Jihad terrorism

Nox

Here's an interesting tract on Jihad terrorism. Click the link for the full story.

http://www.middleeastinfo.org/commentary.php?id=2133


JIHADI TERRORISM: RIDICULOUS EXPLANATIONS, COMPLEX SOLUTIONS

Dr. BABU SUSEELAN

Communists, Nazis, and Fascists resorted to terrorism. They differed from Islamic terrorism in that they were motivated by political agenda.
The fall of the Berlin Wall signaled the end of the cold war and a sign of relief. But today, terrorist groups with the ideology of hate exist in different countries with different hue and color. They are engaged in murder, looting, kidnapping, beheading, hijacking, suicide murder, bombing and other criminal acts for personal, political and religious gains. India lost over 73,000 lives due to Jihadi terrorism over the last decade....

PHONY ROOT CAUSE THEORIES

Islamic terrorism is a complex subject. The terrorism field is loaded with international and national experts, each claiming special knowledge of the subject that have roused so much controversy while continuing to be misunderstood by so many. There are phony liberals marketing mindless root causes of Islamic terrorism including Western, Israeli interference in the Middle East, rapid social change, poverty, economic deprivation, poor toilet training, low self-esteem, need for affiliation, dysfunctional family, lack of education and so forth. And of course, these are psychological excuses. The misguided leftists and armchair speculators miss the point. Where do they fit in? This phony, liberal root cause theorists are like an old farmer who for the first in his life sees a big blue whale on the seashore and says, "I see it, but I don't believe it". The pseudo liberal social scientists are being imbued with ethereal, pre-fabricated, utopian ideas, which are too far divorced from reality. While the excuse industry promote faulty root cause theories, Jihadi terrorists are engaged in kidnapping, gratuitous beheading, looting, killing, bombing, airline hijacking, suicide murder, car bombing, and gruesome murder of innocent infidels all over the world. These pseudo liberals, communists, and Islamist have no clue on the true nature of Jihad terrorism. The butchery of Jihadi terrorism is explained to social causes and "understandable" Islamic grievances. It fails to distinguish between the legitimate use of social protests and terrorism. It seems phony liberals have a buoyant love affair with irrational Islamist defense mechanisms. They usually shed crocodile tears for the innocent victims. It is clear that what Jihad terrorists are doing in the name of Islam is destructive, counter productive, we think so, why aren't leftists liberals and Islamists able to realize the dangers of Jihad terrorism?

In a civilized world, we cannot function if we believe in phony explanations for Jihad terrorism. Wide spread irrationalism and uncritical acceptance of unjustified root cause theories peddled by Communists and liberals will have serious consequences for everyone. Such flimsy explanations and mental misdirection would paralyze us. Civilized, peace-loving people would be wise to check out Jihad mindset and criminal behavior in proper perspective....
__________
Nox

Laguna

I don't agree with what he's saying, he's accusing 'misguided' leftists of taking a simplistic view on Jihad terrorism, going further to add that leftists shed 'crocodile' tears for innocent victims. This man presumes and assumes an unqualified amount of others thought processes and rationalising, I couldn't disagree more with what he said to be honest, what makes his opinion/presumption more valid than anyone elses opinion/presumption, like all academics, he derides everyone elses opinion in favour of his own.

N.B. Would this happen to be an American website per chance?

billy the squid

about the author

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/BabuSuseelan.htm

From: "Matthew James" <matthew@supanet.com>
To: faithfreedom3 at yahoo.com
Subject: Unregistered website
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:05:55 +0000

To Author of http://www.faithfreedom.org/ Your website has been forwarded to the board of nominet www.nominet.org.uk as it appears unregistered to the internet domain and also been passed to the national constabulary as it relates to religious hatred. In the meantime please contact the nominet website www.nominet.org.uk for more details on whom to contact now. Regards Matthew Commisioner of net registrations

only place i could find it was on american hate websits

lazydaisy

Here's an interesting article about suicide bombers from Scientific American.It queries the mindset and challenges some of the assumptions. They are mostly upper middle class or middle class men with scientific backgrounds.

And yes, Laguna, the site is American, as is the publication. Is that a problem?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=0006A854-E67F-13A1-A67F83414B7F0104

Laguna

lazydaisy wrote:

Here's an interesting article about suicide bombers from Scientific American.It queries the mindset and challenges some of the assumptions. They are mostly upper middle class or middle class men with scientific backgrounds.

And yes, Laguna, the site is American, as is the publication. Is that a problem?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=0006A854-E67F-13A1-A67F83414B7F0104

Well it's a problem if it conforms to the popular "You're either with us or against us" sentiment that America has, by and large, adopted in recent times. I doubt the author of the piece would be allowed to have any other opinion than the one he has illustrated otherwise he'd be out of a job and labelled "Unpatriotic".

lazydaisy

Laguna wrote:

I doubt the author of the piece would be allowed to have any other opinion than the one he has illustrated otherwise he'd be out of a job and labelled "Unpatriotic".

So, your dismissing his opinion because you think he only has it because if he didn't he'd be fired? You think he was blackmailed by Scientific American.

Wow.

Laguna

No, I'm dismissing his opinion because he's taking a simplistic view at the cause of jihad terrorism, something he accuses those damn lefties (commies?) of doing..

lazydaisy

You didnt read it obviously.

Yet you still think he was blackmailed by Scientific American.

Hobbes

I wonder how people feel that by current day classifications the founding fathers of the US were in fact Terrorists.

Or the Japanese for that matter (after all they were suicide bombers in WWII).

The second link Lazydaisy is intresting as it kind of says the reverse to what Bush spouts in regards to suicide bombers.

lazydaisy

I dont measure the interest of an article against what Bush says or doesnt say. I think its interesting in its own right.

Hobbes

It is intresting because (1) it pointed out that suicide bombers are rarely poor/lost hope/etc that is spouted by Bush/US Administation and (2) points out that the real way to combat it is to "increase the civil liberties of the countries that breed terrorist groups". Which again goes against the retoric of "Fight them".

Your first link on the other hand. Not good. I'll tell you why. The second link goes into the issue and examines while the first link tries to tie "Muslim" with "Terrorist".

lazydaisy

I only posted the second link.

The first link does try to link muslim w/terrorist but it does more than that too and that isnt its main focus.

Can you show me where they Bush admins opined on the backgrounds of suicide bombers. I only recall Bush admins calling them evil cowards. The picture you refer to, poor, disenfranchised, as far as I recall was painted by the American left, which was perhaps inspired by the 911 commission report.

And your second point is exactly what the Bush administration thinks its doing.

homeOwner

I also disagree with his article. My main reason is that I cannot understand what makes a young man or woman give up everything to blow up innocent people with a suicide bomb? What is going on in their lives that leads someone to make that choice? I can only think that it is injustices or percieved injustices in their lives that makes them want to even the score somehow or get revenge or make life better for their own family.

I would think that the top reasons for a young person to kill themselves and others would be (IMO):

-revenge for death of a family member
-the idea that they are doing it for a greater good or their race/religion which they think is under some threat
-money for their family but I cant see this being a motivator to kill oneself and others


Can I ask those who agree with the original article to explain what they think is the root cause of islamic terrorism?

Any of you guys read "Imperial Hubris"? Was written by a former CIA dude who headed their Bin Laden station.

"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

meditraitor

Deleted User wrote:

Any of you guys read "Imperial Hubris"? Was written by a former CIA dude who headed their Bin Laden station.

"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

Nice quote, simplistic but says a lot more than the original posters quote.....

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

Here's an interesting tract on Jihad terrorism.

This seems to be just a longer, more developed (though still not making any real sense) justification for Ann Colters comment "We should kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity".

The author is basically saying that due to Islam the terrorists brains have been messed up and therefore they are likely to seek to carry out terrorist activities in an effort for attention. Which gives an new meaning to the term simplistic reasoning.

The bit quoted was just a rant against "liberals" and communites.

The rest of the piece basically blames the Islamic religion for "Jihad Terrorist" and suggest the west should "break down" this religion through various means including physcological war fare.

Some choice quotes :-

"Wide spread irrationalism and uncritical acceptance of unjustified root cause theories peddled by Communists and liberals will have serious consequences for everyone."

"Jihad terrorism is not over the policies of US, Israel, and India, or due
to globalization, social change, poverty, economic deprivation or lack of
self-esteem, but rather the ideology, the cognitive-behavior processes of
Jihad Muslims."

"Thinking patterns of Jihadi terrorists are different from the law-abiding population."

"Devise psychological techniques and emotional programs to induce fear, guilt, remorse and shame among Muslims."

And my personal favourate -

"And eventually we have to give the ultimate ultimatum "you have to change or you will forced to be free"

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

And my personal favourate -

"And eventually we have to give the ultimate ultimatum "you have to change or you will forced to be free"

Not as paradoxical as it sounds

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Not as paradoxical as it sounds

I am sure it is perfectly possible to do.

It is just that attempting to destroy an entire regions religion and culture to stop and handful of people becoming terrorists, would be a crime against humanity up there with the work of Stalin and Hitler

So I fail to see why someone would claim the only way to do protect freedom and humanity is with great wide spread evil.

lazydaisy

Deleted User wrote:

Any of you guys read "Imperial Hubris"? Was written by a former CIA dude who headed their Bin Laden station.

"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

That doesnt explain Bali, Madrid or London. How do you reconcile the above quote with the notion that Al Q, jihadists, or fundamentalist Muslims do not represent all Muslims? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

That doesnt explain Bali, Madrid or London. How do you reconcile the above quote with the notion that Al Q, jihadists, or fundamentalist Muslims do not represent all Muslims? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

Madrid and London (according to AQ statements) were direct retailation for helping in Iraq with the US.

They do not represent all muslims, there are approx 1.2billion muslims worldwide. If they were the majority you would know about it.

lazydaisy

Yes I know. My question was how to you reconcile that with the rationalisation that jihad terrorism is a result of US foreign policy in the ME.

Read the book, it explains that very well.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

That doesnt explain Bali, Madrid or London. How do you reconcile the above quote with the notion that Al Q, jihadists, or fundamentalist Muslims do not represent all Muslims? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

You are right it doesn't, because I think the former CIAs assessment sound bite is a little too general. I have not read the book so I don't know if this mis-represented his argument, or if his argument was that general.

Bascially the logic Al Queda use to justify their campaign is quite simple -

Democracy, and western living, is an a front to God

This idea came out of the desire in the 70s and 80s for Muslim fighters in places like Afganistan, Eygpt and other areas to form countries based on Islamic law. Following the USSR invasions, and American influence in the region, many Muslims felt that outside influences were to blame for the state of the Middle East.

The movement to form Islamic countries in the area feel into two camps, the peaceful political movement and the violent movement. No prizes for quessing which one Bin Laden fell into.

Al Queda slowly became the most successful of the violent movement (other groups like Al Queda quickly imploded in on themselves, I remember reading about a group in Syria or Jordon that eventually started killing off its own members for being not worthy till no one was left)

Ironically enough though, Al Queda was still an organisation on the verge of total collapse before 9/11. The military response by the west after 9/11 provided a huge boost to the organisation and recruitment.

This is where we get into the reality of terrorism, that it is often the actions of the other side that drive terrorism, rather than idiology alone.

Yes the reason Al Queda claim to hate the west is because of idiology, but the reality is that people are lining up to join groups like Al Queda because of the military response to places like Afganistan.

So when a bomb goes of in Bali, or Saudi Arabia it is not a direct response to something these countries have specifically done. The justification is idiological, that Bali is a tourist spot for corrupt westerners, or that the S.A government is betraying Islam by being in contact with the US.

But the reason there are people with funds and willing to blow things up in the first place is a result of the increasing tentions between the west and Islamic people caused by aggression on both sides.

Nox

Hobbes wrote:

I wonder how people feel that by current day classifications the founding fathers of the US were in fact Terrorists.

While you are correct about the definition ... I do not remember any suicide attacks/attackers ... which is what the article is about.

Hobbes wrote:

Or the Japanese for that matter (after all they were suicide bombers in WWII).

The Code of Bushido went way beyond the Kamikazi's. Also not a great example.

Here's a third not good example ... the IRA hunger-strikers.

Nox

Zombrex

Nox wrote:

While you are correct about the definition ... I do not remember any suicide attacks/attackers ... which is what the article is about.

I think the point Hobbes is making is that we don't have to look very far to find examples of the mind set of people to use terrorist actions or who are willing to die for a cause.

The author of the original article seems to be saying that the terrorist mind is developed through the oppressive religion of Islam, and that terrorist minds are wired funny.

That argument doesn't really hold when you look at examples of other terrorist movement, or the rational behind other, non-Islamic, suicide attacks

Nox

Good point.

Nox

lazydaisy

Here are a couple of more links on Al Q.

This one is lists unovered plots:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/cron.html

This is the site that the above link is from and has several other insighful links if you want to have a look.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/

Hobbes, who were the founding fathers? Are you sure they fought?

General question for anyone: Is it suicide if you dont think you are going to die but that you are going to paradise?

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Is it suicide if you dont think you are going to die but that you are going to paradise?

I am not sure what you mean by "don't think you are going to die" (the bombers certainly know they are going to die), but Islamic "suicide" bombers certainly don't call it suicide, since suicide is against Islam (and pretty much every other western religion).

They consider it martyrdon, to die with honour for a just cause. Just like the Japanise suicide runs in WWII, or the end of the Star Trek TNG when Riker decides to ram the Borg mother ship with the Enterprise to stop them attacking Earth (obscure Boards.ie reference #124)

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes, who were the founding fathers? Are you sure they fought?

You don't have to fight to be a terrorist. OBL for example is to blame for 9/11 but you didn't see him on any plane? And while they engaged the British on the field of battle they are pretty much famous for ignoring the "rules of engagement" and doing things like not wearing uniforms (unlawful combatants), wearing British soldiers clothing and shooting at Officers which to that point was considered unheard of in "civilised combat"

fly_agaric

Very strange article (first link)!

Giving out about the fact that

"There are phony liberals marketing mindless root
causes of Islamic terrorism including Western, Israeli interference in the
Middle East, rapid social change, poverty, economic deprivation, poor
toilet training, low self-esteem, need for affiliation, dysfunctional
family, lack of education and so forth. And of course, these are
psychological excuses."

and yet filled with alot of typically American psychobabble itself.

"Jihad terrorists have unique needs, and the emotional pressure to gratify
these needs can greatly affect the way they think and feel." - I mean, is it just me or WTF!:)

lazydaisy

Wicknight wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by "don't think you are going to die" (the bombers certainly know they are going to die), but Islamic "suicide" bombers certainly don't call it suicide, since suicide is against Islam (and pretty much every other western religion).

They consider it martyrdon, to die with honour for a just cause. Just like the Japanise suicide runs in WWII, or the end of the Star Trek TNG when Riker decides to ram the Borg mother ship with the Enterprise to stop them attacking Earth (obscure Boards.ie reference #124)

Wait, so if your suicide brings death to others then its honourable, otherwise its shameful?