The Bases of Islamic Extremism cum Terrorism

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

What moves some persons to commit an act of mass homicide with no motive of revenge, reward, or personal animus, against victims they’ve never met or known? Why would someone so unmarked by personal grievance, psychological dysfunction, poverty, lack of education, or victimization by American exploitation as Osama bin Laden devote his entire waking existence to building a network whose objective is killing innumeralbe men, women and children he has never met and some of whom may be Muslim?

Muslim extremists are extreme in the degree of their devotion to the literal word of the Koran and the hadith (the writings documenting the actions and sayings of Mohamed), and this in turn leads them to believe that modernity with its secular culture is incompatible with moral and spiritual health. They are certain that Western culture, if imported or allowed through unchecked media sources, will corrupt their women and children and draw them away from Allah. Unbelief is considered a sin so hellish it merits capital punishment if it impedes the spread of Islam.

Their hatred for Americans is not the garden variety. Few Muslim extremists have been to the USA or even met an American. Their gripes with American imperialism pale beside the standard around the globe. The Muslim zealot is driven by a hostility born of humiliation. Here they stand as the people who know the one true God, but see that God’s civilization having foundered. They find their civilization, once dominant, lagging by any tangible measure, while a godless, sin-loving people have become the masters of everything they touch.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 served two ends for the extremists. The immediate gratification was a symbolic one. Al Qaeda’s targets, especially the Pentagon, were chosen for their symbolic value. As Lee Harris puts it (Civilization and Its Enemies, p.12):

"They were gigantic props in a grandiose spectacle in which the collective fantasy of radical Islam was brought vividly to life: a mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martrydom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could their possibly be that God was on the side of the radical Islamand that the reign of the Great Satan was near at hand."

Of course, the West has its own less than entirely rational animating myths. One is that science and reason will absorb the world and make it modern, secular, enlightened and peaceful. The other end served by Al Qaeda’s attacks lay in the reaction to the 911 attacks which went contrary to this myth, as the historical blunder of the Iraq invasion and associated measures of the Bush administration betray. This may have been part of bin Laden’s objective: to set off a catastrophe in America during the Administration of a weak leader under the guidance of paleocons looking for any casus belli.

2

video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 4838285177

3

While many of those points are true, they do not fully address the situation.

The reason for the rise in fundamentalist Islam (There are many women who now wear veils when their grandmothers did not!) is due to short-sighted Cold War politics. The incredibly cynical approach to the Middle East by the USSR and the US left a population that was opposed to both capitalism and communism, as well as opposed to democracy and dictatorships and monarchies. That is because any of those options were transparently not serving the interest of the people living there, but rather serving the interests of one (or both, some countries were infamous for playing both ends towards the middle) of the Superpowers.

This meant that the people had to seek out a ‘third path’. Third path ideologies have almost always had disasterous results (Fascism was also seen as a third path from Capitalism and Communism). To the average muslim, fanatical Islam became modern because the other options were clearly not in their interest. This lead to a backlash and a rise in the sort of ideology that you place as the cause when it is actually the vehicle. US-backed dictators fed the fuel of indignation and humiliation that you have talked about.

The situation became ever worse when the US seized the opportunity presented by these religious fanatics, and operated under the old axiom that ‘The enemy of my enemey is my friend’'. So, the US supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US fed and nurtured this particular monster for their own ends there. To make matters much worse, the US also had promised Afghanistan a good deal of money to help it rebuild. A Marshall Plan in the Middle East of sorts. But, after the Taliban had fought off the Soviets, the US reneged on those promises. This allowed the Taliban, still strong from the US support during the war, to cement its rule. But now the Taliban was frustrated because it felt cheated out of its right, the support the US had promised. Couple that with US troops near Mecca and the continued US support of Israel and you have a very, very angry group of people.

And a group that can grow, based off the legacies of the Cold War, the continued support of unpopular programs, and a promise of a brighter future.

Much of this is also coupled with a sense of a loss of identity. The London bombers were, after all, London born and bred individuals. Fundamentalist Islam represents not only a path to the future but also a means of defining one’s self. A new form of elitism that appeals to economically disadvantaged people living in the West in the same way that White Supremacy appeals to poor Caucasians – it allows them to say that, despite appearances, they are really on top.

Add all that up, couple it with what you have said, and you have one very nasty movement on your hands.

4

The pivotal point in the rise of militant Islam came with the Carter Administration’s mishandling and inattention to the crises that embroiled the Shah of Iran. Carter was typically unable to decide to heed Brzezinski’s counsel to back the Shah’s effort to suppress the revolution, orVance’s advice to establish relations with opposition elements to smooth a perceived transition.

Carter effectively did nothing and watched the embattled Shah flee, while hoping Khoumeini to be a benevolent sage returning to restore a downcast people’s dreams. The taking of hostages was a boot is in Carter’s “idea-driven” mind, and the spectacle of a poor nation humiliating the world’s collosus fired Islamic pride and inspired militancy throughout the Muslim world.

Seeing America occupied in Iran, and having signed a disadvantageous arms treaty under a weak president, emboldened the Soviet Union to Invade Afghanistan. Yes, our support for the mujahideen was instrumental in bogging down Soviet troops, but the Taliban and bin Laden arrived several years later. The rise of the Taliban and of bin Laden, whose pain Xunzian feels so acutely, came much later after a series of twists and turns in the fortunes of other political groups on the ground and that bin Laden , in particular, would also be motivated with regard to Al Qaeda by the humiliation of the US led Desert Storm involving the presence of US troops in his homeland of Saudi Arabia. His homeland owed its integrity to the sinful power which also had him in its debt for paving the way for his overthrowing Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

There’s always some way to color the case for the loser’s. But who leveled the towers and killed 3000 innocents, who has the grounds to be angry enough to be moved to craze, and who took the hostages and lit the fire under Islamic pride? Since when was taking diplomats hostage a just cause for pride? It might make a humiliated people feel relief from the anguish of knowing their civilization is the loser in history.

5

So . . . .

You do agree that it has been the US that has been instrumental in the rise of radical Islam? That is what you’ve said in your post.

So it would seem that we agree then, yes?

After all, what caused the revolution? And what caused the new government to be so opposed to the United States?

Iran is a perfect example of what I have been talking about where the power plays between the US and the USSR resulted in the third path of radical Islam.

6

Yes, I agree that militant Islam is a reaction to the humiliation of seeing a successful, secular culture dominate the world while the one that believes itself chosen by God is humiliated and beholden. Did Al Qaeda bomb the Kremlin? A few lame rhetorical questions are no mark of victory. You’ve conceded all my points and I want to hear from people who have something to add.

7

As you have my points. Which is why I am confused you think you have the upper hand . . . or any hand.

Enjoy your self-congradulations.

Edit:

You are, after all, the one who has been saying what I’ve been thinking the entire time without actually thinking about what I have said. That would be the problem. You are attacking a charicature that isn’t me.

8

I have nothing to attack as you just ascribe whatever suits your convenience and claim the fiction vindicates you. Why don’t you make up a member called RicDumian and beat him up every time, because you come up empty and all you do is complain when you try to engage with me. I’ve said all there is to say on this subject, and now I’m creating another thread.

9

I’ve been trying to think about how to reply to this for a week. Not having regular access to a computer will do that to you . . .

And I am still baffled.

10

I’m baffled too on where you’ve been coming from in this thread. But I’ve read many of your other posts in other threads and am impressed and find myself like-minded on many points you raise. You obviously have more specialized sophistication that me. I just try to be generally well informed and only recently have freed up time to pursue a specialty.

Cheers and an offer of friendship to a formidable mind

11

Likewise, likewise.

Nothing wrong with the occasional spirited argument. As long as people keep it relaxed, a good time will be had by all.