Walk a mile in Omar's shoes

[Jadeite]

For anyone looking to get a good idea of what the enemy thinks of us, I recommend browsing +http://irandefence.net/

[Coyote]

And what of suicide bombers in Palestine who were never particularly religious? Simply by reducing the enemy to the religiously motivated suicide bomber, you are already engaging in the act of reducing complexities to 2-dimensional cardboard caricatures.

There is a vast population of people out there who despise America, and who can be pushed to support or at least condone acts of violence and terrorism against Americans. The "enemy" is whatever makes them think this way, and the tiny fraction of them who go over the edge and become suicide bombers are merely a symptom of the problem.

There are indeed many people out there that despise America, and many with good reason. However, off all the various groups out there that despise America, whice subset of which population group is it that engages in suicide bombings? It's not the Chinese, the Africans, the Latin Americans... it's the Arab-Muslim population, and even the ones who are "not religious" in Palestine still frequently leave "martyr" videos behind; their images plastered on walls as "great martyrs"... a coat of religious approval washes their sacrifice down, even if they themselves may not have been fervent mosque worshippers-- like the killers that went on the Crusades, trying to atone for their sins in an act of Godly violence.

[Coyote]

The problem is that this is what the "fundamentalist" muslims REJECT. They know no history, and they explicitly reject all of the great thinkers of Islam for leading them astray to their current situation. They want to go back to the source, to the Koran and the Hadiths, and that, plus some interpretations of Salaffiyah clerics should be enough to understand the mindset of the average muslim.

Unfortunately, reformist Salafiyya has been shut down for centuries, and the Koran and Hadiths are no longer allowable for reinterpretation. The closest thing to a Caliphate right now at al-Azhar in Cairo won't entertain any new Salafiyya philosophies-- to imply that the Koran is imperfect and needs to be modernized is unacceptable.

The ulema have closed the exit ramp on Salafiyyah, and are hoping for the weeds to regrow over the road and obscure its paths forever.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since 9/11 I've studied the Quran and the Hadiths, with the rigour of anyone in a Madrassa; I can name and discuss the great thinkers of Islam, and list her Holy-Warriors of fifteen hundred years of history with ease. I know the circumstances of all the great tumults of Islamic history, of their success and their failure. I understand the appropriate motivations of someone under Islam and the philosophy that the religion inoculates into others. I've come to deeply respect most of our enemies for their utmost adherence to their own faith.

Are you so sure that all of America's enemies can be characterized as Islamic religious fundamentalists? That is certainly one source of America's foreign-policy woes, but we in the West have given a lot of people in other parts of the world plenty of perfectly viable non-religious reasons to hate us.

It describes all known suicide bombers who targeted the United States or United States forces. Certainly there are other enemies, but the specific issue in the thread was one about suicide bombers, so I focused on that matter exclusively.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem is that this is what the "fundamentalist" muslims REJECT. They know no history, and they explicitly reject all of the great thinkers of Islam for leading them astray to their current situation. They want to go back to the source, to the Koran and the Hadiths, and that, plus some interpretations of Salaffiyah clerics should be enough to understand the mindset of the average muslim.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

On the contrary, they fully understand Islamic history, and by "great thinkers" I'm referring to religious scholars, not philosophers. I've actually read the works of the founder of Salafism, for instance. I had to pay to get it translated out of Italian no less, as that was the only copy I could find. They are quite aware of the nature of both their internal enemies in Islam and their external ones, and some of their critiques of western civilization are surprisingly educated.

[wolveraptor]

I noticed you never addressed the point I brought up. Do you still assert that increased respect would lead to increased levels of homicide? Hell, the very word respect implies some sort of affinity. You're essentially saying that people who hold each other in esteem are likely to harm one another. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

[Enforcer Talen]

I can respect my enemy even if I still regard him as my enemy. I know just how dangerous he is, and will take that into account.

[coberst]

I noticed you never addressed the point I brought up. Do you still assert that increased respect would lead to increased levels of homicide? Hell, the very word respect implies some sort of affinity. You're essentially saying that people who hold each other in esteem are likely to harm one another. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

If I said "increased respect would lead to increased levels of homicide" I misspoke. I meant to say that increased levels of respect would lead to decreased levels of homicide.

[Straha]

For anyone looking to get a good idea of what the enemy thinks of us, I recommend browsing +http://irandefence.net/

Iran isn't the suicide bombing enemy we fear here. Iran is interested in long term regional stability and its people and clergy follow a very different set of traditions than our "Omar" which is more decentralized and open-minded. Certain members of Iran's religious and political hierarchy do follow a similar messianic viewpoint towards the world but these are no more representative of Iran's culture than Bush's views and their 30% approval rating are towards all of American culture. (Admittedly Iran's case is very complex and revolves around a whole slew of issues, centered mainly on the Velayat, but I don't want to take the thread off-topic here.)

[Darth Wong]

Are you so sure that all of America's enemies can be characterized as Islamic religious fundamentalists? That is certainly one source of America's foreign-policy woes, but we in the West have given a lot of people in other parts of the world plenty of perfectly viable non-religious reasons to hate us.

It describes all known suicide bombers who targeted the United States or United States forces. Certainly there are other enemies, but the specific issue in the thread was one about suicide bombers, so I focused on that matter exclusively.

Nevertheless, would you agree that these people hate America more than they do other western nations? It would seem to me that their religious objections to America should not be any more severe than they are for other western nations, so one must look elsewhere to find out why America is especially hated by them.

[wolveraptor]

If I said "increased respect would lead to increased levels of homicide" I misspoke. I meant to say that increased levels of respect would lead to decreased levels of homicide.

My comment was clearly directed at the Duchess. Yeesh.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I noticed you never addressed the point I brought up. Do you still assert that increased respect would lead to increased levels of homicide? Hell, the very word respect implies some sort of affinity. You're essentially saying that people who hold each other in esteem are likely to harm one another. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

It is personally how I view violence, but I acknowledge it isn't generally applicable. It's just applicable to me.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Nevertheless, would you agree that these people hate America more than they do other western nations? It would seem to me that their religious objections to America should not be any more severe than they are for other western nations, so one must look elsewhere to find out why America is especially hated by them.

Largely, yes, and it is indeed because we exert influence and power over the mid-east. It's probable if there was a US withdrawal that the terrorist activities of the fundamentalists would then focus on countries in Europe closer to the Islamic heartland which have large Muslim minority populations which they perceive as oppressed and in need of liberation, and which also make infiltration convenient.

[Coyote]

It's probable if there was a US withdrawal that the terrorist activities of the fundamentalists would then focus on countries in Europe closer to the Islamic heartland which have large Muslim minority populations which they perceive as oppressed and in need of liberation, and which also make infiltration convenient.

Or, as some recent trends point towards, they would expand actions against local Arab governments that aren't "Islamic enough".

It is a greater Jahaliyya to let a Islamic pretender usurp a leadership role over the faithful, after all...

[Darth Wong]

Nevertheless, would you agree that these people hate America more than they do other western nations? It would seem to me that their religious objections to America should not be any more severe than they are for other western nations, so one must look elsewhere to find out why America is especially hated by them.

Largely, yes, and it is indeed because we exert influence and power over the mid-east. It's probable if there was a US withdrawal that the terrorist activities of the fundamentalists would then focus on countries in Europe closer to the Islamic heartland which have large Muslim minority populations which they perceive as oppressed and in need of liberation, and which also make infiltration convenient.

Why assume that the intensity which drives them to commit these actions would not diminish?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why assume that the intensity which drives them to commit these actions would not diminish?

Historically, the successful repulse of Christian forces from traditionally Muslim lands has been inevitably followed by Muslim counterattack on traditionally Christian lands. Though the number of suicide bombings may decline, the number of terrorist attacks is unlikely to. Young men, sure in their beliefs, are unlikely to be content staying at home with no jobs and no prospects for the future (remember that unemployment rates in the mid-east are through the roof), something which will only get worse, not better, as oil is depleted, when the alternative is acts of glory and achieving martyrdom or even just victories against the infidel.

When the alternative is to spend your whole life in a mud hut chanting Quranic versus, unable to get a job to make enough money to pay the bride-price for a woman, those 72 virgins are going to look pretty bloody good out of a sheer lack of options if nothing else.

The whole Muslim world is essentially like a prison, with about as much entertainment available as in a prison, and stifling social conditions which literally induce sexual neuroses in normal humans through the extreme oppressive state of the society. They'll more or less keep on coming at us because there's nothing better for them to do with their lives.

[Darth Wong]

Why assume that the intensity which drives them to commit these actions would not diminish?

Historically, the successful repulse of Christian forces from traditionally Muslim lands has been inevitably followed by Muslim counterattack on traditionally Christian lands.

Yes, but these were large organized campaigns ordered by national leaders, and cannot be directly compared to the kind of grass-roots terrorist campaign that we're talking about.

Though the number of suicide bombings may decline, the number of terrorist attacks is unlikely to. Young men, sure in their beliefs, are unlikely to be content staying at home with no jobs and no prospects for the future (remember that unemployment rates in the mid-east are through the roof), something which will only get worse, not better, as oil is depleted, when the alternative is acts of glory and achieving martyrdom or even just victories against the infidel.

This is conjecture, isn't it? We have no historical precedent for this scenario which allows direct comparison.

When the alternative is to spend your whole life in a mud hut chanting Quranic versus, unable to get a job to make enough money to pay the bride-price for a woman, those 72 virgins are going to look pretty bloody good out of a sheer lack of options if nothing else.

From what I've heard about Al-Quaeda recruiting videos, based on articles in Canadian newspapers about the subject, they are filled with images of misdeeds done to Muslims by American and Israeli forces overseas. I have never heard any mention of the un-Islamic nature of America being a major selling point in these videos, which tells me that Al-Quaeda gets its recruits from rage at American interventionism abroad, far more than rage at American un-Islamic behaviour at home.

The whole Muslim world is essentially like a prison, with about as much entertainment available as in a prison, and stifling social conditions which literally induce sexual neuroses in normal humans through the extreme oppressive state of the society. They'll more or less keep on coming at us because there's nothing better for them to do with their lives.

I don't see how you can really know that, without any really applicable historical precedent. The fact that the Crusades of the past see-sawed with the Jihads of the past does not seem particularly applicable to the current situation.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, but these were large organized campaigns ordered by national leaders, and cannot be directly compared to the kind of grass-roots terrorist campaign that we're talking about.

I wouldn't go that far. ghazis were directly analogous to modern terrorist groups during the crusades, the term referring to "those who fight for the faith"--men who would spontaneously arrive and fight the crusaders or offer their services to generals doing so. Plenty of the combat in Iberia and the Balkans was also on an entirely ad-hoc basis, since during the periods of conquest there were rarely organized states in these areas as they were riven with chaos. The Hunyadi family might be seen as a Christian equivalent to the Bin Ladens, successful mercenary leaders along the frontier who'd fight for many different states or independently on their own in defence against Islam, such that in two generations they'd ended up the kings of a Hungary uttterly in chaos, which they managed to reorganize to last for another eighty years before it finally collapsed to Islam.

States as such, "nations", didn't really exist in the periods that we're discussing. Individuals instead ruled territory, based on inheiritance or main force and the respect of those around them, and territorial boundaries were highly fluid. Opposition to the crusaders was extremely ad-hoc until the rise of the Mamelukes, with no real supporting state structure. The crusaders themselves, like their enemies, essentially showed up on the field of battle entirely by word-of-mouth, attracted to the reputation of leaders who had won battles. Many of those leaders were powerful enough to have armies in their own right, but they relied heavily on these volunteers, who could sometimes number in the tens of thousands.

In a similar way, a large amount of support for al-Qaeda comes from what are essentially failed states: Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. And even the nominally "organized" states of the Muslim world, like Indonesia and the UAE and Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have clan/tribe structures which compete with the existing governments and provide alternate lines of authority. There are dozens of Sultans and Emirs in the al-Hadhramut of Yemen who command the loyalty of the local villagers far more effectively than the federal government can, for instance, which is nearly paralyzed... These traditional power structures provide a basis for the support of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden himself is a part of them, being a Sheikh from north Yemen.

This is conjecture, isn't it? We have no historical precedent for this scenario which allows direct comparison.

We do know that the economy of the Arab world is going to go to the shitter the moment they run out of oil to sell us, and that with them no longer able to import food, there will be millions of people starving. That is not going to endear them to the western world, and we both know their leadership will blame us to avoid being overthrown. So I think it is reasonable conjecture to say that hopeless, jobless, starving people are going to be willing to sell themselves cheaply for obscure religious hopes and declarations.

From what I've heard about Al-Quaeda recruiting videos, based on articles in Canadian newspapers about the subject, they are filled with images of misdeeds done to Muslims by American and Israeli forces overseas. I have never heard any mention of the un-Islamic nature of America being a major selling point in these videos, which tells me that Al-Quaeda gets its recruits from rage at American interventionism abroad, far more than rage at American un-Islamic behaviour at home.

The sermons of the al-Qaeda affiliated Salafist Imams, however, harp on these subjects continuously. The two work together; the sermons of the Imams create a climate of hate toward the west, while the recruiting videos and other propaganda provide an immediate pretext for direct action. But other pretexts will be found (or in the case of the economic collapse of the mid-east, come to exist regardless), and the hate-preaching will still be there regardless.

I don't see how you can really know that, without any really applicable historical precedent. The fact that the Crusades of the past see-sawed with the Jihads of the past does not seem particularly applicable to the current situation.

Perhaps not, but it seems they will do so again, as if nothing else, the oil crash and increased desertification from global warming in countries which already must import food will guarantee that tens of millions of starving Muslims see the still comparatively prosperous lands of Europe as worth a million deaths to claim, or to at least extort food shipments from through violent terrorism.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For a long time I've been a proponent, I'll admit, of the theory that the 21st century will be consumed by a vast clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. I've been ridiculed by this at times, but now since we've just had this earlier discussion, I'd ask that you consider the idea in the context of peak oil. 300 million Arabs collectively have the GDP of Finland when their oil revenues are removed. Saudi Arabia has more than 20 million people, and growing fast, when it can scarcely support a couple million farmers and perhaps a million pastoral herders without its vast oil revenues.

No, Europe will not fall to Islam demographically at current levels of migration, but what happens when tens of millions of starving people coming flooding at the gates of the EU to try and stave off death thanks to the economic collapse of their region as its sole export, oil, no longer can be pumped from the ground? And if you keep them out, they will blame you when their families starve to death, and strap on suicide bombs, and set them off in your cities. At least the hundred million Mexicans pushing north into America after peak oil won't be engaged in suicide bombings, though I fully expect the USA will be fighting a guerrilla war in the southwest.

[SirNitram]

I've seen alot of propaganda thrown around, but I've seen precisely one source of the 'Terrorists hate America because they're sinful' claim. And it's the one no one likes brought up, because it's inevitably from Right Wing Conservatives, like Dineh D'Souza(sp), with his deranged ravings in textual form.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've seen alot of propaganda thrown around, but I've seen precisely one source of the 'Terrorists hate America because they're sinful' claim. And it's the one no one likes brought up, because it's inevitably from Right Wing Conservatives, like Dineh D'Souza(sp), with his deranged ravings in textual form.

The evidence for my assertion is contained in the writings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and also in those of Sayyid Qutb, one of its prominent early leaders, who, among other things, made the following observations about the United States,

On American women:

The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.

On our music:

Jazz is his [the American's] preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires ...

The combination of the sexes in public and worship was virulent criticized in the works of both of men, along with smorgasboard of the "primitive and shocking" behaviours of modern secular western society, everything from haircuts to our enthusiasm for sports.

The Muslim Brotherhood is basically the fundamental genesis organization of HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda, with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood essentially spinning off more extreme branches to form all three, and most of al-Qaeda's top leadership positions below Bin Laden filled with members of Muslim Brotherhood splinter sects, so this is in their direct intellectual tradition upon which they rely.

[Coyote]

Sayyid Qutb's definitive work, Milestones (best translation from the Arabic) is written after his time in the United States, at the University of Colorado. In a May 6 broadcast, on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered", he was introduced thusly:

All Things Considered, May 6, 2003 · Egyptian writer and educator Sayyid Qutb spent the better half of 1949 in Greeley, Colo., studying curriculum at Colorado State Teachers College, now the University of Northern Colorado. What he saw prompted him to condemn America as a soulless, materialistic place that no Muslim should aspire to live in.

Qutb's writings would later become the theoretical basis for many radical Islamic groups of today -- including al Qaeda. Qutb increasingly saw the redemption of Egypt in the application of Islamic law.

He saw the fall of the Middle East from a earlier era of wealth, prosperity, and power and felt that the reason the Arabs were now among the dregs of the Earth were due partially to Western imperialism/colonialism, but the reason the Arab people were so easily dominated was because they had lost true faith in Islam.

Some more, from an English translation of "Signposts" or "Milestones" at it is known in this translation:

The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak. The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.

It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable.

Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life.

The period of the resurgence of science has also come to an end. This period, which began with the Renaissance in the sixteenth century after Christ and reached its zenith in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, does not possess a reviving spirit.

No real surprises there-- a religious nut who rejects learning, understanding, & reason.

[Darth Wong]

You know, you wouldn't have to work too hard to find similar quotes written about America by American religious leaders.

It's a foregone conclusion that they think our society is immoral. So does the entire Religious Right. The real question is whether they will consider that sufficient reason to go to war.

In the past, there was a state of war between Christian states and Islamic ones. It was pretty much inevitable that if the Christians were driven out of Muslim lands, the Muslims would press their advantage, just as the Soviets were hardly inclined to stop advancing once they drove the Nazis out of their land. It doesn't really translate well to the prediction of a similar "counterattack" here. The idea of global warming and economic collapse driving mass migratory pressure into the European area is more convincing, but in that case, one must wonder about their capability to wage the kind of war you're talking about. It's not the 5th century, and hordes of barbarians can't really overrun the borders of a modern country the way they could overrun the borders of the decaying Roman Empire.

[Coyote]

You know, you wouldn't have to work too hard to find similar quotes written about America by American religious leaders.

It's a foregone conclusion that they think our society is immoral. So does the entire Religious Right. The real question is whether they will consider that sufficient reason to go to war.

Even if you count all the abortion-clinic bombers, the abortion-doctor snipers, and the other Christian terrorists in the USA, they are but a footnote in comparison to the sheer scale and socially-accepted network of religious-motivated murder that seethes in the Islamic world. Just the body count from honor killings of women alone would shame even the most bloodthirsty Christofascist here.... so far.

...one must wonder about their capability to wage the kind of war you're talking about. It's not the 5th century, and hordes of barbarians can't really overrun the borders of a modern country the way they could overrun the borders of the decaying Roman Empire.

While I have no "secret Islamic battle plan" that I've unearthed to use as proof, given their attitudes about such things, and their willingness to strike out with terrorism well before 9/11, I could see them trying. They may not stage a full invasion, but a mass terrorist campaign that would occassionally flare up in outright street-battle intifada (like in the banlieus of France a couple years ago) would sure make life difficult.

[Darth Wong]

Even if you count all the abortion-clinic bombers, the abortion-doctor snipers, and the other Christian terrorists in the USA, they are but a footnote in comparison to the sheer scale and socially-accepted network of religious-motivated murder that seethes in the Islamic world. Just the body count from honor killings of women alone would shame even the most bloodthirsty Christofascist here.... so far.

Yes, but they're doing that to each other. The will to mount a campaign in far-off lands is much more difficult to muster than the will to continue bloodthirsty behaviour in your own homelands. Or to take another example, the death toll from drug-related crime effortlessly dwarfs the efforts of every Christofascist terrorist group, psycho militia organization, and even 9/11 all rolled into one. It doesn't mean that the willingness of American citizens to commit violent crimes can be harnessed to provide an additional troop surge in Iraq.

...one must wonder about their capability to wage the kind of war you're talking about. It's not the 5th century, and hordes of barbarians can't really overrun the borders of a modern country the way they could overrun the borders of the decaying Roman Empire.

While I have no "secret Islamic battle plan" that I've unearthed to use as proof, given their attitudes about such things, and their willingness to strike out with terrorism well before 9/11, I could see them trying. They may not stage a full invasion, but a mass terrorist campaign that would occassionally flare up in outright street-battle intifada (like in the banlieus of France a couple years ago) would sure make life difficult.

The street battles in France were motivated by the immigrants' second-class status under xenophobic French immigration policies more than any racial or religious issue. As for a "mass terrorist campaign", how the fuck are they going to mount that when they are impoverished, as per the scenario the Duchess paints? It's not cheap to mount offensive actions on someone else's territory.

PS. Looking at recent history, it would appear that when resources grow scarce as per the Duchess' scenario, regions in Africa tend to undergo horrific civil wars rather than attempting to invade neighbouring regions. In order for resource scarcity to prompt invasions of neighbouring regions, it would appear that one must possess sufficient wealth and national unity. As stated earlier, it's not like the ancient period when hordes of refugees could simply walk into other countries and start forcibly taking their resources by sheer weight of manpower. And once a civil war starts, it is virtually assured that all of the attention of the combatants will be focused primarily on each other, not a bunch of Americans thousands of miles away whose women wear skirts that are too short.