Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada

[Brad Sallows]

When I recollect the celebrations 10 years ago, I'm not convinced the fringe is tiny.

 

[Redeye]

When I recollect the celebrations 10 years ago, I'm not convinced the fringe is tiny.

I have no idea how representative the few shots of revelry in the wake of the attacks were, since they were mainly presented to us to support a particularly point of view. From a pragmatic point of view, I can't say I wouldn't understand why some on the Arab Street would find something to cheer about with respect to America getting "a bloody nose", particularly in places like Gaza. However, I don't believe most of those people would actually support terrorism, much less participate in it. Most of them would likely rather just be left alone to live their lives.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sure they don't support terrorism monetarily, but going onto the streets to celebrate 3,000 Americans being killed just gives the impression to the fringe fundamentalists that they have the people behind them. They're supporting the ideology by doing what the extremists want them to do. If Gaza didn't want the Americans in their lives, maybe they shouldn't have elected a known terrorist group as their political heads of state. You can't be considered a legitimate country when you put people like Hamas into power (But that's a whole other thread).

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't care whether they support "terrorism" or not.  They were celebrating the deaths of people who were merely going about their lives.  There is no spin or nuance which can mitigate that and my respect for anyone who so attempts only diminishes; they are subhuman.

 

[canada94]

Sure they don't support terrorism monetarily, but going onto the streets to celebrate 3,000 Americans being killed just gives the impression to the fringe fundamentalists that they have the people behind them. They're supporting the ideology by doing what the extremists want them to do. If Gaza didn't want the Americans in their lives, maybe they shouldn't have elected a known terrorist group as their political heads of state. You can't be considered a legitimate country when you put people like Hamas into power (But that's a whole other thread).

"Angry, young and poor"

Three sad little deviousness problems much of these countries that we paste as "terror states" are loaded with. I don't agree or want to defend them at all, but its easy to persuaded when you have nothing.

 

[lethalLemon]

He's not targeting the religion, or Muslims, in general. He's speaking about the radical fundamentalists. That should be more than obvious to any clear, level headed person that has at least a grade five education. About time too.

Too many people are are scared the PC police will come and lock them up if they call a spade a spade. There's a whole generation of namby pamby, don't speak ill of the devil, people out there that just don't get it.

The idea that people get all high and mighty and take offence at the merest perceived slight is what is really offensive.

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[SeaKingTacco]

"Angry, young and poor"

Three sad little deviousness problems much of these countries that we paste as "terror states" are loaded with. I don't agree or want to defend them at all, but its easy to persuaded when you have nothing.

I call BS on the poor part.  I have been to some of the poorest parts of the world, around people who have, what we in the West would consider "nothing" and never felt safer.  Being poor doesn't equal being a criminal or a terrorist in the making.  I say that there is more to radicalization than whether you can afford an Xbox or an iphone.

 

[Infanteer]

I say that there is more to radicalization than whether you can afford an Xbox or an iphone.

Actually, there is truth to that statement.  Marc Sageman found that hard core Salafists tend to come from middle-class roots.

 

[canada94]

I call BS on the poor part.  I have been to some of the poorest parts of the world, around people who have, what we in the West would consider "nothing" and never felt safer.  Being poor doesn't equal being a criminal or a terrorist in the making.  I say that there is more to radicalization than whether you can afford an Xbox or an iphone.

I never once said that any of them alone all make everyone a "terrorist in the making" I am saying that they all play a role in countries with massive amounts of terrorism.

"Affording an xbox.." is not what I was thinking, but moreover, affording an education.

 

[Sythen]

"Angry, young and poor"

Three sad little deviousness problems much of these countries that we paste as "terror states" are loaded with. I don't agree or want to defend them at all, but its easy to persuaded when you have nothing.

Mark Steyn has the best line he always says to people who say things like this. What is the capital on Saudi Arabia? What is the principle export of Nepal? I bet without google, you probably wouldn't know either answer. And without knowing simple things like this about a people, how can you claim to know what is the cause of their problems?

"Affording an xbox.." is not what I was thinking, but moreover, affording an education.

Most people in these countries do get educated, but their educators are the local Imam, and their source material is the Quran. One man's education is another man's brain washing.

*Modified for spelling

 

[canada94]

Mark Steyn has the best line he always says to people who say things like this. What is the capital on Saudi Arabia? What is the principle export of Nepal? I bet without google, you probably wouldn't know either answer. And without knowing simple things like this about a people, how can you claim to know what is the cause of their problems?

Most people in these countries do get educated, but their educators are the local Imam, and their source material is the Quran. One man's education is another man's brain washing.

*Modified for spelling

A lot of good points, if you would like to continue PM me

 

[Redeye]

Sure they don't support terrorism monetarily, but going onto the streets to celebrate 3,000 Americans being killed just gives the impression to the fringe fundamentalists that they have the people behind them. They're supporting the ideology by doing what the extremists want them to do. If Gaza didn't want the Americans in their lives, maybe they shouldn't have elected a known terrorist group as their political heads of state. You can't be considered a legitimate country when you put people like Hamas into power (But that's a whole other thread).

In the eyes of many Palestinians, Hamas was as legitimate a contender, especially when their alternative was Fatah, widely viewed as highly corrupt. Southern Lebanon has the same problem with Hezbollah. What are people left to think when they're the ones that run the schools, patrol the streets, pick up the garbage, etc etc. They've become the de facto government because they've taken on those functions, where the "legitimate" government of Lebanon hasn't.

If democracy is the big objective with all these countries in the Middle East, what then gives us a say in who they elect? That's a rather hypocritical position statement.

 

[Redeye]

I don't care whether they support "terrorism" or not.  They were celebrating the deaths of people who were merely going about their lives.  There is no spin or nuance which can mitigate that and my respect for anyone who so attempts only diminishes; they are subhuman.

Again, I wasn't there - and neither were you, of course - so I don't know what they were celebrating. I would imagine the symbolism of the attack. Yes, that's just as contemptible, but put into context it's a little more understandable.

 

[Redeye]

Mark Steyn has the best line he always says to people who say things like this. What is the capital on Saudi Arabia? What is the principle export of Nepal? I bet without google, you probably wouldn't know either answer. And without knowing simple things like this about a people, how can you claim to know what is the cause of their problems?

Most people in these countries do get educated, but their educators are the local Imam, and their source material is the Quran. One man's education is another man's brain washing.

*Modified for spelling

Angry, young, poor (to an extent, anyhow) and ignorant above all. While the argument about Salafists being largely middle class makes a lot of sense, the people they get to do a lot of the wet work - suicide bombers, etc, are often pulled from poorer families where the promise of helping their family can add to the great attraction of becoming a shaheed. It's basically an exploitive process. The best hope, if it can be done practically, of dealing with a lot of the strife in places like the Middle East and Afghanistan, is improving access to education. In the case of Palestine and Israel in particular, a reconciliation process must be more detailed, and include a functional, economically viable (read: not blockaded) Palestinian state. There's been a lot of interesting stories of programs designed to bring together Palestinian and Israeli youth to interact on the theory that they'll see that really, they aren't that different and they actually can get along. Such programs also existed, as I recall, in Northern Ireland toward the end of the Troubles with some success.

I'd suspect that a generation of kids growing up with an education and prospects for their future being a bit brighter would have, generally, a lot less interest in fighting. But that's just my  :2c:.

 

[Sythen]

the people they get to do a lot of the wet work - suicide bombers, etc, are often pulled from poorer families where the promise of helping their family can add to the great attraction of becoming a shaheed.

Care to give any sort of reference for this?

 

[Redeye]

Care to give any sort of reference for this?

I'll try to find the study I read about three or four years ago - it was done, I think, by Tel Aviv University that was most detailed, but here's some interesting stuff. It made specific references to a subset of suicide bombers being enticed both by religious/community ideals but also the idea of getting their family out of poverty.

Here's a few quick hits that are interesting:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html

A brilliant summary of a study out of Australia:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/what-motivates-suicide-bombers-0

This is an interesting counterpoint - suggesting there's not clear factors:

http://nationalstrategy.com/NSFReview/PastNSFRIssues/Fall2007V16Issue4/Fall2007NSFRDemographicsofTerrorists.aspx

It's something I'd be fascinated to read more research on, but as a couple of reports have highlighted, the identities of the bombers are not always all that clear - particularly when they have come from outside the conflict zone to commit their act.

 

[OldSolduer]

Redeye and Sythen: Its also been said that the suicide bombers are recruited from among the "mentally challenged".

Now I have no clear evidence of this other than reading it on here.....but it makes sense.

 

[Redeye]

Redeye and Sythen: Its also been said that the suicide bombers are recruited from among the "mentally challenged".

Now I have no clear evidence of this other than reading it on here.....but it makes sense.

One of the links actually refers to that claim - in particular, a specific event in Iraq where it was claimed that two "mentally challenged" women were the bombers - but then it notes that the authorities in many cases have absolutely no idea who the bombers are and couldn't support the claim. But it's hard to say it doesn't make sense, when you think about it.

 

[Journeyman]

Care to give any sort of reference for this?

One of the most common references is Mia Bloom, Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. NY: Columbia University Press, 2005.

She suggests that while poverty, per se, is occasionally a factor, a more common attribute is social standing; this ties in honour killings, as well as having had a suicide bomber in your family may permit other family members to marry into "higher" social circles, etc.

And yes, while there is recent evidence of recruitment from among the "mentally challenged," predominantly within Iraq, it's considered by many (Islamists and Tamils -- the two largest groups of suicide bombers) to be dishonourable.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Redeye and Sythen: Its also been said that the suicide bombers are recruited from among the "mentally challenged".

Now I have no clear evidence of this other than reading it on here.....but it makes sense.

Caveat:  only one doc, talking about what he sees, so I wouldn't extend the 80 % too far outside his lab:

.... many of the bombers have one major thing in common. A senior Afghan doctor who examines their remains finds that most of them were disabled or sick.

In his classroom at Kabul Medical University, Dr. Yusef Yadgari keeps the eyeball of a suicide bomber in a glass jar. Attached to the eye is a tumor that, Yadgari says, left the attacker partially blind.

It is one of many ailments the Afghan pathologist says he has found while autopsying the remains of bombers who carried out attacks in Kabul, Afghanistan, during the past three years. Some were missing limbs before the blasts. Others suffered from cancer. One had leprosy.

80 Percent Have Physical, Mental Disabilities

Based on such autopsies, Yadgari estimates that at least three of every five bombers suffer from a physical ailment or disability. Adding those who suffer from mental illnesses, the number of sick and disabled bombers climbs to more than 80 percent, he says.

"They are probably resentful because in Afghan society they are outcasts," Yadgari says. "They hold a grudge because many of them can't get a job. So, to make money for their families, they agree to become suicide bombers."

Yadgari says guessing the bombers' motivation is easy, but identifying who they are is a lot tougher ....

One of the most common references is Mia Bloom, Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. NY: Columbia University Press, 2005.

She suggests that while poverty, per se, is occasionally a factor, a more common attribute is social standing; this ties in honour killings, as well as having had a suicide bomber in your family may permit other family members to marry into "higher" social circles, etc.

And yes, while there is recent evidence of recruitment from among the "mentally challenged," predominantly within Iraq, it's considered by many (Islamists and Tamils -- the two largest groups of suicide bombers) to be dishonourable.

Also, a bit more on this sort of thing in Afghanistan from a 2007 U.N. study on suicide bombers here.