Schools of thought about the sources of terrorism

[Al Kufr]

This commentary describes the schools of thought about the cause of Islamic attacks on the west. This is from a website that is full of paleo-conservative types,

So you can imagine what school of thought they subscribe to.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c539.htm

The first one, which he calls "the most primitive”, is the one that most Objectivists are in. And it says:

The first, and most primitive, posits that terrorism is simply a product of the Islamic religion and culture.

I know this is not the whole argument because it doesn’t say anything about western appeasement of the terrorists. This is just a short description.

The article also points out the religious conservatives that also subscribe to this school of thought, for the wrong reasons of course.

To its credit, the Bush Administration has not adopted this line, although many of its most fervent supporters have, particularly those who believe in the coming Apocalypse and the consequent purification of culture and morals.

The article that this comment is based on also tries to claim that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam or Arab culture.

I don't use the phrase "Islamic terrorism" because "Islamic" refers to the essentials of the religion, and it forbids terrorism (hirabah). But if Bush rejected the idea that radical Muslim terrorism came out of religion or culture, he was right.

Now the second argument is the one that Neo-Cons and George Bush subscribe to.

The second posits that terrorism is a consequence of authoritarianism, stagnation, and repression, and therefore democratic reform of these authoritarian societies is the key to ending systemic terror. This is the line of argument now used rhetorically by the Bush Administration to justify its policies in the Middle East, its invasion of Iraq, and the conduct of its war on terror.

The second school of thought makes the mistake of not making any connection to the state of the Arab world and the ideas that give rise to it. Namely that the reason WHY the Middle East is full of authoritarian societies is BECAUSE of Islamic religion and culture.

The third argument is the one that libertarians, paleo-conservatives and leftist argue.

The third school posits that terrorism is the historical result of foreign occupation and meddling, such as the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the West Bank; the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; and now, the US occupation of Iraq. This view is held by most Arabs, particularly the Arab elites in journalism and academia, as well as many scholars in the west.

In contrast, authoritarian governments like that of Iraq and Syria, while they might use terror for their own purposes from time to time, did not produce large-scale independent terrorist organizations that struck international targets. Authoritarian governments also proved adept at effectively crushing terrorist groups, as can be seen in Algeria and Egypt. It was only in failed states such as Afghanistan that they could flourish, not in authoritarian ones.

I agree with this part, since authoritarians governments don’t have to worry about violating anybody’s civil liberties; their intelligence agencies don’t have any restrictions placed on them. They have complet freedom to do what ever they want; including crushing any opposition.

I'm all for democratization in the Middle East, as a good in its own right. But I don't believe that authoritarian governance produced most episodes of terrorism in the last 60 years in the region. Terrorism was a weapon of the weak wielded against what these radical Muslims saw as a menacing foreign occupation. To erase that fact is to commit a basic error in historical understanding. It is why the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is actually a negative for any "war on terror." Nor do I believe that democratization, even if it is possible, is going to end terrorism in and of itself.

I agree with the last part, nothing short of a massive intellectual revolution is going to change the middle east. Just introducing democracy won't get anything done.

You want to end terrorism? End unjust military occupations. By all means have Syria conduct an orderly withdrawal from Lebanon if that is what the Lebanese public wants. But Israel needs to withdraw from the Golan Heights, which belong to Syria, as well. The Israeli military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank must be ended. The Russian scorched-earth policy in Chechnya needs to stop. Some just disposition of the Kashmir issue must be attained, and Indian enormities against Kashmiri Muslims must stop. The U.S. needs to conduct an orderly and complete withdrawal from Iraq. And when all these military occupations end, there will be some hope for a vast decrease in terrorism. People need a sense of autonomy and dignity, and occupation produces helplessness and humiliation. Humiliation is what causes terrorism.

Is there any legitimacy to the Libertarian, Paleo-Conservative and Liberal arguments? Do you think that if we just left the Middle East alone Al quaida and other terrorists groups would dissolve?

Leonard Peikoff argued that all terrorism was state sponsored, but I don’t agree with this. Do drug cartels need the support of the government in order to function?They do very well and they get no support from the American goverment.

Does anybody know any other schools of thoughts besides these?

Edited March 14, 2005 by Al Kufr

[EC]

It seems these are all really one school of thought with the last two divorced from their predecessors because the people who use them don't know how to think properly. That is the really scary thing not, even more scary than the terrorism itself, because it shows the total intellectual bankruptcy of a very large group of people in the world. A group of people that for some reason can only see effects while ignoring the causes.

[Iakeo]

This commentary describes the schools of thought about the cause of Islamic attacks on the west. This is from a website that is full of paleo-conservative types,

So you can imagine what school of thought they subscribe to.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c539.htm...

The source of "terrorism" is the pathology that states "I can do whatever I like to

make reality into my idea of what reality should be regardless of what reality is

actually like."

In other words, acting out of want without regard (putting in the necessary work)

to how reality works.

Just "leaving them alone" is a recipe for emboldening a mind that thinks, "Cool!

Any time they back off I win..!!"

I don't know the reasoning as to Piekoff's comment, so I have no idea where that

is coming from.

All of the "schools of thought" are right in some ways, and wrong in other ways.

What is you actual question here?

-Iakeo

[Hal]

What reason is there to believe that there is one source of terrorism, or even a primary source? While Islamism would certainly be one of the factors responsible, claiming that it is the only factor ignores related questions such as why attacks have intensified so much recently, and why America is taken to be the prime target.

Al Kufr

Leonard Peikoff argued that all terrorism was state sponsored, but I don’t agree with this. Do drug cartels need the support of the government in order to function?They do very well and they get no support from the American goverment.

I agree with your underlying point but this is a strange example; if it were not for the government created market these cartels monopolise, it's unlikely they would have the same level of success. Edited March 15, 2005 by Hal

[Iakeo]

What reason is there to believe that there is one source of terrorism, or even a primary source? While Islamism would certainly be one of the factors responsible, claiming that it is the only factor ignores related questions such as why attacks have intensified so much recently, and why America is taken to be the prime target.

I agree with your underlying point but this is a strange example; if it were not for the government created market these cartels monopolise, it's unlikely they would have the same level of success.

Could the reason that Piekoff stated that "all terrorism was state sponsored" be

because his definition of "state" was any collectivist entity, which a fascist

organization like a drug cartel (ie groups of groups of thugs) would certainly be?

Just a random thought.

-Iakeo

[Strangelove]

I prefer Thomas L. Friedman's assesment of Terrorism as opposed to those who believe that it is simply because of Islam or because of State Sponsorship. Both of which are factors, but not defining factors.

I believe that terrorism is similar to Bolshevism.

The 1917 Bolshevick Revolution was not a massed uprising, but a coup via the inteligentsia. You had a bunch of Ivory Tower socialists living in a weak, backward, and war torn country. Thus, Lenin and his small group of party comrades could take Petrograd, and then slowly but surely move on to secure the rest of the country. All the while, making use of the lower classes less as "motor" or the revolution, but more as an adjunct. The use of strikes, encourgaing workers to take over factories, etc, in other words, a very small minority pushing around uneducated and desperate poor people.

Osama Bin Ladin is the modern day Lenin. He has the money and the brains, he hides out in weak and fragile states who dont so much "sponsor" him so much as they can't do anything about him. He recuits from nations which are socially, economically, and politically, backwards. He gets European Muslims to train and plan, while he uses Arab Muslims to fly the planes.

Weak states that allow super-empowered individuals like Osama Bin Ladin to plan and direct, that is the cause of modern day terrorism.

Edited April 27, 2005 by Strangelove

[ex_banana-eater]

Osama Bin Ladin is the modern day Lenin. He has the money and the brains, he hides out in weak and fragile states who dont so much "sponsor" him so much as they can't do anything about him.

So these states give him shelter, money, and weapons because they don't have the money and weapons to take him down?

[Strangelove]

Though I see what you mean, I was thinking in my original post along the idea of States like Pakistan which can not adequately control their northern territories.

I do not deny that State Sponsored Terrorism exists, I just believe that instability is just as much as cause as State Sponsorship.