The problem of Islamic radicalism

[LaCroix]

This is all nicely qualified and everything, but IIRC the starting point for your sermon about the ills of imperialism was my rhetorical question about the role of religion in causing societal backwardness.  So it seems that there are factors which in your view are more and less acceptable as contributing factors to the backwardness of certain cultures, and hence ultimately root causes of violence.

there are always root causes of violence, but i don't think it's ever appropriate, for example, to blame the parents for a kid shooting up a school. the person is, at the end of day, responsible for his own actions. just like if you believe islam is the root cause of violence, why are you blaming islam? do you cheer when one muslim kills another because the other supported islam by being a practicing member of the faith?

[MadImmortalMan]

there are always root causes of violence, but i don't think it's ever appropriate, for example, to blame the parents for a kid shooting up a school. the person is, at the end of day, responsible for his own actions. just like if you believe islam is the root cause of violence, why are you blaming islam? do you cheer when one muslim kills another because the other supported islam by being a practicing member of the faith?

It's a question of collective guilt in any form. It's never valid and trying to redress wrongs against those who weren't responsible only creates new wrongs.

[The Minsky Moment]

basically Necla Kelek says that Islam as a religion failed, and it failed in 622 in Mecca when Mohammed failed to convince the inhabitants of the city to convert. After his retreat to Medina he transformed into a warlord after which he proceeded to force his religion -a powerideology (is that even a word in english?)- upon the people. Convert, submit or die. They did so successfully for a long time.

Looks like junk history to me.  There simply isn't much good historical evidence for that went on in Arabia in the 620s; it's all speculation.  But the key point here is that historically speaking centuries went by before the conquered lands became fully Islamized and while the conquered peoples might not be thrilled with their position (conquered peoples rarely are) it looked pretty good as compared to see the situation for religious minorities in Byzantine lands (or for that matter Catholic Europe).   

[mongers]

........

If you look at the Islamic world in the early 20th century, you would see mostly a mix of: (1) modernizing Islams that are compatible with the new rising secular states in places like Turkey or Iran, (2) traditional Islams that are essentially non-violent and political quiescent and which incorporate various folk traditions - some harmless and picturesque, some retrograde, (3)traditional academic Islams associated with the Azhar (Sunni) or Qom/Karbala (Shia) schools.   There are also the Wahabbi reformationists, pushing a highly stringent, formalist, and literalist interpretation of Islam but numerically they are not significant.  Finally, beginning in the late 19th century and continuing through and past the mid-20th century, there is a strong current of (secular) anti-imperial and anti-Western literature. 

A few key things happen in the mid-to-late 20th century to change this picture:

(1) huge oil deposits are discovered in the Wahabbi heartlands.  By the latter part of the century the Saudis are pouring huge resources into promoting their sect.  These Salafi schools aren't necessarily useful for teaching students useful skills for the modern world, but do fill their student's heads with propagandistic nonsense.  And they are scattered all over the Islamic world.

(2) Some of the more virulent strains of anti-imperial and anti-Western thought became Islamized - the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sunni world and the alliance that took down the Shah in  the Shi'a world are examples.

(3). There great promise and expectations raised by post war nationalist moments -- Nasser and the Baath - were horribly disappointed, leading to disillusion of secular alternatives to the old imperial and monarchical regimes.

(4) The secular liberation and revolutionary organizations that formerly attracted youth prone to revolutionary violence either fell apart as the Cold War wound down or were co-opted by practical considerations - e.g. the PLO engaging into the peace process and assuming responsibility for territorial rule.

All these contingent historical forces are driving a supply and demand for a very small minority of extremely violent, Islamist extremists and a somewhat larger minority of passive sympathizers.

I've been saying this for the last quarter century, finally the mainstream and it's media are realising this is the major source of fertilizer for Islamic terrorism. 

Any solutions to this problem, other than my preferred option of B52s over administrative Riyadh ?

[Razgovory]

I do wonder that if went back 40-50 years ago whether we would be having a debate about the "problem" in materialism.  When the Vietnamese slaughter one another over the "Science of History', terrorism rocked the world as Arabs preformed the "Propaganda of the Deed" by taking hostages, and the great fighter of Religious obscurantism put men into space, financed a hundred revolutions and planned the nuclear extermination of the West.  The philosophers of the day did not apologize for this behavior but openly supported it and lamented that we didn't see more of it.

[Valmy]

Looks like junk history to me.  There simply isn't much good historical evidence for that went on in Arabia in the 620s; it's all speculation.  But the key point here is that historically speaking centuries went by before the conquered lands became fully Islamized and while the conquered peoples might not be thrilled with their position (conquered peoples rarely are) it looked pretty good as compared to see the situation for religious minorities in Byzantine lands (or for that matter Catholic Europe).   

Considering those countries might be the most intolerant nations in the history of world when it comes to religious though that is not really a glowing endorsement

[Valmy]

I do wonder that if went back 40-50 years ago whether we would be having a debate about the "problem" in materialism.  When the Vietnamese slaughter one another over the "Science of History', terrorism rocked the world as Arabs preformed the "Propaganda of the Deed" by taking hostages, and the great fighter of Religious obscurantism put men into space, financed a hundred revolutions and planned the nuclear extermination of the West.  The philosophers of the day did not apologize for this behavior but openly supported it and lamented that we didn't see more of it.

Um didn't we? The Second Red Scare and all that?

Oh you mean the philosophers. Well if you are upset the intellectuals did not condemn the Soviets sufficiently you will get no argument from me.

[Razgovory]

I do wonder that if went back 40-50 years ago whether we would be having a debate about the "problem" in materialism.  When the Vietnamese slaughter one another over the "Science of History', terrorism rocked the world as Arabs preformed the "Propaganda of the Deed" by taking hostages, and the great fighter of Religious obscurantism put men into space, financed a hundred revolutions and planned the nuclear extermination of the West.  The philosophers of the day did not apologize for this behavior but openly supported it and lamented that we didn't see more of it.

Um didn't we? The Second Red Scare and all that?

Oh you mean the philosophers. Well if you are upset the intellectuals did not condemn the Soviets sufficiently you will get no argument from me.

That's a little before the time and didn't last that long.  Thinking 1960's and 1970's.  Vietnam war.  And lets not restrict it to Americans.  Hell, ask a person on the street in any Western Country about what the Vietnam war was about, odds are it was about American Imperialism.

[Admiral Yi]

there are always root causes of violence, but i don't think it's ever appropriate, for example, to blame the parents for a kid shooting up a school. the person is, at the end of day, responsible for his own actions. just like if you believe islam is the root cause of violence, why are you blaming islam? do you cheer when one muslim kills another because the other supported islam by being a practicing member of the faith?

I don't understand what this post is getting at.

However I do understand you're not responding to my post, which was about how on the one hand you say backwardness is caused by imperialism and other stuff, but other stuff can't include Islam.

[Valmy]

Hell, ask a person on the street in any Western Country about what the Vietnam war was about, odds are it was about American Imperialism.

Yes because we were desperate to conquer all that...um...whatever it was they had there and kill all those...whomever it was that lived there. I would hope most people in Western Countries know about the Cold War and are not under some sort of delusion we really gave two shits about conquering Vietnam.

[LaCroix]

I don't understand what this post is getting at.

you said "i thought the same as berkut." berkut said he interpreted my discussion re: imperialism to mean i felt this:

If those men walked into that Paris concert and lined up and executed 100+ people, then while the target of their anger is likely misplaced, the validity of it is perfectly reasonable. According to this view, it can be argued that those Parisians are simply reaping what their parents (or their parents parent's, etc., etc.) sowed.

so, i thought you were saying that you also interpreted my argument to mean i felt parisians got what they deserved. having re-read berkut's comment, i see that he took a really stupid turn with the "according to this view" part and wasn't saying i said this. so, my bad re: that point

However I do understand you're not responding to my post, which was about how on the one hand you say backwardness is caused by imperialism and other stuff, but other stuff can't include Islam.

yes, as i've been arguing this entire time, i don't think islam or any religion causes much. we're full circle again

[Razgovory]

Hell, ask a person on the street in any Western Country about what the Vietnam war was about, odds are it was about American Imperialism.

Yes because we were desperate to conquer all that...um...whatever it was they had there and kill all those...whomever it was that lived there. I would hope most people in Western Countries know about the Cold War and are not under some sort of delusion we really gave two shits about conquering Vietnam.

A few years back I actually posted something about European attitudes toward the American involvement in Vietnam.  http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,8530.0.html

[mongers]

Historical revisionism for the win or are you merely indulging in folk myth reformation?

Back on topic, saw a thoughtful and relatively long interview with general  McChrystal on Channel 4 news, had quite a lot of interesting views on IS, the war against them and comments apposite to this thread.

I'll see if I can find a link:

programme catch up, but probably won't work in US:
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/

edit:
they put it on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBa1EUO8lys

[Razgovory]

Nope, that link is real.  It does document we had on this board about three years ago.

[Admiral Yi]

yes, as i've been arguing this entire time, i don't think islam or any religion causes much. we're full circle again

I notice you have a tendency, at least in this discussion, to deliver verdicts ex machina, without much explicit reasoning as to why you think it's true.