High finance
Mary Madigan
The postmodern terrorist doesn't have to win local hearts and minds...he just needs a degree from the London School of Economics:
In describing his guerrilla army, Mao Tse-tung used an aquatic analogy: "Guerrillas are the fish, and the population is the sea in which they swim." He realized that a neutral, if not supportive populace was essential to guerrilla success. Once the majority was swayed to at least tolerate the guerrillas, then only a small portion need be committed to the cause to achieve victory. Today's Islamofascist terrorists are ignoring Mao's dictum in dealing with populations — witness the atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians by terrorists occupying Fallujah and Tal Afar — and in so doing have alienated themselves from the populations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This arrogance will in time contribute to their failure...more..But the terrorists have applied his metaphor assiduously to the financial sphere, for the modern Islamofascist terrorist movement swims in the rich waters of international finance. Far from being poor, ignorant peasants as many in the West fancifully envision the terrorists, these men and their organizations are highly sophisticated, technologically aware, and extraordinarily adept at moving money within the intricate web of international financial institutions. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of these terrorists is that many of the most virulently anti-Western have matriculated in British and American institutions of higher learning. More than one detainee in Guantanamo has an advanced degree in international finance from schools such as the London School of Economics. Admission standards may have changed, but one does not reasonably expect to find a simple Afghani opium farmer conscripted by the Taliban to be on the roster of distinguished graduates.
This article reminded me of an online conversation I'd had with a left-leaning British commenter, Franky, on Jeff Jarvis' site, Buzzmachine. This conversation took place a short time after the 7/7 bombings in London, and it was mostly about Franky's belief that 'society' was to blame for the bombers' actions:
The problem with the stupidty of they hate our freedom argument is that it will lead us on the wrong path when we try to understand this threat. Equally the argument that these are evil people. Let's take an example: the morons get in control and refuse to look at anything more than these are "evil people" - subsequently we'll be looking for people with history of violence, with criminal records, sociopathic personalities etc. When in fact as we're seeing with these london bombers one of them dedicated much of his time to charity. To search and root out and destroy the people and causes of these bombings is too serious to be left to people who struggle to formulate an argument longer than a bumper-sticker.I assume he was talking about British-born Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was sentenced to death for abducting and murdering US journalist Daniel Pearl. Omar Saeed Sheikh went to the London School of Economics.
Posted by Franky at July 13, 2005 03:11 PM..Franky, apparently, a university educated terrorist believes that a middle-or upper class lifestyle in a multicultural, democratic nation doesn’t offer them 'enough'.
What is it about a multicultural democracy that is so disappointing?
Posted by mary at July 13, 2005 04:57 PMBecause it's not seen as fulfilling enough, these are people who search for a purpose beyond working each day and picking up a paycheck. This disillusionment with everyday life is common in all cultures, but it is taken to lethal degress when mixed with wahabbi-funded preachers who seek to guide these impressionable young men to take murderous actions. I remember a group that shared all the values of the taleban at my university that woud target unhappy muslims. They sought to offer them answers, solutions to this exitensial depression. Then a guy who started a few years after me went on to kill Daniel Pearl.
Posted by Franky at July 13, 2005 05:05 PM
I guess if you want to find a truly wretched hive of scum and jihadism, you don't have to travel to the Middle East. Just hop on the Picadilly line, get off at the Holbern station, take a five minute walk and you're there.
By removing the problematic elements of their culture, it moderates the religious influences (just like Christian and Judaism have been moderated by changes to our culture over time) and makes them much less likely to incite the murderous qualities which have been noted here.
What is wrong with their culture? Well, things like corruption, leaders who care only about aggrandizing themselves, lack of personal responsibility, overwhelming emphasis on "face", etc. There's a reason most middle-eastern countries are so dysfunctional I think. Lack of proper leadership is a big part of it.
How are we aiming to solve this? Show Afghans and Iraqis that they CAN have a great country if they try, and show them how to achieve it. They will gain "face", be proud of their country and their leaders, combat corruption and overall have a happier and healthier society. Hopefully it will spread as others look at it and think "hey, we can do that too!".
At least, that's my hope. It's a long shot. I think it's working though. I'm also sure what I've said is pretty controversial on many levels.
Very true. It always works that way. The Communists in America who did the most damage to our country were not ragged proletarians but men of wealth, education, and influence, men like Alger Hiss, Owen Lattimore, Harry Dexter White, etc.. Riots, revolutions, terrorism, Communism are not spontaneous uprisings of the downtrodden masses, but are instead created, planned and organized by men of wealth, education, and influence.
"Let's take an example: the morons get in control and refuse to look at anything more than these are "evil people" - subsequently we'll be looking for people with history of violence, with criminal records, sociopathic personalities etc. When in fact as we're seeing with these london bombers one of them dedicated much of his time to charity."
The worst butchers in history have not been the criminals we read about in the newpapers when they are apprehended by the police, but the "humanitarians with the guillotine" who will do or advocate anything and everything in the name of altruism, of collectivism.
"Franky, apparently, a university educated terrorist believes that a middle-or upper class lifestyle in a multicultural, democratic nation doesn’t offer them 'enough'.
What is it about a multicultural democracy that is so disappointing?"
Two things are needed, as Whittaker Chembers put it so well: a reason to live and a reason to die. What we are facing is a spiritual crisis. To fight this totalitarianized Islam, we of the West must rediscover the Christian roots of our freedom. We need a revival of faith in the saving dogma of the infinite significance, the immortal destiny, of the individual soul.
I agree but not 100%. The way I would phrase it is "we need to understand the importance of our Christan values and ensure we adhere to them". I say Christian values because, for example, I am not a Christian but I believe I have Christian values. So do Jews, and many Hindus, Buddhists and others.
One of the original reasons I believe religions began was in an attempt to create a set of rules people could live by. The Ten Commandments are one example. Most of them are not strictly religious commandments; most of them are commonsense rules for societal harmony. I very strongly believe in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "love thy neighbour", etc. despite not being Christian per se, and I think those of us who are not religious should be able to find compelling reasons why these should be the case.
As someone pointed out earlier (Dean?), they're artefacts of an enlightened self-interest. We realise that by treating others well we are doing what is also good for us.
I don't think Islam is any more incompatible with Christian values than Christianity itself is, but the followers have to rationalise it. That's why I argued in an earlier comment that social change is what is required. These people will learn that their religion is not incompatible with our values, which I believe will also be their values, once they try them out.
I don't think it's a question of shoving anything down anyone's throat, rather it's a question of showing them how life can be with freedom and civility and letting them choose which path they prefer. I think and hope they (as a society) will choose the same path we have once they have the opportunity.
The first step in fighting the ideology is to define it, identify the people who are spreading it, then, to condemn and fight it. That's why we need to learn about the extremists within Islam - to find them and destroy them.
That's why the conversation with Franky (despite his typically leftist contempt for freedom, Americans, etc.) was so interesting. The Islamists are like the Nazis, with their supremacist philosophy, their need for lebensraum, their contempt for other cultures. The only difference between them and the Nazis is, they hide. He was right about one thing - they're not the people with criminal records - they're economists, university graduates.
If we arrested, or otherwise took out of the picture every person who attends an extremist mosque AND has attended the London School of Economics, we would probably wipe out a major part of their operation. Human rights groups, who rarely complain about the genocide in the Sudan or apartheid sharia law would also complain, as would the UN. But they complain about everything. Otherwise, it would probably work.
Speaking about Muslims in general, since they're often the victims of these terrorist attacks, killing more terrorists is probably the best way to win their hearts and minds.
What good are Christian values if they do not reveal the identity and purpose of their author so that we may strive to please Him? What I am saying, if you divorce God from religion then the values of that religion are no more important than any other value system. Surely there must be more to it than that. Either a belief system had intrinsic value beyond it's words or it doesn't. The teachings of the Bible are not exaustive nor are they intended to be. They are but the first step into a relationship with the living God.
If Christian values are worth upholding they must be embody something more than a simple moral code. Otherwise religious calls to terrorism are on equal footing with, "Love thy neighbor." Both are meaningless unless they express the will of something greater than man himself.
Christian values are good because they improve the fabric of our society. It seems to me you're pointing out that my values are worthless because I don't worship a God; I don't really understand why the manner in which I express spirituality should undermine the way I interact with others.
I don't worship any deity, and I don't expect to have any kind of afterlife, but if there does happen to be one and I end up being judged, I would hope I am judged based upon my actions and not my beliefs. (I would actively refuse to be judged upon my beliefs even if that would make me "right" - it seems like a cop-out to me.) My belief system dictates my actions; my actions are what make my life something other than meaningless. If I am kind to someone, should they care whether I think Jesus is my saviour, or just an extraordinary human being? Surely what matters is what they (and I) get out of the exchange.
You can excuse anything by saying that God tells you to do it (look at the Spanish Inquisition or, to a lesser extent, the Crusades). That doesn't make it right. Was the Inquisition really God's work, or was it just some men excusing their evil by invoking His name? I would argue the latter.
It's the pathalogical cases (which have happened more than once in the past with most religions) which are the problem. Fanaticism and isolation tend to do bad things for belief systems.
Only when the 'west' decides to take on those terror appologist and west haters in our midst will we truly be tackling terrorism. Until then, we'll be exporting Western ideals so that when we fall (at the direct hands of those 'westerners' that teach our young and stupid to hate us for being rich, smart, powerful and hardworking) we will survive. Much as Rome did to her Empire.
Excellent.
Kevin D. is right. The ethics of Jesus Christ cannot be divorced from the theology of Christ. The Jesus who said "inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me" was at the same time speaking of the Last Judgement, Heaven, and Hell, which cannot be divorced from His Apocalyptic scenario in Matthew 24.
The oft-quoted "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is the second commandment of Jesus. The first is "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy soul and heart and mind and strength."
There are also His claims to Divinity. An "extraordinary human being"? To a secular mind, most of His statements and parables look like raving lunacy.
Is it really impossible to read the Bible and get something good out of it without taking it so literally?
I don't understand your argument. My philosophy would not be the same as it is without some religious influences, yet I decided long ago that religion wasn't for me. It's not that I adopt those influences for religious reasons; rather, I thought about the things which religions teach and decided I liked them for my own rasons. Are you saying that I have to either take up religion or give up my beliefs?