Kampf and Jihad

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "For peaceful coexistence, contrary to appeasement, I claim that intolerance of Islam in the USA is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution in the Bill of Rights."

I am intolerant of Islam, I think it a religion even more wrong-headed and potentially dangerous than most other religions. But I have not the slightest intention or desire to infringe on the rights of Muslims who are not violent. You are confising a value-judgment with repressive political action.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "The intellectual enemy is organized religion in general, not one faith more than others. There is an intellectual war to be waged against Islam, but it has to be waged against all bodies of thought that place faith over reason as their cornerstone."

Fine. But since Islam has its teeth at our throats, that seems the reasonable place to start.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I suppose we should define tolerance before talking about confusion. That will avoid confusion.

When this issue came up, the context was using force. Intolerance of Islam in that context means preventing Muslims from going to mosques by force, burning their books, etc. That is intolerance on a physical level. I do not condone that.

If intolerance means for me to adopt Islam as a religion, I, too, am intolerant. But that also means I am intolerant of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

If intolerance of Islam means persecuting Muslims similar to the way the blacks were persecuted in the South, I am not intolerant at all. In fact, I want distance from that kind of behavior.

If intolerance means giving up individual rights to make way for religious traditions and dogma, I am rigidly intolerant.

Which meaning are you talking about? I know you must have more to add to these possible meanings.

EDIT: This is the problem when discussing an issue where bigotry and hatred run rampant. Words like "intolerance" have wildly different meanings depending on the context and it is easy to accuse someone of using one meaning when he meant another. After all, the word is the same. It would be nice if a word like that had only one meaning.

At any rate, I held, and still hold, that force should be used against force, and ideas against ideas. Force should only be used against the acts of people, not against the philosophical or religious ideas they hold in their heads.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But since Islam has its teeth at our throats, that seems the reasonable place to start.

Barbara,

Islam has its teeth at our throats?

I don't understand. 1.5 billion people have their teeth at our throats? I look, but I simply don't see that.

Don't you mean Islamic fundamentalism (spiked with a little Nazism) has its teeth at our throats?

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

I believe it's dangerous to dwell too much on the difference between "fanatics" and "moderates" of ANY regime. Fanatics couldn't survive without moderates who tolerate them and won't speak out. I know. I'm German-born. As far as I know, two of my uncles were fervent nazis. The average German (or Muslim) wasn't /isn't bad or evil. The adult Germans I knew as a child did not like Hitler. But they didn't think he was bad enough to fight. I suspect it's the same with today's "average" Muslims. Sure, the fanatics get carried away ... shouldn't really be doing that .... but they are still a part of Allah's children, so they deserve respect.

It's the moderate average Muslims that support stoning a teenage girl for the sake of family honor. Hell, she should have been more obedient in the first place. Punishing a mere girl isn't the same as being a fanatic. Is it? Just like the moderate average German didn't oppose it when his jewish neighbor was being first being forbidden to work and then sent away heaven only knows where. It was only a Jew. He probably should have behaved better in the first place.

I firmly believe the moderate ones allow the fanatics to flourish.

Ginny, an interesting example of your point occurred in Nazi Germany. Early in his regime, Hitler began a program of euthanizing the old, the mentally ill, and the deformed, The German people rose up in horror and objected to this -- and Hitler backed down, killing the program (at least so the public was informed). But the German "moderates" did not protest when their Jerwish neighbors were forbidden to run businesses or practice their professions and began vanishing in the night.

Why are we so thrilled when a Muslim speaks out against terrorism? Becausel so very few them do so -- so few that we are able to remember the names of most of them. Why are not American Muslim "moderates" denouncing the terrorists? Yes, I know, it's said it's because they fear retaliation. But if a million of them took to the streets to denounce terrorism and violence, there would be no retaliation. One can only conclude that they do not protest because they do not disapprove. Yes, it is they who allow the fanatics to flourish. On their heads be it,

Barbara

[James Heaps-Nelson]

But since Islam has its teeth at our throats, that seems the reasonable place to start.

Barbara,

Islam has its teeth at our throats?

I don't understand. 1.5 billion people have their teeth at our throats? I look, but I simply don't see that.

Don't you mean Islamic fundamentalism (spiked with a little Nazism) has its teeth at our throats?

Michael

Michael,

In Western countries we police our crazies and we do it with a lot weaker State apparatus than many of the Middle Eastern countries. So 3 likely possibilities exist:

1. Terrorists are working at the behest of Islamic countries.

2. Terrorists are simply exiled because Middle Eastern countries don't want the internal blowback of dealing with with them.

3. The police forces are inefficient and can't catch the terrorists.

My money is on 1 and 2.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I am confused with this logic when discussing Germans.

Did all the Germans who allowed Hitler to rise die off and a whole new generation take their place after WWII? Since, according to this thinking, they were to blame for Hitler, and since these average Germans basically survived WWII, what stopped a Hitler from arising again and being embraced by them after the USA left?

I believe there is more at work than simply saying they were evil, then they stopped.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

The simple truth is that Islam would not stand a chance to spread in the world without oil money. Finally the West is waking up to this and looking for other alternatives to Middle East oil.

Still, major funding for Islamic teaching comes from the Wahhabi part of Saudi Arabia (or Salafi, or whatever you want to call it). These are fundamentalists. If that funding is cut, the fundamentalist ideas will dissipate at the school level. That is pretty obvious to me.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

James,

The simple truth is that Islam would not stand a chance to spread in the world without oil money. Finally the West is waking up to this and looking for other alternatives to Middle East oil.

Still, major funding for Islamic teaching comes from the Wahhabi part of Saudi Arabia (or Salafi, or whatever you want to call it). These are fundamentalists. If that funding is cut, the fundamentalist ideas will dissipate at the school level. That is pretty obvious to me.

Michael

There are Iranian sponsored Shia terrorists in Hamas and Hebollah, there are Taliban in Afghanistan and slicing their way through Pakistan, there are various clerics in Iraq, radicals in Egypt, the Sudan and Somalia. Terrorists are everywhere. If the oil money stops and it is already being cut in half, the terrorists shift more resources into the opium trade and gun-running. There is a whole pipeline of kids that have already been taught. Bin Laden was never connected to oil money. His father was a construction magnate and bin Laden got his start fighting the Soviets and with whatever residual US supplied arms were left after that war.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Barbara,

I am confused with this logic when discussing Germans.

Did all the Germans who allowed Hitler to rise die off and a whole new generation take their place after WWII? Since, according to this thinking, they were to blame for Hitler, and since these average Germans basically survived WWII, what stopped a Hitler from arising again and being embraced by them after the USA left?

I believe there is more at work than simply saying they were evil, then they stopped.

Michael

It is a little known fact, but the Nazis did not just dissolve after WW2. There was a postWW2 insurgency that lasted several years. High-ranking Nazi officials spread out all over the world and many of them became anti-communist CIA assets. Some of the young, impressionable Germans you speak of also made their way into the East German secret police.

Jim

Edited January 13, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Brant Gaede]

I believe it's dangerous to dwell too much on the difference between "fanatics" and "moderates" of ANY regime. Fanatics couldn't survive without moderates who tolerate them and won't speak out. I know. I'm German-born. As far as I know, two of my uncles were fervent nazis. The average German (or Muslim) wasn't /isn't bad or evil. The adult Germans I knew as a child did not like Hitler. But they didn't think he was bad enough to fight. I suspect it's the same with today's "average" Muslims. Sure, the fanatics get carried away ... shouldn't really be doing that .... but they are still a part of Allah's children, so they deserve respect.

It's the moderate average Muslims that support stoning a teenage girl for the sake of family honor. Hell, she should have been more obedient in the first place. Punishing a mere girl isn't the same as being a fanatic. Is it? Just like the moderate average German didn't oppose it when his jewish neighbor was being first being forbidden to work and then sent away heaven only knows where. It was only a Jew. He probably should have behaved better in the first place.

I firmly believe the moderate ones allow the fanatics to flourish.

Ginny, an interesting example of your point occurred in Nazi Germany. Early in his regime, Hitler began a program of euthanizing the old, the mentally ill, and the deformed, The German people rose up in horror and objected to this -- and Hitler backed down, killing the program (at least so the public was informed). But the German "moderates" did not protest when their Jerwish neighbors were forbidden to run businesses or practice their professions and began vanishing in the night.

Why are we so thrilled when a Muslim speaks out against terrorism? Becausel so very few them do so -- so few that we are able to remember the names of most of them. Why are not American Muslim "moderates" denouncing the terrorists? Yes, I know, it's said it's because they fear retaliation. But if a million of them took to the streets to denounce terrorism and violence, there would be no retaliation. One can only conclude that they do not protest because they do not disapprove. Yes, it is they who allow the fanatics to flourish. On their heads be it,

Barbara

Maybe it has to do with "submission." To the state or to the religion or both. Go along to get along. The religion is the authority. To get its blessing the state bribes the authority. In this the Shah of Iran failed and lost his throne. The religious leaders who actually lead seem to be utterly corrupt. Those in charge in Iran are incredibly wealthy. In any case, if you can bribe them and document it after a while you can destroy them by championing and publicizing their hypocrisy and presenting a force superior to the imams' forces. The problem is the Muslims probably won't be convinced enough, so you may have to hold a sword of D over that rock in Mecca. The general lack of individualism is a real problem. The basic problem.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are Iranian sponsored Shia terrorists in Hamas and Hebollah, there are Taliban in Afghanistan and slicing their way through Pakistan, there are various clerics in Iraq, radicals in Egypt, the Sudan and Somalia. Terrorists are everywhere. If the oil money stops and it is already being cut in half, the terrorists shift more resources into the opium trade and gun-running. There is a whole pipeline of kids that have already been taught. Bin Laden was never connected to oil money. His father was a construction magnate and bin Laden got his start fighting the Soviets and with whatever residual US supplied arms were left after that war.

James,

From what I have read, Iran currently sponsors the violence part of terrorism in troubled zones. But fundamentalist Islamic education, especially in Western countries, comes directly from Salafi Saudi Arabia. (I can source this.) This education would not prosper with money from drugs or guns. It has to come from oil on that scale.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe it has to do with "submission."

. . .

The general lack of individualism is a real problem. The basic problem.

Brant,

This is how I understand general lack of enthusiasm by Muslims for public denunciation against Islamist terrorism. Not because they support terrorism, as is often charged.

Your interpretation rings true to my personal experience with Muslims. The Muslims I have talked to do not support terrorism. But they are quite collective in their premise-level religious thinking.

But there is another issue. As I stated in my previous post, if you denounce Islamist terrorism, people pop up pushing you toward bigotry. And they do this on all sides. That makes me—Michael—want to stay silent, and I know for a fact some Muslims feel this way. I know because they told me. And I have read this several times in different places.

There's too much hatred in this issue to generate enthusiasm unless you are the one attacking or attacked.

Shortly I am going to tear myself away from this discussion and get back to work. This thing has detoured me from my other efforts (the money-making ones) and all I did was get wound up and feel bad for nothing. I don't think anyone got convinced of anything in this discussion. All we all did was post past each other.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

There are Iranian sponsored Shia terrorists in Hamas and Hebollah, there are Taliban in Afghanistan and slicing their way through Pakistan, there are various clerics in Iraq, radicals in Egypt, the Sudan and Somalia. Terrorists are everywhere. If the oil money stops and it is already being cut in half, the terrorists shift more resources into the opium trade and gun-running. There is a whole pipeline of kids that have already been taught. Bin Laden was never connected to oil money. His father was a construction magnate and bin Laden got his start fighting the Soviets and with whatever residual US supplied arms were left after that war.

James,

From what I have read, Iran currently sponsors the violence part of terrorism in troubled zones. But fundamentalist Islamic education, especially in Western countries, comes directly from Salafi Saudi Arabia. (I can source this.) This education would not prosper with money from drugs or guns. It has to come from oil on that scale.

Michael

So you're saying that the embedded cells in Europe and elsewhere who are Western educated and sophisticated enough to carry out grand-scale operations are indoctrinated using funds that currently come from Saudi Arabian oil money. Terrorists morph and adjust. Many of the networks that we knew about following 9/11 were rolled up and or became easier to track. Oil is one part of the equation, but I'm convinced that as long as mainstream Islam is advocated certain portions of its population will radicalize. Ayman al Zawahiri is Egyptian and I'm sure has his own non-Saudi groups.

This was probably part of your line of questioning about knowing or asking about terrorists or those who harbor them. According to your line of thought, if you don't know specific groups of people, with specific sources of funding that mostly keep to themselves, you are 99.9999% likely not to know a terrorist. Probably true, but look at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who everyone thought was a likable, affable guy in Western Engineering school.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

I am saying that if you misidentify a problem, you will only fix it by accident. And proper identification is verified by observation, not just principles and suppositions.

The result of ignoring Saudi funding of Islamic outreach (preaching the fundamentalist version) because of interest in Saudi oil is not open to opinion. Reality always kicks in and it did in this case. Reality is now here and growing. If you teach fundamentalist doctrine with deep pocket funding and a worldwide staff, it will spread throughout the world. Law of causality.

Western civilization will ignore that at its peril. I am thankful it is no longer ignoring it.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

James,

I am saying that if you misidentify a problem, you will only fix it by accident. And proper identification is verified by observation, not just principles and suppositions.

The result of ignoring Saudi funding of Islamic outreach (preaching the fundamentalist version) because of interest in Saudi oil is not open to opinion. Reality always kicks in and it did in this case. Reality is now here and growing. If you teach fundamentalist doctrine with deep pocket funding and a worldwide staff, it will spread throughout the world. Law of causality.

Western civilization will ignore that at its peril. I am thankful it is no longer ignoring it.

Michael

Wahhabi Islam is just one branch capable of terrorism. When we address it and dry up the funding, others will pop up. The dangerous nature of Islam is in its scriptural and historical DNA. All major sources of fundamentalist Islam will be observed, identified and tracked. Then you will get normal, middle-class kids who alienate and radicalize in the name of Islam.

Islam as such must be opposed. It is counting on our nonopposition. It is counting on the fact that we don't think it means what it says. It's counting on the fact that its followers are more committed to it than we are committed to being opposed to it. For a long time, Islam was contained and bottled up by Soviet communism in that part of the world. Not anymore.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wahhabi Islam is just one branch capable of terrorism. When we address it and dry up the funding, others will pop up.

James,

I must not be communicating well. I have not said that Wahhabi Islam is engaged in terrorism, nor is it funding terrorism (although I suspect there might be some degree of this on a minor scale). I have said several times that it is funding an educational campaign of fundamentalist Islam in non-Islamic countries.

This is a serious problem—much more serious than differences with moderate Muslims.

Look at places where fundamentalist versions of Islam do not exist (Turkey, Kuwait, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, etc.) and see if you can honestly paint them with the same brush as places where fundamentalist Islam exists (mainly the Wahhabi version and the Shia version as practiced by hardcore Islamists in Iran).

The difference is as great as night and day.

I don't like that form of religion even in its moderate version, but claiming that the moderate places are on par in sponsoring terrorism with places like Iran is simply not true. Nor are they involved in spreading fundamentalist Islamic doctrine throughout the rest of the world.

You can't cure a problem by targeting the wrong thing. Overgeneralizing does not allow you to target properly.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Wahhabi Islam is just one branch capable of terrorism. When we address it and dry up the funding, others will pop up.

James,

I must not be communicating well. I have not said that Wahhabi Islam is engaged in terrorism, nor is it funding terrorism (although I suspect there might be some degree of this on a minor scale). I have said several times that it is funding an educational campaign of fundamentalist Islam in non-Islamic countries.

This is a serious problem—much more serious than differences with moderate Muslims.

Look at places where fundamentalist versions of Islam do not exist (Turkey, Kuwait, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, etc.) and see if you can honestly paint them with the same brush as places where fundamentalist Islam exists (mainly the Wahhabi version and the Shia version as practiced by hardcore Islamists in Iran).

The difference is as great as night and day.

I don't like that form of religion even in its moderate version, but claiming that the moderate places are on par in sponsoring terrorism with places like Iran is simply not true. Nor are they involved in spreading fundamentalist Islamic doctrine throughout the rest of the world.

You can't cure a problem by targeting the wrong thing. Overgeneralizing does not allow you to target properly.

Michael

I agree. In all of the cases you mention, there was some counterforce that opposed radical Islam or capitalism or the remnants of colonialism were more dominant. Take Turkey, in the late 1800's and early 1900's the Islamic Turks were responsible for some of the most brutal slaughters imaginable culminating in the Armenian massacre of 1915 that killed 1 million people. If you look at modern day Greece, none of the people there look like the original ancient Greeks who were light skinned and often had red hair if the pottery renderings are accurate. This is because they were mostly slaughtered by the Turks in the late 1800's. They had a strong leader in the 1920's Ataturk who was secular and banned Islam from the government. Turkey has been different ever since.

Kuwait has never had a fundamentalist population. They and the ruling Al Sabah family mostly survived by playing their more powerful neighbors against each other for time immemorial.

Malaysia had a strong history of British colonialism and capitalism as well as a diverse population and a proximity to the trade going through Singapore.

The UAE is a conglomerate of emirates that have a very strong history of capitalism and trade.

These are all mitigating factors against fundamentalist Islam.

If I'm hearing you right, you are saying that the widespread existence of the most virulent strain of fundamental Islam is a more recent phonemenon and is mostly modern.

I think there are 4 major strains of hardcore fundamentalist Islam:

1. Wahhabi Sunni

2. Iranian Shia

3. Pakistanian radicals born of the fights against Hinduism

4. Egyptian Islamic Jihad/ Muslim brotherhood

Afghanistan became a breeding ground because Egyptians, pakistanis, locals and Wahhabis all fought the Soviets there during the occupation.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

Actually that is pretty good. Now throw in a dash of Nazi and some specific organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah to the radical strains for your nutshell descriptions and you have a very good priority list that almost tells you where the military part of the war should be and where the intellectual part is.

I don't see any threat to the world regarding a worldwide immigration of Islamic Malaysians, for instance, nor Malaysian sponsored Islamist terrorism, nor Malaysian sponsored Islamic schools and mosques, much less fundamentalist ones. But I do see fertile ground—and a need—in Malaysia for think-tank pro-capitalism pro-reason kinds of intellectual warfare, and an old idea I had for creating fictional heroes that appeal to the Muslim psyche but engender Western values. Malaysia is the respectability-granting good guy sitting right on top of Singapore, which has a pro-capitalist veneer, but is one of the top money-laundering capitals of the world, some of it involving the funding of terrorism, in addition to a host of other peace-threatening problems.

As to something like Hamas, I am relishing the fact that Israel is giving it what it has given out for so long. I truly wish the USA were aboard. That is chump change, though, compared to something like Wahhabi or Iranian Shia, which are major Islamist problems that should receive both military and intellectual focus. Ditto for your other mentions.

Dig a little and you can find a hell of a lot more. But it needs this kind of reason-based identification and criticism, not a wholesale "Islam is more evil than Western evil" approach.

Michael

[Selene]

Micheal:

A Radio Free Islam coming to from Galt's Gulch!

Might be a good beginning.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A Radio Free Islam coming to from Galt's Gulch!

Adam,

Good Lord!

If you mean pro-capitalism pro-reason Radio Free programs broadcast to the Islamic world, I'm starting to feel visible.

That's one hell of a good idea.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I would love to see that on my world radio listening choices lol as well as do a show on it.

http://www.live-radio.net/info.shtml

Adam

[James Heaps-Nelson]

James,

Actually that is pretty good. Now throw in a dash of Nazi and some specific organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah to the radical strains for your nutshell descriptions and you have a very good priority list that almost tells you where the military part of the war should be and where the intellectual part is.

I don't see any threat to the world regarding a worldwide immigration of Islamic Malaysians, for instance, nor Malaysian sponsored Islamist terrorism, nor Malaysian sponsored Islamic schools and mosques, much less fundamentalist ones. But I do see fertile ground—and a need—in Malaysia for think-tank pro-capitalism pro-reason kinds of intellectual warfare, and an old idea I had for creating fictional heroes that appeal to the Muslim psyche but engender Western values. Malaysia is the respectability-granting good guy sitting right on top of Singapore, which has a pro-capitalist veneer, but is one of the top money-laundering capitals of the world, some of it involving the funding of terrorism, in addition to a host of other peace-threatening problems.

As to something like Hamas, I am relishing the fact that Israel is giving it what it has given out for so long. I truly wish the USA were aboard. That is chump change, though, compared to something like Wahhabi or Iranian Shia, which are major Islamist problems that should receive both military and intellectual focus. Ditto for your other mentions.

Dig a little and you can find a hell of a lot more. But it needs this kind of reason-based identification and criticism, not a wholesale "Islam is more evil than Western evil" approach.

Michael

Hamas is the Wahhabi proxy in the Palestinian fight and Hezbollah is the Shia, Iranian proxy in Southern Lebanon. If you're arguing for a Nazi connection, most likely through Syria, athough Syria is just an equal opportunity clearinghouse for all kinds of terrorist elements and links to old Nazi bad guys like Alois Bruner in Damascus and others.

After you're done with all of the reason based identification you are still left with the question of why Islam has spawned all of this and over such a wide area. You can even extend the brutalities to Sudan, Nigeria and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines. None of those presents much more than a local terrorist threat, but you get the idea.

The problem Middle Eastern governments have is that they have no moral answer to give as to why the terrorists are wrong. They accept the same Islamic base as the terrorists. That is why they cannot fix their own terrorist problems. It is the responsibility of Muslims to accept that these terrorist elements are an outgrowth of their religion and to resolve to do something about it. They see with their own eyes Al Qaeda in Iraq and Hamas executing fellow Muslims for not being pure enough and they still don't in great numbers stand up to be counted. The loathing of Israel and the United States is so great for many Muslims that they willing to put up with wholesale slaughter all around as the price of their pride.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you're arguing for a Nazi connection, most likely through Syria, athough Syria is just an equal opportunity clearinghouse for all kinds of terrorist elements and links to old Nazi bad guys like Alois Bruner in Damascus and others.

James,

I already did that and documented it last year. See here (and following) for some of the research. There are oodles of documentation if you start looking. It's quite an eye-opener.

After you're done with all of the reason based identification you are still left with the question of why Islam has spawned all of this and over such a wide area.

Obviously the answer is a cousin to why Christianity did so, or any other of the major religions for that matter. Religion speaks to a fundamental human need for certainty. (Whether it is right is another discussion.)

As to why fundamentalist Islam has spread in modern life, if you fund primitives with deep pockets and arm them to the teeth with modern easy-to-use technology, what do you expect will happen? We live in an age where the horoscope is seen as a guiding light to billions of people, just for one example.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

Here is another site I found very informative on the Nazi-Islamist connection:

Tell The Children The Truth

Michael