How can Islamist terrorists and Americans make peace without killing each other?

Hmmm…. Islamic terrorists… Americans… Islamic terrorists… Americans… Islamic terrorists…. Americans… Uhm, war is inevitable.

Let’s listen to why they hate us and stop occupying their land and killing their children.

@HungryGuy you’re right but depressing nonetheless. Any other ideas you think might work?

World domination, it’s one hell of a prize fight, init……. :-/

A healthy dose of atheism might help.

I’m sorry, but if you are identifying them as terrorists, then there is no way. Peace is the antithesis of what they seek. However, if you mean “Islamists”, then you need to be much more careful of your phrasing. Only a small portion if Islam is radical, and only a tiny portion of those are terrorists.

@mazingerz88 – Nope. Sorry…

I think there’s a pretty wide spectrum of “Islamic terrorists.” I’m sure some, maybe many of them, are completely unmovable. But history has shown that terrorists can be open to negotiation and a softening of their stance.

I think a lot will depend on what happens in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. If groups like the Muslim Brotherhood peacefully become a force in politics without using violence, more al-Qaeda and its allies might start realizing the error of their ways.

Hmm… let’s see.

Islamic terrorists believe in fundamentalist Islam and believe it their duty to convert the infidels in the West (otherwise known as the great Satan) to their system of religious belief under a political system that holds that religious dogma above any secular considerations and are willing to indiscriminately blow up innocent civilians as blackmail to further their cause.

America, on the other hand, believes in freedom to follow the spiritual beliefs of one’s choosing and the separation of church and state and are willing to use military force to respond to those who practice terrorism to further the goal of global fundamentalist theocracy.

So… the solution seems pretty darned simple. Either America can abandon the separation of church and state and the right of it’s citizenry to choose their own religion, or the fundamentalists jihadists can abandon their practice of strapping bombs to children and sending them into targets of opportunity and using the resulting outrage as a bargaining chip to further their agenda.

Hmm… perhaps the solution isn’t so simple after all. But I darned sure know which side I’m on!

The whole point of terrorists is not to be peaceful…

The whole meaning of terrorism is violence and bloodshed. there is nothing to interact with.

The appearance of a larger common enemy might do it.

As I see it there are two major components to it.
First, there is opposition to western cultural, economic and military imperialism. Adress that, and I think most of the terrorism would end.
Second, there is religious fundamentalism, but against that, only education and secularisation will work.

@YoBob If you don’t mind, I would like to ask two questions.
1.) It doesn’t seem like the Islamic terrorists are interested in nor have made any effort to convert the infidels (in their opinion) to their way of thinking or beliefs. Other than attempting to recruit new members that are willing to participate in terrorist actions, what other attempts in conversion have there been?
2.) I have lived in the US all of my life so far, and have yet to find that, as a collective, we believe in the separation of church and state. The US government has been exceptionally slow to move in this direction when compared to other countries. Aren’t there other reasons for eradicating the Islamic terrorists, other than the good of the countries where they reside?

Please understand that I ask you these questions because I trust your opinion based upon your other posts, and I am not as well informed as I should be on this topic. Your responses, as well as those of others, is greatly appreciated.

@Pied_Pfeffer

Let’s start with your second question first. The constitution refers to religion in three places. The first, in Article VI, section 3, says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to hold public office. The second two constitutional references to religion are found in the First Amendment. The first, known as the Establishment Clause, provides that the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The second, known as the Free Exercise Clause, provides that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

These, when combined with our codified right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly pretty much mean you can get together as a group and discuss anything you want, and this includes your religious beliefs, how ever absurd others might find them and, of course, provided you do not infringe the rights of others during the exercise of those beliefs.

I fail to understand exactly how you have failed to observe said separation in this country. Has the government told you that practice of your particular religion is unlawful? Has there been an election in your area in which candidates of a particular religion are forbidden to run for office? Yes, it is true that a high of our politicians practice various forms of Christianity, but what do you expect in a predominantly Christian nation? We also have a fair number of Jews, and atheists as well. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t a pagan or two in the mix as well.

As for the first, please understand that I am no Islamic scholar. However, it is my understanding that the goal of spreading the law as codified by Mohammad to all peoples of the earth is one of the foundational precepts of the religion. This is taken to quite an extreme in some of the more fundamentalist interpretations under which it is ones duty as a devout Muslim to offer the infidel the opportunity to convert and if the opportunity is refused they are to be executed to protect the rest of righteous society.

However, let us not be naive, As it has been from the beginning of time, it’s not about the glory of god, it is about the power of men, and there are few things short of the promise of eternal bliss in the afterlife combined with the threat of eternal damnation if you fail to obey to motivate people to strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up in a bus depot.

@YoBob it seems there is no peace possible between Islamic militants following the lead of Bin Laden who see the US and Israel as threats to their region and religion. It’s the most basic cause of human conflict since the beginning of time that creates no room for peace,
“MY WAY NOT YOURS!”

@mazingerz88 – Yep.

My way includes freedom and democratic self determination.

Their way includes authoritarian theocratic rule.

@YoBob Thank you for taking the time to respond with the detail that you did. I understand the US government’s goal to maintain a separation of church and state. The point I was attempting to make was that while it exists on a federal level, there are many in the US that are willing to fight against this and often get away with it on the state level.

I am no Islamic scholar either. I do believe that the actions of Islamic terrorists is not compatible with the the beliefs of those most that live by the words of the Qu’ran. If one of their goals is to educate others and convert, then killing people who are already Muslim or those that have never had the chance to hear their pitch is the wrong way to to go about it.

I agree with you in that it often comes down to a desire for power. And yes, using the incentive of a choice in where a religious person lands in the afterlife, along with charisma, can be a lethal mix.

It can’t be done.

What can be done is seriously changing our world so that terrorists are no longer able to find new recruits.

So the question should be:

How can Americans (and other countries) find strategies that lead to the flourishing of people in all countries leading to universal peace?

@mattbrowne – “How can Americans (and other countries) find strategies that lead to the flourishing of people in all countries leading to universal peace?”

America has repeatedly done this throughout our history by promoting the proliferation of constitutional democratic systems of government, and sometimes when human rights issues are involved, directly defending populations against totalitarian dictators. Alas, more often than not we get called imperialists for doing so.

@YoBob – Promoting the proliferation of constitutional democratic systems of government is not enough. We need strategies that go far beyond this.

@mattbrowne Cant we all just get along? Lol. It is the innate differences between how human beings perceive what society should look like or what peace must look like that really complicate matters. Democracy is not perfect but it is the best the human specie has to offer when it comes to respecting each individual. For such a great product, us promoting it has just been hellish and bloody at times! If you are talking about strategies that involves enlightenment via something spiritual in nature I would love to hear how.

@mazingerz88 – Yes, we all can get along, except with terrorists. So the only choice we have is creating a future without terrorists. It’s a two step approach:

1) We must understand the root causes of terrorism
2) We must create a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of terrorism

Here’s one attempt addressing 1)

“When it comes to identifying the root cause of terrorism, many are compelled to point fingers at poverty and lack of education. The argument, in a nutshell, goes as follows: Poor, uneducated people are easily lured with promises of heaven and can be convinced to blow up other people in order to attain it.

However, the idea does not stand its ground when confronted with facts. Marc Sageman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute compiled background data of about 400 Al Qaeda members and discovered that three-quarters belonged to the middle or upper class. He further noted that the “vast majority — 90 percent — came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5 to 6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.”

Economists Efraim Benmelech of Harvard University and Claude Berrebi of the RAND Corporation also came to the same conclusion when they gathered data on Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel from 2000 to 2005. They discovered that education is very much valued in the “terrorism market.” Better educated individuals are more likely to be successful in carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks and have lower chances of getting caught.

It should also be noted that the alleged leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, had a graduate degree, while both Azahari and Noordin M Top, the masterminds of most of the major terrorist attacks over the last decade in Indonesia, were skilled engineers and scientists. None of them were poor; all three came from affluent families.

Obviously, these terrorists don’t fit the poor-and-uneducated profile. As such, simply expanding education and eradicating poverty would unlikely affect terrorist recruitment. We need to look deeper. In that light, there are at least three issues that are often overlooked, each bearing a consequence in how public policies should be shaped and how we as a community should act in countering the seeds of terrorism.

First, it’s not a coincidence that many terrorist masterminds come from countries with repressive governments, like the Arab states and, arguably, Malaysia. Repressive governments tend to bar legal avenues for voicing dissent, thus making extreme demonstrations of opposition more attractive. When the cost of legal dissent increases — due to threat of legal repercussions — the relative cost of illegal dissent is lowered. Hence terrorism becomes a viable venue.

Therefore, it’s in our interest to allow dissent. Specifically for Indonesia, we need to allow organizations like Hizbut Tahrir and the Islamic Defenders Front to exist. It doesn’t mean we should let them do whatever they want. They still have to be legally accountable for their actions; if and when they employ violence or thuggery, they have to pay for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. We should also continue voicing opposition to their radical stances and gospel of hatred. However, their right to association and voicing dissent should be recognized and upheld. Perhaps it’s worth reminding ourselves that virtually no major Indonesian terrorist has been affiliated to these legal organizations.

Second, acts of terrorism and suicide bombing require the fear of the pain involved in the act and the reservation of hurting other people to be broken. The most effective way of doing this is by psychological enforcement, most notably through an authority or peers. A common trait shared by terrorists is that they have a figure of authority that they fully and unquestionably respect. It’s also very common for prospective terrorists to join a perverse cause through preexisting social bonds with people who are already terrorists or have decided to join.

So here’s what we need to understand: An education system that puts a premium on respect for authority and discourages freethinking will produce individuals that are highly susceptible to psychological enforcement. So while simply more education may not be effective in countering terrorism, how we educate matters significantly. We need to push, not discourage, our children to question the authorities — their teachers and parents — and the majority — their friends. We need to make them comfortable to be different and to disagree. This will make them significantly less vulnerable to “brainwashing” by radical ideas.

Lastly, we should heed the findings in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s research: An overwhelming majority of the educated individuals in its sample of Al Qaeda members were engineers, architects, civil engineers and scientists. People with humanities backgrounds were grossly underrepresented. Is there anything in the humanities that make its students less susceptible to radical, narrow-minded, chauvinistic ideas? In short, the answer is yes.

Students of the humanities make a conscious effort to learn different cultures, religions and values. This leads them to respect people from all walks of life, even if they don’t necessarily agree with the values those other people hold. It’s this spirit of humanities that should be integrated in our education system. The Indonesian youth need to learn, and perhaps even experience, different values. The many live-in programs already conducted by various local NGOs to bring in students of different religious and cultural backgrounds to stay with families in Aceh, Lombok and Papua should be expanded. It’s high time for us to not only tolerate diversity, but to embrace it.

At the end of the day, it’s really more complex than simply poverty and lack of education. If we’re really serious about addressing the root causes of terrorism, we need to uphold civil liberties, teach our children that it’s alright to question authorities and expose them to different values. That’s going to be a challenge not only for the government, but for all of us — parents, teachers, and the community. But nobody ever said addressing the roots of terrorism would be easy.

Rivandra Royono is the executive director of the Association for Critical Thinking and a consultant for the World Bank in Jakarta.”

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/the-root-cause-of-terrorism-its-not-poverty-or-lack-of-education/331847

For 2) addressing many terrorist masterminds come from countries with repressive governments, like the Arab states

we should be pleased of what happened in Tunisia and Egypt.

But this also means that all dictators of the Arab world have to go. All of them. This means we need to assist the freedom-loving people in Libya, Syria, Yemen and so forth. Even Saudi Arabia must eventually become a democracy.

Great article @mattbrowne . Wish I could give you 2 GAs for posting it!

@mattbrowne Thanks Matt for the great post! I for one never bought the idea that poverty is the main cause of terrorism. But I also see the logic of recruiting educated people since they’re the ones who could pull off sophisticated attacks like the 911 tragedy. I’m more concerned about terrorism specifically targeting US soil but thanks to your post I now have a credible idea for a long term plan that may effectively address terrorism on a global scale. It will be decades though for this idea to permeate, be implemented. Weeding out repressive governments take time and changing the nature of a generation of humans would take even longer. I think I do agree there will be less and less extremism but in the immediate term there is no eradicating this terrorism menace. I hope I’m dead wrong.

Yes, we can’t export democracy. We have to rely on the seeds planted by brave individuals, like the ones in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. But when they ask for our help we should give it to them. I also hope that hundreds of Western companies will invest in Tunisia and Egypt after their first free elections. Their economies must flourish.

@mattbrowne another great idea there.