Originally Posted by KaiserD2

My theory about Bin Laden is that he wants the US deeply engaged in the region--it's a big fund-raiser and recruiter for him. Of course, Obama has already given him a bigger US presence in Afghanistan for Christmas, but another attack on the US would clinch it for him.

He'll get more than he bargained for. For openers, it wouldn't surprise me if Denmark, followed by other European countries, started revoking green cards and sending Muslim immigrants back-the-frick home.

Who the hell do these bastards think they are... moving to someone else's country and then trying to murder their hosts???

He'll get more than he bargained for. For openers, it wouldn't surprise me if Denmark, followed by other European countries, started revoking green cards and sending Muslim immigrants back-the-frick home.

Who the hell do these bastards think they are... moving to someone else's country and then trying to murder their hosts???

It is not as simple as that, Road. The situation in Europe is a little bit more complex than that. I think I shall give a rundown of Europe since the 1960s, and (cracking knuckles) I apologize for being a history geek:

WWII left Europe a total and utter mess. That much is for damned certain. The Marshall Plan could only do so much as the U.S. had no ambition to take over Europe (that was Russia's idea.) One of the hidden deficits of the war was one that the U.S. had no way of helping out with: population. Whereas it is true that Europe indeed had a baby boom eventually, it also was subject to rationing long after the U.S. (boom was shorter lived) and prior to WWII had an enormous loss of life in the trenches of WWI (this is where the Lost Generation gets its name from.) The great engines of industry needed bodies to clean up the damage and fill jobs, especially ones that even the lower classes of white folks disdained. So, as they had before, France and the U.K. turned to their empires, this time in search of people.

Later, with heavy pressure from the United States, de-colonialization came to Pakistan, Algeria, and most of the Middle East. Though these nations rightly had their freedom, they also had been pillaged of their infrastructure for up to a century or more and none of them had been through anything resembling an Industrial Revolution or Enlightenment. Thus, they trended towards rapid decay once the colonial powers left and (as had been the trend even before colonialization) sheiks and emirs got inordinately rich while the people got inordinately poor. Dictatorships like the one created by Ba'athists thrived. Arbitrary borders drawn by colonial governments made old tribal feuds all the more deadly. Innovation stagnated, and intellectuals like Sayyid Qutb were lauded. (Sayyid Qutb has a very puritanical outlook; read up if you can as to why he was a bad thing because I don't have the space here.)

Meanwhile, back in Europe, the invitation was clear: come here, to the beacon of light where there are jobs and money and healthcare guaranteed! Where there is education! Where there is plenty! -It is a call that a fool would resist, and the liberal immigration laws passed in the EU eventually lead to plenty of people from former colonies answering; even starting chain migration.

However, there were cracks that the governments passing these laws did not account for. Nobody in 1960 expected religion in Europe to wither away so spectacularly over the next forty years. In EU nations, the touting of secularism (read: irreligion over religion) was more harmful than helpful because, in spite of a land that had seen the bloodiness of religious ideologies clashing for centuries they could not see the situation through the lense of absolute secularism vs. true religious freedom. The sexual revolution of the 1960s coincided with this period and, though it brought about greater political freedom for women, had the unexpected bi-product of turning sexual mores on their head, in particular ones regarding families and having children.

CONTINUED

However, there were cracks that the governments passing these laws did not account for. Nobody in 1960 expected religion in Europe to wither away so spectacularly over the next forty years. In EU nations, the touting of secularism (read: irreligion over religion) was more harmful than helpful because, in spite of a land that had seen the bloodiness of religious ideologies clashing for centuries they could not see the situation through the lense of absolute secularism vs. true religious freedom. The sexual revolution of the 1960s coincided with this period and, though it brought about greater political freedom for women, had the unexpected bi-product of turning sexual mores on their head, in particular ones regarding families and having children. By 1970, the native population started to crash and
crash hard, with little recovery of numbers in the 1980s.

The governments of 1960, in their infinite stupidity, also did not account for what having a society that effectively was 600 years behind theirs move in really meant nor did they have an understanding of their needs and those mistakes are evident today-painfully. It did not occur to them that assimilation was a game of give and take. No concessions, in forty years, have ever been made for a London cabdriver who must stop and face Mecca for prayers during the day. (In New York City I frequently have seen police men clear an area of the sidewalk for a man to pray.) There is zero understanding that asking a Muslimah to remove her veil is a violation of a civil right, as is denying her the ability to deliver her child in a private room with a female doctor or even at home if she so chooses. Muslims typically must register their marriages twice: with the state and with the mosque, something that culturally they will not understand and probably will reject. Though certainly there are faults on the other side of the conflict (child marriage, cousin marriages causing severe genetic defect in children, honor killing, female genital mutilation, etc.) the response to it has been poor: As in 1960, society there seems to expect the Arabs and blacks to serve the natives.

The failure of EU governments to recognize where they have gone wrong is palpable and by no means untarnished by severe denial, even racism. In France, for example, there are no black or Muslim faces in Parliament or even local government. Paris has most of its black and Arab population in council housing and few from this group are on the police force. The chances for advancement are not as many and because there is severe gender bias towards women in the Muslim world, the number of people that go off to college in that community often gets cut in half.

All of the factors I have mentioned push young Muslims in these communities towards extremist mullahs and snake oil salesmen. The chief message of Islamist extremist is "life sucks? Government not what you want? Want power? -Allah is the answer! Down with the infidels!" It creates extreme danger for anyone in Europe. Moderate Muslim voices get drowned out or become afraid of being killed themselves. The powers that be react like idiots and try to contain the violence when they should be looking within and changing the laws as well as providing an alternative to absolute secularist beliefs (I believe Justice Souter said it best when he mentioned the law should make no preference to irreligion vs. religion and vice versa.) The people should stop being made afraid by suicide bombers somehow: their fear and racism feeds dishonest politicians and causes the noose to tighten with more restrictive laws and the cycle begins anew. Personally , I pity the poor deluded man who gets suckered into losing his life for Allah: he cannot see what is really going on around him.

I believe that the spiral of violence in Europe will be worse than ours, if ours comes. Europe likes to wag its finger at America, but has not been ever told to look within, at least not seriously (nobody, and certainly no textbooks, have ever said a peep about the racism of colonialism and how it lingers silently in Europe.) I don't speak of political correctness: that is a fool's game. I do however speak of the BBC not broadcasting shows that tell racist jokes and degenerating the tone of the work into something near a minstrel show or Margaret Thatcher's daughter calling somebody a golliwog like it was nothing. I do speak of street signs with the names of French authors (and ONLY French authors) denoting the alleys of council flats with no respect for the culture of the people that live there. (France is noted for its cuisine, but its cuisine has gotten very lazy over the past century and has not had much innovation. On their doorstep, they have peoples bearing recipes from Morocco, West Africa, Egypt, and others....and stupidly they do not draw anything from it nor allow an Arab to run a five star restaurant.) I have an odd feeling that what we've seen with the riot in Paris a few years ago is just the beginning.....

It was mentioned in the first half of Mary Kate's post that new borders drawn within the old Ottoman Empire resulted in greater tribal feuds. This is true, but I think that, to understand why there is a propensity for violence within the muslim faith that exists as it does today, we have to know why these feuds began. As with most things, if we understand the motivation behind why something happens, we better understand how to address it.

Within the three major monotheistic faiths: Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, the Islamic religious text, the Quran, was the last written. Generally, muslims are encouraged to read the texts of both Judaism and Christianity as a part of their faith teachings. But the Quran, because it is the last book written, is considered the final edit, so to speak. If anything in the Quran contradicts what is said in the Bible or in the Torah, the Quran is considered the correct version and Muhammad the most holy prophet.

A sort of Cliff's notes of Cliff's notes explanation of the politics of the Ottoman Empire is that the leader of the Empire was a Caliph--a man believed an acceptable successor to Muhammad who was both a religious and political leader. Religion and politics were not separate entities--important to know when trying to communicate with international diplomacy with this region presently. Western styles of compartmentalizing and separating political decisions from religious beliefs are both terribly foreign and, in the perspective of a devout muslim, sacreligious at times.

When the Ottoman Empire disbanded, thus ending the rulings of the Caliphate, tribal feuds began. One of the issues battled was how a Caliph should be chosen (ability to lead vs. descend from Muhammad). These tribes have names most of us are now familiar with--Sunni, Sufi, Shi'ite. Under these branches are other sects.

However, political warring within the muslim world aside, it needs to be understood that, if a political or religious group that is not muslim attacks a muslim country or group, muslims will come together to fight the common enemy.

The general muslim belief is that on the Day of Judgment, individuals will be judged soley according to their deeds.

To marry all of this to the psychology of Jihad: Jihad is the struggle towrad the Islamic goal of "reforming the earth." Its prescribed purpose is the assumption of political power in order to implement the principles of Islam through public institutions.

Remember, Quran teaching is that a person's eternal salvation is based on deeds. The Quran is also believed the final and definitive holy book. This is unarguable. So, for example, if one says that God's concern is love, an Islamic response might be that, yes, in part, but the Quran's final word teaches that God also requires Jihad when needed. And because the belief is that entry to Heaven is based solely on deeds, a muslim will do what he has been taught because that is what is required of him. And since there is a long history of unification between politics and religion, the resulting psychology is that a muslim man or woman does not feel an allegience, necessarily, to the government of the country where he or she lives. The allegience is to Allah, who sometimes requires jihad and puts the burden of entry into Heaven on the deeds of that person. (There are a couple of caveats to that judgment I could write about later if any one is interested enough.)

Another thing I'd like to add to Mary Kate's brilliant analysis of postWWII Europe, is that since the 1970s European nations have been inviting Turks into their countries (most predominantly in Germany, Austria, & Central European nations). Think of them like Mexicans coming into the US. They were invited for the same reasons: they needed people to do the work no one wanted to do. Now add to this that most European nationalities are on a decline in birth rate. They're all worried that within a few years they'll vanish or become a minority in their own country. The Turks who have come to the country are flourishing just as much as second or third generation Mexicans are in the USA, and along with the Ukranians (whom the rest of Europe is jealous of) are a growing nationality.

~Chas'88

To Roadbldr I will say merely that Bin Laden would be delighted if Europe started trying to expel Muslims, as well. I am not so pessimistic about Europe, but there is a latent danger there. And I support the French anti-political correctness stance regarding street names, etc. If you want to live in France, be French. Indeed we could use a little more of that here.

Europe is jealous of Ukrainians? Why? The country is an economic basket case (which is in all likelihood going to drag Austria -- it's major financier -- down in the next couple years). And politically, it's practically a banana republic.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked Kyiv (and ukrainian girls are cut from the same cloth as russian ones). But I can't imagine what they have to inspire jealousy from Europeans...

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Another thing I'd like to add to Mary Kate's brilliant analysis of postWWII Europe, is that since the 1970s European nations have been inviting Turks into their countries (most predominantly in Germany, Austria, & Central European nations). Think of them like Mexicans coming into the US. They were invited for the same reasons: they needed people to do the work no one wanted to do. Now add to this that most European nationalities are on a decline in birth rate. They're all worried that within a few years they'll vanish or become a minority in their own country. The Turks who have come to the country are flourishing just as much as second or third generation Mexicans are in the USA, and along with the Ukranians (whom the rest of Europe is jealous of) are a growing nationality.

~Chas'88

One issue that I'd like to add is that in some of these countries, the immigrants don't have a clear path to citizenship. IIRC, the children of Turkish immigrants, who were born in Germany, are not citizens and don't have the full rights. I don't know about other countries.

That is a big difference between at least some countries in Europe and the States.

One reason for that difference is that the U.S. is a nation that self-defines according to a set of ideals. Most European nations, in contrast, self-define according to ancestry and territory, and ultimately according to race. England is the land of the Anglo-Saxons, France of the Franks, Germany of various Germanic peoples, etc. A person from anywhere in the world can therefore move to the U.S., assimilate our culture, accept our ideals, and become an American, and his children, who are born and grew up here, can do that even more easily. It doesn't matter who their ancestors are or that they aren't racially Americans because American identity is not racial.

I'm not sure what the solution is for Europe, except maybe to define an EU citizenship arching above that of England, France, Germany, Italy, etc. which would be defined by acceptance of a common culture and set of principles rather the way U.S. citizenship is defined.

Russia is pretty similar to the US in that regard -- likely for much of the same reason. A child born there of foreign parents doesn't necessarily get automatic citizenship because, unlike in the USA, until a child reaches a certain age of majority, they aren't considered to have citizenship independent of their parents. But being born in Russia, as may be the case with most other broadly-multiethnic states, confers the right to RF citizenship upon attaining majority, no matter what the nationality of your parents or the other circumstances of your birth.

The EU-passport is a step in the direction of that broad multiethnicity. Except that, you know, there is no such thing yet as an EU passport (that is, one for the union, rather than being for one of the components of it). So it's a rather large step, and most likely still a ways off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews


"John Patrick Bedell, whose doomed, cross-country odyssey ended in a brief gun battle outside the Pentagon Thursday night, was a well-educated but troubled student of science, economy and society who "had gone off the deep end" and believed that the United States was controlled by a sinister organization leading it toward a new dark age, according to friends and Internet postings attributed to him.
...

It's not clear exactly when Bedell, a thin, soft-spoken man with blond hair and light eyes, began his journey to Washington. He drove a green 1998 Toyota Avalon, which police found in the parking garage of the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City. A cache of ammunition was found in the car.

Bedell left behind numerous written, video and audio manifestos on the Internet. In an audio address, he suggested that the U.S. was infiltrated by a cabal of gangsters called the "coup regime" after the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He believed the group was probably behind such things as the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the Iraq war, and continued to manipulate the country "up to the present day."

In recent years, in conversations with friends and in Internet postings, which appear to be his, Bedell spoke often and at length about social issues and what he saw as attacks on personal liberty. He was especially irked by criminal penalties for marijuana use, said Reb Monaco, who has known Bedell since Bedell was a child. Bedell had not expressed hostility toward the military, Monaco said.

The thing that bothers me about this, is that one can take a single item from this poor man's cogitations, and find it on one or another radio talk show most any day of the week. The trouble is, when they are all strung together in one fevered mind, it seems to manifest in suicidal violence that can easily take other lives, as in the plane flown into the IRS building recently.

I'm often reminded of the character played by Russel Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind" who developed the ability to find conspiratorial "patterns" in almost anything.

What concerns me is that we seem to be building a society in which many are taught that "common sense" is superior to education and experience in rational thought, in reading books by real thinkers, and superior to fact and data based logic. In return these folks are offered superstition and the opportunity to belong to groups that feed on emotional content and call it reality.

I'm afraid that these loonies are going to be more and more commonplace in the 4T as it unfolds, and that the scope and variety of violent actions can only be imagined at this point.

Originally Posted by TnT

What concerns me is that we seem to be building a society in which many are taught that "common sense" is superior to education and experience in rational thought, in reading books by real thinkers, and superior to fact and data based logic. In return these folks are offered superstition and the opportunity to belong to groups that feed on emotional content and call it reality.

I'm afraid that these loonies are going to be more and more commonplace in the 4T as it unfolds, and that the scope and variety of violent actions can only be imagined at this point.

These people are trying to find simple explanations to complex problems, which leads them to 'blame the government.'

Bedell happens to be the name of a family that was prominent in my old neighborhood for a long time; their name survives in at least two streets, and in a funeral home.

Originally Posted by TnT

The thing that bothers me about this, is that one can take a single item from this poor man's cogitations, and find it on one or another radio talk show most any day of the week. The trouble is, when they are all strung together in one fevered mind, it seems to manifest in suicidal violence that can easily take other lives, as in the plane flown into the IRS building recently... (Snip)

I'm afraid that these loonies are going to be more and more commonplace in the 4T as it unfolds, and that the scope and variety of violent actions can only be imagined at this point.

One or even two of these incidents might be dismissed. There are crazies in any time. If we start seeing more of them...

I will note these are loners. If people start forming groups, working themselves into a frenzy, and executing larger acts, that would be a major step in the spiraling up. If a significant part of the population and media approves the acts, that would be another big step. If the government or similar groups with opposite values decides that revenge or deterrence is appropriate, we'd have a real spiral.

Thing is, looking at the Oklahoma City bombings and the September 11th attacks, the conservative, liberal and main stream media cultures have been consistently denouncing terrorism as a means of promoting domestic change. For a spiral of violence to build, there needs to be a spiral of rhetoric behind it such that it isn't just way out crazy people who believe violence is justified.

This is apparently being provided, at least to some extent, by conservative radio talk show hosts?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This is apparently being provided, at least to some extent, by conservative radio talk show hosts?

This guy was clearly a left winger.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This guy was clearly a left winger.

Yah. Looking at those issues again, that seems right. I haven't been seeing as much anger slanted towards potential violence from the left lately, but this does seem like an example.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

One or even two of these incidents might be dismissed. There are crazies in any time. If we start seeing more of them...

I will note these are loners. If people start forming groups, working themselves into a frenzy, and executing larger acts, that would be a major step in the spiraling up. If a significant part of the population and media approves the acts, that would be another big step. If the government or similar groups with opposite values decides that revenge or deterrence is appropriate, we'd have a real spiral.

Thing is, looking at the Oklahoma City bombings and the September 11th attacks, the conservative, liberal and main stream media cultures have been consistently denouncing terrorism as a means of promoting domestic change. For a spiral of violence to build, there needs to be a spiral of rhetoric behind it such that it isn't just way out crazy people who believe violence is justified.

This is apparently being provided, at least to some extent, by
conservative radio talk show hosts?

When did any "conservative talk show host" advocate any violent terroristic act?

Originally Posted by Weave

When did any "conservative talk show host" advocate any violent terroristic act?

I think it's not so much what they say, but how they say it. The tone of vitriol toward their opponents feeds similar feelings in their audience, members of which could someday act out Tim McVeigh-style.

Personally I believe the far left is just as loony as the far right, regarding their ideas themselves. However, most of the truly hateful rhetoric is coming from the right, which ultimately is what makes them the more dangerous party.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This guy was clearly a left winger.

This guy was mentally ill.

Originally Posted by Weave

When did any "conservative talk show host" advocate any violent terroristic act?

Ann Coulter isn't a host but she's a frequent guest. She often says that while she doesn't believe in killing doctors who perform abortions, she doesn't condemn those who do. Good enough?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I think it's not so much what they say, but how they say it. The tone of vitriol toward their opponents feeds similar feelings in their audience, members of which could someday act out Tim McVeigh-style.

Personally I believe the far left is just as loony as the far right, regarding their ideas themselves. However, most of the truly hateful rhetoric is coming from the right, which ultimately is what makes them the more dangerous party.

Gimme a break, they are no more vitriolic than the lunatics on MSNBC, Airhead America (now defunct) and even NPR....
Hardly dangerous....

Originally Posted by Weave

Gimme a break, they are no more vitriolic than the lunatics on MSNBC, Airhead America (now defunct) and even NPR....
Hardly dangerous....

Oh yes they are. Watch their eyes.

In contrast, the far left is absurdly idealistic, naive and misguided... which I suppose is indirectly dangerous if only because their often-nutty ideas may convince reasonable people that hard right is the way to go.

Another article on the Oath Keepers:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/14576...party_movement

Anyone who thinks MSNBC and NPR are "left-wing" are idiots. MSNBC is owned by GE and NPR has been cowed by a RW infaltration of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and corporate "donations" (AKA, bribes).

Originally Posted by Odin

Anyone who thinks MSNBC and NPR are "left-wing" are idiots. MSNBC is owned by GE and NPR has been cowed by a RW infaltration of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and corporate "donations" (AKA, bribes).

Well, duh. In America, we don't have a real left-wing.