. I am more than willing to be swayed if you can find any half scientifically credible evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny that there is a link between poverty, unemployment and Islamic Terror.

 

Here are some of my tests. There must be a clear reason why the particular political problem makes normal people adopt extremist values. Ask yourself, if I was poor and struggled to get money, would I become a mass murderer? In my experience, no. Nor does it apply to anybody. People who are poor do not, even in civilised societies, tend to be any more prone to committing crimes. The only reason why many normal poor people commit crimes is because of drugs. Maybe alcahole too. And half the reason they are poor in the first place is their addiction.

 

Perhaps a normal person might shop lift bread or other luxiaries. But committing Mass murder for the benefit of killing the decendants of monkeys and pigs, the enemies of allah, the Jews and the infidels, I think not.

 

I cannot overstate how much of a challenge I think the above is to that theory. I am making the assumption of course that Muslims are normal people like you and me and I simply cannot see how poverty and unemployment can turn people like you and me into fanatics.

 

Another test would be to explain why this does not happen throughout Africa or South America. Now of course there are problems in those countries but why are there no South Americans strapping bombs to their chest and blowing up trains in London, Madrid, New York etc. I have never found a credible answer to that.

 

Lastly, you need to explain why statistics show why extremism is biased towards the middle classes. You once said it's because people learn more things. But normal people like you and me who have, say, studies the Ruandan genocide do not start strapping bombs to ourselves to kill Tutsis.

 

But my hypnotic suggestions idea, as well as my past idea, could happen to anybody (infact must happen to anybody) and, like a culture's discourse, is border and class independant. So it passes all the tests I can think of.

[pgrmdave]

People who are poor do not, even in civilised societies, tend to be any more prone to committing crimes.

 

Hmmm, I'd be willing to bet that at least this portion of your post is wrong - I will do some research on this in a day or two and see if this is actually correct, that financial status is not related to any criminal activity. I am particularly interested in violent crimes (as that seems to be the topic here), but I will research all the numbers if I can. Would it be fair to look at crime rates in a particular area vs. median income of that area?

[Buffy]

It is a logical falacy because you are using two different versions of the word 'bias'.... One looks at the data and whether the facts support the data. That is all. ...Anything else is ad hominem as you are now judging the message by the messanger.

I think you missed the fact that I was talking here not about your biases, but rather about the assumptions of your theory, namely that "Islamic Terrorism is different from other terrorism," so your point here is simply non-sequiter, seemingly to avoid discussing the weaknesses of your argument.

Lets just set out the facts and the arguments and make an informed opinion. I am more than willing to be swayed if you can find any half scientifically credible evidence capable of withstanding scrutiny that there is a link between poverty, unemployment and Islamic Terror.

Again, you seem to miss a key point above: I do not have to posit an opposing theory.

 

I am continuing to ask for you to describe how your theory accomodates the facts that you are continuing to avoid addressing.

 

The rest of your post continues to to pose a strawman "alternative theory" which as I've said does nothing to support your theory. I really think you should follow your own advice and follow the scientific method.

 

Just to keep you going, I'll respond to some of your statements:

People who are poor do not, even in civilised societies, tend to be any more prone to committing crimes.

I'd suggest you look at the FBI crime statistics. There's a very strong correllation between poverty and crime. If you don't believe this, I've got a great house in Compton I can sell you.

The only reason why many normal poor people commit crimes is because of drugs.

There is moderate correlation here geographically but not morphologically: actually drug use among gang members has historically been low compared to the rest of the geolocated population because of the fact that drug use impairs the ability to perform criminal acts successfully (see "Goodfellas" or "Menace II Society" for case studies). In the poorest countries, drugs are expensive and in many cases both unavailable and culturally discouraged. Moreover, there's a stronger correllation between the level of violence and availability of guns.

Maybe alcahole too. And half the reason they are poor in the first place is their addiction.

This is obviously not bias. Based on facts.

But committing Mass murder for the benefit of killing the decendants of monkeys and pigs, the enemies of allah, the Jews and the infidels, I think not.

This is strawman. You're trying to make the argument that any poverty causes mass murder. Making up an "alternative theory" and knocking it down does not support your own theory, which is something you're being asked to address here, but you keep repeating it.

I am making the assumption of course that Muslims are normal people like you and me and I simply cannot see how poverty and unemployment can turn people like you and me into fanatics.

So you understand why we do indeed have to discuss other similar problems with terrorism then, right?

But normal people like you and me who have, say, studies the Ruandan genocide do not start strapping bombs to ourselves to kill Tutsis.

Neither do "most" Muslims. As I mentioned in my previous post--and which you continue to seem to not understand for some reason--is that it is your own theory that seems to be saying that there's something unique about "Muslim Discourse" that causes some "inordinant" number of members of the middle class to "blow themselves up." Most don't in *all* societies. That *some* do in Muslim societies, is inarguable, but it is only a "problem that is unique to Muslims" if you continue to insist on ignoring all the evidence of similar extremism.

But my hypnotic suggestions idea...could happen to anybody (infact must happen to anybody) and, like a culture's discourse, is border and class independant. So it passes all the tests I can think of.

So why doesn't it happen to anybody? This is central to your argument that points at Muslims being "different." Its really odd that you keep asking me to answer questions that are deficiencies of your own theory. Why don't you answer that question? What part of your theory explains why when I listen to bin Laden on Al Jazeera that I fail to become an extremist?

 

I *think* you're starting to address this in your previous post where you try to prod me with:

Buffy, do you consider the following point of view to be Islamophobic and based on ignorance, or do you think it is legitimate, well thought out view?

 

Muslims have a dual psychology in which they desire both victimhood and domination. Because of this view, it can never be possible to satisfy all their demands. Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Boosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq.

To address this directly, I'll ask you to explain why Muslims in the Arab world seem to react differently than those in Indonesia. In point of fact as I said earlier, even Arabs do not believe intervention is "always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists."

 

Now what makes this *biased* is simply that it is broadbrush applied to ALL Muslims, and ignores the fact that there are more counter-examples than examples.

 

So to answer your question, yes, it is Islamophobic.

 

All you have to do though is make the subject not "Muslims have" (unqualified, applying to *everyone* who is Muslim), to "Muslim political leaders promote the view that," and presto chango, you've turned it into a non-biased statement, that is MUCH more useful because it points out that we don't have to fix "Muslims" we have to fix "Muslim political leaders" which is a completely different problem.

 

You may want to look at how your exposition of your ideas gets in the way of effectively enunciating your theory.

 

Troll slayer,

Buffy

[Edella]

. Ask yourself, if I was poor and struggled to get money, would I become a mass murderer? In my experience, no. Nor does it apply to anybody. People who are poor do not, even in civilised societies, tend to be any more prone to committing crimes. The only reason why many normal poor people commit crimes is because of drugs. Maybe alcahole too. And half the reason they are poor in the first place is their addiction.

 

 

Sebby,statements like those above do nothing to help me think you've researched this much.You have grossly oversimplified the problem of crime and poverty and have given opinions that contradict years of study.Almost all experts agree there is a connection between income and certain types of crime.Certainly there are other factors.

 

http:

//researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm

 

In the above study,researchers examined (American) crime rates between 1979 and 1997 and found much of the increase in crime during that period can be explained by falling wages and rising unemployment among men without college educations.

 

A Look at a SEU report published in 2002 from the U.K. :http://www.crimeandsociety.org.uk/articles/crimesocialjustice.html

 

A common factor amongst countries with higher violence rates is high rates of poverty( and all it entails).The numbers clearly show this.To suggest that "The only reason why many normal poor people commit crimes is because of drugs." is ridiculous Sebby.I'm not saying drugs don't contribute,but unless you can show me that drugs are the only reason "normal people" commit crimes,I'll take that statement as an uneducated opinion.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I am making the assumption of course that Muslims are normal people like you and me and I simply cannot see how poverty and unemployment can turn people like you and me into fanatics.

 

Yeah? The rent's due, the kids are sick, and you're hungry.

 

You can starve, be evicted, and lose your children, or you can hold up the liquor store.

 

Or, let's say that the Taliban controls the streets of New York. You have to stare at the ground and praise Allah or whatever whenever one of your exalted masters passes by. If you thought it would help to blow up a pizza parlor, wouldn't you?

 

And don't talk about strawmen, answer the questions. All I require from you is that you answer the question:

 

What circumstances are necessary for you to become a terrorist? A criminal? A mass murderer?

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

I'll save the best part of this post to last.

 

Okay, I will concede that my comment that poor people do not commit crimes was far too general and was ill researched. Further, it makes sense that CERTAIN TYPES of crimes are induced by poverty (eg burglary, theft etc.). There is a clear and obvious mechanism which we have all experienced. We see something we want but can't afford it any other way. What do you do? That link makes sence. However murder????? I don't know either way. But it was just one paragraph in 6 pages and it does not undermine anything I have said significantly. I have seen the statistics and know that being poor is not correlated to extremism. Infact, it is quite the opposite. The middle class is the most prone group.

 

However, a detailed study on what crimes are wealth independant could help here.

 

I'd suggest you look at the FBI crime statistics. There's a very strong correllation between poverty and crime. If you don't believe this, I've got a great house in Compton I can sell you.

 

I'd bet my bottom doller that drug use in Compton is through the roof. Have you ever sat in court before? 90% of suspects are drug addicts. This is because the addiction to drugs is a very powerful motivator that is so strong an otherwise normal person can commit crimes. That is an example of a realistic mechanism between cause and effect.

 

But I accept pgrmdave's and edella's criticism. QP for the both of you.

 

I think you missed the fact that I was talking here not about your biases, but rather about the assumptions of your theory,

 

Then why did you mention the word 'bias' twice in that particular criticism? I can only interpret what you actually write.

 

Yeah? The rent's due, the kids are sick, and you're hungry.

 

You can starve, be evicted, and lose your children, or you can hold up the liquor store.

 

That's good stuff. I accept that living in poverty can compell you to some crimes. But it only works for theft, does it not? It doesn't seem to work for caluculated or religous murder. Perhaps a plot to get inherritance earlier is the very limit of where that mechanism can work.

 

Or, let's say that the Taliban controls the streets of New York. You have to stare at the ground and praise Allah or whatever whenever one of your exalted masters passes by. If you thought it would help to blow up a pizza parlor, wouldn't you?

 

I'm so glad that people who actually read my posts are now responding :).

 

Okay. Taliban controls the streets. The consequences of not praising Allah in that way are horrific so yes I could easily do that out of fear. So now I'm being scared into making gestures I don't mean.

 

Putting myself in that position, Kick *** Clown's concept of a social alter should also now kick in. In other words, if society appears to believe something, then, to fit in, you will then believe something. It's kind of like social pressure and it's a key component of brainwashing. So now I do the gestures and the gestures are actually genuine.

 

Okay, I've got from me to a person who is religious. I follow the mechanism so far.

 

If you thought it would help to blow up a pizza parlor, wouldn't you?

.

 

I'm assuming now that the Taleban also forced people to adopt fanatical Islam in the same way as it did the above gestures. The mechanism works in the same way and now, as the Taleban disgraces and even punishes those who do not aspire to be a suicide bomber, I become one.

 

Yes that works. Infact, that's a very valid mechanism.

 

It's problems are that it requires fanatical Islam to control the mechanisms of the state. In other words, fanatical Islam is the dominant culture with all the power.

 

But, this is not the case in the streets of UK and many people are STILL converted in the UK. So there must be another working mechanism that causes moderates to become fanatics in a society where moderates are in the majority and hold the majority of the power. Because the control of power was so essential in your senario, the mechanism you have suggested cannot work in the West.

 

Unless of course you are saying that the Majority of Muslims in the West along with most of their leaders are actually raving fanatics, which I think nobody here will even dream of asserting because then Buffy's instinctive cries of Islamophobia might actually be correct.

 

Also I note that poverty had nothing to do with your mechanism, only power and perhaps fear.

 

Nevertheless, if the mechanism works, IT MUST HAPPEN and I think it does work. So your theory explains why countries with both fanatical and despotic governments contains a comparitively large number of extremists. I like that alot. I think that idea is now ripe for testing with the statistics. From my memory I suspect they back you up.

 

But we still need another mechanism for Muslim societies where moderates are in the majority.

 

All I require from you is that you answer the question:

 

What circumstances are necessary for you to become a terrorist? A criminal? A mass murderer?

 

I want you to not be disappointed since, although this is the middle of the post, it is actually the very last part I've written and it is now late. So I'd like to answer that tomorrow. Sweet dreams and good night.

This is strawman.

I do wish you would stop using this. For starters, it's rude. And it is basically just a cleche with little meaning. If you think there is a problem with an important aspect of my theory then just say it.

 

And don't talk about strawmen, answer the questions.

Where you talking to Me of Buffy. If it is to Buffy, here here :). I still love you though Buffy.

 

So why doesn't it happen to anybody? This is central to your argument that points at Muslims being "different."

 

The phenomina will work in other cultures if hypnotic suggestions are being sent. Quite what effects they have will depend on the particular hypnotic suggestion being sent. But only Muslim discourse contains hypnotic suggestions into Islamic extremism. No other culture has hypnotiic suggestions into Islamic extremism.

 

But normal people like you and me who have, say, studies the Ruandan genocide do not start strapping bombs to ourselves to kill Tutsis.

Neither do "most" Muslims.

 

that's a touch pedantic. I mean NO people who have studied the Ruandan genocide start strapping bombs to themselves to kill Tutsis. The human mind does not work in a way that people will kill themselves to revenge an injustice because they have studied it academically.

 

What part of your theory explains why when I listen to bin Laden on Al Jazeera that I fail to become an extremist?

 

The message is too obvious and can be filtered out by the conscience mind. Further, there will be no *constant repetative contact* with it. If you listened to Bin Laden every day then perhaps his beliefs might sink in somewhat. Afterall, I'm sure, being the main man in Al Quaeda, he's learnt to use hypnotic suggestions or other brainwashing techniques in his speeches. But even allowing for that, that he is the messanger could on its own be enough for the conscience mind to filter out the attempted subconscious messages. Having said that, I have had a friend who is an expert at sending such messages and although I knew that and noticed most of them, they still messed with my mind.

 

Its really odd that you keep asking me to answer questions that are deficiencies of your own theory.

 

Yes that is odd. Why would that be? Well obviously its because the questions I ask are deficiencies in your theory not mine.

 

I think it's that reading thing again. I'm going to tell you now. You cannot properly understand the points I make without reading it at least a few times. So stop skim reading.

 

Now what makes this *biased* is simply that it is broadbrush applied to ALL Muslims, and ignores the fact that there are more counter-examples than examples.

 

That statistic was made up on the spot, wasn't it?

 

I am continuing to ask for you to describe how your theory accomodates the facts that you are continuing to avoid addressing.

 

I have never 'avoided' any facts. Having just scrolled one of your last posts, the bottom half contained some facts but I didn't have time to address them earlier. I'll address them tomorrow. If you want me to address a fact simply say something like 'how do you account for x'. That's good testing. Lets have more of that.

 

But you shouldn't get PMT simply because I only had 15 mins for a post. It's not good for your health.

 

Buffy, do you consider the following point of view to be Islamophobic and based on ignorance, or do you think it is legitimate, well thought out view?

 

Muslims have a dual psychology in which they desire both victimhood and domination. Because of this view, it can never be possible to satisfy all their demands. Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Boosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq.

 

Now what makes this *biased* is simply that it is broadbrush applied to ALL Muslims, and ignores the fact that there are more counter-examples than examples.

 

So to answer your question, yes, it is Islamophobic.

 

Those wern't my words. They were the words of The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali. His dad was a Muslim convert and he is one of the most senior Anglican Bishops. The only reason he is so senior is his that he is considered to be the formost expert on Islam in the Anglican church. He is also in no way considered a racist.

 

Although experts often disagree with each other, you cannot dismiss this view as 'racist' or 'Islamophobic' or say it is irrational because he knows more about both those concepts than you will ever know.

 

There comes a point where you must stop accusing everybody of being racist simply because they make a legitimate criticism of a culture or faith. It's no worse than being called anti semitic simply because you are not a hard core Zionist.

 

It seems to me that to be an expert on Islam, one has to pass the test of being called a racist Islamophobe by you. I'm flattered I'm in such good company.