Islamic terror: the solution

[Edella]

Firstly, and least importantly, your use of the phrase 'the Israeli state' portrays some internal biases. Israel is the neutral version, but I have found those who have an unfavourable view verging on hate tend to prefer the phrase 'the Israeli state' perhaps because it sounds more agressive.

You are wrong.To claim that I have "some internal biases" simply because I used the phrase "Israeli state"in a statment about the creation of the modern Israeli State is unfounded;furthermore,to suggest I have a view"verging on hate" because I used that phrase is slanderous.Your accusation couldn't be further from the truth.I believe Israel has a right to exist.Yet another example of your broad generalizations.

 

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

It's not opinion Sebby,it's a fact.It was also a request(for TFS) to consider the fall of the Ottoman Empire as civil reorganization.

The Ottoman Empire existed from 1299 to 1923.It was tolerant towards its non-Muslim subjects; it did not, for instance, forcibly convert all of them to Islam.The state's relationship with the Greek Orthodox Church, for example, was largely peaceful.At the end of the war, the Ottoman government collapsed and the empire was conquered and divided among the victorious powers. Subsequent years saw the declaration of new states from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.The dissolution of the empire was a direct consequence of World War I, when the Allied Powers defeated the Central Powers in Europe as well as the Ottoman forces in the Middle Eastern theatre.

 

I'm trying to make two points:1)Your statement that Muslims had no WWI and II is wrong.2)The colapse of the Ottoman Empire completely changed the landscape of the Muslim world politically and economically;that this drastic event created an environment that was conducive to changes in "belief systems",and that the effects of WWI and II should be considered when studying the belief systems of Muslims.

[sebbysteiny]

FOR THEFAITHFULSTONE

 

Firstly, regarding pmw.org.il. I believe I can give very strong evidence that it is true. Firstly, I don't know if you live in the UK but information from it it was broadcast on Channel 4 news this afternoon. If that isn't neutral 3rd party independant confirmation for its validity I don't know what is.

 

Secondly, and most interestingly, I wish to use the road map to peace in the middle East. Perhaps you could be so kind as to list the demands imposed on all sides during the first stage of the road map.

 

On the matters of your questions.

 

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

 

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

 

How am I possibly supposed to do that? Perhaps I should ask that idea when it first became popular?

 

The best I can say is that during WW1, many people at home believed war was glorius. This is why many people volenteered in the first place. 'If I should die, think only this of me, there is some corner of a foreighn field that is forever England' for instances was popular government propaganda. However, by the time of the second world war, Winston Churchill's opinion that Britain should declare war was disgraced. This is why he was a depressed drunk who was going nowhere; until he turned out to be the only politician speaking the truth.

 

However, I cannot take surveys before 1914 and after 1918. Sorry.

 

One can learn from this. If I am right, and the cause and solution for Islamic terror lies with the moderate Muslim population, then were a fundamental event to occur showing this to be right, the only voice prepared to put at least some blame on the moderate Muslim population would become much more popular. Unfortuntatly, this voice is the far right. Go figure.

 

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

 

What exactly do you think these fundamental differences are?

 

Can you list them succinctly?

 

Page 9 post 4, para's 3 and 4. There is another as well. So to summerise:

1) Fanatical Islam has a culture of death (see post);

2) Fanatical Islam believes in maximising civilian casualties and that killing 'infidels' is an end in itself (see post);

3) Fanatical Islam seeks world domination ie imposing a Muslim Calophate over the whole world.

 

2 and 3 are unique to Islamic terror (in today's world) and is not found in other violent organisation (unless your watching James Bond). 1 is unique to Islamic Terror and the Tamil Tigers. There may also be other differences.

 

Information on all these can be found from pmw.org.il (at least regarding Palestinian Islamic terror) though there are also other independant varifications. Try looking for Abu Hamza's surmons on google or something like that.

 

Edella

your use of the phrase 'the Israeli state' portrays some internal biases. Israel is the neutral version, but I have found those who have an unfavourable view verging on hate tend to prefer the phrase 'the Israeli state' perhaps because it sounds more agressive.

 

To claim that I have "some internal biases" simply because I used the phrase "Israeli state"in a statment about the creation of the modern Israeli State is unfounded;furthermore,to suggest I have a view"verging on hate" because I used that phrase is slanderous. ... I believe Israel has a right to exist.Yet another example of your broad generalizations.

 

I admit my first sentance was badly phrased. What I meant was that phrase is normally used by those whose views on Israel's existance are less than favourable. However, I never accused you of having a view "verging on hate". I said many who use that phrase do. That is why I suggested the more neutral alternative of 'Israel'.

 

However, you have criticised my generalisations in general. Nevertheless I got it spot on with nkt. Unfortunately, he has decided not to reply to any of my questions or my tearing his commonly held opinion apart. It is a shame he never replied because I think we could have all valued his unique input. However, I love the irony that you are using a generalisation to say all my generalisations are false simply because you have found one that was apparently off. :eplane:

 

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

 

It's not opinion Sebby,it's a fact.It was also a request(for TFS) to consider the fall of the Ottoman Empire as civil reorganization.

The Ottoman Empire existed from 1299 to 1923.

...

At the end of the war, the Ottoman government collapsed and the empire was conquered and divided among the victorious powers.

 

I'm trying to make two points:1)Your statement that Muslims had no WWI and II is wrong.2)The colapse of the Ottoman Empire completely changed the landscape of the Muslim world politically and economically;that this drastic event created an environment that was conducive to changes in "belief systems",and that the effects of WWI and II should be considered when studying the belief systems of Muslims.

I didn't state that the Ottoman empire collapsing was merely your opinion. It is clearly a fact. I just didn't see where you were going with it.

1) When I say 'Muslim culture has not had its WW1 or WW2', what I mean is not that Muslim culture was not effected or even in some way involved in those two particular wars. Instead, I am saying that WW1 and WW2 caused so much suffering to the Western nations (and comparitively little suffering to other cultures) that WW1 and WW2 were major culture changing events that fundamentally changed the Western belief system in a totally different way to that of other cultures. In this sense, the WWs represent events that are particularly personal to the West. Thus 'our WW1 and WW2' are different to 'the Middle Eastern WW1 and WW2'. Only when Muslim culture has an event that causes almost every Muslim citizen of almost every Muslim nation to lose husbands and children in a war that was fought for pride and stupidity can one say that Muslim culture has had a 'WW1 event'.

 

2) Okay, the collapse of the Ottoman empire was an event. I agree. Was it a fundamental event? It possibly was, but it is still not immediately obvious to which beliefs it effected. To be a 'fundamental event', there has to be an immediate and clear lesson to be learnt from it (eg racism leads to the holocaust, therefore racism = bad and human rights = good) which can actually change the belief system. Which beliefs are you proposing were effected by the event of the Ottoman empire collapse?

 

A gap in my theory

My analysis of fundamental events said there were two types, quick and immediate ones (war, economy collapsing) and slowly developing ones (eg unemployment rising over years). I have made almost no analysis of how slow developing fundamental events alter the belief system nor how effective this might be. (Wow, I've used so much Jargon invented on this post that it's like I'm speaking a whole new language!!). The reason is that it that it seems far too complicated to find an answer in this thread.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The best I can say is that during WW1, many people at home believed war was glorius.

 

What leads you to believe this was the case?

 

TFS

[Edella]

However, I love the irony that you are using a generalisation to say all my generalisations are false simply because you have found one that was apparently off.

Two Sebby,don't forget your statement that "suicide bombers and other such fanatics are an exclusively Muslim phenomina." BTW check out The Kurdish PKK, the Kurdish Labor Party, a Marxist party. They are certainly not religious. And they have also carried out suicide terrorist attacks.The group’s goal has been to establish an independent, democratic Kurdish state in the Middle East.Also,I never said all your generalisations were false,I said they were broad.Big difference.

 

If we were to 'bomb them [Muslims] with food' they will not thank us.

I actually had the opportunity to feed people in Jordan in the late 80's.I can't begin to tell you how gracious they were.

 

I am saying that WW1 and WW2 caused so much suffering to the Western nations (and comparitively little suffering to other cultures) that WW1 and WW2 were major culture changing events that fundamentally changed the Western belief system in a totally different way to that of other cultures. Thus 'our WW1 and WW2' are different to 'the Middle Eastern WW1 and WW2'. Only when Muslim culture has an event that causes almost every Muslim citizen of almost every Muslim nation to lose husbands and children in a war that was fought for pride and stupidity can one say that Muslim culture has had a 'WW1 event'.

According to Wikipedia the Ottoman Empire incurred 325,000 military deaths and a staggering 2,150,000 civilian deaths in WWI.(whether the Armenian Genocide factors in the civilian number is unclear.)

In this sense, the WWs represent events that are particularly personal to the West.

Don't forget the pacific theater in WWII sebby,I think Japan had what you would call a 'fundamental event'.It's these kind of generalizations that I'm talking about;to suggest that only the west was fundamentally changed by WWI and II is nonsense.

Which beliefs are you proposing were effected by the event of the Ottoman empire collapse?

This whole "belief system" thing is your baby.All I'm suggesting is you consider the dissolution of almost 700 yrs. of rule over a large percentage of the worlds Muslim by the Ottomans ,the death of over 2,400,000 people during WWI,the Europeans' subsequent"land grab",and the bitter struggle for control of Middle East oil all within about ten years might just maybe have something to do with current"belief systems" in the Muslim World.

 

I also found this site Sebby,which might help in your studies:The MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base.http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

The site seperates incident statistics by region, group, target,tactic,date,etc.

Tell me if you like it.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Good source.

 

TFS

[Michaelangelica]

 

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

 

TFS

 

When I visited the South of USA in the 80's I was shocked that many Christians thought it would be OK to Nuke Russia because they were "ungodly".

 

Up to that point I aways believed that a Nuclear Holocaust was impossible.

[sebbysteiny]

BTW check out The Kurdish PKK, the Kurdish Labor Party, a Marxist party. They are certainly not religious. And they have also carried out suicide terrorist attacks.The group’s goal has been to establish an independent, democratic Kurdish state in the Middle East.

 

You may be right. I don't have the time to research. Questions I would need to know: are the Kurds a Muslim population (even if the MKK is not a 'religious' organisation); is there a culture of death; and is there demonisation in their rhetoric. However, even if you are right, then it shows that a small minority (including Al Qaeda) rather than only Al Qaeda have a culture of death. However, Al Qaeda has all three elements making it unique.

 

If we were to 'bomb them [Muslims] with food' they will not thank us.

 

I actually had the opportunity to feed people in Jordan in the late 80's.I can't begin to tell you how gracious they were.

 

Perhaps you should try feeding people in the Pakestani mountains bordering Afghanistan in the 2000's?

 

According to Wikipedia the Ottoman Empire incurred 325,000 military deaths and a staggering 2,150,000 civilian deaths in WWI.(whether the Armenian Genocide factors in the civilian number is unclear.)

I'm really not getting your point. I agree that the Armenian Genocide must be the cause for the civilian numbers because WW1 was a war that only killed soldiers (albeit alot of them). However, 325,000 spread accross the Muslim world is not millions from a small number of nations. The Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Iranians etc have had no 'WW1 event'. WW1 represents a footnote in their history (even though the collapse of the Ottoman empire may not).

 

Don't forget the pacific theater in WWII sebby,I think Japan had what you would call a 'fundamental event'.It's these kind of generalizations that I'm talking about;to suggest that only the west was fundamentally changed by WWI and II is nonsense.

 

I was including Japan as part of the West since its culture is similar. I believe I said in my main post that WW2 turned Japan from a war hungry nation to a nation of pasificsts almost overnight. It was quite definately a major fundimental event in Japanese Culture.

 

Which beliefs are you proposing were effected by the event of the Ottoman empire collapse?

 

This whole "belief system" thing is your baby.All I'm suggesting is you consider the dissolution of almost 700 yrs. of rule over a large percentage of the worlds Muslim by the Ottomans ,the death of over 2,400,000 people during WWI,the Europeans' subsequent"land grab",and the bitter struggle for control of Middle East oil all within about ten years might just maybe have something to do with current"belief systems" in the Muslim World.

 

Still I really don't understand where you are going with this one. It does not attack my idea, it does not support it, and it does not support another idea. Therefore I cannot see the relevence in this thread. Although I disagree with your conspiracy spin on history, at best all you are saying is that the Muslim world exhibited fundamental events which changed their belief system. However, that point has been made by me and I sense by your tone that you are trying to attack my theory, not support it. Still anxiously waiting for this to go somewhere.

 

General points to Edella

 

I think your spending too much energy on the little parts of the small picture and ignoring the big picture. It is the big picture that matters ie the mechanisms for major social change and for Islamic terror and the only way to prove these wrong are arguments attacking the substance, not the footnote examples.

 

I also found this site Sebby,which might help in your studies:The MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base.http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp

The site seperates incident statistics by region, group, target,tactic,date,etc.

Tell me if you like it.

 

I do like that sight. It is a great first place to go. Although I haven't studied it in great detail, I sense that it gives the officially accepted and politically correct positions rather than the entire truth. To really understand a terrorist group, I have to get closely acquainted with their internal rhetoric between themselves and between their 'host' populations. In short, I have to learn how they think. Your Tamil Tigers article was a great example of the type of evidence I really look for.

 

When I visited the South of USA in the 80's I was shocked that many Christians thought it would be OK to Nuke Russia because they were "ungodly".

 

I agree with that to a certain extent. One such fanatic in the White house (or the Kremlin) could change all that. However amongst those Christians, there are no organisations willing to pursue violence to bring about the reality they are 'ok' with. Also, thinking it is 'ok' (ie not a belief they are personally appauled at) is different from them actually agreeing with it. They also have no culture of death amongst themselves and in particular, value the lives of their own community to the point that deterance can work on them.

 

My model can explain their existance pretty well. Since pursuing violence for a religious agenda and pursuing violence deliberately aimed at innocent civilians under any circumstances are both disgraced beliefs amonst the vaste Majority of Americans (hense vietnam), the belief that it is a good thing to kill innocent civilian non-believers cannot spread in American society. Therefore no minority extemist 'terror' group can emerge supporting that agenda.

[sebbysteiny]

check out The Kurdish PKK, the Kurdish Labor Party, a Marxist party. They are certainly not religious.

 

http://www.britannica.com/worldsapart/3_print.html

[sebbysteiny]

If we want to defeat the extremism, we have got to defeat its ideas and we have got to address the completely false sense of grievance against the West.

 

"In the end, government itself cannot go and root out the extremism in these communities.

 

"I am probably not the person to go into the Muslim community ... It's better that we mobilise the Islamic community itself to do this.

 

"I know everyone always wants to blame the government for everything that is happening .... but we can't defeat this extremism through whatever a government does.

 

"We can only defeat it if we have people in the community who are going to stand up and not merely say 'you are wrong to kill people through terrorism... you're wrong in your view of the West, the whole sense of grievance, the ideology is wrong, is profoundly wrong'."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5144438.stm

 

I can't help but notice how similar my idea and Blair's ideas really are. He is talking about my belief 3. However, I still believe there are other beliefs at fault too.

 

Also, there was a new survey of UK Muslims released today.

Some details are found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2254764,00.html

 

The survey says that 16% Al Qaeda's cause is right even though violence was wrong and a further 4% would be indifferent or neutral. 80% expressed (in the survey) they disagreed. Although it is unclear exactly why some of the 80% disagreed [ie they may support some elements of the 'cause' but not others, they may just be trying to appease the survey or they may have said yes to a similarly question with a different phrasing], that 20% of the Population have no objection to Al Qaeda's idiology is probably sufficient critical mass to allow the belief to spread according to my model. It also does not state if the opinion is disgraced by the 80% who said no.

[HydrogenBond]

The way to deal with terrorism is to depotentiate its affect. The primary aspect of the terrorist affect comes from the media. In fact, the media has done more to spread the terror than the terrorists themselves. Ask oneself the question, when was the last time a terrorist attacked you or your family? Then ask yourself when was the last time the media tried to incite you to fear or outrage? The media uses lopsided data, which is true, but which does not allow one to gain a rational perspective.

 

Below is a link to causes of death in US by demographics. http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock

I could not find terrorism anywhere, so where is the logic for the fear? The fear is irrational fear, induced by the media to sell soap.

[Boerseun]

Slightly off-topic, but a good and valid point, HydrogenBond.

 

It's ironic that the worse the world becomes, the fiercer the ratings battle become between the networks. And, in order to get higher ratings, the footage become more graphical, creating the impression amongst the public that things are only getting worse. Meantime, there's nothing becoming 'worse' in the world. They're just selling soap.

 

The more things change...

[Michaelangelica]

Slightly off-topic, but a good and valid point, HydrogenBond.

 

It's ironic that the worse the world becomes, the fiercer the ratings battle become between the networks. And, in order to get higher ratings, the footage become more graphical, creating the impression amongst the public that things are only getting worse. Meantime, there's nothing becoming 'worse' in the world. They're just selling soap.

 

The more things change...

My 86YO mother-in-law, is a simple woman who lives in a quiet suburban backwater of Sydney.

She lives in fear of terrorists and other aggressors due to the ravings of the "Shock-Jocks" she listens to on the radio.

[sebbysteiny]

The way to deal with terrorism is to depotentiate its affect. The primary aspect of the terrorist affect comes from the media. In fact, the media has done more to spread the terror than the terrorists themselves. Ask oneself the question, when was the last time a terrorist attacked you or your family? Then ask yourself when was the last time the media tried to incite you to fear or outrage?

 

Slightly off-topic, but a good and valid point, HydrogenBond.

 

No offence Boerseun but that is far from off topic. This post is about finding the solution to Islamic terror. This requires finding the cause. That the media does appear to be making the terrorists job easier is very relevant. Infact, anything that makes the terrorists job easier (which the belief system of the moderates may just be one factor) is 100% the subject of this debate if the insight can lead to new ideas of minimising and even stopping terror.

 

However, the media also has a responsibility to keep us informed.

 

Please, Hydrogenbond expand and perhaps suggest a solution to deal with the problem you have identified.

[TheFaithfulStone]

1) Fanatical Islam has a culture of death (see post);

2) Fanatical Islam believes in maximising civilian casualties and that killing 'infidels' is an end in itself (see post);

3) Fanatical Islam seeks world domination ie imposing a Muslim Calophate over the whole world.

 

I do not understand the meaning of item 1. Could you summarize? And answer my previous question?

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

1) Fanatical Islam has a culture of death (see post);

2) Fanatical Islam believes in maximising civilian casualties and that killing 'infidels' is an end in itself (see post);

3) Fanatical Islam seeks world domination ie imposing a Muslim Calophate over the whole world.

I do not understand the meaning of item 1. Could you summarize? And answer my previous question?

 

 

Culture of death: See page 7 post 6 para 11. Essentially this is when dying becomes a glorious thing that people seek especially if killing enemies. In Al Qaeda's case, the 'martyrs' are thought to get a special place in heaven for them and their entire family and the enemies are any 'infidels'. As an example, the infamous message from Al Qaeda saying 'whist you [Europe] love life, we love death' can only come from a culture of death.

 

However you cannot really know what a culture of death is until you have heard the arguments and beliefs of those people. I don't know if you have decided to trust or even consider pmw.org.il, but even if you don't, you should explore the sight if you want to know what I mean by a 'culture of death'. Click on 'in depth reports and analysis' and click on 'ask for death'.

 

There are also some great clips of Yasser Arafat, head of the 'secular' Fatah moderate movement for 50 years, asking 'allah' to give children the courage to be a 'shihad' and children playing 'death games'. Look at the opinion polls too.

 

I assume by your other question you mean

 

The best I can say is that during WW1, many people at home believed war was glorius.

 

What leads you to believe this was the case?

 

See Page 11 post 4 paras 4, 5 and 6. I believe that does answer the question. Perhaps I should also add my studies of the first world war during GCSE history. Although it may not be stunning authority, it was enough to convince me but alas I cannot give you the sources used in my text books that have now been returned.

 

However, I would like to say to you what I said to Edella.

I think your spending too much energy on the little parts of the small picture and ignoring the big picture. It is the big picture that matters ie the mechanisms for major social change and for Islamic terror and the only way to prove these wrong are arguments attacking the substance, not the footnote examples.

 

Analysing in depth exactly how my theory might work in each particular situation does not do anything to support or undermine the theory.

 

Instead, more general lines of attack might be appropriate, like, 'if your theory predicts this, then how does it account for that?'.

 

So in other words, attacking the examples that I used to invent the general theory does not undermine the thoery. At best all it can shows is that my research trail was not perfect, but the theories have developed beyond the research data into a general theory explaining the fundamental mechanics of all societies both for majorities and (extreme) minorities. It's like trying to disprove general relativity by arguing that the instuments used to first measure its effects were not sufficiently accurate to justify the original data 30 years after more accurate data has been obtained.

 

However evidence of my model actually being wrong or producing a wierd result is a very different creature.

[HydrogenBond]

If the radical Islamic culture is one of death than they may be pissed at the world because we offer life. Maybe we should give them what they want so they can be happy and not so pissed off at the world.

[sebbysteiny]

If the radical Islamic culture is one of death than they may be pissed at the world because we offer life. Maybe we should give them what they want so they can be happy and not so pissed off at the world.

 

Wow. That is pretty strong language. No matter what a cultures faults are, genocide is not an acceptable situation under any circumstances.

 

I do not say that moderate Muslims have a culture of death: mearly the fanatics. Of course, in Palestinian society, it's a little different. The culture of death is a positive belief. However for minorities in Western cultures, such a death culture is not supported by the majority (at least when applied to countries other than Israel). Is it a disgraced belief? It's probably not quite that either. It's influence I suspect only goes as far as to justify suicide bombings in some circumstances, ie it contributes to beleif 1.

 

But the culture of death does nevertheless distinguish Islamic terror from almost all other forms of terror.