Understanding the Enemy

[Coyote]

???? Whether we like it or not, fate has left you and I to deal with life in this century, not the prrevious one. But since strawman arguements are all that we get on this group, Ill play.

Strawman? Hardly.

Statement: and those suicide bombers seem quite exclusive to the theology.

My response: Hardly. Remember the Kamakazi fighters of the Japanese? Dying for a cause is not new nor is it unique to Islam extremists.

A simple and direct refutation of a Bewitched's statement.

Lets pretend it's 1945 and I am speaking out in criticism of the Shinto religion practiced in imperial Japan. A religion that teaches the Japanese from birth that the Emperor is GOD. A god who

would you likewise, constantly speak out in defense of Shintoism? Would you argue that the Kamakaze's decision had nothing to do with religion? Do you realize that kamakaze literally translates to "God wind". When Kubla Khan attacked Japan with his navy, a typhoon came and destroyed his fleet. The Japanese believed God had sent the typhoon to repel the mongols. The kamakazes are the "god wind".

I would argue that religion simply provides the rationale for an action that those same people would likely undertake anyway because of their emotional and cultural make up. The same sort of make up, for example, that allows people to sacrifice themselves or others for a cult, for nationalism, or for a political ideology. Their actions had far less to do with religion then it did with their particular cultural attribute of obedience - to their nation, to authority, to the Emperor and the willingness of some of them to kill themselves for it. What you seemingly ignore in both these examples is:

• the vast majority of the Japanese were not Kamakazi - not willing to sacrifice themselves in this particular way yet they considered themselves staunch supporters of the Emperor.
  
• the vast majority of Muslims are not suicide bombers nor do they support such actions yet they consider themselves Muslim.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, and the slaughter of millions of Jews in WWII had nothing to do with Nazism. Nazism is nothing more than a tool, a language that unites the group.

You are creating a false dichotomy. Of course it had something to do with Nazism. But it also had a lot to do with the cultural, economic, and political climate of post-WW1 Germany.

Political ideologies are used to motivate or unite people towards a cause or action - not always rational. In that respect they are a tool in the same way as religion is: instill a cause and foment blind obedience.

If it werent Nazism- it would be something else serving the purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity. So we shouldnt be critical of Nazism. (sarcasm)

Now it is YOU creating a strawman.

Nazism by itself is nothing. It is a tool - an ideology created and grown to achieve a certain aim. It is the events of post-ww1 Germany that gave it power amongst the people and led it to assume the proportions that it did and could easily again. You can critisize it - it is certainly evil, like guns can be thought to be evil- but it would have had no power had not certain conditions existed to allow it to grow and become a power. Those conditions are very similar to the conditions that in general tend to lead towards an increase in fundamentalism, extremism, nationalism or ethno-centrism. Christian fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism are almost identical in belief. The differences lie in the cultures they are currently living in: secular democratic West - where the rule of law is respected vs. religious, non-democratic East - where the rule of law is situational and corrupt.

Look at Communism - and in particular Stalin. There is nothing explicit in the writings of Karl Marx for example, that legitimized the purges that Stalin conducted. Yet, he managed to use it as a justification for his atrocities. Not to different from the way Christians have misused the Bible, or Muslims have misused their religion.

What is ironic, and the reason I can not take your arguments seriously - is that you use these arguments to maintain a condemnation of Islam - as a whole - yet are utterly blind to the same failings within Christianity - faults that throughout history can be blamed for much war, bloodshed, and murder if one uses your logic.

You then create a strawman by trying to make the entire religion of Islam comparable to the Nazi ideology. It doesn't wash.

 

[Coyote]

again, what happened in 1945 isn't really an immediate danger to me and my family this week.
AQ is far more advanced in tactics than Kamakazi fighters. Kamazasis fought on a battlefield, they wore uniforms, they represented a single country government, they attacked military targets.

the vast majority of Lebanese children are exposed to tv shows that encourage them to become martyrs. little children being taught hate and killing is a good thing. so in 5-7 years there will be quite a bigger number. not to mention how many are being conditioned in mosques and training camps.

911 was in 2001 and the "awakening" it was not a confrontation that is planned for 2010-2013. wonder what the number of extremists will be then?

If you think only military targets were attacked in WW2 or by the Japanese, you are foolish. Merchant ships were also targeted and destroyed and the Kamikaze pilots were only one of a number of Japanese suicide fighting schemes. The mentality was quite similar: it is better to die then live as a coward.

All war targets civilians - even if only peripherally. It's the nature of war and the vast majority of suicide bombings are occuring in regions of unresolved warfare: Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon etc.

The "vast majority"? Seems like if that were the case there would be many many more suicide bombers. Yet, in relation to population - they are very few in number. They seem like more because they catch the media's attention far more then the dull ordinary activities of most of the people.

 

[Coyote]

and yeah, there's no difference in those evil Christians who are voicing their opinion and those Muslims who are actually carrying out beheadings and murder daily. silly Christians... they are so dangerous.

You mean like those evil Christians who persecuted the Jews under Hitler? After all, part of Hitlers's Aryan racial superiority was it's underlying Christianity - not even the Pope spoke against it. Who feel justified in burning abortion clinics or killing homosexuals? (it's the Abrahamic thing to do after all).

And tell me about all those Muslims in America and Canada, and other western countries carrying out daily beheadings and murder? You don't suppose that...uh...ungoing wars, unresolved conflicts, a century of foreign invasion and occupation might have a little to do with it? No...that would make way too much sense.

 

[jb_1430]

You are creating a false dichotomy. Of course it had something to do with Nazism. But it also had a lot to do with the cultural, economic, and political climate of post-WW1 Germany.

But somehow, this wotrldwide wave of Islamist attacks on civilians, has nothing to do with religion??? I dont follow the analogy.

 

[Coyote]

But somehow, this wotrldwide wave of Islamist attacks on civilians, has nothing to do with religion??? I dont follow the analogy.

Of course you don't follow it.

I never said it had "nothing to do with religion".

I said: "I totally agree. Relgion is nothing more then a tool, a language that unites the group. If it weren't religion - it would be something else serving the same purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity."


You might also consider the following.

There is no "world wide wave of Islamist attacks on civilians".

The following is occurring:

Attacks are made on countries seen to support the US occupation in Iraq. This is a political act. The aim is to force those countries to withdraw their support. There is nothing particularly religious about it.

The vast majority of Islamist attacks are occuring in countries under war and - particularly under war by foreign entities.

Other Islamist attacks are occuring in primarily in hird world politically and economically unstable countries with predominantly Muslim populations where Islamic fundamentalists want to impose Sharia and their version of morality. What's driving this? Religion? Or, is the increase in fundamentalism (across the spectrum of religions such as Hindu and Christian) world wide a sign of something else - culture shock? The rate of change in the world is increasing geometrically and faster than a culture can adapt to and the automatic reaction is to withdraw - into parochialism, fundamentalism and isolationism. The thing is - in Western countries, there are political mechanisms for change. Muslims and Christians and others are using political mechanisms to attempt to force their brand of morality on the country. In countries like Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq, former Soviet block countries- in fact a lot of African and Middle East countries - there is no viable political process so violence is the answer.

So sure, religion - in general - has something to do with it. But does the scripture of Islam alone drive this? No. No more then scripture of Christianity or the beliefs of Hinduism both of which have been the cause of much bloodshed and will undoubtably be again and it's people like you - who insist that the religion as a whole is to blame that will be the cause of WW3, because your stridency drowns out the voices of moderation within Islam, and those voices need to be listened to, by all sides.

Some one once did a comparison of violence and calls for violence in the Bible and in the Koran. The Koran was more violent. But only marginally.

 

[WileE]

So what?

scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.

So, some of them are well-educated scum.

 

[Coyote]

Bewitched said:
scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.



I would like to see some serious data supporting this statement - either put up, or shut up.

 

[bewitched]

Bewitched said:
scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.



I would like to see some serious data supporting this statement - either put up, or shut up.

no honey, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Atta, Osama, KSM all have engineering degrees. that's a fact everyone knows. the doctors that drove their cars into Heathrow were... doctors.

if you want to be rude and tell me to shut up because you are backed into a corner... that's your problem.

 

[Popeye]

This website indicates that you are correct. http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist

To care deeply about an issue, you have to have an education to understand the issues. Makes sense. I was a little surprised at the relatively high level of education among suicide bombers. I guess strong religious indoctrination can even trump good education.

 

[bewitched]

This website indicates that you are correct. http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist

To care deeply about an issue, you have to have an education to understand the issues. Makes sense. I was a little surprised at the relatively high level of education among suicide bombers. I guess strong religious indoctrination can even trump good education.

you rock Popeye.
the facts are out there.
opening ones eyes is the hard part.

 

[Coyote]

dupe post

 

[Coyote]

Actually, after reading some more I'll agree - I'm wrong on some things, but so I see is Bewitched.

Here's another interesting article:
http://worldnews.about.com/od/islamreligionpolitics/a/islam_terrorism.htm

What makes a Suicide Bomber


The article is worth reading in full, but here are some of the key findings made in recent studies by psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologists of the factors motivating and sustaining global terrorism:

1) Suicide bombers are not suicidal. Suicide bombers do not exhibit the typical "risk factors" psychologists associate with suicide. In a study of suicide bombers around the world, it was found that most were educated members of the middle class who showed no signs of being clinically depressed.

2) A country's relationship with the United States, not the U.S. "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list or the country's level of religious radicalism, predicts its production of terrorists. A statistical analysis of 315 suicide attacks from 1980 to 2003 found no correlation between a bomber's place of origin and the presence of more extreme forms of Islam. Moreover, not a single attacker came from a country designated as a "state sponsor of terrorism." Most came from Muslim regimes with close ties to the United States.

3) People become terrorists through social networks and emotional bonds, not because of religious devotion or indoctrination. Studies also show that Muslims join the global jihad primarily through interpersonal relationships, and not because of their prior beliefs or psychological makeup. Argo writes, "Emotion and social ties precede the acquisition of an ideology."

4) Most jihadis are immigrants. 84% of terrorists were second generation immigrants born in Western countries (Sageman). Turning to the jihad is a response of the alienation and discrimination they feel in their new countries. (All of the participants in the 2005 London bombing, for example were first and second generation immigrants.)

5) Terrorism is seen as a form of empowerment. For peoples who feel dispossessed or politically oppressed, participating in terrorist activities is a way of finding empowerment in a situation where people perceive no other choice exists. As one suicide bomber as quoted by Pape and Argo put it, "If we don't fight, we will suffer. If we do fight, we will suffer, but so will they."

6) Religious belief may help sustain terrorists' commitment to the jihad, but it is not what causes them to join in the first place. This is Argo's interpretation of the scholars she surveys. In a word: "alienation and perceived grievance are necessary to galvanise a population; social networks remain the primary mechanism by which mobilisation occurs."

 

[bewitched]

Yote... you're almost there babe.
read all you can from the State Department and Homeland Security sites and then you will understand the US view of the whole thing.

then spend some time at Spencer's site
www.jihadwatch.com
he's brilliant. and he can give you insight from the inside of Islam and how they see us (the enemy, the infidel, the dhimmi)

but most importantly is to realize that this is happening really fast and becoming an educated and informed America is essential to our survival!

 

[WileE]

Again...so what?

no honey, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Atta, Osama, KSM all have engineering degrees. that's a fact everyone knows. the doctors that drove their cars into Heathrow were... doctors.

if you want to be rude and tell me to shut up because you are backed into a corner... that's your problem.

Sorry to butt in on Coyote's line of thought, but Fidel Castro has a doctorate in law, and he is one of the more brutal, oppressive dictators in the Western Hemisphere, which I equate as scum, right along with the aforementioned Islamic jihadists. Again: well educated scum.