Posted on 09/27/2006 12:38:22 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I'm not sure that statement means that suicide terrorism takes place entirely independent of Islamic fundamentalism. It just means that Pape considers foreign occupation to be the primary concern of suicide terrorists.
Does that mean Dearborn, MI and northern Virginia are now considered Islamic territory?
Does that mean Dearborn, MI and northern Virginia are now considered Islamic territory?
Certain parts probably could, depending on which Imam you ask. There's no specific rule laid down anywhere that I'm aware of. They pretty much go off of the same standard as the judge once said about pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
Pape is way off base but that's not a new situation with Cato and the war.
That's one flaw in Pape's theory. What's an entire country supposed to do, just give up and become a diaspora?
It's not a flaw in the theory, it's proof that he's right in that extremism plus territorial issues equals suicide attacks.
That by no means is an indication that the fanatics are right, or that Isreal should up and leave. It just means that they're faced with a particularly daunting problem with no easy solution. That's hardly news, and I don't know why people are so surprised by the idea.
Sure, but at a far smaller rate of incidence. Al-Qa'ida is a movement with a very, very low level of appeal. The only reason it's able to achieve what it does is by latching on to concerns within the moderate Arab community, and exploiting them.
Without legitimate gripes to hide behind, the militant philosophy of al-Qa'ida would return to being a fringe problem. Certainly, still a threat, but nothing like what it is now.
Your mistake is in assuming the territory that the Muslims feel threatened in is in the Middle East. The territory that they feel threatened in is ours. Even were the Middle East to be totally converted to Taliban-type rule, relieving the "threat" to Islam there, the moment Islam stops spreading into our lands, they would feel threatened.
From a theological view, yes, you're right. But few Muslims really are on that wavelenght. They're on board with al-Qa'ida's only because AQ is the only game in town as far as real resistance to the global cultural threat the West radiates. Their literal and extremist interpretation of the Qu'ran are not popular with most Muslims, and they side with a group that espouses them it only because nothing else is stopping us.
The fact of the matter is, traditional Islamic culture is dying. They know that it is in mortal peril from the West. That's why a rabid, militant Islamic belief arose as the defender of Islam. Normal Muslims are being led away from the old ways by Western ideas, media, philosophies, forms of government, and beliefs. It's common knowledge that Muslim nations are not competitive with the West, economically, militarily, or politically. Collectively, they are helpless against us, and they know it.
The Wahabbi phenomenon is a panicked response from a culture that is being disintegrated. It's true that Islam has some inherent advantages over the West, and in the short term, so long as we allow them to continue, they will enjoy some parity with us. But they realize that in the long run, they're hopelessly outclassed. This push for confrontation is a desperate defensive reaction. It will have offensive characteristics, like a kamikaze, but it is in effect nothing more than a culture desperately lashing out.
Al-Qa'ida is in effect making itself the organizational equivalent of a suicide bomber, hoping to scare the West when all other forms of deterrence have failed.
Japan's conversion to suicide attacks started when the circumstances changed to the point where they though they were losing the war. That was only partially (a very small part) about the land they occupied.
It was a direct response to the threat of invasion our fleets posed to the home islands. The homes and families of the Japanese were in imminent danger of being conquered.
It was far more about their feeling of helplessness as the resources they felt they needed to win (men, materiel, supplies) were being depleted.
The military of the Arab people is in an even worse state than the Imperial Japanese were. What other options do they have that are militarily effective against our high tech juggernaut? How helpless do the Arabs feel, when their mightiest armies are swept aside in a matter of weeks, and are utterly unable to resist our will?
Likewise, even were we not in Iraq at all, the moment that Islam stopped expanding (as it is commanded to do), the attacks would increase.
Again, true in a theological sense, but not in a military one. The people who are swelling to join AQs ranks, or support them passively, are allies of convenience against percieved or real threats to the Arab Islamic way of life. In each brush we've had with militant Islam over the last 50 years, it's been a reaction to Western hands in the Middle East.
Iraq simply reveses the religious expansion, not the territorial one. American is not annexing Iraq; we are making sure that Islamic fundamentalism cannot take hold there.
Iraq doesn't reverse any religious expansion whatsoever. That situation was stable, and if anything, our invasion took the lid off of the extremists. Saddam had already ensured that Islamic fundamentalism didn't take hold there, so that wasn't an issue.
You claim that America is not annexing Iraq, but good luck finding a Middle Easterner that believes that. They think we're there for the long haul, to keep an eye on the oil, and to keep an eye on the government that arises from it. We can sit back and say, "Well, it's for their own good", but you have no concept of how humiliating that would be. If it happened to us, there would be militias and resistance movements coming out of the woodwork.
And it is the defeat of the ideology, not the loss or capture of land, that has them suicide bombing us...
No ideology has been defeated in Iraq. None. Not democracy, Ba'athism, or Islamism. The only tangible change in Iraq, that any Iraqi can see, is that their country is occupied by foreign troops who don't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.
The Fundamentalist believe the West is corrupt and dying. But, the west, through culture and politics and economics has invaded the Middle East on all fronts It's like you said... this is an affront.
The West is annihilating the traditional Muslim way of life. Democracy, women's rights, equal protection under the law, secular courts, these things are all making headway in the Middle East, due to foriegn influence. Thus far, the traditionalists have been able to keep them at bay, but at the cost of their own effectiveness.
Let me say that again. The traditional forces in the Middle East have traded overall effectiveness for stability. Thus, their nations are weak, backwards, and humiliated. They choose to hold on to certain aspects of traditional society, but they do so in a world that won't wait for them.
Between change, and slow suicide, they chose suicide.
Now, the fundamentalists always believed that the West is weak in certain ways, but dying? Not a chance. They understand that the West is expanding across the world, and it absorbs every culture it comes in contact with. Only the most ancient and self confident, like the Chinese, are able to withstand it, and even they are showing signs of being transformed.
Islamists simply don't have a chance. They hid from the West for what centuries they could, and lashed out when it was feasible, but it's done little more than slow their eventual defeat. They offer very little that the West needs, on a social level, except for a barbaric, militant cult that some embrace only out of blind spite for the West. Islamists may be rushing our gates now, weapons in hand, but it's because they are not long for this world. In another 100 years, Islam in it's present form will not exist. What we are witnessing now is the agonizing spasms of a dying culture too arrogant and too backwards to admit that it's been beaten.
(Granted, that means we may be in for a very violent century.)
My example comes from a Mark Steyn article, but it is a very good one.
He compares the actions of the recent Fox news team that was kidnapped in Gaza and a group of people who were kidnapped by Muslims and Sir Arthur Conan wrote about them.
The Fox news team was threatened with death unless they converted. So, they converted, and when they were released they told everyone they did it under duress.
The 4 that were kidnapped in the Arthur Conan story chose death instead of conversion...why? Even though they were not Christians and in fact stood against what the cross stood for on earth, they believed that if they converted, they would be denying themselves.
Steyn writes about the Fox news "sham" of a conversion: "But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling —that the west is weak, that there's nothing - no core, no bedrock, nothing it's not willing to trade."
Even if our culture is spreading like wire fire... they believe they will win because we are dying. Steyn sums it up very well when he writes..."It doesn't matter how "understandable" Centanni and Wiig's actions are to us, what the target audience understands is quite different: that there is nothing we're willing to die for. And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead."
You seem to suggest if we ride it out for a bloody century, Islam will die of natural causes because the West is strong and transforming societies.
I disagree... I say that Islam did not hide from the West for centuries...It was forced back because it did have the means to militarily compete with the West. Well, that is changing. They have new ways to fight...they are gaining in military power...they have states that will back them with safe haven, give them weapons. Flushed with money, they are acquiring weapons. Not as a last gasp, but because they believe that they can win.
Benjamin Netanyahu said right after 9/11...and I paraphrase. "Right now, the terrorists lack the means but not the will to destroy us. We have the means to destroy them but lack the will. It is a race to see who gets what first."
I believe Bibi...and watching the West since 9/11...the mental gymnastics we go through to justify not defending ourselves shows that Steyn's last statement is true: "A society with nothing to die for is dead already."
Not to delve into word parsing again, but this is another point we agree on, except for the wording. (Also, I focus on the Islamic aspect of this struggle because FReepers seem all too familiar with only the weaknesses of our side. I agree that we have our own problems to deal with, of course.)
What you say is 'dying' and I say is 'vulnerable', are basically the same thing. Islam is backed into a corner, and rallying for one last charge, but they've found that the West, while incredibly dominant in some ways, has some very glaring weaknesses that can be exploited. Simply put, they think they have a fighting chance, and they're right.
While our culture is powerful, expansive and alluring, it's also built on some very liberal ideas that make it fragile. Self examination often leads to self loathing. Debate and compromise often lead to fractured stalemates. The amassing of power, and the reluctance to use it. These things all stem from a fear of our own power, guilt over our past actions, and a deep lack of confidence.
Islam suffers none of these weaknesses. In that regard, they realize that they have some inherent advantages over us that they can exploit, and seek to close on a different set of victory conditions.
In the short term, this will succeed. Half of Europe, as we know it, will not exist within 30 years. Brutal advances will be made in Africa. A sense of a comeback will be in the air, and it will invigorate the Islamic movement.
There are three things that will end this advance.
1. The use of atomic weapons against the West.
2. The marginalization of oil, due to the proliferation of a cheaper alternative energy source.
3. The next two generations of Muslims fully absorbing the tools of the information age.
The first two are self explanatory, because it will give the West the ability to hit the Islamic centers of gravity directly, and with their full, unbridled force. We lack the will to do so now, or the ability to do so economically, but the acquisition of either will end the Islamic advance forever.
The third is essentially when the clock runs out, and Islam is no longer able to straddle the crossroads of the ancient world, and the modern one. Within the next 30 to 70 years, advances in information technology will tear apart Islamic culture in a way that they have no natural immunity against. While in some ways the internet serves as a stabilizing force for extremists, they're essentially becoming poisoned by their own tools. While some Arabs use the internet to become even more radicalized, to evangelize, and to become more effective terrorists, most use it as a window to the West, to see what we have, and what they could have. They use it to see farther and dream bigger than what Islam offers.
What fax machines did for the end days of the Soviet Union, the internet will do for the Islamic bloc.
You seem to suggest if we ride it out for a bloody century, Islam will die of natural causes because the West is strong and transforming societies.
I disagree... I say that Islam did not hide from the West for centuries...It was forced back because it did have the means to militarily compete with the West. Well, that is changing. They have new ways to fight...they are gaining in military power...they have states that will back them with safe haven, give them weapons. Flushed with money, they are acquiring weapons. Not as a last gasp, but because they believe that they can win.
I understand where you're coming from with this. I think that Steyn should be required reading, and I like Netanyahu a good deal.
Islam may have been forced back, but their current advance has nothing to do with newfound military power. If anything, they are militarily weaker now than they ever have been, in 1300 years of history. The weapons they acquire are feeble and obsolete compared to ours, and their chances of a military victory are so small as to be incalculable. There are vulnerabilities within Western society, but they are social and political ones. It is those weak pillars that the Islamists will seek to knock down over the next half century.
I'm sorry to say, but that is pure supposition. I have seen no evidence that "moderate" Islam is the rule. Far from it!
Look at the behavior of most religious communities. When a radical makes pronouncements, the mainstream almost always acts as a check to that ideology (see Christian responses to Fred Phelps and his nutjobs. Loud and clear). Why not the same for Muslims?
The reason is the concept of Muslim solidarity (Dar-al-Islam). Even if a particular Muslim does not believe in extremist views (which there seem to be very few who have those reservations), when forced to choose, they will side with the extremist Muslims every time. Their solidarity trumps all other concerns. When you are talking about other modern religions, the same is not true. Mainstream Christian churches would eagerly side with the ACLU to attack, let's say, a racist sect of Christianity (despite the fact that the ACLU and most Christians are quite hostile to each other in worldviews). No matter who the group is that opposes extremist Muslims, most Muslims seem perfectly content to ignore the extremists (and I guarrantee that they would side with them if forced to make a choice... supposition, yes... but no worse than yours). This is why the extremist fringe can lead the behavior of the (supposedly) moderate whole.
Percentages don't matter; objective results do. And , objectively, the outcome of present conflicts with Islamists is the same as if all Muslims were radical, even if some will whisper that they aren't really "in their hearts"...
I'm sorry to say, but that is pure supposition. I have seen no evidence that "moderate" Islam is the rule. Far from it! Look at the behavior of most religious communities. When a radical makes pronouncements, the mainstream almost always acts as a check to that ideology (see Christian responses to Fred Phelps and his nutjobs. Loud and clear). Why not the same for Muslims?
A fair question. The answer is this: politics make strange bedfellows.
Were it not for the political situation in the Middle East, most Muslims would have as little use for bin Laden as Christians have for Phelps. I'll repeat a question I asked earlier.
"If America had been invaded, and the only organized resistance showing any promise was a David Khoresh type religious nut, would you say "Praise Jesus and pass the ammo" until the threat was defeated and worry about what to do with the lunatic later, or would you just stay at home and enjoy the occupation."
Muslims don't care for bin Laden's religious views, but they're down with his politics. If you think about it, many Americans are as well, they just don't see it through Muslim eyes.
The reason is the concept of Muslim solidarity (Dar-al-Islam). Even if a particular Muslim does not believe in extremist views (which there seem to be very few who have those reservations), when forced to choose, they will side with the extremist Muslims every time.
That's pretty common tribal behavior, sticking to the Devil you know as opposed to powerful foreigners. Their behavior is a lot more comprehensible if you think of them as people first, and Muslims second.
No matter who the group is that opposes extremist Muslims, most Muslims seem perfectly content to ignore the extremists (and I guarrantee that they would side with them if forced to make a choice... supposition, yes... but no worse than yours).... This is why the extremist fringe can lead the behavior of the (supposedly) moderate whole.
Because traditional Arabs see their culture as on the verge of being eradicated, they're vulnerable to being led into either support or silence in the face of extremists. Their support for bin Laden is political, because his religious beliefs are simply not well liked.
I don't profess to understand Salafism, which is the mutant form of Sunnism that we generally refer to as 'extremism'. A few Muslims have tried to explain it to me or shed some insight (including one who was behind bulletproof glass). As best I understand it, Sunnis fear Salafists because they are in effect anarchists. They are able to do anything, say anything, and be anything, so long as in their minds and hearts, they stand for Allah, even to the point of ignoring the Qu'ran. Very, very few Muslims are on board with this type of philosophy, because they feel it's basically got one foot in Islam, and another in paganism.
Bin Laden, Zawahri, and other AQ Muslim scholarly types, as well as many allied groups like the GSPC, are in effect or in name Salafists, and at the end of the day, are no more legitimate or palatable than Phelps is to us.
That doesn't mean that they won't rally around bin Laden as a Pancho Villa like renegade who sticks it to the man. Arabs are people before they're Muslims, and they feel that bin Laden supports their interests more than their own leaders.
Percentages don't matter; objective results do. And , objectively, the outcome of present conflicts with Islamists is the same as if all Muslims were radical
That's pretty much a textbook example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have a good grasp of Islam, but I think that, much like Christianity, few people follow it to the letter. Assuming that the threat stems from a fear that all of them will do as the Qu'ran says is misinterpreting what's going on. There's a deep support for radicals right now, even unattractive as their views are, because they're a political movement first. Those politics are extremely popular in the Arab world, and AQ is quite savvy as portraying themselves as a defender of the people's interest. No one else is going to bat for the Arabs the way bin Laden claims to be, hence his popularity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.