Radicalization Of Youth

[Big Guy]

The differences in the actions are only relevant if you consider the victims. The distinction between shooting or beheading an enemy soldier who is a threat to you is not a big one. Doing either to a POW or a Journalist is a hugely different act, and no comparison, I would say.

The same with suicide bombers. Giving your life for your cause by charging an enemy machine gun or flying your Zero into an enemy cruiser, there is no big distinction. Brainwashing some poor prole into carrying the bomb into a market on a Saturday morning because many of the shoppers believe something slightly different from you is a hugely different act, and no comparison, I would also say.

Thank you. I do understand your appreciation of distinctions.

What you are legitimately doing is basing your distinctions on the accepted "rules" of war as established by those who have all the modern weapons. What do you do when you have no airplanes, missiles or heavy armaments?

I am not condoning the act of killing anybody but I try to look into the mind of the suicide bomber. A person has decided that their cause is more important than their own life. We are accustomed to believing that our cause is more important than the "enemy" life but not our life.

I think we also look at "war" as some kind of noble endeavor with certain rules.

I think those insurgents, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc. do not look at this conflict as a war but a battle of survival.

During 9/11 we had a situation where a group from one nation targeted and murdered thousands of innocent civilians in their own nation. During the atomic bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki about 200,000 innocent civilians were targeted and killed in their own nation. If you looked at numbers then those atomic bomb attacks were a greater atrocity than the 9/11 New York City attack. Is strapping a bomb around your waist and setting it off in an enemy market any less moral than dropping an atomic bomb over a city of 100,00 enemy civilians?

But of course the difference is not only the time but the reason for the attack. History is written by the winners and most people (including most on this board) will argue that atomic bomb attack was warranted, a good idea and a positive thing to do. I wonder how the Japanese feel about that.

For those in the Middle East who felt that they were being oppressed, manipulated, controlled and savaged by the Americans the 9/11 was a nice finger in the eye of the great "American Devil".

I think it would be a more profitable use of time to investigate why there a millions of people who consider the Americans as "devils" and the West as an arrogant and selfish interloper in the Middle East.

I think we have spent far too much time trying to deal with the hate for the West rather than the cause of the hate.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Big Guy

[Guest]

I guess the difference was that there was a declared war going on between the US and Japan at the time, which Japan had started. No state of war existed between the US and Saudi Arabia at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Add to that the fact that the losses incurred due to the atomic bombings, while many, saved the lives of many more, including many from the side that didn't start the war.

I think if you want to deal with the cause of the hate, do it after you have dealt with the hate.

[Big Guy]

...

I think if you want to deal with the cause of the hate, do it after you have dealt with the hate.

How can you deal with a problem if you do not know the cause of the problem?

[Guest]

Generally speaking, I don't think that's difficult. You can put a fire out, then figure out what caused it.

I think the root cause of the problem we are discussing here is known, if argued about. You can probably go back to a few periods in history and say: It started here. I suppose 1919 would be a good one.

Good luck using that information to deal with the problems of Islamic radicalism today though. You could deal with the problem and the cause simultaneously, I guess, but you're still going to have to kill lots of people. The trick is to only kill those that need killing, whenever it is possible to do that.

[Big Guy]

An interesting perspective; Joining Islamic State is about ‘sex and aggression,’ not religion

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/16/joining-islamic-state-is-about-sex-and-aggression-not-religion/

[dre]

I believe the answer is that some people want to believe that other people do bad things because there is something inherently wrong with them or they have a mysterious DNA propensity for bad or they are brain washed or their culture forces them to ...

Religion is the ultimate team sport. Especially the three religions associated with that dispicable maggot, Abraham. They watch each other like hawks and as soon as followers of one of the rival Abramic sky-god myths steps out of line, they cry "Islam made them do it! See!??"

These religions were invented as a form of crowd control, and they are effective. And they can be used to influence people to do both negative and positive things, but leaders with various different goals. For example... Look at Alqeada... they have managed to shroud their cause in all kinds of religious rhetoric to get muslims to give them aid and comfort but they have very conventional real-world goals. Hitler also used Christian rhetoric to enhance his position with germans.

When the US wanted to invade Iraq, and the US president proclaimed that "god told me to do it"... religious people once again were the quickest to be lead to support violence.

Some 69% of conservative Christians favour military action against Baghdad; 10 percentage points more than the US adult population as a whole.

Did religion cause these things? No... but the follower mentality and a lack of critical thinking makes religious people easy to manipulate.

[Bonam]

Did religion cause these things? No... but the follower mentality and a lack of critical thinking makes religious people easy to manipulate.

Correct. Furthermore, religions are institutions. Which is why when people start to try to compare or contrast religions by taking quotes from "holy" books it's an idiotic exercise. It matters not one fig what is written in those books. What matters is what people in positions of power in the religious institutions influence their followers to do.

And, we can all see for ourselves that there are plenty of "clerics" in Islam that advocate for some pretty repugnant stuff, and plenty of brainwashed followers to obey them.

Nothing particularly controversial or non-obvious there, but people continue to resist accepting these basic realities because they are victims of a different form of irrational brainwashing... political correctness.

[eyeball]

Bonam is correct to note it is influential people in positions of power that are all too often the real root cause of trouble no matter what the culture or religion so following on that, I think it behooves ordinary human beings to do something about changing the nature of power. As always I say we surround it with cameras, mircro-phones, auditors, validators and above all else publicly-owned broadcasters with a mission.

Behaviour always changes when subjected to observation.

[roman law]

thats right .........!!!

.................................

Graduated from Soran University with First Class Degree with Honours in Political Science.

[Argus]

I was suggesting a government organization, organized along ethnic lines and treated like the military reserves that we have in Canada. A number of "ready" ethnic units prepared to spread the Canadian concept of aid and democracy throughout the world through humanitarian aid to ALL countries.

This might be the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

[Argus]

Bonam is correct to note it is influential people in positions of power that are all too often the real root cause of trouble

Uh... as opposed to all those janitors and file clerks who screw up?

I mean, isn't it pretty patently obvious that those who have influence are going to be the ones who, when they screw up, get noticed? Nobody much notices the fry cook at the diner who screws up your eggs but you and the waitress. When 'influential people in positions of power' screw up, well, it has broader consequences.

[Argus]

Because it's absolute nonsense. It's Islam that's been radicalized, or a branch thereof. I realize it's a radicalizing concept but you're reacting to an effect not a cause.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Some nasty folks, ie, Saudis, might have 'radicalized' Islam, or their version of it, and then paid billions to spread it around the world, but then that radicalized religion influenced millions and millions of other people in turn so that, in effect, they are radicalizing the religion further. The problem is we have to deal with these people.

[Big Guy]

Bigots, xenophobes and racists cannot be argued with. The best that one can do is to highlight and shine a spotlight on their revolting personal opinions and their attempts to rationalize their superiority. When you have try to demean another group in order to boost your own self esteem then you know there is a sad sickness - a sickness that they will rant and rant and rant believing that somehow repetition adds to credibility. Pity them, don't bother arguing with them. They too shall pass.

[eyeball]

Uh... as opposed to all those janitors and file clerks who screw up?

I mean, isn't it pretty patently obvious that those who have influence are going to be the ones who, when they screw up, get noticed? Nobody much notices the fry cook at the diner who screws up your eggs but you and the waitress. When 'influential people in positions of power' screw up, well, it has broader consequences.

Definitely opposed to what you're describing yes. I said when people in power make trouble as in when they serve their own interest, not when a file clerk misfiles something or a janitor neglects to clean a washroom.

[eyeball]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Some nasty folks, ie, Saudis, might have 'radicalized' Islam, or their version of it, and then paid billions to spread it around the world, but then that radicalized religion influenced millions and millions of other people in turn so that, in effect, they are radicalizing the religion further. The problem is we have to deal with these people.

It's super-power interference, not poultry, that's radicalizing people - put simply, people in power making trouble. Capiche?

As for the Saudis, they're just partners in crime that have been paid billions to help spread the trouble around.

Edited November 4, 2014 by eyeball

[Guest]

Bigots, xenophobes and racists cannot be argued with. The best that one can do is to highlight and shine a spotlight on their revolting personal opinions and their attempts to rationalize their superiority. When you have try to demean another group in order to boost your own self esteem then you know there is a sad sickness - a sickness that they will rant and rant and rant believing that somehow repetition adds to credibility. Pity them, don't bother arguing with them. They too shall pass.

The problem is not so much arguing with them, it's stopping them killing people. That's why we have planes in the air over Iraq.

[Big Guy]

bcsapper - Do you really believe that killing people because they are killing other people a rational argument? What about the "collateral damage" that comes with ALL bombings from the air? Do these innocent bystanders "deserve" to be killed?

Does anybody really think that ISIS is a threat to Canada?

Why are those Arab nations who would be the first to be engulfed by ISIS, happy to sit back, take our oil money and let us shoot those ISIS fish in the Iraq barrel?

We are being played like a fine fiddle.

[Guest]

I think it's always a good idea to minimize collateral damage when you are killing the enemy. It's been a bit one sided in recent conflicts, I know, but what the hell, I'm old fashioned.

I don't care whether or not ISIS is a threat to Canada. For one thing, I'm English, and for another, I like to help out. They definitely are a threat to somebody. And the more of them that get killed, the more lives are saved. It's like foreign aid.

[Big Guy]

bcsapper - I respect your point of view and might even agree with you if it was plain who were the good guys and who are the bad guys. Do you not find it strange that by depleting ISIS we are helping Assad in Syria? As to the atrocities attributed to ISIS, are they any different than those to the Japanese during WWII, or to the different sides on the American civil war or to the German Hun or to ... ?

And from whom are we getting the information about the nature of this civil war? It is from that impartial, honest and credible Iraq government.

The latest reports of our air strikes describe good news and bad news. The good news is that we took out a number of trucks, bulldozers and other construction equipment as it was being used to build and fortify an ISIS stronghold. The bad news is that this equipment was being operated by local Iraqis forced to operate them by ISIS.

OOPS!

Edited November 4, 2014 by Big Guy

[Argus]

Definitely opposed to what you're describing yes. I said when people in power make trouble as in when they serve their own interest, not when a file clerk misfiles something or a janitor neglects to clean a washroom.

Everyone ultimately serves their own interest. When those with real power screw up, everyone notices and points. When your job is to decide on something which is going to influence world events well, sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong. We notice the wrong stuff but we rarely notice the stuff that goes right.

[Argus]

It's super-power interference, not poultry, that's radicalizing people - put simply, people in power making trouble. Capiche?

As for the Saudis, they're just partners in crime that have been paid billions to help spread the trouble around.

This is conspiracy stuff, and makes no sense whatever. The creation of Saudi Arabia was clearly a mistake. Giving a state to the wahabi types, a state with oil, has allowed them to spread their sect's influence throughout the Muslim world.

It is not what the Americans or Bris are doing this year or this decade that is turning people in the Islamic world into nutbars, it is the Saudis.

[Black Dog]

This is conspiracy stuff, and makes no sense whatever. The creation of Saudi Arabia was clearly a mistake. Giving a state to the wahabi types, a state with oil, has allowed them to spread their sect's influence throughout the Muslim world.

It is not what the Americans or Bris are doing this year or this decade that is turning people in the Islamic world into nutbars, it is the Saudis.

It's a bit of both. I don't think the latter would have nearly as much pull without the long legacy of meddling by the former.

It's foolish for anyone to tray and isolate any one pf poverty, radical Islam, western imperialism as the singular cause of terrorism. It's all of these things and more.

[Argus]

bcsapper - Do you really believe that killing people because they are killing other people a rational argument?

My God, the dullness, the banality of such sophomoric queries. As if we never should have intervened against Hitler, as if all of history hadn't taught anyone with more than half a brain that the only possible way to deal with brutal aggression was with force.

[Argus]

It's a bit of both. I don't think the latter would have nearly as much pull without the long legacy of meddling by the former.

It's foolish for anyone to tray and isolate any one pf poverty, radical Islam, western imperialism as the singular cause of terrorism. It's all of these things and more.

People can be persuaded to blame all their problems on outsiders without regard to truth. Look at what's happening in Russia, where the government controls almost all media. They'll support pretty much anything Putin does. Arab governments in particular have spent the last couple of generations blaming all their problems on Israel and it's supporters, the West. It's proved very handy to excuse their own corruption and incompetence but it's now become a cultural touchstone that Muslim countries are being oppressed, not by their own government but by the evil West.

[Black Dog]

People can be persuaded to blame all their problems on outsiders without regard to truth. Look at what's happening in Russia, where the government controls almost all media. They'll support pretty much anything Putin does. Arab governments in particular have spent the last couple of generations blaming all their problems on Israel and it's supporters, the West. It's proved very handy to excuse their own corruption and incompetence but it's now become a cultural touchstone that Muslim countries are being oppressed, not by their own government but by the evil West.

Which doesn't really counter what I'm saying. Regardless of how true it is, it's a powerful narrative that's driving a lot of people to extremism.