# Proximate cause of Islamic terrorism today **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753 "2010-05-25T21:30:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/1 "2010-05-25T21:30:26Z")
Would the arab countries have produced terrorists in any event or is the radicalization of Islamic terrorists a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel and the resulting Palestinian refugees? Would we be knee deep in Brazilian terrorists if the zionist movement had decided that Rio was a more attractive homeland than Palestine, was there some other way that Israel could have been created in palestine that wouldn’t have ticked off the entire former ottoman empire? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/2 "2010-05-25T21:43:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Would the arab countries have produced terrorists in any event or is the radicalization of Islamic terrorists a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel and the resulting Palestinian refugees? > > Would we be knee deep in Brazilian terrorists if the zionist movement had decided that Rio was a more attractive homeland than Palestine, was there some other way that Israel could have been created in palestine that wouldn’t have ticked off the entire former ottoman empire? Terrorism is not aimed solely at the Israel-Palestine issue. For example, it is just as prevelant in the Afganistan war, and in the conflict with India, neither of which has anything to do with Palestine. Islam has a long history of the use of religiously-motivated killings for political effect as a mechanism of assymetric warfare, mostly aimed at other factions within the world of Islam. For example, some sections of the Ismailis were famous for using terror tactics against the majority Sunnis - the so-called “Hashshashin” (from whom we deriave the English word “assassin”). > **[Order of Assassins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin)** > > States > People > Centers This suggests that the techniques are indigenous to the region and are simply being used against contemporary enemies, whomever they may be. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/3 "2010-05-25T21:47:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Would the arab countries have produced terrorists in any event or is the radicalization of Islamic terrorists a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel and the resulting Palestinian refugees? Seeing as how terrorism and terrorist activities in the ME predate the creation of the state of Israel, I’m going to go with ‘no’…the State of Israel is merely one factor in terrorism in the ME. > [@](#): > > Would we be knee deep in Brazilian terrorists if the zionist movement had decided that Rio was a more attractive homeland than Palestine, was there some other way that Israel could have been created in palestine that wouldn’t have ticked off the entire former ottoman empire? We would if a large percentage of the worlds oil was in Brazil…whether or not there was a Zionist movement or an Israel. You are making assumptions based on flawed conclusions. We are involved in the ME (and consequently terrorism in the region) because of oil, not because of Israel. As to your other question, I suppose if Israel had been created somewhere else than where it logically was created, then that would be one less thing that was pissing off the people in the region. At a guess Palestine would still not have been a country (probably would have been part of Jordan) anyway, and it would be a backwater. And we’d STILL have terrorism and strife in the region, unless you magically transported the oil to Brazil instead… -XT ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/4 "2010-05-25T21:55:20Z")
I would agree that oil is a major cause of Islamic terrorism. Two reasons come to mind: 1. It encourages other countries to meddle in the affairs of the middle east, increasing resentment toward the outside world. 2. It provides the financing for local hotheads to take their grievances to the world stage. Without all the oil money sloshing around the middle east, it would be a backwater. The Arabs might still hate the Israelis, but it would be a regional problem, not an international one. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/5 "2010-05-25T22:05:21Z")
Besides oil, it’s also been (and still remains) a rather strategic location for commerce/trade and militarily, since it sits on one of the major cross roads. If it didn’t have the oil, however, it would probably be of less importance today than it was in the past, with or without Israel. -XT ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/6 "2010-05-25T22:06:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > the radicalization of Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists are already radicalized by definition, we don’t know of any moderate terrorists. But the radicalization and in many ways the creation of Islamism predates the creation of Israel in '48. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with the Nazis more than half a decade before Israel was created. [ > [@](#): > > Such thinking is certainly not new. In his day, Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual godfather of the modern Islamist movement executed by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1966, had argued that “obedience to the Sharia becomes a necessity for human beings so that their lives may become harmonious and in tune with the rest of the universe.”5 Today’s radicals, however, have refined this formula still further. In obedience, Ayman al-Zawahiri argues, there can be no middle ground. One either accepts God and his law, or does not: > > Sharia is the course we should follow, since it is sent from God Almighty. No rational human being can adopt an unsteady or wavering position vis-ˆ-vis sharia… Either you believe in God and abide by His judgment, or you have no faith in God, and then there is no point of arguing with you regarding the details of sharia. > […] > Naturally, the notion of separating church from state or minimizing the influence of religion in political life is anathema to these elements. After all, there is no history of such a separation in the region, and no central institution akin to the church to govern Islam. While some form of secular authority has traditionally wielded power, its legitimacy was based on its role as the defender of the faith and upholder of the law. Thus those who disconnect religion from politics cannot be true believers. Indeed, Zarqawi has mocked the “secularist democrat who separates religion from state, politics, and life even though he claims a thousand times, in his own tongue, that he is a faithful Muslim.”10 > > Likewise, the radical ideology of al-Qaeda blurs the public-private distinction that is one of the foundations of liberal democracy. The Islamist view of law encompasses all aspects of life. Qutb wrote that “it is necessary that we clarify the point that legislation is not limited only to legal matters, as some people assign this narrow meaning to the Sharia. The fact is that attitudes, the way of living, the values, criteria, habits and traditions, are all legislated and affect people.”11 Al-qaeda defines this subjugation to God in all areas of life as a higher form of freedom-“the freedom of monotheism, ethics, and virtue.” ]([http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2005/09/robbins.php](http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2005/09/robbins.php)) Qutb, in turn, wasn’t enraged by Israel, but by western culture itself. [ > [@](#): > > Before Sayyid Qutb became a leading theorist of violent jihad, he was a little-known Egyptian writer sojourning in the United States, where he attended a small teachers college on the Great Plains. Greeley, Colorado, circa 1950 was the last place one might think to look for signs of American decadence. Its wide streets were dotted with churches, and there wasn’t a bar in the whole temperate town. But the courtly Qutb (COO-tub) saw things that others did not. He seethed at the brutishness of the people around him: the way they salted their watermelon and drank their tea unsweetened and watered their lawns. He found the muscular football players appalling and despaired of finding a barber who could give a proper haircut. As for the music: “The American’s enjoyment of jazz does not fully begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming,” Qutb wrote when he returned to Egypt. “It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires.” > > Such grumbling by an unhappy crank would be almost comical but for one fact: a direct line of influence runs from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, and to bin Laden’s Egyptian partner in terror, Ayman al-Zawahiri. From them, the line continues to another quietly seething Egyptian sojourning in the United States—the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Qutb’s gripes about America require serious attention because they cast light on a question that has been nagging since the fall of the World Trade Center: Why do they hate us? > > […] > > Still, Qutb’s contempt for America was not as simple as some people might now imagine. He did not recoil from political freedom and democracy, as, say, President Bush might expect from a jihadi theorist, nor did he complain about shades of imperial ambition in American foreign policy, as writers on the left might suppose. Regarding the excesses of American culture—vulgarity, materialism and promiscuity—Qutb expressed shock, but it rang a bit hollow. “The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity,” he wrote. “She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it.” These curvy jezebels pursued boys with “wide, strapping chest[s]” and “ox muscles,” Qutb added with disgust. Yet no matter how lascivious his adjectives, the fastidious, unmarried Egyptian could not convincingly portray the church dances and Look magazines he encountered in sleepy Greeley as constituting a genuine sexual “jungle.” > > […] > > Sayyid Qutb cut short his stay in America and returned to Egypt in 1951 after the assassination of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the nationalist, religious and militant movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Over the next decade and a half, often writing from prison, Qutb refined a violent political theology from the raw anti-modernism of his American interlude. Virtually the entire modern world, Qutb theorized, is jahiliyya, that barbarous state that existed before Muhammad. Only the strict, unchanging law of the prophet can redeem this uncivilized condition. Nearly a millennium of history became, to the radicalized Qutb, an offense wrought by the violence of jahili “Crusaders” and the supposed perfidy of the Jews. And Muslim leaders allied with the West were no better than the Crusaders themselves. Therefore, Qutb called all true Muslims to jihad, or Holy War, against jahiliyya—which is to say, against modernity, which America so powerfully represents. > > This philosophy led to Qutb’s execution in 1966. Proud to the end, he refused to accept the secular Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser’s offer of mercy in exchange for Qutb’s repudiation of his jihad. Nasser may have silenced a critic, but the martyrdom of Sayyid Qutb accelerated his movement. The same year the philosopher was hanged, according to journalist Lawrence Wright, the teenage al-Zawahiri formed his first violent cell, dedicated to the overthrow of the Egyptian government and the creation of an Islamist state. Meanwhile, Qutb’s brother Muhammad went into exile in Saudi Arabia, where he taught at King Abdul Aziz University. One of his students, an heir to the country’s largest construction fortune, was Osama bin Laden. ]([http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/presence-feb06.html](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/presence-feb06.html)) ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/7 "2010-05-25T22:58:38Z")
While it’s often difficult to distinguish, given how things look from the prism of western existence, where everything Muslim gets tarred with the same brush, I think it’s important to distinguish in your question between terrorists who are primarily Islamists, and those who are terrorists that happen to be Islamic. E.g. the terrorists that shot up politicians in Delhi were primarily fighting over Kashmiri self-determination: they are not Wahhabists. Similarly the troubles in southern Thailand are primarily about rights, education, and governmental neglect and abuse rather than the reestablishment of the Caliphate; ditto those in the Philippines and Chechnya. These groups could be seen as primarily having more in common with non-Islamic terror groups such as those formerly in Northern Ireland, the Tamil Tigers, ETA, etc. I use the word “primarily” advisedly here, though, since of late these groups’ goals are getting increasingly blurred, as Islamists infiltrate and offer assistance to any terror/paramilitary group with Muslim background. (The fact that any Islamic group that is even vaguely non-religious in motivation tends to couch pronouncements in religious language makes it even more difficult to make the distinction.) Initially the PLO was in a similar territorial struggle as the non-Muslim groups mentioned above: the struggle was primarily about land, property, etc., and while not entirely secular, it certainly had non-religiously motivated, pan-Arabist roots. And while there was certainly internecine tribal warfare prior to the creation of Israel, it really comes down to the definition of terrorism. > [@xtisme](#): > > Seeing as how terrorism and terrorist activities in the ME predate the creation of the state of Israel, I’m going to go with ‘no’… What do you mean by “terrorism” here? Is a tribal militia (given that they couldn’t muster something we would recognize as an army) going into battle terrorism? Does someone riding in on a camel and shooting up his rival’s village constitute terrorism? How many groups were hijacking airplanes/cruise ships and demanding the right to return, prior to the creation of the state of Israel? Was there export of violence beyond the ME region before the creation of the state of Israel? My answer to all of my rhetorical questions is “no”. I think **xtisme** ’s response is dismissive of the scale and nature of the terrorism fomented by the establishment of Israel - or at least fomented by the circumstances that surrounded its creation. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/8 "2010-05-25T23:11:43Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > How many groups were hijacking airplanes/cruise ships and demanding the right to return, prior to the creation of the state of Israel? Was there export of violence beyond the ME region before the creation of the state of Israel? > > My answer to all of my rhetorical questions is “no”. Well, your first question is constructed such that it can only be answered “no”. It’s like asking “were any people fighting on behalf of Group A’s claims on Subject B before Group A or Subject B existed?” As for the exportation of violence, why is that the defining characteristic? It can certainly be argued that the Muslim/Hindu conflicts in India contained examples of terrorism. The exportation of violence, though, wouldn’t have happened before the fall of the Ottoman Empire since foreign powers (and foreign enemies/grudges) didn’t play a substantial role while the region was under Turkish rule. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/9 "2010-05-26T01:10:05Z")
I believe Bernard Lewis said that contemporary pan-islamism is a response to the decline of muslim civilization in the world stage as a source of political, scientific or military influence on global events. So even w/o Israel it would still be an issue. Bin Laden was angry about US troops in Saudi Arabia. Chechen muslims are angry about Russian invasions. The Kashmir region isn’t about Israel, neither is what happens in Afghanistan or Indonesia. He also said/implied that Pan Arabism was an earlier attempt to cope with this loss of status, and it was a popular ideology several decades ago. In fact Saddam Hussein subscribed to it (the goal of creating an arab superstate that can use oil to pressure global events). Had Saddam successfully conquered Kuwait and parts of Saudi Arabia (which he was trying to do in the first gulf war) he would’ve controlled 40% of global oil reserves. So, no I don’t think so. What happens in Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia, or even Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda was formed because of events in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, not Israel) etc. isn’t due to Israel. The underlying theme does seem to be a fear of invasion and conquest by outsiders though. But those ‘outsiders’ can be Indians, Soviets, Americans, Russians or Israeli. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/10 "2010-05-26T04:01:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Terrorism is not aimed solely at the Israel-Palestine issue. For example, it is just as prevelant in the Afganistan war, and in the conflict with India, neither of which has anything to do with Palestine. > > Islam has a long history of the use of religiously-motivated killings for political effect as a mechanism of assymetric warfare, mostly aimed at other factions within the world of Islam. > > For example, some sections of the Ismailis were famous for using terror tactics against the majority Sunnis - the so-called “Hashshashin” (from whom we deriave the English word “assassin”). > > [Order of Assassins - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin) > > This suggests that the techniques are indigenous to the region and are simply being used against contemporary enemies, whomever they may be. I understand that terrorism has been around for millenia and all that so let me rephrase. Would things have gotten this bad if Israel was created in Brazil instead of the Middle East? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/11 "2010-05-26T04:14:34Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Seeing as how terrorism and terrorist activities in the ME predate the creation of the state of Israel, I’m going to go with ‘no’…the State of Israel is merely one factor in terrorism in the ME. I worded the OP poorly. I should have said would terrorism in the middle be as prevalent as they are now? I know that terrorism predates Israel but wasn’t there a pretty big surge in terrorist activity with leading up to and after the creation of the state of Israel? > [@](#): > > We would if a large percentage of the worlds oil was in Brazil…whether or not there was a Zionist movement or an Israel. I do not believe that Israel is a large source of the world’s oil. > [@](#): > > You are making assumptions based on flawed conclusions. We are involved in the ME (and consequently terrorism in the region) because of oil, not because of Israel. I am not really concerned about our involvement per se but a frequent sentiment you run into is that creating Israel in the middle east was like setting fire to a hornet’s nest. It radicalized the entire region over time (much in the same way that some people think that the abortion issue has radicalized the right). IOW if Israel had not been created in Palestine, there would have been low level violence due to poverty and the normal list of social ills but you would not have outfits like al Qaeda targetting western countries. > [@](#): > > As to your other question, I suppose if Israel had been created somewhere else than where it logically was created, then that would be one less thing that was pissing off the people in the region. I was talking to a fellow who was talking about a book der judenstaat written by an early zionist. Apparently the only reason Palestine was a logical place to create Israel was because the zionist movement made a concerted effort to create concentration of Jewish population in Palestine. In fact this early Zionist had advocated negotiating with the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire for a little place the Jews could call home. He noted the historical preference the arabs had for Jews over the Christians (something about Jews and muslims not being subject tot the draft. > [@](#): > > At a guess Palestine would still not have been a country (probably would have been part of Jordan) anyway, and it would be a backwater. And we’d STILL have terrorism and strife in the region, unless you magically transported the oil to Brazil instead… I don’t think Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan or Israel are large oil exporting countries, I guess Syria produces some but it hardly seems to be the source of the terrorism there. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/12 "2010-05-26T04:16:26Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I would agree that oil is a major cause of Islamic terrorism. Two reasons come to mind: > > 1. It encourages other countries to meddle in the affairs of the middle east, increasing resentment toward the outside world. > > 2. It provides the financing for local hotheads to take their grievances to the world stage. > > Without all the oil money sloshing around the middle east, it would be a backwater. The Arabs might still hate the Israelis, but it would be a regional problem, not an international one. I think Syria is the only one of Israel’s neighbors that exports oil. > **[List of countries by oil extraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil-producing_states#Middle_East)** > > This is a list of countries by oil extraction (i.e., petroleum extraction or "production"), as compiled from the U.S. Energy Information Administration database for calendar year 2023, tabulating all countries on a comparable best-estimate basis. > Compared with shorter-term data, the full-year figures are less prone to distortion from periodic maintenance shutdowns and other seasonal cycles. > The volumes in the table represent crude oil and lease condensate, the hydrocarbon liquids collected ... ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/13 "2010-05-26T04:25:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Islamic terrorists are already radicalized by definition, we don’t know of any moderate terrorists. > > But the radicalization and in many ways the creation of Islamism predates the creation of Israel in '48. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with the Nazis more than half a decade before Israel was created. Your second sentence shows that you understood what I was getting at. Your third sentence seem to imply that allying with Nazis made you a terrorist (or radicalized). The Mufti’s actions seemed driven more by the sort of racism you see among Arizonans towards Mexicans (much worse because we’re talking about nazis but my impression the Mufti was more worried about all the Jews showing up or as Herzl put it: "The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America. [/quote] I will note that there are some of the more liberal places in America are not particularly anti-semetic (at least not anymore). > [@](#): > > Qutb, in turn, wasn’t enraged by Israel, but by western culture itself. He sounds like a loon. But how did crazy talk like that suddenly start to find fertile ground in the middle east whereas before, the level of craaazy in the middle east was not that much higher than the average level of crazy in the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/14 "2010-05-26T04:30:44Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I believe Bernard Lewis said that contemporary pan-islamism is a response to the decline of muslim civilization in the world stage as a source of political, scientific or military influence on global events. So even w/o Israel it would still be an issue. Bin Laden was angry about US troops in Saudi Arabia. Chechen muslims are angry about Russian invasions. The Kashmir region isn’t about Israel, neither is what happens in Afghanistan or Indonesia. So this is the death rattle of the ottoman empire? Is the problem that we chopped up the ottoman empire? (BTW why did we chop up the Ottoman Empire and leave everyone else intact?) > [@](#): > > So, no I don’t think so. What happens in Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia, or even Al Qaeda (Al Qaeda was formed because of events in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, not Israel) etc. isn’t due to Israel. So Israel is little more than an after the fact excuse or rallying cry for those who were already going to be terrorists because they were upset there wasn’t a caliphate anymore? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/15 "2010-05-26T04:41:58Z")
Ah, so at least now we’re getting at the actual thrust of the OP: Israel’s existence, threat or menace? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Would things have gotten this bad if Israel was created in Brazil instead of the Middle East? The amount of Palestinan international terrorism is comparatively minor, and you’ve already had Qutb’s influence and ideology cited for you. Al Quaeda was based on Qutb’s ideology, not the PLO’s. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > a frequent sentiment you run into is that creating Israel in the middle east was like setting fire to a hornet’s nest. It was much more like setting fire to a titan’s pet pegasus, as the claim is completely fictitious. When the regional sovereign fell there were Jews living there who were part of a nationalistic movement. By the time the British withdrew those Jews, and those who joined them, had not decided to forgo self determination. Even if the UN had not written some words on a piece of paper (in, yet again, a non-binding resolution that was never ratified by all the parties involved, was never implemented and which never informed the actual situation once the Mandate ended), the Zionists still would have created Israel through their defensive war, quaint ideas that the Jews wouldn’t have dared desire self determination without other people’s approval. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > there would have been low level violence due to poverty and the normal list of social ills but you would not have outfits like al Qaeda targetting western countries. Yet again, Qutb has already been cited for you. His influence largely grew out of Wahabism, which has nothing to do with the PLO but which formed a fertile ground for Qutb’s Islamist ideology. Violent Islamists would have still existed, they still would have had the ideological motivation that they do, and they still would have objected to Western influence in what they view as a Waqf. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Apparently the only reason Palestine was a logical place to create Israel was because the zionist movement made a concerted effort to create concentration of Jewish population in Palestine. That “early Zionist” was Theodor Herzl. The only reason? The reasons don’t include the fact that “next year in Jersualem” and ““If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither.”” have been a part of Jewish prayers for ages? That Jews had an ideological and historical connection to the land? You’re actually claiming that the First Zionist Congress in Switzerland settled on Palestine because… why exactly? Some other nameless “Zionist movement” settled on Palestine? To say nothing of the fact that Jews started immigrating to the region beginning the early 1800’s? You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that Zionism itself refers to Zion, a reference to Jerusalem. Yes, there were discussion of other locations for a potential Jewish homeland, but your blithe dismissal of all of the considerations that went into the Zionist movement simply smacks of a lack of knowledge. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I guess Syria produces some but it hardly seems to be the source of the terrorism there. No, Iran is the source of the terrorism that Syria supports. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/16 "2010-05-26T04:54:14Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > allying with Nazis made you a terrorist (or radicalized). Yes, it’s a fairly safe guess that allying with the Nazis for the purpose of committing genocide was be a bit of a radical course of action. And the Mufti’s actions with whipping up violence against Jewish civilians clearly marks his ideology as terroristic. What relevance this has to the Mufti’s potential worried about Jews buying land… is unclear. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > But how did crazy talk like that suddenly start to find fertile ground in the middle east Wahabism was in existence for some time before Qutb. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization, was created just a few years after the Ottoman Empire fell. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/17 "2010-05-26T11:12:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I understand that terrorism has been around for millenia and all that so let me rephrase. I am with jjim, if you label tribal militias raiding and the like “terrorism” then the term is emptied of real meaning. Terrorism is a very modern, 20th century phenomena. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/18 "2010-05-26T11:23:48Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes, it’s a fairly safe guess that allying with the Nazis for the purpose of committing genocide was be a bit of a radical course of action. Or rather less profoundly biased, allying with the Nazis for the purpose of kicking out the Colonial power (Great Britain) and thus stopping Jewish immigration that was changing the balance of power in his stopping grounds. If you look at the other end of that region, the French colonies you see the opposite phenomena. France loses, goes Vichy and quasi Nazi allied, imposes even more harsh rule in the colonies. The Arab leadership ends up refusing to let Nazis touch “their Jews” And they get lovey dovey with the Allies (well Americans) on the principle, enemy of my enemy. Realpolitik… > [@](#): > > Wahabism was in existence for some time before Qutb. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization, was created just a few years after the Ottoman Empire fell. Neither of which are ipso facto terrorist. Hyper Conservative, sure. But that’s not a synonym. Nevertheless, it seems rather delusional to think that the ongoing Israel-Palestine issue, with the perceptions in the Muslim world of “The West” ganging up on the Palestinians and supporting Israel are not a major contributor to radicalization. I’m sure it would exist anyway in some circumstances, but it certainly gives a damned useful focusing narrative directed at ‘The West.’ ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/19 "2010-05-26T15:34:55Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > I am with jjim, if you label tribal militias raiding and the like “terrorism” then the term is emptied of real meaning. > > Terrorism is a very modern, 20th century phenomena. I suppose it would help if there were some consistent definition. For example, were the Ismali “hashisheen” ‘terrorists’? They were hardly “tribal militias raiding and the like”, but seemed to have a rather sophisticated (and for a while, successful) strategy of using trained murderers willing to commit suicide in attacks designed to spread fear among the enemies of the faith - in medieval times. That sounds more like continuity to me than like the 20th century version is a unique development. Certainly their methods have changed - the “hashisheen” hid among their enemies with assumed civilian identities, and killed with knives or poision - but the box-cutter-weilding terrorists who took down the twin towers were certainly using much the same MO. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753/20 "2010-05-26T16:04:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I suppose it would help if there were some consistent definition. For example, were the Ismali “hashisheen” ‘terrorists’? They were hardly “tribal militias raiding and the like”, but seemed to have a rather sophisticated (and for a while, successful) strategy of using trained murderers willing to commit suicide in attacks designed to spread fear among the enemies of the faith - in medieval times. That sounds more like continuity to me than like the 20th century version is a unique development. > > Certainly their methods have changed - the “hashisheen” hid among their enemies with assumed civilian identities, and killed with knives or poision - but the box-cutter-weilding terrorists who took down the twin towers were certainly using much the same MO. Well besides the fact that most of what is known about them, to my superficial understanding is anti-Ismaili writings by their Sunni enemies, I hardly think assassinating political leaders in the context of the Middle Ages mores is terrorism. Especially in a time period where “State / Non State” ideas are at best fuzzy. Even the concept of “civilian” versus not is really 19th-20t century talk. Also the idea of “continuity” when you have **centuries** long gap between these events (never mind an entirely different religious group, Sunnis) is stretching the idea of continuity to the breaking point. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proximate-cause-of-islamic-terrorism-today/540753.md?page=2)