London Bridge Incident

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think 'nobody knows'. There is academic debate on the relative importance of the different factors but there seems to be consensus on what those factors are and that it is a question of 'risk factors' rather than a deterministic relationship.

I'might pretty well read on this subject. I've read Scott Attran's stuff but where I disagree with most research is that commonly cited factors for radicalisation are present in all societies on Earth and always will be. So, yes, nobody knows what drives someone to believe in any religion. I have seen patterns but nothing close to conclusive There is only one common factor in why someone becomes an Islamic extremist but we refuse to believe it.

And radicalisation of one sort or another is present in all societies and throughout history. Islamist extremism is just the most prominent example at the moment. In the '70s and '80s it was violent nationalist groups. Religious belief isn't the 'magic ingredient' any more than poverty or any of the other factors.

I don't think I'm saying, or anyone else is saying, that being an Islamic radical is the only way to be a radical but that doesn't mean we don't have to analyse the ideology that each radical supports. To attempt to say there have always been radicals is simply obfuscation. If we were talking about IRA terrorism we'd defintiely be looking at the reasons why they say they do what they do. With Islamic extremism, we just look for excuses.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I don't think 'nobody knows'. There is academic debate on the relative importance of the different factors but there seems to be consensus on what those factors are and that it is a question of 'risk factors' rather than a deterministic relationship.

I'might pretty well read on this subject. I've read Scott Attran's stuff but where I disagree with most research is that commonly cited factors for radicalisation are present in all societies on Earth and always will be. So, yes, nobody knows what drives someone to believe in any religion. I have seen patterns but nothing close to conclusive There is only one common factor in why someone becomes an Islamic extremist but we refuse to believe it.

And radicalisation of one sort or another is present in all societies and throughout history. Islamist extremism is just the most prominent example at the moment. In the '70s and '80s it was violent nationalist groups. Religious belief isn't the 'magic ingredient' any more than poverty or any of the other factors. Obviously a belief in a perverted form of Islam is a common factor in Islamist radicalisation but that is how we categorise that kind of radicalisation so it's a circular argument.

Religious belief is the common factor in religious radicalisation just as nationalism is in nationalist radicalisation or anarchism in that radicalisation. You can't just lump all forms of radicalisation together and say it's not religion.

slowmart

Whatever label nationalism/ religion you apply is missing the key point.

Fertile ground sits within disconnected individuals who deem their cause worthy of killing innocents. You can't rationalise the irrational nor the logic of twisted and warped agendas nor put beliefs up against a wall and machine gun them to death.

All we can do is what we are doing, inclusiveness rather than polarisation of communities, intelligence led ops against people with bad intentions. Retain the high ground in terms of values and behaviours.

rjsterry

Excuses for what? Once someone is radicalised, I don't think it makes much difference whether they (think they) are following the words of a religious, nationalist or other political figure. The fervour is still there.

Earlier I think you said that poverty, discrimination, etc. couldn't be the cause of radicalisation because they exist everywhere and not everyone becomes radicalised. Surely the same applies to religious belief: the vast, vast majority of those with religious beliefs are not radicalised so by the same argument, it can't be that alone.

I think what you could say is that some kind of strong narrative of a reaction against the rest of society is an important recruitment tool. A religious or political text can provide such a narrative and arguably religious texts are by their nature more open to radical interpretations.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

Excuses for what? Once someone is radicalised, I don't think it makes much difference whether they (think they) are following the words of a religious, nationalist or other political figure. The fervour is still there.

Earlier I think you said that poverty, discrimination, etc. couldn't be the cause of radicalisation because they exist everywhere and not everyone becomes radicalised. Surely the same applies to religious belief: the vast, vast majority of those with religious beliefs are not radicalised so by the same argument, it can't be that alone.

I think what you could say is that some kind of strong narrative of a reaction against the rest of society is an important recruitment tool. A religious or political text can provide such a narrative and arguably religious texts are by their nature more open to radical interpretations.

That's a good point but the primary difference is that the ISIS interpretation of Islam is plausible even if not followed by all Muslims. That's why ISIS will say that they're not doing anything Mohammed didn't do and will use scripture to justify their arguments. The problem is also that an ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam is massively subscribed too all over the World. Its followers share many of the aims of ISIS and that's how jihadists can survive. An analogy is that the IRA could never have lasted if the majority of NI Catholics didn't share their aim of a united Ireland even if they disapproved of the methods. In any event, a united Ireland is a perfectly reasonable aim. A global Caliphate is note.

I'd also argue that nationalist radicalisation is at both understandable and less understandable. Understandable in the sense that everyone wants to be free of another authority and determine their own future and less understandable in that violent nationalists can't really point to scripture to justify their actions.

nickice

Slowmart wrote:

Whatever label nationalism/ religion you apply is missing the key point.

Fertile ground sits within disconnected individuals who deem their cause worthy of killing innocents. You can't rationalise the irrational nor the logic of twisted and warped agendas nor put beliefs up against a wall and machine gun them to death.

All we can do is what we are doing, inclusiveness rather than polarisation of communities, intelligence led ops against people with bad intentions. Retain the high ground in terms of values and behaviours.

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

Well, what would you do about them?

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Whatever label nationalism/ religion you apply is missing the key point.

Fertile ground sits within disconnected individuals who deem their cause worthy of killing innocents. You can't rationalise the irrational nor the logic of twisted and warped agendas nor put beliefs up against a wall and machine gun them to death.

All we can do is what we are doing, inclusiveness rather than polarisation of communities, intelligence led ops against people with bad intentions. Retain the high ground in terms of values and behaviours.

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

I certainly think the idea of true loyalty to a faith being incompatible with living under any other form of government needs to be challenged. How you make those arguments is a question for someone with a detailed understanding of Islamic theology.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

Well, what would you do about them?

Since when does not agreeing with one idea mean I have to provide another one? But here goes-

I wouldn't continue with the meaningless platitudes about love conquering hate (ask 6 million Jews about that one) and not letting them divide our communities. The only people dividing certain parts of the Muslim community from the rest of us are those communities themselves.

I'd ban all faith schools and put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop spreading extremism. In fact stop selling them arms too.

I want to see people being able to seriously criticise the doctrines of Islam without being called a racist or a bigot.

I"d also never take internment off the table

TheBigBean

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

Well, what would you do about them?

Since when does not agreeing with one idea mean I have to provide another one? But here goes-

I wouldn't continue with the meaningless platitudes about love conquering hate (ask 6 million Jews about that one) and not letting them divide our communities. The only people dividing certain parts of the Muslim community from the rest of us are those communities themselves.

I'd ban all faith schools and put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop spreading extremism. In fact stop selling them arms too.

I want to see people being able to seriously criticise the doctrines of Islam without being called a racist or a bigot.

I"d also never take internment off the table

I prefer the peace and love approach. This would include persuading our allies not to drop a bomb every 20 mins on muslims around the world.

nickice

TheBigBean wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

Well, what would you do about them?

Since when does not agreeing with one idea mean I have to provide another one? But here goes-

I wouldn't continue with the meaningless platitudes about love conquering hate (ask 6 million Jews about that one) and not letting them divide our communities. The only people dividing certain parts of the Muslim community from the rest of us are those communities themselves.

I'd ban all faith schools and put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop spreading extremism. In fact stop selling them arms too.

I want to see people being able to seriously criticise the doctrines of Islam without being called a racist or a bigot.

I"d also never take internment off the table

I prefer the peace and love approach. This would include persuading our allies not to drop a bomb every 20 mins on muslims around the world.

ISIS are active worldwide in countries that don't drop bombs. They're also killing huge numbers of Christians and Muslims in the ME.

ISIS have explicitly stated that the primary reason they hate us is our failure to embrace Islam.

TheBigBean

nickice wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

Well, what would you do about them?

Since when does not agreeing with one idea mean I have to provide another one? But here goes-

I wouldn't continue with the meaningless platitudes about love conquering hate (ask 6 million Jews about that one) and not letting them divide our communities. The only people dividing certain parts of the Muslim community from the rest of us are those communities themselves.

I'd ban all faith schools and put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop spreading extremism. In fact stop selling them arms too.

I want to see people being able to seriously criticise the doctrines of Islam without being called a racist or a bigot.

I"d also never take internment off the table

I prefer the peace and love approach. This would include persuading our allies not to drop a bomb every 20 mins on muslims around the world.

ISIS are active worldwide in countries that don't drop bombs. They're also killing huge numbers of Christians and Muslims in the ME.

ISIS have explicitly stated that the primary reason they hate us is our failure to embrace Islam.

And? ISIS are not very nice. If the proxy war ended there would be no more ISIS, and lots of refugees could return home.

nickice

TheBigBean wrote:

nickice wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

And how do we do that against 23000 potential jihadis? Not forgetting an even higher number of Islamists who'd like to see an Islamic theocracy.

Well, what would you do about them?

Since when does not agreeing with one idea mean I have to provide another one? But here goes-

I wouldn't continue with the meaningless platitudes about love conquering hate (ask 6 million Jews about that one) and not letting them divide our communities. The only people dividing certain parts of the Muslim community from the rest of us are those communities themselves.

I'd ban all faith schools and put serious pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop spreading extremism. In fact stop selling them arms too.

I want to see people being able to seriously criticise the doctrines of Islam without being called a racist or a bigot.

I"d also never take internment off the table

I prefer the peace and love approach. This would include persuading our allies not to drop a bomb every 20 mins on muslims around the world.

ISIS are active worldwide in countries that don't drop bombs. They're also killing huge numbers of Christians and Muslims in the ME.

ISIS have explicitly stated that the primary reason they hate us is our failure to embrace Islam.

And? ISIS are not very nice. If the proxy war ended there would be no more ISIS, and lots of refugees could return home.

The point being that it's not as simple as just saying it's about foreign policy (they do tell us this). Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

mamba80

Imho ...... ISIS might say that but the truth is before our recent adventures in Iraq etc, we had nothing like the level of radicalisation in the west and it was the destabilisation of Afghanistan (with a big helping hand from the US) which breed Bin Laden.

Devil finds work for idle hands, so the depression in the 20's and 30s became fertile ground for Hitlers ideology, just as brutal as ISil, the destruction of Iraqs civilisation has provided the same, add in false interpretation of the the Quoran and predominately young men find an outlet for their frustrations.
yesterday US bombed and killed 20 Syrian civilians fleeing their town, how does that ease tensions?

Why do you think Putin is spending a fortune in syria, backing an unpopular leader? he understands that unless stability is bought back to that place, then radicalism will spread.

TheBigBean

nickice wrote:

The point being that it's not as simple as just saying it's about foreign policy (they do tell us this). Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Juche will probably still exist after the fall of North Korea, but if a politically stable alternative is introduced it is unlikely to be a problem. Ditto Syria.

Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan are always going to be a little conservative. This is unlikely to affect the rest of the world though. As an aside, in the late 90s I read a guidebook about Afghanistan, it said "The Soviets didn't learn the lessons of history: no one conquers Afghanistan". I think that can be updated now.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

fat daddy

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

because in the 70's the Saudis started funding Wahabist schools and mosques all over the world

city_boy

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

This may go some way to providing an explanation...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03 ... to-be-the/

rjsterry

City Boy wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

This may go some way to providing an explanation...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03 ... to-be-the/

Reading that, Wahhabism sounds a lot like Fundamentalist Protestantism.

nickice

mamba80 wrote:

Imho ...... ISIS might say that but the truth is before our recent adventures in Iraq etc, we had nothing like the level of radicalisation in the west and it was the destabilisation of Afghanistan (with a big helping hand from the US) which breed Bin Laden.

Devil finds work for idle hands, so the depression in the 20's and 30s became fertile ground for Hitlers ideology, just as brutal as ISil, the destruction of Iraqs civilisation has provided the same, add in false interpretation of the the Quoran and predominately young men find an outlet for their frustrations.
yesterday US bombed and killed 20 Syrian civilians fleeing their town, how does that ease tensions?

Why do you think Putin is spending a fortune in syria, backing an unpopular leader? he understands that unless stability is bought back to that place, then radicalism will spread.

I don't think Western foreign policy has helped but only to the extent that a power vacuum was left in Iraq and Lybia for Islamic extremists to take over. I'd also add that the biggest terrorist attack in the West took place before invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it"s grossly unfair to blame the US for Bin Laden. Yes , they helped him in a proxy war against the Soviet Union but there was nothing they did in Afghanistan (in the 1980's) that Bin Laden said motivated 9/11.

As for the US bombing civilians, it's really easy for us to judge them but civilians always die in war as it's just so chaotic. The West, generally, don't deliberately target civilians as a policy (though, of course, some soldiers will.

Islamic extremism (and Wahabbism) is older than any Western intervention in the ME and Islamic extremists are now recruiting from the West and targeting countries all over the World.

By the way, what is false about their interpretation of the Koran?

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

You write 'problem' as if a religious/political ideology that supports a theocratic state (think Saudi Arabia but worse) isn't a problem.

I think someone else posted an article but it's become a problem because it's been spread through Saudi funding. Also factor in, increased travel and immigration from Islamic countries. That's not to say all Muslims are terrorists, but more Muslims (well Sunni Muslims) means a larger pool of people who can potentially become Islamists. If you're already a Muslims, you're more likely to be exposed to Wahhabi propaganda. Of course there are converts, but more Islamists also means more converts.

TheBigBean

nickice wrote:

I don't think Western foreign policy has helped but only to the extent that a power vacuum was left in Iraq and Lybia for Islamic extremists to take over. I'd also add that the biggest terrorist attack in the West took place before invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it"s grossly unfair to blame the US for Bin Laden. Yes , they helped him in a proxy war against the Soviet Union but there was nothing they did in Afghanistan (in the 1980's) that Bin Laden said motivated 9/11.

Palestine and other meddling was quite a strong motivation.

nickice wrote:

As for the US bombing civilians, it's really easy for us to judge them but civilians always die in war as it's just so chaotic. The West, generally, don't deliberately target civilians as a policy (though, of course, some soldiers will.

Civilians die in war.

Most of the bombings are not part of a war, but assassinations of unarmed individuals who, without any form of due process, have been declared guilty. If there are civilians nearby then that is collateral damage. It is a hideous policy which has done nothing other than fuel terrorism.

Bombing is an act of cowardice.

imposter2.0

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

You write 'problem' as if a religious/political ideology that supports a theocratic state (think Saudi Arabia but worse) isn't a problem.

It isn't a 'problem' for those that support it. The use of inverted commas in English is entirely normal, incidentally.

meanredspider

Gunshots in Paris. Another nutter, this morning, in Aus. I think we'll get a lot more of this before it gets better.

nickice

TheBigBean wrote:

nickice wrote:

I don't think Western foreign policy has helped but only to the extent that a power vacuum was left in Iraq and Lybia for Islamic extremists to take over. I'd also add that the biggest terrorist attack in the West took place before invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it"s grossly unfair to blame the US for Bin Laden. Yes , they helped him in a proxy war against the Soviet Union but there was nothing they did in Afghanistan (in the 1980's) that Bin Laden said motivated 9/11.

Palestine and other meddling was quite a strong motivation.

nickice wrote:

As for the US bombing civilians, it's really easy for us to judge them but civilians always die in war as it's just so chaotic. The West, generally, don't deliberately target civilians as a policy (though, of course, some soldiers will.

Civilians die in war.

Most of the bombings are not part of a war, but assassinations of unarmed individuals who, without any form of due process, have been declared guilty. If there are civilians nearby then that is collateral damage. It is a hideous policy which has done nothing other than fuel terrorism.

Bombing is an act of cowardice.

They change the goalposts every time. In the 1990's Islamists were annoyed that the West wasn't intervening in Bosnia. Bin Laden''s primary gripe was that the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. He didn't care about Palestine.

How do you know that about the bombings? From the skies, it's pretty difficult to separate civilians from combatants. And the reason many civlians are even there is because ISIS etc. won't let them leave.

As for bombing being an act of cowardice, that's not necessarily the case. It has been used in every war since the 30's. Are all those moments acts of cowardice? You could also just say using a gun is an act of cowardice.

nickice

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

You write 'problem' as if a religious/political ideology that supports a theocratic state (think Saudi Arabia but worse) isn't a problem.

It isn't a 'problem' for those that support it. The use of inverted commas in English is entirely normal, incidentally.

And if I wrote the only reason Nazism/white supremacy etc is a 'problem'... how do you think that would be understood?

TheBigBean

It is popular, particularly in the media, to associate terrorism and Islam, but there are many terrorist events that are completely unrelated to Islam. Anders Breivik is a good example. The US has many example as well.

TheBigBean

nickice wrote:

They change the goalposts every time. In the 1990's Islamists were annoyed that the West wasn't intervening in Bosnia. Bin Laden''s primary gripe was that the US had bases in Saudi Arabia. He didn't care about Palestine.

That is just a convenient myth

Palestine matters greatly for al-Qaida. In a statement last Thursday, Bin Laden himself put it bluntly: "The events of Manhattan were a response to the American-Israeli coalition's murder of our people in Palestine and Lebanon." Statements like these are usually dismissed in policy circles as rhetoric and opportunism. The problem, however, is that Bin Laden has spoken about Palestine throughout his entire political life. His first public speeches in the late 1980s advocated a boycott of American goods because of the US support for Israel. Since then, Palestine has featured in practically every statement and interview by Bin Laden. A quick check in Messages to the World, the Bin Laden reader edited by Bruce Lawrence, shows that Palestine is mentioned in seven of the book's eight pre-9/11 declarations and 13 of the 16 post-9/11 texts. A search for the word Palestine in a compilation of al-Qaida texts between 1990 and 2002 that I made for the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), produces no less than 158 hits. Most al-Qaida recruitment videos, including the first such production from early 2001, include images from Palestine. In short, Palestine is all over al-Qaida's propaganda and has been so for over a decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... priorities

nickice wrote:

How do you know that about the bombings? From the skies, it's pretty difficult to separate civilians from combatants. And the reason many civlians are even there is because ISIS etc. won't let them leave.

I was referring to Pakistan and Yemen. Clearly, Syria is more grey. What's a combatant? Presumably one of those people that wouldn't become a prisoner of war, but could be detained indefinitely without trial?

nickice wrote:

As for bombing being an act of cowardice, that's not necessarily the case. It has been used in every war since the 30's. Are all those moments acts of cowardice? You could also just say using a gun is an act of cowardice.

Yes it has been cowardly throughout history. Ask someone who has been bombed whether they would rather have a soldier's gun pointed at them or bombs dropped at random.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Imposter wrote:

nickice wrote:

Wahabbism will still exist without ISIS existing.

Wahabism has been around for about 200 years. So why has it only become a 'problem' in the last 20 years or so?

You write 'problem' as if a religious/political ideology that supports a theocratic state (think Saudi Arabia but worse) isn't a problem.

It isn't a 'problem' for those that support it. The use of inverted commas in English is entirely normal, incidentally.

And if I wrote the only reason Nazism/white supremacy etc is a 'problem'... how do you think that would be understood?

And people are free to hold those repulsive views and within certain limits express them. Such ideas are loudly challenged in public - part of the reason the BNP has disappeared from political life. You make a valid point about funding - that's another reason: no wealthy heads of state setting up Combat 18 youth clubs.

nickice

TheBigBean wrote:

It is popular, particularly in the media, to associate terrorism and Islam, but there are many terrorist events that are completely unrelated to Islam. Anders Breivik is a good example. The US has many example as well.

One attack six years ago? Not part of a broader network and hasn't been repeated since. Compare that with the number of Islamist attacks and foiled attacks. It's like when people bring up abortion clinic bombings or the Westboro Baptist Church.