The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

[Roger Bissell]

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

By Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein

It is now six years since September 11, 2001--and since that horrific day we have witnessed numerous additional attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West. In the face of a seemingly never-ending supply of suicidal killers, many still do not understand the motivation of the terrorists. Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations--poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.--while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

The near silence about the true role of Islam in motivating Islamic terrorists has two main causes: multiculturalism and religion. Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. And the strong commitment to religion of many Americans, especially conservatives, makes them reluctant to indict a religion as the cause of a massive evil. But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists' actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for.

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word "Islam" means literally: submission. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West--it was called the Dark Ages.

Second, as with any religion that seeks converts, a derivative tenet of Islam is that it should be imposed by force (you cannot convince someone of the non-rational). The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell."

These ideas easily lead to fanaticism and terrorism. In fact, what is often referred to as the "fanaticism" of many Muslims is explicitly endorsed by their religion. Consider the following characteristics of religious fanatics.

The fanatic demands unquestioning obedience to religious dogma--so does Islam. The fanatic cannot be reasoned with, because he rejects reason--so does Islam. The fanatic eagerly embraces any call to impose his dogma by force on those who will not adopt it voluntarily--so does Islam.

The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion.

It is true that many Muslims who live in the West (like most Christians) reject religious fanaticism and are law-abiding and even loyal citizens, but this is because they have accepted some Western values, including respect for reason, a belief in individual rights, and the need for a separation between church and state. It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion--and from a society that imposes it--that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace.

Over the last several years, there has been more and more of a call for a "War of Ideas"--an intellectual campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the Arab world that will discourage and discredit Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the centerpiece of this campaign so far has been to appeal to Muslims with claims that Islam is perfectly consistent with Western ideals, and inconsistent with terrorism. America has, with little success, groveled to so-called moderate Muslim leaders to strongly repudiate terrorism. (Those leaders have focused little energy on damning Islamists, and much on the alleged sins of the U.S. government.) Such a campaign cannot work, since insofar as these "moderates" accept Islam, they cannot convincingly oppose violence in its name. A true "War of Ideas" would be one in which we proclaim loudly and with moral certainty the secular values we stand for: reason, rights, freedom, material prosperity, and personal happiness on this earth.

Edwin A. Locke, a professor emeritus of management at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writers at media@aynrand.org.

[Roger Bissell]

The following was posted to the Los Angeles Objectivist Network (LAON) on Friday, October 5, 2007 by Bill Westmiller:

Edwin Locke

Alex Epstein

Gentlemen,

I was pleased to read that a modicum of rationality has returned to the ARI commentaries on Islam. However, I think your evidence is still flimsy and your logic lacks proper context. Of course, I agree that all mystical beliefs are irrational and lead to fanaticism. Apologetics for Islam, or any religious belief, are cowardly and immoral. But, you protest over much and incorrectly.

First, it is not evident that Islam "explicitly endorses" fanaticism and terrorism. You lift a few phrases from the Quran to assert that it advocates "imposition by force" of its beliefs. Taken in context, with proper Arabic translation, I don't believe this is true.

Surah 9:5 has to be taken in the context of 9:4, which makes it clear that the "infidels" referenced are those who have violated treaties, infringed rights, and conspired to attack. In historic context, the infidels referred to were "pagans", but the Arabic words are distinct. Therefore, Surah 9:5 is only calling for retaliation against those who lack fidelity to their word, not to Islam. It is not an aggressive "call to arms" purely on the grounds that opponents are unbelievers. The other phrases are similar misrepresentations.

I'll grant that coercion is a "derivative tenet" of all religious apostasy, but that applies just as well to Christians or Jews, even if they have "diluted and secularized" their authoritative texts. Misrepresenting Islamic text is an unjustified demonization of a specific religion, when they all deserve equal condemnation.

Second, your commentary endorses violence against *ideas per se*, rather than retaliation against coercive acts. By omission, you equate belief in Islam with terrorism itself. In prior ARI commentaries, the assertion has been less veiled, but is still wrong. Any fool may believe what they please, even assert a right to coerce, but it is only their acts that warrant violent retaliation, not their sentiments. You can't kill a bad idea by bashing heads.

It's evident from the political context of your commentaries that you are endorsing a war against "Islamo-fascist" ideas *because they motivate* acts of terror. It is absolutely true that sectarian fanatics invoke religion to justify an aggressive imposition of their own tyrannical theocracy. Their advocacy is properly condemned and their ideas rebuked, but there is no rational justification for violent retaliation against ideas or exclamations.

By endorsing the current aggressive war on ideas or tactics, you excuse yourself from seriously evaluating the non-sectarian grievances that Muslims clearly proclaim. Whatever their religious motives for violence, they are still demonstrably subject to oppression, occupation, and subversion (not of their religious ideas, but of their basic human rights and legitimate sovereignty).

Granted, theocracies and monarchies are somewhat more common in Muslim-dominant states. As much as anyone else, they have a right and an obligation to live with their own errors of judgment in law and governance, whatever the motive or cause. As we have, they need to suffer - hopefully learn - from

their own mistakes. We can't impose wisdom by force.

Finally, your commentaries appear to endorse the conduct and actions of the current U.S. government in conducting their "war on terror". By failing to apply proper objectivist principles to the concept of "just war", you imply that American policies are without fault, simply because the enemy is "worthy" of opposition. "The enemy of our enemy is our friend" is not a rational proposition. The administration of the U.S. government's worldwide imperial ambitions is not merely faulty, it is immoral. In spite of what you may hope, the current powers are just as committed to theocracy and the "virtues of self-sacrifice" as the Islamic radicals you condemn.

I expect better of ARI and hope you'll consider my objections.

Bill Westmiller

The following remarks appeared after Westmiller's signature but before the appended ARI text, so it should be taken as perhaps not a Postscript, but instead an earlier formulation of his remarks that was not deleted from the final version. In either case, the remarks are interesting...reb

Surah 9:4 makes it clear that the proper English word is not "pagan" but "infidel". Specifically, those who have violated treaties (lacking fidelity to their *word*, not God): "... Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you ..."

Therefore, the phrase in 9:5 refers only to those who have violated an agreement and attacked. It is purely *defensive*. Those who honor treaties, respect rights, and don't support violent attacks are *totally exempt* from the 9:5 instruction. Even those who are aggressive attackers are allowed to repent by prayer and tithing (or converting to Islam).

However, your condemnation of Islam has to be taken in the political context in which it is offered

[tjohnson]

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

By Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein

Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture.

I wonder what he means by 'Western culture'. How does he measure "superiority", by what standards? A culture is about "patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance". What makes one superior to another?

[studiodekadent]

I wonder what he means by 'Western culture'. How does he measure "superiority", by what standards? A culture is about "patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance". What makes one superior to another?

He is referring to the values of the enlightenment (which are more or less Objectivist in nature). He doesn't acknowlege that although enlightenment values do exist in the west, they are under seige by the postmodern acolytes of Foucault and the premodern acolytes of Jesus. The west is not a monolith.

Also, as he begrudgingly admits, Christianity is roughly the same philosophically except during the Rennaisance and Reformation, the Church was neutered to a significant extent (theological debate (i.e. applying reason to religion) fractured the church into multiple warring sects). Islam went through a similar experience, due to their philosopher Averroes. He basically did for Islam what Aquinas did for Catholicism: try to reconcile it with Aristotle (indeed Aquinas got much of his knowlege of Aristotle from Averroes). The result was that literally hundreds of different schools of Islamic Theology and Islamic Jurisprudence existed, and hence there were some with a very liberal interpretation of Islam. This triggered the Islamic Golden Age. It was only when these schools started threatening the central power of the Caliph that the Caliphate trimmed the number of tolerable schools down to five (all conservative schools).

In other words, Islam was once 'neutered' like Christianity is (although Christianity is regaining some of its power), hence Islam can be neutered once again (as can Christianity).

Its sad that ARI do not realize this.

[Alfonso Jones]

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

By Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein

It is now six years since September 11, 2001--and since that horrific day we have witnessed numerous additional attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West. In the face of a seemingly never-ending supply of suicidal killers, many still do not understand the motivation of the terrorists. Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations--poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.--while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

(snip to save bandwidth...)

Good writing. Thanks for posting this one.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

By Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein

Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture.

I wonder what he means by 'Western culture'. How does he measure "superiority", by what standards? A culture is about "patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance". What makes one superior to another?

How many Westerners hijack commercial airplanes full of passengers and crash them into tall buildings out of religious conviction? Take this number and divide it into six billion to get the measure of cultural goodness.

When Tim McVey and parties unknown bombed the Murrah building in OKC it was so rare and outrageous that people talked about it for years. How many times has that happened. Terror and suicide bombing by non-Muslim Westerners is extremely rare. A once in a decade thing. With Muslims it is daily. 365.25 days a year. And multiple times a day and in several separated places.

There goes your Muslim, GS. Different god, different mountain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 7, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

How many Westerners hijack commercial airplanes full of passengers and crash them into tall buildings out of religious conviction? Take this number and divide it into six billion to get the measure of cultural goodness.

I suspect these people think they are at war and so this behaviour is justified. The US administration felt justified to kill some 250,000 innocent people with 2 bombs in Japan when they were at war so the moral of the story is don't have wars. What we should be asking is WHY do these people think they are at war with "the West"? Does is have something to do with the West's belief that it can go into to any country it wants, set up puppet governments, and take all the natural resources in the name of "business" or "globalization" or "capitalism"?

[Brant Gaede]

It is not terrorists per se that is the primary problem for a Western country, but other states that sponsor terrorism. If the U.S., for instance, wants to go to war with Islam then instantly it will have over a billion enemies and potential terrorists. This would be insanity. Private individuals can wage ideological war against Islam, but not governments, not properly.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

It is not terrorists per se that is the primary problem for a Western country, but other states that sponsor terrorism. If the U.S., for instance, wants to go to war with Islam then instantly it will have over a billion enemies and potential terrorists. This would be insanity. Private individuals can wage ideological war against Islam, but not governments, not properly.

--Brant

Then war will be waged improperly. Just wait until the next Big One that the Islamic Terrorist pull against the United States. I don't care whether was is waged properly or improperly, as long as we Win. And if we have to kill a billion potential terrorists, then let us get to the business of killing them. We have the means. Do we have have the will?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

It is not terrorists per se that is the primary problem for a Western country, but other states that sponsor terrorism. If the U.S., for instance, wants to go to war with Islam then instantly it will have over a billion enemies and potential terrorists. This would be insanity. Private individuals can wage ideological war against Islam, but not governments, not properly.

--Brant

Then war will be waged improperly. Just wait until the next Big One that the Islamic Terrorist pull against the United States. I don't care whether was is waged properly or improperly, as long as we Win. And if we have to kill a billion potential terrorists, then let us get to the business of killing them. We have the means. Do we have have the will?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why set them up to genocidally knock them down?

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam

By Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein

Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture.

I wonder what he means by 'Western culture'. How does he measure "superiority", by what standards? A culture is about "patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance". What makes one superior to another?

How many Westerners hijack commercial airplanes full of passengers and crash them into tall buildings out of religious conviction? Take this number and divide it into six billion to get the measure of cultural goodness.

When Tim McVey and parties unknown bombed the Murrah building in OKC it was so rare and outrageous that people talked about it for years. How many times has that happened. Terror and suicide bombing by non-Muslim Westerners is extremely rare. A once in a decade thing. With Muslims it is daily. 365.25 days a year. And multiple times a day and in several separated places.

There goes your Muslim, GS. Different god, different mountain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Agreed. The ability to see moral equivalence between Islam and the West seems to require an amazing self-induced blindness. This is the fruit of "multiculturalism."

Alfonso

[Brant Gaede]

It is not terrorists per se that is the primary problem for a Western country, but other states that sponsor terrorism. If the U.S., for instance, wants to go to war with Islam then instantly it will have over a billion enemies and potential terrorists. This would be insanity. Private individuals can wage ideological war against Islam, but not governments, not properly.

--Brant

Then war will be waged improperly. Just wait until the next Big One that the Islamic Terrorist pull against the United States. I don't care whether was is waged properly or improperly, as long as we Win. And if we have to kill a billion potential terrorists, then let us get to the business of killing them. We have the means. Do we have have the will?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The "triumph of the will" is the triumph of the mind over reality.

If "we" kill a billion Muslims who be the terorists then?

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

It is not terrorists per se that is the primary problem for a Western country, but other states that sponsor terrorism. If the U.S., for instance, wants to go to war with Islam then instantly it will have over a billion enemies and potential terrorists. This would be insanity. Private individuals can wage ideological war against Islam, but not governments, not properly.

--Brant

Then war will be waged improperly. Just wait until the next Big One that the Islamic Terrorist pull against the United States. I don't care whether was is waged properly or improperly, as long as we Win. And if we have to kill a billion potential terrorists, then let us get to the business of killing them. We have the means. Do we have have the will?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The "triumph of the will" is the triumph of the mind over reality.

If "we" kill a billion Muslims who be the terorists then?

--Brant

Agreet, Brant. Ba'al makes a good point about the moral NON-equivalence of Islam and the West. Where he goes from there is worrisome.

Alfonso

Edited October 7, 2007 by Alfonso

[tjohnson]

Agreet, Brant. Ba'al makes a good point about the moral NON-equivalence of Islam and the West. Where he goes from there is worrisome.

Alfonso

Unfortunately, all too often this is exactly where feelings of moral superiority DO lead.

[Alfonso Jones]

Agreet, Brant. Ba'al makes a good point about the moral NON-equivalence of Islam and the West. Where he goes from there is worrisome.

Alfonso

Unfortunately, all too often this is exactly where feelings of moral superiority DO lead.

The proper response is NOT, however, to deny reality - it is to avoid the errors of reasoning based on that.

Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Thank you for posting this on a both pro and con level. I do not condemn ARI's call to identify terrorists and crush them. I think we should. I do think, however, that articles like the one you gave by Locke and Epstein are grossly oversimplified.

There is one fact you will never find in an ARI condemnation of suicide bombing. It is that this is even more recent than the emergence of all-powerful dictators in the Muslim world. The simple fact is that no all-powerful Islamic dictators existed until after 1940. I strongly believe the suicide bombing is related to the new dictatorial regimes. Not one ARI anti-Islamist articles (I know of) mentions the VAST difference between the Islamic world before 1940 and after that has caused all the trouble. (And you certainly will find NO MENTION AT ALL of the fact that the USA and British secret services hired and supported Nazi Arab war criminals and Jew exterminators for years to fight Communism instead of hanging them.)

I hate armchair expertise of anything and I have noticed that since 9/11, oodles of Western so-called experts on Islam all of a sudden popped up out of nowhere perspicaciously quoting the Qu'ran (and ironically, they have all tended to quote the same few passages). So I have looked elsewhere, trying to find some authors who really do know what they are talking about. One of the best intellectuals I have encountered (who, incidentally, thinks we should "get tough" with Islamist regimes) is Bernard Lewis.

I am reproducing a post I made elsewhere. If you have the patience to read through all the linked information, it will be well worth the effort. It doesn't take long. For me, I finally felt peace of understanding. I feel that I now have proper categories in which to pour new information as I learn it. There is a great deal left to learn and possibly some new categories to make, but I no longer have the feeling of navigating a ship without a compass in a violent tribal storm of "us against them," or, at best, drifting about as a derelict ship trying to make some rational sense out of all the irrationalism I see.

Michael

Speaking of Bernard Lewis, when I set up the Mideast section approximately one year ago, one of the first essays I posted was by him:

Freedom and Justice in Islam

I just reread that essay. In light of all I have learned since then, especially the Nazi influence, this essay is remarkable for its penetrating analysis of the impact of social events on Muslim thinking. In a short passage, Lewis explained how the Nazis managed to penetrate into that world. Napoleon Bonaparte had conquered the Middle East way back when and the French had many colonies in the Middle East ever since.

In the year 1940, the government of France surrendered to the Axis and formed a collaborationist government in a place called Vichy. The French colonial empire was, for the most part, beyond the reach of the Nazis, which meant that the governors of the French colonies had a free choice: To stay with Vichy or to join Charles de Gaulle, who had set up a Free French Committee in London. The overwhelming majority chose Vichy, which meant that Syria-Lebanon—a French-mandated territory in the heart of the Arab East—was now wide open to the Nazis. The governor and his high officials in the administration in Syria-Lebanon took their orders from Vichy, which in turn took orders from Berlin. The Nazis moved in, made a tremendous propaganda effort, and were even able to move from Syria eastwards into Iraq and for a while set up a pro-Nazi, fascist regime. It was in this period that political parties were formed that were the nucleus of what later became the Baath Party.

There is one part that jumped out at me and it is a perfect indicator that oversimplification with the Islamic world simply doesn't work. We have to learn about it.

It's interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments. I've been told repeatedly by Iranians that there is no country in the world where pro-American feeling is stronger, deeper and more widespread than Iran. I've heard this from so many different Iranians—including some still living in Iran—that I believe it. When the American planes were flying over Afghanistan, the story was that many Iranians put signs on their roofs in English reading, “This way, please.”

So there is a good deal of pro-Western and even specifically pro-American feeling. But the anti-American feeling is strongest in those countries that are ruled by what we are pleased to call “friendly governments.” And it is those, of course, that are the most tyrannical and the most resented by their own people.

Maybe some of this has been obvious to the history-inclined, but for me, who knew precious little about the history of the Middle East until last year when I started reading about it, these are important perspectives in trying to make sense out of modern events.

I highly recommend the essay I linked. Here is another very though-provoking essay by Bernard Lewis from 1990:

The Roots of Muslim Rage (September 1990) (See here and here for other links.)

A quote from that article makes much more sense to me in explaining the Islamist mentality than the current popular oversimplification in the Objectivist/conservative world that Islamists want world-domination in the same manner as a James Bond villain conceives of it.

What is truly evil and unacceptable is the domination of infidels over true believers. For true believers to rule misbelievers is proper and natural, since this provides for the maintenance of the holy law, and gives the misbelievers both the opportunity and the incentive to embrace the true faith. But for misbelievers to rule over true believers is blasphemous and unnatural, since it leads to the corruption of religion and morality in society, and to the flouting or even the abrogation of God's law.

(Actually, this even explains fundamentalist Objectivists! )

Also, Lewis made an observation I had not taken into account before. In trying to spread modernity to the Islamic world, the West also spread two World Wars. When seen from a Muslim's eyes over time, one group of modern Western civilizations was trying to destroy another group of modern Western civilizations. And both groups set up extensive propaganda efforts in the Muslim world denouncing each other. This has gone on for years.

A natural human reaction when observing bitter hatred between rivals is to reject both sides and look for something better. I often see this attitude currently in the Israeli/Palestinian mess (and am even partial to it). I find it amazing, but universal, that bitter rivals never see this result on people outside the conflict. They are simply blind to it and usually try to lump the onlooker with the enemy side if they cannot convert him. But this reaction of rejecting both sides provided a strong emotional ground for Islamic fundamentalists to attract followings by saying, "They are both crazy. The old ways are better."

Here is a transcript of an event hosted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in 2006 (which has sections that turned into parts of some of Lewis's articles) and a couple of articles from 2006 and 2007.

Islam and the West: A Conversation with Bernard Lewis (2006)

August 22 - Does Iran have something in store? (WSJ 2006)

Was Osama Right? - Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view. (WSJ 2007)

Walking into the world of this event and articles after mostly reading discussion forums and news stories was like taking a bath of rational sanity. This guy knows what he is talking about. I especially enjoyed the PEW event transcript. I can't recommend it enough for those interested in seeing fundamental issues regarding the Islamic culture.

He knows the difference between the Islamic world and Islam (like Christiandom and Christianity). He knows that the Danish cartoon debacle was a staged event prepared over time, as witnessed by the four-month lapse between their publication and the demonstrations against them and the sudden near-miraculous availability of abundant Danish flags "of suitable size and texture for trampling or burning" in remote parts of the world where demonstrations occurred, and not a spontaneous eruption of a bloodthirsty culture trying to impose censorship on the world. He knows that the end-of-the-world mentality in Iran's leaders make them dangerous with nuclear weapons in a manner that Russia never was, and that what worked with Russia will not work with Iran.

He knows that Muslims in the Middle Ease study history as a common-place activity and that, in the West, people forget events quickly. He knows that brutality works against one type of problem, as witnessed by the brutality of Soviet responses to kidnapping resulting in hardly any Islamist kidnappings of Soviets, but not another, as witnessed by the fact that Islamists bitterly fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. (This, btw, makes total hash of the Objectivist Lewis's contention that brutality of reaction as a guiding principle will cow the Islamic culture into non-action and acceptance of Western values. Getting tough is only one part of the solution.) He knows that the West sees the disintegration of the Soviet empire as a victory for the West, but Islamists view it as a victory for jihad.

I like what I read with Bernard Lewis.

Just as a curiosity, most people nowadays think Nazis were atheists or into Nordic myths, but apparently Hitler was a twisted Christian in his heart. This religious element would account partly for the ease with which Nazism was able to enter the Muslim world (introducing the modernity phase Bernard Lewis talked about). Here is a highly interesting compilation of religious quotes from Mein Kampf and other top Nazis made by one Zardoz9 from an Internet group called Freethinkers BBS.

Hitler's Religious Beliefs and Fanaticism: Selected quotes from Mein Kampf and Hitler's henchmen

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is another category in which to pour new information that I just came across. It came from Yaron Brook in the following article:

'You don't fight a tactic'

By ORIT ARFA

The Jerusalem Post

Jul 12, 2007

Without agreeing with the runaway brutality toward enemy civilians Brook preaches, I am in full agreement with the following:

"If the [Palestinians] really want peace why do they want settlements dismantled?" Brook said. "Why wouldn't they say we want a Palestinian state and we want these Jews to stay here and live as full citizens of the Palestinian state? They're productive individuals, they create jobs, they bring a wealth of knowledge… If Palestinians are about ethnic cleansing, getting rid of Jews so that the Palestinian state is pure, then they're not ready for peace, and Israel should not make peace with them."

That's a damn good observation and it is duly noted. It fits particularly well with the Nazi leftover aspect.

Michael

[tjohnson]

There is another category in which to pour new information that I just came across. It came from Yaron Brook in the following article:

'You don't fight a tactic'

By ORIT ARFA

The Jerusalem Post

Jul 12, 2007

Without agreeing with the runaway brutality toward enemy civilians Brook preaches, I am in full agreement with the following:

"If the [Palestinians] really want peace why do they want settlements dismantled?" Brook said. "Why wouldn't they say we want a Palestinian state and we want these Jews to stay here and live as full citizens of the Palestinian state? They're productive individuals, they create jobs, they bring a wealth of knowledge… If Palestinians are about ethnic cleansing, getting rid of Jews so that the Palestinian state is pure, then they're not ready for peace, and Israel should not make peace with them."

That's a damn good observation and it is duly noted. It fits particularly well with the Nazi leftover aspect.

Michael

Yes, that is a good point. I would like to know why the US is so concerned about ethnic cleansing in the Middle East but couldn't care less when it happens in Africa, for example. Could it have something to with oil , perhaps?

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, that is a good point. I would like to know why the US is so concerned about ethnic cleansing in the Middle East but couldn't care less when it happens in Africa, for example. Could it have something to with oil , perhaps?

Our concern is Oil. If there was no Oil there we would not be making war there.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 9, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, that is a good point. I would like to know why the US is so concerned about ethnic cleansing in the Middle East but couldn't care less when it happens in Africa, for example. Could it have something to with oil , perhaps?

Our concern is Oil. If there was no Oil there we would not be making war there.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This concern must be at least two-fold: security of supply continuity and concern about what these countries do with their oil wealth.

--Brant