The Hard Truth about Terrorism

[Laika]

In the wake of the Orlando attacks in Florida, we are now once again discussing how to fight terrorism. In the rush for politicians to seem more "decisive" on the issue there is something which badly needs to be said.

You can't stop every terrorist attack.

As we go about blaming various agencies for their respective failings to prevent the Orlando attack we miss a much deeper point: The government is not omnipotent. Even totalitarian governments can never eliminate the risk of terrorism. They expended a great number of resources and lives trying to find a conspiracy because they assumed that they existed. Even without looking at the abuses this facilitated even if everyone had used this power for entirely benevolent ends there good intentions can only dubiously justify legal systems without a presumption of innocence, where guilt is established in suspicion and not evidence, where people may be considered "suspect" because of their families and friends, their work colleagues, the books they read (or the websites they visit). In expecting the government to prevent every terrorist attack, We trade our civil liberties for an illusion of security.

This isn't necessaily an argument against totalitarianism on moral grounds nor that we cannot take measures to "manage" the threat of terrorism. Rather, that we should not give in purely on our irrational fears and that we should evaluate security measures based on evidence of their effective as and not ideology. if we start thinking totalitarianism is morally justified (and we are a long way down this road already) we should not do so based on the illusion of of its omnipotence as a basis for our security. The government cannot make the world 100% safe even if that is what we sincerely expected and demanded of it.

 

[uncung]

we can stop terrorism by stopping invading islamic lands.

 

[Crypto2015]

You can stop or at least diminish terrorism by acknowledging that there is a clear link between Islamic terrorism and mainstream Islam. As long as this link is not acknowledged, terrorism will continue to increase. The problem is that acknowledging such a link is contrary to the prevailing social paradigm: moral and cultural relativism. Not to mention the fact that nobody wants to make the Saudi oil kings angry, and the Saudi oil kings are some of the biggest supporters of Jihad. That's why you must be prepared to see many other terrorist attacks in the following years. Just think about that fact that this commentary would be censored in many websites (I hope it won't be censored in this one).

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" Voltaire.

They rule because of Saudi money. Oil.

 

[Laika]

we can stop terrorism by stopping invading islamic lands.

In the long-term I agree that we can reduce terrorism but not treating war as a solution to the problem. It's too blunt an instrument and devastating to really achieve a goal as specific as combating terrorism. Doing so really only radicalises whole populations and destabilises countries as we can see from Iraq (2003) and Cambodia (1969). I don't think we can stop terrorism though this but doing this will not add fuel to the fire.

You can stop or at least diminish terrorism by acknowledging that there is a clear link between Islamic terrorism and mainstream Islam. As long as this link is not acknowledged, terrorism will continue to increase. The problem is that acknowledging such a link is contrary to the prevailing social paradigm: moral and cultural relativism. Not to mention the fact that nobody wants to make the Saudi oil kings angry, and the Saudi oil kings are some of the biggest supporters of Jihad. That's why you must be prepared to see many other terrorist attacks in the following years. Just think about that fact that this commentary would be censored in many websites (I hope it won't be censored in this one).

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" Voltaire.

They rule because of Saudi money. Oil.

Specifically on the subject of the relationship between Islam and Islamic Terrorism, treating all Muslims as having the "intent" to commit acts of terrorism because they share the same religion is a gross and dangerous attack on individual rights and freedom of religion. The focus has to be on those who actually commit acts of terrorism and not presuming guilt based on shared religious beliefs (or other extremist ideologies). Treating all Muslims as potential terrorists is an extremely inefficient means of detecting terrorist activity, wasting time and resources because the problem is not the beliefs but that people act on them. From a security point of view focusing on those who we have evidence of preparing and committing acts of terrorism is simply a better use of resources than trying to treat over a billion people as suspected terrorists for the same reason they refuse to eat pork and donate 2.5% of their income to charity. Intelligence agencies have to be worthy of the name.

 

[Laika]

You can stop or at least diminish terrorism by acknowledging that there is a clear link between Islamic terrorism and mainstream Islam. As long as this link is not acknowledged, terrorism will continue to increase. The problem is that acknowledging such a link is contrary to the prevailing social paradigm: moral and cultural relativism. Not to mention the fact that nobody wants to make the Saudi oil kings angry, and the Saudi oil kings are some of the biggest supporters of Jihad. That's why you must be prepared to see many other terrorist attacks in the following years. Just think about that fact that this commentary would be censored in many websites (I hope it won't be censored in this one).

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" Voltaire.

They rule because of Saudi money. Oil.

P.s. You are right on the Saudi Oil however. The West needs to cut oil consumption and achieve energy security so it is no longer dependent on propping up middle eastern dictatorships and discredits itself by supporting governments which engage in widespread human rights abuses.

 

[Crypto2015]

In the long-term I agree that we can reduce terrorism but not treating war as a solution to the problem. It's too blunt an instrument and devastating to really achieve a goal as specific as combating terrorism. Doing so really only radicalises whole populations and destabilises countries as we can see from Iraq (2003) and Cambodia (1969). I don't think we can stop terrorism though this but doing this will not add fuel to the fire.



Specifically on the subject of the relationship between Islam and Islamic Terrorism, treating all Muslims as having the "intent" to commit acts of terrorism because they share the same religion is a gross and dangerous attack on individual rights and freedom of religion. The focus has to be on those who actually commit acts of terrorism and not presuming guilt based on shared religious beliefs (or other extremist ideologies). Treating all Muslims as potential terrorists is an extremely inefficient means of detecting terrorist activity, wasting time and resources because the problem is not the beliefs but that people act on them. From a security point of view focusing on those who we have evidence of preparing and committing acts of terrorism is simply a better use of resources than trying to treat over a billion people as suspected terrorists for the same reason they refuse to eat pork and donate 2.5% of their income to charity. Intelligence agencies have to be worthy of the name.

I never said that all Muslims have the intent to commit acts of terrorism. What I said is that mainstream Islam (the ideology) encourages terrorism. This cannot be denied. The proves are readily available in the Qur'an and the Hadith.

 

[Augustus]

The problem is that Westerners have the belief that the total amount of terrorism should be zero. In reality, it should be a small amount as zero is impossible. Humans collectively are violent and always will be so. Westerners still get to live in the historically safest societies in the world, it's just that their expectations are fanciful.

Like many things (drugs, prostitution, etc.) the goal should be harm reduction, not eradication. As with the war on drugs, attempts at eradication result in harm maximisation.

A small change in attitude would make a very big difference.

 

[Crypto2015]

The problem is that Westerners have the belief that the total amount of terrorism should be zero. In reality, it should be a small amount as zero is impossible. Humans collectively are violent and always will be so. Westerners still get to live in the historically safest societies in the world, it's just that their expectations are fanciful.

Like many things (drugs, prostitution, etc.) the goal should be harm reduction, not eradication. As with the war on drugs, attempts at eradication result in harm maximisation.

A small change in attitude would make a very big difference.

This does not seem reasonable to me. Are you saying that we must get used to being killed in pubs, museums, public events, etc.? What kind of solution is that, if we can even call it a solution? Furthermore, what happened in Orlando cannot be labelled as a simple crime. It is evidently linked to an ideology, an ideology that no one dares to even mention. How can you people survive if you can't even mention the name of your enemy? You are doomed.

 

[Laika]

I never said that all Muslims have the intent to commit acts of terrorism. What I said is that mainstream Islam (the ideology) encourages terrorism. This cannot be denied. The proves are readily available in the Qur'an and the Hadith.

It is true that Islamic Fundamentalism draws its source from the Quran and the Hadith, but it represents a radical interpretation of Islam as a totalitarian and political ideology not simply a religion. I think this owes much to Sayyid Qubt and his responses to secular and western ideologies like liberal secularism, fascism and communism. It's therefore product of the 20th century political climate rather than exclusively being something which can be directly attributed to "Islam" itself as a religion.

This does not seem reasonable to me. Are you saying that we must get used to being killed in pubs, museums, public events, etc.? What kind of solution is that, if we can even call it a solution? Furthermore, this is not crime. This is an ideology.

That's exactly what I am saying and we have to get used to managing the threat of terrorism rather than thinking we can "win" the war on terror. Trying to do the latter means waging war on a tactic not an ideology so it has no definite end. By definition, the war on terror is therefore a permant war of the Orwellian kind. Recognising that is a step towards protecting the civil liberties we still have after a decade and a half of thinking total victory is possible. If we try to eliminate terrorism we will only eliminate freedom instead and still have the terrorism.

 

[Crypto2015]

It is true that Islamic Fundamentalism draws its source from the Quran and the Hadith, but it represents a radical interpretation of Islam as a totalitarian and political ideology not simply a religion. I think this owes much to Sayyid Qubt and his responses to secular and western ideologies like liberal secularism, fascism and communism. It's therefore product of the 20th century political climate rather than exclusively being something which can be directly attributed to "Islam" itself as a religion.



That's exactly what I am saying and we have to get used to managing the threat of terrorism rather than thinking we can "win" the war on terror. Trying to do the latter means waging war on a tactic not an ideology so it has no definite end. By definition, the war on terror is therefore a permant war of the Orwellian kind. Recognising that is a step towards protecting the civil liberties we still have after a decade and a half of thinking total victory is possible. If we try to eliminate terrorism we will only eliminate freedom instead and still have the terrorism.

Islamic fundamentalism was espoused by Muhammad himself and by absolutely all of the classical Islamic scholars. How do you think that Muhammad became a political leader, the most powerful one in the Arabian Peninsula? If you think that Islamic fundamentalism is a product of the 20th century, how do you explain the 14 centuries of Jihad against Europe, India, and Africa? How do you explain the Islamic conquests of Spain, Egypt, Turkey, etc., all of which took place almost immediately after Muhammad's death?

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (8:38-39) - “Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven... And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”

Quran (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Do you think that the texts that I have cited were written in the 20th century?

 

[Augustus]

This does not seem reasonable to me. Are you saying that we must get used to being killed in pubs, museums, public events, etc.?

Yes, exactly that.

Humans should be used to violence by now. People have been violently killed in many ways since the beginning of time.

I predict we'll see more terrorism from more sources as it is much more effective than it used to be due to our weakness, fear and harm maximisation response to it.

What kind of solution is that, if we can even call it a solution?

The precise point is that there is no solution.

Once you accept this, you move to harm reduction strategies (this does not mean 'do nothing').

Furthermore, what happened in Orlando cannot be labelled as a simple crime. It is evidently linked to an ideology, an ideology that no one dares to even mention. How can you people survive if you can't even mention the name of your enemy? You are doomed.

I agree. Nothing I said involved refusing to identify the causes of violence. There is nothing new about Jihadi terrorism though. Millenarian violence has existed for thousands of years, this is just the latest iteration, and one that will eventually pass like all the others.

 

[Laika]

Islamic fundamentalism was espoused by Muhammad himself and by absolutely all of the classical Islamic scholars. How do you think that Muhammad became a political leader, the most powerful one in the Arabian Peninsula? If you think that Islamic fundamentalism is a product of the 20th century, how do you explain the 14 centuries of Jihad against Europe, India, and Africa? How do you explain the Islamic conquests of Spain, Egypt, Turkey, etc., all of which took place almost immediately after Muhammad's death?

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (8:38-39) - “Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven... And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.”

Quran (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."

Sahih Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat."

Do you think that the texts that I have cited were written in the 20th century?

This is true of virtually every other religion contemporary with Islam's foundation by Muhammad. There is nothing uniquely Muslim about Religious violence.

The difference is that by a combination of Liberal secularism in the west, spread around the world by colonial empires in the 19th century, and of state atheism by Communist Russia, China and others in the 20th century, a great many religions were adapted to secular norms where religion and politics were separate. It should be emphasised that this process was far from benign.

Islam had a different historical trajectory. It is possible to argue that it because it was retained as a caliphate in the Ottoman Empire and lasted till the early part of the 20th century and was therefore outside of the major secularising influences(but that isn't the whole story). Turkey is a notable example of an primarily Islamic country secularised along western lines, but the nations of Central Asia such as Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, etc, were forcibly secularised by the Soviets.

Both liberal and Marxist ideologies had an influence in the Middle East but it wasn't until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that "Islamism" really started as a modern phenomenon. They actually borrowed Leninist conceptions of the state and vanguard party in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, and there was a shift of "anti-imperialist" thinking from viewing Marxism as a revolutionary ideology to Islam being considered as one. The Soviets cooperated with local "Arab socialist" dictatorships which were sympathetic to left wing anti-imperialism rather than push their ideology. The same is probably true of the Americans for whom political stability in an oil rich region was more important than building secular, liberal and democratic governments. Destabilising American interventions in Iran and Afghanistan- combined with the weakness of the Soviets- meant Islam became a political force. It's a hangover of the Cold War, and the uneven development of secularisation, not Muhammad or the scripture. An Islamic Reformation in which Islam is transformed into a secular religion and not a political ideology, whilst remote, is still possible.

 

[Crypto2015]

This is true of virtually every other religion contemporary with Islam's foundation by Muhammad. There is nothing uniquely Muslim about Religious violence.

The difference is that by a combination of Liberal secularism in the west, spread around the world by colonial empires in the 19th century, and of state atheism by Communist Russia, China and others in the 20th century, a great many religions were adapted to secular norms where religion and politics were separate. It should be emphasised that this process was far from benign.

Islam had a different historical trajectory. It is possible to argue that it because it was retained as a caliphate in the Ottoman Empire and lasted till the early part of the 20th century and was therefore outside of the major secularising influences(but that isn't the whole story). Turkey is a notable example of an primarily Islamic country secularised along western lines, but the nations of Central Asia such as Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, etc, were forcibly secularised by the Soviets.

Both liberal and Marxist ideologies had an influence in the Middle East but it wasn't until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that "Islamism" really started as a modern phenomenon. They actually borrowed Leninist conceptions of the state and vanguard party in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, and there was a shift of "anti-imperialist" thinking from viewing Marxism as a revolutionary ideology to Islam being considered as one. The Soviets cooperated with local "Arab socialist" dictatorships which were sympathetic to left wing anti-imperialism rather than push their ideology. The same is probably true of the Americans for whom political stability in an oil rich region was more important than building secular, liberal and democratic governments. Destabilising American interventions in Iran and Afghanistan- combined with the weakness of the Soviets- meant Islam became a political force. It's a hangover of the Cold War, and the uneven development of secularisation, not Muhammad or the scripture. An Islamic Reformation in which Islam is transformed into a secular religion and not a political ideology, whilst remote, is still possible.

What you are saying is simply not true. Christianity does not encourage terrorism. If Christianity encouraged terrorism, I would be engaged in terrorist activities, just like most of the hundreds of thousands of Christians living in the US. Your cultural environment does not shape your religious convictions. On the contrary, your cultural environment is shaped by your religious convictions. That's why Muslims that were born and raised in the West turn to terrorism. What's killing you right now is the idea that all religions are created equal. As long as you fail to understand that different religions teach vastly dissimilar moral principles, you'll keep dying.

PS: There have been several Islamic reformations in the past. Reformation movements are always a return to the original tenets of a religion, as contained in the texts regarded as sacred. ISIS is by all means an Islamic reformation movement. That is why Muslim men and women from all over the world are running away to join ISIS. They realize that ISIS is being faithful to the original tenets of Islam.

 

[Laika]

What you are saying is simply not true. Christianity does not encourage terrorism. If Christianity encouraged terrorism, I would be engaged in terrorist activities, just like most of the hundreds of thousands of Christians living in the US. Your cultural environment does not shape your religious convictions. On the contrary, your cultural environment is shaped by your religious convictions. That's why Muslims that were born and raised in the West turn to terrorism. What's killing you right now is the idea that all religions are created equal. As long as you fail to understand that different religions teach vastly dissimilar moral principles, you'll keep dying.

PS: There have been several Islamic reformations in the past. Reformation movements are always a return to the original tenets of a religion, as contained in the texts regarded as sacred. ISIS is by all means an Islamic reformation movement. That is why Muslim men and women from all over the world are running away to join ISIS. They realize that ISIS is being faithful to the original tenets of Islam.

Ok. Assume that I agreed with you and was open to the idea. Here's a list of suggestions. which ones do you support?

1. Ban the Quran and the Hadith and introduce laws censoring "Islamic" ideas and texts?
2. Close all Mosques to stop the spread of Islam?
3. Put all Imams on trial for spreading a "terrorist" ideology?
4. Close Islamic Religious Schools and Take Children away from Muslim Parents so they can be adopted by Non-Muslim families?
5. Engage in Mass Surviallance of Muslims and make them wear a armband so they are easily recognised in public.
6. Close Islamic Financial institutions and Muslim-owned business?
7. Deny Muslim immigrants the right to citizenship?
8. Deprive Muslim of their current citizenship?
9. Deport Muslims to Muslim-majority countries?
10. Invade and occupy Muslim-majority countries and forcibly secularise them?

Tell me what you want to do with the Muslins and then we can see whether it would work and whether you really want to take the view you have to its logical conclusion.

 

[Crypto2015]

Ok. Assume that I agreed with you and was open to the idea. Here's a list of suggestions. which ones do you support?

1. Ban the Quran and the Hadith and introduce laws censoring "Islamic" ideas and texts?
2. Close all Mosques to stop the spread of Islam?
3. Put all Imams on trial for spreading a "terrorist" ideology?
4. Close Islamic Religious Schools and Take Children away from Muslim Parents so they can be adopted by Non-Muslim families?
5. Engage in Mass Surviallance of Muslims and make them wear a armband so they are easily recognised in public.
6. Close Islamic Financial institutions and Muslim-owned business?
7. Deny Muslim immigrants the right to citizenship?
8. Deprive Muslim of their current citizenship?
9. Deport Muslims to Muslim-majority countries?
10. Invade and occupy Muslim-majority countries and forcibly secularise them?

Tell me what you want to do with the Muslins and then we can see whether it would work and whether you really want to take the view you have to its logical conclusion.

(1) Expose Islam for what it is instead of constantly whitewashing it.
(2) Allow the FBI and CIA to study Islamic theology, as well as the link between Islam and terrorism. This is currently banned.
(3) Reduce Muslim migration to non-Muslim countries.
(4) Make the propagation and preaching of political Islam (i.e., Sharia Law) illegal.
(5) Stop trying to appease Islamic organizations such as the Hamas-linked CAIR.
(6) Keep mosques under surveillance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I never said that all Muslims have the intent to commit acts of terrorism. What I said is that mainstream Islam (the ideology) encourages terrorism. This cannot be denied.

Nonsense.

 

[Windwalker]

If Christianity encouraged terrorism, I would be engaged in terrorist activities,

WOW!!!!! That's quite the confession.

 

[Altfish]

we can stop terrorism by stopping invading islamic lands.

That's right blame the west for all the wrongs of islam.

 

[Laika]

(1) Expose Islam for what it is instead of constantly whitewashing it.
(2) Allow the FBI and CIA to study Islamic theology, as well as the link between Islam and terrorism. This is currently banned.
(3) Reduce Muslim migration to non-Muslim countries.
(4) Make the propagation and preaching of political Islam (i.e., Sharia Law) illegal.
(5) Stop trying to appease Islamic organizations such as the Hamas-linked CAIR.
(6) Keep mosques under surveillance.

Here's my take on your list.

1) Expose Islam for what it is instead of constantly whitewashing it.

Not sure how you'd achieve that. That's practically saying the media should promote a particular message as a restriction on freedom of the press.

(2) Allow the FBI and CIA to study Islamic theology, as well as the link between Islam and terrorism. This is currently banned.

That sounds really weird. Do you have a link for that? I would be surprised if that was true.

(3) Reduce Muslim migration to non-Muslim countries.

Keeping Muslins in Muslim-majority countries would be unworkable without an international agreement and police force to enforce it.

Preventing Muslims from entering the country and establishing a religious text for citizenship is more workable but highly discriminatory.

(4) Make the propagation and preaching of political Islam (i.e., Sharia Law) illegal.

That will be hard to do without infringing on the rights of Muslins to exercise their freedom of religion because distinguishing between political Islam and non-political Islam will be difficult.

This would essentially ban any pro-sharia law political parties. I don't think there are any in the U.S. But there is one or two elsewhere. There might be one in the UK I think.

(5) Stop trying to appease Islamic organizations such as the Hamas-linked CAIR.

What do you mean by "appease"? Are you saying we should ban organisations we consider Islamic or specifically promoting political Islam? More information would be good here.

(6) Keep mosques under surveillance.

Assuming you did that and ignored the privacy violations involved, I think all it would achieve is moving any unwanted discussions to outside of the Mosque. It's unlikely that terrorists would gather in a mosque and discuss their plots as its a public place anyway.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's right blame the west for all the wrongs of islam.

"all the wrongs of Islam" <----> banal islamophobia.