One can't deny the fact that there have been NO major clerics decrying the terrorism by Muslims. In fact, they do what they can to support the continuation of the terrorism.

Extremist activities, like terrorism, will die out of it's own futility in a relatively brief amount of time UNLESS it's supported, condoned, and promoted by authoritarian figures. In this case, since we're dealing with a religious society, that means religious leaders. To say those that are willing to blow themselves up are a lost cause isn't really true because if most are, as you pointed out, functionally illiterate and poor, were it not for the religious powers approving and guiding them in the direction to blowing themselves up, the thought would most likely never enter their minds.

I can give you some examples. Northern Ireland. That went on for a long time. When was the last time you heard of a terrorist bombing in Northern Ireland? Do you know why? The individuals doing the bombing had nothing to do with the halting of it, rather the LEADERS of the protestant and catholic factions, along with Great Britain, finally simply all got tired of it. That and the fact that the worst of the worst leaders are now either dead or in prison. The support from the leadership for these bombings waned and they stopped.

You're probably not old enough to remember the Black Panthers and other associated groups from the '70's here in the US. Many people performed terrorist acts because they were incited to such acts by very charismatic leaders. Eventually, these leaders were either arrested, killed performing attacks of their own, or simply skipped the country. Without the incitement, there were no more acts of violence on an organized scale.

How about the Red Brigade? True, there are still a few of those fanatics running around in Europe (Italy, mostly), but not many.

PLO, Red Brigade, Black Panthers, etc., all caused their share of damage and terrorist acts. The thing about them is they are based on politics. A political group that advocates and practices attacks on non-combatants, although drawing a few rabid followers, eventually dies out because average, normal people realize that a government based on that can not stand and want no part of it.

The PLO would have gone the same way a long time ago had it not intertwined itself within the Muslim faith. Have you ever noticed that when things seem to be getting somewhat calmer between Israel and the Palestinians and Arafat sees himself beginning to lose power, he invokes the code phrases of Jihad and holy wars to begin inciting the populace again? Do you think that's a coincidence on his part? Of course not.

Holy wars, as history has shown, can last for generations. The Crusades, are a good example. That's because the true extremists are generally clerics, priests, or other holy men/women that say the violence is God's will and for true believers (1.6 billion, as you've noted) find it nearly impossible to go against their faith, even if they individually don't see the purpose in the battle.

This is where I think we're making a mistake. If we want to change the perceptions of the Islamic world, we MUST convince the clerics that have the power in that world that we mean them no harm and, more importantly, are not a threat to usurp their power.

This is going to be very difficult because while *WE* can pontificate about the "separation of church and state", they know of no such thing. To them, the church IS the state and Islamic law is state law. It's also a mistake to assume that the clerics are anything other than normal humans. For the most part, they have the power, they have the money, they have the influence, they have what they want and anything they perceive to be a threat to that is a threat to Islam.

It makes for an interesting puzzle, doesn't it?

If we assume these clerics are human, why would we assume other than they have human failings? For example, greed and lust for power? Do you think it's simply for religious ideology that the Shiites kill the Sunnei at many opportunities? No, it's so that one group can expand it's sphere of power and influence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure many of these clerics are devout and spiritual in their beliefs. I'm also sure many others are not.

Use your skills in Anthropology and go back and look at religious cultures. What typically happens to them? Do they sustain themselves over a long period of time or do they reach a saturation point and then begin to implode?

The question is, can the world survive while nature takes it's course or do we have to take steps to survive in the meantime? If fundamental Islamic nations had nuclear weapons, do you think that they have the equivalent of our western moral constraints to keep them from using them? On each other? Or us? Personally, if Iran develops Nukes (they're the closest fundamentalist Islamic government to having them), and I were Saudi Arabia or Egypt, I'd be very afraid because THEY would be the first targets, not us.

Oh well, enough rambling for now.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Mach10: Hard to say. To say it would make no difference is naive. However, to suggest that would go a ways to solve the problems? I doubt it. See, the people who are willing to blow themselves up are a lost-cause. You will not be able to convince them otherwise. They either come to their senses on their own, or die (one way or another) with their beliefs. The problem with the mid-east is the perpetuation of the social and economic problems that CAUSE these people to do what they do. Let's look at the evidence here: We have 1.6 BILLION Muslims. That's a hell of a lot of Muslims. If Islam taught violence and vengeance unilaterally, we would be seeing a LOT more violence than what we are. The only reason we NOTICE these people is because some of them are blowing themselves up on national TV. And there's the problem; What does it say about the mindset of a people that honestly believe that the ONLY way they will get attention, the ONLY way that their people even have a hope of victory is to kill themselves? That tells me a few things: 1) Poverty. 2) Ignorance. 3) Hopelessness. Note that I don't include religion. Honestly, I don't believe it has any real bearing on the situation. If it did, like I said, we'd have 1.6 BILLION muslims dashing themselves to peices on our shores. It's very hard to convince a person who is happy with his life to commit suicide. Take Osama; He's rich, he's got women, he's a happy bastard. He supposedly wants to die for his beliefs, and take a few evil yanks down with him... Yet he's hiding away like a ***** . Uh, that doesn't suggest religious fervor to me. That suggests that he has his own political agenda (and being that his family is in the Oil biz, I'd say it's economically oriented), and that he has a LOT to gain in creating instability in the area. See, Terrorism is kind of the last-ditch attempt at recognition or defense of your people. If you have no money for an army, or too few people, you hit the only way you can; At soft targets. Is it right? Hell no. Is it justified? Maybe to them. Now, let's do as you suggest; Have the islamic leaders say "Hang on... this has gone far enough." All you have really done is polarize the Islamic world, into the "True" muslims who condemn the attacks, and the "True" muslims who favor the attacks. And that is if everyone hears about it and believes it; The extremists will justify defying their leaders on some spurious, but morally justifiable grounds, such as outside pressure (They were forced to say it.), or even just outright rejection (Oh, if he believes that, he's no Muslim, like *I* am.). The ordinary muslims will look up and go "Hell, I already knew that!" and get back to what they were doing. In fact, it already happened: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article18.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1544955.stm And unfortunately, it didn't do much. There are no easy answers. To be sure, not pissing off the middle east would be a start. But that would mean doing some things that most Americans wouldn't like; Namely, withdrawing support for Israel(an ally?!?) and/or withdrawing all economic footholds from the mid-east (Yeah. That's going to happen). You do those two things, and publicly announce "We will leave you alone, if you leave us alone." And I guarantee an instant halt to activities. Trouble is, that would be more-or-less giving into terrorist demands... right?

quote Playing footsies with the Israelies is a political game that has been going on for a long time. The average American has no love for Israel, but we do need a safe spot to land if we are going to be in that region. Most people I know would be for the Leave us alone, we'll leave you alone idea... But that means leave us alone! Let us close our borders and take care of our own and you do the same. But that is never going to happen even if we tried it... Even if we left over there, it would appear as a sign of weakness and only strengthen Bin Laden, Hussien, and their ilk. It is more than just giving in to terrorist demands... They wouldn't leave us alone no matter if we did leave there... We didn't do anything to bring on 9/11. We are there in force because of it. [This message has been edited by Songman (edited 11-20-2003).]

Meh, we can agree to disagree. I think that the US could conceivably pull out of the mid-east. They need to sell that oil, so it would hit the market in a flood REAL fast. Thing is, there's the possibility that it'd go to us (canada) or Europe instead of yourselves.

The US can NOT close it's borders. Sorry. your economy would collapse so fast that you'd lose 10% of your landmass in the shrinkage. Now that it's rolling, you guys depend on NAFTA as much as we do... No matter how much we both LOATH the agreement.

If the US pulled back and out of the mideast, there would be NO new recruits to the terrorist groups. No fresh blood, no new money... The whole movement strangle in no time. Oh, I'm not promising universal love and affection... But the terrorist factions wouldn't have any reason strong enough to justify their own ends. Without new blood, the LEADERS would be forced to walk the line. Pshyeah. That's going to happen.

You are wrong about 9/11. 9/11 was a *reactionary attack* to a percieved list of slights. The fact that it was aimed at the hub of G8 commerce suggests that they had a beef with Globalization and the kind of Economic exploitation that the US have been doing globally for several years. It didn't "start" with 9/11. It's been going on for years. They just raised the bar, and took out a pay-back loan that they may not be able to repay.

The thing is, it doesn't even have to be a huge slight; I mean, I HATE my job. but it's not like they've done something wrong. But I'd still laugh if the company I work for sank beneath the waves. Sometimes it's enough just to be subervient to another entity to harbor enough resentment. Like any number of disgruntled employees.

I don't agree that all those billion people could harm us without someone with big money and ideas supporting it.. The many are led by the few... And as you have stated, that is all they know.

I also don't agree that if we left, that would be the end of terrorism. Terrorist leaders manufacture their brainwashing facts. If we pulled out they would have the evil Americans on the run and it would be their only chance to follow us and rid the world of our scourge.

I also strongly disagree that the US econony is so frail that we would fold up without the Middle East. If we were keeping all the money we sent over there, we could go a very long way... $37 Billion is a magic number lately, right?

Oil? We have oil supplies that for some reason the government wants to hold in reserve while we pay $2.00 a gallon for Middle Eastern petroleum products. I live in an oil town. Shell Oil is shutting down the pumps here and relocating employees to other areas until it is more profitable to come back here... More money could be spent on American oil and we would still have lower gas prices if we weren't paying for Arab oil.

Okay Johnny.. I guess I took your "What the crap" thing the wrong way and it set the tone of the whole post for me... sorry. I thought we were trying to be a little more thoughtful and less aggressive with our words.

quote Extremist activities, like terrorism, will die out of it's own futility in a relatively brief amount of time UNLESS it's supported, condoned, and promoted by authoritarian figures. In this case, since we're dealing with a religious society, that means religious leaders. To say those that are willing to blow themselves up are a lost cause isn't really true because if most are, as you pointed out, functionally illiterate and poor, were it not for the religious powers approving and guiding them in the direction to blowing themselves up, the thought would most likely never enter their minds.

Big disagreement. Extremist activity flourishes under the conditions you specify. If it is supported, it becomes a national movement, and no-longer needs to resort to terrorism if it suddenly finds itself in control of an army (eg., Taliban. They started as a small militant group)

quote I can give you some examples. Northern Ireland. That went on for a long time. When was the last time you heard of a terrorist bombing in Northern Ireland? Do you know why? The individuals doing the bombing had nothing to do with the halting of it, rather the LEADERS of the protestant and catholic factions, along with Great Britain, finally simply all got tired of it. That and the fact that the worst of the worst leaders are now either dead or in prison. The support from the leadership for these bombings waned and they stopped.

Northern Ireland, although not perfect, is a great example of how things COULD be. You must remember, though, that Ireland's problems are different than those of the Mid-east. Extremism in that sort of society was mostly a dying carry-over. People were fighting because "X killed my Y" tit-for-tat rather than any large ideological differences. It came to the point where the Protestants and Catholics showing their colors was more of an affront by opening old wounds than any real ideological differences.

quote You're probably not old enough to remember the Black Panthers and other associated groups from the '70's here in the US. Many people performed terrorist acts because they were incited to such acts by very charismatic leaders. Eventually, these leaders were either arrested, killed performing attacks of their own, or simply skipped the country. Without the incitement, there were no more acts of violence on an organized scale. How about the Red Brigade? True, there are still a few of those fanatics running around in Europe (Italy, mostly), but not many.

See, you are making the mistake of comparing western extremism to eastern. We both have COMPLETELY different societies. At it's worst, even the Irish had the influx of new ideas and people. As I said, exposure to other people and ideas softens the edge of extremism. You can't compare 1970 America, with it's huge upsurge of pop-culture to the informationally deprived and stagnant (as in non-moving) society of the mid-east.

quote PLO, Red Brigade, Black Panthers, etc., all caused their share of damage and terrorist acts. The thing about them is they are based on politics. A political group that advocates and practices attacks on non-combatants, although drawing a few rabid followers, eventually dies out because average, normal people realize that a government based on that can not stand and want no part of it. The PLO would have gone the same way a long time ago had it not intertwined itself within the Muslim faith. Have you ever noticed that when things seem to be getting somewhat calmer between Israel and the Palestinians and Arafat sees himself beginning to lose power, he invokes the code phrases of Jihad and holy wars to begin inciting the populace again? Do you think that's a coincidence on his part? Of course not.

To be fair, I don't pay attention to that steaming dung-pile. As far as I'm concerned, they are both Animals. They BOTH take turns at poking at each other. Neither Palestine nor Israel has clean hands. As such, I won't really comment on it, except to say that I don't believe that there will ever be lasting peace between the two. The Palestinians on this are definitely the underdogs. They don't have "support" except token-support from the rest of the Arab world. REmebmer what happened last time Arabia rose up to rid the world of the Israelite plague? The UN had to stop Israel from steamrolling clear across the Persian gulf. No, Palestine is quite on it's own. Israel is the example of what a Terrorist movement becomes if they get enough support. Only it's not terrorism; They are simply retaliating against guerilla terrorists hidden in civilian complexes.

quote Holy wars, as history has shown, can last for generations. The Crusades, are a good example. That's because the true extremists are generally clerics, priests, or other holy men/women that say the violence is God's will and for true believers (1.6 billion, as you've noted) find it nearly impossible to go against their faith, even if they individually don't see the purpose in the battle. This is where I think we're making a mistake. If we want to change the perceptions of the Islamic world, we MUST convince the clerics that have the power in that world that we mean them no harm and, more importantly, are not a threat to usurp their power.

VERY good! Excellent. When do we start?

quote Use your skills in Anthropology and go back and look at religious cultures. What typically happens to them? Do they sustain themselves over a long period of time or do they reach a saturation point and then begin to implode?

Religious societies ALWAYS implode. There are usually different reasons, but usually there is a point at which the Church has a certain amount of power, and people being people, they push people in the wrong direction. Then it snaps back, and the machine that kept the people together and cooperative springs apart.

That isn't to say that the religion dies out. Just that the society founded on it collapses. More word-play; To say a civilization has collapsed means simply that the defining charateristic of a high-level societ (namely, a central power base, with a distinct ruling class) no longer exists. The people are still there, but they branch out and form their own societies. Sometimes they are lucky enough to get a foothold. Then you get a whole mess of civilizations popping up with similar ideologies. Like Western Europe, for example.

The mid-east is a weird one. As I've stated, the location and environment doesn't make for easy trade, either of goods, or of ideas. It's kind of a vacuum. Even the separate countries themselves are made up of more-or-less autonomous units. I'm willing to bet (although I can't find all that much on the subject) that different tribes/camps/bands are falling apart all the time. But since there's nowhere else to go, they pool together again like mercury.

You'll have to forgive me if it's a bit vague. Cultural is not my strong point; My specialty is Physical and Forensic Anthropology. I did well in my Cult. Classes because I had to, not because of any huge interest...

The scary part is that misinformation is so unbelievably powerful in an area like that. Even all the terrorist groups together don't pose a significant military threat to the US. The scary part is that the potential for growth is exponential. Honestly, GW is going about it the WRONG way. Military action is strengthening the membership base of the terrorists. It is a war of information that GW needs to fight. And he's attacking the wrong people. He needs to TALK the terrorists down. Because Instead, he's concentrating on the American public. It's frustrating to watch, as the majority of you are being led by the nose. Every time someone questions anything he says, he's jumped on. But I'm off-topic. As long as you have poor, ignorant people, you will always have some slick-talking snake mo'fo willing to bend the truth and make himself an army of martyrs.

quote The question is, can the world survive while nature takes it's course or do we have to take steps to survive in the meantime? If fundamental Islamic nations had nuclear weapons, do you think that they have the equivalent of our western moral constraints to keep them from using them? On each other? Or us? Personally, if Iran develops Nukes (they're the closest fundamentalist Islamic government to having them), and I were Saudi Arabia or Egypt, I'd be very afraid because THEY would be the first targets, not us. Oh well, enough rambling for now. John Stricker

At the risk of sounding blase, the terrorists never did pose a significant threat. 9/11 happened mostly by accident. There was careful planning, but the plan was VERY risky. All it needed to fail was a couple of more alert (and suspicious people.) Unfortunately, they judged the reaction of the American people all too well. NOBODY was thinking clearly on that day. I'm not even in the same country, and I was stunned. You will NOT likely see anything like that ever happening again; Orange Alert or not. As has been shown, the poor bastards dumb enough to hijack a plane have ALL been carried out on stretchers.

Nukes are a possibility, though unlikely. Especially given the delicate nature of construction, and the sheer size of the weapons. Chemical is a little better, but difficult to work with. Biological is neat. All we need is another Polio breakout. But again, tough to work with.

I would like to make one thing clear; As long as the terrorists are happy to keep it at "conventional" weapons, they don't pose that great a threat. I've heard the bluster about "1 american life is too many." Bravado and machisimo aside, the terrorists KNOW that they are not a big threat, and therefore somewhat secure in being below radar.

Let's get hypothetical. Someone drops a low-medium yeild thermo nuke on downtown New York.

Show of hands in thinking that the US wouldn't steamroll the entire mid-east?
Show of hands who believe that they would act alone in this?

there is a certain arrogance to the other countries; As long as it's conventional, it's not a huge threat. But when the bar rises, there will be hell to pay.

And I know for sure who has the larger weapons cache.

quote I also don't agree that if we left, that would be the end of terrorism. Terrorist leaders manufacture their brainwashing facts. If we pulled out they would have the evil Americans on the run and it would be their only chance to follow us and rid the world of our scourge.

No, it would be the END of terrorism. Of the current fanatics, some would be mollified, others would dream up conspiracies and carry on. But they would have a HUGE problem convincing new people to join. And like I said, without fodder, it'd be their necks... And they have shown in the past to be cowardly little dipshits, eh?

quote I also strongly disagree that the US econony is so frail that we would fold up without the Middle East. If we were keeping all the money we sent over there, we could go a very long way... $37 Billion is a magic number lately, right?

You are confusing a few things. I didn't say the US economy is weak (although it is, relatively... But that's another story.). I just said that it would collapse. The US produces almost no natural resources of it's own. The US economy is mostly an import/export economy, with a strong manufacturing base. It's in 3 parts, Import, Export, Manufacturing. By closing the borders, you would essentially lose 2/3 of your worker base; by virtue of not having anything for them to do. It's not strength/weakness. It's economics.

quote Oil? We have oil supplies that for some reason the government wants to hold in reserve while we pay $2.00 a gallon for Middle Eastern petroleum products. I live in an oil town. Shell Oil is shutting down the pumps here and relocating employees to other areas until it is more profitable to come back here... More money could be spent on American oil and we would still have lower gas prices if we weren't paying for Arab oil.

Your oil supplies would drain in a SHOCKING amount of time. You don't have that much oil any more. Nowhere NEAR enough to cover the consumption of your civilian base, military, industrial, and power industries. Like it or lump it, the US accounts for what, 32% of the world economy? That means that it's importing just that much to stay floating. And it's sinking at the moment.

quote But anyway.. good discussion.. I'm going to spend some time with my family.. Good night all.

Well! Why didn't you say so!