Job Discussion Forums

[Steiner]

I just thought I'd stride right out into this minefield. I'd like to see what you guys have to say since presumably you have the closest view.

There are terrorist groups all over the world with many different ideologies supporting their terror. It seems to me that they can be broken into two main camps. Those in the first group terrorize mainly for political reasons, and those in the second terrorize mainly for religious reasons. I know, I know. These categories can't possibly cover all terrorists and the lines are usually not that clear. Oh, well.

In the political category I'd put groups like the IRA (Ireland and Great Britain), the Shining Path (Peru), the Maoists in Nepal, Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City), Colombian guerillas, and the PLO (Israel).

And into the religious category I would toss Al Qaeda, Amrozi and his group (Bali), Abu Sayyaf (the Philippines), and the cult that released Sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway.

DIGRESSION: After the 9/11 attacks the U.S. media was falling all over itself to completely absolve Islam and the Koran of any hint of responsibility. Every American Muslim came out to declare that the terrorists were not "true" Muslims, but I can't recall the "true" Muslims of North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia condemning the attacks as outrageous and evil.

If the terrorists had claimed to be Buddhists and carried their attack out in the name of Buddha, I think the Dalai Lama and the king of Bhutan (the world's only Buddhist kingdom) would have given extremely harsh condemnations of the act. Likewise, if the terrorists claimed to be Christians, I am sure the Pope, Billy Graham, Jesse Jackson and whoever else you care to add would condemn the act very loudly. END DIGRESSION

I certainly realize that only a very miniscule percentage of Muslims are terrorists, but it seems that a large percentage of terrorists are Muslims. This can especially be said of those who practice terror for religious reasons.

---For goodness sake, Steiner, what is your question?!!!!

OK.....Why, of those who terrorize in the name of religion, is the majority Muslim? Is it because of Muslim society? History? Scripture? And why don't other religions regularly spawn similarly extreme groups? And why is this post so long? Thanks for your replies.

[Stephen Jones]

A disproportionate number of terrorist acts are not carried out by Muslims; it's simply that the US controls the propoganda machine.

The Department of State regularly issues a list of "terrorist nations"; these are nations who support groups that use "terrorist" means agaisn the US or its ally Israel. It does not mention that the US supports, either actively or passively, groups that have the same modus operandi, or that it has often been caught out directly usng terrorist means itself.

Most of the Arab world is Muslim. The US government has supported Israel, with arms and money so that it may continue to carry out expansionist policies against the Palestinians. It has invaded a sovereign Arab country on trumped up pretexts, and is now in the process of diverting its wealth to the propping up of friendly American corporations.

It is false to suggest that Buddhists would speak out against terrorisim commited in their name. Quite the contrary; the massacre of Tamils in Sri Lanka has been carried out with the active encouragement of the Buddlist clergy many of whom are still vehemently opposed to any form of legitimate peace (a New Zealand reporter wrote an article a few weeks ago stating that he realized that there were problems in Sri Lanka when he saw the peaceniks being beaten up by the Buddhist priests).

In Gujarat over 2000 Muslims were massacred in religious riots organized by the extremist Hindu religious parties. The IRA in Ireland, the Serbs in Bosnia or the Russian army in Chechnya, or the Lord's liberation army in Uganda are just a few examples of Christian groups.

You say "but I can't recall the "true" Muslims of North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia condemning the attacks as outrageous and evil." Why are Muslims the only ones expected to prove themselves every time there is an atrocity committed by a Muslim. I don't recollect all the Catholics in the US standing up to condemm the IRA as unchrstian - indeed I seem to remember that most of them were channelling funds to them. All the Jews in the world did not rise up to condemn Isreali complicity in the massacre of Sabra and Chatila; indeed when international Jewsih groups do stand up it si more often to defend Israelis mureers of civilians than the oppostite. The trith is that most of the world stood behind the Americanx after the events of 9/11. It is their fault that the American government has squandered all that good will.

There are two points I will grant you though. There is a storng feeling of a single Muslim community even if in practice it is fractured and suffers from ferociousl infighting (in Pakistan Sunnis and Shiites spend much more time killing each other than they do attacking the infide). And this means that attacks against one part of the Mulsim community are easily seen as part of a wider plan, even when this is not true. And the Arab world is the home of the conspiracy theory - possibly because Arabs spend so much of theit time conspiring. The Christian world is more divided. Russian Orthodox priests tend to view the Catholics as hostile competition rather than their brothers in Christ.

Secondly at this period in time the Muslim world is weak, both politically and militarily. This means that their reprisals are more obviously "terrorist". When the Israelis or Americans fire a guided missile into an apartment blick and kell half-a-dozen women and children for one or two possible combatants thiscan be protrayed as an unfortunate side-effect. When an Arab suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowded cafe and causes the same death toll this is considered a deliberate act of terrorism.

Thirldy their is the concept of "Jihad". This is simply the Arabic word for struggle, and it is an obligation on Muslims. Note that armed struggle is one form of Jihad, but neither the only nor the preferred one. In fact the justification for armed struggle in Islam is very similar to the justification for a Holy War developed by medieval Christian theologians

I disagree with your distinction between political and religous terror. In many cases both are simply an excuse for communalism or racism. If the tribe next door follows one religion you are quite likely to embrace another, if only out of cussedness. Then simple turf wars become religious struggles, as in the time of the Cold War they were often disguised as political fights.

[Martin Kenny]

Dear Steiner:
If you want to know Islam's role in terrorism, get yourself a copy of the Koran (Islam's holiest and most influential book) in English and go through it underlining every reference where Christians and Jews or their beliefs are attacked. You'll find gems like,
(Surah 5 v. 51): "O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and Christians for friends."
Think what followers of Osama would make of that one! And there's many, many more!

Martin Kenny

[Steiner]

Stephen Jones, thank you for your reply. I agree that very little terrorism if any has purely religious motives. Perhaps the distinction between religious and political terror could be applied to the primary justification given for the acts by the terrorists themselves?

Martin,
I have read the Koran through, and I have been struck with those passages myself. I've also been struck by the passages which talk about the preferential treatment that is to be given to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). Preferential over monotheists, that is, not over Muslims. It seems then, that those who are going to commit acts of terror anyway can justify it from the Koran more easily than, say, a Christian could justify being a terrorist based on teachings found in the Bible?

[johnslat]

Dear Steiner,
Well, a lot of Christians didn't have too much trouble using religion to justify terrorism back in the Middle Ages: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the religious wars. The devil can quote Scripture - be it the Bible or the Quran - for his own purposes.
Regards,
John

[moonpie]

deleted

[Stephen Jones]

I've read about a page and a half of your ariticle and it's a lot of rubbish.

Sure there are Islamists who believe all Christians are evil; they are a minority in Saud Arabai, just as the moderate fundamentalist nutcases are a minority in the States.

The reaction to Septembe 11th wasn't one of jubilation at the people who died; it was rather a feeling that at last the Americans were getting a taste of theiir own medicine. The Arabs had been seeing news stories of Palestinians killed by Isreali forces using arms donated to them by the Americans for over a year. Many thought it was time the balance swung the other way, and alos you must not forget the sheer spectacularity of the attempt.

Your comments about Arabas adimiring people who kill, and Americans admiring businessmen and sportsmen is disingenious. Look at the popularity of "Storming Norman", or "Ollie" North in real life or "Dirty Harry" or "Rambo" in fiction. And Arab millionaires, singers and sports stars are every bit as popular as their equivalents in the West. It's just that you evidently haven't bothered to find out about them.

As for Hitler, you are forgetting that the Second "World" War was of little interest to the Arabs. Many of them had heard of Hitler's atrocities but on the other hand he was fighting against the occupying power (Britain). The general attitude was probably summed up by those shopkeepers in Cairo who just before Al Alemain put up signs saytin "German Officers Welcome"; as long as they could do business they were neutral. The same ambivalenece was seen in South Asia towards the Japanese; there were many Indians who joined up with Bose to fight with the Japanese to liberate their courntry from the occupying power.

The basic attitude is the old one of "the enemy of miy enemy is my friend". I doubt if there is a great deal of support for Bin Laden in Saudi for his ideas; there is however a strong feeling that he has chosen the right enemy. And the hatred is directed against US and UK foreign policy, not against indivudual Americans or Brits. If a car stops next to you in the street here it is to offer you a lift, not for any other reason.

I am always amazed that Americans keep asking the question "why do they hate us so", but never think to alter the behaviour that causes it. America is hated in the Middle East for its partisan support of Israel, and is hated in much of Latin America because of its support of totalitarian regimes. Add to that the couple of dozen countries that the US has bomber or invaded since the end of the Second World War, and you can begin to see why people aren't that pleased.

[johnslat]

Dear Stephen Jones,
AMEN!!!!
But tell me. Why is what you've written on this subject, which seems so blindingly obvious ( though very well put ) to me, apparently so darn difficult for so many others to comprehend?
Regards,
John

[moonpie]

deleted

[moonpie]

deleted

[Martin Kenny]

Bravo, Moonpie, I agree with you. I haven't read your article yet but my Saudi students were jubilant the day after 9/11. And if a car pulls up beside you now. They might be students offering a lift but they are just as likely to be a gang of thugs giving you the finger and screaming: "Go to hell, American." As happened to me very recently. For a lot of the locals, white means American!

[Stephen Jones]

Dear Moonpie,
If I haven't found anything original or worth reading in the first page and a half why should I waste my time and ink reading the rest?

I have no idea whether those who survived the Riyadh bombings agree with me or not, just as I have no idea whether those who surviived American bombings in iraq or Afghanistan agree with you.

And what is the point of quoting Bin Laden to answer my statements about most Saudis. Would you take David Duke as being a spokesman on race ralations in the US?

What you are describing exists; do you think it's news to us? Where you go wrong is in exaggerating its extent.

And do you seriously think that all the rest of the world apart from Saudi was horrifed by September 11th? I would suspect that the "taste of their own" medicine was widespread in South and Central America at the very least, and in much of Europe and the rest of the world the feeling was more one of surprise than shock and pity.

And if that does annoy you ask yourself why? The American people en bloc have not shown widespread sympathy for other victims of terrorism, and there is no reason why they should. I seem to remember that much of the Irish community in the States was overjoyed to hear of the bombing of the hotel where Thatcher was and ithey continued to fund the IRA until the end of the 90's When the Tamil tigers blew up the BanK of Ceylon in Colombo, or the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, killing many inncoent people the US did not ban the Tamil Tigers, even though the funding for these attempts came from the US and Canada.

Now, there is little doubt that Bin Laden and a not insiginifcant number of "Islamists" will be against America and the West (and not doubt the Shiites when they've been defeat4d and the orthodox Hannabis) whatever the West does, but American and British foreign policy are what are causing these people to have symoathy and be able to continue recruting.

[moonpie]

deleted

[johnslat]

Dear moonpie,
May I assume that I am the " Mr. Saudi " mentioned in one of your posts?
Which brings up a question - where are you coming from? I mean that in the literal sense. You write about Islamic societies and countries - would you mind telling us something about the length and depth of your personal experience with them? I'm afraid, after 60 years, my tolerance for people who condemn entire nations, ethnic groups, religions, races, etc. is beginning to wear just a little thin. On one side, we have the fanatics who hate all Americans, men women and children, simply because of their nationality. And then, on the other, we have those who throw blanket accusations about one billion or so Moslems based on the actions of those few aforementioned fanatics. Just what is the attraction of such vapid generalization, I wonder. Beats actually thinking, I guess.

Dear Martin Kenny,
So, your Saudi students we're jubilant. Guess that means all Saudis were the same. But darn - mine weren't. I got many abashed apologies and expressions of sorrow and sympathy on September 12th. And, darn again - so far no " gangs of thugs " giving me the finger and screaming " Go to hell, American ". Silly, foolish people, aren't they Martin - making a generalization like that, hating you and screaming at you just because you're a white American? Thank goodness we in the West are above making such a stupid mistake.

Regards,
John

[moonpie]

deleted