(...)
Which brings us to the threat of radical Islam. "You are decadent and hedonistic. We on the other hand are willing to die for what we believe, and we are a billion strong. You cannot kill all of us, so you will have to accede to what we demand." That, in a nutshell, constitutes the Islamist challenge to the West.

Neither the demographic shift toward Muslim immigrants nor meretricious self-interest explains Western Europe's appeasement of Islam, but rather the terrifying logic of the numbers. That is why President Bush has thrown his prestige behind the rickety prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian peace. And that is why Islamism has only lost a battle in Iraq, but well
might win the war.
(...)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG08Ak02.html

____________________________________________
There's a place at 127.0.0.1 - I've seen it!

Ok, let's stipulate that since some radical Islamists have declared war, that war is in fact on, whether the West is willing to play along or not. Problem is, a billion Muslims aren't willing to die for what they believe.

A Google search produces a claim that the population of Muslims is growing %6.4 per year. Let's assume that 1% of that billion each year are willing to die. That leaves a long-term growth rate still over 5%. So where are the ten million suicide bombers?

How about 1% of 1%? One hundred thousand, even the highest estimates of Iraqi casualties in the war pale in comparison, and I don't think they were all willing sacrifices in the name of Islam.

Or 1% of 1% of 1%, just one in a million Muslims each year willing to die for what they believe. That's a thousand a year. Maybe the war in Afghanistan in 2001 produced casualties above that mark. But how many other years, and did those casualties produce a sense of victory for radical Islam and defeat for the West?

If the West accedes to Islam, it won't be because Muslims were willing to die, but that Westerners proved unwilling to fight. I'm not sure the evidence so far points in that direction.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

also, when dealing with an enemy who seems to think that the 7th Century was the highpoint for human culture - its not going to be hard to out tech them.

they have the internet on computers now?

quote:

---

If the West accedes to Islam, it won't be because Muslims were willing to die, but that Westerners proved unwilling to fight. I'm not sure the evidence so far points in that direction.

---

This again. You simply cannot identify, find and kill every terrorist or potential terrorist. This "conflict" cannot be won militarily, not even by the US.

The only way to stop terrorism is to remove the causes of it: the poverty, the hopelessness, the repressive governments we support, the exploitative corporate interests we foist on them.

6/8 Dm Fmaj7 C9 Em G13

"This 'conflict' cannot be won militarily, not even by the US."

Somebody ought to tell that to radical Islam.

And let's suppose the US accedes to their demands, will that bring an end to poverty, hopelessness, repressive government, and rule by special interests?

I'm afraid I remain unconvinced by the root causes argument. Where are the Haitian terrorists driven by poverty and hopelessness? The Freedom Fighters attacking the Chinese oligarchy to end repression?

Well, ok, maybe there are enough smashed-in Starbucks and McDonalds during anti-globalism demonstrations to support the argument that expensive coffee and/or styrofoam containers can lead to violence.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBellham:
I'm afraid I remain unconvinced by the root causes argument. Where are the Haitian terrorists driven by poverty and hopelessness? The Freedom Fighters attacking the Chinese oligarchy to end repression?

---

Well JB, you asked now, didn't you?

As always, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. To put it crudely, certainly we should start working on eliminating some of the root causes of terrorism as a long-term solution, but in the meantime I believe it really is necessary to find bad guys and blow them into tiny little pieces. Just as with domestic crime, eliminating or ameliorating the social causes of crime won't eliminate all the criminals currently running around.

Politics is a big whore. -Romanian proverb

Allow me to clarify: Where are the Haitian terrorists attacking the United States? Where are the *Chinese* terrorists (and not Mulsim Uighers) attacking their own repressive government?

If the root cause of radical Islamic terrorists is radical Islam, then the lack of correlations elsewhere isn't a problem. But if the above list of root causes can be used to explain Muslim terror attacks on the US or 'the West' then we should see terrorism in places we don't see it.

I don't dispute the thesis that poverty and hopelessness can radicalize small groups in a population, but I don't think it's sufficient to explain the distribution of terrorist groups we see.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

quote:

---

But if the above list of root causes can be used to explain Muslim terror attacks on the US or 'the West' then we should see terrorism in places we don't see it.

---

Well, yes, unless there are other factors that explain why we don't - and there will be other factors, because - y'know - it's complex.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that I had the unpleasant experience of listening to pundits tie themselves in knots trying to explain why Muslim terrorists would possibly want to bomb Oklahoma City. You're not suggesting McVeigh was a closet Islamist, are you?

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

Surely there can be more than one root cause for terrorism. 'Radical Islam' is one part of the puzzle, but without oppression and certain elements of US/Western foreign policy there wouldn't be the kind of terrorism we see today.

Since any attempt to eliminate 'Radical Islam' itself is going to involve telling people how to think and/or killing people, attacking the other contributing factors seems reasonable, or at least like something that should be considered.

I don't actually believe the US can realistically do very much to appease the terrorists anyway, but, Mr. Bellham, you sound like you're trying make 'Radical Islam' out as the sole cause of terrorism, and you know that isn't true. (So I must be misinterpreting you... I hope.)

Edit: Whoops, simulposted with RobW. Carry on...

________
You have to give up.

I have to agree with John on this one.
The 19 hi-jackers involved in 9/11 were all from priviliged backgrounds.
OBL is a fucking millionare.
al-Qadia is like the old 70's Red Brigade or Red Army Faction - a group of spoilt bored rich kids.

they have the internet on computers now?

The lack of opportunities in the Arab world is only surpassed by that in sub-saharan Africa. Add to that a lack of civil and political liberties unsurpassed, even in sub-saharan Africa. And a multitude of other problems, which are all the direct result of bad governance by corrupted and self-aggrandizing dictatorships, several of them kept in their seats by American aid, others using the Isreali-Palestine conflict as an excuse for surpressing their own people.

This is not my personal view, but that of the Arab team who wrote the 2002 UNHD report on the Arab world. The situation in the Arab world is worse. By every measure. And as it is, there is no hope, no future for young people. Even in Haiti, the people still rise, still hope things can be changed.

ps: the terrorists in the 70's were middle-class kids too. I think a 'no-future' situation and hypocrisy are as conductive (or more) to terrorism as poverty.

The 9-11 terrorists were well-educated and well-off. But they had no influence and very small job-opportunities in their home-countries and no hope of that changing. *And* they were brought up listening to a load of BS about holy sites and jihad, whith American soldiers right on the doorstep. All that is very similar to the 70's bunch, except their fathers were fundamentalist Christian and closet nazis.

"You're not suggesting McVeigh was a closet Islamist, are you?"

No, but the evidence seems much better that he acted out of motives having more to do with ideology than poverty and hopelessness. Nor does it seem clear his opposition to government had more to do with repression and being owned by big business than that it didn't submit to the dictates of his ideology.

"Mr. Bellham, you sound like you're trying make 'Radical Islam' out as the sole cause of terrorism"

When I say I'm unconvinced by the root causes argument I'm referring to the list cited by digitalprimate, and others like them. Root causes typically leave out radical ideology as a contributory cause, placing the burden on economic and political factors, and that's what I'm questioning.

So rest assured I'm not saying ideology is the sole cause. But I think in some cases it may be sufficient, while socioeconomic factors alone seldom are. My best guess is that digitalprimate's list can provide a few powderkegs, but ideology is typically required to light the match and add fuel of it's own to keep the fires burning.

I don't know enough about Islam to judge the claim that it is a religion peculiarly suited to violent radicalization. I remain unconvinced about those sorts of claims, too. In fact, I've placed a hold on the Oxford History of Islam at my local library, to look into just that question.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

I think one of the biggest mistakes in this article, that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that it assumes that because the situation looks hopeless for us (the West) it must look better for the Islamic terrorists.

But if you ask me, it looks even worse for them. They face a great deal people, that are not going to change there way of life, equal how many of them they kill. This beside, they also are very well equipped: "suicide-attacks" are not a necessary weapon, 'the West' can just throw some bombs and destroy & kill in minutes what 100 Islamic-Suicide-attackers couldn’t kill in years. Even the "You cannot kill all of us" statement is wrong. Because 'the West' do can. It can nuke the 'Islam' into peaces … and most likely itself too.

It really is a worn out situation.

And like John, I agree that the root cause argument seems to be pretty wrong.
What is this root cause?
Once would think that they want to be left alone – in that case provoking the 'enemy' is for sure, the wrong strategy.
Another reason that pops into mind, is that they are simply jealous, but a 'M' already mentioned most of them are upper class and come from an educated and wealthy environment.

So, the question remains, what is the root cause?

Until we know that, there is very less we can do. Seeking and eliminating key persons still seems, even if almost uneffective, the best cause of action so far.

However, provocation of the civil population for sure is the wrong way, because that will only cause more terrorism.

So where is this James Bond when we need him?

____________________________________________
There's a place at 127.0.0.1 - I've seen it!

In my opinion, we are leaving out what AQ and other fundamentalist muslim organizations are fighting for. Not necessarily AQ leadership, but many of the other muslim organizations that have associated with them in exchange of training facilities and lots of money.

The attacks on the West are not the main action. For them it was a sideshow. The actual fighting is taking place every day in Algers, Chechnya, Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabaj...

Attacking the West is like getting a big TV advertisement campaign. You become the big kid in the block, the reference, even the alternative, the one who can hurt the gods.

The US action has had advantages for the terrorists, and many disadvantages. Recruitment among the disaffected youth is higher than ever, people are willing to defy their governments to show support for terrorists, and "moderate" muslim regimes are more and more alienated from their subjects.

Of course, now they have recruits but they lack trainers, training camps, their funding lines are drying up or being compromised, and they have had to revert to a cell structure, less capable of big scale operations.

Let's not forget that Islam is not monolithic, and that religious division. Hezbollah will never work with AQ, for instance, because they are shi'a, and the others are not.

Before they even get to reclaiming the califate they would have a religious war in their hands. As Irak shows today.

But we will be implicated in the war while Israel remains an ally, no matter how maligned, of the West. Because that is also a religious war. And religious war only end in two significant ways:

- Genocide
- Displacement

I do not believe this will be any different.

José

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise we were privileging the straw man of "poverty and hopelessness" as the only other possible alternative motivation to some killcrazy mindset that just leapt out of people's heads de novo. Middle-class terrorists couldn't be angry for other reasons, and certainly couldn't be angered by the poverty and hopelessness of other people because, as we all know, being even remotely interested in anyone but yourself is inherently irrational. Glad we got that settled.

Ideology is not the bugbear here - or, to be precise, it comes way down the list of causes. People get murderous because they get angry. And the reason other people who've been as royally fucked over by the West as have the people of the Middle East and Indonesia don't - in this era - engage in terroristic violence is not because they lack motivation, it's because they lack means. Seriously. And unless you think you can keep means beyond them forever, I strongly suggest you think about easing up on the irritation.

You know, ideas like "well, it must be radical Islam (whatever that is)" depend very much on timing. Anybody having this conversation in the Eighties would have wondered if Catholics also had a problem with violence, what with the Central American guerillas and IRA gunmen about. Did we have Islamic terrorists a hundred years ago? If we didn't, what's the difference between then and now? Ideology? Or history, events - the things that have been done in the world?

I don't get this "it's an irrational viewpoint so why bother modifying our behaviour even if it riles people up" position. Are you saying that oppressed and destitute people are usually cheerful and placid and it's only these "radical ideologies" that are getting them uppitty? Or is it that as long as we hold off the ideology, we can let 'em get riled up without it turning into something pathological? I can't help thinking it might just be more effective to not get people riled up. And while you're at it, not founding and arming international terror networks because you have some bright idea about giving Russia their own VietNam.

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

The most efficient way to stop terror is to adress the root causes. (While getting permanently rid of the existing terrorists).

I don't think I have ever met a terrorist, but in the winter of 80/81 I hung around a group of activists, and among them were about a dozen young men who were fascinated by, and connected with German terrorism. These guys went to seminars in 'armed resistance' in Berlin. And arranged lectures in this city with the few prominent German defenders of terrorism that weren't already locked up.

These guys never became terrorists, though I suspect they are still 'well connected'. But a main factor in stopping them was the strong and consistent public protest against the small scale violent activism they did engage in. They had no 'hinterland' of non-violent admirers.

So in that, I think the Spanish people are doing the right thing.

But what were the 'root-causes' behind these young mens obviously sick reasoning?

They were consistently from families with an authoritarian father figure, mostly religious families.
They were consistently from middle-class or higher level families, which placed demands on them/had ambitions for them, that they were blocked by society from achieving: In 1980, here, it was no longer possible to establish a 1950's style family, based on for instance one public servant salary.
They were consistently 'macho'-men, in a social environment where 'macho' no longer signalled strength and wealth, but weakness and inability to negotiate the world. (And incidently, the girls who admired them were typically totally brain-dead bimbos from similar backgrounds).
They were consistently reasonably intelligent and doing OK+ at college/university, but as stated above, not able to deal with the social aspects of learning and building a career.

My view of them, then and now, was they were idiots. But I also felt, then and now, they were men with no choices in life.

It seems to me that the current situation in the Middle East produces hundreds, maybe even thousands of these men. And that the sick authority which shaped the men I met, is not only a private, family factor, but a public, state situation.

"And like John, I agree that the root cause argument seems to be pretty wrong."

Not wrong, just insufficient.

"The attacks on the West are not the main action. For them it was a sideshow."

Perhaps, but then it is as big a mistake as Hitler attacking Russia then declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. And may be the product of a similar delusion drawn from ideological fervor and unltimately the blindness it can cause.

"Oh, sorry, I didn't realise we were privileging the straw man of "poverty and hopelessness" as the only other possible alternative"

Dude, what thread are you reading? Who and what post makes that claim?

"Did we have Islamic terrorists a hundred years ago?"

Yes. Well, America didn't but the European colonial powers did.

"it's an irrational viewpoint so why bother modifying our behaviour even if it riles people up"

Again, which thread are you reading? Can you provide a link for it so we can read it too?

"Are you saying that oppressed and destitute people are usually cheerful and placid and it's only these 'radical ideologies' that are getting them uppitty?"

No, I'm saying, "My best guess is that digitalprimate's list can provide a few powderkegs, but ideology is typically required to light the match and add fuel of it's own to keep the fires burning."

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

Other conflicts, other reasons.
Some terrorists fight for freedome, other fight for quite not such nobel reasons. But what actually are the Islamic-terrorist's fight for in, in the West?

Maybe JRE's suggestion is true ... it was just a side-show to draw attentions to there 'inner' conflicts. If so, it would be a bad move -> coz, they would have not only drawn attantion to the existing problems, mainly they would gain an even more powerful enemy.

____________________________________________
There's a place at 127.0.0.1 - I've seen it!

quote:

---

As always, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. To put it crudely, certainly we should start working on eliminating some of the root causes of terrorism as a long-term solution, but in the meantime I believe it really is necessary to find bad guys and blow them into tiny little pieces. Just as with domestic crime, eliminating or ameliorating the social causes of crime won't eliminate all the criminals currently running around.

---

i couldn't have articulated it more precisely.

(Insert witticism here)