This is something I've been interested in for quite some time, whether the current terrorist threat to the West is not due to political issues, but wider societal problems between the West and Middle East.
Something that strikes me is that all suicide bombers in Israel, plane hijackers on 9/11, and guerillas in Iraq, are Islamic fundamentalists. If the attacks were because of political differences with the West, shouldn't it be expected that some Moderates, Agnostics and Atheists would be among these fighters/terrorists?
Religion represents the past era of Feudalism, it has rapidely lost power since the birth of modern - progressive and questioning - society. So perhaps these terrorists and the countries that support them are still in the Feudal Romanticist period of society, and recognise the threat that comes from the virus-like modern consumerist society.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, both are bad situations to be in, especially if you believe we are now in a postmodern society, but still I think this does offer an explanation of why all terrorists/fighters are Islamic fundamentalists.

its a bit simplistic (for instance, the pan-islamic movement that fought the west in previous decades *did* have secular elements fighting for political freedom from the west), but the current situation is indeed mainly islamic fundamentalists v secular western ideals - *&* christian fundamentalism as espoused by many in the current white house.

its worth noting that many of the elements we find most revolting about extremist islam, are also quite apparent in the beleif systems of fundamentalist christianity as well.

i'm quite sure that if fundie christians were given carte blanche to attack 'witches, pagans and heathens' again, the 3000 deaths of 9/11 would seem like a picnic - and that bush's govt would not respond with a 'war on christians'.


meh, the whole human race is almost too stupid to survive.

Jeez your a bigot. The war on terror is not a war on islam

do you SERIOUSLY beleive that?


and, as a related question, do you think most moslems can beleive that?




(its worth remembering the invasion and occupation of iraq was supposed to be part of the 'war on terror', yet the only links between saddam and al queda are sketchy at best - in fact, there are far easier to see and stronger links between al queda and the CIA, through the funding of the taliban. You would have to be a particularly stupid moslem not to connect the dots and see the picture.)

Such a load of half-truths and misinformation.

Saddam put up a reward for someone becoming a terrorist. Quite a substantial reward too, in that part of the world. That linked him to terrorism, regardless of what you would like to claim.

As for your fundie Christians, I find them less repugnant than Muslims that blow up schools, buses and shopping malls.

Many 18 year old lower middle class Pakastani youths must often become torn between the Mullah and MTV. If he accepts his desire to be part of the westernised world he will have to address the fact that he is unlikely to ever enjoy anything more than an inferior version of westernised life, compared to that enjoyed by his counterpart in London or New York. his clothes will never be as up to date, his skin will never be the right colour, and his chances of pre-marital sex will always be infinitisamally lower. An alternative course is to reject the West (or at least how it is largely exported) in favour of the affirming, empowering certainties of radical Islam.

I think it is safe to assume that many who are attracted to radical Islam can indeed start out as moderates, agnostics,etc. Humans have an amazing ability to adapt to their environment and circumstances.

So can we.


We kill them.

I don't think it's that simple.
The common denominator actually seems to be that most "terrorists" aren't "traditionalist" moslem clergy or worshippers, instead they are people who are often reasonably well-off and *has had some kind of contact with the west* It can be argued that ideologically and methodically the "new islamists" have more in common with the mass-european ideologies of fascism, communism and yes, liberal democracy, than with the traditional interpretations of Islam and similar social movements.

Arilou,

That is true, but there's yet another factor that people tend to ignore in the west: violent, radical Sunni fundamentalism (hostile to non-Muslims as well as to non-Sunni Muslims) is nothing new at all.

A little while ago I posted this article here and on UP talking about the situation in Syria, and a part of it quoted a letter by the current president's grandfather sent to the French, back in the 40s, asking for the Alawite areas (Alawites are a really weird Islamic sect, and they are the ruling elite in Syria nowadays) to be made a part of Lebanon instead of a Sunni dominated Syria:

Bar Aram,



i actually agree with you, i think the most irritating topic i find and upsetting is this one. The fact that some radical sunni muslims feel that they have some god given power to determine who can and cannot be firstly determined a muslim and secondly who think they have the right to be violent against non muslims. and this isnt simply an arab sunni thing, even in Pakistan the same problem, probably even more intense than most arab countries , is occuring, constant shootings and bombings in shia mosques, and retaliations obviously occur and the cycle is ongoing. theres a lot of hate there, and no trust, and this is a historical problem, and one which will not dissapear easily.

this seems to be a perenial problem with all the JCM cults and religions.

personally, as i've said before, i think it comes from the notion of monotheism itself - the polytheistic religions notably hinduism, dont seem to have had it to anywhere near the same extent, although humans beig humans, theyve had their share of religious massacres as well.

nowhere like the scale seen in protestant v catholic, or sunni v sufi v shia though.

(the old testament is replete enough with stories of jewish massacres that i doubt they need bringing up).