Extremist Islam: the cause?

[CapelDodger]

Re: Re: Re: Extremist Islam: the cause?

Christianity is not the KKK, but the KKK refer to themselves as new age crusaders of the faith. The social influences that led to the estsablishment of the KKK are, IMO, more signficant than the religion behind it.

Both cases look back to a Golden Age when their chosen community - White Christian or Arab Islamic - played its rightfully dominant role. They see nothing good for themselves in the modern world, and so are definitively reactionary. Since they consider themselves as having been usurped and cheated they look for conspiracies that have cheated them.

With that in mind (and not wishing to derail) the opinion of some Americans that Kyoto, the ICC, Chemical Weapons Treaty, NPT and other such are conspiracies against the US is worth noting.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Extremist Islam: the cause?

To actually (try to) answer your question--Arabic is a lot different from English. A lot. Translations don't always get meaning--I know, it sounds funny and is probably sig material, but others who are multi-lingual know what I mean.

Which I think is the reason for the coined phrase "lost in translation". Thanks Cleon.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I don't believe Islam is necessarily the root of the violence, it is just used by some to manipulate useful idiots into strapping bombs on themselves and dying for the cause.

That being said; I don't think we can ever again take the word Jihad lightly.

 

[Bikewer]

As Ziggurat points out, and as the author I cited maintains, we are not looking at a bunch of shadowy masterminds duping the poor and hopeless into suicide bomb missions.

Pape's rather exhaustive study shows that the typical suicide bomber is a motivated individual who believes he is engaged in activities that are commendable, and he is supported in this by his peers.
The function of Jihad in this case is essentially defensive.

As Michael Scheuer points out in his books, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda believe they are fighting a "defensive" Jihad, in that Islam is under assault from "The West". They do not intend to convert people or to capture territory; they wish to expel Western influence from Islamic society.

In Iraq, we are seen as the agressor/occupier, regardless of what actual motives our forces may have.

 

[Ziggurat]

As Michael Scheuer points out in his books, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda believe they are fighting a "defensive" Jihad, in that Islam is under assault from "The West". They do not intend to convert people or to capture territory; they wish to expel Western influence from Islamic society.

I think Scheuer is just plain wrong on this. Sure, when the jihadists talk to us they'll SAY that they're only fighting a defensive war. But that's not what they say to each other, and that's not what their actions indicate. They are very much involved in an expansionist movement - the only genuinely imperial ideology in the world today (oh the irony of the anti-colonial far left supporting jihadists against the US). To the extent that it's "defensive", there's really only one possible way to expel Western influence from the Islamic world: destroy the global economy that brings western influences to their doorstep through trade and commerce, or destroy the West itself. They are trying to do both. Furthermore, with the massive influx of muslim immigrants to Europe, they no longer consider Europe as non-muslim land. They want European muslims to live under their radical brand of Islam, which basically will require subverting all of Europe into a state of dhimmitude (killing Theo van Gogh was only an opening move for what they hope to be able to do in the future - no "defensive" justification for that). The threat from jihadists cannot be treated as if it's merely defensive, because it is not. It is an existential threat to the west: as long as jihadist ideology exists, it will try to destroy us, because our mere existence poses an existential threat to them (we offer an alternative, tempting people away from their idea of purity). We cannot escape this conflict.

 

[Bikewer]

It may well be. Scheuer's area of expertise is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda specifically, he offers thoughts on other aspects of the situation. He was the senior CIA analyst assigned to study Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for some ten years, so I bow to his views on that aspect.

Obviously, the clash between Islamic culture and the West is broader in scope. There are many subdivisions of revolution and dissent, and Al Qaeda represents but one. Many of these movements are strongly nationalist, such as the situation in the Phillipines, which has been going on for centuries. (one historian said that the Moros were so warlike that they would break off from fighting the Spanish to fight amongst themselves!)

I'm not inclined to see large-scale Muslim emmigration to Europe and other countries as an invasion, however. Certainly they will bring radical elements with them, as we have seen. But immigrants are motivated primarily by economics. They want to participate in the new society, not change it into what they were fleeing.
First-generation immigrants are almost always insular and ghettoized (is that a word?). Second generation and on tend to merge with the new host society.
I see this all the time at the university, pious Muslim students in beards and headscarves are within weeks wearing jeans and tank-tops...

The reason for immigration is not only financial; there is also the aspect of fleeing despotic and corrupt governments. There is the primary seed of the Islamic revolution, in the minds of more than one analyst.

 

[Kerberos]

But that's not what they say to each other, and that's not what their actions indicate.

What actions would that be?

killing Theo van Gogh was only an opening move for what they hope to be able to do in the future - no "defensive" justification for that.

They? Who are they? Al Qaida? If they had anything to do with Van Gogh’s murder then that's news to me. If they didn't then we're dealing with an isolated case of violence with little or no connection to the larger Islamic insurgency which Al-Qaida represents. You cannot regard any violent action by Muslims as a part of single cohesive movement.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not inclined to see large-scale Muslim emmigration to Europe and other countries as an invasion, however. Certainly they will bring radical elements with them, as we have seen. But immigrants are motivated primarily by economics. They want to participate in the new society, not change it into what they were fleeing.

I didn't mean to imply that most emigrating muslims were trying to invade Europe. But I DO mean that the jihadists are using this immigration as a means to open up a new front. They want to turn it into an invasion. And they speak openly about turning Europe into Eurabia. Many muslim immigrants end up isolated in immigrant-only communities, without knowlege of the local language, without job skills, unemployed because of the stagnant European economies. Under such conditions, they often become resentful of the host countries (despite often recieving generous welfare subsidies), and dependent on their own insular communities. This detachment from broader society makes it very easy for militants among them to become the dominant force through threats, intimidation, and Saudi funding. That whole headscarves thing in France? The girls would wear them because radicalized muslim teen boys would harass them if they didn't. The authorities are impotent to stop the harassment (the communities are simply too detached), so they tried banning the headscarves as a workaround (not that it will work). It is no coincidence that most members of Al Quaeda join while living in a country other than their own home country (often Europe), and that most of them are not religious before joining. The immigration situation in Europe (where muslims are on track to become the majority before the end of the century) offers the jihadists both a means of radicalising the population and a way to gain new lands for their dreamed-of caliphate.

First-generation immigrants are almost always insular and ghettoized (is that a word?). Second generation and on tend to merge with the new host society.
I see this all the time at the university, pious Muslim students in beards and headscarves are within weeks wearing jeans and tank-tops...

The American experience with muslim immigrants is not the same as Europe's. In the US, arabs are doing BETTER than the average population (higher levels of education, more money). In europe, arabs are doing MUCH worse than the average population. There are a variety of reasons for this (smaller and more select group coming to the US, better economy and lower unemployment here, an immigrant culture which accepts newcomers more readily), but the point is that you can't look at the US and assume that things are going to be similar in Europe.

The reason for immigration is not only financial; there is also the aspect of fleeing despotic and corrupt governments. There is the primary seed of the Islamic revolution, in the minds of more than one analyst.

It matters not that most muslims leaving for Europe are trying to get away from the stagnation of the middle east: those same pathologies are hounding them nonetheless.

 

[Ziggurat]

They? Who are they? Al Qaida? If they had anything to do with Van Gogh’s murder then that's news to me. If they didn't then we're dealing with an isolated case of violence with little or no connection to the larger Islamic insurgency which Al-Qaida represents. You cannot regard any violent action by Muslims as a part of single cohesive movement.

Operational categories are unimportant to the larger picture. The distinction between Al Quaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas (for example) are, in the end, purely operational. The critical elements of their ideology are the same, and they are all part of the same problem. I've been calling it jihadist ideology in this thread, it's also refered to as Islamofascism, but the particular label you pick isn't really essential. The underlying ideology is. And the people who killed Theo WERE adherents of essentially the same ideology as Al Quaeda. That's an ideology that believes in a violent, barbaric, and extremist interpretation of Islam, that believes that the most divine act a human can do is to kill. Is this ideology cohesive? Well, depends what you mean by that. It doesn't have a cohesive command structure, it has no cohesive strategy. But it DOES have a cohesive hatred for the west in general and the US in particular, and a cohesive love for death and contempt for life.

 

[Manny]

What actions would that be?

They? Who are they? Al Qaida? If they had anything to do with Van Gogh’s murder then that's news to me. If they didn't then we're dealing with an isolated case of violence with little or no connection to the larger Islamic insurgency which Al-Qaida represents. You cannot regard any violent action by Muslims as a part of single cohesive movement.

Sure you can, so long as there's evidence to support it. There's been no specific tie to al-Qaeda (not surprising, as "al-Qaeda" is, outside of Osama bin-Laden's immediate circle, a loosely-affiliated group of groups), but the murder of Mr. Van Gogh was also not "an isolated case of violence." The Netherlands has maddening trial secrecy laws, but nonetheless it's becoming increasingly clear that the murderer was not a lone nutjob but the leader of a fundamentalist Islamist jihadi group and that Mr. Van Gogh's murder was indeed only the beginning for that group.

 

[CapelDodger]

Islamist recruitment in the West is overwhelmingly from Muslims born here (and non-Muslim converts, which is an interesting phaenomenon in itself). Immigrants are likely to be motivated, have some money and saleable skills, expect some degree of discrimination and don't expect to have an easy time. Muslim immigrants are more likely to be getting away from Islam than eager to spread it. Native-born generations who find themselves discriminated against are the ones who get resentful. They reverse earlier generations' neglect of Islam, and the teachers they turn to are very often foreign, since the local community hasn't been producing enough of its own clerics. (Consider all those Irish priests in the US.) Those teachers are more than likely paid for by Wahabbists. So their students learn a perverted version of Islam, and have no respect for those telling them different. There's the problem.

In France, the Netherlands and the UK (at least) governments and Muslim communities are trying to promote more local training of teachers, which seems sensible.

 

[Manny]

Islamist recruitment in the West is overwhelmingly from Muslims born here (and non-Muslim converts, which is an interesting phaenomenon in itself).

That's the pattern in the UK, the US, Canada and to a lesser extent Germany. In the rest of continental Europe the largest single group has been recently-migrated Moroccans. These guys usually come from dirt-poor backgrounds and multi-generational fundamentalist families, some of which were ostracized in Morocco precisely because of their intolerance. In other words, one of the few groups of terrorist recruits who match the stereotype given to terrorist recruits as a whole. Others who don't fit the stereotypes include the groups you mentioned, the largely well-off and well-educated Saudis who make up the center of al Qaeda (and provided the 9/11 attackers) and the mostly poor Arabs who lack the skills or money to emigrate to the west but who are now streaming into Iraq.

Those diverse groups are a reason the "racial profiling" thing early on after 9/11 was so dumb. What, you're going to pick out Moroccans? 90% of Moroccans, and about 98% of those who can afford their own airfare, are close allies and friends. While TSA is in the back room screening a good friend, a white guy with dreadlocks from one of those convert groups you talked about is waltzing through with his shoe bomb.

 

[Elind]

So where does Islam twist from being a religion of one viewpoint, to being one of almost the opposite? Is it in only certain nations, ones that have the political environment dominated by theocracy? Or is it the other way around, the fact that Islam is more often found in these countries which enforce the faith through law?

My opinion is not as a scholar or expert on Islam, or the Koran, but from impressions of having lived in places like Saudi Arabia, for quite a few years, in the 70's and 80's mostly.

There is probably truth in most of the opinions expressed here, and it is also true that any extreme sect can get believers to do almost anything. That is not unique to Islam.

My opinion for the main reason for the degenerate version of Islam that we read of daily, is that ALL of Islam is a very very controlling belief form; and therefore it is relatively easy for extremists to twist some, many, believers into the kind of acts we know.

Start with the fact that a Muslim has to pray 5 times per day, and is expected to so with company. You are either a real muslim following the rules, or you are not.

Add the fact that much of the Koran and other texts are concerned with everyday behaviour rules and ritualism.

Add the fact that, while belief in heaven is not unique to Islam, the believers have very specific ideas (as they have been told) of the rewards that will be found there.

Add the fact that partly due to their attitudes towards women, and preoccupation with sex in general, they have real problems assimilating in or accepting aspects of modern civilizations.

The only real option for acceptance, by those who see themselves as failures and outsiders, lies in going deeper into Islam, and perhaps going to heaven where what they are denied here will be allowed.

Put all this together, and more, and you have a strongly religious based culture that is easy to turn to extremism and which even in it's more moderate forms will probably never be able to assimilate into western societies. I say the latter on the basis that those muslims I have know who appeared to do so were quite obviously not religious beyond doing what they needed to to keep face when at home. The serious ones were something else entirely.

 

[Elind]

Those diverse groups are a reason the "racial profiling" thing early on after 9/11 was so dumb. What, you're going to pick out Moroccans? 90% of Moroccans, and about 98% of those who can afford their own airfare, are close allies and friends. While TSA is in the back room screening a good friend, a white guy with dreadlocks from one of those convert groups you talked about is waltzing through with his shoe bomb.

Why is it dumb? Even though 90% of "Morrocans" (to use your label) are friendly; 99% of terrorists come from the remaining 10%, and not from white guys with dreadlocks (who should also be profiled, BTW).

Tell them sorry, but if they are not smart enough to understand simple percentages they shouldn't travel, like your friend.

 

[Manny]

Not sure of your question. If you're using profiling to select white guys with dreads, it's not racial profiling, or even profiling by nationality. My point is that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have been sufficiently successful at recruiting from all kinds of different races, classes and nationalities that using one of those factors to select for additional scrutiny would simply drive the terrorists to select someone not in a profiled group. Richard Reid was of Jamiacan and English descent and a second-generation citizen of Great Britain. Better to profile by behavior (which, for the record, is why the FAA and the airlines needs to do datamining on passengers).

 

[Elind]

Not sure of your question. If you're using profiling to select white guys with dreads, it's not racial profiling, or even profiling by nationality. My point is that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have been sufficiently successful at recruiting from all kinds of different races, classes and nationalities that using one of those factors to select for additional scrutiny would simply drive the terrorists to select someone not in a profiled group. Richard Reid was of Jamiacan and English descent and a second-generation citizen of Great Britain. Better to profile by behavior (which, for the record, is why the FAA and the airlines needs to do datamining on passengers).

I don't care if you call profiling racial or something else. A profile is a profile and it's pretty clear what it is these days. Reid is the only partial exception that I can think of right now, but I believe he WAS accurately profiled and searched because he appeared strange. The problem was they didn't find the shoe bombs due to lack of experience at the time.

Random searching should be done, but in conjunction with profiling.

I don't know where you get the bit about terrorists being "sufficiently successful at recruiting from all kinds of different races, classes and nationalities".

 

[CapelDodger]

Random searching should be done, but in conjunction with profiling.

Profiling is counter-productive because it increases resentment. There may seem to be short-term advantages but deleterious medium-term effects are missed because profiling tends to confirm itself. That is, resentment of profiling is dimissed because profiling tells you those profiled were already resentful. And the profiled think "screw you". The short-term advantage is illusory. What is needed is accurate intelligence work to identify the sources of infection, which is difficult, grinding work that does not feed the voting public with the red meat they demand right now if not before.

Which reminds me (on a disconnected note) : wasn't Bush the Younger's team actually in charge of preventing 9/11 before it happened? And now people are expected to trust their scheme for preventing the next attack? What's that all about? Why do they still have their jobs? It wouldn't happen in the market economy.

 

[CapelDodger]

That's the pattern in the UK, the US, Canada and to a lesser extent Germany. In the rest of continental Europe the largest single group has been recently-migrated Moroccans. These guys usually come from dirt-poor backgrounds and multi-generational fundamentalist families, some of which were ostracized in Morocco precisely because of their intolerance.

This is not the information I've gathered. The largest Moroccan community is in France (an ex-Imperial power) and is well-established but not well-integrated. That's the main source of recruits from France. The Moroccan intolerance that promotes Islamism is that of the Moroccan monarchic government. It also creates asylum-seekers, which is an entirely separate group from immigrants. A proportion of them will be "of the cause" already (others are just too religious, others are unacceptably "Westernised", meaning liberals, democrats and general free-thinkers. Whatever, they are still victimised for their beliefs and thus eligible for asylum). It clouds the picture.

Random uconnected fact : More Turks, proportionally, than Iranians attend Friday prayers. Make of that what you will.

 

[Elind]

Profiling is counter-productive because it increases resentment. There may seem to be short-term advantages but deleterious medium-term effects are missed because profiling tends to confirm itself. That is, resentment of profiling is dimissed because profiling tells you those profiled were already resentful. And the profiled think "screw you". The short-term advantage is illusory. What is needed is accurate intelligence work to identify the sources of infection, which is difficult, grinding work that does not feed the voting public with the red meat they demand right now if not before.

Which reminds me (on a disconnected note) : wasn't Bush the Younger's team actually in charge of preventing 9/11 before it happened? And now people are expected to trust their scheme for preventing the next attack? What's that all about? Why do they still have their jobs? It wouldn't happen in the market economy.

First part; you seem to suggest that "resentment" for being profiled results in resentment turning into genuine terrorism, or that it simply shouldn't be done because the profile group resents it. I'm not quite sure which point, or both, you mean. At this time, like it or not, a crude profile of a terrorist is a young Middle Eastern male, who is probably resentful or nervous of being profiled. That is a hell of a lot more accurate than a blond teenager from Denmark. If the profile should change in the future, then change the profiling. In the meantime use random checks as well, just in case.

Second part; I agree that is getting a bit disconnected. You are 6 hours ahead I believe, which may be the reason. I try to stop by 1am, if not a bit earlier for cognitive reasons.

 

[CapelDodger]

First part; you seem to suggest that "resentment" for being profiled results in resentment turning into genuine terrorism ...

People are going to lie somewhere along a spectrum of resentment, somewhere along which lies the tipping-point. If you push generalised resentment up, some people that would not otherwise have crossed that point will. When success in Iraq is claimed because of the elimination of hundreds of terrorists, and the potential market numbers in the millions, any general increase in resentment should be avoided.

We're using the term "profiling" because the practice generated enough resentment to be noticed within the US long before the war on terror. It spawned the term "Driving While Black". It really pisses people off generally. Any increase of disenchantment people have with their own society is liable to have leverage, especially when there are people around eager to expolit it.