The True Source of Islamic Terrorism

The American Thinker ^ | 6/9/04 | James Arlandson

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ping

[Jeff Head]

Black Jack Pershing knew how to use and apply the religious component of Islam into the successful accomplishment of his military orders...and it worked quite well.

[olde north church]

...This early expansion fixed the genetic code for the rest of Islam, which is important because it set up expectations that would eventually be disappointed. In contrast, the founders of Christianity and Buddhism endorsed the spread of their religion or philosophy, but only by proclamation, never by the sword. But Islam, it seems, applied the sword to their incipient theology of spreading the word or expanding politically.
Roman Emperor Constantine, St. Cyril the Bulgar Slayer, King Ferdinand of Aragon all used "the sword" as a catalyst for conversion. Unfortunately, we have grown to "civilized" to use such methods of self-preservation.
I might suggest a strategy, NOW, of forming an alliance of Catholics/Christians with a clue, Russian "Patriots", "Orientals" and the European Ultra-Right and eradicate this threat to all humanity.
islamo-fascist terrorism is based upon a desire to conquer the world, PERIOD.

[manic4organic]

Bump

[FastCoyote]

A good reference article.

[GoLightly]

Yes, when we gloss over portions of our own history, any argument we can make loses credibility.

All utopian idealogies kill.

[JasonC]

Actually, they chose 3, new info. But they also accept that God has not been on their side in the period of decline. They blame this on their own rulers, whom they accuse of apostacy, worldiness, and compromize with the west. The diagnosis of the fanatics is insufficient zeal.

The Muslim community has not been literalist enough, fanatic enough, actively religious enough, self-sacrificing enough, pious enough. If only their governments instituted Shariah law and forced everyone to live a holy life, then God would smile on their side once again.

That is, the decline of their civilization is experienced as a deserved punishment for religious slackness and hypocrasy. Violent fanaticism is meant to cure this, not simply by reversing the decline and so removing the dissonant evidence, but by eliciting God's favor.

Which is why they are vulnerable to direct arguments that their conduct is unjust and deserves anathema, and they themselves are heretics.

[Tolik]

Food for thoughts!

Interesting article PING.

[spodefly]

BTTT

[<1/1,000,000th%]

When violent, fanatical Muslims observe current events, they see a religion in recession culturally, economically, technologically, and militarily, and this brings shame, a strong cultural value in the Arab world and beyond.

But murdering women and children are OK.

[dennisw]

btttttttt

[dirtboy]

The True Source of Islamic Terrorism

I think this sums up the source as well as anything I've seen - from an unnamed government official in the National Geographic article on Saudi Arabia:

"The hijackers were a direct product of our social failures - a generation with no sense of what work entails, raised in a system that operated as a welfare state...We allowed them to grow up in pampered emptiness, until they turned to the bin Laden extremists to find themselves..."

[Valin]

Bump for later.

[Tolik]

Let's review few logical points from the article:

If God endorses Islam, the truth, and its expansion by His sovereignty and compassion into non-Muslim lands in order to show God’s will (shari’ah) to pagans and people of the Book (Jews and Christians,  then it should be able to expand endlessly and cover the whole world with His truth.

God does indeed endorse it, according to received theology; therefore, the rest follows logically (the consequent necessarily obtains) -- ole fashioned modus ponens (affirming the antecedent):
 1. If A (antecedent), then B (consequent).
 2. A (the antecedent is affirmed).
 3. Therefore, B (the consequent follows necessarily).
Such must be the psychological expectation of observant, concerned Muslims who care about Islam’s spread, and especially of fanatical Muslims. Thus, theology and logic worked harmoniously, so Muslims did not experience cognitive dissonance or shame—in the distant past.

and further below:

Consequently, history in the last three or so hundred years teaches not-B, so the old, positive logic must give way to a new, negative one. Briefly, the new logic says that if God endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly. However, it is not expanding endlessly, but receding in the face of the expansion of the West, the “Christian” lands. The new conclusion must be terrifying to violent fanatics, but it is they who have initiated belief in the first two premises.  The conclusion: therefore, God does not endorse Islam. This is known as modus tollens (denying the consequent):
 1. If A, then B.
 2. Not-B (the consequent is denied).
 3. Therefore, not-A (the antecedent is also denied).

For fanatical Muslims, the internal (psychological expectations) and the external (historical reality) are in conflict. Therefore, they are experiencing cognitive (religious) dissonance as they work out the simple, terrifying logic.

...Basic psychology says that a subject experiencing cognitive dissonance (and presumably shame) may do the following: (1) alter one of the dissonant cognitions; (2) reduce the importance of one of the dissonance; or (3) add new information that reconciles the dissonance.

and he finishes the article with this:

Clarity brings resolve: first, more Westerners must understand the one deep motive of the violent fanatics. Second, in order to teach them that their theology is twisted and that God is not on their side, more Westerners must therefore join the fight to eliminate them before the terrorists eliminate or paralyze Westerners over the next several decades.

How about we help to increase the dissonance to further prove the falsity of A. Destroy Mecca and Medina and simultaneously blanket the Muslim world with radio, TV, paper flyers assaults claiming exactly that: "we will not be punished by Allah, therefore he is not great. At best, you, Muslims, are mistaken in interpreting his will of conquest. Deal with it, wipe out humiliation and join the world community. End of message"  That what our ancestors would had done if they could. We can. (Will we? I don't think so, unless they explode a nuke here, nothing less than that. Even then I am not sure we'd do it).

Allah FUBAR!

 

[True Capitalist]

Wrap it under whatever historical or religious context, it's all really about those who seek power, such as OBL, exploiting different avenues to reach their positions. And applying logic to such a power play is a futile task, logic is the exception not the rule in human nature.

Just as populist and nationalist rhetoric plays well in the west, terrorist rhetoric plays well in the M.E. As we all know, individuals whether political candidates in a democracy or terrorist leaders in a theocracy, will knowingly repeat lies if doing so creates support for their position. Whatever it takes to gain power.

To the extent terrorist acts create more recruits, terrorists leaders will continue their fatwa. Therefore we need to extinguish all terrorists and instill fear in any potential recruits. I know that's not very diplomatic or "understanding", but all they understand is force.

[Valin]

How about we help to increase the dissonance to further prove the falsity of A. Destroy Mecca and Medina

No thanks. I'd rather win this war.

[walford]

"All utopian idealogies kill."

I couldn't agree more [see my tagline].

[lainde]

bttt