God, terrorism, brains
July 2, 2007 6:53 PM Subscribe
Amid reports that those responsible for recent terrorist attacks in the UK were doctors and medical students, we are likely to hear the usual calls for "inter-faith dialogue" and "more education". However, according to the most widely-cited study (.pdf here), the actual relationship between religious terrorism and education is one of direct, not inverse proportion. This defies the conventional wisdom that terrorism is the result of economic desperation and lack of educational opportunities, not totalitarian ideologies themselves. It also appears to contradict many previous studies showing an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence.
back in a previous lifetime I wondered a little why the NVA didn't respond to the B-52ing of their country by a little bomb-throwing of their own directed back at us.
I guess they were satisified, what with the massive support they got from the Communist bloc, to be in the driver's seat wrt their conflict with the Saigon puppet regime.
Terrorism may be crazy on the macro scale, but it isn't irrational, if you know how the individuals behind it got into that mindset.
Of course, that would defending/humanizing the terrorists, and we can't have that. Exterminate the brutes!
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:14 PM on July 2, 2007
I guess they were satisified, what with the massive support they got from the Communist bloc, to be in the driver's seat wrt their conflict with the Saigon puppet regime.
Terrorism may be crazy on the macro scale, but it isn't irrational, if you know how the individuals behind it got into that mindset.
Of course, that would defending/humanizing the terrorists, and we can't have that. Exterminate the brutes!
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:14 PM on July 2, 2007
Speaking of humanizing them, check out this lecture given by Lawrence Wright (2007 Pulitzer Prize winner for his 9-11/terrorism/Al-Qaeda book, The Looming Tower) about how intelligent, educated young men are drawn to al-qaeda and radical Islam: CBC's Ideas podcast, first link.
posted by jikel_morten at 7:38 PM on July 2, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by jikel_morten at 7:38 PM on July 2, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well, when looks at the history of people like Qutb, and see that he was actually influenced against the west by actually living here... He was well off, attended college and wrote about literature. Hardly a poor schmuck, yet he had a very dramatic impact on radical Islam.
I believe there are quite a few other cases as well. I don't think it's just "one study contradicts lots of other studies"... I think there's probably a plethora of radicalism in many different classes.
That's not to say that poverty doesn't play a role, I'm sure it does, but to focus on just that is to ignore other potential issues that can lead to radicalization. The question becomes one of "do we act upon our own prejudiced ideals (poverty leads to radicalism)" or "do we look at the facts as they are and try to get a deeper understanding as they are".
If the facts present an alternative to our nice little classist hypothesis (which, as a socialist, I'm quite fond of), we'd best, if our true intent is to solve the issue (if one believes it is an issue), look at the organic whole. Otherwise we're no better than the masses who scream "ZOMG!!! Terror! Islam is a religion of EVIL and HATE and MURDER!!!! Islam is terrorism... (btw, did I say ZOMG???) Let's attack Iraq despite piles of evidence to the contrary!"
posted by symbioid at 7:39 PM on July 2, 2007
I believe there are quite a few other cases as well. I don't think it's just "one study contradicts lots of other studies"... I think there's probably a plethora of radicalism in many different classes.
That's not to say that poverty doesn't play a role, I'm sure it does, but to focus on just that is to ignore other potential issues that can lead to radicalization. The question becomes one of "do we act upon our own prejudiced ideals (poverty leads to radicalism)" or "do we look at the facts as they are and try to get a deeper understanding as they are".
If the facts present an alternative to our nice little classist hypothesis (which, as a socialist, I'm quite fond of), we'd best, if our true intent is to solve the issue (if one believes it is an issue), look at the organic whole. Otherwise we're no better than the masses who scream "ZOMG!!! Terror! Islam is a religion of EVIL and HATE and MURDER!!!! Islam is terrorism... (btw, did I say ZOMG???) Let's attack Iraq despite piles of evidence to the contrary!"
posted by symbioid at 7:39 PM on July 2, 2007
Reading the Chronicle article, I'm taxed to find an example of a study that's actually drawn from the opinions or actions of people who actually commit acts of international terrorism. Is it non-obvious that Hezbollah and the KKK and impoverished West-Bank Palestinians don't have the resources and aren't going out of their way to attack other nations? About the only thing they do have in common is that they're large groups of undereducated people who believe they're defending their homelands.
Wouldn't it take a professional school to inculcate the sort of entitled hubris that's actually necessary to believe you're the instrument of god or of the will of the people. Start with Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment, and almost every famous "revolutionary" I can think of.
posted by litfit at 7:57 PM on July 2, 2007
Wouldn't it take a professional school to inculcate the sort of entitled hubris that's actually necessary to believe you're the instrument of god or of the will of the people. Start with Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment, and almost every famous "revolutionary" I can think of.
posted by litfit at 7:57 PM on July 2, 2007
There is a positive correlation between "being a fanatical suicide bomber" and "having one's head up one's arse," regardless of how educated the head is.
posted by davy at 8:01 PM on July 2, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by davy at 8:01 PM on July 2, 2007 [1 favorite]
Education is empowering, after all.
posted by dilettante at 8:06 PM on July 2, 2007
posted by dilettante at 8:06 PM on July 2, 2007
davy: I won't argue that point. But it takes a man of ideas with his head up his ass to take them to the rest of the world.
posted by litfit at 8:22 PM on July 2, 2007
posted by litfit at 8:22 PM on July 2, 2007
Maybe it takes a reasonably high amount of intelligence to somehow negotiate the cognitive dissonance between one's ideals (of a pan-Islamic state, for example) and the fact that blowing oneself into tiny little pieces will not actually bring those ideals into reality...?
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:38 PM on July 2, 2007
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:38 PM on July 2, 2007
Lots of "men of ideas" don't become suicide bombers. Look at quonsar and languagehat: I'll bet they have at least one idea between them! (Don't look at me, I got nothing but dead pipedreams.)
Seriously, how are you using "men of ideas"? Are atheists automatically disqualified?
As for suicide bombers, there is one and only one necessary qualification: one must hate "the Enemy" more than one loves life. One can tell by that that I don't hate "the Enemy" THAT much and/or that I want to live more than I often think I do, because the idea of blowing myself up just to take one or more of "Them" down with me sounds too much like work. So all those experts' cogitations overshoot the mark: it's really very simple.
posted by davy at 8:42 PM on July 2, 2007
Seriously, how are you using "men of ideas"? Are atheists automatically disqualified?
As for suicide bombers, there is one and only one necessary qualification: one must hate "the Enemy" more than one loves life. One can tell by that that I don't hate "the Enemy" THAT much and/or that I want to live more than I often think I do, because the idea of blowing myself up just to take one or more of "Them" down with me sounds too much like work. So all those experts' cogitations overshoot the mark: it's really very simple.
posted by davy at 8:42 PM on July 2, 2007
NVA didn't respond to the B-52ing of their country by a little bomb-throwing of their own directed back at us
The NVA were good tacticians, and their goal was to rid their country of the invader. Not antagonise the invader into responding with even greater destruction.
This is directly opposed to Islamicist tactic of trying to provoke a disproportionate response from the US of the Willing.
posted by mattoxic at 8:43 PM on July 2, 2007
The NVA were good tacticians, and their goal was to rid their country of the invader. Not antagonise the invader into responding with even greater destruction.
This is directly opposed to Islamicist tactic of trying to provoke a disproportionate response from the US of the Willing.
posted by mattoxic at 8:43 PM on July 2, 2007
What I don't get is: If they're so smart, how comes their bombs didn't go off? CNN was able to detonate a bomb of similar design, although it wasn't very impressive for a VBIED it still went boom.
That said, I'm not sure how this thing was supposed to work, was the heat pressure supposed to be enough cause the tanks to rupture? It doesn't seem like it ever would have built up enough pressure to do much.
So one study contradicts lots of other studies. OK.
Links? It seems like the really committed terrorists are the ones who travel around the world, integrate with local populations and then pull off attacks, I don't think a poor person in the slums of Sudan is going to be doing that any time soon, but on the other time they'd be more likely to take up arms in local conflicts.
posted by delmoi at 8:52 PM on July 2, 2007
That said, I'm not sure how this thing was supposed to work, was the heat pressure supposed to be enough cause the tanks to rupture? It doesn't seem like it ever would have built up enough pressure to do much.
So one study contradicts lots of other studies. OK.
Links? It seems like the really committed terrorists are the ones who travel around the world, integrate with local populations and then pull off attacks, I don't think a poor person in the slums of Sudan is going to be doing that any time soon, but on the other time they'd be more likely to take up arms in local conflicts.
posted by delmoi at 8:52 PM on July 2, 2007
He is the second doctor to be named as a suspect after Mohammed Asha, 26, was arrested on the M6 with his wife, Marwah, on Saturday evening.
It's a grim, fuelled-up Asha going for a drive.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:52 PM on July 2, 2007 [4 favorites]
It's a grim, fuelled-up Asha going for a drive.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:52 PM on July 2, 2007 [4 favorites]
Well, come on, I'm not advocating profiling and locking up the intelligentsia. Or maybe the doctors *are* poisoning us and they should all be rounded up and sent to Siberia on trains!
Probably not. That paper sucks is all I'm saying. It conflates ignorant nationalism/domestic terrorism with the sorts of acts that only highly motivated and mobile ideologues can execute.
posted by litfit at 9:02 PM on July 2, 2007
Probably not. That paper sucks is all I'm saying. It conflates ignorant nationalism/domestic terrorism with the sorts of acts that only highly motivated and mobile ideologues can execute.
posted by litfit at 9:02 PM on July 2, 2007
Maybe it takes a reasonably high amount of intelligence to somehow negotiate the cognitive dissonance between one's ideals (of a pan-Islamic state, for example) and the fact that blowing oneself into tiny little pieces will not actually bring those ideals into reality
Huh? Why wouldn't it? You take some basic assumptions about the west
1) We don't really have the stomach for conquest and wars
2) We don't like getting killed.
3) We don't have the military power to crush radical islam without resorting massive brutality.
So we are faced with two choices on the ends of a continuum. Either we try to defeat radical Islam by resorting to brutality, or we appease. Appeasement violates none of the three constraints and so full appeasement is the most rational choice.
I don't see what's so irrational about that line of thinking. The problem, though, is that game theory predicts that acting somewhat irrational can give you an advantage, so the west may behave in an irrational manner somewhat just to confuse the enemy.
The other problem, and this seems to be the case, we may actually be irrational.
Finally, we may figure out a way to beat Radical Islam without resorting to brutality and soforth. Support for dictatorships and opposing democracy may have been working. So much for that.
I'm not trying to say what's wrong or right, just that the terrorist mindset isn't actually irrational.
(And it may be that people don't necessarily want to convert the whole world to Islam, but just want the west to get out of their hair, a more realistic goal. )
posted by delmoi at 9:02 PM on July 2, 2007
Huh? Why wouldn't it? You take some basic assumptions about the west
1) We don't really have the stomach for conquest and wars
2) We don't like getting killed.
3) We don't have the military power to crush radical islam without resorting massive brutality.
So we are faced with two choices on the ends of a continuum. Either we try to defeat radical Islam by resorting to brutality, or we appease. Appeasement violates none of the three constraints and so full appeasement is the most rational choice.
I don't see what's so irrational about that line of thinking. The problem, though, is that game theory predicts that acting somewhat irrational can give you an advantage, so the west may behave in an irrational manner somewhat just to confuse the enemy.
The other problem, and this seems to be the case, we may actually be irrational.
Finally, we may figure out a way to beat Radical Islam without resorting to brutality and soforth. Support for dictatorships and opposing democracy may have been working. So much for that.
I'm not trying to say what's wrong or right, just that the terrorist mindset isn't actually irrational.
(And it may be that people don't necessarily want to convert the whole world to Islam, but just want the west to get out of their hair, a more realistic goal. )
posted by delmoi at 9:02 PM on July 2, 2007
It's a grim, fuelled-up Asha going for a drive.
He don't care about no government warnings,
about the promotion of the simple life etc etc?
posted by bunglin jones at 9:04 PM on July 2, 2007
He don't care about no government warnings,
about the promotion of the simple life etc etc?
posted by bunglin jones at 9:04 PM on July 2, 2007
I'd be interested in knowing what kind of educational background Jim Jones followers had.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:08 PM on July 2, 2007
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:08 PM on July 2, 2007
As for suicide bombers, there is one and only one necessary qualification: one must hate "the Enemy" more than one loves life
I'm not sure about this. Love of "the cause" is often greater than hatred of the enemy. Couldn't a qualification for a suicide bomber (or maybe any soldier who enters a battle knowing s/he might die) be: "I believe that what I am fighting for is more important than my own life"? Throw in a belief in the afterlife and things get even more complicated.
posted by bunglin jones at 9:11 PM on July 2, 2007
I'm not sure about this. Love of "the cause" is often greater than hatred of the enemy. Couldn't a qualification for a suicide bomber (or maybe any soldier who enters a battle knowing s/he might die) be: "I believe that what I am fighting for is more important than my own life"? Throw in a belief in the afterlife and things get even more complicated.
posted by bunglin jones at 9:11 PM on July 2, 2007
Former radical describes what fuels the terrorists.
I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
...
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice
posted by jikel_morten at 9:14 PM on July 2, 2007
I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
...
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice
posted by jikel_morten at 9:14 PM on July 2, 2007
From Sam Harris: "I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world’s Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals."
posted by inoculatedcities at 9:18 PM on July 2, 2007
posted by inoculatedcities at 9:18 PM on July 2, 2007
"...Islamicist tactic of trying to provoke a disproportionate response..."
I'm unsure of something: in Islam (or at least the "terrorist" versions of it) are the "collaterally damaged" Muslims also martyrs? Does one need to be an active combatant, or is just being bombed by The Enemy (even "by mistake") enough?
Me, I'm likelier to feel sorry for the "innocent victims" than to salute anybody's "soldiers."
posted by davy at 9:50 PM on July 2, 2007
I'm unsure of something: in Islam (or at least the "terrorist" versions of it) are the "collaterally damaged" Muslims also martyrs? Does one need to be an active combatant, or is just being bombed by The Enemy (even "by mistake") enough?
Me, I'm likelier to feel sorry for the "innocent victims" than to salute anybody's "soldiers."
posted by davy at 9:50 PM on July 2, 2007
Some of the terrorists may have acquired some education, but I doubt the really smart ones are performing suicide bombings. I mean, I myself am a "smart"/"educated" guy by various objective measures, and first off, I wouldn't take myself out, and if I was going to, I would plan and practice until it was SPECTACULAR and the chances of messing up were very minimal.
Weird thing to link to, but SomethingAwful's front page today was basically about the idea that the September 11 terrorists were the Top Gun best of the best of suicide bombers and the unsuccessful or less spectacular attacks since are coming from the dumb terrorists that are left.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:50 PM on July 2, 2007
Weird thing to link to, but SomethingAwful's front page today was basically about the idea that the September 11 terrorists were the Top Gun best of the best of suicide bombers and the unsuccessful or less spectacular attacks since are coming from the dumb terrorists that are left.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:50 PM on July 2, 2007
As I see it a really smart Enemy is one who, instead of doing or suffering anything directly, plays "let's you & him fight." So maybe somebody somewhere (an Illuminatus? a KGB general? an insurance company or mass media executive?) is laughing his/her ass off.
It's like the old U.S. tactic of selling guns to both sides, e.g., Iran v. Iraq, only cheaper.
posted by davy at 10:10 PM on July 2, 2007
It's like the old U.S. tactic of selling guns to both sides, e.g., Iran v. Iraq, only cheaper.
posted by davy at 10:10 PM on July 2, 2007
Davy, yes, in the "terrorist" versions, Muslim bystanders are thought to be martyrs, though needless to say not in the standard versions, wherein the whole enterprise is prohibited.
Jikel_morten's link ends with this quote:
Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.
And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Such scholars are already out there and hard at work, though competing with Saudi dollars is not easy. An excellent theological refutation of suicide bombing can be read in Shaykh Afifi al-Akiti's Defending The Transgressed By
Censuring The Reckless Against The Killing Of Civilians. Also in PDF. Also available for purchase from Amal Press as part of the book 'The State We Are In: Identity, Terror and the Law of Jihad'
posted by BinGregory at 10:14 PM on July 2, 2007
Jikel_morten's link ends with this quote:
Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.
And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Such scholars are already out there and hard at work, though competing with Saudi dollars is not easy. An excellent theological refutation of suicide bombing can be read in Shaykh Afifi al-Akiti's Defending The Transgressed By
Censuring The Reckless Against The Killing Of Civilians. Also in PDF. Also available for purchase from Amal Press as part of the book 'The State We Are In: Identity, Terror and the Law of Jihad'
posted by BinGregory at 10:14 PM on July 2, 2007
A direct relation between education and support for / participation in terrorism DOES NOT contradict an inverse relation between IQ and religiosity because the correspondence between education and IQ is considerably less than 100% and the correspondence between religiosity and participation in / support for terrorism is even lower, leaving lots of room for there to be an inverse relation between IQ/religiosity and a direct relation between education and participation in / support for terrorism.
I would, however, be somewhat confident in predicting an inverse relationship between religiosity and ability to understand the above distinction.
posted by lastobelus at 10:21 PM on July 2, 2007 [1 favorite]
I would, however, be somewhat confident in predicting an inverse relationship between religiosity and ability to understand the above distinction.
posted by lastobelus at 10:21 PM on July 2, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh, and I forgot to mention: the population sizes are vastly different -- the number of people who support / participate in terrorism is a small fraction of the total population, meaning that even if there was a very strong correspondence between the two sets of variables, you could still easily have an inverse relationship in the first and a direct in the second.
posted by lastobelus at 10:27 PM on July 2, 2007
posted by lastobelus at 10:27 PM on July 2, 2007
I also forgot to mention that this is not quibbling or semantics but SHOULD BE GLARINGLY AND IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS to anyone high in EITHER education or IQ (though it certainly seems that religiosity tends considerably impair one's ability to understand this)
posted by lastobelus at 10:29 PM on July 2, 2007
posted by lastobelus at 10:29 PM on July 2, 2007
delmoi: So we are faced with two choices on the ends of a continuum. Either we try to defeat radical Islam by resorting to brutality, or we appease. Appeasement violates none of the three constraints and so full appeasement is the most rational choice
Oh, come on. Full appeasement means the handing over of everything, in order to create a global Islamic state, no? It's gonna take more than 3,000 deaths six years ago, plus a few dozen since, before the world is likely to submit to shar'ia.
Hell, more than five times the total number of terrorist victims from the past decade die every single day of preventable diseases, malnutrition & poor water, and we could hardly give a fuck about a death toll that high, so why would we hand over world control to a bunch of loonies just becoz every now & then one of them splatters himself all over the walls, taking a few bystanders with him?
Apart from that, your "basic assumptions" are pretty flawed, and are used to prop up a ridiculous false opposition. We don't have the stomach for conquest & wars? We don't like being killed? If it were a matter of "wage war or hand over world sovereignty to hardcore Islam", then there'd be wars & killing alright.
The thing is, at present there are so few of these earnest idiots out there, and they are so laughably close to ineffectual, that we can totally afford to sit back & say "Meh, I don't care much for this abstract idea of global shar'ia, but I don't like war or killing either, as another remote, abstract concept, but...hey, can you pass the wine please? What were we talking about again? Oh, whatever, hey - who's up for a trip down the coast this weekend, if the weather's good...?"
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:44 PM on July 2, 2007
Oh, come on. Full appeasement means the handing over of everything, in order to create a global Islamic state, no? It's gonna take more than 3,000 deaths six years ago, plus a few dozen since, before the world is likely to submit to shar'ia.
Hell, more than five times the total number of terrorist victims from the past decade die every single day of preventable diseases, malnutrition & poor water, and we could hardly give a fuck about a death toll that high, so why would we hand over world control to a bunch of loonies just becoz every now & then one of them splatters himself all over the walls, taking a few bystanders with him?
Apart from that, your "basic assumptions" are pretty flawed, and are used to prop up a ridiculous false opposition. We don't have the stomach for conquest & wars? We don't like being killed? If it were a matter of "wage war or hand over world sovereignty to hardcore Islam", then there'd be wars & killing alright.
The thing is, at present there are so few of these earnest idiots out there, and they are so laughably close to ineffectual, that we can totally afford to sit back & say "Meh, I don't care much for this abstract idea of global shar'ia, but I don't like war or killing either, as another remote, abstract concept, but...hey, can you pass the wine please? What were we talking about again? Oh, whatever, hey - who's up for a trip down the coast this weekend, if the weather's good...?"
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:44 PM on July 2, 2007
What with the two doctors arrested in Australia this morning, it's starting to look like someone very canny has established a network of international medical terrorists - makes total sense, given that doctors have no difficulty obtaining work permits, are in an increasingly migratory profession so that frequent moves arouse no suspicion, and are more likely to be easily assimilated into Western populations by dint of their profession. There's also a nice queasy terror twist, turning life-savers into killers.
posted by jack_mo at 1:31 AM on July 3, 2007
posted by jack_mo at 1:31 AM on July 3, 2007
Thank you Lastobelus, I was going to make a similar point, but you phrased it better. There is some correlation between level of education and IQ, but only until a Master's degree is achieved. Doctorates supposedly have a slightly lower IQ on average than people with Master's degrees, but I can't find the study to back that up right now.
According to wikipedia:
"Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55, implying that differences in psychometric intelligence account for about 30% of the outcome variance."
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:33 AM on July 3, 2007
According to wikipedia:
"Correlations between IQ scores and total years of education are about .55, implying that differences in psychometric intelligence account for about 30% of the outcome variance."
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:33 AM on July 3, 2007
You risk going down the path to quibblation talking about ‘religion’ ‘intelligence’ and ‘religious intelligence’. It might be interesting to discuss whether religious intellectuals in general are obliged to be a bit nutty. Look at St Paul. And I have a suspicion that the Archbish of Canterbury is growing out his eyebrows because he really wants to be a wise old owl.
Anyway, what I find more interesting is what charm religious fanaticism can have for Westernised, secularised, Muslims. A while back slate.com looked at a fairly unknown film from 1999, My Son the Fanatic, which puts an interesting spin on where fanaticism comes from. (http://www.slate.com/id/2122935/) In it, a Westernised Muslim, living in Britain, is dismayed when his second generation son appears to be embracing the traditionalist values he’s abandoned – seemingly in a spirit of rebellion. I think there’s the same kind of teenage ‘change the world’ type fanaticism in these new terrorists (albeit horribly misguided) that you get with every generation which wants to sweep away what their parents have established.
posted by low_horrible_immoral at 2:28 AM on July 3, 2007
Anyway, what I find more interesting is what charm religious fanaticism can have for Westernised, secularised, Muslims. A while back slate.com looked at a fairly unknown film from 1999, My Son the Fanatic, which puts an interesting spin on where fanaticism comes from. (http://www.slate.com/id/2122935/) In it, a Westernised Muslim, living in Britain, is dismayed when his second generation son appears to be embracing the traditionalist values he’s abandoned – seemingly in a spirit of rebellion. I think there’s the same kind of teenage ‘change the world’ type fanaticism in these new terrorists (albeit horribly misguided) that you get with every generation which wants to sweep away what their parents have established.
posted by low_horrible_immoral at 2:28 AM on July 3, 2007
back in a previous lifetime I wondered a little why the NVA didn't respond to the B-52ing of their country by a little bomb-throwing of their own directed back at us.
I guess they were satisified, what with the massive support they got from the Communist bloc, to be in the driver's seat wrt their conflict with the Saigon puppet regime.
Yeah, pretty much. We waaaaay misread that as falling dominoes; the VC were fighting a war to reunify their country, actually. But the US refused to take Ho seriously (hey, he was just a little yellow brother, y'know) and...Truman?...essentially handed Vietnam back to the French as a colony postwar, pushing Ho right into the arms of the Commies. There's a book, Our Ho, about back when Ho Chi Minh and we were allies; it's a work of historical fiction, but fascinating anyhow.
Anyhow, thinking of identifying what axes are being ground here, if we got the hell out of the 'Stan and Iraq, left Iran alone, and most importantly got out of Saudi Arabia and told the Israelis "You're on your own from here on out," the big bad scary terrists would probably be puzzled as to exactly what the hell they hated about the West, apart from maybe Baywatch. They'd be content to bomb the living fsck out of Israel (one crowded rush-hour Tel Aviv bus at time) and occasionally each other.
* * * * * * *
Who knew doctors were as inept and amateurish as the next guy when it came to pulling off a terrorist hit. I'm glad these guys aren't on a par with IRA tangos.
posted by pax digita at 3:37 AM on July 3, 2007
I guess they were satisified, what with the massive support they got from the Communist bloc, to be in the driver's seat wrt their conflict with the Saigon puppet regime.
Yeah, pretty much. We waaaaay misread that as falling dominoes; the VC were fighting a war to reunify their country, actually. But the US refused to take Ho seriously (hey, he was just a little yellow brother, y'know) and...Truman?...essentially handed Vietnam back to the French as a colony postwar, pushing Ho right into the arms of the Commies. There's a book, Our Ho, about back when Ho Chi Minh and we were allies; it's a work of historical fiction, but fascinating anyhow.
Anyhow, thinking of identifying what axes are being ground here, if we got the hell out of the 'Stan and Iraq, left Iran alone, and most importantly got out of Saudi Arabia and told the Israelis "You're on your own from here on out," the big bad scary terrists would probably be puzzled as to exactly what the hell they hated about the West, apart from maybe Baywatch. They'd be content to bomb the living fsck out of Israel (one crowded rush-hour Tel Aviv bus at time) and occasionally each other.
* * * * * * *
Who knew doctors were as inept and amateurish as the next guy when it came to pulling off a terrorist hit. I'm glad these guys aren't on a par with IRA tangos.
posted by pax digita at 3:37 AM on July 3, 2007
9/11 notwithstanding, I didn't realize we had this insurmountable problem with Islamism.
At least until we invaded Iraq.
Except for Bin Laden and his followers, Muslims seemed to be preoccupied with the business of getting on with their lives.
Of course now they despise us to the point of suicidal car bombing.
posted by notreally at 4:29 AM on July 3, 2007
What with the two doctors arrested in Australia this morning, it's starting to look like someone very canny has established a network of international medical terrorists - makes total sense, given that doctors have no difficulty obtaining work permits, are in an increasingly migratory profession so that frequent moves arouse no suspicion, and are more likely to be easily assimilated into Western populations by dint of their profession. There's also a nice queasy terror twist, turning life-savers into killers.
"international medical terrorists"? Fucking hell.
Is it so hard to entertain the theory that, as recent immigrants, most of their friends would have been through work, so the fact many shared a profession is not in the slightest bit surprising? They aren't a cell, there aren't "twists", this is not an episode of Lost where we're wondering what the writers will serve up next, and what all the clues mean.
Jesus fucking Christ.
posted by cillit bang at 5:01 AM on July 3, 2007
"international medical terrorists"? Fucking hell.
Is it so hard to entertain the theory that, as recent immigrants, most of their friends would have been through work, so the fact many shared a profession is not in the slightest bit surprising? They aren't a cell, there aren't "twists", this is not an episode of Lost where we're wondering what the writers will serve up next, and what all the clues mean.
Jesus fucking Christ.
posted by cillit bang at 5:01 AM on July 3, 2007
bunglin jones writes 'It's a grim, fuelled-up Asha going for a drive.
'He don't care about no government warnings,
'about the promotion of the simple life etc etc?'
Everybody needs a Muslim for a pillock
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:05 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
'He don't care about no government warnings,
'about the promotion of the simple life etc etc?'
Everybody needs a Muslim for a pillock
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:05 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
lack of educational opportunities, not totalitarian ideologies
What if there is a third choice, a choice that Muslims have been telling us for years - that there is a religious crises in Islam and they are fighting a religious holy war - sometimes it effects the west, but for the most part it is an internal civil war, also known as a "Reformation" - remember the west's Reformation - it's bloody, idealogical, illogical, society wide, and lasts many generations.
posted by stbalbach at 6:38 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
What if there is a third choice, a choice that Muslims have been telling us for years - that there is a religious crises in Islam and they are fighting a religious holy war - sometimes it effects the west, but for the most part it is an internal civil war, also known as a "Reformation" - remember the west's Reformation - it's bloody, idealogical, illogical, society wide, and lasts many generations.
posted by stbalbach at 6:38 AM on July 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's a grim, fuelled-up Asha going for a drive.
Sorry, I'm just coming in here to emphasize the brilliance of this joke. Thanks UbuRoivas, you made my day.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:49 AM on July 3, 2007
Sorry, I'm just coming in here to emphasize the brilliance of this joke. Thanks UbuRoivas, you made my day.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:49 AM on July 3, 2007
The key here is to see all terrorism (religious and/or political) as the same. The essence of terrorism is ideology and symbol. All terrorists are highly motivated by some kind of ideology, and to hold to those principles and execute them in complicated plots requires a certain level of dedication and intelligence. Universities are, of course, fertile grounds for breeding ideologies. In the end, I don't think it matters if your ideology is dedication to your homeland (e.g., ETA and IRA) or to your religion and your homeland (e.g., Al Quaeda) or an economic idea (e.g., the Weathermen and the Baader-Meinhof Group).
Mohammed Atta studied architecture an urban planning. He studied the commercialization of Cairo's traditional markets, being adulterated from their local form to serve foreign tourists. When the World Trade Center was built, a thriving small-business neighborhood called Radio Row -- which had the city's highest concentration of Arab's -- was razed. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the possible implications. Even if Atta didn't attack the WTC in order to avenge colonialist zoning law, the act was cerebral and symbolic, not merely brutal.
posted by footnote at 6:59 AM on July 3, 2007
Mohammed Atta studied architecture an urban planning. He studied the commercialization of Cairo's traditional markets, being adulterated from their local form to serve foreign tourists. When the World Trade Center was built, a thriving small-business neighborhood called Radio Row -- which had the city's highest concentration of Arab's -- was razed. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the possible implications. Even if Atta didn't attack the WTC in order to avenge colonialist zoning law, the act was cerebral and symbolic, not merely brutal.
posted by footnote at 6:59 AM on July 3, 2007
I remember reading an article about a scientific report that showed many in highly technical and academic fields (like some doctors and professors) are emotionally immature. It was posited that people in such fields benefited from emotional and intellectual pliancy. Maybe that could make a highly intelligent person susceptible to going down a path like this.
posted by erikharmon at 8:02 AM on July 3, 2007
posted by erikharmon at 8:02 AM on July 3, 2007
cillit bang writes 'Is it so hard to entertain the theory that, as recent immigrants, most of their friends would have been through work, so the fact many shared a profession is not in the slightest bit surprising? They aren't a cell, there aren't "twists", this is not an episode of Lost where we're wondering what the writers will serve up next, and what all the clues mean.
'Jesus fucking Christ.'
What are you on about? They obviously were a cell, and I didn't mean plot twist, I meant that there's something particularly horrible about doctors whose job it is to save lives attempting murder.
And it turns out that there are huge advantages to recruiting medical professionals into terrorism (these 'friends through work' worked in different hospitals in different cities, Liverpool, Glasgow and London). What I didn't know when I wrote the above is that (according to reports on Radio 4's PM programme) doctors can enter the UK without a work permit and the accompanying background checks, and that doctors with work permits are only subject to minimal security checks (ie, a check on any criminal record in the UK). This makes it easier for doctors to enter the UK than, say, the usual tabloid bugbears like people seeking asylum. Given those facts, and that eight of those arrested so far are doctors and foreign nationals, including the supposed ringleader, it's hardly 'episode of Lost' territory to wonder if the NHS was deliberately used as a comparatively easy route into the UK.
posted by jack_mo at 12:42 PM on July 3, 2007
'Jesus fucking Christ.'
What are you on about? They obviously were a cell, and I didn't mean plot twist, I meant that there's something particularly horrible about doctors whose job it is to save lives attempting murder.
And it turns out that there are huge advantages to recruiting medical professionals into terrorism (these 'friends through work' worked in different hospitals in different cities, Liverpool, Glasgow and London). What I didn't know when I wrote the above is that (according to reports on Radio 4's PM programme) doctors can enter the UK without a work permit and the accompanying background checks, and that doctors with work permits are only subject to minimal security checks (ie, a check on any criminal record in the UK). This makes it easier for doctors to enter the UK than, say, the usual tabloid bugbears like people seeking asylum. Given those facts, and that eight of those arrested so far are doctors and foreign nationals, including the supposed ringleader, it's hardly 'episode of Lost' territory to wonder if the NHS was deliberately used as a comparatively easy route into the UK.
posted by jack_mo at 12:42 PM on July 3, 2007
"It also appears to contradict many previous studies showing an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence."
Are you suggesting a perfectly linear correlation between intelligence and the probability of studying medicine?
Why? Going to medical school only requires a certain level of skill at memorization. While memory is an element of intelligence, it isn't the only element of it.
posted by bshock at 1:42 PM on July 3, 2007
Are you suggesting a perfectly linear correlation between intelligence and the probability of studying medicine?
Why? Going to medical school only requires a certain level of skill at memorization. While memory is an element of intelligence, it isn't the only element of it.
posted by bshock at 1:42 PM on July 3, 2007
Dude, seriously, you're describing a terrorist group with the resources to easily pull off another 9/11. But yet the best attack they could come up with was two immensely crude car-bombs, and setting themselves on fire in a public place?
I don't know how people like you can reconcile the very obvious ameteurishness of what happened last week with your fevered dreams of international terrorists plotting for years to get their agents into Fortress Britain. I really don't.
posted by cillit bang at 2:01 PM on July 3, 2007
I don't know how people like you can reconcile the very obvious ameteurishness of what happened last week with your fevered dreams of international terrorists plotting for years to get their agents into Fortress Britain. I really don't.
posted by cillit bang at 2:01 PM on July 3, 2007
A direct relation between education and support for / participation in terrorism DOES NOT contradict an inverse relation between IQ and religiosity because the correspondence between education and IQ is considerably less than 100% and the correspondence between religiosity and participation in / support for terrorism is even lower, leaving lots of room for there to be an inverse relation between IQ/religiosity and a direct relation between education and participation in / support for terrorism.
lastobelus - You sir, are correct, that's why I qualified it with "appears to contradict".
What if there is a third choice, a choice that Muslims have been telling us for years - that there is a religious crises in Islam and they are fighting a religious holy war - sometimes it effects the west, but for the most part it is an internal civil war, also known as a "Reformation" - remember the west's Reformation - it's bloody, idealogical, illogical, society wide, and lasts many generations.
stbalbach - There is no doubt that there is a crisis resulting from Islam's need for a reformation. Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity and we all remember what a wonderful force in the world Christianity was circa 1400 AD. Obviously such a reformation is in order, one that would allow a more secular (because that's what we mean by reformation), less rigidly dogmatic Islam to continue if humanity would like to avoid a likely nuclear confrontation in the next fifty plus years. Religion devoid of any desire to convert or impose itself on the lives of perceived infidels is relatively harmless, but it is important to note that religious totalitarianism (and other totalitarian dogmas, including secular ones) is itself what is at the very root apocalyptic violence. Martyrdom would not be possible without a foundational, unassailable mythology -- which I think explains why there are no secular, atheist suicide bombers committing acts of terrorism in the name of freethought). Religious fundamentalism can and should be sterilized and minimized, but that doesn't mean that such dogmas aren't themselves intrinsically (because they are potentially) violent.
Going to medical school only requires a certain level of skill at memorization.
Bshock – Right, that’s all it takes, Dr. Shock.
posted by inoculatedcities at 2:13 PM on July 3, 2007
lastobelus - You sir, are correct, that's why I qualified it with "appears to contradict".
What if there is a third choice, a choice that Muslims have been telling us for years - that there is a religious crises in Islam and they are fighting a religious holy war - sometimes it effects the west, but for the most part it is an internal civil war, also known as a "Reformation" - remember the west's Reformation - it's bloody, idealogical, illogical, society wide, and lasts many generations.
stbalbach - There is no doubt that there is a crisis resulting from Islam's need for a reformation. Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity and we all remember what a wonderful force in the world Christianity was circa 1400 AD. Obviously such a reformation is in order, one that would allow a more secular (because that's what we mean by reformation), less rigidly dogmatic Islam to continue if humanity would like to avoid a likely nuclear confrontation in the next fifty plus years. Religion devoid of any desire to convert or impose itself on the lives of perceived infidels is relatively harmless, but it is important to note that religious totalitarianism (and other totalitarian dogmas, including secular ones) is itself what is at the very root apocalyptic violence. Martyrdom would not be possible without a foundational, unassailable mythology -- which I think explains why there are no secular, atheist suicide bombers committing acts of terrorism in the name of freethought). Religious fundamentalism can and should be sterilized and minimized, but that doesn't mean that such dogmas aren't themselves intrinsically (because they are potentially) violent.
Going to medical school only requires a certain level of skill at memorization.
Bshock – Right, that’s all it takes, Dr. Shock.
posted by inoculatedcities at 2:13 PM on July 3, 2007
I think the participation of otherwise highly intelligent people in terrorism has striking parallels to the participation of such people in cults.
If you look at the Aum cult in Japan-- which planted poisonous gas in the subway and killed several people-- doctors and engineers and scientists and other highly educated people participated in it.
High intelligence does not exempt you from social pressures-- in fact, it can make you especially vulnerable to coercive persuasion precisely because you believe you are too smart to fall for it and then find yourself becoming indoctrinated bit by bit.
If you believe that things like food deprivation, sleep deprivation and other stresses that cult-like organizations place people under while they are molding their views will not affect you, then when you find yourself changing your mind as a result of these stresses, you will believe that you are doing so voluntarily. If you thought the other stuff was affecting you, you'd actually be less likely to buy in.
It's kind of like the proverbial (although apparently untrue) slowly boiled frog. And organizations like Al Qaeda use the same kinds of tactics that other religious cults do.
posted by Maias at 3:48 PM on July 3, 2007
cillit bang: Dude, seriously, you're describing a terrorist group with the resources to easily pull off another 9/11. But yet the best attack they could come up with was two immensely crude car-bombs, and setting themselves on fire in a public place?
I don't know how people like you can reconcile the very obvious ameteurishness of what happened last week with your fevered dreams of international terrorists plotting for years to get their agents into Fortress Britain. I really don't.
The IRA and its various subsets and splinter groups spent the best part of 30 years bombing targets, both in Ulster and on the mainland, with varying success. Some of it amateurish, some very much not. This is very much in the amateur camp; the bombings of July 7, 2005 were a more professional operation. It isn't about reconciling ham-fisted amateurs and "fevered dreams of international terrorists plotting for years"; both exist, though they have varying degrees of success.
People in the UK – or at least those over about 25 – have enough of a collective memory of the IRA's bombing campaign to remember that inept planning and perfect execution are not mutually exclusive. They don't think about terrorism in the same way that Americans do. For British people, domestic terrorism, in the form of car bombs, suspect devices in pubs, and all the rest, has been part of the news for approaching four decades; for some, it's been part of their daily lives for the same duration.
Thus, the fact that the weekend's shambling amateurs didn't succeed is of limited comfort - because for every bumbling idiot who drives a Jeep into an airport terminal, there's probably someone else biding their time with a more realistic plan. (That's not to say said plan will work, but the possibility is there nonetheless.)
This isn't an OMGTERRORISTS!!!!1! take on things. It's simply a reflection of the past few decades of terrorism in the UK. Yes, there are plenty of nutters with a supposed grievance and a couple of badly-fashioned car bombs at the ready. But there are also professionals out there with both the means and the wherewithal to do it properly. As an IRA representative said after the bombing of the Tory Party conference in Brighton in 1984, "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always."
posted by Len at 5:55 PM on July 3, 2007
I don't know how people like you can reconcile the very obvious ameteurishness of what happened last week with your fevered dreams of international terrorists plotting for years to get their agents into Fortress Britain. I really don't.
The IRA and its various subsets and splinter groups spent the best part of 30 years bombing targets, both in Ulster and on the mainland, with varying success. Some of it amateurish, some very much not. This is very much in the amateur camp; the bombings of July 7, 2005 were a more professional operation. It isn't about reconciling ham-fisted amateurs and "fevered dreams of international terrorists plotting for years"; both exist, though they have varying degrees of success.
People in the UK – or at least those over about 25 – have enough of a collective memory of the IRA's bombing campaign to remember that inept planning and perfect execution are not mutually exclusive. They don't think about terrorism in the same way that Americans do. For British people, domestic terrorism, in the form of car bombs, suspect devices in pubs, and all the rest, has been part of the news for approaching four decades; for some, it's been part of their daily lives for the same duration.
Thus, the fact that the weekend's shambling amateurs didn't succeed is of limited comfort - because for every bumbling idiot who drives a Jeep into an airport terminal, there's probably someone else biding their time with a more realistic plan. (That's not to say said plan will work, but the possibility is there nonetheless.)
This isn't an OMGTERRORISTS!!!!1! take on things. It's simply a reflection of the past few decades of terrorism in the UK. Yes, there are plenty of nutters with a supposed grievance and a couple of badly-fashioned car bombs at the ready. But there are also professionals out there with both the means and the wherewithal to do it properly. As an IRA representative said after the bombing of the Tory Party conference in Brighton in 1984, "Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always."
posted by Len at 5:55 PM on July 3, 2007
Len: People in the UK – or at least those over about 25 – have enough of a collective memory of the IRA's bombing campaign to remember that inept planning and perfect execution are not mutually exclusive. They don't think about terrorism in the same way that Americans do. For British people, domestic terrorism, in the form of car bombs, suspect devices in pubs, and all the rest, has been part of the news for approaching four decades; for some, it's been part of their daily lives for the same duration.
True 'nuff, but the American experience of terrorism, an occasional nut with a fringe ideology and no direct operational support from within their home community has a lot to bear on this particular question. The IRA was projecting force into Britain and training fighters, that didn't stop the occasional idiot sympathizer from going out in a blaze of glory and doing it in the name of a cause.
If I've learned one thing in my life, political violence is perpetrated by at least two types of people. There are the sociopaths and then there are ideologues. Sociopaths start with the desire to attack, get their rationale later, and any rationale will do. Ideologues start with the rationale, and then they actually plan their attacks. They're the more dangerous, and the more predictable.
You can't guard against someone who would just as easily bomb a building in the name of Allah as would bomb it in the name of black helicopters or animal rights or any other cause. Some people are just nuts, angry, violent, and want to be remembered when they go down fighting.
posted by litfit at 8:02 PM on July 3, 2007
True 'nuff, but the American experience of terrorism, an occasional nut with a fringe ideology and no direct operational support from within their home community has a lot to bear on this particular question. The IRA was projecting force into Britain and training fighters, that didn't stop the occasional idiot sympathizer from going out in a blaze of glory and doing it in the name of a cause.
If I've learned one thing in my life, political violence is perpetrated by at least two types of people. There are the sociopaths and then there are ideologues. Sociopaths start with the desire to attack, get their rationale later, and any rationale will do. Ideologues start with the rationale, and then they actually plan their attacks. They're the more dangerous, and the more predictable.
You can't guard against someone who would just as easily bomb a building in the name of Allah as would bomb it in the name of black helicopters or animal rights or any other cause. Some people are just nuts, angry, violent, and want to be remembered when they go down fighting.
posted by litfit at 8:02 PM on July 3, 2007
Thanks Len, for saving me the bother of having to reply to cillit bang's wilful misreading.
As you say, rubbish terrorists get lucky - this useless bunch were only one drunk falling over in Tiger Tiger away from killing or maiming a significant number of people.
posted by jack_mo at 6:05 AM on July 4, 2007
As you say, rubbish terrorists get lucky - this useless bunch were only one drunk falling over in Tiger Tiger away from killing or maiming a significant number of people.
posted by jack_mo at 6:05 AM on July 4, 2007
cillit bang's wilful misreading.
Yeah, fuck you too.
posted by cillit bang at 8:33 AM on July 5, 2007
Yeah, fuck you too.
posted by cillit bang at 8:33 AM on July 5, 2007
« Older Canadian Adaptations of Shakespeare | Beverly Sills Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:10 PM on July 2, 2007