Youth Radicalization or Extremism research

[Bob's World]

Bob, you are a fine, very smart fellow but I find the reality of the extremist, terrorist Islamics, that is not all of Islam, to be the root action and reaction in the matter of the war on terrorism.

Sadly, you are right in that the most extreme terrorists are not and never will be reconcilable. Attempts at such reconciliaiton have repeatedly blown up in the face of the Government of Saudi Arabia...and no wonder...as the Saudi Government has allowed the Wahabbi Islamic extremist movement to grow and fund terrorism worldwide.

It began before 9/11, in my view, in 1993, with the first attack on the World Trade Towers, as far as a visible theme or focus point in time. But others can more wisely than me cite other examples I suspect.

Some Pakhtuns claim that Buddah as a human being was from the NWFP of Pakistan. Buddish is a great and large faith system, too, but today's radical Islamic movement has been physically destroying any and all vestages of it in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan that they find or ever knew about.

I used to think like you, Bob, that poverty, lack of education, illiteracy, etc. were the root cause of terrorism. The I had to face the fact that highly educated radical Muslims, MDs, PhDs, engineers, etc. are among the rank and file as well as the leadership of Islamic terrorism today.
So much for my simple theory of suppressed masses which seems to be what you are driving at.

1. I have never said, nor do I believe that anyone is "irreconcilable." Time, a reduction of testosterone levels, a true addressing of the actual grievances, etc heal all wounds.

2. My position on the Saudis is that the problem there is not the Wahabists (they have been hand in glove with the Saudi Royals in their rise to power, btw), but in the fact that the Saudis are a corrupt dictatorship that offers little in terms of hope for a better future to their populace, and who are widely perceived as being protected by their neighbors and own populace by the strength of the United States in exchange for our oil extraction relationship. The focus on the Wahabists, I believe, is made by those who wish to sustain the status quo and distract people from the real problem. Not religion, but a very bad government that is out of touch with its own populace.

3. Islam is little different to Christianity in its intollerance to other religions, both being so certain of their own rightness and everyone elses wrongness, that they believe easily that they have a duty to convert others to their faith, and that killing non-believers is no great sin. Our political system has evolved in the west so that we don't do this any more; and when the political system of the middle east evolves as well I suspect you will see less of such abuse of Islam for such purposes as well.

4. People do not become insurgents because they or poor, stupid, or ignorant any more than they do because they adhere to any particular faith. My position has been, and remains that, as I said in my last post, they do so when they are subjected to conditions of poor governance (defined as any aspect of governance, usually a higher order issue like lack of respect, that cannot be changed through any available legitimate means) that drives a populace to using illigitimate means to effect change. This is the causation of insurgency. Motivations can vary for any given cause over time, and often do. Certain motivations work best with certain populaces, and religion is usually the best one to use if one has a populace base of any strong faith.

Anyone can feel free to quote me on any of these 4 points. As the politicos say: "I'm Robert Jones, and I approve this message."

[Tom Odom]

1. I have never said, nor do I believe that anyone is "irreconcilable." Time, a reduction of testosterone levels, a true addressing of the actual grievances, etc heal all wounds.

2. My position on the Saudis is that the problem there is not the Wahabists (they have been hand in glove with the Saudi Royals in their rise to power, btw), but in the fact that the Saudis are a corrupt dictatorship that offers little in terms of hope for a better future to their populace, and who are widely perceived as being protected by their neighbors and own populace by the strength of the United States in exchange for our oil extraction relationship. The focus on the Wahabists, I believe, is made by those who wish to sustain the status quo and distract people from the real problem. Not religion, but a very bad government that is out of touch with its own populace.

3. Islam is little different to Christianity in its intollerance to other religions, both being so certain of their own rightness and everyone elses wrongness, that they believe easily that they have a duty to convert others to their faith, and that killing non-believers is no great sin. Our political system has evolved in the west so that we don't do this any more; and when the political system of the middle east evolves as well I suspect you will see less of such abuse of Islam for such purposes as well.

4. People do not become insurgents because they or poor, stupid, or ignorant any more than they do because they adhere to any particular faith. My position has been, and remains that, as I said in my last post, they do so when they are subjected to conditions of poor governance (defined as any aspect of governance, usually a higher order issue like lack of respect, that cannot be changed through any available legitimate means) that drives a populace to using illigitimate means to effect change. This is the causation of insurgency. Motivations can vary for any given cause over time, and often do. Certain motivations work best with certain populaces, and religion is usually the best one to use if one has a populace base of any strong faith.

Anyone can feel free to quote me on any of these 4 points. As the politicos say: "I'm Robert Jones, and I approve this message."

Well said and I agree.

Best
Tom

[William F. Owen]

4. People do not become insurgents because they or poor, stupid, or ignorant any more than they do because they adhere to any particular faith. My position has been, and remains that, as I said in my last post, they do so when they are subjected to conditions of poor governance (defined as any aspect of governance, usually a higher order issue like lack of respect, that cannot be changed through any available legitimate means) that drives a populace to using illigitimate means to effect change.

I can't say you are wrong, - or even want to! - but I would offer a simpler version, and that is summed up in the word, "Victim."

All insurgents/terrorists see themselves primarily as victims. Sometimes they have a real right to that claim and other times they have to invent it, but it's always there. I submit they could be perfectly justly governed, but if they have a powerful narrative that allows them to paint themselves as "victims" then away you go.

An interesting example of this would be the current killings by the "Real IRA" who see themselves as "victims" of the Peace Process and Provisional IRA.

[Steve Blair]

All insurgents/terrorists see themselves primarily as victims. Sometimes they have a real right to that claim and other times they have to invent it, but it's always there. I submit they could be perfectly justly governed, but if they have a powerful narrative that allows them to paint themselves as "victims" then away you go.

This is especially true if you look at the narratives surrounding the West German terrorist groups of the 1980s. While I'm not sure that it would hold true if the leadership were closely examined, the victim concept is certainly useful for recruiting and motivation. It also allows the group leadership to "spin" their goals even further out of reach, keeping the movement alive.

[George L. Singleton]

Thanks for the continued dialogue.

Violence flows in history in and among all religions, a historic fact.

But today the focus is on our reactions via the war on terrorism on having been attacked by Islamic terrorists, all well educated, college graduates.

Do you really want to go and live in UK today where hundreds march in the streets of London periodically, men, women, and children, holding up placards saying radical things against your life and well being as non-Muslims?

Great housing, schools, free public health care, and yet the radicalization of and among Muslims is there and growing, not diminishing.

Unless you first understand the Ummah you are off the point entirely, my view, of course.

[William F. Owen]

But today the focus is on our reactions via the war on terrorism on having been attacked by Islamic terrorists, all well educated, college graduates.

...and all see themselves as victims, and hard done by in life as Muslims.

Do you really want to go and live in UK today where hundreds march in the streets of London periodically, men, women, and children, holding up placards saying radical things against your life and well being as non-Muslims?

Well I don't live in London. I buy my bread from the Druze, and walk past a beggar holding the Koran, and sit next to Arabs in a cafe, and feel perfectly safe!

[Ken White]

LINK.

[Bob's World]

LINK.

As I have said before, If the the underlying conditions of poor governance persist, insurgency will always resprout from the well trimmed roots of the earlier conflict. Not sure if that is the case here.

The wildcard is youth and testosterone. Just as young native american warriors would break every treaty their elders agreed to; just as american prisons today are full of young men fueled by testosterone over common sense; just as frustrated young Saudi middle class men leave their homes to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan; young men will seek opportunities to challenge themselves. Though Ireland has had a booming economy, I hope this is more a flash of idle youth over a reignition of unresolved conflict rooted in poor governance. My attention has been elsewhere.