quote:

---

Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think.

. . . .

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

. . . .

Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

---

quote:

---

to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

---

It seems to me that fundamentalism isn't entirely missing from the equation when some of these terrorists decide what is or isn't their homeland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

It seems to me that fundamentalism isn't entirely missing from the equation when some of these terrorists decide what is or isn't their homeland.

Otherwise it's all just a coincidence of epic proportions. The Chechens are mostly Islamic, the Palestinians, Al-Qaeda, etc., etc.

---

quote:

---

wonder why Islamic's are not found to be rushing all over the world occupying non-Muslims?

---

Because right now they're kind of in the underdog role and cannot?

But I don't see how any of this relates to the fact that terrorism doesn't seem to be directly related to religion.

quote:

---

Because right now they're kind of in the underdog role and cannot?

---

quote:

---

So, let's see. The nation with the biggest guns attacks and occupies another country. The people with no guns fight back with whatever means and resources are available.

---

Fair enough, in some cases (Iraq, obviously), but the U.S. wasn't occupying Iraq at the time of 9/11. Nor Afghanistan. They were, however, stationed in Saudi Arabia. My understanding is that OBL & co. didn't approve of this on religious grounds.

As for others, it still seems to me that religion and fundamentalism play a key role. Why do Chechens want self rule? Don't tell me that Muslim self rule isn't what we're really talking about here. And what about their imported troops? People who were born and raised on land thousands of miles away? Are they just "fighting for their land" too? Personally, I don't think so. I think they're fighting a religious battle.

quote:

---

It seems to me that fundamentalism isn't entirely missing from the equation when some of these terrorists decide what is or isn't their homeland.

---

It must be viewed in context. Imagine you are locked in a room with three doors from which you feel you must escape. The first door is marked "Democracy" and you open it to be greeted by the boot of western democracy kicking you back inside. The next door is labelled "Arab Nationalism" and when you open it, again you are greeted by the boot of western democracies pushing you back in. The last door is labelled "Islam", do you try it?

My point is that the Arab people have tried the very things we demand of them and we have responded to them with support for dictators and repression.

quote:

---

are you more or less agreeing that fundamentalism is a significant factor in most global terrorism?

---

**edited to correct glaring error.

If you are acknowledging terrorism is political violence whether private sector or state run.

The actual soldiers, or bombers if you prefer, whether privately motivated or state employed, could care less about wider public opinion. They have a job to do and they have their own motivation for doint it.

However, the wider public, American or Saudi, are not as likely to be accepting of blowing innocent people including children into tiny bits. Thus the God factor.

So, Iraqi resistance becomes holy jihad. American aggression becomes a crusade on behalf of God's blessed nation and land wars in the middle east and Ireland become sectarian struggles between faiths.

But, in the middle east, there was indeed efforts at political reform, with reformers generally murdered in American and Bristish supported coups, and a movement of Arab Nationalism with the proponents generally murdered in American and Bristish supported coups or with dictators installed and instructed to eliminate dissent. Remember Nasser?

If you tell me there is a fourth option I'm open to hearing about it.

[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RP.:
Not that you're saying that they aren't, but it's worth pointing out that Muslims do occupy non-Muslims currently, and Islamic states and empires have been expansionist in the past. I don't think Islamic countries are any more or less expansionist than any other country.

---

There are several factors that we tend to overlook:

The countries currently in question are not nations formed and developed by their inhabitants: they were recently created, largely or entirely, by outside force. That is, the land was assigned and the borders drawn, without regard to indigenous populations.
If each organic nation wants self-government - well, how does that differ from North American aspirations?

9/11 was a response to US actions, going back several decades, in the entire region, not just Iraq. In fact, it had nothing to do with Iraq as such; nor did the subsequent attack on Iraq have any (except propaganda) connection with 9/11.*

It's not merely a question of any designated tract of land, but of hegemony. There is no border at which the invasion will naturally stop, as BushCo has publicly stated.
Since any nation in the area is a potential target, mutual defence (whether coordinated by heads of state of NGO's) makes sense.

Bush did overtly declare war on Islam - because it was an easy sell at home. Identifying an enemy by race and/or culture and/or religion usually is an easy sell. In this case, a serendipitous one, since BushCo already had an agenda involving more than one Middle-eastern country, and USians can't tell one Arab from another, anyway.

* Further to that: The US may not have been in physical occupation of Iraq in 2001 - that would have been better than the situation which actually existed: the US had previously attacked and destroyed quite a lot of Iraq, was continually crippling its economy (with UN support) and bombing parts of it, daily, since 1990.

[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Organized religion is a political tool, just like the military. Each leader uses the tools available to him in order to achieve a political objective. This is true in all times and places, regardless of the particular tenets of the religion or the particular quality of the army.

---

That isn't true in all cases. In some christian Churches for example, it's really quite difficult for leaders to stong arm their flocks into doing something they don't want to do(the United Church comes to mind)
So in those cases it's the church's members, not its leaders that dictate the organizations political agenda.

[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 12 July 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

i agree that terrorism has much more to do with imperialism than religion. and i think suicide attacks have more to do with reclaiming one's land, resources and rights than imperialism. however, i believe religion does play a role that we can't ignore in suicide attacks. i feel that religious people view their god as their ultimate leader, they believe in an after life, and they believe that they will be rewarded by their god in the after-life for their actions against the agressors and oppressors of their kith and kin.

pape points out that islam is not the only religion that carries out terrorist and suicide attacks. i've read that both islam and christianity talk about conquering the world by expanding their religious influence. religion is definitely imperialistic for the fundamentalist, but i think other factiors like oil play a bigger role in imperialism than religion.

quote:

---

posted by wingnut:
My point is that the Arab people have tried the very things we demand of them and we have responded to them with support for dictators and repression.

We have left them with the final option of Islam as an answer to escaping the tyranny we have imposed on their societies.

---

quote:

---

That isn't true in all cases. In some christian Churches for example, it's really quite difficult for leaders to stong arm their flocks into doing something they don't want to do(the United Church comes to mind)

---

quote:

---

islam is just another faith like christianity, hinduism, jainism, etc. it was not created as an answer to escape tyranny

---

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

To be brief, Arabs have attempted to construct political, secular institutions to represent them and to free them from the tyranny of imposed dictatorships. The institutions they have attempted to construct have been demolished with full complicity and often direct involvement of western powers.

The one existing institution that offers them an alternative is organized religion. It offers them a ready made oragnization model with a captive audience every Friday. Not unlike fundamentalist christianity.

oops - i must've been typing my post when josh's and ronb's posts came up. what do you call? cross-posting?

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

quote:

---

The author did not claim all, only that the overwhelming number of attacks are related to occupation.

---

Fair enough, but with this, or with 9/11, McVeigh, Bali, etc., I'm actually a little underwhelmed. Where are the "overwhelming" ones?

quote:

---

Hope that clears your confusion up.

---

Not at all. You're saying maybe these bombers wanted to drive the British rulers out of Pakistan? Or was it just some revenge, served a few decades late?

quote:

---

it's not "their" land that's being stolen by the western forces, but a strengthening of their religious faith in reaction to the atrocities being committed against muslims.

---

quote:

---

Where are the "overwhelming" ones?

---

These are the Midlands industrial towns that were already, by the late C18, the sites of William Blake's "dark Satanic mills." Even now, ride the train north from Sheffield to Leeds through Rotherham and gape at the devastation of that (naturally very beautiful) countryside.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
the london bombers are of pakistani descent. as pakistani muslims, perhaps it is their faith that sparked the bombings. but again, i think they identified with people of their faith in iraq and afghanistan who are being attacked by british and american forces. it's not "their" land that's being stolen by the western forces, but a strengthening of their religious faith in reaction to the atrocities being committed against muslims.
[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

---

Perhaps but that runs contrary to what Pape is saying. Consider (from above cited article):

quote:

---

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.

I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

---

(It is fair to note bin Laden is also a big supporter of the "Clash of Civilizations" concept)

Furthermore, racists, such as Daniel Pipes, have popularized the notion of "Islamists" and "militant Islam" as an enemy of all western societies. Not criminal organizations bent on political change through violence, mind you, but the adherents of a particular faith.

And those racists, such as Pipes, will argue, publicly, not all of Islam is militant. But it is a fine distinction for western societies that can't differentiate a Hindu or a Sikh from a Muslim and would have no means whatsoever to differentiate a militant from a non-militant "Islamist" and therefore they are all dangerous.

Further still, a "militant" vs. a "moderate" Muslim is as fine a distinction as one who accepts the role of Arab society as subservient to the economic and military interests of western society vs. one who does not.

So when we say political violence, private and public, is infused with religious fervor, perhaps we should ask how did it become infused and who infused it?

Or, more succinctly, whose interests are served by turning political conflict into religious conflict?

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
No question, periyar. The CIA had an office in Peshawar (Pakistan, on the border with Afghanistan, the entry point for journalists and others) all through the 1980s.

---

From an article, published just before 9/11, about CIA operations in Peshwar:

quote:

---

Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier, is on the cultural periphery of the Middle East. It is just down the Grand Trunk Road from the legendary Khyber Pass, the gateway to Afghanistan. Peshawar is where bin Ladin cut his teeth in the Islamic jihad, when, in the mid-1980s, he became the financier and logistics man for the Maktab al-Khidamat, The Office of Services, an overt organization trying to recruit and aid Muslim, chiefly Arab, volunteers for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The friendships and associations made in The Office of Services gave birth to the clandestine al-Qa'ida, The Base, whose explicit aim is to wage a jihad against the West, especially the United States.

---

I hear that some crude Americans are now describing London as being like the "Star Wars bar" in terms of its openness to immigrant groups over the last few decades. But from all I heard, Peshawar was being used in precisely that way by Western power-mongers at least through the eighties.

quote:

---

STOCKHOLM Violence-prone Muslims living out the inheritance of their prophet, Mohammed, who, in marked contrast to Jesus Christ, established his creed on earth by vigorous use of the sword? It's all there in the new book, "From Babel to Dragomans" by Bernard Lewis of Princeton University. "The Lewis doctrine has become U.S. policy," says the Wall Street Journal in an editorial.
.
Those who read both the future and the past this way still appear to have the intellectual upper hand in the Anglo-Saxon political arena, even if there is a division of opinion on how best to confront it. Samuel Huntington, the Harvard professor who is author of the seminal "The Clash of Civilizations" (whose title he borrowed from Lewis), wrote in the book's latest edition, "In the 1990s Muslims have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization."

---

By the way, Magoo and others should read this article:

quote:

---

And before Magoo comes on and posts what does that have to do with london, well, to state the obvious, the british and the US bombing of iraq is just an extension of what they've done in south asia.

---

So (assuming current news is correct):

Four British born young men of Pakistani background decide to bomb the four quarters of London at the same time in retaliation for American and British actions in the same hemisphere of the earth that their parents hailed from?

That's so incredibly implausible.

His sort were kind of well known to students of my sort back in the sixties and seventies. They were the old colonels and captains who had slogged through the North Africa campaigns in WWII, and to be fair, they had often learned a lot. Many of them became Arabists in the narrow sense -- ie, they learned the languages.

And of course Brit imperialists have been Persianists for two centuries or more.

Anyway, the colonels and the captains came back and were sudden instant experts on the Middle East. They created many of the university departments on Middle Eastern studies, and have run them until recently.

quote:

---

I can't imagine many Canadian Anglicans taking up arms, or blowing themselves up, if Britain were occupied.

---

Really? My wife's Grandfather and Great Uncle both specifically volunteered to be seconded from the Toronto regiment to the British Army the last time Britain was attacked so they could take up arms that much faster. I guess they must've been Anglican zealots or something. I never heard them discuss their religion one way or t'other, could be, I suppose.

quote:

---

Couldn't possibly be their shared histories as British colonies. That would be too far back in the distant irrelevant past.

---

I think it's far enough back to be of little interest to young British men in 2005, yes. Little enough interest that they wouldn't murder strangers and kill themselves over it, at any rate.

Our media never pays any attention to the daily terror that claims far more lives all around the globe and always in the name of politics and power and always with the blessing of western governments and corporate interests.

Alvaro Juárez, 64 years old, was assassinated on the night of July 8.

quote:

---

According to the Unity of Protection for Human Rights Defenders, he was eating dinner with his wife at his house in San Benito Petén when heavily
armed men arrived at the door. His wife went back into the kitchen. Then she heard shots. When she returned to the room where her husband had been,
she found him dead.

Mr. Juárez played a leadership role in the Alliance for Life and Peace and was also a member of the Association of the Displaced of the
Petén. He was working on issues of development related to health, education, land, housing, and humanitarian assistance. He was also working
against impunity in the Petén and often denounced injustice, corruption, and abuses of authority committed by the National Civil Police.

The Association of Displaced of the Petén is a member of the Alliance for Life and Peace, a network of organizations that has been carrying out campaigns against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and against the construction of hydroelectric dams in the Petén.

---

Magoo, do you seriously think that the occupation has ever ended?

This matters, y'know, because we're in it, up to our eyeballs. No, it isn't a British-led occupation any more, or a Russian-led occupation any more, although for two centuries it was both of those.

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: venus_man ]

How is Pakistan currently being occupied by Britain?

If the answer is "remnants of British culture", how exactly could Britain remove those?

If the answer is "through the Global economy", isn't that mostly dominated by the U.S.?

If the answer is "because they and a few other countries are helping to occupy Iraq", how does that translate into an offense against Pakistan?

quote:

---

The 9-11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape, "Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled ... Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."

Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.

The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."

---

quote:

---

They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries

---

Someone needs to tell him that OBL is from Saudi Arabia. Nobody is occupying Saudi Arabia, except arguably its own royal family.

quote:

---

If Saudi Arabia had wanted them gone, they'd have said so

---

Do you have any sense of history, Magoo?

The US props up the Saudi regime and provides the Saudis with technology, arms and intelligence to carry out repression of their own dissenters in return for cheap oil.

Or they just didn't want to give up what they got?

At any rate, I would suggest that OBL's real beef was with the government of his own country, not the U.S. If they made a deal that OBL didn't like, well, take it up with them.

And again, we're not getting any closer to demonstrating that OBL was just reacting, in a very secular and economically sensible way, to someone stealing his land.

quote:

---

At any rate, I would suggest that OBL's real beef was with the government of his own country, not the U.S. If they made a deal that OBL didn't like, well, take it up with them.

---

Again, Magoo, I don't think you follow the news, nevermind history. I recall it being reported that bin Laden considered American forces on Saudi Arabian land to be a major problem. And, again, if you follow the news, he has taken it up with the Saudi government which is, itself, battling with those who would prefer the royal family joined the czars.

Now, of the Pakistanis in Britain. They are muslim. How muslim do they have to be to buy all the hype that muslims are being killed just because they are muslims? After all, not only are some Imams telling that is true, many western commentators are telling them they are the enemy by virtue of being muslim.

In Western societies where whites enjoy wealth and privelege, it is still possible to recruit youth into white supremacist organizations on the premise that they aren't being treated fairly and are not being afforded their full due. But, somehow, you think muslim youth, discriminated against, disenfranchised and alienated, should be above this sort of thing?

Nice white Irish Catholic boys were planting bombs well before anyone cared about Islam while their nice, white protestant friends were terrorizing Catholic neighbourhoods through the night and conducting murders with a nod and a wink of the local constabulary.

quote:

---

And the terrorism of Iraq by Americans, are they saying that is for the "Glory of America"?

---

Close. It's for the glory of "democracy and freedom", which is of course the same as saying "America".

quote:

---

I recall it being reported that bin Laden considered American forces on Saudi Arabian land to be a major problem. And, again, if you follow the news, he has taken it up with the Saudi government which is, itself, battling with those who would prefer the royal family joined the czars.

---

Good. As I recall, the troops were there with the permission of that government, so anyone taking umbrage at that should probably take it up with them.

Are you certain that OBL's problem with American troops on Saudi soil wasn't religious in nature though? I seem to recall it was. Insofar as they were simply stationed there, not "occupying" S.A., that seems entirely plausible.

quote:

---

Now, of the Pakistanis in Britain. They are muslim. How muslim do they have to be to buy all the hype that muslims are being killed just because they are muslims? After all, not only are some Imams telling that is true, many western commentators are telling them they are the enemy by virtue of being muslim.

---

Could be. But doesn't that bring us back around to religion and not occupation?

quote:

---

Nice white Irish Catholic boys were planting bombs well before anyone cared about Islam while their nice, white protestant friends were terrorizing Catholic neighbourhoods through the night and conducting murders with a nod and a wink of the local constabulary.

---

More religion, you say?

Actually, I think Ireland is a good example of a "hybrid" model wherein some citizens of Ireland wanted the British out, and others wanted them in, but again the dividing line was religion. Sure, self-government and self-determination are factors, but it's pretty easy to see that it's religion drawing the line down the middle.

quote:

---

Sure, self-government and self-determination are factors, but it's pretty easy to see that it's religion drawing the line down the middle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Will your answer also explain, or at least be consistent with, the very standard practice of referring to "the Catholics" and "the Protestants" when discussing Ireland?

---

Sorry, Mr M. Did you mean the Republicans and the Unionists, perchance?

quote:

---

Sorry, Mr M. Did you mean the Republicans and the Unionists, perchance?

Why should history be hostage to North American pop media ignorance?

---

What are you saying? That Catholics and Protestants are just labels that North American media has plastered on them and that there's no such breakdown?

Have any other babblers ever heard of "the Catholics" and "the Protestants" in Ireland?

quote:

---

but I thought that the ancient Tamil culture was Hindu?

---

quote:

---

but it's pretty easy to see that it's religion drawing the line down the middle.

---

The issue in Ireland, as I stated earlier, was land. But not even Irish lads are prepared to kill each other over peat moss. But for God and Country ...

But I think for many, buying into the idea that religion is behind all of this is a little too easy as it absolves then of any responsibilty.

For Canadians and the Brits, for example, there is no point pressuring governments to address the grievances of the discriminated against and repressed minority of N. Ireland as it would make no difference. It is the the years of hatred and religion that drives it. What can I do? Nevermind that Bloody Sunday was a peace march.

And so it goes with the latest bouts of terrorism. We can safely ignore the root causes because, you see, it is religion.

quote:

---

What are you saying? That Catholics and Protestants are just labels that North American media has plastered on them and that there's no such breakdown?

---

Well, in Britain, the religious terms tend to be used very seldom. Mind you, the terms that get used in Britain would tend to depend on where you were. Specifically English contempt for the Irish has to be encountered to be believed. I met it many years ago and simply did not believe it at first. I would equate it to the worst you've ever heard redneck Southerners say about blacks. That sort of thing is dying out now, but it is by no means gone. I don't think that any North American is ever prepared for it.

In the seventies and eighties, those loyalties -- Republican and Unionist -- did tend to break fairly clearly along religio-cultural-class lines in Ulster itself, although I would put the emphasis on culture and class. The Republicans are just sick of being a colony of a people who scorn them and have ripped them off for centuries.

But the breakdown is far less clear these days. The peace movement had something to do with that, with creating a middle ground, and then the peace process (strictly political) has helped at least to complicate things politically.

I just got the real sense from the opening post that the author was trying his best to push fanatacism and religious zealotry under the rug in order to stump for imperialism — probably meaning "American and European" imperialism — as the only factor worth noting.

quote:

---

My sense is that religious zealotry is usually a symptom of a culture under great strain.

---

That's interesting. But when is a culture not under great strain? I admit there have likely been very brief moments in time when in certain cultures all seemed right with the world, but they would be rare.

And such a time likely preceeded 9/11. Western economies were booming. The Cold War was over. The peace dividend if it didn't translate into better programs and more spending at least offered an opportunity for travel as never before.

And, yet, religious zealotry in the west, particularly the USA, the heart of western growth and exapnsion and the Cold War victor, was taking root and growing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:
I don't know, I think any familiarity with Canada will convince you that the phrase "uptight heathens" is not a contradiction in terms.

---

Wingy, I think I would date USian paranoia from even earlier than then. For the right-wingers, Nixon's resignation and the defeat in Viet Nam remain palpably alive -- the base are still running on some kind of anger about those losses, even though we know that the political masters don't, frankly, give a damn about them, except in so far as they can manipulate public sentiment about them.

And of course before that, there was McCarthy, and then his ignominy.

quote:

---

And, yet, religious zealotry in the west, particularly the USA, the heart of western growth and exapnsion and the Cold War victor, was taking root and growing.

In fact, I bet you could draw a direct correlation between the growth of religios fundamentalism in the USA not to any readily identifiable cultural strain, but to deep, deep cuts to education spending beginning with the Reagan administration.

---

quote:

---

Why they didn't go left instead of right: the Left forgot and ignored them; considered their grievance a minor, temporary glitch, soon to be corrected by universal liberal education. Which not only didn't come to fruition, but also did nothing for their feelings, their egoes, or their poverty. The Right exploits them shamelessly and mercilessly - but gives them plenty of hyperbole. (Should i descend to a Hitler analogy? Better not.)

---

** Start of Rant **

I don't that's really true. There might be an element there, but just. If you look at the religious right, it isn't comprised of the poor but the middle-class. These aren't trailer park denizens, but xurbians in row after row of brand spanking new homes.

Have you read the Harper's articles on this? They are quite enlightening.

And I think the premise is wrong anyway. I don't think people are drawn to conservatism because the left has failed them. They are drawn to conservatism because the right tells them it is okay to drive SUV's, it is okay to not care about the poor, it is okay to live on an acre in the dessert and waste fresh water on lawns were nature never intended, and it is okay to discriminate and despise those from whom you are different. It is all okay.

I listened to a call in show this morning on electricity supply in Ontario. The majority calls while I was listening were from people who believe they are entitled to use all the electricity and water they want without conservation and if there isn't enough, too bad. One guy called conservation communism.

The right appeals to these guys. The right appeals to the emotional level of the selfish, adolescent male who believes the world revolves around him.

Listen to the message and the complaints. The left speaks about what we need to give up, while the right asks, indignantly, why do we need to give up anything?

I think it is wrong to say the left has failed as we didn't appeal to the interests of the disaffected ATV drivers tearing up rare dessert plants.

I come from Alberta, and what nonesuch has written there just rings so many bells for me. And it hurts me too, because it is about people I know and love.

The powerful and the "sophisticated" of both right and left have played exceptionally cynical, nasty games with the people they privately disparage as "trailer trash" or "lumpen" or ... choose your terms.

I didn't consider the well-off xurbanites as part of the fundamental religious movement, simply because i don't believe they believe anything at all - certainly not the Jesus rhetoric which involves giving up all your worldly goods, turning the other cheek, or being left out in the cold if you've behaved badly. I see them as part of the cynical exploiter faction: they'll support the war, as long as the kids being destroyed are Black or poor white, not their own.

On the other hand, poor USians probably enjoy thumbing their noses at the Northern liberal intelligencia that wants to take away their guns and make them eat tofu. They probably desire a chance to kick brown ass, a shot at SUV's and cheap energy. So they're not entirely motivated by religious zeal, either.

quote:

---

I can't imagine many Canadian Anglicans taking up arms...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RP.:
Not that you're saying that they aren't, but it's worth pointing out that Muslims do occupy non-Muslims currently, and Islamic states and empires have been expansionist in the past. I don't think Islamic countries are any more or less expansionist than any other country.

---

This is an excellent point. The equivalent discourse in many Muslim circles (I can’t get myself to use to the term Muslim society or Islamic society, because the term is problematic) to Imperialist allegations of “They’re Muslims (and more accurately, they’re the others, not us, so this applies in many different cases), ergo they’re prone to violence” is “We’re Muslims, ergo, we always bear the grunt of Western hegemony”. Both positions are highly fallacious because, besides being reductive and insipid, implying the notion of a perpetual victim and a perpetual aggressor, they insinuate an ethical tone of existential proportions. It’s as if, the West is imperialist by virtue of being the West, and the Muslims are violent by virtue of their scriptures, when in fact it is a matter of context and power possession. For example, the party that lays claim to victim hood assumes that it will always take the high ground, irrespective of context, neglecting the fact that its position as a victim springs from its lack of power or technological advantage or what have you. So the ethical comparison to the aggressor fails miserably. In that particular case, you have Muslim victims of Imperialist terror of the West, not because the latter is evil bent on hurting the former, but because the latter is more powerful. When Islamic dynasties had the power, they didn’t act selflessly and morally, but expanded, conquered and exploited, as much as the West does now, because they could, as much as the West can now. The moral discourse assumes a valid comparison between two parties that have commensurate powers, and only then, engaging in or abstaining from Imperialism might hint at a moral position, however, a comparison between those who have power and those who don’t is fallacious. I bet that if Iraq, for example, was more powerful than the US, the Iraqi administration might very well conquer parts of the US on dubious pretexts, to exploit the oil fields in Texas. This is the logic of power evident through human history. This is the collective human tendancy.

quote:

---

and then, any grievances or injustices might have a chance of solved.

---

I listened to a report on Morroco's truth commission, this morning on the CBC. The targets of the beatings, torture, and disappearances -- and keep in mind Morroco is a close Western ally with a totalitarian (monarchy, same thing) government -- were primarily the very people who could provide an alternative means of government and who were, primarily, non-violent -- labor organizers, human rights workers, peace activists, etc ...

quote:

---

On the other hand, poor USians probably enjoy thumbing their noses at the Northern liberal intelligencia that wants to take away their guns and make them eat tofu. They probably desire a chance to kick brown ass, a shot at SUV's and cheap energy. So they're not entirely motivated by religious zeal, either.

(All the same, the left has failed dismally and the Right had its finger on this particular pulse all along.)

---

Again, I disagree.

I am not sure how the left would engage people who want to "kick brown ass, (and) a shot at SUV's and cheap energy." But I will agree the left, gernerally, has not sought to engage the group labelled "white trash" or "trailer park trash".

But I suggest neither has the right. The fact is, these people don't vote. Neither the left, nor the right, make any effort at organizing them.

Canada is not that much different than the US. I see these people as natural NDP supporters. They pay rent, they work in low wage jobs (most are working poor as opposed to on welfare), they have kids in school and many have health issues.

However, try this experiment: suggest to people they try to organize these people to vote. The conversation goes quiet, the stares go blank, there is a pregnant pause, then they return to the real business.

quote:

---

But I will agree the left, gernerally, has not sought to engage the group labelled "white trash" or "trailer park trash".

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, poor USians probably enjoy thumbing their noses at the Northern liberal intelligencia that wants to take away their guns and make them eat tofu. They probably desire a chance to kick brown ass, a shot at SUV's and cheap energy. So they're not entirely motivated by religious zeal, either.

---

I disagree. This disturbs me a little.

Another way to look at it is that some USians are sick of being told that they are too stupid to understand the necessity of gun control, too immoral to forego their red meat, too ignorant to educate their own children, etc. They gravitate towards the party that talks to them and treats them as competent adults (Repubs). ETA: I believe this is a cynical ploy on the part of the repubs, I don't believe any party is currently treating them as competent adults in actuality.

While I disagree with the war I rankle at the notion that those who support it are ignorant trailer trash just out to "kick brown ass." That's pretty patronizing. It is beyond the realm of possibility that there might be some poor USians living in trailers with complex and sophisticated reasons for supporting the war? And that some of those reasons might be religious?

To tie back to topic, I do believe religious zeal has a lot to do with agressive US military action of the last few years, and that the left has largely been blinded to that due to a somewhat patronizing attitude as expressed above. It's a complicated Christianity that supports the invasion of Iraq. I do not believe it is good or right, but I do believe it is more complex than "poor evangelicals want to kick butt because they're pissed off about living in a trailer."

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]

quote:

---

They gravitate towards the party that talks to them and treats them as competent adults (Repubs).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:

And yet the Republican leadership model is the stern father or good shepherd, so they also seemingly respond to being treated like children or sheep.

---

I think there is a great deal of misperceptions surrounding the poor with regard to everything from where they live to what they eat to how they (don't) vote.

Like the very idea of "trailer trash". Many poor live in rooming houses or crowd into strip motels. They can't afford the luxury of a trailer. They also can't afford the luxury of discerning the fine policy details between Republicans and Democrats.

The idea of a "trailer trash" or "white trash" toting shot guns, attending church, and voting Bush, is a stereotype. Bush supporters are, generally speaking, white, middle-class, xurbian voters.

And they support the Republicans precisely because the Republican Party is willing to cater to their prejudices while supporting their resistance to change.

Again, I don't think Canadians are too different. And while canvassing in the provincial election, it was striking how many middle-class, working families with children were more concerned about same-sex marriage than education, health care and the environment.

And when you engaged these people, they would recognize that, yes, maybe the college education of their child is more important than whether two guys who love each other are married.

Conservatives appeal to self-interest and wedge issues that divide and that is a far easier sell than conservation, self-denial and tolerance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
And while canvassing in the provincial election, it was striking how many middle-class, working families with children were more concerned about same-sex marriage than education, health care and the environment.

And when you engaged these people, they would recognize that, yes, maybe the college education of their child is more important than whether two guys who love each other are married.

---

I wish it were that simple. A lot of people prioritize the marriage debate over the health care debate, and it's not because they are too ignorant to see our point of view. It is presumptuous to assume that "these people" would place issues in the same order of priority that we do if they just had all the information (or a well-meaning rational liberal to explain it to them).

There are a great many people who feel that same-sex marriage is a greater personal threat than lack of health care. Their reasons are religious. Their reasons are complicated. In my opinion their reasons are twisted and wrong. But I would not say that the reason is simple ignorance.

ETA: I wish it were simple ignorance because that problem is easily solved. But I think this is a pretty classic example of people taking an invasive and aggressive stand on something that does not affect them materially, for spiritual/religious reasons. And I think it's not a stretch to associate this mindset with a relationship between religious zealotry and terrorism (as Magoo and others have said above).

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]

But I did suggest that if you begin to engage them, you can provide them cause them to reconsider. And that isn't a "well meaning, rational liberal" explaining it to them (thanks for being so kind as to be condescending) but rather someone at their door is no more familiar with their politics as they are with his.

And anyone who feels -- free of personal bigotry -- that same-sex marriage is a greater threat than the loss of universal health care, educational opportunites for their children, or the viability of the planet, really needs to be engaged.

quote:

---

And I think it's not a stretch to associate this mindset with a relationship between religious zealotry and terrorism

---

[ 14 July 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

All of that completely ignores the fact they don't vote.

---

My comments above have slid a bit out of context and fucus - lost their limiting and provisional words, for one thing - and i wish i hadn't made them.

quote:

---

I don't think that's crucial. They still count in approval ratings, make a great source of military raw material and can be held up as a threat to opposition. (BushCo hasn't shown itself particularly fastidious about facts.)

---

Keep in mind that Bill Clinton maintained high approval ratings all through the worst of the Monica Lewinsky thing and beyond. And military recruitment hasn't met its goals for months while Bush's approval ratings slide.

quote:

---

I still don't think terrorism is religious in origin.

---