The root causes of terrorism

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by gathering data for this assertion. Obviously you presented a false dichotomy between religion and politics and I corrected you on that..

 

No, I didn't assert that. Read what I wrote again:

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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):

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

 

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

 

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.

 

You used Sam Harris as your only source earlier in this thread. Other than that, all you've given are assertions.

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Your three points above are irrelevant because none of them show causation. You are asserting that those are causes. You aren't proving it. This thread is about causes.

Come back when you actually have evidence to back up your claims, and stop wasting all of our time.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Turkey, Morocco and Lebanon are liberal Muslim countries? That is a joke.

In relation to your 3 points, I think they have been answered and already adequately refuted:

1. The Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq is not the direct result of foreign occupation but an ancient religious conflict.

No, the current insurgency conflict in Iraq is the direct result of foreign occupation, or more correctly, the result of foreign forces displacing the balances of government power and creating a power vacuum. There is no denying the ancient religious conflict between Sunni and Shia but this current insurgency and violence is directly attributable to the fall of Saddam's regime and the loss of political power by the former ruling Sunnis. This is well documented in "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward and "The View from the Valley of Hell" by Mark Willacy, an ABC foreign correspondent who was in Iraq during the US invasion and leading up to the first elections.

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.

No, the Israeli/Israeli conflict is essentially a conflict about land not religious divergence. The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 in Palestine had the result of forcing millions Palestinians from their homeland. It created a whole generation of refugees. The 'War of Independence' in 1948 (as it is called by Israelis) is called the 'Nakba' by Palestinians which means "the catastrophe'. The right to a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people is certainly inspired by the Torah (and Zionism of course) but the creation of Israel as a political state is also attributable to other causes, not least of which was WWII and the Holocaust.

There is no doubt that many, many Jewish Israelis beleive in the biblical 'Eretz Israel' - but there would be no conflict between Isralis and Palestinians if millions of Palestinians were not forceably displaced and removed from their homeland in 1948 and were not now living under an occupation following defeat in a number of wars (most notably the 1967 Six Day War).

Palestinian terrorists are acting in direct response to the armed occupation of their homeland. This is the point you continue to ignore. If the occupation were to cease, so would the terrorism. This is what happened in Lebanon in the mid 1980s when Isreael and US forcesd withdrew - the suicide bombings stopped. This is explained in Pape's book.

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.

Yes I would tend to agree with that. However, as set out in Peter Bergen's work, and please note Bergen has actually met and interviewed Bin-Laden and is acknowledged as the leading authority on the man and Al-qeada, Bin-Laden's war on the United States is a "political" war. This is well documented and researched in Bergen's books "Holy War Inc" and "The Osama Bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of Al Qaeda's Leader".

You keep referring to Pape's "thesis". You should refer to Pape's "findings" as they are conclusions based upon qualatitave and quantitatve research. Pape's findings are sound. If you can find research that discredits or disagrees with Pape's findings, then by all means, present it. I have an open mind.

 

I'm not sure that you understand what a root cause is.

 

LostonHoth

I think Pape's analysis is a bit biased. He's underestimating the religious role behind these conflicts. He seems to be more concerned with blaming US politics and trying to synthesize an explanation that attempts to pull US forces out of the Middle-East. Read this article to get more of a sense of what I'm getting at.

Here's the interesting part:

Although Pape and Bloom argue that religion-inspired terrorists do not kill as an end in itself, Al-Qaeda strikes suggest otherwise. Regardless, the difference in modus operandi between religious and secular terrorists differs enough that they should be considered distinct groups which do not necessarily share the same temporal motives.

And another.

 

Those articles are very interesting but they are just opinion peices - The first article simply dismisses Pape's research and conclusions. To counter his research and conclusions, the author Jonathan Fine refers to other authors who offer nothing but sociological theorising and armchair criticism without offering any actual qualatitve and quantitative study or research that discredits or contradicts his conclusions.

It's all well to say that his conclusions "fall short" but where is the actual research to back this up??? I'm not interested in sociological or philosophical musings, I want data, methodology and research.

The second one is written by BENJAMIN NETANYAHU of all people, the former PM of Isreal - what an unbiased opinion he must have of terrorism!

I respect your opinions but you will have to do better than that to convince me to change my views.

 

This is almost exactly what I have been saying as well.

Don't tell us that other people agree with you. That's simply the fallacy of appeal to majority. Even if 99% of the population agrees with you, that doesn't change whether you are right or not. The only way to determine whether you are right or not is to support it with facts and data. Anything less is just talking out of your rear.

Pape's conclusions explain the actions of terrorist groups and fit the data. Moreover, they are simpler than your suggestion that it is a combination of both political and religious causes. Following Occam's Razor, all other things being equal, the simpler explanation is the more reasonable one.

If you are going to claim that Pape's conclusions are deficient, you need to either find a part of the data that they don't account for, but that your theory does, find new data that does not fit his conclusions, or provide a comparable explanation that fits the data, but is even simpler.

Kimball Kinnison

 

So I have to wonder, does this mean that our invasion of Iraq was rooted in Christianity?

Are we carrying out another Crusade?

I mean, I have statements from the President, various military commanders, various verses from the Bible that would back up such a conclusion (and that's not even mentioning the pundits like Ann Coulter who specifically advocated forced conversions who have a lot of clout with the voting public). A majority of Americans are (or claim to be) Christians, and the same is true for what I imagine is a majority of the Coalition of the Willing.

Seems like it could be fairly interesting.

 

To the Original Poster, you can't wage a war on drugs, or illiteracy, or terror, or poverty or any other inanimate object or concept. If someone else has posted about this I apologize I haven't read them all.

So by declaring war against terrorism, the US government has effectively stopped all terrorism in the US. Terrorists don't specifically engage military, rather civilians, so being that we are at war with a concept, conceptually speaking all US citizens are now engaged. So now every terrorist attack is in fact a military strike. So if you live in the states have no fear, the threat of terrorism is gone for good =P

 

Here's an interesting article in light of the recent terrorist attack in Israel.

http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2008/03/08/a-glaring-double-standard/