The Glade 4.0

No need to respond to the rest of his point until he stops telling me why or what I'm thinking.

_________________

Religion has always been the tool to whip the faithful into a frenzy to commit heinous acts that otherwise rational people would not do. This has been true from the beginning of religion.

Uh, no. Mao sought to exterminate religion and spiritual beliefs, killing millions.

Given the fact that you haven't bothered to explain one iota of what those studies might be and why they lend any credence to your position, AND the fact that you've summarily dismissed any counterargument as Western Propaganda (despite your complaints about hasty generalization), misguided, and offensive, no I'm not being the least bit arrogant. I'm pointing out your colossal arrogance in expecting everyone else to just agree with you on your own say-so.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not really. It's been occasionally true throughout history, but primarily in the last thousand years.

When it didn't suit a leader's purpose to use religion, they used something else, and then religious people were among the first targets.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Make some sort of point beyond "Well, you're just wrong cause I say so" and I'll stop. Right now, I have no idea what you're thinking since you couldn't be assed to explain your position to even a trivial degree.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

History is not so simple as this statement indicates. "Western" thought tends to create narratives and ascribe motivations, even when dealing with its own history. In fact, there's much academic debate about how we write history in the West precisely because so many authors are intent trying to find why in evidence that doesn't support such endeavors. That said, I've not privileged any one version of events over another. I have stated that I've read the history from "both" sides of the cultural divide. "Both" being a bit limited, since Bedouin oral histories, Arabic written histories, etc. all have different takes on the situation. And that's one of the more complicating factors when talking about the Near East, Middle East, and Southern Asia: There are entirely too many distinct ethnic groups and autonomous cultures to reduce them all into simply Muslim or non-Muslim. Islamic sectarianism complicates this even further.It's not a matter of listening to "Western propaganda" so much as it is repeating the inaccuracies fostered by Western news and commentary on the subject. As I demonstrated in my last post, there are specific instances of blame directed at the religion. In fact, for at least 3 of the 5 posts mentioned, religious identity is the only cause considered.

You're not forced to speculate. You chose to speculate. And it is pre- and post-colonial issues that drive this conflict. And I haven't made any half-assed assumptions about your training. You're making statements that occlude or ignore the broader concerns. Then perhaps you should have paid more attention to that thread, since you obviously failed to grasp or failed to read the commentary on social constructivism and how it impacts/shapes/forms individual identity. Your positions on Islam and the conflict with radical jihadism, however, demonstrate the point of that thread quite clearly. You've internalized certain assumptions, labels, and lines of reasoning of which you are unlikely to find yourself divorced. So, I'll try to explain this again: "Society" is its own entity and ultimately takes very little from the individuals within it. Rather, society imposes its will on the individual regressively. And our education (that is the U.S.) reflects this reality pretty poignantly. Values and norms, mores and convention are all internalized the same way we internalize language as children. It is primarily osmotic, as opposed to the result of any active training or educative process.

In regard to the current conversation, think of how many times a car bombing in Iraq or suicide bomber in Israel or an IED in Afghanistan gets mentioned by our media without the words "radical Islam" or "jihadist" or "terrorism." We don't have to mention the intentionally xenophobic literature of Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, but that adds to the effect, too; especially when media outlets like Fox News or Newsbusters.org or their own blogs start gaining traction (We can add Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh and a few others to that list).

As for "propaganda machine", that's meant to implicate the unconscious and mechanical propagation of these ideas. It's not some overt initiative to make Islam the enemy; it's simply the reality of how information disperses through Western society. Consequently, what I chafe at is otherwise reasonable and intelligent people making statement and continuing that line of thought without conscious knowledge of doing so (yourself, for example). You should and do know better, but it doesn't change the fact that you, like myself and most everyone else, have internalized the thought processes. I suppose the big disconnect is the term propaganda, because most people think it denotes some sort of deliberate mechanism; no deliberate mechanism exists in this case.
Except those reasons merely repeat the cultural myths of the West about Islam. It ignores that approximately 40% of Muslims are Sufi, but rarely get counted because popular media tends to focus on Shia and Sunni branches of Islam (this is usually achieved by subdividing Sufist sects to point of almost obscurity). Conversely, they also tend to ignore the subdivisions of Shia and Sunni sects out of laziness. Consequently, the media, whether intentional or not, tries to unify Islam into a single coherent entity despite reality the religion is at least as varied and disparate in practice as Christianity.

And this is further compounded by the history of Israel and its rather hostile neighbors. The Western Media, for the longest time, simply lumped Palestinians into more overt and explicitly anti-Semitic groups. It's glossed over legitimate grievances in the name of covering terrorism. And, at least in the United States, that's had a rather negative effect on perception and ethnic identity when it comes to the Middle East. Hence, the term Islamic Fundamentalism has been around since the late 70s. Rather attempting to identity and specify the "enemy", the enemy was painted with the broadest brush possible. And, after 30 years, doing so has become second nature to the media, the general public, and even "cloistered academics" such as myself. The War on Terror hasn't helped. Islam and Radical Islam have become synonymous terms in general use.No, you haven't used those terms; incidentally, that's why I chafed at your used of the "Haaji" as a pejorative. You don't see it at one; you want to see yourself as open to and tolerant of disparate cultures. Consequently, that makes it all the more problematic. Appropriating an Islamic term of respect as a generic label for all Arabic combatants or people speaks to precisely the xenophobic problem I mention. And it is a very specific example of the "propaganda" I mention. You know what the term means and what it references, but you still used it in the reductive capacity that de-personalizes the "enemy". And, as I mentioned then, I'll mention again: that's what made it all the more disturbing, because you are generally smarter than that. The fact that is actually has become a widespread term of ethnocentrism and bigotry among enlisted and armchair combatants makes that more frustrating.Religion isn't the issue of this thread. A group of idiots acting violently in response to a known provocateur is the issue of the thread. That Vilks used a religious provocation is only incidental: he could and has achieved the same result with other "art" for other audiences in the past. My initial condemnation was of the reductive and careless generalization that Islam was to blame for the behavior of those students/observers. It's not the religion's fault they're violent assholes any more than it is Western society's fault Vilks is a douche. There are plenty of reasons Islam is neither catalyst nor cause for violence; namely, the vast majority of Islamic followers live and coexist peacefully in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies across the world. That said, researching the various forms and teaching of Islam indicates that very few actual Mosques or Clerics actually teach violence. Indeed, the "radical" elements that do support and incite terrorist activities actually appropriate the language of the Quran and other writings much like Phelp's appropriates the Bible for his own wing-nuttery. The more mystical forms of Islam, including Sharia Sufism, resolutely deny violence toward your fellow man, for any purpose. And some splinters of Sufism and Shia Islam are explicitly pacifist. Consequently, jihad refers to spiritual conquest and battle in a manner more akin to evangelism than any actual reference to combat. But, there's little, if any, exposure or explanation of that large bloc of Muslims anywhere. Rather, they are overshadowed by agenda driven clerics and secular groups that use religion as both tool and weapon.I'm not butt-hurt about anything in this thread, Diamondeye. I'm disheartened by the arguments you're making and the positions you're taking. That said, ethnographic and socio-political situations that complicate the "War on Terror" and "Radical Islam" are well established; and, at least as far as Afghanistan concerns, severely impacted by the former Soviet occupation. The "enemy" is a term we might want to discuss before I touch on this more, however.

It's not a cultural bias in the least. I dislike cultural hegemony for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is the inexorable march of "progress". As for how my study of anything makes the mainstream Western opinion "wrong," it's because everyone has a right to self-determination. You'll note that I speak crossly of Edward Said, despite his renown as the world's foremost scholar on the Middle East. Said, like so many other people, attempt to understand other cultures, societies, religions, beliefs, theories, languages in terms of their own. Rather than accepting that all of these things are fundamentally beyond translation, the West, especially its academics and politicians, tend to force things to conform to their model or expectation of how things are. (Sorry in advance Aizle) A good example is Aizle's issues with religion in general. He disapproves and dislikes religion, consequently he projects very negative views about its practice and purpose. That Aizle cannot know what it means to an individual to be Catholic or Lutheran or non-denominational Christian doesn't matter, because Aizle is projecting his understanding onto their experience and judging them through that lens.

The same thing applies to most Westerner's views of the various ethnic and religious groups in the Middle East. You're attempting to understand the history and values of a culture and people who are not your own through the values of Western society. And that simply doesn't work. While some things, of a more scientific nature, might yield reasonable facsimiles of that reality, you (even myself) are still fundamentally encumbered by the world as you have come to know it. For the West, this means we reduce the radical Muslims and the jihadists and the terrorists into single, collective group for means of making them the enemy. And, the evidence as we have it, suggests that they do the inverse (although, that's a bit more complex). And some assumptions about the enemy are flat impossible: the religion is a catalyst or a cause or a root cause or what have you, because their society doesn't work that way.

The biggest problem the West faces is the issue of information control and information warfare. And, at least from what I gather of your experience, you found that the Hearts and Minds strategy worked (for the most part). Middle Eastern and South Asian countries involved in this conflict are poor; the populations are spread out; literacy is mostly non-existent in any sense the West would use the term. Consequently, Radical Clerics and Terrorists can use religion as a tool or weapon in this conflict, but the religion of Islam itself doesn't predispose anyone to violence. Rather, the enemy as you know it uses message control much like Obama does in the White House. If you control what your supporters know, you don't have to deal with the inconvenient realities facts might make of your goals. And even then, the radical elements we're facing are probably better at message manipulation than we are, as evidenced by the ability to co-opt college students and graduates and other reasonably well educated individuals into their fold.Arabic literature is pertinent for a lot of reasons, but it's a mistake to assume I haven't thoroughly researched the history of Islam and Islamic nations from a variety of viewpoints (including those I find dogmatically offensive). What literature does do, especially pulp literature, news papers, comic strips, and even high literature/art (films, paintings, etc.) is augment the study of history and language. I won't say it gives insight into "why" or "how" a culture things, but these things provide snapshots of what a culture/ethnographic group thinks. The problem here is that there is no one Islam. So while Iranian art indicates X and Y, Jordanian art indicates Y and Z. And, for the most part, western researchers still only have access to things amenable to western conventions.National Forensics League -- they handle/manage high school policy debate rules, conventions.Except, that's not what I've done. I've commented an element of American society as it impacts you and me. You somehow think this is a condemnation of something explicit and overt, rather than the phenomenological development of a cultural identification within our own nation, its media, and its population. And to that end, I don't think you really grok the conversation we're trying to have.Viet Nam has the largest known bauxite reserves on the planet. That said, you're trying to compare a mostly homogeneous nationality (mostly, as I'm keenly aware no nation is without ethnic diversity) to a bunch of disparate and often tribal ethnicities that are lumped together because of their religion. And I think that's what frustrates me the most. Your response continue to indicate a reductive line of thought that groups Palestinians into a single "cultural unit" with the myriad ethnic groups most people have never heard of between the West Bank and Islamabad. This sort of reductionism doesn't lead to understanding the "enemy", it leads to otherizing a whole slew of other peoples based on the lowest common denominator: "They're all Muslims, so Islam must be responsible (to some degree or another)."And that indicates Muhammed behaved as many charismatic leaders throughout history behaved. It provides radicalized clerics, who use the poverty and ignorance of their followers against the masses, to misrepresent what is written and believed. It doesn't, however, establish violence as a core value/means within the religion.It was reported; hence, I said "precious little". But it's an anomalous report, as is the link Dashel provided earlier. Think of it like behavioral training in the sense of Pavlov. If 80% of all news containing the words Islam and Muslim refers to some violent event or occurrence, what will the basic cultural assumption about Islam be?You haven't substantiated this one bit. The otherizing road goes both ways. Just as the West is currently in the business of otherizing Islam, that Radical Clerics and Jihadists have been in that business for far longer. Stanley Cohen would suggest as far back as the early 60s (at the very least). Individuals have used the most effective tool they have to convert ignorant masses into mindless drones for slaughter. The Elite in the American South did it in the lead up to the Civil War (how do you think the great American Racism came to be?)
And this tacit support has precious little do with any religious or Islamic beliefs. Before they were all Islamic, they were all subjects of the British or Ottoman Empires. They were all subject to the military and economic atrocities of Colonial powers. People approve of the targets not because they believe in Allah; people approve of the targets because Winston Churchill ordered the gassing of Baghdad; the East India Trading Company used slave labor to farm poppies in Pakistan, tea in India, and strip mine Afghanistan.

_________________

I'm saying you are advocating use of force to censor things you dont agree with. I'm saying that's very dangerous.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

No, I'm not, and you should know better than to even suggest such a thing. I've defended neither party in the event mentioned in the original post. Violent idiots are violent idiots; provocative idiots looking to incite violence are also provocative idiots looking to incite violence.

_________________

Your standards for what will reasonably incite violence are low. How often is Christianity mocked in our society?

There is no question that the Muslim community harbors it's fair share of people willing to commit violence in the name of Islam. Salmon Rushdie was one of the first, Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch cartoonists, Matt Stone and Trey Parker and now Vilks is on the hit list.

That this group of people were so quickly and easily reduced to shouting baboons and physical violence should scare people on it's own but the fact that he's gotten death threats and had his house burned down really doesnt leave much room for debate.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

I am again fascinated.

_________________

Indeed. Apparently Khross has not only missed the regular references to these people as "insurgents" but also feels that accurate terms shouldn't be used to describe them. It's rather difficult to claim they aren't a jihadist when they're shouting "Allahu'Akbar" as they press the button - a term soldiers have learned to listen for as it so frequently heralds attack.

No, somehow the existance of idiots like Coulter and Savage mean that we need to go to the opposite extreme of pretending Islam has nothing to do with Islamic militants.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hmm, my response to Lex didn't take apparently, so responding to you both here.

I should have changed "the tool" to "a tool". I don't mean to indicate that it's the only way people get whipped into a frenzy, but it's use as such a tool has been consistent throughout history.

Still telling me what I think instead of reading what's written, Diamondeye. I asked what you what continued use of those terms and the preponderance of negative associations in the media did to the American understanding of Islam. Because, I can assure, the general hostility toward the West in the nations we're discussing goes back a lot further than militant Islamic clerics and radical whackjobs like Khomeini.

_________________

Like to the Battle of Tours (732 CE)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Or the Iberian invasion (710 CE)?
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/me ... horde.aspx

When was the first crusade again?

_________________

My standards aren't any lower than yours, Dashel.There is no question that <insert religious adherent term here> community harbors its fair share of people willing to commit violence in the name of <religion>. The problem is that the language and posts in this thread indicate many of you think these sentiments are unique to Islam, when it is more accurately the case that ...

There is no question human society harbors its fair share of idiots willing to commit violence in the name of some amorphous cause.That Lars Vilks decided to show a slide show of a photograph series that got an Iranian Artist exiled to a bunch of Muslim students doesn't leave any room for debate that he's an antagonistic ***. Neither Vilks nor the audience has any excuse for their behavior.

_________________

Start saying what you actually think. All you're doing is slinging half-assed bullshit around, and asking questions based on vague allusions. Quit asking questions. Start making statements.

Hostility started way back when Muhammed found the Temple Mount a convenient place to ascend from, and was well established by the time these terms arose. They had little to no effect.



No one argues that they are unique to Islam, just that they are significantly more prevalent.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hopwin:

First Crusade was in 1101. The Moorish Invasions of Spain and Southern France are only part of an ongoing history. Curious that you ignore the Roman and Byzantine incursions into the Middle East though.

_________________

Just curious, Khross - what's your take on Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis, at least as it pertains to the Arab and/or Muslim worlds?

Considering Rome was in the Middle East before the advent of either Christianity or Islam I consider it irrelevant and since the Byzantine Empire was A) centered in the Middle East and B) primarily engaged with the Sassanid Persian Empire (both of which were swept aside by the Arabic armies) and C) Also there before the dominance of Christianity or the birth of Islam.

_________________

Hopwin:

So it really is all about Islam then? The cultural memories and histories of all those people who are now Islam don't matter before then?

_________________

So you are saying acts of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Allah are based on cultural memories pre-Islam? That it is ingrained in their society on the basis of events that occured over 1500 years ago?

_________________

I've made plenty of statements. Apparently, you refuse to read them.Bare assertion that supports my original observation: you are personally incapable of separate Islam from the conflict.

_________________

I've said what I'm going to say. Since you and Diamondeye are refusing to read what's written, I'm not saying anything else. After all, for you two, you've proven my point: you think this has to do with Islam and nothing is going to change your mind. History has nothing to do with this discussion anymore; it's just xenophobia from here on out.

_________________

Actually I think every turd out there has a propensity to violence. I do believe though that certain cultures foster this inherent savagery within us and de-humanize others to the point that it spills over into action. Islam, Gangster-rap culture, Christian extremists. No one gets a pass. If Christian groups that I consider to be extremist/cultish were to start suicide bombings I would be equally unsurprised.

You on the other hand for all your bullshit about how society molds the individual are giving Islam a pass because in my opinion you can't back down from an argument even if you can't defend it, which I've noticed you doing more and more. You're like Beryllin with his "inside information" about the missionaries in Haiti. If you don't present your facts then they can't be refuted/disproven and you can continue to live in your world where everything you say, no wait make that think, is gospel truth and damn well will be on the test.

_________________