[Winstonm]

It appears to me these Islamists respond to more of a cult-like appeal to simplistic answers to the complexities of the world that are difficult and sometimes impossible to answer. No matter, the article is enlightening to read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...in-1821215.html

Quote

But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community – they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 – from Guantanamo to Iraq – made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think – anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was – they stressed – also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.

What obviously broke the spell of the cult-like sway of Islam was the conflict of reality with fantasy: contributing to their fantasies of persecution only reinforces those delusions.

[barmar]

I think this is true of propaganda in general, although tying it to religion often makes it more effective. But Japan didn't use religion as a motivator when training kamikaze pilots in WWII, did they? Most soldiers the world wars fought over patriotism, not religion.

[Winstonm]

When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter.

Dick Cheney should read this.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Nov 29 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

I think this is true of propaganda in general, although tying it to religion often makes it more effective. But Japan didn't use religion as a motivator when training kamikaze pilots in WWII, did they? Most soldiers the world wars fought over patriotism, not religion.

I think you might need to look into Japanese attitudes towards their Emperor. He is, in Shinto (which was the state religion at least until WWII), the senior priest, and is deemed to be descended from the gods. The Japanese word commonly translated as "emperor" literally means "heavenly emperor".

Kamikaze literally means "Divine Wind". It's an allusion to the typhoon that destroyed, according to Japanese history (or legend), a Mongol invasion fleet on its way to Japan in the late 13th Century . A typhoon sent by the gods.

There is also Bushido - a warrior code which led its followers to choose death before dishonor - and refusing to accept a kamikaze mission would have led, under the code, to dishonor.

So patriotism, yes, but patriotism in mid-twentieth century Japan was inextricably tied to both religion and Bushido.

[jonottawa]

The only difference between a cult and a religion is membership count.

If you accept without evidence (on faith) the original supernatural claim, everything else they do makes sense. If there's an Allah or a God or a Shiva or a Zeus or a Santa Claus, and he should be worshiped and obeyed, then you should do what he says in his book. It's accepting the original claim that is the root of the evil.

Your 'cult-like appeal' quote could easily substitute 'Christians' or 'early 21st century Republicans' for 'Islamists' and be just as valid.

As for Kamikaze pilots, I'd much rather have that job than fight for the Confederacy (I'm talking about battle conditions, not the legitimacy of the cause) or in the WWI trenches, or in the Iraqi Republican Guard. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If one guy has the chance to incapacitate an enemy carrier or battleship or whatever, he should take it.

[Lobowolf]

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Your 'cult-like appeal' quote could easily substitute 'Christians' or 'early 21st century Republicans' for 'Islamists' and be just as valid.

"21st Century Progressive Democrats" would be more valid. Far more charismatic leader - one of the key components for any cult.

[jonottawa]

Lobowolf, on Nov 30 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Your 'cult-like appeal' quote could easily substitute 'Christians' or 'early 21st century Republicans' for 'Islamists' and be just as valid.

"21st Century Progressive Democrats" would be more valid. Far more charismatic leader - one of the key components for any cult.

The thing is he's got a LOT more going for him than just charisma, as opposed to say Dubya or Palin or Limbaugh or Beck.

Democrats like a herd of cats, Republicans purity tests, 'dittoheads', etc. Your point fails.

[Lobowolf]

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 30 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Your 'cult-like appeal' quote could easily substitute 'Christians' or 'early 21st century Republicans' for 'Islamists' and be just as valid.

"21st Century Progressive Democrats" would be more valid. Far more charismatic leader - one of the key components for any cult.

The thing is he's got a LOT more going for him than just charisma, as opposed to say Dubya or Palin or Limbaugh or Beck.

Democrats like a herd of cats, Republicans purity tests, 'dittoheads', etc. Your point fails.

They're the cultists...we follow the one true leader.

[jonottawa]

Lobowolf, on Nov 30 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 30 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Your 'cult-like appeal' quote could easily substitute 'Christians' or 'early 21st century Republicans' for 'Islamists' and be just as valid.

"21st Century Progressive Democrats" would be more valid. Far more charismatic leader - one of the key components for any cult.

The thing is he's got a LOT more going for him than just charisma, as opposed to say Dubya or Palin or Limbaugh or Beck.

Democrats like a herd of cats, Republicans purity tests, 'dittoheads', etc. Your point fails.

They're the cultists...we follow the one true leader.

You're in pretty serious denial. Democrats don't blindly follow their leaders, it's not in our DNA. That's why we have '60 votes' and still can't pass anything. Because we don't slavishly toe the line. Democrats disagree with each other all the time. Republicans call themselves 'dittoheads', vote in lockstep, and have purity tests. Would Sarah Palin or George Bush have even been elected dog-catcher if the former weighed 200 lbs or the latter didn't have a famous Daddy?

FWIW I've never cared much for President Obama or for congressional Dems. But the alternative, composed largely of a bunch of racist teabaggers, neo-fascists, bible thumpers and civil war reenactors makes them the only remotely credible choice.

[Lobowolf]

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 30 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 30 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

jonottawa, on Nov 30 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

Your 'cult-like appeal' quote could easily substitute 'Christians' or 'early 21st century Republicans' for 'Islamists' and be just as valid.

"21st Century Progressive Democrats" would be more valid. Far more charismatic leader - one of the key components for any cult.

The thing is he's got a LOT more going for him than just charisma, as opposed to say Dubya or Palin or Limbaugh or Beck.

Democrats like a herd of cats, Republicans purity tests, 'dittoheads', etc. Your point fails.

They're the cultists...we follow the one true leader.

You're in pretty serious denial. Democrats don't blindly follow their leaders, it's not in our DNA. That's why we have '60 votes' and still can't pass anything. Because we don't slavishly toe the line.

That's why the pro-life Democrats are so prominent, and Joe Lieberman had to leave the party for which he was just the VP candidate because he was on the other side of the party line over one issue. Check the CA state legislature, if you want to see lockstep voting.

The most common rationale I heard for Palin's inclusion on the ticket was that she was needed to bring in a faction of the Republican party that wouldn't have been on board otherwise. There's certainly a split between the Republican party's "religious right" wing and the more moderate Republicans. The Republicans haven't had a "cult hero" type of figure since Reagan. Having more going for him than charisma doesn't counter the point; cult leaders can be intelligent and educated. The people who scream the loudest about the anti-gay bigot Republicans don't seem to mind that Obama is against gay marriage and Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (I saw Bill Maher make that rant on THE SAME SHOW where called Obama a "perfect" candidate and said he wouldn't have anything to talk about for 4 years if he were elected).

This is not intended to apply to "all" or "most" Obama supporters, or the ones in this thread, who are largely intelligent and rational, and for the most part (and to varying degrees) objective, as evidenced in, for instance, the Middle East War thread; however, there is a HUGE block who think that Obama can do no wrong, and if he ever appears to, then see Rule #1.

[jonottawa]

Replying to Lobowolf (the quotes are getting a little large.)

Pro-life Democrats don't have any influence? How'd the Stupak amendment pass, then?

Joe Lieberman left the party because he's a slimy two-faced weasel. He's Zell Miller without the violent temper. Lots of Democrats disagreed about whether to go into Iraq, and how long to stay. Only one prominent one joined Republicans in demonizing Democrats who saw the issue differently than he did. He still has his committee chairs, doesn't he? Do you honestly believe that the Republicans would let one of theirs keep his committee chairs if the roles were reversed? Of course not.

Re Gay Marriage : Obama took the safe position on a wedge issue. Shrug. I don't give a hoot about gay marriage one way or the other but a lot of white trash does. There are lots of issues where the enlightened stand is not palatable in trailer parks across America. Republicans know that and have exploited it for years. Democrats often take the safe position on wedge issues because if you're right on virtually all the important issues, why risk an election to someone who's wrong on virtually all the important issues on crap like this?

Democrats seem to be mainly in 2 camps. One group who thinks Obama isn't being principled enough or fighting hard enough and that we should cajole him to do more if he wants our support in 2012 and another group who thinks Obama isn't being principled enough or fighting hard enough and that we should give him the benefit of the doubt and 'stand by our man' regardless. If there's a 3rd group that thinks Obama 'can do no wrong', it's pretty damn tiny.

[Winstonm]

It would be nice if the world could be simplified into the "bad" Republicans and the "good" Democrats, but the seeming facts are that both parties are so soiled by legal bribery and corruption that the only ones who are served are the paymasters.

In a somewhat stunning development, I was reading a financial writer the other day and his article had nothing whatsoever to do with politcs - yet he made the same claim (unknowingly I'm sure) as Glenn Greenwald and proclaimed the U.S. a one-party system ruled by lobbyists. (He made this in the context of how Asian countried viewed the U.S. and how little trust there is of the U.S. now after the financial meltdown led be the U.S.)

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Nov 30 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

he made the same claim (unknowingly I'm sure) as Glenn Greenwald and proclaimed the U.S. a one-party system ruled by lobbyists.

The real "Green" Party?!

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Nov 30 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

It would be nice if the world could be simplified into the "bad" Republicans and the "good" Democrats, but the seeming facts are that both parties are so soiled by legal bribery and corruption that the only ones who are served are the paymasters.

Come on we all know that it's "bad" Democrats and "worse awful terrible shameful" Republicans!

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Nov 30 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 30 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

he made the same claim (unknowingly I'm sure) as Glenn Greenwald and proclaimed the U.S. a one-party system ruled by lobbyists.

The real "Green" Party?!

Of course, that's only how the evil Asians view us - the majority of the world's population still think we're keen.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Nov 30 2009, 08:23 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 30 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

It would be nice if the world could be simplified into the "bad" Republicans and the "good" Democrats, but the seeming facts are that both parties are so soiled by legal bribery and corruption that the only ones who are served are the paymasters.

Come on we all know that it's "bad" Democrats and "worse awful terrible shameful" Republicans!

Wrong, Buffet Breath. There are only Democans and Democants.

[blackshoe]

"There's no one left but we and thee, and we're not sure of thee."

[vuroth]

Excellent article. Thanks for sharing.

V

[kenberg]

Back to the OP, a most interesting one.

I read part I of the article in the posting of the thread. It is very interesting and I will get back to the rest, it is long but worthwhile.

I distinguish between two sorts of religious trouble. In one sort, the apostate is denounced as, for example here, not being a good imam and he should be ousted from the mosque. I see this as intolerance of independent thought but I also see it as not my business. But Usama Hassan also has reason to worry about his personal safety and really that concerns all of us. This is, of course, partly because no one should be killed for his opinions, but it is also because coming to agreement with a sect that believes a change in religious views is adequate reason for killing someone is a sect that it will be difficult to come to accommodation with.

In my youth I gave up religion. Rationally it did not seem to me to hold together but also I came to see many religious people, most definitely my minister, as bullies. Saying "I want you to do such and such" has less force than saying "I speak for the Lord and the Lord says that you must do such and such". To this day, I am not sure how the balance between reason and emotion played out in my decision. Some of each, no doubt.

Back when some Pennsylvania town stopped teaching creationism, some buffoon (I forget which one, they are interchangeable) announced that the town's residents should not be surprised if a calamity struck their town. Ignorant and rude, but at least he did not instruct his followers to help bring a calamity about. The problem with Mr. Hassan's former colleagues is that they very much see it as their religious duty to help bring about heavenly retribution. Such people are difficult to work with.

Mr Hassan disclosed his musical tastes to the journalist, but then called him and asked that the journalist not publish them "It would be going to far". That seems to give a pretty clear picture of who he is dealing with.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Dec 1 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

But Usama Hassan also has reason to worry about his personal safety and really that concerns all of us. This is, of course, partly because no one should be killed for his opinions, but it is also because coming to agreement with a sect that believes a change in religious views is adequate reason for killing someone is a sect that it will be difficult to come to accommodation with.

Yes, it's hard even to know what accomodation with such a group would consist of, but whatever it would be I don't like it.

There will always be some people who tend toward fanaticism; every religion has them. But most people are not so inclined, and it takes a lot of pushing to get them there.

I do think that the US often shoots itself in the foot by taking actions that push impressionable young people into the grasp of the fanatics. General McChrystal clearly gets this, and I hope others in charge of US policy do too.