Islamic terror: the solution

[sebbysteiny]

2) No other culture has had anything like this fanatical for hundreds of years.

 

Right. Except for the Germans. And Italians. And Russians, and Japanese, and Chinese, and Fillipinos, and Tamil Tigers, and American Christian Crazies, and Basques, and the IRA, and the Shining Path.

 

There is a lot of sense it what you say. Cirtainly the era of Nazism does come close to the beliefs of Islamic Terror. The similarity being that anybody other than the Master race / Muslims (fanatical of course) have no right to live.

 

However, all the others are distinctly different in one fundamental way. It was never the ultimate goal to kill as many innocent people as possible for all the other nasty regimes and terrorist groups. ETA, IRA and all other such groups aimed for economic targets and although they did not care if innocent people died, it was never the ultimate aim to kill. The Japanese fought with tanks and planes, and even though the kamikazis have some similarity, they went after the all important aircraft carriers, not trainstations at rush hour. However, I do take the Communist example in the sense that those under a communist regime who did not agree with communism were tortured and mysteriously disappear.

 

But all these things are abhorently wrong in Western culture. The primary reason for this is the lessons learnt from the Nazi era. In particular, the idea of persecuting, demonising and exterminating a race as what happened in the holocaust has become utterly unnacceptable to Western Culture. However, these lessons have not been learnt in Arab culture, with many going so far as denying the holocaust ever took place, or at least disputing the numbers and with large numbers of moderates of the region believing that 9/11 was the result of a zionist consipiracy to frame Muslims.

 

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

 

And the idea that American extremist Christians are in any way comparable with the fanatical Muslims is plane bizaar. Yes, the extremists have tried to knock evolutionist teachings off the sylabus, abolish abortion and generally get personally involved in many unpopular American policies, they do not wish to join a crusade against Muslim nations and kill every last one of them that does not convert to Christianity.

 

Which brings me onto another issue, America. Sure America is not a perfect country and sure Guantanamo bay is unpopular and America has rightfully got much criticism for things like this, one thing is not in dispute: America is one of the leading human rights observing nations in the world. It is part of the elite human rights 'premier league' of nations. In fact, the significant criticism of America is simply due to the America being a leading human rights observing nation that must therefore be judged according to much higher standards. However, every time America is so criticised, we cannot forget that most other nations are significantly worse and not even in the same league including every Islamic country.

 

Suicide bombers are stupid.

 

Nothing can be further from the truth. Demonising those you don't understand as stupid is the easy way out of facing the fact that almost every person has it within them to be a fanatic if educated the right way.

 

As in my previous post, suicide bombers are the intellectual elite and in many parts of Middle East, the hero's whose posters are hung up for their kids to admire.

 

If you really and deeply believed that you would get to walk with the profit mohammed in heaven, get 72 virgins and guarantee that all your family would be rewarded with a guaranteed place in heaven in their afterlife, would you not make that sacrifice?

 

So they are religious and brainwashed, but even Einstein believed strongly in God and even the smartest succombed the Nazi brainwashing. And even those that are not religious, if you have enough pure hate fed into you then, although you will appear perfectly charming and normal, there is no telling what actions you could do.

 

The unavoidable and scary truth is that suicide bombers are just as human as you and I. They are neither desparate nor crazy. They just have very dangerous views.

[Freddy]

How can all the lands be muslim lands when there were no Muslims before Mohammed. Heck I am sure his parents were not Muslim. Sort of like there were no Christains until after Jesus died... Heck I'm pretty sure Jesus was a Jew. Not sure what Mohammed was growing up.

 

 

You are correct!

[sebbysteiny]

Just been thinking and I have discovered the major difference between Communism and Islamic Terror. Although Communist leaders had abysmal human rights records, for all there ills, you could rely on them for one thing: the desire to live. The communists did not want nuclear armigendon any more than us. Thus, deterance was able to stop them from being an existual threat.

 

However, whilst we (the world) love life, the Islamic fanatics love death. In fact, they believe that armagedon needs to occur for the second coming of the profit so they don't care how many muslims become 'Myrters' in their 'jihad' to rid the world of 'infidel' influence. This means deterence will not work on them and they are potentially more dangerous even than Communism. However, luckily, for the moment, although they have the will, they lack the means for inflicting mass casualties. However, with Iran developing nuclear weopons and the creation of a nuclear arms race that this will cause, it seems only a matter of time before Al Quaeda get their hands on a nuclear device. We thus have a time limit. We must destroy Islamic fanaticism before Ismlamic fanaticism gets the means to become really dangerous.

[Cedars]

Just been thinking and I have discovered the major difference between Communism and Islamic Terror. Although Communist leaders had abysmal human rights records, for all there ills, you could rely on them for one thing: the desire to live.

 

Part of the solution resides within the law in muslim/islamic countries and how it is applied. In the USA and many other countries, it is not religion that protects people from the religious, it is the law which does that. The seperation of church and state.

 

As I understand Islamic law and Islamic state law, it is often that any state run attempt at lawfulness can be over-ridden by appeal to the religious factions within the government. So a conviction for honor killing (as an example) can be negated via an appeal to this religious interpretation of Islamic law.

 

I have only read snippets of the Qu'ran and those were mostly pieces of it which compares non-muslims to dogs and pigs and how death is the answer to their refusal to become muslims. But none the less, it is these pieces which allow Islamic justification for such things as terror attacks and the continued threat of terrorism and appears to negate any governmental efforts to change this aspect.

[sebbysteiny]

I have only read snippets of the Qu'ran and those were mostly pieces of it which compares non-muslims to dogs and pigs and how death is the answer to their refusal to become muslims.

 

I think I know the phrase you are talking about, but it isn't "dogs and pigs", but "monkeys and pigs". No matter, you make a good point.

 

However, there are some pretty violent passages in the bible as well often requiring Judeo-Christians to smite their enemies. However, we have interpretted those passages as not being literal but metephorical for something along the lines of "if you are not Christian on death, your sole dies, and as Christians one must not take justice into your own hands but allow god to do that". Islam can and has been similarly interpretted by the genuine moderates. In fact, the passages you talk about are within the context of judgement day and so are easily prone to that interpretation. Further, there are other passages within the Koran that call explicitely for peace and co-existance with non-Muslims.

 

The problem is how the texts are used and manipulated by fanatics to turn otherwise normal people into dangerous weopons.

 

My theory for the cause of Islamic terror

 

My main theory for how a person can become a suicide bomber lies not in the Islamic religion, but in the Islamic culture. Basic truths that are unanomously accepted and understood in Western Culture are like speaking alien to many moderate muslims. These views are not in themselves dangersous but when combined together in the same person, they can take a very dangerous turn.

 

So what is a moderate, and what is a moderate Muslim? Our interpretation of 'moderate' is somebody who is not particularly religious and believes in peace and love in all mankind at least as an idealistic goal even if not practically achievable and someone who respects all others and treats outsiders like they would an insider. Moderates do not look at another religion or race and think anyworse of them and are always prepared to be open to such people. Most importantly, moderates would never feel that killing innocent people indescriminately can ever be justified morally.

 

However, most moderate Muslims do not share all these views. Instead, a moderate Muslim is a Muslim who is not fanatical and does not have views that pose an immediate danger to the society in which they live.

 

I will now list some major differences between moderate Western people.

 

Moderate muslims have little basic understanding of the concept of absolute truth. The number of moderates who believe that Al Quaeda did not commit 9/11 is a staggering 50% approx. Instead, many believe it was a "zionist" consipracy. Such rumours and conspiracy theories are widespread. Other examples include the widespread denial of the holocaust (it is no coincidence that Iran's president is so popular amongst Muslims), and the view that the war in Iraq was just a desire for the West to kill Muslims.

Alone, it just means that many moderates would come out with balmy suggestions every now and then, but when the word of a cleric an be more influencial than the results of a $50m inquiry, this can make moderate Muslims more suceptable to fanatical brainwashing than anybody else.

 

Moderate Muslims are not appauled by suicide bombings. I have spoken to many Muslims and have found very few who are prepared to condemn suicide bombings in Israel without going histerical or saying something like 'but Israel had it coming'. In fact, I have found 1 only prepared to make such an unqualified condemnation and even he agreed his view was unfortunately a minority view. The widespread opinion in moderate Islamic opinion is that suicide bombings, or 'myrterdom opperations' in Israel are justified, and a small majority of moderate Muslims believe that suicide bombings are wrong because they are not effective. The debate is thus between how effective suicide bombings are, not how morally wrong. This is very different from the Western view in which suicide bombings, the deliberate slaughter of civilians, is a crime against humanity and is morally deplorable regardless of how 'effective' it might be.

 

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

From the daily telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

 

That quote is typical of what I'm talking about. However, even the leaders of the Muslim Council of Britain, an orginisation held out as a pinical of moderate Islam, has stated on television that suicide bombings in Israel are justified. The arguments are 'because what else do the Palestinians have against Israel's F 16s and Tanks? Surely the Palestinians have a right to fight back?'.

 

This argument is a call for murder that is verging on the disgraced in Western culture. However, on its own, it is harmless to the West (other than perhaps Israel). Alone, a Muslim moderate can have this view and not pose a danger to society. This is shown by the 99% who thought the attacks on London were not justified.

 

Another view which is provailant in moderate Muslims is the desire to establish a global Muslim Calophite over the West. This fundamentally contradicts Western values. The west passionately believes that a state must be secular and religion should be a private thing that the individual can choose whether or not to take part in. Not so in Moderate Islam. Many moderate Muslims believe that establishing Islamic law on all citizens of Britain would be a good thing. However, those people are moderates because they do not believe violent means is the right way to bring about this political Islamic vision. Alone, this view poses no danger to society.

 

Further, there is a strong disrespect for 'infidels' among Moderate Muslims, with the word 'kuffar' (non-muslim scum) being frequently used behind the back of the West. Again, the fork tongue comes in whereby a moderate will plead for tollerence and mutual respect and then tell his daughter that she must have no friends with 'kuffar' often beating her if she did. Again, alone, this poses no danger to the rest of society, just segragation and a little mistrust.

 

 

 

However, when one combines these views WITHIN THE SAME PERSON, one can get a potentially explosive and deadly coctail. Many moderate Muslims support the aims of the Jihadis but not the violent means. However, many also support the violent means in Israel on the grounds that 'what else do they have against F16s?' When one moderate Muslim adopts both these views, they are not a danger, but now they could easily become one.

 

What it now takes is a catalyst. That catalyst is the fanatical preacher who connects these two beliefs by saying 'it is gods will to establish a Global Muslim calophite and what else can we do to fight America's and Britain's F16s but use suicide bombings?' The widespread lack of understanding of absolute truth makes the preaches job much easier. As does the dislike of the 'kuffar'. But once he has rewired the mind of a moderate Muslim, that moderate too will become someone willing to use violent means to establish a global Muslim Calophite and is in every way a danger to our society.

 

 

It is my belief that once the opinions expressed above have become acceptable views and are even in many cases the majority view they are already about 80% of the way towards being a fanatic. Quite simply it is too late to stop the fanaticism at that stage. The fanatical preaches are mearly a catalyst who has become skilled at connecting some of these strange views together to form a deadly weopon.

 

If I am right, only a small part of the solution is to crack down on fanatical preachers. However, the best solution is to tackle these Muslim views head on and convince the Moderate Muslims: that suicide bombers are totally morally repugnant in all cases; that it is a good thing to allow an individual freedom to chose their own religion; that institutions and the academic community are more trustworthy than a conspiracy with the word 'Zionist' in it spoken by a preacher or even a friend; and that it is a good thing to really mix with other cultures and such behavior should be encouraged amongst their young.

 

Much of what I have said is contriversial and contrary to political correctness. But I have spoken to many Muslims and seen enough evidence that convinces me that there must be something in the arguments I have presented. I also trust you guys to see the distinction between a moderate Muslim having strange views and a fanatic planning dangerous murder. The solution I have suggested is a very strong engagement, not a confrontation.

 

Thoughts?

[IDMclean]

That is a rather convincing thesis on the nature of the fanatical mind.

 

I would ask does it concider average social concearns, the internal workings of the individual as well as the societal workings. I have heard tell of practices that are concidered not only moral but nessessary, which would be viewed as immoral by many the Idealist.

 

I had also heard that the closest Social approximation for parts of the islamic countries would be late Feudial society. Which by deMausian view would be somewhere between Ambivalent-Intrusive Modes, I believe.

 

I have to question, objectively, weather or not the society model that the middle east currently works within, fosters Empathy. deMause talks extensively about how greater skill in Empathy is a requirement for increasingly Moral grounds. Also for the ability to view the world and one's self more objectively.

 

What you have said here would lead me to believe that the prevelant psychological model is that of Projective reaction.

 

I haven't read it all but of what I've read I would think it consistent with your own analysis, with perhaps a deeper rooted cause. The Childhood Origins of Terrorism

 

Anyway, when I have more mature of an opinion I will comment more. Until then, keep your pimp hand strong!

[Cedars]

Much of what I have said is contriversial and contrary to political correctness. But I have spoken to many Muslims and seen enough evidence that convinces me that there must be something in the arguments I have presented. I also trust you guys to see the distinction between a moderate Muslim having strange views and a fanatic planning dangerous murder. The solution I have suggested is a very strong engagement, not a confrontation.

 

Thoughts?

 

What you are saying is basically the majority of muslims are moderates, but most moderate muslims have strange views which make them vulnerable to influence by fanatical muslims, and therefore, moderate muslims have the potential of becoming suicide bombers.

 

*yes this was snipped greatly to save space and get to my point. The original post was a good read and had many valid points.

 

To look back on some history in American with people having strange views, look to the civil rights movement and what it took to change the course of 'strange views' to make things safer/equal for all people.

 

It took governement, on the fed level to bring rogue states in the south in line with the idea of racial equality. Their religious ideas held that African Americans should be seperate as a strong point in their arguements. It did not influence their ideas when other sects of Christianity held an opposing and more civil view about this issue. And this was 100 years after a civil war had been fought, and slavery had been abolished.

 

I do not think changing the belief system that is so ingrained in the middle eastern culture will take less, and actually will take much stronger pressure to come online with the idea of equality and a right to be different. It will take a civil war of the magnitude that was undertaken in america to end slavery. Unfortunatly, the direction that is being taken is contrary to that end. It seems the war will be about enslaving people to Islam rather than acceptance of diversity.

[ronthepon]

Here are my opinions on the topic.

 

Islam like other religions does not exactly favour violence and hate. As far as I have seen, It favours punishment to the true evil and self defence.

 

Now the terror system in Kashmir(India) has the foundation of brainwashed people turned terrorists, who have continually been told that their religion is in danger, their people are being opressed.

 

Such people get it in their mind that they should give their life in order to save their religion, jihad. They cooly agree to become suicide bombers and all that.

 

When these terrorists are captured in India, and are allowed to stay for some time and ...educated, they get nice enough to join the Indian Army. (I have seen such men for myself in my experience as an officers son.)

 

So, education may prove to be the factor the hits the foundations of the terror system.

[IDMclean]

There you go. RonThePon, I hereby bequeeth thee with a meager ammount of Rep.

 

He said it people, not I. Education.

[sebbysteiny]

Islam like other religions does not exactly favour violence and hate. As far as I have seen, It favours punishment to the true evil and self defence.

...

Such people get it in their mind that they should give their life in order to save their religion, jihad. They cooly agree to become suicide bombers and all that.

 

I'm not 100% sure, but I strongly suspect you've missed my point. Of course the fanatics 'get it into their mind they should give their life to ... jihad'. The entire purpose of this post is how does this happen?

 

To take an excellent phrase from Cedars, my suggestion is that the "belief system" of moderate Muslims is fundamentally different to that of the West, and any other culture for that matter, and it is the belief system that, although poses no direct threat, allows dangerous fanaticism to thrive within the moderate Muslim community.

 

Further, I say that all other explanations particularly involving social / economic deprivations, desparations or 'occupations' are nothing more than a red herring. They are a good first guess, but they are fundamentally wrong.

 

Now the terror system in Kashmir(India) has the foundation of brainwashed people turned terrorists, who have continually been told that their religion is in danger, their people are being opressed.

 

This is not unique to Kashmir; the belief is prevailant in moderate Muslims in Western nations too. It comes from a total lack of understanding of absolute truth where expensive fact finding tribunals are ignored in favour of the latest rumour and where the press have almost no accountability for what they write whatsover. Further, as Kickassclown said, the moderate Muslim belief system is not a strong one at fostering empathy.

 

So, education may prove to be the factor the hits the foundations of the terror system.

 

If what I say is right, the solution is that the belief system of moderate Muslims needs to be challenged and changed both for Muslim minorities in Western nations and in the Middle East states themselves.

 

Education is one way of doing this, but I don't believe it will be enough. The adults, for example, will not attend the schooling and since these beliefs are very deeply held, I doubt the fragile mind of the child will survive the strong and sometimes violent will of the parent. Further, if we suffer such difficulties with our own moderate Muslim minorities, what possible chance is there of changing the moderate Muslim beliefs in Middle Eastern countries? I think education alone is not enough.

 

I will not propose any further solutions until I'm satisfied we are reaching some kind of consensus on the cause of Islamic terror. However, when the time comes, I will give alot of thought to Cedars numerous examples of how such change can occur (which I liked very much).

 

To Kickassclown

 

Thanks for your contributions which I find interesting (eg your comparison to feudal society). However, please could you write your opinions and suggestions rather than provide links to very long documents because I don't have the time to read them and look for a point that is relevant. Having said that, by all means, if you believe you have link with evidence backing up a point, by all means give it. Appreciated.

[DarkColoredLight]

Here are my opinions on the topic.

 

Islam like other religions does not exactly favour violence and hate. As far as I have seen, It favours punishment to the true evil and self defence.

 

Now the terror system in Kashmir(India) has the foundation of brainwashed people turned terrorists, who have continually been told that their religion is in danger, their people are being opressed.

 

Such people get it in their mind that they should give their life in order to save their religion, jihad. They cooly agree to become suicide bombers and all that.

 

When these terrorists are captured in India, and are allowed to stay for some time and ...educated, they get nice enough to join the Indian Army. (I have seen such men for myself in my experience as an officers son.)

 

So, education may prove to be the factor the hits the foundations of the terror system.

 

You're saying education breeds fear?

 

One thinks they know what's going to happen, therefore they are afraid. Taking nessesary actions to end their fear by spreeding fear into those WHO they fear. If that doesn't make sense, maybe I'll focus on education. We are driven toward education, not out of will, but fear of failure. It's a dog eat dog world in america, and the steak we're all after must be sauteed in education. But, often burnt to a crisp by our denial of education.

 

Luckily allergic to beef, but raising the steaks,

DCL

[ronthepon]

You're saying education breeds fear?

 

Pthuh. Hell no.

 

Here is how it goes.

 

You are a terrorist high authority(yes, they do have authority systems). You need some suicide bombers for the year 2010.

Simple procedure.

1- Kidnap some guys, making it seem like religious reformation to them and their families.

2- Tell them a hundred times a day that their religion is in danger.

3- Tell them cock and bull stories about the sufferings of their fellow religion members in the target country.

4- Do this until you are sufficiently sure that these fellows are well brainwashed.

5- Wait for 2010.

6- Take your brainwashed human weapons to the place, hand them bombs, AK-47s, tell them to sacrifice their lives for the good of their religion.

7- Wait for them to do the job.

8- Make a videotape of yourself talking to US president, US people or whoever.

 

Got it?

 

Now the education part I was talking about earlier.

 

How to prevent recruitment.

 

1- Do not give the gullible people a reason to hate you. Do not bomb their houses.

2- Got there and spread the word about the recriutment schemes of the terror lords.

 

EDUCATE!

 

Hit the foundations of the terror setup! Do not try to hit the upper invincible layers.

Do not throw your weight around.

 

About the belief system of the muslims, I feel its perfect. Well justified.

The problem lies in the manipulation of the implications.

 

It goes on in the courts of today, and the Koran there is the constitution book.

 

PS: I have no intentions of being offensive in any way

[IDMclean]

Sorry about the link thing, it's just that I have tried to express my conclusion about the origin of given sociological behaviors before through Psychoanalysis, but it doesn't work so well if the people I am disucssing with don't have a background of some kind in Sociology, Psychology, Psychohistory, etcetera.

 

What I mean to say is that the belief structure of an individual, and therefore the society, originate in childhood. They are shaped by a number of things, including how the child is treated (IE Ignored, Abused, Molested, Loved, etcetra), what the beliefs of the child's peers are and how the community acts as a whole.

 

On a whole the Muslim states in the Middle-East are essentially several centuries behind, sociologically. One of the ways to advance said society up, is to educate. More over by the use of Empathy. Monkey see, Monkey do. Compassion, and Morality. However this is only possible in a few ways, as I understand it (non-religious) missionaries aren't exactly welcome within said states.

 

So the issue as I see it is that one would have to treat the society on a whole to root out the issue of passive support of those who would call themselves "martyrs". I do not even begin to know how to do such a thing at this time, nor do I have the foggiest on how to form a solution to such a problem.

 

It is as much about the individual as about the society. As with individuals, you can not teach them if they do not wish to learn. Such would seem to be the case.

 

I do know the weapon for such an endevour of mass resolution. Information is key here. The introduction of masses of other belief structures would invariatably change the basis of the society. However the issue then is dissemination, how to get that information to the masses.

 

As I understand it, and as is seemingly typical of feudal states, those in power will fight vehemetly to stay in power, and that means fighting against change. This usually means civil war, and violence. Not an outcome I wish to see. Further as I understand it there is a great many information bans in a number of the muslim states.

 

I hope that addresses something.

 

-Scatterbrained, the

KickAssClown

[DarkColoredLight]

Pthuh. Hell no.

 

Here is how it goes.

 

You are a terrorist high authority(yes, they do have authority systems). You need some suicide bombers for the year 2010.

Simple procedure.

1- Kidnap some guys, making it seem like religious reformation to them and their families.

2- Tell them a hundred times a day that their religion is in danger.

3- Tell them cock and bull stories about the sufferings of their fellow religion members in the target country.

4- Do this until you are sufficiently sure that these fellows are well brainwashed.

5- Wait for 2010.

6- Take your brainwashed human weapons to the place, hand them bombs, AK-47s, tell them to sacrifice their lives for the good of their religion.

7- Wait for them to do the job.

8- Make a videotape of yourself talking to US president, US people or whoever.

 

Got it?

 

Now the education part I was talking about earlier.

 

How to prevent recruitment.

 

1- Do not give the gullible people a reason to hate you. Do not bomb their houses.

2- Got there and spread the word about the recriutment schemes of the terror lords.

 

EDUCATE!

 

Hit the foundations of the terror setup! Do not try to hit the upper invincible layers.

Do not throw your weight around.

 

About the belief system of the muslims, I feel its perfect. Well justified.

The problem lies in the manipulation of the implications.

 

It goes on in the courts of today, and the Koran there is the constitution book.

 

PS: I have no intentions of being offensive in any way

Get it and good.

We must, as robots, realize;

Education is westernization, which is the heart of our civilization, being taken for granted by our nation. Now that doesn't sound very wise.

 

New vision: We are all what we seek to destory.

 

We also seek knowledge and understanding, and found it in ourselves as a group. We hold them to be self evident. Instead of persistantly seeking knowledge and understanding, they/we persistantly seek and destroy what isn't true. Nature at its finest hour.

 

Giving the "terrorists" a book is, in there text, screaming BLASPHAMY. In which they will "blast-phor-each other." Just as anyone else would, if they were told to do so. :hyper:

 

I will stand by my believes, though I listen to yours to make mine better. How hard must one think to understand? Yet I can say it with ease. How hard did I have to think to understand what I hold to be selfevident? I didn't I asked what was selfevident, then I drew a conclusion. I hope to one day draw enough conclusions to create a "bigger" picture.

 

 

I like my thoughts overeasy; because my eggs are scrambled,

DCL

[sebbysteiny]

What I mean to say is that the belief structure of an individual, and therefore the society, originate in childhood. They are shaped by a number of things, including how the child is treated (IE Ignored, Abused, Molested, Loved, etcetra), what the beliefs of the child's peers are and how the community acts as a whole.

 

What you say is very interesting and makes alot of sense. I'm not entirely convinced about having to go back to childhood. Whist this is to a certain extent a non sequitar (ie a logically obvious) position, a major problem lies in the unwillingness of the adults to properly educate the child and the further problems arise from the adults potentially not liking what is being tought and therefore forcing the beliefs out of the child. I believe that the only approach that can be taken has to include the whole society, not just the children.

 

I do believe there is a potential solution and I will write it up soon, but we are not quite at a concensus yet.

 

You are a terrorist high authority(yes, they do have authority systems). You need some suicide bombers for the year 2010.

Simple procedure.

1- Kidnap some guys, making it seem like religious reformation to them and their families.

2- Tell them a hundred times a day that their religion is in danger.

3- Tell them cock and bull stories about the sufferings of their fellow religion members in the target country.

4- Do this until you are sufficiently sure that these fellows are well brainwashed.

5- Wait for 2010.

6- Take your brainwashed human weapons to the place, hand them bombs, AK-47s, tell them to sacrifice their lives for the good of their religion.

7- Wait for them to do the job.

8- Make a videotape of yourself talking to US president, US people or whoever.

 

I'd love to convince you to be a bit more open minded for a moment so here goes.

 

You have presented an alternative theory into what makes a suicide bomber. It is also a little absurd. The idea that somebody needs to be kidnapped before they become 'brainwashed' is bizarr to say the least. Almost all fanatics are willing volenteers who often volenteered themselves for their re-education. Further 'telling them 100 times a day' is a drastic simplification of what brainwashing really is. Try it! I doubt you will find one follower.

 

The problems with your theory are thus: that it does not explain why suicide bombers and other such fanatics are an exclusively Muslim phenomina; that it does not explain how thousands of willing volenteers join the ranks of Al Quaeda; and it relies on a drastically oversimplified view of brainwashing. The latter point is fundamental to this post. Your theory is silent on these details. Mine explains all.

 

If and when you come up with an explanation that is fundamentally different to mine and explains as much, then perhaps we can continue the debate on this one.

 

How to prevent recruitment.

 

1- Do not give the gullible people a reason to hate you. Do not bomb their houses.

2- Got there and spread the word about the recriutment schemes of the terror lords.

Again, you have leaped to the convenient conclusion that fantical Islamic terrorists are somehow intellectually inferior to other people including other moderate Muslims (ie more gullible). This is a quick demonising tactic to put distance between yourself and the bomber to avoid the uncomfortable truth: there is nothing wrong with the intelligence of the fanatics and if you were educated in the right way, you too could find joining them.

 

In fact, as explained earlier, these people are often the intellectual ellites, and therefore probably the least 'gullible' moderate Muslims around.

 

About the belief system of the muslims, I feel its perfect. Well justified.

The problem lies in the manipulation of the implications.

 

I find it very difficult to believe that you feel that rumours are at least as valid a source of truth as an inquiry or the weight of evidence as interpretted by the academic community.

 

Do you believe that 6,000,000 Jews died in the holocaust? A majority of moderate Muslims believe this is a fiction.

 

Do you believe that the 9/11 attacks was simply a zionist plot to frame Muslims? A large minority of Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that suicide bombings in cafes and night clubs in Tel Aviv (a town in Israel) is morally justified and that those commiting such acts of terror are 'martyrs' and heros? A majority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that women are inferior to men and that it is okay to hit them if they are not obedient? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that you should enforce your own religious law on all of mankind even those who reject your religion? A majority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that it is morally justified to disgrace, shun and even physically attack, any member of the Muslim community who is gay or changes religion? A large minority of moderate Muslims do.

 

Do you believe that it is a very negitive thing for you or your family to have any non-business contacts whatsoever with those outside your religion? A majority of Muslims do.

 

And for all those moderate muslims that do not agree with any of the above, a large majority of them find these opinions very acceptable.

 

I find it stunning that you find these beliefs 'perfect'. However, as explained above, all the above do not make moderate Muslims a danger to society, but they do make it much easier to be brainwashed as a direct consequence of these beliefs.

 

I realise that what I am saying is not politically correct. I would urge you to think outside of the politically correct box on this one, but I don't think I need to remind you not to overstep the line into racism. Remember, if I am right, then by ignoring me, you might be closing your mind off to the only thing that might actually help both communities live together in peace in a world free from Islamic terror.

[Buffy]

To the extent that *dogma* of *any kind* is a radicalizing force, you can point fingers but miss the real cause, which almost always comes down to some sort of disenfranchisement or feeling (real or imagined) of persecution by "others."

These posts both represent the popular view that an Islamic terrorist must be in some way desparate financially or socially to do what he had to do. Surprisingly this idea has been ruled out altogether by most academics studying this.

This is an amazingly self-serving interpretation of the quote. I said nothing of the sort. In the 60s, the vast majority of "radicals" in the SDS and Yippies, were *rich* kids. So the same with "Islamic" radicals. It is *not* that the radicals themselves feel oppression, but that they see *others* being oppressed, and because of their singular lack of any experience of the "oppressed" it is easy for them to imagine it as far worse, and see the perpetrators as far more evil than is the case.

 

My acquaintences in the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade were all pampered scions of the filthy rich with extreme guilty consciences.

 

So again, a bunch of us complain that you've done nothing in your last several posts to make "Islam" any different as a source of radicalism than any other. I won't call that racist, but I will say, that the primary thesis you seem to be promoting--that somehow Islam inherently promotes radicalism--is not only not going to win you any friends, its not going to convince anyone who isn't already predisposed to the same notion, and thus its really kind of pointless to pursue.

 

You wanna talk about how to solve *terrorism*, its best to look at *all* the data, not just say that "Islamic Terrorism" is a special case and requires special tactics. I think you will find--as I have pointed out here a few times--that some of the most interesting areas to research to find a "solution" to the problem is to find the points of *commonality* between various radical groups, and note where there are differences, *all* the potential sources of differences, not just assume that its "Islamic".

 

2) No other culture has had anything like this fanatical for hundreds of years.

I've stated several examples above and you've ignored them. You need to explain why somehow the Revolutionary Guards in the Cultural Revolution were any different as terrorists. I've listed several radical groups above, which while small, were *very* al Queda-like in that they were all self-starting cells tied to the cause of international communist revolution. The Palestinian movement until the advent of Hamas, was completely secular.

 

Moreover, you've definitely painted all Muslims as monolithicly radicalized which also does not seem to have any evidence to support it. You at least take as a given that all Muslims support the radical elements, possibly simply through their silence. It should be noted that many people in the world point at the "silence" with which moderate Christian groups do not very actively denouce neo-Nazis or murderers of abortion clinic employees, etc. etc. Why is this any different?

 

The only thing you seem to point to as different--the "advent" of suicide bombing--is painfully transparent. The Crusaders willingly charged to their deaths to "liberate" the holy land. While many more recent terrorists have had strategies that seem to indicate that they would like to fight another day, this is actually an outgrowth of the 20th-century notion of warfare in *general* that not getting your troops killed helps you win battles: the fact that these so called "terrorist generals" like bin Laden are *too stupid* to realize this, is only balanced by the fact that it is a good recruiting tool, but again not new: ever seen the opening scene of "All Quiet on the Western Front"? "Patriotism" and "willingness to die for the Fatherland" have been around for a long time! The only reason this all seems novel to you is that you seem to be insisting on ignoring history.

 

Your long list of questions are non-sequiter to your argument because the have nothing to do with Islamic beliefs. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims live in countries where there is no free press, and the ruling authorities have *intentionally* used misinformation is the reason for these "beliefs". And I'll have to ask you: is this really any different than the majority of American's believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

 

Please address these issues if you wish to be taken seriously here...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[ronthepon]

To sebbysteiny

- Sorry if simplification is evil

- People when ignorant are more gullible than you think.

- The so called brainwash education given to the fanatics is normally not even believed fully by the 'educator'

- The reason that such fanatics are exclusive to muslims only is because for now the terror lords have recently found that religion is a powerful motivating factor when well manipulated.

- Muslim teachings in the Koran are what I talked about, not what the brainwashers spread.

 

To Dark Coloured Light:

 

Education is westernisation?!! Man the world is not flat! There is also education absolutely disconnected with the west.