Islamic terrorism-- what's up with that?

[Eugene V. Debs]

Sorry I couldn't think of a classier title, but this is really a spin-off from another thread where ChamberedRound smacked us to get back on topic.

So the question is "What is responsible for the modern phenomenon of Islamic terrorism?" The right and the left in this country offer simplistic answers that contain a kernel of the truth, but not the whole truth. In my opinion, both left and right are partially correct in their explanations, but often overlook other key reasons. So I'll address the most common explanations first--

The Usual Suspects-- The Right

1. So the first common explanation, offered by the right, is that there is something intrinsically violent and oppressive with the Muslim faith, even in comparison with other religions like Christianity and Judaism. I actually think there is some truth to this, at least when comparing Islam to Christianity. Although Christianity has been responsible for its share of oppression and violence over the ages, it does have a message of forgiveness at its theological core. The New Testament messages of "turn the other cheek" and the "meek shall inherit the Earth" are not as prominent in the Quran and Muslim tradition, which seems to owe more to the "obey or God will kick your sorry ass" and "the chosen people get to commit genocide and anything else they like because they are favored by God" messages of the Old Testament.

The Usual Suspects-- The Left

2. The second common explanation, offered by the left, is that Western foreign policy has led to Islamic terrorism. Again, I think there is some truth here, on a few levels--

a. British colonialism. British rule over the old Ottoman Empire and other regions of the Middle East and North Africa had some pretty long-term negative consequences. For one thing, national borders were drawn without regard to national groupings or religion, which has led to serious social problems that exist to this day. What's happening in Iraq right now is a good example. Joe Biden may be a douche, but he is absolutely correct in his analysis that the Shia, Sunni and Kurds are essentially three separate national groups. British colonialism also help put the oil wealth of these nations in the hands of foreigners and corrupt rulers.

b. American neocolonialism (or foreign policy if you prefer a less-normatively loaded term). Three basic things--

(1) Support for Israel. Don't wanna get into a debate about whether we should be supporting Israel or not, let's just say that we do and the Arabs and Muslims don't like it, and leave it at that.

(2) Support for tyrants in the Arab and Muslim world. We've been propping up Hosni Mubarak's corrupt tyranny for years, which, along with Israel, is our biggest recipient of foreign military aid. We also engage in lots of direct military sales and military training to the corrupt royals of Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states.

(3) The Soviet-Afghan War. This one's huge. Our government greatly accelerated the growth of the global Islamic terrorist threat when the CIA brought mujahadeen from all over the world to Pakistan, trained and equipped them, then sent them across the border to fight the Soviets and PDPA forces in Afghanistan. Global Islamic terrorist networks simply didn't exist on that scale before then. Prior to Afghanistan, the major global terrorist networks were secular and the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad but babies.

Less commonly-cited reasons

3. Politicization of Islam in tyrannical Muslim countries. The question that comes to mind from 2.b.(2) above is "Okay, Muslims aren't happy with their governments or US support of these governments, why doesn't this get channeled into legitimate political parties more?" Well, that's because in these countries, like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, opposition political movements are suppressed, or in the latter case, outright criminalized. Mosques provide one of the few organizational "safe spaces" for opposition politics, so the political opposition becomes religious in nature.

4. The failure of secular movements in the 20th century Arab and Muslim world. Arab Socialism, Ba'athism, Pan Arabism and Nasserism, even more orthodox Marxism and Maoism, were all powerful ideological currents in the Arab world up until the late 1970s. Although I still have a soft spot in my heart for Nasserism, it, like every other movement above that managed to take state power, failed to significantly improve the liberty or economic well-being of its people, although some modest gains for women and religious minorities did occur. The PDPA in Afghanistan had made some pretty big strides with Soviet assistance (especially in the status of women), but their power never went much outside of Kabul, and we all know what happened to that regime. Faced with the failure of secular political reform, many have turned to religion.

5. Related to the above is the fall of the Soviet Union. This had an impact in two ways...

a. Without patronage from the USSR, many of the secular political opposition movements withered and died, with Islamists filling the vaccum.

b. Now that their atheist enemy of the Soviet Union was no longer a threat, Islamic terrorists could now safely turn their guns on the West

6. Islam is still relatively young. Religiosity and fundamentalism of a faith's adherents tends to soften with time and the religion's institutions liberalize. Islam is 500 years younger than Christianity, and although adherents to the Christian faith are still responsible for horrible religious oppression and violence, it's not nearly as bad as it was 500 years ago. Maybe Islam just needs 500 years to calm the fuck down.

So that's my two cents on the issue. What do other people think?

[Pector55]

1. So the first common explanation, offered by the right, is that there is something intrinsically violent and oppressive with the Muslim faith,

No, they don't. I had to stop you right there.
What I believe, is that we, as a PC society wish to look at Islamic Extremism as a simple responsive thing which we caused somehow. I believe this view is incorrect.

Islamic Extremism is no different than any other extremism. There are extremists on the right who hate abortion so much they blow up abortion clinics. There are extremists on the left who are so whacked out, they kill people to free animals used for medical testing.

Extremists are passionate and dangerous because they are blind loyalist followers to the point of allowing their rage lead to violence. The reason Islamic Extremists are so dangerous is that they turn it into a cultural thing, which preys on their young to indoctrinate into their violent ways. Even if you are of the same faith, you will be killed for denouncing their beliefs.

When did it start? Who or what is responsible? I believe that goes back to before the Muslim Brotherhood formation where a group basically said it's our way or no way.

I think the solution is a supportive effort to create a joint-religion / non-religous culture which supports one another so more folks refuse to embrace it. When the leader of your country preaches hate, (Iran) you are not there yet.

[Eugene V. Debs]

No, they don't. I had to stop you right there.
What I believe, is that we, as a PC society wish to look at Islamic Extremism as a simple responsive thing which we caused somehow. I believe this view is incorrect.

Islamic Extremism is no different than any other extremism. There are extremists on the right who hate abortion so much they blow up abortion clinics. There are extremists on the left who are so whacked out, they kill people to free animals used for medical testing.

Extremists are passionate and dangerous because they are blind loyalist followers to the point of allowing their rage lead to violence. The reason Islamic Extremists are so dangerous is that they turn it into a cultural thing, which preys on their young to indoctrinate into their violent ways. Even if you are of the same faith, you will be killed for denouncing their beliefs.

When did it start? Who or what is responsible? I believe that goes back to before the Muslim Brotherhood formation where a group basically said it's our way or no way.

I think the solution is a supportive effort to create a joint-religion / non-religous culture which supports one another so more folks refuse to embrace it. When the leader of your country preaches hate, (Iran) you are not there yet.

No they don't what? And who's they? Thanks.

[adymond]

No, they don't. I had to stop you right there.
What I believe, is that we, as a PC society wish to look at Islamic Extremism as a simple responsive thing which we caused somehow. I believe this view is incorrect.

Islamic Extremism is no different than any other extremism. There are extremists on the right who hate abortion so much they blow up abortion clinics. There are extremists on the left who are so whacked out, they kill people to free animals used for medical testing.

Extremists are passionate and dangerous because they are blind loyalist followers to the point of allowing their rage lead to violence. The reason Islamic Extremists are so dangerous is that they turn it into a cultural thing, which preys on their young to indoctrinate into their violent ways. Even if you are of the same faith, you will be killed for denouncing their beliefs.

When did it start? Who or what is responsible? I believe that goes back to before the Muslim Brotherhood formation where a group basically said it's our way or no way.

I think the solution is a supportive effort to create a joint-religion / non-religous culture which supports one another so more folks refuse to embrace it. When the leader of your country preaches hate, (Iran) you are not there yet.

I wish I had something to add, but you pretty much just took the words out of my mouth. I don't think anyone is saying Islam is fundamentally violent. That is something the blowhards try to convince people the right is saying (sure maybe some biggots are saying it, but not "the right"). At the core is a relatively young religion whose adherents believe the words of God are accurately captured in the Qur' an. Couple that with the lust for power and the ability to speak with conviction and charisma and you have the breeding ground for violent extremism.

If I can take sections of the Qur' an and use them to show why it is not just acceptable to kill non-believers, but is actually the duty of all good Muslims to do that I have effectively proven that God wants non-believers to die. This is actually counter to the teachings of Islam as a whole, but it can be effective. The Islamic Militants have learned from Hitler how to mobilize violent acts. That is how extremists operate though. They take something people are passionate about (usually religion) and twist it to serve their purposes.

Just the fact that jihad has been bastardized should be clear evidence that the religion has been hijacked. It is an internal strugle. It is a defensive strugle. Innocents are not to be killed, buildings are not to be destroyed, children are not to be killed, women are not to be killed, plants are to be preserved, animals are to be preserved, only those actively attacking you wielding a weapon are permitted to be killed. With the Qur' an being organized by length of chapter and not chronology that adds another problem since the more suggestively violent chapters appear closer to the end that is used to show that as Islam was given to Man by God it was to become more and more violent.

[adymond]

Sorry I couldn't think of a classier title, but this is really a spin-off from another thread where ChamberedRound smacked us to get back on topic.

So the question is "What is responsible for the modern phenomenon of Islamic terrorism?" The right and the left in this country offer simplistic answers that contain a kernel of the truth, but not the whole truth. In my opinion, both left and right are partially correct in their explanations, but often overlook other key reasons. So I'll address the most common explanations first--

The Usual Suspects-- The Right

1. So the first common explanation, offered by the right, is that there is something intrinsically violent and oppressive with the Muslim faith

No they don't. Referring to the bolded text at the end.

I guess I did have more to add.

[Pector55]

No they don't what? And who's they? Thanks.

Oh you know who "they" is. They watch you masterbate.

[Eugene V. Debs]

No they don't. Referring to the bolded text at the end.

I guess I did have more to add.

Okay, I get it.

You sure about that? You wanna read some of the stuff Coulter, Savage and Horowitz have said about Islam? And those are just the talking heads, some of the shit spewed by major fundamentalist Christian ministers in this country is just as bad or worse.

Just because YOU, as a conservative, aren't saying that, doesn't mean no one on the American Right is. In fact, plenty of hate-mongers out there styling themselves "conservative" are saying just that.

Again, I think there's a kernel of truth to it, but the fact that these people ONLY focus on that (and think their own religion is so damn high and mighty) is what makes them bigots.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Oh you know who "they" is. They watch you masterbate.

What do all my friends, family and co-workers have to do with this?

[adymond]

What do all my friends, family and co-workers have to do with this?

That right there was some funny shit.

[adymond]

Okay, I get it.

You sure about that? You wanna read some of the stuff Coulter, Savage and Horowitz have said about Islam? And those are just the talking heads, some of the shit spewed by major fundamentalist Christian ministers in this country is just as bad or worse.

Just because YOU, as a conservative, aren't saying that, doesn't mean no one on the American Right is. In fact, plenty of hate-mongers out there styling themselves "conservative" are saying just that.

Again, I think there's a kernel of truth to it, but the fact that these people ONLY focus on that (and think their own religion is so damn high and mighty) is what makes them bigots.

I guess I would like to see the entirety (sp?) of their statements because it would piss me off if they are saying what you suggest. I have a big problem though lumping all of the people on the right into a group because some loud mouths are being published. I don't (or try not to) do it to the left. I try to make distinctions between liberals and socialists and Democrats. The same with Islam. I don't lump them all together because there are some fundamentalists hijacking the religion in the press (sort of a pun there huh?). Fundamentalists are no different regardless of their religion. Orthodox believers are different than fundamentalists in today's context. The talk radio I listen to (conservatives like Bennett, Church, Beck, Hannity) are clear that most Muslims are decent people, they just need to let the sack drop and stand up to the nutjobs.

I will disagree that there is any truth behind the claim that Islam is any more violent than any other religion. Not even Bhuddism is free of a history of violence.