Islamic Terror, brainwashing, new thoughts.

[sebbysteiny]

The word elephant is a symbolic representation, one associates a thought with the symbol during the process of assimilating the sentence, there are no actions consequent to the attached thought. This is quite different from hypnosis.

 

Excellent. As I suspected, the word 'hypnosis' threw you from the communication mechanism I was actually talking about. But I now think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

the 'process of assimilating the sentence' as you call it, is the distraction for the concious mind. Most brainwashing / thought reform works by getting the conscious mind consentrated on 'assimilating the sentence' or something. The meaning of that sentence is usually irrelevant. But whilst the concious mind is off chasing decoys, the images and other suggestions that work at a 'hypnotic' / subconscious level are free to force themselves on the undefended subconscious.

 

Now suppose instead of getting you to think about an elephant, or even an elephant having sex (if you saw my last edit), I got you to think about 'your brothers being slaughtered by America in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan' followed by getting you to think that this 'justifies killing American civilians'? Now instead of a person thinking about an elephant having sex, he is thinking about committing mass murder on behalf of Islamic terror? And suppose he came into contact with this 'hypnotic suggestion' numerous times every day. It wasn't that he was a bad person, it's just 'hypnotic suggestions' doing to the mind what they do: powerfully putting ideas into people's minds.

 

And there are similarities between the elephant example above and hypnosis. A hypnotic script [the stuff read to you to get you into a deep hypnotic state] is laced with hundreds of hypnotic suggestions that work in exactly the same way as the elephant example, but just one after another after another for about an hour.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I would like that. Thanks.

 

What would make me a terrorist? When would I attack civilians because they were civilians? If I knew that I couldn't win in a fair fight, but the issue was important enough to me to sell everything else I valued out. For example, aliens invade Earth and force us all into slavery. Would I walk into an alien pizza parlor and blow myself up? Absolutely.

 

What would make me a criminal? If I needed (or though I needed) something, and couldn't get it through legitimate means (or thought I couldn't.)

 

What would make me a mass murderer? Revenge. I can think of things people could do that would make me want to (and take action to) wipe them, and anyone who would have any memory of them from the face of the earth.

 

Now you.

 

 

 

Also, I don't think what you are describing there with the elephant qualifies as "hypnotic suggestion." Could you cite an authoritative source that uses the phrase as you describe?

 

It seems to me what you are describing is closer to the "empty fort" strategy or reverse psychology that hypnotic suggestions.

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

The sentence "dont think of an elephant" is amusing and demonstrates that linguistic concepts are rooted in the "real world", they function symbolically, other than that I dont see it as having any significance for thought control. The assimilation, of the sentence, via it's symbols, is undertaken by the brain in the same way regardless of whether the sentence is "dont think of an elephant" or "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the sides".

Some problems with your contention:

1) it is not specific to islam or to any particular course of action

2) hypnotism is not involved

 

You appear to be talking about propaganda, this is different from hypnotism and doesn't really come under thought control, and it is certainly not specific to muslims.

 

On the question of definitions: by abusing terms you introduce vagueness into the usage and thereby reduce the ability of people to communicate. If all people could communicate effectively an important step towards the resolution of conflict, in general, would've been taken. In this sense, I find abuse of language a more pernicious activity than the behaviour that you're discussing. My suggestion is to cut down on sensationalising your political views.

[sebbysteiny]

Thanks for your answer TFS. Now I know what sort of answer you are looking for. I'll answer, but first there are a few things you said that I have never fully understood.

 

What would make me a terrorist? When would I attack civilians because they were civilians? If I knew that I couldn't win in a fair fight, but the issue was important enough to me to sell everything else I valued out. For example, aliens invade Earth and force us all into slavery. Would I walk into an alien pizza parlor and blow myself up? Absolutely.

 

This argument is Muslim in origin. It consists, or in my view, relies on creating a reality that is so counter to anything ever experienced on Earth that it becomes easier to accept it as a reasonable reaction, and even then it does not follow.

 

This might seem like stating the obvious, but no aliens have ever put an entire population into slavery. This might seem irrelivent as you will say 'it is just an analogy' but it is infact absolutely necessary for it to work. The reason "aliens" are chosen is because one cannot humanise with them. If you say 'another country' it just doesn't work as well because now we can humanise them and so feel bad when we kill 6 month old babies and create orphans, newly weds and pretty girls who might become models. Would you really kill THEM without giving it a second thought???

 

The only way you can think that way is if that socieity, their needs and their feelings, are so dehumanised by Nazi style propaganda that they might as well be aliens. Infact, if you try to compare any grevance Muslims are supposedly suffering from to the aliens, you are now demonising that people by saying they are more like aliens than people.

 

Secondly, the idea of 'putting the whole nation into slavery' is very different to what the Muslim people actually experience. They experience checkpoints, road blocks and attacks aimed at militants trying to kill innocent people whilst hiding amongst civilians. They are certainly not forced to build statues of their tyranical rulers and clean the clothes of an ungrateful master.

 

Secondly, would you really blow yourself up? For what purpose? Blowing up tanks and killing soldiers is on thing. But how does killing Grandma dot in a coffee house help anything?

 

What would make me a criminal? If I needed (or though I needed) something, and couldn't get it through legitimate means (or thought I couldn't.)

 

Is that it? How many people think they need something and can't get it through legitimate means? How many of those actually go on and commit a crime?

 

What would make me a mass murderer? Revenge. I can think of things people could do that would make me want to (and take action to) wipe them, and anyone who would have any memory of them from the face of the earth.

 

That's extremely strong. I can't think of anything that powerful to the point that a normal person would kill innocent people.

 

Okay, me.

 

Terror: Yes, a fair fight must not be winnable. But one can fight 'unfairly' without being a terrorist. Just ask the Viet Kong. To be a terrorist, you must also have a willingness to kill people who's death cannot possibly help you in any way shape or form. It's meaningless slaughter, not self defence.

 

But this is not necessarily the case. Take a typical attack by the Tamil tigers. They attack a military convoy containing a political leader killing the leader, many soldiers and very large numbers of innocent civilians. They are committing terror, but that terror can in some way be justified by self defence as you spoke of. The targets are still military even though large numbers of civilians died. Is it terror or guerilla war?

 

Now lets take a typical ETA attack. Blowing up a car in the middle of a beach to target tourists. The point is to destroy Spain's tourism and cause huge economic damage. In any serious war, the economic lifeline is often the first target because without that, no tanks and bullets can be made. So one can still see how it can be justified by self defence, though the thinking is slightly more perverted. Is this terror or guerilla war?

 

And now we deal with Al Quaeda. They typically target trains at rush hour. They then plant secondary explosions where they have calculated a lot of paniced people might run to to get a second wave of casualties. Then they often leave bombs, or a suicide bomber, around the scene to kill any emergency crew that come along. This is death death and death. There is no pretence of self defence any more whatsoever. And then they cut the head of innocent hostages in Iraq. What the f*** is that?

 

So what would motivate me into terror? Well it depends what type of terrorist group I'm joining. There is no one size fits all.

 

 

What would motivate me into becoming a criminal? 1) to get something I need, and *2) an inherant criminal mentality*. The really interesting question is where does this iherant disposition towards criminality come from? Is there a cause of that? A gang culture should be enough. But what about other crimes? Abuse for example has often been enough for murder.

 

So the extent of the criminal mentality needed also varies depending on the crime. No one size fits all solution again I'm afraid.

 

But there is one cause that seems to cross almost all crimes: drugs. People are prepared to do anything if they think it might help satisfy their drug addiction for a few hours.

 

What would make me a mass murderer? I think this is just another form of crime so the answer is as above. But the idea that somebody normal can 'kill anybody with any memory of [a particular person or act] simply out of revenge is far fetched in my opinion.

 

It's like saying many crimes have been committed [eg wife beating etc] by alcahole. But how many people do you know who get drunk and then start beating up women? Most people are perfectly safe when drunk. So there has to be some criminal propensity already there in the sober form of the man and that is the real cause. The same lies with revenge.

[sebbysteiny]

The sentence "dont think of an elephant" is amusing and demonstrates that linguistic concepts are rooted in the "real world", they function symbolically, other than that I dont see it as having any significance for thought control. The assimilation, of the sentence, via it's symbols, is undertaken by the brain in the same way regardless of whether the sentence is "dont think of an elephant" or "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the sides".

Some problems with your contention:

1) it is not specific to islam or to any particular course of action

2) hypnotism is not involved

 

You appear to be talking about propaganda, this is different from hypnotism and doesn't really come under thought control, and it is certainly not specific to muslims.

 

On the question of definitions: by abusing terms you introduce vagueness into the usage and thereby reduce the ability of people to communicate. If all people could communicate effectively an important step towards the resolution of conflict, in general, would've been taken. In this sense, I find abuse of language a more pernicious activity than the behaviour that you're discussing. My suggestion is to cut down on sensationalising your political views.

 

The reason many arguments will not work is because the brain thinks about them and can reject it before before it is accepted by the subconscious. It works well and allows us to be logical. But if the conscious is distracted, then people can accept messages without them ever coming under the scrutiny of the conscious.

 

Take a look at this Palestinian version of advocacy. This is a Palestinian website that tells people how to write to news agencies. Further, I've been to many such meetings and their spokespeople ALL use the same language.

 

How does this work? Well again the mind is focussing on constructing the sentance and is not able to filter out the real message that is contained in the words.

 

Both this and what I call 'hypnotic suggestions' work in the same reason though they are different techniques.

 

If I said that the size of the hypotinuse is equal to the sum of the sides, not the root of the sum of the squares, you would reject it instantly and think nothing more of it. But if I told you do not think about an orange penguine that image might linger and linger on your mind for some time longer. That is what causes the mind reform especially if you have constant repatitive contact with it.

 

Problem 1 of my contenstion. That's not true. Only Islamic discourse contains hypnotic suggestions into suicide terror that justifies the deliberate targetting of civilians. Other cultures contain hypnotic suggestions too, but it is not obvious what they suggest.

 

2) I think it does have something to do with hypnosis.

 

How surprised would you be to find out that you're still thinking of an orange penguine even 20 minutes after you have read this even though you really shouldn't think about an orange penguine at all? As you start to get back into your every day life from reading this post, you might still find yourself thinking of that orange penguine sporadically even hours or days after. But as you continue thinking of that orange penguine, you might find the orange colour of it getting brighter and brighter as the problems that have caused you trouble in your life get absorbed by it. As you see your daily problems being absorbed by the orange of the penguine, the orange may start to expand until it is a giant bright orange ball. You might even be able to feel the intense stress and pain crying out to you as everything you have been suffering from in your life is now squeezed into this giant ball. But as you see this giant ball, you notice how the ground now opens up and swallows the ball with all your stresses. How surprised would you be to feel a sudden release as all your stresses in your life disappear when the ground swallows up your giant orange ball? And then when you see that penguine after today, you may not see it as orange anymore as you are now free from all the stresses of your life.

 

I'm not Paul Mckenna, but you get the idea. Hypnotic suggestions are the building blocks of hypnotheripy.

 

 

I don't think I am 'abusing terms'. Infact, since I have worked with a hypnotist, I feel it is me who has got the terms correctly. But unless you decide to use a 'Brave new world' style simplistic language, you will find most people use different diction and that part of reading something is trying to interpret exactly what words mean what. I think this applies to all people at hypography and beyond including myself.

 

And as for 'sensationalising'. I think I have found something unique, scary and even better, usable when you realise the implications of my model.

[InfiniteNow]

Not the first time I have been in trouble with the moderators.

Hmmm... I guess there's something to be said for consistency. :)

 

If you want to ban me, then ban me. I will not return.

Be careful what you wish for. :)

 

 

If you acting in your capacity as a moniter (ie not personally) want me to listen to your criticisms and act accordingly, I expect to see them applied more consistantly.

Clearly you're trying to get on our good side. I can tell. ;)

 

Infy's request was gentle Sebby. Perhaps it is the tone you use which results these requests from the staff here. Seriously, think about it for a while.

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Fine, if by some miracle of military planning someone was able to conquer the United States and disband our army so that there was literally no way we could win on the field of battle, I would blow myself up in a pizza parlor. Happy? That seems, frankly, just as far fetched in my life time as an alien invasion.

 

I don't consider that you've answered the question.

 

Under what circumstances would you commit a terrorist act? By terrorist act I mean, under what circumstances would you attack civilians because of their status as civilians?

 

Come'on Sebby, answer the question. Don't dodge it, don't give me an exegesis about the differences between the Tamil Tigers and ETA, just answer. It shouldn't be terribly difficult.

 

As for my answer about "wiping their memory of the face of the earth." It's relatively easy for me to think of wrongs that could be done to me that would provoke every bit of violence I could muster. You are able to do violence unto others Sebby. You have the capability. What things would provoke it?

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Fine, if by some miracle of military planning someone was able to conquer the United States and disband our army so that there was literally no way we could win on the field of battle, I would blow myself up in a pizza parlor.

 

Why? For what purpose? Doing nothing is not any worse than doing something counter productive.

 

under what circumstances would you attack civilians because of their status as civilians?

 

If I lived in a society whereby those civilians are demonised, if I thought killing the civilians might actually do some good to my own population, and if I had the political determination to do something. The more demonised those civilians are, the less 'good' it needs to do to my own population. Again, to think it might do some good will require a mind already perversed. So the real question is what could get a person like you or me to accept the above beliefs? That is what I would call 'the mechanism'.

 

The same can be said for genocide. Infact, I think that the two crimes are linked in that one gets genocide if the demonising party is the dominant power and one gets the terror as defined above if the demonsided party holds all the power.

 

As for my answer about "wiping their memory of the face of the earth." It's relatively easy for me to think of wrongs that could be done

 

Maybe your right. The problem is then I don't understand what you mean by "wiping their memory of the face of the Earth". An illustritive example could be helpful.

[TheFaithfulStone]

If I lived in a society whereby those civilians are demonised, if I thought killing the civilians might actually do some good to my own population, and if I had the political determination to do something. The more demonised those civilians are, the less 'good' it needs to do to my own population. Again, to think it might do some good will require a mind already perversed. So the real question is what could get a person like you or me to accept the above beliefs? That is what I would call 'the mechanism'.

 

The same can be said for genocide. Infact, I think that the two crimes are linked in that one gets genocide if the demonising party is the dominant power and one gets the terror as defined above if the demonsided party holds all the power.

 

You're placing the agency for this outside of yourself. It's a clever dodge, but I still think it's an incomplete answer.

 

What chain of circumstances would need to happen in order for your to walk into a pizza parlor and blow yourself up?

 

If you need to say "the civilians of the opposing side would need to be utterly demonized" fine. What else? Is that enough?

 

If you could believe the civilians of the opposing side were subhuman, would you do it then?

 

TFS

[infamous]

Not the first time I have been in trouble with the moderators.

And taking into account your present tone of voice, it won't be the last either.

 

However I have lost all confidence in many of the moderators here when I found particular moniters breaking hypography rules themselves with impunity (admittidely not yourself).

Something you need to understand sebby......, this forum is not a democracy. The Moderators whom the staff have chosen are done so very carefully with the intention of keeping discussions from turning into, to coin a phrase, bar room brawls. I suggest you show more respect for the choices our staff has made whether you agree with them or not, they still have been given these responsibilities.

 

And what is the difference between saying that somebody is wrong, mistaken or ignorant about a certain subject.

Pointing out disagreements you may have regarding others views is one thing. Calling them ignorant is quite another. I think you're smart enough to know the difference sebby..... It really boils down to style and delivery. Try not to be so defensive, give the other person the benefit of the doubt on occasion. You will find that others may respond in kind.......And if they don't, take a breather. Allow the air to clear. Learn to be a little more humble, you might be supprised how others will respond to this attitude of reconciliation.

 

 

 

 

If you want to ban me, then ban me. I will not return. If you acting in your capacity as a moniter (ie not personally) want me to listen to your criticisms and act accordingly, I expect to see them applied more consistantly.

If we wanted to ban you outright, there is nothing stopping us from doing so. I personally think you could be an asset to this forum. However, you're going to have to change the way you come across to several of our members otherwise, this option may be exercised.

 

One last piece of advise, try to learn to become a good neighbor. Sometimes that means choking back the retribution you may so eagerly desire to administer. Think about it sebby......, give it a try. After you've been here a while, you'll find many good friends willing to share their thoughts and feeling with you. Look at it from their point of view, everyone is intitled to their own personal opinion without being called ignorant....................Infy

[sebbysteiny]

You're placing the agency for this outside of yourself. It's a clever dodge, but I still think it's an incomplete answer.

 

What chain of circumstances would need to happen in order for your to walk into a pizza parlor and blow yourself up?

 

If you need to say "the civilians of the opposing side would need to be utterly demonized" fine. What else? Is that enough?

 

If you could believe the civilians of the opposing side were subhuman, would you do it then?

 

It's extremely difficult to give a complete answer in a short post. So instead, somethings I say you may accept, other assumptions you might question. So you need to say which assumptions you accept and which you question for me to help satisfy your questions best.

 

You are right, I am placing the 'acency' outside myself. That is because I believe a normal person requires some stimulus capable of putting crazy ideas into his head. The person converted to fanaticism is usually absolutely normal and often extremely polite, kind and loving. Something has corrupted their mind and I am trying to find out what and how.

 

Chain of circumstances: I think it is the same as most demonisation techniques.

 

1) Create an intense emotional bond between himself and a people (the 'innnocent party'). Eg, The Germans have been suffering intensely because of the depression and the humiliating post war treaty. Or, look at the Palestinians, they are so innocent and cuddly and perfect. Or even, 'look at god, he is wonderful and created great laws to protect us all'.

 

2) Explain that another people (the demonised party) are causing intense suffering on the 'innocent people'. Eg, the Jews were behind the treaty and stole the money from Germany. Or 'the Western armies are killing our brothers in Iraq and Palestine'. Or 'Western decadence is a complete insult to Allah, the true god'.

 

3) Suggest a solution. Eg, exterminate all the Jews. Or 'kill as many Westerners as possible by blowing yourself up in a Pizza parlor', or 'destroy Western civilisation and replace it with an Islamic calophite starting with blowing yourself up in a Pizza parlor.'

 

I think all demonisation and acts of perversion can be described in this way.

 

2 crucial points.

 

First, all steps 1-3 usually require accepting a completely unfair, one sided and perverse view of events. There is no logical justification for them. The only way to accept them is by some kind of emotive reasoning or brainwashing.

 

Second, your argument does exactly that. Lets look at your argument again.

 

Fine, if by some miracle of military planning someone was able to conquer the United States and disband our army so that there was literally no way we could win on the field of battle, I would blow myself up in a pizza parlor.

 

Look at the logic behind it. It can justify anybody committing any act to any people just by changing the labels as long as the victims have a better army. You could replace the word 'United States' with any country and the phrase 'blow myself up in a pizza parlor' with any action. Eg 'Hutus' and 'kill every Tutsi in Ruanda'.

 

The above is just one of my tests. An argument which amounts to a death sentence for innocent people unfortunate enough to belong to a country with a slightly stronger army cannot be correct.

 

The argument put forward by you works because it uses highly EMOTIONAL language to connect ideas so perverse they cannot be connected by any other means, logical or otherwise.

 

If you need to say "the civilians of the opposing side would need to be utterly demonized" fine. What else? Is that enough?

 

As you see above, that is just one stage of a 3 stage process. But I think I have given two different ways of demonising to produce Islamic terror, one secular and one religious.

 

The similarity is brainwashing into emotionally accepting 'a loved party', 'a demonsided party' and a cause of action. Once the chain is complete, one has a suicide bomber (or any other form of dangerous fanatical view) in the making.

 

But that still does not explain the mechanism. Where does all this extensive brainwashing come from so that people in Western societies accept all 3 stages of the process? The majority in those countries are moderates yet fanaticism still thrives. They estimated over 200 Al Quaeda cells in the UK.

There is certainly no systematic brainwashing from the top down.

 

My mechanism explains how people, by hypnotic suggestion, are made to accept stages 1-3 of demonisation.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You are right, I am placing the 'acency' outside myself. That is because I believe a normal person requires some stimulus capable of putting crazy ideas into his head. The person converted to fanaticism is usually absolutely normal and often extremely polite, kind and loving. Something has corrupted their mind and I am trying to find out what and how.

 

There's the rub, sebby. You don't think you are capable of doing something really, truly heinous. Studies like Milgram and the Stanford Prison experiment make me doubt this is true, but if you think you can't do evil of your own accord, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

You're right in that there is no "logical" argument where it's okay to be a suicide bomber, absolutely. Unfortunately, people don't always behave logically. Not even you.

 

The point was that even good men can do evil things, without the benefit of brainwashing or hypnosis. Speaking in purely hypothetical terms, as I don't know whether you have children or not, what would your reaction be if they were struck by an errant bomb? Logical and rational? Or would you wish to muster up all the violence you were capable of against those responsible?

 

If everyone around you hates your neighbor, chances are not good that you stand up to them. If your neighbor has wronged you, you are likely to wrong him right back, despite millennia of instruction to the contrary.

 

Evil doesn't always require some mustachioed villain who hides behind the curtains, pulling the strings and manipulating the puppets into exterminating the enemy. It's normal, nice people, who are perfectly ethical in their everyday lives - who get caught up in events where they are expected to behave a certain way. That's why it's evil because it's insidious, and common, and you can't stop it just by locking up people who torture animals.

 

We like to put a face to evil - so we give it Hitler and Osama, and Saddam, but each of those men is outnumbered several million to one. They aren't (and can't be) single-handedly responsible for things like 9-11, the Holocaust, and Iraq. Nor have they "hypnotized" or "brain-washed" their followers.

 

The question you're trying to answer - "How do normal people become fanatics?" Isn't helpful because it posits a separation that doesn't exist - that good people simply don't do bad things. They DO. The question you're looking for is WHY good people do evil things.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

There's the rub, sebby. You don't think you are capable of doing something really, truly heinous. Studies like Milgram and the Stanford Prison experiment make me doubt this is true, but if you think you can't do evil of your own accord, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

You have got the rub. I don't think normal people are capable of doing something really, truely heinous WITHOUT SOME EXTERNAL CAUSE. In the Stanford Prison experiment (great example by the way), the EXTERNAL CAUSE is power. When a normal person is put in a position of power, funny things start to happen to the mind. People can get truely addicted to it.

 

So there is the external cause, a power inbalance. The proof is that when they were all treated as equals, nobody would dream of doing such heinus things to each other.

 

But where is the power inbalance for Islamic terror? There isn't one that I can see which makes me think that the mechanism of Islamic terror does not work via a power inbalance.

 

Though on a side thought, is there a relationship between a power inbalance and demonisation? Both do appear to rely on one people treating the other as sub humans! Who knows?

 

You're right in that there is no "logical" argument where it's okay to be a suicide bomber, absolutely. Unfortunately, people don't always behave logically. Not even you.

 

This I believe gets to the heart of our disagreement. Yes, people don't always behave or think logically but when it comes to beliefs and convictions, normal people on the whole do think logically unless some unidentified external influence CAUSES their mind to draw completely illogical conclusions.

 

I think there are finite ways of convincing a normal person of an illogical belief and to become an Islamic terrorist, one must accept a series of illogical and outragous beliefs strong enough to override the conscience; each one must be placed there somehow.

 

So my quest is to find the exact mechanism in which normal people become Islamic terrorists happy to turn their bodies into a guided bomb to kill innocent people.

 

The point was that even good men can do evil things, without the benefit of brainwashing or hypnosis.

 

Agreed except that there must be some cause. Also, please understand what I mean by hypnosis. I'm talking about simple statements made amongst family and friends whose effects work in the same way as a hypnosis. A hypnotic suggestion, that's the bread and butter of hypnotic treatments, can be used independantly in simple sentences.

 

Read my first two examples. The Australian cleric who was strongly criticised said that when western women dress so sexily, they are provoking rape amongst themselves. He wasn't calling for Muslim men to rape Western women. But by hypnotic suggestion, he was sending the message that it was okay for Muslim men to rape Western women as they deserve it.

 

Speaking in purely hypothetical terms, as I don't know whether you have children or not, what would your reaction be if they were struck by an errant bomb? Logical and rational? Or would you wish to muster up all the violence you were capable of against those responsible?

 

This, even though you probably didn't intend it, is actually a suggestion as to a possible cause. Might grief caused by the killing of children cause parents to become terrorists?

 

There is no doubt it qualifies the 'distortion of the logical' test. But there are a number of problems with this. The biggest is that almost all Islamic terrorists in the Western world have never suffered any direct grief from bomb attacks. The bombs are in the Middle East, not Leeds and New York.

 

Smaller problems are whether the parents or relatives would feel the same way if their kids were gunmen who died fighting or whether their house was being used in some way by terrorist fighters? If it was, a normal person may blame the terrorst at least as much as the Western army UNLESS their mind was already corrupted somehow before the bomb hit.

 

Evil doesn't always require some mustachioed villain who hides behind the curtains, pulling the strings and manipulating the puppets into exterminating the enemy.

 

Agreed, but surely Evil is nothing unless there is a mechanism in which it can spread from one person to the next like a virus. Every day, normal people in the Islamic community are turning to terror. I want to know why.

 

About the holocaust, there was brainwashing and propaganda that was widespread and believed. Infact, every case of genocide has required a state controlled program of insitement and hate. That is what I would call brainwashing and I think it is a major cause of getting normal people to do terrible things. Also, remember, the very first thing the Nazis did was to create a power inbalance (see above).

[TheFaithfulStone]

You have got the rub. I don't think normal people are capable of doing something really, truely heinous WITHOUT SOME EXTERNAL CAUSE. In the Stanford Prison experiment (great example by the way), the EXTERNAL CAUSE is power. When a normal person is put in a position of power, funny things start to happen to the mind. People can get truely addicted to it.

 

What is the most awful thing you have ever done sebby, and why did you do it?

 

You don't actually have to answer this question publicly, but think about it. I remember when I was a kid I did something really, really awful. Evil is probably a bit much, but certainly wrong. What MADE me do? Was there some external cause?

 

Sure, I guess, but there is an proximate cause for all behavior. I don't think that peer pressure and bad friends count as anything particularly unusual.

 

The distinction you're trying to draw here doesn't exist. There are situations you could be placed in that would make YOU turn into a suicide bomber. There are situations you could be placed in that would make YOU become a criminal. The chain of events that leads to Islamic terrorism may be unique, but the outcome isn't.

 

Result: Regular decent people turn into evil fanatics.

 

There isn't anything about these regular decent people that makes them any different from you. There isn't anything "special" or "unique" about Islam that means it creates terrorists while no other society can, which is what you keep trying to get at.

 

Sure there is propaganda, but you're subject to propaganda. Even if you use your definition of "hypnotic suggestion" this isn't anything that isn't done to YOU on daily basis.

 

Good people do awful things all the time. There but for the grace of God, sebby.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Good people do awful things all the time.

 

I do not mean this disrespectfully. I agree with the above statement. But I'm very concerned that if one says this statement and then concludes 'so we shouldn't think there is anything perculiar when person A commits evil act B' it focuses the debate too much on whether there is a cause, and not what the cause is or if there is anything that can be done to stop it.

 

People in holocaust education for example would never deny that statement, but we all use the phrase 'never again' because we believe there was a clear cause why people committed genocide and further we believe that without education and understanding of its causes, the act will repeat and has already repeated itself.

 

The distinction you're trying to draw here doesn't exist. There are situations you could be placed in that would make YOU turn into a suicide bomber. There are situations you could be placed in that would make YOU become a criminal. The chain of events that leads to Islamic terrorism may be unique, but the outcome isn't.

 

Result: Regular decent people turn into evil fanatics.

 

There isn't anything about these regular decent people that makes them any different from you. There isn't anything "special" or "unique" about Islam that means it creates terrorists while no other society can, which is what you keep trying to get at.

 

Hmm. I think I know where our dispute is. It follows how you and I explain apparantly random 'quirks'. And it's not just you; many people here, now that I think about it, might have been having the very same feelings.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a world view in which all cultures will have a random element of evil fanatics. It is unavoidable. Out of a number of people in a culture / religion, a fixed %age of people will be fanatics. Maybe some might look at it like a kind of equalibrium. When one fanatic stops being a fanatic, another will take his place. As all cultures are the same, that %age must be the same for all cultures.

 

But my view is very different. I believe that extremism of some type is present in most cultures, yes. But the extremism differs in size and shape in every culture. In some cultures, the extremists are harmless people one can laugh at. In others, they are highly dangerous. In some, they are the small minority. In others, significantly larger and in some cases they are actually the majority sometimes by a large margion.

 

So I ask the question, what causes these differences? I believe that somewhere in a society, there is a cause for the extremism contained within. Whether all extremism works by the same mechanism I don't know. I would love to find out. My first question is to find the cause of Islamic Terror. Then, I would very much like to see if that can explain ALL OTHER FORMS OF EXTREMISM or whether new models are needed. Further, whatever is found to be the cause, it must explain all the differences that we see today. But I'm aware there may not be a 'one size fits all' solution to all extremism.

 

One main difference I would like explained is why we in the West do contain extremists that strap bombs to our bodies and try to kill all infidels in the Middle East as well as other cultures.

 

This line of reasoning probably follows my physics background where even the slightest discrepancy had to be explained with perfection. At advanced level, we were not able to simply ignore inconvenient sporadic data points.

 

The question a reader should be asking in my view is not whether they agree with it, accept it, or like the conclusions of it, but whether they understand it, and whether it is capable of explaining things that would otherwise not be explainable.

 

I do think that there is something wrong with Islamic culture. Not greatly wrong, but enough to cause a highly dangours and widespread type of fanaticism. I'll take your argument as a case in point.

 

aliens invade Earth and force us all into slavery. Would I walk into an alien pizza parlor and blow myself up? Absolutely.

 

I don't know if you know this but this argument is Islamic in origin. You have agreed that at every step, the logic breaks down.

 

You're right in that there is no "logical" argument where it's okay to be a suicide bomber, absolutely. Unfortunately, people don't always behave logically.

 

For example, there is no reason why blowing yourself up in a pizza parlor is the correct response.

 

Yet this argument is accepted without question by almost every moderate Muslim in the world. Worse still, imagine how somebody contemplating extremism will react when he hears that every single day?

 

Now in my view, this is a very serious problem.

 

Notice how the argument intended to EXPLAIN Islamic terror infact sends a message INCITING Islamic terror when heard by a potential extremist. Just like the Western woman being blamed for the acts of the Muslim rapist above, the victims of the suicide bombings are now being blamed for the acts of the terrorists. Even worse, the terrorist receives reasurance that his acts will be understood, sympathised with and even respected. Not only does this argument cover all the steps in the 3 step process of demonisation I described earlier, it has the underlying message that it is okay and legitimate to commit these henous crimes against humanity.

 

But if the words are not themselves sending such an inciting message [technically, it's just putting forward an academic theory of how Islamic terror might be caused], how does the argument succeed in sending such messages? By hypnotic suggestion.

 

If you don't like the term 'hypnotic suggestion' then simply read it as 'suggestion'.

 

So the only questions that are important are: Does the above argument contain a hypnotic suggestion to commit acts of terror? The answer is yes. Are moderate Muslims in constant repetative contact with this argument? The answer is yes. Therefore, without considering anything else, by the laws of human interaction, Islamic terror must spread amongst Islamic society.

 

Nature of extremism: blowing people up in a pizza parlor = suicide bombing.

Extent: Moderate argument is almost unanimously accepted making a comparitively large minority of extremists.

 

So what have I done? Previously, I had a strong suspicion that the above argument (along with others) widespread amongst moderates, was somehow related to Islamic terror amongst the extremist minority. But alone a suspicion is not enough. Now I have a fully working mechanism which not merely MAY work, it MUST work. Further, the theory works from first principals of human interaction.

 

This could indeed explain all the variations OUTSIDE ISLAM. Amongst human rights respecting countries, no arguments sending hypnotic suggestions to commit henous crimes are present. Result: a small and comparitively harmless extremist minority.

Nature: the desire to spread democracy creates harmless democratic fanatics;

Extent: moderate argument is extremely widespread making 'democratic fanatics' a very large extremist (but harmless and maybe even helpful) minority.

Nature: the desire to get rid of non white christian races;

Extent: almost unaminously rejected so National Front is very small.

 

In Israel, the extremist settlers only rarely commit henous acts (but every now and then, they still do) but instead they regularly go round to Palestinian neighbourhoods (when they can dodge the IDF) and destroy Palestinian houses and livlihoods. As Israelis have been hit by more terrorist strikes than any other nation, this may have caused tollerance for Muslims to plumit perhaps to the point where people may say something like 'how would the Arabs like it if we did the same to them as they did to us'? It is also acceptable to challenge all Palestinian claims to land even in their own cities. Again, these might send the necessary hypnotic suggestions to create the extremist with the correct character and attributes amongst Israelis. But my knowledge of Israeli discourse is not sufficient to get a fully working mechanism here.

Nature: Actions concentrated at teaching Arabs a lesson rather than killing for the sake of killing. Creates extrestremists who wish to kill for political points, but are not determined and have no wish to kill themselves.

Extent: quite limited so size of extremists are quite small, but not small enough.

Nature: Actions concentrated at damaging Arab claims to lands by vandalism, settlements, vigilanty killings or otherwise.

Extent: quite widespread so size of extremists are comparitively large.

 

But the point still stands. By accute analysis of the discourse of the moderates, we might be able to predict the nature and extent of the extremism within. Further, we can actually solve all extremism everywhere by simply getting the moderates to stop using the inciting arguments, which they will [hopefully] happily do if they believed they were the cause of extremism.

 

My solution would therefore be targetted strikes against the parts of the discourse of moderates that contains a 'menace'.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a world view in which all cultures will have a random element of evil fanatics. It is unavoidable. Out of a number of people in a culture / religion, a fixed %age of people will be fanatics. Maybe some might look at it like a kind of equalibrium. When one fanatic stops being a fanatic, another will take his place. As all cultures are the same, that %age must be the same for all cultures.

 

You're wrong. The entire point was not that there is a fixed percentage of fanatics, but that any person has the potential to become a fanatic. So the "fixed percentage" of potential fanatics is 100%.

 

Notice how the argument intended to EXPLAIN Islamic terror infact sends a message INCITING Islamic terror when heard by a potential extremist. ... underlying message that it is okay and legitimate to commit these henous crimes against humanity.

 

You've said this several times, but it just remains an assertion that you've made. It seems to me to be a combination of affirming the consequent and appeal to consequences. If P then Q, Q, therefore P. If P then Q, Q stinks, therefore not P.

 

By your logic, doesn't any attempt to understand terrorism on a level deeper than "they're bad people" legitimize it, since it requires we try to discern their motives, and in so doing actually provide them with those motives?

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

You've said this several times, but it just remains an assertion that you've made. It seems to me to be a combination of affirming the consequent and appeal to consequences. If P then Q, Q, therefore P. If P then Q, Q stinks, therefore not P.

 

Not quite sure what you are saying here I'm afraid. Is this another way of saying that my argument is circular somehow?

 

By your logic, doesn't any attempt to understand terrorism on a level deeper than "they're bad people" legitimize it, since it requires we try to discern their motives, and in so doing actually provide them with those motives?

 

The simplistic answer would be, yes.

 

But the more complicated answer is, maybe. It depends HOW you do it.

 

If you put forward the argument in a way that does not demonise the potential victims of terror and rather humanises them, that might be a start. If you put it in a way that that fails to point out the moral repugnance of the act, it might help further.

 

For example, you could go, PERVERSE THOUGH IT MAY BE, if a potential feels a personal victim of a conflict in a far away land, he might actually justify the act of walking into a pizza parlor AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN HIS OWN MIND.

 

You see how the my version says the same thing, but the tone is completely different. Instead of efforts to understand coming very close to justifying, now the efforts to understand also send the signal that at every step, the logic is wrong. Further, I don't think this phrasing sends any hypnotic suggestions, at least not ones that contain any 'menaces'.

 

But it took me about 5 minutes to carefully craft that. How can one expect people to make the same efforts of communication every day of their lives? In practice, if a society wishes to propose a 'cause' and that proposal is accepted by the mainstream as a 'respectible idea' it is almost impossible for that proposal to stop becoming a self fulfilling proficy.

 

Infact, the difficulty of making such arguments hynotic suggestion free may explain why fanaticism exists in most countries even the very best.

 

I know I've said the rest of this post before, but I'll say it again because I have a new analogy that might explain better exactly what I mean.

 

Many people say that, say, Iraq is a CAUSE of Islamic terror in Europe. I cannot accept that. I don't see the link between Sunni suicide bombers killing Shias in Iraq and Muslims in London blowing themselves up on busses. Somewhere, somehow, somebody must MAKE that link in the minds of a potential fanatic.

 

The argument you gave, at the logical level, proposes a link even though no justification of such a link exists. But at the emotional level (ie behind the immidiate argument), it IS the link. "But for" almost all Muslims proposing this link between the Iraq cause and the homicidal effects, no fanatic would make the link.

 

It's like in the Matrix when the Oracle says 'don't worry about the vase'. Neo goes 'what vase' and in doing so, he swings and knocks a vase on the floor. Neo then says 'sorry'. The oracle says 'I said, don't worry about it, but the question that is really going to be bugging you is would you have knocked the vase over had I not said anything'.

 

Here, would the fanatics actually connect Iraq with terror if the moderates did not constantly suggest that a fanatic 'might' connect them in a way whose emotionally convincing power is matched only by it's logical absurdness and the moral repugnance of it's conclusions?