Reversing the Ostrich Effect

[Occhidiangela]

One keeps hearing the same old wheeze: "Islam is not the enemy. Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is not the problem in the Middle East, XXXXXXXX is." (choose your favorite blame-cause du jour for XXXXXXXXXX)

Rot.

While it is true that "Islam does not kill people, people kill people," the why matters. The Cold War was contested as nothing less than a battle of competing (Enlightenment) ideas, a struggle to determine to a certain extent "how people are to be allowed to live." What makes anyone think that the future would be free of ideological conflict? It is a constant in the human condition, disagreement with how one should be allowed to live one's life.

Islam is a way to live one's life.

Many is the Muslim who wants to be left alone to just be himself, and that is true the world over for many a man of every stripe. But the Global World simply _won't_ "leave you alone." Like their Fundamentalist Christian, Enlightenment Elitist, or Anarchist counterparts, it is the activist Muslim who is the problem for the modern world, a world that is so far built on the series of Enlightenment ideas that grew within the womb of predominantly Christian societies, and that included older and different beliefs than Christian ones. The Activist Modernist was the enemy of, for example, the Pope, whose last vestige of effective political independence was squelched by Garibaldi in 1870, and Modernist Attaturk was the successful enemy of the Caliphate's continuance in Istanbul.

What parallel growth of ideas to the Enlightenment does Islam have to offer the modern world in comparison? That ideological war included the supression of the Albigensian Heresy, the Excommunication of many, the persecution of the French Hugonots, the Thirty Years War, and so on and so forth. What clash of ideas, and growth, come from The Faithful believers of the Prophet's teachings? Not much, in comparison. Maybe the Christian West was a more fertile garden for the growth of ideas, even those opposed to Christian institutions. Why would that be?

Consider the beginnings of both Islam and Christianity: in the first two centuries of both, how did they spread? By force of ideas, or by force of arms? Of course, now that both are mainstream, they have been for centuries completely intertwined with the secular world of politics, where such distinctions are even makeable.

Christianity and The Modern World are still in tension, but not yet back in open conflict as they were in the Pope's last heady days of the mid 19th century. Islam is a problem for the modern, global world to resolve, since its activist adherents are vehemently opposed to the Modern World's view: just as Revolutionary Europe was vehemently opposed the The Church's position in society. Islam, as a problem, is in good company with predatory capitalism, slash and burn economics, and irresponsible growth all over the world. Its activists challenge the Modern World's right to exist on any terms but their own. Sound familiar, all you students of European history?

It was a minority of activist colonists who made the American Revolution possible, it was a core of active revolutionaries who made the Oktobor Revolution a success, and it was a small group of leaders who made the French Revolution possible, with its subseqent impact on the rest of Europe. Are activist Islamicists capable of a similar global change? If they fail, it won't be for a lack of trying. The core problem is that the Islamicist swims, per Mao's suggestion, within the sea of sheep, of normal "Achmed Averages" in the Muslim world, and in the rest of the world, until the time of action presents itself. No matter how the apologists spin it, Islam is the problem to a greater or lesser extent because the idea fuels the action. (Yes, there is some reductionism in that statement.)

Consider a few anecdotes:

Young Malvo's professed motivations for playing sniper as a RL FPS.

What is taught at a madras and why.

The Pan Arabist dreams of Nassar, Qhadaffi, and S.Hussein. Each of them, modernists, appealed to common Islamic social and cultural threads in their quest for hegemony. Likewise the professed aims of Al Qaeda or the Ayatolah's in Iran, with a less modernist twist.

Consider the exclusionist and racist Nation of Islam. With that, what about the NCO, a Muslim, who fragged his comrades/officers in the opening days of the latest Iraq war. Why has this story been suppressed, and PFC Lynch sprayed all over the media? Who is served by that?

Consider the smoke screen of Arab and Muslim brotherhood that has been used by various actors using the cause of Paletsinian Arabs as their justification. Then consider the demonstrated incompetence of Arabs in modern battle for 50+ years, and the Israeli attack on Iraq in 1981 that put paid to one Arab's nuclear ambitions.

Consider the Saudi governments endorsement and financial support for establishing mosques in . . . France. Undoing what Charles Martel did at Tours, perhaps, by working from within?

Consider the establishment of two Muslim Client states in Europe: Bosnia and Kosovo. Interesting geopolitical parallel to Israel, don't you think?

Consider that in Iraq, the Red Cross' building was bombed a few months back, but the Red Crescent's was not.

And then consider "The Islamic Bomb." (See below.)

Maybe Islam, the legit smokescreen for political activity, is the problem for the Modern World to solve.

From Wall Street Journal January 2, 2004

Pakistan Plays Nuclear Footsie; Does Anyone Care?

By Gopalaswami Parthasarathy

Writing his memoirs in his prison cell just before he was executed by General Zia-ul-Haq in 1979, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto stated that his aim as prime minister of Pakistan had been to put the "Islamic Civilization" at par with the "Christian, Jewish and Hindu Civilizations," by giving the Islamic world a "full nuclear capability." In a meeting of top scientists and advisers that he had convened on Jan. 20, 1972, just after assuming office, Bhutto made it clear that he was determined to achieve nuclear capability, not merely to neutralize India's inherent conventional superiority, but also to make his country a leader of the Islamic world.

But how was a cash-strapped Pakistan to get the financial resources to achieve these objectives? Bhutto's press adviser, Khalid Hasan, has since revealed how Bhutto sought and obtained financial assistance from Saudi Arabia and the mercurial Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to fulfill his ambitions. Bhutto also indicated in his prison memoirs that China under Mao's leadership had agreed to provide Pakistan the necessary assistance to build the bomb. Despite changes in leadership in China, there has been no dilution of its nuclear and missile assistance to Pakistan.

While successive rulers in Pakistan have vowed that they would not transfer nuclear technology to others, the IAEA has come up with evidence indicating that both Libya and Iran received assistance in developing uranium enrichment capabilities from Pakistan. Col. Gadhafi had such a close relationship with Bhutto that the latter named the largest cricket stadium in Pakistan the "Gadhafi Stadium." Funds from Libya flowed freely to Pakistan "in suitcases," to fuel its nuclear ambitions. What is even more interesting is that the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran is said to have commenced in 1987, when Pakistan was professing to be a close U.S. ally. Pakistan was then under the rule of Gen. Zia. The entire nuclear program was then, as it is now, under the direct control of the Pakistan army. There is no way that there could have been any "rogue operation" by individual scientists to transfer nuclear technology to Iran, without the knowledge and consent of the Pakistan army.

While Iran and Libya have agreed to comprehensive IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities under international pressure, there has been little or no attention paid to the nexus between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on nuclear issues. Apart from the revelations of Khalid Hassan about Saudi funding of the Pakistan nuclear program, Mohammed al Khilawi, the senior Saudi diplomat who defected to the U.S. in 1994, has also given details about how Riyadh bankrolled Pakistan and then Iraq to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities.

More recently, eyebrows were raised when the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan was provided unprecedented access to Pakistan's nuclear enrichment facilities in Kahuta in March 1999. During this visit he invited Dr. A.Q. Khan, the "Father of the Islamic Bomb" to visit Saudi Arabia. Dr. Khan had paid over a dozen visits to North Korea and was instrumental in the transfer of enrichment technology to North Korea in exchange for North Korean missiles. Weapons inspectors in Iraq have traced Iraqi documents showing that Dr. Khan had offered nuclear technology to the Saddam Hussein regime. Dr. Khan's associates, Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majid visited Kandahar for a quiet pow-wow on nuclear technology with Osama bin Laden. And more recently, Dr. Khan has been questioned for his involvement in the transfer of enrichment capabilities to Iran. He obviously did not visit Saudi Arabia at the personal invitation of its defense minister to discuss Islamic theology!

While Saudi Arabia actively uses "charities" to promote Wahhabi extremism across the world, Pakistan has been the recipient of huge direct economic assistance from the desert kingdom. The Saudis have bailed out Islamabad over the past decade by supplying Pakistan with an estimated $ 1.2 billion of oil products annually, virtually free of cost. Just after the visit of Dr. Khan to Saudi Arabia in November 1999, a Saudi nuclear expert, Dr. Al Arfaj, stated at a seminar that "Saudi Arabia must make plans aimed at making a quick response to face the possibilities of nuclear warfare agents being used against the Saudi population, cities or armed forces." After the departure of American forces from its soil, how does Saudi Arabia propose to deal with such nuclear contingencies? The 2,700-kilometer range CSS-2 missiles that Saudi Arabia obtained from China in 1987 are useless if fitted only with conventional warheads. One cannot, therefore, avoid the inference that like the Pakistan-North Korean nukes for missiles deal, there is an "oil for nukes" deal between the Saudis and Pakistanis.

Washington's response to these developments has been strange. When Mr. Al Khilawi made his revelations about Saudi nuclear ambitions in 1994, a senior official in the Clinton White House remarked: "Can you imagine what would happen if we discovered Saudi had a bomb? We would have to do something and nobody wants that. Best not to ask tough questions in the first place." We are now told that Colin Powell is fully satisfied with General Pervez Musharraf's assurances that the nuclear transfers to North Korea and Iran were done by individual scientists, before he assumed office. If this is indeed true then what is one to make of reports that during a visit of a three-member team of its scientists to Pyongyang in 2001, Pakistan shared data of its nuclear tests with the North Koreans?

In July 2002, U.S. satellites took pictures of C-130 aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force picking up missile components from North Korea. Around the same time, a Pakistani "Shaheen Airlines" aircraft is reported to have transported 47 tons of special aluminum acquired from the U.K. by the Kahuta Research Laboratories established by Dr. Khan, to Pyongyang for its enrichment program. The Clinton administration sought to appease China by pretending that it could not make a "determination" about that country's missile and nuclear transfers to Pakistan. The Bush administration would be ill advised to follow this example.

Mr. Parthasarathy, a visiting professor at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, is a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan.

Note: About 10 years ago, the US Congress and Administration got tired of Pakistani nuclear footsie, and terminated the sale of F-16 fighters to Pakistan, as well as leases of naval frigates, due to proliferation fouls. Politics being what it is, America is once again "in bed," thanks to Osama Bin Laden, with Pakistan for reasons that make it practical, in the short term, not to press the issue to hard. But long term? Methinks the author is right.

[Chaerophon]

I really like your summary, but have very little to add but this:

Islam is a religion of peace.

I agree with you, this is a load of bull. One of the very PILLARS of the Islamic faith, and particularly the Arabic strain, is the advancement of the Arabic nation through war. Jihadism. In more modern times, this aspect of the faith has become more "defensive" in the sense that perceived "incursions" into Arabic independence have become more the focus of Jihadist's ire. However, the fact of the matter is that this adaptation to the faith did not come about as a result of some ideological shift in perspective or new interpretation of the hadiths, but rather, as a response to the fact that, due to many factors (infighting, tribalism, insufficient strength), the Arab nation could expand no further and began to implode. The result: a cultural imperative towards violence remains strong in the majority of Muslim countries towards the West, as no ideological shift towards secularism, along the lines of protestant reforms has occurred or been allowed to fully develop.

While I have always been opposed to the war, my hope is that the success of Western Capitalism may spawn just such a cultural shift away from the inherently zealous and violent pull of Islamic fundamentalism, just as trade and the introduction of currency impacted Western consciousness in the 1400s. My fear? Without an internal shift along the lines of what it seems we may now be seeing in Communist China, these virulent strains of religious fundamentalism may remain and American occupation will do no more than feed the fire of jihadists everywhere, who, with little effort, can drum up popular support from even moderate Muslims along explicit and clearly identifiable religious lines taken straight from the sharia, hadiths and, the Koran, itself.

[Occhidiangela]

The "American Occupation" issue is a matter of perspective and commitment, and a very tricky matter. (Note: we are still occupying Germany. And Japan. Eh, what up with that?)

The efforts in Iraq since "major hostilities" ended (IMO a misguided pronouncement if ever there was one, since war is a continuum from guerilla actions through the engagements of corps and armies) are an odd combination of nation building, infrastructure restoration, counterinsurgency, police and crime actions, and some things I don't have a name for. But in any case, there is work still to be done by those who came and acted to change the way Iraq works: that's the US and friends.

Do you "slam bam thank you ma'am" in Iraq and then leave them fast, to make a better "image point" and thus leave a huge power vacuum and all the conditions for a bloody civil war? Better not.

Do you try to enable rebuilding and facilitate as smooth a transition to representative governmental forms as you can? That takes longer.

Do you work harder at including more allies and interested nations in participating, to present a united front with the majority of UN partners in "we (of the global community) will all help you back up on your feet?" That would be nice.

If you cut and run early, you do not get a chance to go back in. If you stick around too long, you create more problems than you solve. Those who guess at a 3-5 year rebuilding may be looking at Bosnia, which is of course a different, though difficult in its own right, situation.

In any case, there is an obligation implied by what Sec General Kofi Annan refers to "the occupying power."

The US dropped a lot of bombs in Iraq, and by removing the Ba'athists from power, cut out the civil administration's heart, for better and for worse. We owe more than a superficial effort on helping put the country on a steady post war footing. If that means ugly pictures on TV while the election is on next fall, so be it, it comes with the badge! If we don't stay the course we do more damage to American credibility than any number of other alternatives. No easy solutions, none.

Conquering a country's land area means, more or less, that you own it and its problems until you leave. Comes with the badge.

[Lord_Olf]

Hail Occhi,

nice summary you did. I'm not sure if I got it all right, not being a native speaker, but I disagree on the very central point:

In my view, Islam is not the problem. The problem is what people do in the name of Islam, and that takes us back to the "People kill people" argument.

What I think we have here is a series of misconceptions on both sides, the central one being that each "side" considers the other one as dangerous, and takes steps to ensure its own security. At University, I was taught that this is a classic "Macht- und Sicherheitsdilemma" (Dilemma of Might and Security). Nation A is wary of nation B because of its military potential. Nation A therefore increases its own military potential, which makes Nation B wary of Nation A and leads to an increasement of Nation B's military potential and again making Nation A wary of Nation B. Repeat from here.

Of course, it is not only a matter of military, or, shall we say, terrorist potential. I'm not of the opinion that a dilemma like the one mentioned above can be entirely solved, there's just to much mistrust for that. It also has moral and intellectual dimensions, but I think the example above still applies quite well to the situation we have aat the moment.

Let me make this clear: Going into Afgahnistan was pretty much a straight national security exercise to which I can't and won't object. I'm not at all unhappy with Hussein having been captured and Iraq liberated, also the way the war happened is something one can object to, but that is another matter.

But what really worries me is that we are talking about "sides" in this "conflict". For me, it sounds too much like the lines are drawn and the picture just being painted in black and white, which is an adherently dangerous situation, because in this situation there is great potential for extremism, which is exactly what we don't want.

To me, it is rather like an inferiority complex. People in a lot of states in the Orient and Asia don't live lifes nearly as luxurious as their western counterparts. These people now think: "OK, we may be inferior to the west in a lot of things, BUT we are of the true faith." Manipulating people like that into becoming extremists is not hard, especially considering the rather low level of education in those states. This is not meant as criticism of the people being, in my view, manipulated, just a fact. I, probably, would not behave differently in such a situation.
Also, we have precedents for this behaviour. Such indoctrination made Germany start World War II, led to the belief that the German race was the "Herrenrasse" and even served to murder six million jews. Same thing in Japan, shinto and basic nationalism served to manipulate people into the same belief of superiority.

I basically think, while these deeds happen in the name of Islam, the basic problem is economics. So, this is where your statement that the world won't leave you alone, even if you are just a Muslim who wants to live a quite and peaceful life (paraphrasing) comes in.
Why is there, for example, no political problem in the Maldives? The population of the Maldives is 100% Muslim (I think that goes only for a handful of Nations), but there is no problem. Why? Tourists discovered the Maldives as a dream destination, bringing money and a rather high standard of living. So, why throw that away?
Same thing in Egypt, as far as I can tell. Granted, there are radicals there, but in the tourist centers there are no problems. OK, you may now mention the incident in 95? 96? (don't remember exactly) when terrorists shot up a tourist bus near the Valley of Kings. And, also granted, tourist buses are usually travelling with a military escort in tight groups (which only makes them a more interesting target for a mortar round or an RPG, but that's another topic). But still, the mindset of the people I met there is exactly one of "Let me life my life quitely and as prosperous as possible, and I'll be happy." Sure, these people want you to respect their way of life and their beliefs, but hey, I also would not go visit a church in swimming trunks and a T-Shirt, so that's fine with me.

Well, summing it all up, I think the problem is economics and matters of your living standards, not Islam. The problem, as I see it, are the Islamists who use lingering discontent to manipulate people into doing what they want. That's the danger, and the point with which I disagree in your summary is that painting a black-and-white picture will lead to a mentality of "us and them", which cannot be useful in any way.

Of course, if I misunderstodd some points, my apologies if I criticized you undeservingly, Occhi!

Greetings,
Lord_Olf

[Occhidiangela]

The reductionism to economics is, in my opinion, misguided. It is not all about "das Geld." (Or is it die Geld?)

The Egyptians who assassinated Anwar Sadat for making the deal with Israel, which was an intelligent economic and security decision for Egypt in 1979, were not economically motivated, they were ideologically motivated. Massoud in Afghanistan was killed because he was not in the correct ideological camp. It is a conflict of ideas that I am getting at, and that point you did not seem to address at all. In that conflict, a core group of activists take an idea and try to win with it, with all of the sheep along for the ride. Being German, I suspect you are far too familiar with how that can turn out. The idea being used at hand is Islam, and this presents problems.

"Islam" institutionally is not monolithic, it has a variety or paths to follow. But what Islam has not done, collectively (and may not be able to do any more than "Christianity" can) is take a stand against the abuses done in its name, as you put it. Why? Many Muslims agree at heart with the activists. And that's the problem. Being Muslim is not "the problem" but rather, the conflict between being Muslim and being a part of the Modern World creates a problem when very strong personalities decree that one is incompatible with the other.

Islam is both a faith and a social ordering system, similar to but different than Hinduism, similar to but different than Christianity, similar to but different than Shintoism, similar to but different than any number of animist and naturualist beliefs.

The Modern World, built to a certain extent on secular Enlightenment models, is what is in tension, and conflict, with Islam as the dominant idea. I referenced the same tension between the nascent modernist movement and The Church in Europe. What prevailed was not The Church. Some practicing Muslims are able to find a way to harmonize the Modern World with their faith. They are not, and won't ever be, a problem for the Modern World. They try to make both ideas work together where they can, just as a lot of Christians do. Conversely, a significant mass of Muslims choose to make war, ideologically, with The Modern World, both via ideas and violent means, as do some Christians.(See our Abortion Clinic bombers here in America.) The reactionary Muslim is the activist, at present. The moderate Muslim tolerates him, even if he does not always condone his means.

You are a part of the Modern World, and you believe that Islam can be incorporated into it. I too am part of the Modern World, but I am not sure that Islam can survive the Modern World as well as Christianity has. Depends on which flavors of Islam sustain in the long term. While economics plays into everything, in this case I cannot agree that economics is the proximate cause of the reaction. With or without US intervention in Iraq, the tension would still exist, and has existed for my entire adult life. (Since 1976, and really, before that.) All the presence of Americans in Iraq has done is to smoke out some activists, and possibly improved recruiting for that cause. Not sure on that score.

Islam is, I think you point out, being used as an excuse for political activism. This is done to garner both moral and financial support, to create a side anti the Global Modern World. I disagree with you that there are not sides. That is a disappointment to me, but seems to be a sad reality of life: people do choose sides.

The Irish example, or that of Mozambique, are instructive as to on how long and hard people will fight for their "side" before they get tired of it -- if they ever do.

[Lord_Olf]

Hi Occhi,

it's "das Geld", so you're right on the money *g*.

You have some very good points here, chief among them that I did not adress the conflict of ideas. For me, it seemed logical to point out the economical factor that is inherent in this discussion, as I think (which does NOT AT ALL mena that your line of thinking is illogical!). For one thing, it seems far easier to recruit "activist" among Islamic faith than in other "religions". On the other hand, there IS the example of northern Ireland... So you're absolutely right, that is one dimension I did leave out in my post, because I am not at all sure why this "phenomenon" excists.

To get closer to the point, what I really meant to say (some spin control here *g*) is this: You are right in saying that there are sides in this conflict. For sure there are. On the other hand, thinking along these line of sides will not help us at all in solving the conflict at hand. I am a bit dissapointed in seeing that you drag out the assasination of Sadat as a way to make your point. As I see it, the world was a quite different place in the 60's and 70's. For excample, here in Germany, people blew up other people to show them that Marxism was the way of the world. Pretty dumb idea, methinks.

Occhi, my point of view is not that different from yours. I, too, am not sure how to incorporate Islam into the "Big Picture" of our modern ways. As I said, it's a big mystery to me how people can be so easily talked into blowing themselves up in a public square or things the like.

I am aware that there are kinds of lines drawn, and that people do chose sides, but I do not see how that can give us a perspective. So, I kind of agree with you that Islam may even be the problem, but even if it is, how do we approach this problem?

Here I have to come back to my old argument of extremism; If you just walk up to a person and tell him/her : "See? You are the problem!", then for sure he or she will react in a "Well, if you think so, I'll damn sure show you what kind of problem I can become"-way.

So, I still believe that Economics IS one big factor in the equation. On the other hand, not everything can be deduced to economics. But what I am trying to say is that if you create a situation in which there is only black and white, people will revert to either black and white, seeing no shades of gray to distance themselves from either activionist / radical side. That's my basic reason for diasagreeing with your bit of writing.

In the current situation, methinks, we tend to put a keen eye to every terrorist act that is related to Islam. On the other hand, did we ever put that much of an emphasis to Northern Ireland? OK, these two conflicts don't play in the same league, no argument here. But when I hear some "nursing rymes" related to that conflict, my blood starts to chill:

"Oh Saint Patrick's day will be jolly and gay
when we kick the protestants out of the way
If that doesn't do, we'll cut them in two
and send to hell with them
red, white and blue"

This is not to say that I sanctionize violence because it has happend before in another context. What I mean to say is that there are hotheads everywhere, and in the current context, we tend to have a very keen eye on incidents related to Islamic groups.

Well, I don't recommend take a, what shall I call it, cosy position towards Islamic fundamentist groups. But let us just bear in mind that not every person of Islamic faith is a sleeper agent, ready to blow up a major city if his Ayatollah tells him to. Again, not talking about certain incompatibilities of our Modern View and Islam, just wanting to point out that we don't have to think "us or them".

To sum up the sum-up: There are sides, but we don't have to force people into chosing sides. Let us hope the level-headed people prevail.

Have a good one,
Lord_Olf

[Occhidiangela]

Why do I use the Sadat example? Because he was trying to be a peace maker; because he was trying to dig Egypt out of its dependency on Russia and the colonial powers; because he was trying to move forward without war; because the problem really has not changed since his day; and because his attempt to move forward into a modern context was a threat to those who wished to go back, or in another direction. He was trying to undo a cycle of hate and violence, and got killed for his troubles.

Through globalism and the loss of the sponsorship of The Bear, many nationalist-anti colonialist (and even anti globalist?) movements have turned to oil and drug money to finance their ends and aims. On the oil side, irony is present in that the mechanized Modern World has an oil habit it can't break, nor does it seem willing to embrace nuclear power as an intelligent alternative. As for the drug subsidies, once again, shame on the Modern World, that is a self inflicted wound in two ways: internal social trouble and cash infusion in to the hands of "trouble makers."

But who causes the "trouble?" Unlike in Germany, where things may have calmed down a bit (huh? Qhadaffi's boys bombed a Berlin night club in '86, which got him bombed in return) bombs have been going off regularly all over the world since I left Berlin in 1969, (and before that as well) a time when the Bader Meinhof gang was still infamous and in operation. Every continent has felt the bomber's blast: America, South America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and all over the news weekly, the Middle East, the old crossroads of the world. (Australia even?)

Who is setting off these bombs?

Increasingly, they are True Believers in Islam, though not solely. (People like Samuel Adams in America, 1770's.) Erich Hoffer wrote an interesting book called "The True Believer" that analyzed what makes a revolutionary, or perhaps even a violent iconoclast, tick. At present, the True Believers may not even be a majority of Muslims: don't know, though I do not believe the protestations of innocence that claim "only a few are this way." I don't believe that fantasy, and I ask the Ostriches to get their heads out of the sand: the quiet acceptance and agreement, or even economically motivated empathy, creates the sea for sharks to swim in. The IRA apologists in America, predominantly in New York and Boston, are the same sort of enablers as some Muslims to the bombers.

I won't disagree with you that economic conditions are a catalyst, but they are not the root cause. Osama is filthy rich, it's his hatred that fuels the action. He's still bombs, or orders the bombs on, people he does not care for.

[Lord_Olf]

HI Occhi,

I got why you were using Saddat as an example. I was saying that times were different then. Violence was more readily applied, especially by people of the same nationality.

In response to your second paragraph (sorry, not too sure about the "quote"-feature, I'll try to keep it simple, at least for me, sorry)

You mention states that lost the USSR's sponsorship. But let us not confuse them with the Non-Block states (Blockfreie) who always tried to play off the superpowers against each other. The former, as I think, have enough to do to keep their economy and people "in line" and don't worry that much about the status quo of the world. I like to think that these Nations have their hands full just handling their internal problems. OK, again Kasachstan may be brought up here, but that's one nation of how many that left the Soviet Union rather peacefully? Just think of the Baltic States.

On Bader-Meinhof and associates: You may accuse me of having a short attention span; I remember them and the RAF, but at what point does remembering become a disadvantage? At some point, you have to grant to people or a nation that they have changed, and the Germany you remember is quite different from the one I live in. No criticism, Occhi, just a fact: If you ask most people of my age, they probably won't be able to tell you what Bader-Meinhof was... not sure if that is a good thing... Anyway, we cannot let the past get in the way of the future, that's what I mean here. Personal past excluded, I can't get why people in East Germany vote for people who spied on their neighbours (PDS)... sorry, OT!

Two questions here:

Who was Samuel Adams? Sorry, I'm not that familiar with American history...

Could you send me more information on Hoffer's book "The True Believer"? It sounds like it offers some valuable insights. Thank you!

And, again finding me in agreement with you: It's not OK to just say "There's others" when another not-so-smart bomb blows up, this doesn't cut it; I sorely miss the voices in the islamic world that cry out against this sort of thing. But, are none there or is it just that they don't make headline news because there's cheesier stuff to report? Not meant as a judgement, but I fear that you may be right in saying that there's more agreement to such actions than disagreement.

And nice to see that we kind of agree on the economics dimension *g*!

Occhi, it's great to disagree with someone in such a friendly way!

Take Care,
Lord_Olf

[Occhidiangela]

Please pardon my 'schrecklishes Deutsch.' It has been too long.

I was not intending to rub Bader Meinhoff in a German's face, my apologies if you felt I was, I was trying to point out that, as you say, in Germany things have quited down a bit since those days and since Munich of 1972. Sadly, in many parts of the world things have "heated up" and gotten worse insofar as the attractiveness of bombing as a way to "speak out and act out." Israel being in the news so often, try Columbia, and the on and off action in Ireland/UK. So, to a certain extent, lucky you for being alive now in Germany, where hopefully things will stay more peaceful for a very long time.

As to Samuel Adams, he was one of the firebrands who led the early American Independence movement, though now his name is more famous to many as a brand of beer. He was one of The Sons of Liberty, who the Hanoverian English King probably considered a terrorist, and certainly guilty of treason. :D

One of many web sites with info on him.

Samuel Adams

As to Hoffer, I read his book in high school in a course on Communism, and I studied his material again in a graduate level course in the mid 90's from a different perspective, that on military and civil affairs. Hoffer offers some interesting insights into what makes people take on a cause.

From one web commentator:

In his book The True Believer, Erick Hoffer, the self-taught longshoreman, says that common to the great collective movements of history--the crusades, the fascists, the communists and others--is the identification of the evil one, the problem, the devil, as someone "out there."

For some reviews on his book, which is a classic and was written in the late 1940's:

True Believer at Amazon

That tells you the info on the book, you should be able to find it in German, I think, he was widely published.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, October 30, 2001
Reviewer: Eugene A Jewett (see more about me) from alexandria, va United States
Written 50 years ago this classic book has been dusted off in the wake of the Taliban's bombing of the Pentagon in Washington DC and the WTC in NYC. The book concerns itself with the active phase of mass movements which are dominated by a true believer, a man of fanatical faith who is ready to sacrifice his life for a holy cause. The 19 suicide bombers who have wreaked so much havoc on America are fanatics of this sort. Eric Hoffer attempts to trace the fanatic's genesis and to outline his nature.

Hoffer doesn't dance around the subject like a behavioral therapist billing by the hour. He assumes, in a very straight forward fashion, that frustration with one's life is a peculiarity of fanatics, and assumes that this mindset is necessary for techniques of conversion to achieve their deepest penetration and most desirable results with regard to the fanatic's twisted adherence to his new faith.

Hoffer allows that to understand the various facets of the fanatical personality requires an understanding of the practices of contemporary mass movements. Written circa 1951, he studied the Nazi's, the Fascist's, and the Communist's because it was here where the successful techniques of conversion had been perfected and applied.

This is a book of ideas and as such it offers up theories. It suggests that through amplifying the negative feelings of its frustrated fanatic's a movement advances its interests by seconding their propensities. Hoffer also posits the thought that all not mass movements are bad, however the central point of the book is to explain the composition of the mindsets of a movement's collective of True Believers.

At 168 pages followed by 9 pages of notes, the book is not difficult nor is it an arduous task to read. In fact it's pithy. It has short punchy sections, 125 of them. The work is to be found in the reader's reflections on Hoffer's assertions. He covers the appeal of mass movements and the desire for change found in potential candidates, the personality traits of potential converts, the unity and self sacrifice of the members that is necessary for the movement to achieve its ends, and the factors which determine the length of its active phase. I would offer here that lengthy reflection is suggested if the reader is to derive the full benefits of Hoffer's insights.

Hoffer's beginning notion is that "people with a sense of fulfillment think the world is good while the frustrated blame the world for their failures. Therefore a mass movement's appeal is not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. He continues by saying that the true believer "cannot be convinced, only converted". This basic tenet of the story is about human nature and its susceptibility to totalitarianism both secular and sectarian. To wit, he writes that "all mass movements strive to impose a fact proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. And, that that faith becomes the things the fanatic declines to see. He avers how startling it is to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible, and that faith manifests itself not in moving mountains, but in not seeing mountains move. He say's that in the context of mass movement's faith should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity, or truth but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from himself and the world as it is."

If you have any familiarity with the story of Jim Jones and his Jonestown Kool-Aid mass suicide, or of the group suicide of the members of the cult who found new meaning in the passage of the Hale Bop comet, or of the mental make up of those who bought into the seven seals dogma of David Koresh in the fatal Waco fiasco, then you will recognize that of which Hoffer describes. Read this book for further insight into the fanaticism of the holy warriors of the taliban and perhaps it will steel your resolve for the long struggle we are all in for.

Reviewer: Larry Mark, editor of MyJewishBooks.com (see more about me) from NYC

The True Believer is an oldie but goodie. First published in 1951, it should be read today. It is on the psychology of mass movements and how they can transform practical purposes in to holy causes. Half the book is on the mental state of the fanatical true believer. Part 1 is about mass movements and their appeal. Part 2 is about the psychology of the potential convert. This believer will possess a belief in an irresistible power, whether it be Marxism (for Bolsheviks), Blitzkrieg (Nazis), Man's Reason (French Revolution), or Islam. In Part 3, Hoffer focuses on the factors that promote self sacrifice and the unifying effect that common hatred of a tangible enemy, suspicion, imitation, or other agents can have. The book closes with a discussion of good and bad mass movements. Especially interesting to the reader in late 2001 will be the discussion on the fervently enthusiastic adherents who are ready to die for the movement. The author begins with the hypothesis that frustrated people are drawn to mass movements in its revivalistic phase, and it is the frustration of the adherent that can be directed and channeled by the movement. He writes that the adherent will be discontented but not destitute, and believe that through their possession of a potent doctrine or infallible leader, they will possess irresistible power. Many will find mass movements appealing so that they can self-renunciate themselves, or rid themselves of the unwanted self; a lost faith in oneself is substituted for faith in the movement. In Hoffer's discussion of the interchangeability of movements, he goes on to posit that the adherent is ripe for any movement, and can be receptive to another movement (Attention Pakistan... redirection of adherents is possible)

[Lord_Olf]

Hi Occhi,

I did not at all feel like you were rubbing Bader-Meinhof in my face, so no apologies needed here. I just responded to this group being mentioned to say that it is no more on the average German's mind and the group and it's mindset seem to be gone for good. At least here...

Also, thanks for the info on Hoffer and Samuel Adams, I must guiltily admit that the name really only rang a bell as a brand of beer. I might be accused of having a rather strange collection of knowledge, but I guess I just read it in some book.

Well, not having all that much to say at the moment, I'll call it a day, but I'll be back. This is darn interesting...

Take care,
Lord_Olf

EDIT: Sorry for not trying google first...

[kandrathe]

I just had a friendly argument yesterday with someone who thought; "We should not have gone into Iraq when we did, but should have waited for the support of the world community." Hmmm. Sounds like the "Dean Mantra" reinventing history. My position was that in retrospect, the Bush administration showed a rare tenacity in doing what they believe is the right thing while the whole world railed at us for not wanting to play the politics of maintaining the status quo. I think that sometimes leadership means that you need to tell people that something stinks in the world, and its time to take out the garbage. But, I do fault the Bush administration for its lack of communication skills, not in their message.

How short are peoples memories? I remember that prior to this administration taking a firm stand against Saddam, that the world community was edging closer to removing sanctions to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people, and our supposed allies in enforcing sanctions were turning a blind eye to rampant smuggling of billions of barrels of Iraqi oil.

Does anyone remember the letter that was sent to President Clinton by The Project for the New American Century in January of 1998? Here is a link. If one wants to determine the future of American Foreign policy, one need look not much further than that site.

I've stated this in the forum before that I thought that a Bush administration mistake was to let Iraqi WMD programs become the sole justification for war with Iraq. Sometimes the justification for war is clear, as it was in Gulf War I. It may be that sometimes you need to look into the behavior of a nation, their history, their intent, their rhetoric and make some tough decisions. What would have happened had the world had such instincts during the rise of the Thrid Reich? That is another time where the world played ostrich to obvious signals of German aggression. After WWI, every nation went back to minding their own affairs and in most cases military power was put on the back burner and allowed to rust and grow old.

So back to Iraq. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we must stay, but I feel we must drift to the background where possible. We need to be their in support of Iraqi leadership, rather than become the new Iraqi dictator. When the situation calls for leadership and leadership is lacking, we need to rise to that challenge quickly, make the decisions, then turn things over to Iraqi's. I for one think Paul Bremer has done a pretty remarkable job in restoring and developing the current levels of civil authority and function in such a short amount of time. Are things perfect? No, and it's not our job to make them perfect. Our job is to enable the Iraqi's to work on the problems. For example, if they want electricity and water 100% of the time, then I think that is an Iraqi problems to solve. We should be their to help them remove the obstacles to that goal.

[Guest]

wrong spot

[Guest]

First Im no fan of Islam - I think its joke built on hate of enemies and love of friends by a charasmatic story teller.

BUT.

Poor people with despotic goverments have been been hating outsiders with money since history began. Oil and the demand for it by the US however put a nasty twist on this case.

It has made for stability in some bad goverments that would have been easily overthrown 100 years ago.

Normally education/technology would gradually find its way into the population - leading to revolution, this happened all around the world in the 20 century. The revolutions were happening in the middle east at a steady rate up till the discovery of oil.

Islam is of course a key element of whats happening, but if it wasnt Islam it could have been another religion.

Communisim filled a similar role a centuray ago - but terrorists lacked the power they can command now. And their wasnt a country(ie the US) proping up unstable situations so they could last 50 years instead of 5-10 like their is now.

[kandrathe]

I guess I see it more as a formula, much like what does it take to have a fire. You need fuel, oxygen, and a source of ignition.

Islam to me is the oxygen. One way to use it is to take its good parts and form a philosophy for bettering the mind and spirit, but used another way it is a corrosive and volitile compound. You could substitute "nationalisim", or christianity for islam and achieve similiar results. The oxygen is therefore the justification.

The fuel to me are all those answers to the question "Why do they hate us? There are many of them, all with many varied reasons for wanting to extract some vengence upon us. Or at least they would be happy to see us suffer a little, like them. The fuel then is the motivation which we describe as hatred. Sometimes I think for a particular terrorist it is personal, such as if an IDF soldier brutally kills your child. Other times I think it is just the mass of misery that one witnesses that influences someone to take action. Unfortunately, I think it is the case (and will be the case while we are still a Superpower) that US politicians and policies makes fuel daily.

Finally, you need a spark. Some event, some rhetoric, or series of actions that you can point at to cause ignition. It's the last straw that breaks the camels back of restraint. This is the enablement. This is what brings the justification and the motivation together with a plan of action. Even Mr. Malvo or Abu Abbas were at one point innocent young babies cuddled in their mothers arms. At some point in their lives, they were enabled to become monsters.

[Occhidiangela]

Waiting for everyone else to approve of an idea is not leadership, aye. Heading in a direction and telling folks "here is where we are going, and why, come with me" is the exercise of leadership.

Building consensus, however, is also a very effective way to achieve some tasks requiring communal effort. President Clinton was pretty good at the using consensus method, which he relied on to heavily to the detriment, in my opinion, of the demands for leadership in his role. Franklin Roosevelt was pretty sharp when it came to knowing when to lead, and when to "work for consensus." (I confess, that is a fairly broad statement.) Unlike many today, his method of having opposing views vehemently argued before him prior to his making, or pronouncing, a decision strikes me as a sound method of coming up with "a good idea now versus a perfect idea next week that everyone agrees on."

The question that will be asked for a long time to come is: was it in fact President Bush who was leading, or was he being led by other very powerful opinions and personalities on international issues? His record as governor in Texas was more as a 'consensus builder' working to get bipartisan support on a lot of issues, not as a leader who did the "here is where we are going, come with me" thing.

Llike any and every President before him, he has since Day One been "growing into the job." Undertaking the role as a leader is a demand of being in the Oval Office. But every leader knows that leadership is not easy, it takes considerable effort and craft, and a certain amount of role playing.

Which brings us to communication. In the past two years, since the Axis of Evil speech, I have been both puzzled and dismayed by a great deal of official rhetoric on a variety of security and international subjects. The message can get lost, stolen or strayed via its means and style of delivery.

Which brings me to Canada: I appreciate the ire in Washingon over PM Cretin's "moron" comment in re President Bush, but given the number of collective endeavours Canada and the US have undertaken since 1991, in Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and the Balkans, is a shut out on the contracts really an appropriate stance with our long time NATO ally? That position seems vindictive to me. The Canadians, for all of their pretensions and carping, are not the French, nor are they anyone but themselves, and being that they are our biggest trading partner, for better and for worse.

So, I remain puzzled at quite a bit of official rhetoric and posture when I look at the medium and long term issues, and the demands on American leadership posed by them.

[kandrathe]

The simple argument ones hears is: Oil = an asset. An asset that needs protecting. This means a level of power sufficient to protect the asset. The amount of oil in the middle east is so vast that if any one nation controlled it, they would be the worlds super power. The U.S. wants to be that one power.

There is a growing tension in the middle east between those who control the oil, and those who do not. The average to lower class Saudi citizen does not have many choices as to what they might do with their lives. They are so heavily restricted by their government, religious, and social mores that it in not a surprise to me that some rebel against it. From the point of view of that repressed Saudi, the rich and corrupt House of Saud, their monopoly of power, and their dealings with their largest customer (the U.S.) must be ever present in fueling their frustration.

[Occhidiangela]

Saw the propping up of a great variety of governments all over the world by the colonial powers, governments who found common cause with their colonial "allies." See the Catholic bourgoise in Viet Nam, for example.

The U.S. propped up a variety of "unstable" or at least non-populist governments as a means to an end: to face down the Communist hegemony threatened by the expansion of the USSR's agenda on a global scale. Undoing that network of "getting in bed with folks who you really aren't eye to eye with ideologically" is not an easy thing, due to the nature of political power, nor is it a situation easily resolved in the short term. Look at how long the road is to a more open society in El Salvador, for example.

And on a different note, look at the "propped up by the Brits" government in Rhodesia-ZImbabwe, and it fall, led to. The fear of what chaos will ensue once the props are withdrawn is very real.

[kandrathe]

Which brings me to Canada: I appreciate the ire in Washingon over PM Cretin's "moron" comment in re President Bush, but given the number of collective endeavours Canada and the US have undertaken since 1991, in Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and the Balkans, is a shut out on the contracts really an appropriate stance with our long time NATO ally? That position seems vindictive to me. The Canadians, for all of their pretensions and carping, are not the French, nor are they anyone but themselves, and being that they are our biggest trading partner, for better and for worse.

I think with regards to Canada in particular; It was a case of the nose of the camel into the tent. {I seem to have camels on my brain today} Can you just make allowances for one nation? I think it might have been possible for the administration to have rolled in those nations who are helping in Afghanistan. So I agree, I don't know that we needed to be so harsh in dealing with the non-supporters, but I think it sends a clear message for future endeavors for both those who help, and those who don't. If you help us there are rewards, if you don't help then don't expect to share in any of the rewards.

On the other hand; At a time when we need all the friends we can find, we are setting pretty high standards for being a friend.

[Guest]

Indeed it did - were lucky terrorism was so limited then.

Im not even saying the US made the wrong choice. Im saying though that that Islam is a bad religion that happens to have great prominience thanks to events rather than drives the events it self.

[Occhidiangela]

Western Oil Addiction has helped finance the spread Islam over the past 70 years. How interesting. Maybe it was never Kruschev, but Allah, who would "bury Capitalism." :)