| Author |
Topic:
The root causes of terrorism
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/26 9:03am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Vader666 posted:
You made the incorrect assertion that since Bin Laden is a Sunni muslim his actions are not religiously motivated. Sunnism is an Islamic religious sect just like Shiism. They just have a different political system.
No, I didn't assert that. Read what I wrote again:Kimball_Kinnison posted:
Remember, bin Laden is a Sunni, not a Shi'a, and that would further demolish arguments that al Qaeda (and related groups) is a religious-based organization.
I didn't assert that they are not religiously motivated, nor did I assert that al Qaeda is not religiously based. I pointed out that the fact that Sunnis viewed the Caliph as the political leader, and bin Laden being a Sunni wanting to reestablish the Caliphate, would "further demolish" arguments that it is a religious-based organization.
In other words, I did not assert it as fact. I demonstrated that it provides a logical link to the conclusion.
When you assert something, you declare it to be true, without providing any supporting evidence to back it up. When you provide a fact, you are providing a piece of information along with its accompanying source. Alternately, all parties may agree that an assertion is considered a fact if none of them object to it. (Essentially, if everyone agrees on a point, there is no need to back it up as it is not a point of contention.) When you make an argument you start with a fact and then demonstrate each logical step used to arrive at the conclusion.
Your posts have been almost completely composed of you asserting things to be true, with no supporting evidence. You have repeatedly asserted that terrorism is religiously based, and several of us have objected to that assertion. At this point, it then falls to you to provide proof of it in order for it to be accepted as the basis for an argument.
Those are the basics of any logical argument or debate. According to your profile, you are 23 and a medical student. If you haven't learned how to build and support an argument, you really should. It will greatly help you in your line of work. If you have learned how to do it, would you please start showing that here?
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
2/26 9:42am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
- Date Edited:
2/26 9:46am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
SuperWatto
|
Vader666,
You didn't answer my question (you just expanded on it), so I'll rephrase it:
You name religion as a root cause of terrorism. Why, then, are there 100 times as many religious folks who don't practice terrorism as there are those that do?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vader666
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/26 10:01am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
I didn't assert that they are not religiously motivated, nor did I assert that al Qaeda is not religiously based. I pointed out that the fact that Sunnis viewed the Caliph as the political leader, and bin Laden being a Sunni wanting to reestablish the Caliphate, would "further demolish" arguments that it is a religious-based organization.
Establishment of a Caliphate is a Sunni based political system. Every religion has a political system. Al-Qaeda view the present Islamic world to be unislamic. They want re-enforcement of Sharia law and Islamic politics to return to it original state. My earlier post deals with the inadequacy of Pape's thesis that terrorist organizations emerged solely as a result of foreign occupation. Bin Laden's goal to establish a caliphate has nothing to do with foreign occupation of Muslim lands.
The 4 points I raised earlier dealing with religion being the root of these conflicts are true assertions. Terrorism emerged as a result of these conflicts not as a direct consequence of foreign occupation. The only country under foreign occupation is Palestine. The occupation of Palestine is NOT politically based. Its Jews trying regain the land they believe God gave them.
The American occupation of Iraq is politically based but again the conflict that emerged is NOT due to foreign occupiers. You seem to be taking my assertions out of context.
There is no flawed logic behind my assertions and I don't need to give you any data to back-up my claims. You're correct in saying that these are political conflicts but you seem to be ignoring the religious roots behind them.
-----signature-----
One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 21'st century
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/26 10:24am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Vader666 posted:
I didn't assert that they are not religiously motivated, nor did I assert that al Qaeda is not religiously based. I pointed out that the fact that Sunnis viewed the Caliph as the political leader, and bin Laden being a Sunni wanting to reestablish the Caliphate, would "further demolish" arguments that it is a religious-based organization.
Establishment of a Caliphate is a Sunni based political system. Every religion has a political system. Al-Qaeda view the present Islamic world to be unislamic. They want re-enforcement of Sharia law and Islamic politics to return to it original state. My earlier post deals with the inadequacy of Pape's thesis that terrorist organizations emerged solely as a result of foreign occupation. Bin Laden's goal to establish a caliphate has nothing to do with foreign occupation of Muslim lands.
Once more, you are making questionable assertions without providing any support for them.
For example, "Every religion has a political system." is a bald assertion, and you really can't back that one up. Why? Because there are quite a few religions that don't involve themselves in politics in any way. For example, last I checked, Jehovah's Witnesses were so adamant about separating Church and State (based on the "render unto Cesar" scripture of the Bible) that they prohibit their members from serving in the military or any public office.
The big problem with your attempts to discredit Pape's thesis is that you are doing so on the basis of assertion, where be built a solid factual foundation for his work. Your responses are effectively saying "You're wrong" without backing up how and why.
Vader666 posted:
The 4 points I raised earlier dealing with religion being the root of these conflicts are true assertions.
No, they are simply assertions. In order for them to be considered "true assertions" in an argument or debate they would have to be agreed to by both sides. Since obviously that's not the case, it falls to you (as the one making the assertions) to either back them up (making them facts) or retract them as unsupported. That's how logical debate works.
Vader666 posted:
The American occupation of Iraq is politically based but again the conflict that emerged is NOT due to foreign occupiers. You seem to be taking my assertions out of context.
There is no flawed logic behind my assertions and I don't need to give you any data to back-up my claims. You're correct in saying that these are political conflicts but you seem to be ignoring the religious roots behind them.
No, I reject your assertions as wrong and false. Therefore, any argument built upon them is fallacious. If you want me to accept your assertions, you do need to back them up, making them facts (or at least agreed upon stipulations).
But you haven't done that! Instead, you keep making more assertions. Assertions don't cut it. You need facts. Either back up your assertions or retract them. It's that simple.
Or, if you prefer, I can give it to you in Latin: facta non verba - "facts (deeds) not words".
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vader666
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/26 10:29am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
SuperWatto posted:
Vader666,
You didn't answer my question (you just expanded on it), so I'll rephrase it:
You name religion as a root cause of terrorism. Why, then, are there 100 times as many religious folks who don't practice terrorism as there are those that do?
So you're saying that since a majority don't practice terrorism it is not fair to assert that religion is a root cause?
I answered your question. Terrorists don't start out as Terrorists. They emerge from the majority who are moderates. The extremists cannot operate unless they have moderates backing them up. Moderation in religion leads to fanaticism. Its no good saying that since the majority are not extremists therefore religion is not a root cause.
-----signature-----
One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 21'st century
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vader666
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/26 10:49am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
KK
LostonHoth made the assertion that Pape's thesis correctly explains the development of these terrorist organizations. I'm saying that there is some truth to Pape's analysis but it is inadequate.
Let me just summarize my earlier assertions and then you tell me if they're true or false:
1. The Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq is not the direct result of foreign occupation but an ancient religious conflict.
2. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is essentially a Jewish/Muslim conflict. Jews believe that its the land that God gave them and that by retaking that land they'll be able to hasten the coming of the Messiah. Muslims are fighting for what they believe is their land.
3. Al-Qaeda did not emerge as a consequence of the Israeli conquest of Palestine but to re-establish Caliphate rule. Salafism, Wahhabism and the Muslim brotherhood are proponents of this ideology. Al-Qaeda emerged on the basis of these sects.
Now if you answer True to all the above then there is no flaw in my reasoning. If False then provide an alternative explanation. I'm not
-----signature-----
One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 21'st century
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/26 10:50am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Vader666 posted:
SuperWatto posted:
Vader666,
You didn't answer my question (you just expanded on it), so I'll rephrase it:
You name religion as a root cause of terrorism. Why, then, are there 100 times as many religious folks who don't practice terrorism as there are those that do?
So you're saying that since a majority don't practice terrorism it is not fair to assert that religion is a root cause?
I answered your question. Terrorists don't start out as Terrorists. They emerge from the majority who are moderates. The extremists cannot operate unless they have moderates backing them up. Moderation in religion leads to fanaticism. Its no good saying that since the majority are not extremists therefore religion is not a root cause.
You completely misunderstand how logical arguments work, don't you?
When a person makes a positive assertion, they bear the burden of proof for that assertion if it is disputed. You've posted a bit in the Atheism thread lately, so let's use that as an example.
Person A: God exists. (Positive assertion)
Person B: I don't agree with that. (Disagreement with assertion)
Now, would you consider it logical for Person A to respond with "You can't prove that God doesn't exist!"? Of course not. Now, for the purposes of the argument/debate, Person A has to establish the validity of his assertion, or else any arguments that are based on that assertion cannot be logically valid*. Person A can be completely right about God's existence, but right doesn't make an argument logical. Similarly, being logical doesn't make an argument right.
Logic is a process. An argument can be logical, but based on false premises, which would make the conclusion false. Similarly, you can start with true premises, but if the argument is not logical, you have no way to know that the conclusion is true. The only way to conclusively reach a true answer is to start with true premises and follow a logical argument to achieve the conclusion.
You might very well be right that religion is a root cause of terrorism, but you haven't established that as a logical argument. You've simply asserted that it is the case. If the question is "What are the root causes of terrorism?", you can't simply assert that religion is the answer, and say that the assertion itself is all the proof you need. That's circular reasoning (in short: "Religion causes terrorism because religion causes terrorism."). What we have all been asking for you to do is supply those valid premises and build your logical argument for why religion is a root cause of terrorism.
You haven't supplied valid premises (at least none that any of us have accepted as valid), let alone a logical argument based on those premises.
Kimball Kinnison
* The one exception to this is where you assume "for the sake of argument" that something is true. You then demonstrate what the logical results of that assumption are. However, even in that case you need to still go back and prove that your initial assumption is true for the conclusion to be valid.
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
2/26 10:54am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Vader666 posted:
So you're saying that since a majority don't practice terrorism it is not fair to assert that religion is a root cause?
Yes.
Religion is a result of the same process that is the root cause of terrorism - human thought.
Would you defend the thesis that death metal is a root cause of violence? Or that skimpy women in hip hop videos are a root cause of rape?
-----signature-----
TRACK THAT TRACK http://trackthattrack.blogspot.com frustrating you with sound
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vader666
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/26 11:03am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
- Date Edited:
2/26 11:41am (4 edits total)
Edited By:
Vader666
|
SuperWatto and KK
Moderation in religion leads to fanatacism. There is no such thing as a religion that is purely fanatical. No one starts out as an extremist. Not all extremists are terrorists. But all terrorists are extremists.
-----signature-----
One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 21'st century
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/26 11:38am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Vader666 posted:
KK
LostonHoth made the assertion that Pape's thesis correctly explains the development of these terrorist organizations. I'm saying that there is some truth to Pape's analysis but it is inadequate.
First of all, LostOnHoth's comments weren't an assertion. He basically restated Pape's thesis, which is very well supported by documentable facts. Simply saying "that's insufficient" isn't enough to discount it. You have to show how it is deficient.
The problem is that you aren't providing the support for claims that it is incomplete. What aspects of terrorism are not explained by Pape's thesis? You haven't identified anything specific, except to say that you disagree with it.
Then, you tried to base your argument on Sam Harris' response to Pape, but Harris is flawed in many significant ways. Chief among them, he gives very few sources. An example of this comes in a discussion between Sam Harris and Scott Atran (available here towards the bottom of the page):Scott Atran posted:
Harris introduces his penultimate book with these words:
The young man takes his seat beside a middle-aged couple… smiles. With the press of a button he destroys himself, the couple at his side, and twenty others on the bus. The nails, ball bearings, and rat poison ensure further casualties on the street and in the surrounding cars. All has gone according to plan.
The young man's parents soon learn of his fate. Although saddened to have lost a son, they feel tremendous pride at his accomplishment. They know that he has gone to heaven and prepared the way for them to follow. He has also sent his victims to hell for eternity. It is a double victory.
These are the facts. This is all we know for certain about the young man…. Why is it so easy, then, so trivially easy—you-could-almost-bet-your-life-on-it easy—to guess the young man's religion?
Where does Harris get these "facts"? He tells us only that he "reads." Perhaps he gets them from magazine article and newspapers. But newspaper and magazine articles written within six months of a suicide bombing have about a 30% error rate in reporting basic content, let alone the bomber's motivations or his family's feelings (compare data in the government-funded MIPT database on suicide bombings, based mostly on newspaper and magazine articles, with our University of Michigan suicide bombing database, which checks accounts from other sources and weeds out the large "echo effect" that reverberates from early stories throughout the media). The most prolific groups of suicide bombers in recent history is largely secular though nominally Hindu, and multiple interviews with families of Palestinian and Muslim suicide bombers do not reveal pride among parents for what their children have done to any reliable degree. These facts negate the generalizations implicit in Harris's caricature of suicide bombing. Does Harris respond to the evidence with arguments "designed to minimize the public effects of personal bias and self-deception"? Or, does he persist in "pretending to know things you do not know [which] is a great liability in science"? Let science judge.
Harris has a dearth of references and citations to support his claims about Pape's writings. Pape, on the other hand, provides impeccable documentation.
Considering the difference in quality between the two arguments, the rational mind has to side with Pape. He provides solid sources and very clear logic that accounts for pretty much everything. It is entirely conceivable that Harris is right, but because he doesn't present the verifiable basis and logic chain together, we simply can't rely on his arguments. It seems like that is all that you are relying on.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/26 11:43am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Vader666 posted:
SuperWatto and KK
Moderation in religion leads to fanatacism. There is no such thing as a religion that is purely fanatical. No one starts out as an extremist.
That is an assumption only, and a meaningless one at that.
You could easily say that "Moderation in politics leads to fanaticism. There is no such thing as a political party that is purely fanatical. No one starts out as an extremist." That doesn't mean that it logically follows that moderation causes fanaticism, or is in any way responsible for it. It also doesn't logically follow that political prties (or religions) cause fanaticism.
In short, you are assuming a causal relationship with no evidence of causality. Correlation is not causation.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vader666
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/26 11:57am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
- Date Edited:
2/26 12:00pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Vader666
|
Then, you tried to base your argument on Sam Harris' response to Pape, but Harris is flawed in many significant ways. Chief among them, he gives very few sources. An example of this comes in a discussion between Sam Harris and Scott Atran
Where did I base my argument on Harris's response to Pape? The 3 points I raised above are based on my understanding of religion and politics. Answer whether they are true or false claims.
Harris did backup his assertions with data from reliable sources. Read his book, don't just select excerpts from debates. He did provide data from a Pew research study that shows that a large number of Muslims approve of suicide bombing.
You can also watch a debate between Reza Azlan and Sam Harris on Youtube. Its an entertaining discussion. You can get more insight on Harris's views there if you're interested.
-----signature-----
One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 21'st century
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
2/26 6:28pm
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Vader666 posted:
Then, you tried to base your argument on Sam Harris' response to Pape, but Harris is flawed in many significant ways. Chief among them, he gives very few sources. An example of this comes in a discussion between Sam Harris and Scott Atran
Where did I base my argument on Harris's response to Pape? The 3 points I raised above are based on my understanding of religion and politics. Answer whether they are true or false claims.
You used Sam Harris as your only source earlier in this thread. Other than that, all you've given are assertions.
Vader666 posted:
Harris did backup his assertions with data from reliable sources. Read his book, don't just select excerpts from debates. He did provide data from a Pew research study that shows that a large number of Muslims approve of suicide bombing.
Even assuming that Pew study is accurate, that doesn't prove your (and his) assertion. That shows only correlation. It does nothing to show causation. Just because two factors might correlate doesn't mean that one is caused by the other. You are asserting that religion (specifically Islam) causes terrorism.
It also doesn't prove your assertion that all suicide bombings are faith-based. Again, correlation is not causation, one of the clearest logical fallacies.
Vader666 posted:
You can also watch a debate between Reza Azlan and Sam Harris on Youtube. Its an entertaining discussion. You can get more insight on Harris's views there if you're interested.
I've actually read quite a bit by and about Harris. He strikes me as someone who reached his conclusions and then started looking for evidence to support them. He's clearly had an axe to grind against all forms of religion for quite some time. That hardly makes him a good, let alone unbiased, source for information.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
2/26 6:49pm
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
Moderation in religion leads to fanatacism. There is no such thing as a religion that is purely fanatical. No one starts out as an extremist. Not all extremists are terrorists. But all terrorists are extremists.
That makes no sense to me. It's a lame cop out. You are essentially saying that the 99% of all Muslims in the world who are in fact neither violent, terrorists, fundamentalists or extremists are in the process of inevitably becoming all of the aforesaid and will eventually become extremists by some mystical process of gestation.
The answer to SuperWatto's question is actually quite simple: the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not practice terrorism because they are not or do not feel politically, socially and environmentally oppressed by a foreign occupying force in their homeland and terrorism is anathema to their religious and moral convictions.
That is why the many millions of Muslims, Christians and Jews who live in Sydney, New York and Paris for example are not strapping bombs to themselves or throwing hand grenades into cinemas and shopping centres.
Those that do are doing so because they are politically, socially and environmentally oppressed by a foreign occupying force in their homeland (such as Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Turkey, Sri Lanka) and so for them terrorism is actually a form of ‘armed struggle’ against the foreign occupiers and their allies which they believe is in accordance with their religious and moral convictions. Pape's study shows that the terrorist political cause made more gains after resorting to suicide operations, as evidenced by suicide terrorists compelling American and French military forces to abandon Lebanon in 1983, Israeli forces to leave Lebanon in 1985, Israeli forces to quit the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1994 and 1995, the Sri Lankan government to create an independent Tamil state from 1990 on, and the Turkish government to grant autonomy to the Kurds in the late 1990s.
The root cause of terrorism is therefore the political conditions that give rise to the terrorism response. The fact that the terrorists are religious people merely makes it easier for them to carry out their terrorist acts in good conscience and in the comfort that they will still go to heaven and have an afterlife (which arguably religion is really all about anyway).
You refer to some study that shows that "a large number of Muslims approve of suicide bombing". What number? Out of how many surveyed? In what political or geographical area was this study conducted? Did the researchers interview 30 Hamas fundamentalist Muslims in Gaza and draw their conclusions?
Hell, I could survey 30 fundamentalist Ultra Orthodox Jewish Settlers in Hebron and be confident I would get a positive response to a question about whether they approved of exterminating all Arabs by firing squad. If you don't believe me read "My Israel Question" by Antony Loewenstein.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vader666
Registered:
Mar '03
|
Date Posted:
2/27 3:38am
Subject:
RE: The root causes of terrorism
|
KK
I never said that religion alone causes terrorism. Terrorism arose due to a series of religio-political conflicts and faith-based fanaticism. You still did not even attempt to answer my 3 points above. The points I mentioned are the root causes of the conflicts in the Middle-East. I don't quite understand why you keep dancing around the issue and point out so called "logical fallacies" in my arguments.
LostonHoth
The Pew research study surveyed the more liberal Islamic countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Morocco. The more radical countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran did not allow the the research team to gather data. Basically we have a large number of Muslims in the more liberal areas that approve of suicide bombing. Imagine what the numbers might be in the more radical areas?
Regarding Pape's thesis, read the points I raised above and try to refute them. In short, Pape's thesis is inadequate in explaining the problems in the middle-east. There is some truth behind his analysis but its too generalized.
-----signature-----
One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 21'st century
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
