Debate on Mohammed: Zayed vs. Spencer

[caroljane]

Daunce,

I got tired of repeating it.

I mentioned the Nazi element countless times. I have talked about the hypnotic effect of the Qur'an from being in the present tense and how evil people are using it to brainwash mentally vulnerable people to become suicide bombers. And on and on and on. I'm tired of this being ignored while the mindless question of "What are your ideas?" keeps repeating over and over.

I can't make the stuff I talk about fit into anti-Islamic bigotry. I can't turn it into an on-off button to make Muslims instantly obey.

I can use it to help make people think and check their own premises.

I have even talked about reaching ringleaders.

Let me show you something concrete. The situation below is already past the tipping point, so I don't think anything could be done immediately there. But it is a very good example of how ideas work in practice. This is Christiane Amanpour being threatened by protesters recently over in Egypt.

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyOTY3NDQzMjExNzEmcHQ9MTI5Njc*NDMyNTgyOCZwPTEyNTg*MTEmZD1BQkNOZXdzX1NGUF9Mb2NrZV9FbWJlZCZn/PTMmbz*2NjFlNDM5YTEwNWQ*ZDhlOWViNDFmNGZjYmY3ODFjMiZvZj*w.gif" /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,124,0" width="344" height="278" id="ABCESNWID"><param name="movie" value="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="flashvars" value="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=12822821&showId=12822821&gig_lt=1296744321171&gig_pt=1296744325828&gig_g=3" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="344" height="278" flashvars="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=12822821&showId=12822821&gig_lt=1296744321171&gig_pt=1296744325828&gig_g=3" name="ABCESNWID"></embed></object>

Notice the man who interrupted her interview. He is not being violent. He did not start out threatening her. He used the word, "please," as he told her to leave. He is very clear about the ideas in his head and he is not a drooling, foaming-at-the-mouth, psychopathic, wild-eyed lunatic. As Amanpour became stubborn and, instead of leaving, kept asking the man why, etc., notice how the crowd flared up.

The first guy is a ringleader and he had the attention of the crowd on him. If he had told her it's OK to stay at that moment, the crowd would have left her alone. Some might have even protected her from newcomers to the scene.

There's an misguided idea floating around in the Objectivist world that if you change a philosophical idea, it magically transforms itself into automatic behavior in large groups of people. Some think it's an on-off button that you change by moral denunciation.

The real on-off button for a mob is the ringleader and what he does.

Look at any Western movie for another concrete example. Look at the cliche scene of an angry mob in front of the jailhouse wanting to lynch the prisoner. Imagine if the Sheriff came out and said, "You people believe in lynching. Well, lynching is evil. It's a violation of individual rights. I don't sanction your idea. You're disgusting. You need to learn how to think."

What do you think would happen?

Instead, we see the Sheriff point a double-barrel shotgun at the ringleader and say, "If you take a step closer, I swear I will introduce you to your Maker. Now go home!"

And the crowd watches. After a tense moment, the ringleader stands down. Then the others start dispersing. They usually need a little prodding. "Go home, folks. There's nothing for you here." But that's just to keep a new ringleader from cropping up. The backbone of the crowd has been broken.

Why do the Objectivst people who deduce reality from principles think this works differently with Muslims? They happen to be human beings, too.

All you have to do is get the ringleaders to stand down and their crowds follow suit.

For the good ringleaders, if you convince any one of them that evil people are perverting Islam, he will make sure his crowd knows about it. For the bad ringleaders, you have to make them stand down by force when they flare up and discredit them in the eyes of their crowds.

There.

That's how ideas work in practice and that's just one strategy.

Do you see any objective work for an intellectual among these elements? Like putting together some tactics?

Islam haters don't. They think parroting verses of the Qur'an to each other to show how Islam is evil makes a difference.

The only difference it makes is to feed their own fear and hatred. But the Muslims don't care. Not one hater reaches them and convinces them of anything. They think the haters are nuts, just like we think the fundamentalist fanatics are nuts.

Michael

Dear Michael, I did not mean your reply was really absent! I have read the whole thread. I just wanted Infidel to state his own "solution". You didn't need to take the trouble, but thanks.

I note that this thread now has 666 views, aaargh, the Number of the Beast!

[Richard Wiig]

Daunce,

I got tired of repeating it.

I mentioned the Nazi element countless times. I have talked about the hypnotic effect of the Qur'an from being in the present tense and how evil people are using it to brainwash mentally vulnerable people to become suicide bombers. And on and on and on. I'm tired of this being ignored while the mindless question of "What are your ideas?" keeps repeating over and over.

I can't make the stuff I talk about fit into anti-Islamic bigotry. I can't turn it into an on-off button to make Muslims instantly obey.

I can use it to help make people think and check their own premises.

I have even talked about reaching ringleaders.

Let me show you something concrete. The situation below is already past the tipping point, so I don't think anything could be done immediately there. But it is a very good example of how ideas work in practice. This is Christiane Amanpour being threatened by protesters recently over in Egypt.

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyOTY3NDQzMjExNzEmcHQ9MTI5Njc*NDMyNTgyOCZwPTEyNTg*MTEmZD1BQkNOZXdzX1NGUF9Mb2NrZV9FbWJlZCZn/PTMmbz*2NjFlNDM5YTEwNWQ*ZDhlOWViNDFmNGZjYmY3ODFjMiZvZj*w.gif" /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,124,0" width="344" height="278" id="ABCESNWID"><param name="movie" value="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="flashvars" value="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=12822821&showId=12822821&gig_lt=1296744321171&gig_pt=1296744325828&gig_g=3" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="344" height="278" flashvars="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=12822821&showId=12822821&gig_lt=1296744321171&gig_pt=1296744325828&gig_g=3" name="ABCESNWID"></embed></object>

Notice the man who interrupted her interview. He is not being violent. He did not start out threatening her. He used the word, "please," as he told her to leave. He is very clear about the ideas in his head and he is not a drooling, foaming-at-the-mouth, psychopathic, wild-eyed lunatic. As Amanpour became stubborn and, instead of leaving, kept asking the man why, etc., notice how the crowd flared up.

The first guy is a ringleader and he had the attention of the crowd on him. If he had told her it's OK to stay at that moment, the crowd would have left her alone. Some might have even protected her from newcomers to the scene.

There's an misguided idea floating around in the Objectivist world that if you change a philosophical idea, it magically transforms itself into automatic behavior in large groups of people. Some think it's an on-off button that you change by moral denunciation.

The real on-off button for a mob is the ringleader and what he does.

Look at any Western movie for another concrete example. Look at the cliche scene of an angry mob in front of the jailhouse wanting to lynch the prisoner. Imagine if the Sheriff came out and said, "You people believe in lynching. Well, lynching is evil. It's a violation of individual rights. I don't sanction your idea. You're disgusting. You need to learn how to think."

What do you think would happen?

Instead, we see the Sheriff point a double-barrel shotgun at the ringleader and say, "If you take a step closer, I swear I will introduce you to your Maker. Now go home!"

And the crowd watches. After a tense moment, the ringleader stands down. Then the others start dispersing. They usually need a little prodding. "Go home, folks. There's nothing for you here." But that's just to keep a new ringleader from cropping up. The backbone of the crowd has been broken.

Why do the Objectivst people who deduce reality from principles think this works differently with Muslims? They happen to be human beings, too.

All you have to do is get the ringleaders to stand down and their crowds follow suit.

For the good ringleaders, if you convince any one of them that evil people are perverting Islam, he will make sure his crowd knows about it. For the bad ringleaders, you have to make them stand down by force when they flare up and discredit them in the eyes of their crowds.

There.

That's how ideas work in practice and that's just one strategy.

Do you see any objective work for an intellectual among these elements? Like putting together some tactics?

Islam haters don't. They think parroting verses of the Qur'an to each other to show how Islam is evil makes a difference.

The only difference it makes is to feed their own fear and hatred. But the Muslims don't care. Not one hater reaches them and convinces them of anything. They think the haters are nuts, just like we think the fundamentalist fanatics are nuts.

Michael

Dear Michael, I did not mean your reply was really absent! I have read the whole thread. I just wanted Infidel to state his own "solution". You didn't need to take the trouble, but thanks.

I note that this thread now has 666 views, aaargh, the Number of the Beast!

I see what you mean by on/off button now. That's the last thing I expect. Anyway, in all of that you've given me nothing practical whatsoever. I still know know your strategy for combatting the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. There's zero specifics in that post, even though Daunce seems to have accepted it as an adequate answer. What you've said is that you'll teach the good muslims how wrong the bad muslims are. Just how Islamically wrong are the bad Muslims?

Edited February 3, 2011 by Infidel

[caroljane]

Infidel, this is not only a 1-on-1 debate between you and Michael, it is a public forum. I have indicated that I have an idea of M's solutions, but you have not answered my question about what yours are.

Or am I just supposed to sit in the corner while the men talk?

Edited February 3, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Richard Wiig]

I got an on/off button? I don't understand. Why can't you just direct me to your approach to combatting Islamic fundamentalism. I'm in sincerely interested in how you'd approach it.

what is yours? How do you recommend eliminating the threat of I-fundamentalism?

Yes, Daunce, his approach is entirely absent. He keeps stating what aim - to pursuade muslims rationally - and the ideas he believes, but not how he'd actually go about it or why those ideas will work.

Here's some things I'd do, in no particular order or priority.

1. Properly identify the enemy and make it explicit at a government level.

2. Educate the wider population as to the full nature of what we are facing so that no one is left in the dark.

3. Set up a department to work closely with Imams and Clerics in the west who want to fight Shariah supremacists and their violent co-religionists.

4. Provide protection and support to anyone who wants to leave Islam. (and for the likes of Molly Norris - it's a crime that she's been left in the wilderness)

5. Set certain conditions for mosques to meet in order to monitor for radical activity.

6. Place restrictions on Muslim immigration, and on the building of any new mosques in the West, to be lifted on the lifting of restrictions in Islamic countries.

7. Use the military wherever necessary, such as against Irans nuclear sites.

8. If any mosque does turn out to be a sanctuary for radical activity, close it down.

There's a few for starters. I haven't seen one concrete step from Michael yet, other than to say he'd use reason on the good guys. Well that's fine, reason is of course essential, but I wanted to see the steps he'd take in employing it.

[bmacwilliam]

2. Educate the wider population as to the full nature of what we are facing so that no one is left in the dark.

I think westerners in general have a great deal of missing information here. Michael is a prime example of this.

Most westerners have an ingrained sense of a secular and personal morality - it's hard to imagine otherwise. Very few people feel that the Bible should be the only source of morality. This is not so in Islam. There is a much wider and deeper and pervasive view that the ENTIRETY of morality and as an extension, jurisprudence comes from the Quran and any and all morality issues can be answered by using the scriptures and/or the prophet as the model and final authority. This is about 70% or so of Egyptians.

That's a big part of the problem. You cannot even discuss morally objectionably material in scripture in an Islamic sense. It's an oxymoron. The moral landscape is totally alien, and not just wrt the radicals.

Oh yeah almost forgot: The morality of the prophet/scriptures is horrible.

Bob

Edited February 3, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Properly identify the enemy...

We always get stuck right here.

and make it explicit at a government level.

Now that scares me (in this context).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think westerners in general have a great deal of missing information here. Michael is a prime example of this.

Most westerners have an ingrained sense of a secular and personal morality - it's hard to imagine otherwise. Very few people feel that the Bible should be the only source of morality.

Bob,

I almost forgot.

Did you compile those suggestions for mind reading courses I requested?

You keep doing it, so I figure it must be something good...

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Yes, we do don't we. As for the second, it's the opposite that should scare you. The proper function of government is the defence of individual rights, but it can't function in that duty if it's permeated with politically correct language designed to obscure and hide the threat.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A government functions all too well when it is moved by bigotry.

That's the scary part.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I think westerners in general have a great deal of missing information here. Michael is a prime example of this.

Most westerners have an ingrained sense of a secular and personal morality - it's hard to imagine otherwise. Very few people feel that the Bible should be the only source of morality.

Bob,

I almost forgot.

Did you compile those suggestions for mind reading courses I requested?

You keep doing it, so I figure it must be something good...

Michael

Hey!

Look what I found! Great Clip!

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8335691

[Selene]

The history of the Great Animated Cartoon War has been chronicled in the history tomes kept in archives of the Al Gore Internet Museum as starting on February 3rd, 2011 at 05:58 PM CST, or 14:58 GMT.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I think it's cool you want to write.

But it needs a little polish.

It kinda flops around with no climax and the characters are not contrasting enough.

Still, kudos for actually doing something.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

A government functions all too well when it is moved by bigotry.

That's the scary part.

Michael

Yes, but you are just plain wrong on the bigotry. There is no bigotry in clearly identifying what's at war with us.

[Mike11]

MSK,

I can't figure you out, at all. In the years I have been here you have displayed empathy, restraint, open mindedness and fairness yet at the same time identify yourself as an Objectivist .

I keep waiting for you to join Infidel in calling for distinguishing marks and internment camps but it never happens. Instead I get the opposite.

You're a credit to your people my friend.

[Richard Wiig]

Hey!

Look what I found! Great Clip!

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8335691

LOL

[Richard Wiig]

Yes, paint my position as one of nazism. Good one, Joel.

[Mike11]

When the goose step has that familiar rhythm.

[Selene]

[Richard Wiig]

When the goose step has that familiar rhythm.

Yes, except there is not one thing I've proposed that is even remotely fascist, let alone goes against the principles of individual rights.

[william.scherk]

2. Educate the wider population as to the full nature of what we are facing so that no one is left in the dark.

I think westerners in general have a great deal of missing information here.

Here's a book that might be useful reading for all sides in this discussion, Scott Atran's "Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists."

Amazon has that 'look inside' feature that lets you check out contents before buying.

Here's some of the editorial reviews, so that prospective readers can get a handle on the book. Reader reviews here.

From Publishers Weekly

Atran (In Gods We Trust) examines the motivations of terrorists in this sprawling and timely study. Drawing upon years of travel among Muslim communities from Indonesia to Morocco, extensive interviews with would-be martyrs and holy warriors, and detailed surveys, the author concludes that young jihadists aren't merely motivated by political or religious fervor--they are powerfully bound to each other, they were campmates, school buddies, soccer pals, and the like, who become die-hard bands of brothers. Besides the importance of group dynamics in spawning terrorists, the author highlights the role of sacred values --core cultural values--that often trump other values, particularly economic ones. Within this context, Atran argues that the best measures against today's terrorist threat--which is more opportunistic, more scattered and disjointed, than it was before 9/11--are soft-power initiatives to provide alternative heroes and hopes within Muslim communities and to reframe sacred values. Atran's intellectual reach is prodigious; his analysis of the underpinnings of terrorism is instructive, if often unconventional; and his provocative prescriptions merit debate and consideration.

Review

“Atran explores the way terrorists think about themselves and teaches us, at last, intelligent ways to think about terrorists. He puts the threat in perspective and provides keys to winning the fight against violent zealotry.” (Christopher Dickey, Newsweek Middle East Editor and author of SECURING THE CITY )

“The stories Atran brings back from talking to jihadists and their supporters are gripping, and the result of his experiments that probe their sacred values are compelling. The insights he gains tell us more than we knew before about what it means to be human.” (Robert Axelrod, Walgreen Professor for the Study of Human Understanding at the University of Michigan, author of The Evolution of Cooperation, and recipient of the National Academy of Sciences Award for Behavioral Research Relevant to the Prevention of Nu )

“Atran is one of the world’s most important thinkers on the local and global dynamics of violent Islamist extremism. His research on what motivates young men to fall prey to violent ideologies is required reading for those trying to understand the problems of terrorism in the 21st century.” (Juan Zarate, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism 2005 - 2009 )

“[Atran’s] rigorous research not only debunks the claims of pundits who sit lightly to academic discipline but also challenges unscientific attacks on religion by senior scientists. The political implications of his well-grounded analysis are profound but conveyed in an accessible style which left me excited and hopeful.” (John, Lord Alderdice, Chairman of the Liberal Democrat Party in the House of Lords, former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and President of Liberal International )

“A highly readable round-the-world examination of the jihad and its adherents. . . . Atran pieces together the lives and the backgrounds of extremists, offering insightful perspectives by placing contemporary Islamist dissent into a deeper context of human evolutionary history.” (Financial Times )

“A riveting account of the motivational basis of terrorism and field material of rare quality. Dismantling the myths that guide the so called war on terror, he provides the tools to address a global problem rationally and effectively.” (Carlo Strenger, Graduate Chair of Clinical Psychology, Tel Aviv University, and columnist for Ha'aretz )

“Scott Atran is one of the very few persons who understand religion and have figured out that religion is not about belief and cannot be naively replaced without severe side effects.” (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Distinguished Professor, New York University Polytechnic Institute, author of The New York Times bestseller The Black Swan )

“Atran’s intellectual reach is prodigious; his analysis of the underpinnings of terrorism is instructive, if often unconventional; and his provocative prescriptions merit debate and consideration.” (Publishers Weekly )

“Atran has given us a remarkably honest book, demonstrating that down-to-earth field work can give us a far superior understanding of what makes terrorists‘tick’ than whole armies of armchair counter-terrorist ‘experts.’” (Perspectives on Terrorism )

“Historically keen and astutely humanistic...the author’s deep penetration into anthropological explanations of evolution, teamwork, blood sport and war attempt to define what it means to be human.” (Kirkus Reviews )

“Recommendable not just for its vivid insights into the motivation of terrorists, but also for its study of Islamic radicalization and the anthropology of religion in general..” (New Scientist )

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I looked at the Amazon site and got fascinated with Atran's perspective. I just spent the morning looking at videos to get an overview. Here are some of the ones I watched, followed by a few of his tangling with Sam Harris to show that his views are also challenged by very serious thinkers. I will follow the videos with some comments of my own in a new post.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XLX60Bxviic?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/79nmOmuOZsc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=5701806759199654816&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/11850079" width="400" height="227" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/11850079">Q&A with Dr. Scott Atran</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/hampshiretv">Hampshire TV</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IahLaDYjXWQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8VWO6U6248c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wu6qQDphSGU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BRKbBsl6KaQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The first thing about Scott Atran that comes to mind is that it is totally refreshing to see someone actually go out an talk to terrorists (and their families and friends) and ask them what they believe. His observations carry the weight of empirical evidence collected in a database.

I do have some misgivings about his conclusions, but they are not exclusionary.

What I mean is that I am adding his stuff to my already formed views from looking at other stuff. This makes a huge complement. And I am discarding the parts I disagree with (not in the sense that I ignore them, but in the sense that I do not take them as truth).

I am greatly disturbed by the cartoon caricatures I see of Islam in the media (especially since it conflicts with things I have seen and lived), but I have some serious criticisms of Islam, too. Within the current environment, it seems you can't be that way without both sides of the Islam divide trying to take your head off.

In this respect, it is like a breath of fresh air to see a person looking at the life of suicide bombers and, instead of seeing wild-eyed foaming-at-the-mouth zombies, he sees smaller gangs of young people around ringleaders. They seek adventure. They watch TV (Al Jazeera). They play soccer.

That fits perfectly with what I know about human nature.

What bothers me about his views is the constant subtext of leftist ideology. I kept wondering, where is that coming from? Then, in the Q&A video, he made a passing remark about the crazy stuff he used to believe in back when he was a member of the SDS.

SDS as in Students for a Democratic Society?

Oh...

Also, he seems to revel in the shock value he presents when he insinuates that neighborhood soccer games are more important to forming suicide bombers than mosques. I'm pretty sure he knows better than that. (Just from the fact that the kids watch a lot of TV, and what is on TV comes straight from the mosques.) But he's playing the "be controversial" game because it gets a butt-load more publicity than being reasonable.

In all, I am in agreement with Sam Harris in that 90% of his stuff is fascinating and rings true. I do not agree with Harris that his 10% conclusions are dangerous and irresponsible. But I do agree that he is too quick to oversimplify and dismiss the testimony of people like Hirsi Ali.

I am particularly delighted by his view that emulating heroes is a prime mover to suicide bombers, along with the band-of-brothers attitude. I've been talking about getting better heroes for the Islamic world for years. I think these Muslim comic books with superheroes that are coming out will help this a lot.

I also agree with him that we have to find a way to discredit Osama bin Laden as a local hero. Here in the USA, people find it hard to imagine how these young people see bin Laden. He is their David against us, the Goliath. Exposing bin Laden for what he is to them--especially through stories and the popular media--would be extremely beneficial.

(I admit I had to hold back a feeling of nausea when he tried to plug Obama for that role. I wanted to say, "Give it up, Scott-baby. It ain't gonna take. You were doing great until now. Can we please leave the BS behind and get back to the good stuff?" And I know he was talking about a poll where Obama actually appeared. But that was in 2008, when he was just elected. I wonder how that poll would play out now.)

I was intrigued about the world of petty criminals being an integral part of the life of many suicide bombers. That is another point that rings true.

I find his constant implicit USA bashing from the ignoramus viewpoint tedious. Talk about an oversimplification!

But in all, thank you very much for opening this door to me. Scott Atran is now on my list of "must consult and read more" intellectuals. I don't have to agree with everything he says to know that he is a man who thinks for himself and gets a lot of stuff right that others get wrong--even as he promotes some of his own biases.

Michael

[william.scherk]

The first thing about Scott Atran that comes to mind is that it is totally refreshing to see someone actually go out an talk to terrorists (and their families and friends) and ask them what they believe. His observations carry the weight of empirical evidence collected in a database.

When I read Atran's column, I was impressed that he had been 'on the ground' as an anthropologist, and that he speaks enough Arabic to understand his informants. There is research to sifted through in his book that may not come across in his speechifying. He has interviewed the boogeyman we all tend to fear.

Here's some of his views on the Egyptian Brotherhood and its chances of power there (I already posted a link to the column in the Signs Of The Times thread). His opinions are not the end of discussion, but useful data points for those who want to be as informed as possible about the likelihood of a Coming Insurrection.

Although originally the Brotherhood was organized into paramilitary cells cells along European (fascist and communist) models in order to readily disperse when the power against them was too strong and to re-unite when that power weakened,, today it forswears violence in political struggle. This has made it a target of Al Qaeda's venom. In January 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the former leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda's leading strategist, blasted the Brotherhood's willingness to participate in parliamentary elections and reject nuclear arms. "You falsely affiliated with Islam," he scolded. "You forget about the rule of Sharia, welcome the Crusaders' bases in your countries, and acknowledge the existence of the Jews who are fully armed with nuclear weapons, which you are banned to possess." The next day, Dr. el-Erian responded by putting al-Zawahiri in the same camp as nationalist dictators who oppose any peaceful participation or transition to democracyin non-violent political opposition. True, al-Qaeda's ideological mentor, Sayyid Qutb, was a Muslim Brother who preached jihad against infidels and "unclean" Muslims; but Qutb had few followers in the Brotherhood, as al-Zawahiri has stressed.

People in the West frequently conflate the Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. And although their means for gaining influence are very different, even many Egyptians suspect that they share a common end that is alien to democracy. When I asked Dr. Erian about this, he retorted that the United States and Mr. Mubarak had conspired after Sept. 11 to "brainwash" people into thinking of all Muslim activists as terrorists, adding that "the street" knew the truth. The street, however, manifests little support for the Brotherhood. Only a small minority of the protesters in Tahrir Square joined its members in prayers there (estimates range from 5 to 10 percent), and few Islamic slogans or chants were seen or heard.

Obviously the Brotherhood wants power and its political positions, notably its stance against Israel, are problematic for American interests. "Israel must know that it is not welcome by the people in this region," Dr. Erian said. "The people cannot, of course, rush to war, except if Israel launches a war. But the relationship that allowed Israel to back the Mubarak dictatorship must end." Moreover, the Brotherhood will probably have representatives in any freely elected government. But it is because democracies tolerate disparate political groups that they generally don't have civil wars, or wars with other democracies. And because the Brotherhood itself is not monolithic -- it has many factions -- it could well succumb to internal division if there really were a political opening for other groups in Egypt.

[william.scherk]

Another Atran article you might be interested in, Michael.

Pumping Up the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 2