UK terror threat at Critical

[Fe 26]

Two trends are at work here: humiliation and atomization. Islam's self-identity is that it is the most perfect and complete expression of God's monotheistic message, and the Koran is God's last and most perfect word. to put it another way, young Muslims are raised on the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism is God 1.0, and Hinduism and all others are God 0.0.

One of the factors driving Muslim males, particularly educated ones, into these acts of extreme violence is that while they were taught that they have the most perfect operating system, every day they're confronted with the reality that people living by God 2.0, God 1.0 and God 0.0 are generally living much more prosperously, powerfully and democratically than those living under Islam. This creates a real dissonance and humiliation. How could this be? Who did this to us? The Crusaders! The Jews! The West! It can never be something that they failed to learn, adapt to or build. This humiliation produces a lashing out.

I don't know if I buy that. It makes some sense, and yet there are other groups in similar situations that don't do those sorts of things.

[The_Meach]

While states like Quatar, Oman, Kuwait and the Emerates speak well of this philosophy you've also got beasts like Saudi Arabia to deal with, where you've got one insanely wealthy tribe controling the state and factions of said tribe funding the fundamentalists as they feel that is the "right" thing to do.

See my above post about rule-sets. I don't want to make the mistake of conflating globalization with wealth. Yes, globalization brings wealth. But it brings, if you'll permit the phrase, healthy wealth. Because before it brings wealth, it mandates rule-sets. Free your economy, your women, and your minds. No more autocratic/despotic economy (which is sort of what oil oligarchies are). No more oppressing the chicks (now they can join the workforce and do what they want w/their lives instead of being baby-machines!). And no more of that other ancient world bullshit like stoning adulterers, or maiming thieves, or honor killings, or ethnic cleansing.

Giving up all that shit is a necessary precondition for globalization to arrive. It's not so much that globalization brings wealth as it is that, for globalization to arrive, you've got to clean your shit up. Then Globalization shows up on your doorstep wearing a Brooks Brothers suit and cufflinks by Armani (see: Foreign Direct Investment).

Good point bringing up Saudia Arabia (SA). If wealth were enough to solve ppl's problems, SA should be heaven on Earth. Why isn't it? I would argue it's b/c it has shitty rule-sets, where the tribe in charge dictates to everyone else what they'll do w/their lives, and that their whole economy is set up to benefit the elite, and the ppl below don't feel like they've got any stake in anything (economically or politically). It's a place where they chop off hands, everything is corrupt (how good would you feel about your society if you knew that everything about getting ahead was based on "who you knew" rather than on merit?), and if you're a woman you keep your damn mouth shut.

A chick I know has a dad who flies for Dubai Airlines. That country is beyond wealthy. The ppl (native Dubai...-ians?) don't pay taxes and they're pretty well off. But who does all the work? They import labor from SE Asia to construct their billion dollar hotels and golf courses. It may sound like heaven, and it looks pretty good on the surface, but there's no there...there.

All humans crave respect and want to feel proud of themselves. Pretty hard to feel proud of yourself if you get a handout and don't have any other freedoms (political, economic, religious, sexual, etc.).

Anyways, I'm just saying that disengagement is not the best course (imho). We stay connected w/the M.E. and we at least have the opportunity to keep the dialogue on rule-sets and modernization open.

One last thing: we (the US, The West, anyone) don't have the choice of packing our shit and getting out (I'm not talking about Iraq...I'm talking about having no contact (any) w/the M.E.). As long as cars need gas, ppl in Europe and Asia (where most of M.E. oil goes) will buy it.

[g0zen]

Look, I'm not defending anything here. I'm just trying to point out that the scale of slaughter in the 20th century (when godless ideologies ruled the day) dwarfs previous eras.

No, you're making a bullshit comparison that doesn't even remotely hold. You don't get to compare the deathtolls of conflicts, genocides, etc. that occurred in pre-gunpowder era to that of the era of machine guns, bombs, and gas. It's ridiculous and in the end you're not making any kind of point except as some ham-handed attempt at being an apologist for one type of religious fundamentalism while acting profoundly outraged by another. lrn2debate.

[Fe 26]

the thread is just going to go down from here.

[g0zen]

The_Meach: What about those latest terrorists? They were all doctors, not uneducated or poor. Osama Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia, and he was filthy stinking rich. It seems radical islam also thrives in entrepreneurial societies.

Also, look at how long we tried to invest time and effort into Palestine, and they are worse off than ever.

Because you're a virulent racist and bigot, I won't bother pointing out to you that these people are the minority of suicide bombers and extremists not the majority. The legions of suicide bombers in Palestine are poor, desperate men, whereas those attacking the West are wealthy, alienated men with no national identity to affluent White Christian places they live, so they look for community in mosques which are funded by radical wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and get drug into this crap.

Does it mean the religion itself is poison or that Arabs are somehow deficient by birth? No, much as you may want us to believe it is so, it isn't.

[g0zen]

the thread is just going to go down from here.

Thanks for contributing IronPlant, I know you racked your brain thinking up this post.

[Fe 26]

look at me, I'm gozen. I'm mean and no one likes me, blah blah blah

[The_Meach]

I don't know if I buy that. It makes some sense, and yet there are other groups in similar situations that don't do those sorts of things.

What groups? Where?

Sure, there are plenty of groups that don't blow shit up. But why is blowing shit up so crucial the for radical Islamists? Friedman argues that it's b/c they've been taught to believe they've got the perfect word of God and that everything should be pocket aces for them...but then they see how well the Zionists are doing in Tel Aviv, and the godless Americans are doing pretty good with Playboy, and the Hindus have a space program.

Sure, there are radical religious groups elsewhere. Why don't they turn up the violence level from "Hurt Me Plenty" to "Nightmare" (sorry, I was playing Doom on XBLA earlier!)? Because they live in societies where rule-sets are enforced.

Want to be a Branch-Davidian and think the whole world is out to get you (I know it lacks the political aspect of radical Islam; a key difference)? You've got to take that crap to the compound, where you're marginalized and can't do much of anything to hurt ppl outside your cult.

The point is that only in the M.E. does this zealotry turn into spectacular terrorism. Why? Radical Islamists have been told the world is theirs. And yet they've got a shit-ton of evidence telling them its not theirs. The world belongs to godless fucks that watch MTV and go to strip clubs and drink Bushmills and go to temple. (And, of course, hard-core zealotry is more of a problem these days for Islam than it is for any other major religion)

[g0zen]

Sure, there are plenty of groups that don't blow shit up. But why is blowing shit up so crucial the for radical Islamists?

During a press conference, a reporter asks a captured official of the FLN: "Isn’t it a dirty thing to use women’s baskets to carry bombs to kill innocent people?" To which the official answers, "And you? Doesn’t it seem even dirtier to you to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages with thousands of innocent victims? It would be a lot easier for us if we had planes. Give us your bombers, and we’ll give you our baskets." - The Battle of Algiers

They believe they are in a war, and since they don't have any conventional armies to fight with they use this kind of low-grade murder of innocents to strike terror and occasionally disrupt civilian infrastructure. It is not, as the moronic neo-imperialist Friedman posits, some kind of quirk unique to Islam.

Want to be a Branch-Davidian and think the whole world is out to get you (I know it lacks the political aspect of radical Islam; a key difference)? You've got to take that crap to the compound, where you're marginalized and can't do much of anything to hurt ppl outside your cult.

That's a ridiculous example. The Branch-Davidians isolated themselves because they wanted to be left alone, they didn't want to exert their ideology onto others. Now, take for example a group like the Army of God, who exist in our society which you (in bold I might add) say has rule-sets. That doesn't stop them from blowing things up. You have failed to establish your major premise, try again.

And, of course, hard-core zealotry is more of a problem these days for Islam than it is for any other major religion)

Show me the data that supports this statement. Give me hard figures that show the total number of adherents to Islam in the world and what percent of them are radical terrorists.

[The_Meach]

No, you're making a bullshit comparison that doesn't even remotely hold. You don't get to compare the deathtolls of conflicts, genocides, etc. that occurred in pre-gunpowder era to that of the era of machine guns, bombs, and gas. It's ridiculous and in the end you're not making any kind of point except as some ham-handed attempt at being an apologist for one type of religious fundamentalism while acting profoundly outraged by another. lrn2debate.

I don't recall who mentioned the role of modern warfare in contributing to the catastrophic number of deaths in the 20th. But I agree w/that person (The Gas) that the machinegun is much more efficient than the sword.

I also pointed out that more ppl were alive in the 20th century than back in the day, which would account for the disparity in numbers.

And, further, I noted how I cannot account for the percentages (which is how we usually compare different eras), and also pointed out that I am specifically NOT acting as an apologist for any religion.

it's a lot easier to kill a million people with artillery than with swords.

You make a good point.

(It should be noted that much of this is due to the fact that populations are larger in the modern era...I have no clue what the percentages are of deaths in the ancient world; it could very well be that more ppl died b/c of religion as a percentage of world pop back in the day but w/o data, it's hard to make that case - but I am totally willing to hear someone out on this.)

I'm not bringing up my points to somehow make the case that believers in religion are pure as the driven snow. Or that atheists are the scourge of humanity (the scourge of humanity today is hardly Dawkins/Hitchens...more like fundamentalist Islam).

All of us (regardless of creed) should be watching out for our fellow man.