Re: O.T.: An Arab's View

"You didn't "disagree" with it. You went "further" (your word) and
drew
the simplistic conclusion that "religion itself" is the
culprit...ignoring
that the issue of terrorism today is confined almost exclusively to a
relatively small segment of one religion."

Religion itself is definitely a major culprit. Look at the Harari's
description of the 3rd circle - It is almost entirely religious and not
exclusively confined to a relatively small segment of Islam. I am not
disputing that other factors are involved, but if terrorism were
confined as you say it is, it would be easy to stamp out.

The reason people in general don't want to address the issue of Islam
and terrorism is that it opens the door to a rational examination of
all religion. If it becomes all right to criticize Islam or even
subject it to a rational analysis, then Christanity and Judaism are not
far behind. I am not saying religion should be banned or outlawed, I
am saying religious views, beliefs, and actions should have to stand up
to scrutinization.

Discounting the connection between religion and terrorism is dangerous.


"So then...the religion is merely a tool, a device through which the
fanaticism finds direction?"

Not merely a tool - a major component driving the fanaticism.

"So, if we remove the religion, does the fanaticism vaporize?"

It is rendered far less harmful and loses a major amount of support.

"If not, is it at least rendered harmless?"

A guy gets on a bus filled with civiallians with a bomb strapped to him
and blows himself and everyone up. What is his religion? Take a
guess. Without religion would he commit this act? Would he have a
support system in place enabling him to commit it? I say he does not.

"It, like hot magma seeking to escape through the Earth's crust, simply
finds another outlet."

So lets say you can drastically reduce the amount and temperature of
the magma by removing a major factor producing and heating it. Do you
attempt to remove it? Is it ok to discuss this factor's influence and
open it's effect in creating and spreading the magma up for discussion?
Or do you ignore it and criticize, shout down, or even attack those
who want to talk about this factor's effect on the magma? Do you say
"Well, there will still be some magma" and leave it at that?

Of course you don't. Except when the major factor is religion. Then
you "tolerate" it. Why?

"That's a secondary problem. Without the fanaticism of the terrorists,

there's nothing for the non-fanatics to look the other way from."

The Muslims who tolerate terrorist acts committed by muslims are a
primary problem. The third circle is essential to the system of
terrorism Harari described.

"Hmmmm...."financed" by two countries. That sounds like money and
politics. "

I am not saying money and politics are not important factors. I am
saying religion is an even greater influence on terrorism than money
and politics. To mimimize religion's contribution to terrorism is a
grave mistake.

"Also, you seem to have focused on a sub-set of the article, and
completely
disregarded others (including the opening theme). He was describing
the
general dysfunctional state of the Middle East as the proximate cause
of
Islamic terrorism, and not just about the terrorism itself. Why do you

suppose he mentioned things llike...The millions who died in the
Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel. "

I agree the millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do
with Israel. I did not disregard the other factors of the article, I
accepted them without comment. I am trying to open up the discussion
of a rational examination of all religion. I will continue to do so
and I will challenge those who try to downplay the intimate connection
betweeen terrorism and religion.

"Are you claiming that the quote offered by the WSJ was a fabrication
by the paper?"

Not at all, I believe Spertzel said that, but I am not taking his
comments at face value. He said "Documentation indicates". Did the
indications turn out to be true?

"Now you're going off on a tangent. The question was, "Was Iraq under
Saddam a haven for terrorists." Stop trying to obfuscate that by
turning
the conversation into another "It was all lies!" rant about the war."

I am not trying to obfuscate at all. Was Iraq under Saddam a haven
for terrorists? It seems to be now, far more so than before the war.
It certainly was not a haven for Al Qaida or Bin Laden. Which
"terrorists" was it a haven for? What did these terrorists do? How
many were there? What acts did they commit?

"Yes, I read it. There was nothing in it about Iraq suddenly become
more
Iran-like with regard to terrorist sponsorship because of improved
relations."

Iran's invovlement in the circles of terrorism was from Harari's piece.
Iraq becoming closer to Iran, and becoming drawn into Harari's
circles, was my observation. I am not the only one making these
observations. Here is an excerpt from George Will article that
appeared in today's Minneapolis StarTribune:

"Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in the
Wall Street Journal, reports that Shiite militias "have broken up coed
picnics, executed barbers (for the sin of shaving beards) and liquor
store owners, instituted their own courts, and posted religious guards
in front of girls' schools to ensure Iranian-style dress." Iraq's other
indispensable man, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, says that unless the
government can protect religious sites, "the believers will."

I am going to count that as Iranian and religous influence and further
state that becoming closer to Iran means becoming closer to Iranian
terrorism as Harari describes it.

"Russia is pretty cozy with Iran too. Are you suggesting that the
Kremlin must be running madrasas?"

No, unless Russian militias start executing people for shaving beards
or owning liquor stores or having Iranian Ayatollahs with incredible
amounts of influence on Russian society and goverment. Then maybe the
Kremlin will be running madrasas, but certainly not now.

Oh, and....you have citest that the Iraqi government is run by members
of
the SCIRI?"

The Iran-backed SCIRI forms the largest faction, by a narrow margin, of
the United Iraqi Alliance, which holds 128 of 230 seats of parliament.

Some SCIRI members:

Adel Abdul-Mehdi. He lost the Prime Minister nomination to Ibrahim
al-Jaafari by a single vote in large part due to the support of
anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. (Neat, huh?)

Mohammed Taqi al-Mawla, a senior official with the Supreme Council for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Bayan Sulagh (Bayan Jabr), Interior Ministry. Jabr is a member of the
Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq.

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, top Shiite leader and head of the Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Has close ties to Iran.

There are more, find them yourself.

Taking out Saddam and allowing a Shia-led government to rule Iraq could
do nothing other than allow Iran to have a major influence on Iraqi
politics and society.

With respect to religion in general, I know that terrorists are not
suddenly to going to "stop being religious", but I think we need to
open dialogue about religion. No more of this remaining silent out of
"respect for other's beliefs". Yes, people can have their beliefs,
but when those beliefs lead to terrorist acts - *** your beliefs. If
someone wants to believe in fantasies and myths, fine, but that does
not mean we should not be allowed to examine those myths and say "Hey,
that is fucking silly. Believe it if you want, but you are believing
in made-up fantasies."

.