Combating Islamist terrorism at its roots

[DanishDynamite]

Why is it that so much terrorism nowadays is Islamist terrorism? Why is it that Muslim countries seem to breed Islamist terrorists, in ever greater numbers?

I suspect poverty, lack of education, lack of uncensored news and perhaps living in dictatorships has some of the blame. So how do we combat those things?

Does anyone know if there is the equivalent of "Radio Free Europe" being broadcast at Muslim countries at the moment? The Saudies speak Arabic, don't they? Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd say more than anything it's the result of how you define "terrorism". If it's strictly defined as "what a terrorist does", and "terrorist" is defined as "people we don't like" or "people on our list of terrorists", then the whole thing is meaningless.

There are still Christian terrorists plotting to bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors. Granted, the prevalence is much lower than violence in the Middle East because we have a stable society, whereas the Middle East is a mess largely because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

By the way, is there a difference between an "Islamist" and a Muslim? (Can I call anti-abortion terrorists "Christists"?)

[DanishDynamite]

I'd say more than anything it's the result of how you define "terrorism". If it's strictly defined as "what a terrorist does", and "terrorist" is defined as "people we don't like" or "people on our list of terrorists", then the whole thing is meaningless.

There are still Christian terrorists plotting to bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors. Granted, the prevalence is much lower than violence in the Middle East because we have a stable society, whereas the Middle East is a mess largely because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
I'm talking about Islamist terrorism.
By the way, is there a difference between an "Islamist" and a Muslim? (Can I call anti-abortion terrorists "Christists"?)Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_terrorism).

[JoeTheJuggler]

and perhaps living in dictatorships has some of the blame.
Like all those terrorists in largely secular-run Iraq before we invaded? Or would that be the terrorists that moved in since the invasion?

I'm talking about Islamist terrorism.
I know. I don't understand the need for the neologism. How about "Muslim terrorists" or "Muslim extremists" or even "Islamic terrorists"?

By the way, the wikipedia article you linked has one of these disclaimers:

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

[ingoa]

... Why is it that Muslim countries seem to breed Islamist terrorists, in ever greater numbers? ...


You`re funny. :)

Muslim terrorists coming from muslim countries? Where else should they come fom? Denmark? The Vatican? Bora Bora?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why is it that so much terrorism nowadays is Islamist terrorism? Why is it that Muslim countries seem to breed Islamist terrorists, in ever greater numbers?


The most populous Muslim country is Indonesia.

I don't think they're the hotbed of terrorism you're talking about. However, under the heavy hand of Sukharto, Muslim extremists were kept in check. Now that they're a liberal democracy, the extremists are allowed to participate in free speech--so I don't think the theory that this sort of stuff is a result of dictatorships holds up.

[Francesca R]

Why is it that so much terrorism nowadays is Islamist terrorism?Is it? I think there's plenty of terrorism to go around.

I suspect poverty, lack of education, lack of uncensored news and perhaps living in dictatorships has some of the blame. Plenty of poor, uneducated people in dictatorships without access to news are not terrorists. I suspect a terrorist is particularly moved by the idea of combating a perceived injustice above all else.

[DanishDynamite]

Like all those terrorists in largely secular-run Iraq before we invaded? Or would that be the terrorists that moved in since the invasion?
Not sure I understand. I was mentioning one of the factors which I suspect causes the Islamist terrorism.

You don't think suppression under a dictatorship is a plausable factor?
I know. I don't understand the need for the neologism. How about "Muslim terrorists" or "Muslim extremists" or even "Islamic terrorists"? All of those are more or less equivalents, yes.

[knot]

Why they hate us

This post was in the MySpace political forum and it sums up what I believe to be true. It's just a shame that the "blame America crowd" has to find some fault within ourselves to justify terrorism.

Desert Rat wrote:
Most simply put, the terrorists do not hate us because of any foriegn policy issue. Countries might have problems with our foreign policy, but this does not necessarily breed terrorists.

Islamic terrorists want you dead if you are not a Muslim. They want you dead if you do not convert to Islam. They want you dead if you do not faithfully practice their religion according to them. They believe we are the Great Satan and must be destroyed. There is no negotiation. Convert or die. Understand that Middle Eastern states are not democracies, not dictatorships, or kingdoms. They are in fact theocracies. Every aspect of their lives is controlled by religion. They are raised this way, and have never known any other way. They (extremists) believe in their hearts we are the ultimate evil on this earth and we must be destroyed. They do not believe in negotiation with the devil.

So, why do they hate us?

Because we are who we are, that's it.

Source: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=74887346&blogID=189737913&MyToken=f63edeee-95b7-4639-9380-566284c5273e


Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?We really don't want a liberal biased, blame America, mainstream news media broadcasting in Arabic in the middle east.

[DanishDynamite]

The most populous Muslim country is Indonesia.

I don't think they're the hotbed of terrorism you're talking about. I agree. They don't produce most of the Muslim terrorists. And the ones they do produce, appear to mostly perform terrorism at home.
However, under the heavy hand of Sukharto, Muslim extremists were kept in check. Now that they're a liberal democracy, the extremists are allowed to participate in free speech--so I don't think the theory that this sort of stuff is a result of dictatorships holds up.
I didn't say that dictatorships were the cause of terrorism. I said that it was probably of the factors.

You don't agree?

[DanishDynamite]

Is it? I think there's plenty of terrorism to go around.
Yes, as far as I know, it is.
Plenty of poor, uneducated people in dictatorships without access to news are not terrorists. I suspect a terrorist is particularly moved by the idea of combating a perceived injustice above all else.Yes, but that is an effect, not a cause. The terrorist perceives an injustice. Why? Because he doesn't know any better and knows only what the local Imam or news tells him. And he combats it by violence. Why? Because he doesn't know that there is any alternative.

[DanishDynamite]

We really don't want a liberal biased, blame America, mainstream news media broadcasting in Arabic in the middle east.Obviously not. I meant, is there a western TV station transmitting news in Arabic, Farsi, etc, etc to the Muslim countries? I.e., transmitting news uncensored by anyone and simply translated to the relevant languages of the said countries.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I didn't say that dictatorships were the cause of terrorism. I said that it was probably of the factors.

You don't agree?
Absolutely not.

I think the kind of violence you're talking about, is largely a result of a political instability. Again, under Saddam Hussein's repressive control, there was NO terrorism in Iraq.

Compare it to Colombia--virtually no Muslims, but plenty of terrorist violence.

[DanishDynamite]

Absolutely not.

I think the kind of violence you're talking about, is largely a result of a political instability.
Define political instability.

19 of the 20 terrorists in the 911 attacks were Saudies. Why is that?
Again, under Saddam Hussein's repressive control, there was NO terrorism in Iraq.
Indeed. And Iraq was not a society ruled by the religious or by religion. No sharia, no ayatollahs, etc. So it doesn't really apply.
Compare it to Colombia--virtually no Muslims, but plenty of terrorist violence.
Once again, I'm talking about Islamist terrorists.

What is it in Muslim countries and societies that causes thousands of young men from these societies to put on explosive vests and blow them and other civilians to kingdom come?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Once again, I'm talking about Islamist terrorists.

OK--so we're back to ingoa's point--you're arguing that we need to explain why Muslim terrorists come out of Muslim countries?


What is it in Muslim countries and societies that causes thousands of young men from these societies to put on explosive vests and blow them and other civilians to kingdom come?
Here you seem to be saying that Muslim countries spawn more terrorism than non-Muslim countries, which is why I'd like to be able to discuss non-Muslim terrorism as well.

It sounds like you're trying to argue that terrorism is associated with dictatorships (very doubtful) lack of education (possibly--maybe too much religious education, not enough secular), lack of access to news (doubtful) and poverty (highly likely)--but only within Muslim countries (no way).

BTW--I meant "Sukarno" above--:blush:

[fuelair]

I'd say more than anything it's the result of how you define "terrorism". If it's strictly defined as "what a terrorist does", and "terrorist" is defined as "people we don't like" or "people on our list of terrorists", then the whole thing is meaningless.

There are still Christian terrorists plotting to bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors. Granted, the prevalence is much lower than violence in the Middle East because we have a stable society, whereas the Middle East is a mess largely because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

By the way, is there a difference between an "Islamist" and a Muslim? (Can I call anti-abortion terrorists "Christists"?)

Uh, actually the middle East was quite certainly a mess before we invaded Iraq. They are stiil tribal - like lots of Africa, lots or Europe (esp, Eastern), it will go on.. Untill they lose that silliness - and the religion crap - they will stay largely primitive no matter what kind of weapons they have.

[SteveGrenard]

Uh, actually the middle East was quite certainly a mess before we invaded Iraq. They are stiil tribal - like lots of Africa, lots or Europe (esp, Eastern), it will go on.. Untill they lose that silliness - and the religion crap - they will stay largely primitive no matter what kind of weapons they have.

I agree. It is a combination of religion and tribalism that sets Islamicists at each other's throats as well as causing them to attack non-Muslims. This
can be defined as terrorism. If they were more tolerant of each others' tribal affiliations and religions a lot of this would not occur.

[corplinx]

Like all those terrorists in largely secular-run Iraq before we invaded? Or would that be the terrorists that moved in since the invasion?



The wikipedia article describing the many militant groups is actually very informative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

[Mycroft]

Why is it that so much terrorism nowadays is Islamist terrorism? Why is it that Muslim countries seem to breed Islamist terrorists, in ever greater numbers?

Partly because Saudi Arabia is spending so much money promoting the most extremist form of Islam (Wahibism) and the majority of college diplomas awarded in the MidEast are in Islamic studies.

Can you imagine what a basket-case the USA would be if billions of dollars were spent promoting Fred Phelp's form of Christianity, and more than half of our college graduates earned their degrees in Christian studies?


I suspect poverty, lack of education, lack of uncensored news and perhaps living in dictatorships has some of the blame. So how do we combat those things?

Actually, studies show that terrorists tend to be disproportional well educated. Poor people have much more important things to do than to wage ideological warfare.


Does anyone know if there is the equivalent of "Radio Free Europe" being broadcast at Muslim countries at the moment? The Saudies speak Arabic, don't they? Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?

When my sister lived in Saudi Arabia she wrote back that Saudi censorship was pretty heavy-handed. That was decades ago, though, so I have no idea what it’s like now.

[mijopaalmc]

Absolutely not.

I think the kind of violence you're talking about, is largely a result of a political instability.
Define political instability.

19 of the 20 terrorists in the 911 attacks were Saudies. Why is that?

Again, under Saddam Hussein's repressive control, there was NO terrorism in Iraq.

Indeed. And Iraq was not a society ruled by the religious or by religion. No sharia, no ayatollahs, etc. So it doesn't really apply.

Compare it to Colombia--virtually no Muslims, but plenty of terrorist violence.

Once again, I'm talking about Islamist terrorists.

What is it in Muslim countries and societies that causes thousands of young men from these societies to put on explosive vests and blow them and other civilians to kingdom come?

This discussion reminds me of a story about Harvard President Lawrence Lowell:

There’s a story that A. Lawrence Lowell, the president of Harvard in the 1920’s, wanted to impose a Jew quota because “Jews cheat.” When someone pointed out that non-Jews also cheat, Lowell replied: “You’re changing the subject. We’re talking about Jews.”

What exactly is there that is so different about Islamic terrorists (i.e., the Jewish cheaters of the story) that merits their discussion separate from other terrorists? If you consider them as a subset of terrorists, not only does it become absurd, as many people have pointed out here, to ask why Islamic terrorists come from predominately Islamic country or Islamic communities within countries where Muslims are in the minority, but it also becomes necessary to to discuss the general reasons why any group of people would resort to terrorism as a means of effecting change. If, however, you believe, as cultural and political conservatives around the world do, that there is something inherently violent about Islam that no other religion or ideology possesses, it makes sense to disregard all other instances of terrorism other than Islamic terrorism and look its motivations within Islam, but the burden of proof rests upon those making such a claim to demonstrate the uniqueness of Islam with respect to a call to violence and the independence of such "uniqueness" sociocultural and historico-political circumstances have had a negligible effect on Islam.

I frankly do not see such an effort being undertaken by the OP. Rather, there seems to be an assumption that there is something special about Islamic terrorism in so far as it is inspired by Islam, an assumption that the OP has not bothered to support in any way.

[DanishDynamite]

OK--so we're back to ingoa's point--you're arguing that we need to explain why Muslim terrorists come out of Muslim countries?
Exactly.

But not just explain it. Find out how we in the West can then best com´bat those reasons.
Here you seem to be saying that Muslim countries spawn more terrorism than non-Muslim countries, which is why I'd like to be able to discuss non-Muslim terrorism as well.Yes, that seems to be the case. It sounds like you're trying to argue that terrorism is associated with dictatorships (very doubtful) lack of education (possibly--maybe too much religious education, not enough secular), lack of access to news (doubtful) and poverty (highly likely)--but only within Muslim countries (no way).

BTW--I meant "Sukarno" above--:blush:
I'm trying to find the basic reason that Islamist terrorism is as prevalant as it is.

[knot]

Obviously not. I meant, is there a western TV station transmitting news in Arabic, Farsi, etc, etc to the Muslim countries? I.e., transmitting news uncensored by anyone and simply translated to the relevant languages of the said countries.

Is there any political news that doesn't have a spin?

[knot]

Actually, studies show that terrorists tend to be disproportional well educated. Poor people have much more important things to do than to wage ideological warfare.



I would like to see a source for that statement. I believe the true terrorist's soldiers are recruited from impoverished conditions with little or no education and are illiterate to the point of being unable to read the Koran for themselves. They are led to believe that suicide bombing is the only way out and into paradise.


The figures on illiteracy are quite staggering. About 65 million adult Arabs are illiterate, two-thirds of them women. Illiteracy rates in the Middle East are much higher than other poorer countries around the world and this trend is increasing. According to the document, “Ten million children between six and 15 years of age are currently out of school; if current trends persist, this number will increase by 40 percent by 2015.” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/mid-s12.shtml

***edit - did some searching:

Reasons behind Islamic Terrorism: Illiteracy, Poverty and Deprivation? (http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/CausesofTerrorism.htm)

[DanishDynamite]

Partly because Saudi Arabia is spending so much money promoting the most extremist form of Islam (Wahibism) and the majority of college diplomas awarded in the MidEast are in Islamic studies.

Can you imagine what a basket-case the USA would be if billions of dollars were spent promoting Fred Phelp's form of Christianity, and more than half of our college graduates earned their degrees in Christian studies?
Excellent info! Thanks, Mycroft.

Still, this is just Saudi Arabia. What about all the other Muslim countries? It is my feeling (yes, just my feeling) that countries steeped in a religion and with little real education, people often having little choice but to believe the Imam and what he says. They have no way to know otherwise.
Actually, studies show that terrorists tend to be disproportional well educated. Poor people have much more important things to do than to wage ideological warfare.
Really? But then perhaps we need to look at what they are educated in. And how.

My point is that if they had history, what filters were used?

When my sister lived in Saudi Arabia she wrote back that Saudi censorship was pretty heavy-handed. That was decades ago, though, so I have no idea what it’s like now.
I suspect its still heavy handed.

[DanishDynamite]

This discussion reminds me of a story about Harvard President Lawrence Lowell:



What exactly is there that is so different about Islamic terrorists (i.e., the Jewish cheaters of the story) that merits their discussion separate from other terrorists?
The fact that they are vastly predominant in terrorism acts now. It is more or less the case that if someone says "terrorism" the most likely word people will associate with that word is "Muslim".

If you consider them as a subset of terrorists, not only does it become absurd, as many people have pointed out here, to ask why Islamic terrorists come from predominately Islamic country or Islamic communities within countries where Muslims are in the minority, but it also becomes necessary to to discuss the general reasons why any group of people would resort to terrorism as a means of effecting change. If, however, you believe, as cultural and political conservatives around the world do, that there is something inherently violent about Islam that no other religion or ideology possesses, it makes sense to disregard all other instances of terrorism other than Islamic terrorism and look its motivations within Islam, but the burden of proof rests upon those making such a claim to demonstrate the uniqueness of Islam with respect to a call to violence and the independence of such "uniqueness" sociocultural and historico-political circumstances have had a negligible effect on Islam.

I frankly do not see such an effort being undertaken by the OP. Rather, there seems to be an assumption that there is something special about Islamic terrorism in so far as it is inspired by Islam, an assumption that the OP has not bothered to support in any way.
I have tried to explain my quest many times, but let me do it again.

What is it in Muslim countries and societies that causes thousands of young men from these societies to put on explosive vests and blow them and other civilians to kingdom come?

And how can we do something about at the root level?

[DanishDynamite]

Is there any political news that doesn't have a spin?
Probably not, but maybe we can get a consensus on the least biased. How about transmitting the BBC, translated?

[Mycroft]

I would like to see a source for that statement. I believe the true terrorist's soldiers are recruited from impoverished conditions with little or no education and are illiterate to the point of being unable to read the Koran for themselves. They are led to believe that suicide bombing is the only way out and into paradise.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/mid-s12.shtml

***edit - did some searching:

Reasons behind Islamic Terrorism: Illiteracy, Poverty and Deprivation? (http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/CausesofTerrorism.htm)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_23/b3786027.htm

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9074

Dammit, I see you beat me to it. :)

[Mycroft]

Excellent info! Thanks, Mycroft.

Still, this is just Saudi Arabia. What about all the other Muslim countries? It is my feeling (yes, just my feeling) that countries steeped in a religion and with little real education, people often having little choice but to believe the Imam and what he says. They have no way to know otherwise.


http://www.meforum.org/article/535

Saudi Arabia funds Wahibbist mosques and madrassas in other Muslim countries, so it's not as though they're just spreading it to the western world.

[DanishDynamite]

Thanks everyone.

To return for a moment to the question I had at the outset:

Does anyone know if there is the equivalent of "Radio Free Europe" being broadcast at Muslim countries at the moment? The Saudies speak Arabic, don't they? Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks everyone.

To return for a moment to the question I had at the outset:

Does anyone know if there is the equivalent of "Radio Free Europe" being broadcast at Muslim countries at the moment? The Saudies speak Arabic, don't they? Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?

Yes but it's in English. Many Saudi's speak English as well.


The first was the availability for that small but rapidly growing number of dish owners of CNN International. CNN International’s signal in the mid-eighties was initially more or less limited to Europe, and it was a broadcasting venture whose original sense of itself was as a specialized service for hotels servicing international business travelers. But by the late eighties, CNN had also begun to transmit via a shaky Soviet satellite, which happened to have a footprint that covered the Arab world. Many of the highest-ranking government officials in the Arab world began to watch CNN courtesy of their own dishes. Later, as the Russian satellite continued to drift, CNN would move onto Arabsat, while the signal from the satellites CNN used for Europe would increase in strength and rival Arabsat as a signal source in the Arab world.

With more on this subject at:

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall98/Articles1/Pan-Arab_bcasters/pan-arab_bcasters.html

There are also a lot of texts out there exploring the roots of Islamic Terrorism by that very term or slight variations; here’s a few:

The Roots of Islamic Terrorism

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/opinion/edpabst.php

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/10/roots_of_islami.html

The Psychoanalytic Roots of Islamic Terrorism

http://www.nospank.net/chesler.htm

The Deep Intellectual Roots of Islamic Terrorism

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/1013intel.htm

What roots did you have in mind?

[knot]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_23/b3786027.htm

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9074

Dammit, I see you beat me to it. :)

Hehe, actually read the website I linked to: http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/CausesofTerrorism.htm

Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims

[knot]

Thanks everyone.

To return for a moment to the question I had at the outset:

Does anyone know if there is the equivalent of "Radio Free Europe" being broadcast at Muslim countries at the moment? The Saudies speak Arabic, don't they? Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?

I pretty sure that would have been answered had any of us knew. This thread is still young however.....

[DanishDynamite]

I pretty sure that would have been answered had any of us knew. This thread is still young however.....I have no idea what you are talking about.

The above question was at the end of my OP. (Do you know what OP means?)

[DanishDynamite]

Yes but it's in English. Many Saudi's speak English as well. And?

Kindly answer my question.
With more on this subject at:

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall98/Articles1/Pan-Arab_bcasters/pan-arab_bcasters.html

There are also a lot of texts out there exploring the roots of Islamic Terrorism by that very term or slight variations; here’s a few:

The Roots of Islamic Terrorism

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/opinion/edpabst.php

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2004/10/roots_of_islami.html

The Psychoanalytic Roots of Islamic Terrorism

http://www.nospank.net/chesler.htm

The Deep Intellectual Roots of Islamic Terrorism

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/1013intel.htm

What roots did you have in mind?
Interesting, I'm sure.

Any thoughts on the question at hand?

[Darth Rotor]

Why is it that Muslim countries seem to breed Islamist terrorists, in ever greater numbers?

For the same reason a fisherman tends to eat fish.

It is what they have to work with.

DR

[DanishDynamite]

For the same reason a fisherman tends to eat fish.

It is what they have to work with.

DR
Not understood.

[SteveGrenard]

I am sorry DD, I thought I did answer it. CNN International is available in the middle-east but from all available resources seems to be aired in English, not Arabic or with Arabic subtitles. Someone who has been there recently could
probably tell us more. This ref is from 1998 and is nearly 9 years old so there has no doubt been changes but I couldn't find them.

The first URL cited has an extensive history of broadcasting in the middle East including the availability of CNN, a brief part of which was quoted above. I requote the URL with the title of the essay which seems pretty authoritative:

"Media Explosion in the Arab World:
The Pan-Arab Satellite Broadcasters

By TBS Senior Editor S. Abdallah Schleifer"

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall98/Articles1/Pan-Arab_bcasters/pan-arab_bcasters.html

The Voice of America has targeted the middle-east as well and more recently indicated it was going to do so strictly in Arabic:

http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=144&standalone=&month=4&year=2001&function=text


Voice of America to Concentrate on Mideast
Board Decides to De-Emphasize English Radio Broadcasts, Stress TV and the Internet
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 14, 2006; Page A13
The Voice of America plans to silence many of its radio broadcasts in English and several other languages as the agency concentrates more resources on the Middle East and countries central to the U.S. effort against terrorism.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021301896.html

----------------------------------------------
My thoughts coincide with the first essay in the IHT. Islamic terrorism is linked to the very founding of Islam by the Prophet. The religion has a history, a tradition of spreading by military conquest or jihad. Someone said, I can't remember who, that missionaries are far more dangerous than whole armies. When the missionaries are also armies I suggest they are even more dangerous. This was true of the Crusaders as it is of Islam. The difference is the Christian Crusaders have dissapeared but the Islamic jihadists have not.

This IHT opinion piece is really worth the read:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/opinion/edpabst.php

[Mycroft]

Hehe, actually read the website I linked to: http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/CausesofTerrorism.htm

I've seen that site before and am not sure what to make of it.

I may be just paranoid, but I wonder if it's really a site of ex-muslims or if it's just an excuse to bash Islam.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I really don't know what you're after. Why do Muslim countries bread Islamic terrorists? Do you expect Christian terrorists to come out of Muslim countries? Do you expect Muslim terrorists to come from Catholic LatinAmerica?

You seemed to think it's irrelevant that there are and have been plenty of hotbeds of the same type of violence in non-Muslim countries. You also found it insignificant that the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, is not a hotbed of terrorism.

You then linked terrorism to dictatorships, but that didn't mesh with the facts in Indonesia under Suharno or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

I pointed out that U.S. foreign policy in recent years has definitely contributed to a rise in certain types of terrorist activity (like Al Qaeda).

I'm not sure what you're after, and why the areas of discussion I offered are off limits. Religious zealotry is a problem wherever it is. Theocracy is bad.

The fact that the word "terrorist" conjures up images of an Islamic terrorist is the problem I addressed in my first response. You're dealing with a question of definitions, I think.

[TriangleMan]

The Saudies speak Arabic, don't they? Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?
Yes, it is called Al-Jazeera. They broadcast in both English and Arabic. Their main broadcast centre is ~100km from the Saudi border.

[knot]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The above question was at the end of my OP. (Do you know what OP means?)

Of course I do. Do you know what, "if any of us knew, we would have answered you by now" means?

[knot]

Yes, it is called Al-Jazeera. They broadcast in both English and Arabic. Their main broadcast centre is ~100km from the Saudi border.

That's hardly the equivalent of a "Radio Free Europe" broadcast.

[TriangleMan]

That's hardly the equivalent of a "Radio Free Europe" broadcast.
I do not know anything about RFE, but I believe Al-Jazeera is the equivalent of an Arabic version of CNN, which the OP mentioned (and was the part that I quoted).

[fuelair]

I do not know anything about RFE, but I believe Al-Jazeera is the equivalent of an Arabic version of CNN, which the OP mentioned (and was the part that I quoted).
The problem is that Al-Jazeera is the equivalent (an Arabic version) of Fox news, not of CNN. What is meant is we need CNN with reporters speaking in Arabic but the stories otherwise as CNN would do them.

[TriangleMan]

The problem is that Al-Jazeera is the equivalent (an Arabic version) of Fox news, not of CNN. What is meant is we need CNN with reporters speaking in Arabic but the stories otherwise as CNN would do them.
I do not know Arabic so I can't comment on whether the Arabic version of Al-Jazeera is similar in bias to FOX. It's English edition does not appear to be so, they generally cover the same stories as BBC World and, to a lesser extent, to CNN (as CNN has a more North American focus).

[Mycroft]

What is it in Muslim countries and societies that causes thousands of young men from these societies to put on explosive vests and blow them and other civilians to kingdom come?

And how can we do something about at the root level?

Daniel Pipes believes that the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam. If you want to learn about solution driven approaches to the problem, you could do a lot worse than to read up on his writings.


http://www.danielpipes.org/

http://www.danielpipes.org/bibliographies.php

And in particular:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4426

[peptoabysmal]

Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?

Judging solely on OBL's messages to the US and the "West" I would say that he at least had access to CNN. He parroted Democratic talking points during the last big election better than the politicians themselves. I don't know about Saudi Arabia, specifically.

[Cylinder]

Thanks everyone.

To return for a moment to the question I had at the outset:

Does anyone know if there is the equivalent of "Radio Free Europe" being broadcast at Muslim countries at the moment? The Saudies speak Arabic, don't they? Is there an Arabic version of CNN being transmitted at Saudi Arabia, for example?

It's unlikely that the US is targeting SA, but Voice of America transmits in Arabic, Farsi, etc... over a great deal of southwest Asia.

[Undesired Walrus]

I suspect poverty, lack of education, lack of uncensored news and perhaps living in dictatorships has some of the blame. So how do we combat those things?


The 2006 transatlantic aircraft liquid-bomb plot was to be carried out by 10 London-born Muslims living in a democracy and at least partially educated. So I'd say no.

[gumboot]

There seems to be a lot of silly ideas flying around here...

The first one is that there was no terrorism under Saddam in Iraq. This is absurd. What was Saddam's reign, if not terrorism? Granted, it was directed at his own people, rather than foreigners, but it was terrorism, by any sensible definition of the word.

Many brutal dictators use terrorism as a standard method of controlling their states. Perhaps this is why these countries don't "breed terrorists" - only State-authorised terrorists (secret police, paramilitary, et al) are permitted.

Is it poverty, or ignorance?

The 9/11 hijackers (incidentally, there were 19, not 20, and 15 of them were Saudis, not 19) were wealthy and educated, some of them having university degrees accquired in western countries. Osama bin Laden himself is a multimillionaire and a qualified civil engineer.

Certainly poverty and ignorance, fed with a bit of anti-Western propaganda and devout religious following, seems an ample mix for the "blind fanatic" type terrorists, but these tend to be of the Palestinian suicide bomber kind. A more alarming and serious threat, IMHO, is the recent increase in sophisticated and large organised terrorist activities. Some of these originated with citizens of western democratic countries.

And where is terrorism actually occurring?

According to this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Terrorincidents2001atlas.jpg) 2001 US Department of State chart, the leading contenders for Terrorist hotbed were:

Columbia

India

Israel
West Bank
Philippines
Indonesia
Yemen
Burundi
Angola

According to this chart Columbia had the highest by a factor of 4, followed by India which exceeded the others (all in the same group) by a factor of at least 5.

The obvious thing here is post 2001 terrorist attacks have risen sharply. Now a good chunk of those come directly from Iraq, which is not a useful study for the nature of what causes terrorism. Why?

The cause of terrorism in Iraq is very obvious and very localised - civil war. Cases of terrorism in Ireland sky-rocketed during the civil war as well. This is not a useful tool for combating terrorism as obviously plenty of terrorists come from countries that haven't been invaded by the USA and collapsed into civil war.

So while it is a given that invading a country and having it collapse into civil war is a good way of generating lots of terrorists, it's doesn't necessarily follow that not invading a country will prevent terrorists being generated.

However terrorist attacks post 9/11 haven't just risen in countries directly threatened by US foreign policy. Terrorist attacks in Israel have also increased dramatically, as well as plots in Europe.

Perhaps the 9/11 attacks made terrorism "popular"?

I would propose that virtually any circumstance can and does produce terrorism.

The root cause is simply a belief that the use of violence against civilians is an effective and legitimate method of advancing an ideology.

It seems to me the best way to deal with terrorism is to address this belief. This can be done three ways, I propose.

1) By responding to terrorist threats with uncompromising force, thus making it clear such actions are entirely unacceptable.
2) By refusing to surrender to the ideological goals of terrorists (or perhaps even intentionally going against them?) to demonstrate that terrorism is not effective.
3) By promoting a counter moral ideology that says terrorism is unacceptable.

Trying to tackle poverty, anti-western sentiment, ignorance, or religion seems to me to just be cutting the head off the hydra.

-Gumboot

[SteveGrenard]

Hmm gumboot, Iraq isn't even on your list. I guess there was no terrorism in Iraq in 2001.

How do you define terrorist attacks? IEDs? The threat to and actual killing of civlians/non-combatants? Clearly if Iraq were on an updated list today it would trump all the others. Six years ago has been a lifetime for many.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iraq_War_Outcome_Open.html

[The Painter]

I pointed out that U.S. foreign policy in recent years has definitely contributed to a rise in certain types of terrorist activity (like Al Qaeda).

We didn’t make them what they are. It’s not our recent policies. They’ve been around for a long time. They’ve gotten stronger. They started out because of the Soviets, not us, and then decided to kill everyone. We have become more active because of them, you know 9-11


• What are al-Qaeda’s origins?
Al-Qaeda grew out of the Services Office, a clearinghouse for the international Muslim brigade opposed to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the Services Office—run by bin Laden and the Palestinian religious scholar Abdullah Azzam—recruited, trained, and financed thousands of foreign mujahadeen, or holy warriors, from more than fifty countries. Bin Laden wanted these fighters to continue the "holy war" beyond Afghanistan. He formed al-Qaeda around 1988.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/

Indonesia, is not a hotbed of terrorism.

Yes it is.



• Is there an al-Qaeda presence in Indonesia?
It seems increasingly likely, especially after the October 2002 Bali bombing. Experts say other terrorist attacks within Indonesia—including a December 2000 church-bombing campaign, the August 2001 bombing of a Jakarta shopping mall by a Malaysian national, the August 2003 bombing outside the Marriot Hotel in Jakarta, and the October 2005 suicide bombings in Bali—may also be connected with international terrorism. Since the September 11 attacks, U.S. and Asian officials have warned that bin Laden’s organization was maneuvering to establish itself in Indonesiaand perhaps reconstitute its infrastructure there.
In August 2002, the United States briefly shut down its embassy in Jakarta, the Indonesian capital, on warnings of an attack plot by militants with al-Qaeda ties. The United States temporarily withdrew all nonessential personnel from the country following the Bali attack.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9361/

[thinkingaboutit]

I think state terrorism is a much worse problem.

However, to stay on topic, here's an article I thought might help answer somw of your questions DD.

http://alternet.org/audits/35815/

[knot]

I do not know Arabic so I can't comment on whether the Arabic version of Al-Jazeera is similar in bias to FOX. It's English edition does not appear to be so, they generally cover the same stories as BBC World and, to a lesser extent, to CNN (as CNN has a more North American focus).

AJ has a middle eastern bias so it's unlike any news media from the west.

[DanishDynamite]

I am sorry DD, I thought I did answer it. CNN International is available in the middle-east but from all available resources seems to be aired in English, not Arabic or with Arabic subtitles. Someone who has been there recently could
probably tell us more. This ref is from 1998 and is nearly 9 years old so there has no doubt been changes but I couldn't find them.

The first URL cited has an extensive history of broadcasting in the middle East including the availability of CNN, a brief part of which was quoted above. I requote the URL with the title of the essay which seems pretty authoritative:

"Media Explosion in the Arab World:
The Pan-Arab Satellite Broadcasters

By TBS Senior Editor S. Abdallah Schleifer"

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall98/Articles1/Pan-Arab_bcasters/pan-arab_bcasters.html

The Voice of America has targeted the middle-east as well and more recently indicated it was going to do so strictly in Arabic:

http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=144&standalone=&month=4&year=2001&function=text




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021301896.html

----------------------------------------------
My thoughts coincide with the first essay in the IHT. Islamic terrorism is linked to the very founding of Islam by the Prophet. The religion has a history, a tradition of spreading by military conquest or jihad. Someone said, I can't remember who, that missionaries are far more dangerous than whole armies. When the missionaries are also armies I suggest they are even more dangerous. This was true of the Crusaders as it is of Islam. The difference is the Christian Crusaders have dissapeared but the Islamic jihadists have not.

This IHT opinion piece is really worth the read:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/opinion/edpabst.php
Thanks for the links, Steve, but my wuestion was whether there was Western TV stations trabsmitting uncensored news in the local languages to the Muslim countries. I don't see that answered in your links. Perhaps I missed it.

[Darth Rotor]

Not understood.
Not surprised.

DR

[DanishDynamite]

I really don't know what you're after. Why do Muslim countries bread Islamic terrorists? Do you expect Christian terrorists to come out of Muslim countries? Do you expect Muslim terrorists to come from Catholic LatinAmerica?I don't expect terrorist at all. The point is not that Muslim countries breed Muslim terrorists, but that they breed terrorist at all. And in the numbers they do.
You seemed to think it's irrelevant that there are and have been plenty of hotbeds of the same type of violence in non-Muslim countries. Not irrelevant, just irrelevant to the current situation.
You also found it insignificant that the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, is not a hotbed of terrorism.No, I think that is quite relevant. What is it about Indonesia which results in fewer local grown terrorists?
You then linked terrorism to dictatorships, but that didn't mesh with the facts in Indonesia under Suharno or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
I said dictatorship was probably one of the factors.
I pointed out that U.S. foreign policy in recent years has definitely contributed to a rise in certain types of terrorist activity (like Al Qaeda).
And?
I'm not sure what you're after, and why the areas of discussion I offered are off limits. Religious zealotry is a problem wherever it is. Theocracy is bad.
I am trying to understand why some Muslim countries are breeding so many angry young men who are then willing to become suicide bombers.
The fact that the word "terrorist" conjures up images of an Islamic terrorist is the problem I addressed in my first response. You're dealing with a question of definitions, I think.
The fact that the word "terrorist" conjures up images of Muslims is due to the overweight of Muslims commiting terrorism.

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, it is called Al-Jazeera. They broadcast in both English and Arabic. Their main broadcast centre is ~100km from the Saudi border.
No. They are an Arabic news agency. I'm talking about a Western news agency which simply sends news translated to the local language.

[DanishDynamite]

Daniel Pipes believes that the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam. If you want to learn about solution driven approaches to the problem, you could do a lot worse than to read up on his writings.


http://www.danielpipes.org/

http://www.danielpipes.org/bibliographies.php

And in particular:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4426
I'd love to read those links. If they were relevant. Are they, in your opinion, relevant to the questions at hand?

[DanishDynamite]

Judging solely on OBL's messages to the US and the "West" I would say that he at least had access to CNN. He parroted Democratic talking points during the last big election better than the politicians themselves. I don't know about Saudi Arabia, specifically.
Not what I'm talking about.

[DanishDynamite]

The 2006 transatlantic aircraft liquid-bomb plot was to be carried out by 10 London-born Muslims living in a democracy and at least partially educated. So I'd say no.It doesn't matter where they lived. What matters is the atmosphere in which they grew up.

[DanishDynamite]

Not surprised.

DR
Care to explain the point?

[Darth Rotor]

Care to explain the point?
Care to explain why you didn't get it? Go back to the post of yours that I quoted, then my post, and see how the progressions both follow the same path.

DR

[TriangleMan]

A quick Google on media in Saudi Arabia turned up this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/791936.stm)
Private radio and TV stations cannot operate from Saudi soil, but the country is a key market for pan-Arab satellite and pay-TV broadcasters. Saudi investors are behind some of these networks, including Dubai-based MBC and Bahrain-based Orbit. Viewers in the east can pick up TV stations from more liberal Gulf neighbours.

Saudi newspapers are created by royal decree. There are 10 dailies and dozens of magazines. Pan-Arab papers, subject to censorship, are available. Newspapers tend to follow the lead of the state-run news agency on whether or not to publish stories on sensitive subjects.

The government has invested heavily in security systems to block access to websites it deems offensive, said to range in subject matter from religion to swimwear.

Anyone there who can access MBC and Orbitz networks will have access to many Eurpoean news stations as well as CNN.

[Mycroft]

I'd love to read those links. If they were relevant. Are they, in your opinion, relevant to the questions at hand?

The last one in particular is relevant to your question; "And how can we do something about at the root level?"