Friday, July 06, 2007

Variation As A Constant

We've had some discussions in the past, on Islamists and what kind of people the message they put out, seems to attract (most recently here). So, anyone who has deemed this kind of thing interesting enough to explore it further, here is an article that is worthy of some consideration.

The article is quite extensive in for a short space of words. It attempts to look at many of the inconsistencies that exist in the jihadist world, as it describes the different socioeconomic backgrounds that have found their way into this movement.

While some of us maintain economic reasons are a primary source of motivation, I can agree that it is a factor in some cases but not all. There have been many Palestinian suicide bombers that come from families that are very common and some cases in poverty. But if we are to lend any credibility to this article, we must also accept that the brains of the operations are not uneducated and underprivileged people. Many do have college degrees in field that require some intelligence to master, enough to acquire this education. In addition to this, they also had to have the financial resources to pay for it. I am not sure there are extensive government programs for poor people in countries like Syria, Iran, or others.

The other interesting thing to note in this is, it is starting to look like al-Qaeda (et al.) is trying to adjust their strategy a bit. Knowing that a common misconception is now permeating the conventional wisdom, knowing there is a misunderstanding of what is a typical terrorist, they have decided not to employ these people except maybe as decoys. They seem more willing to use people that have become disaffected for reasons other than economic ones.

But more than anything, it is very important to understand something. With all of these inconsistencies that we can identify and analyze, there still is one constant. The people that are taking up the jihadist struggle, all claim Islam as their religion. Whether they are or whether they are not, is irrelevant. They all claim it and claim it proudly.

By expanding their use of all types, they can widen the circle of suspicion and file more lawsuits when the authorities try to investigate them. They all can complain to CAIR that more people of their faith are being targeted unjustly.


And as they adjust, so must we.

We must be prepared to realize that there is not one leading indicator other than these people all claim to be doing the will of Allah by killing infidels. With that in mind, we should know that variations in backgrounds, nationalities, and other demographics will be the constant.

Understanding these people and why they do what they do is important, and with time we are learning more and more about them. But, there are things we already know, things that some are still not ready to accept. More importantly, we must allow ourselves the ability to stop these people before they cause harm. When we do this, it is then we learn things that can help us understand the profiles of such people, by tracing their paths backward.

10 comments:

Greg said...

Once we are ready to admit to ourselves that the common thread among terrorists is simply their shared fundamentalist view of the Koran, then we can begin to so something about it.

Eg., we can identify the fundamentalist mosques and groups in our own country, and we can start watching them, identifying their members, and tracking their activities. We can, more importantly, press our "friends" in the arab world to do the same in their country. Of course, since they are mostly the kinds of friends that don't like us, and only respond to threat & reward, we'll have to threaten and reward them for shutting down fundamentalist mosques and schools. Big problem though: most mosques and most schools in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are just those types of hate mongering establishments. We have a long way to go.

But step one is admitting the core issue: fundamentalist Islam. We must destroy it.

Mark said...

This morning I read this interesting psychological piece, via The Agitator. Amongst some other interesting notes, I learned that the reason all suicide bombers are Muslim is that they are sexually frustrated....

"What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all."

"So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region."

"However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing ... The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser."


So there you go, LA. It's simple psychological analysis of the basic biological practice of maintaining one's genes through hoarding of women.....

Easy! :)

Check out the other interesting points here.

A.C. McCloud said...

"However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing ... The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser."

An excellent point, and most overlooked in this whole debate. The key seems to be Muslim women gaining independence from their current shackles. Although admittedly this might not make the men any happier in the long run, at least the field might open up without forced marriages.

But it could also involve a pride issue, especially for the Arab Muslims (who seem to do most of the damage). I sometimes wonder exactly how and why Islam came to be, for example.

LASunsett said...

Some good points made my all, for sure.

Greg,

//we can identify the fundamentalist mosques and groups in our own country, and we can start watching them, identifying their members, and tracking their activities.//

1. We will have to infiltrate them and gather enough evidence to know whether or not this is the specific case with a certain mosque or not.

2. Even at that, we have to be careful. Freedom of religion is an important guarantee of the Constitution and I do not want that to become a slippery slope with others. Because we all know CAIR and the likes will go ballistic when that happens and to be "fair" about it, some bleeding heart will start demanding we do it for all religions. The next target would likely be fundamental Christians (which would be okay if they were trying to kill other Americans, but despite how dangerous the Left seems to think they are, they are clearly not)

LASunsett said...

Mark,

For all of your anti-government Ron Paul type hardcore libertarian (me, I am more of a Boortz type) rhetoric you put out sometimes, you hit a good nail right on the head with this point. ;)

This is something that the Chinese may soon be feeling the pinch of soon too. With the restrictions on the number of children, girl babies are sometimes sent to the US for adoption or killed. I predict the woman shortage will be a cause of some serious restlessness there, in a few years. Hell, they are already in an arms build up, when that time comes, they will be ready to start something somewhere, with someone.

LASunsett said...

AC,

//The key seems to be Muslim women gaining independence from their current shackles.//

This will be tough. Because you know well and good, they are going to claim that this is their culture and we are being arrogant for trying to assert our ways into their culture. But, like you, I think it's one factor that must be considered.

//But it could also involve a pride issue, especially for the Arab Muslims (who seem to do most of the damage).//

Pakistanis are becoming increasingly dangerous. Arabs may be doing much of the damage in some areas, but in Britain I think it's more south central Asians.

A.C. McCloud said...

Pakistanis are becoming increasingly dangerous. Arabs may be doing much of the damage in some areas, but in Britain I think it's more south central Asians.

True. I wouldn't be surprised if the Afghan Arabs who came to fight the Soviets radicalized the Pakistanis, who don't the same long track record of international terrorism. Of course I left out the Persians, who've done just fine in that area. But they are close to Arabia..

Mark said...

For all of your anti-government Ron Paul type hardcore libertarian (me, I am more of a Boortz type) rhetoric you put out sometimes..

sheesh LA, you make it sound like I release videos showing me cradling an AK with my face covered with a bandanna spouting anarchistic sweet nothings....

:)

I just read Boortz's FAQ and bio on his webpage. Sounds pretty good. How is he different from a "hardcore" Ron Paul?

By the way, I think Ron Paul winning the nomination would be a fantastic thing for our country. Open up the viewpoints of many who just believe we've got big spending Republicans and big spending Democrats and don't know anything else. He's exciting. And yes, I'm on the Ron Paul bandwagon, ever since he slaughtered Guiliani using just common sense at the debates...

LASunsett said...

AC

//I wouldn't be surprised if the Afghan Arabs who came to fight the Soviets radicalized the Pakistanis, who don't the same long track record of international terrorism.//

This is precisely what happened. I think if you did some digging, you'd find that Saudi Wahhabis are the culprits and not just with the Pakistanis, but the Indonesians, Malaysians, and Filipino racial elements, as well.

LASunsett said...

Mark,

//How is he different from a "hardcore" Ron Paul?//

You won't hear Boortz making a comment like this:

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there.

Also I think he understands the need for the rule of law much better than Ron Paul does.