Why So Many Terrorists Are Arabs

[Solomon2]

Jews were settling in Palestine as soon as the British took it over after the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in 1917-1918. Or does this "resettlement" predate even that?

Yes. see First Aliyah.

 

[RescueRanger]

al-Nakba: the Palestinian "Catastrophe"

 

[Solomon2]

Is this the way to make peace @Solomon2?

Sure. Change peoples' minds. Without changing minds and hearts how can there be real peace? That doesn't mean converting people to one religion or another but adopting a peace-seeking set of values that trumps unjustifiable bigotry. When you mess up the process of obtaining justice by accepting willful distortions of truth that means endorsing injustice. Then no real peace is possible. One can keep appeasing the unjust but that will simply lead to more lies and injustices - the path, in short, to tyranny and even genocide.

 

[meral]

Why so many terrorists are Arabs? Is this a question or another propaganda. Have you ever heard of Armenians? They only allow armenians in their church same with greeks and they do their ugly propaganda inside churches. An ethnic minority in Anatolia and Caucauses massacred many people, they did their terrorism since 1890's. They have ASALA terrorist organisation bombed the Orly Airport in France, they did their terrorist attacks all over the world, killing many Turkish and non-Türk civilians. Yes we recognise terrorists who are from muslim faith but why it is so hard to put christian and terrorist words together, believe me they are much much more! Plus not every muslim is Arab, for example notorious HizbulLah is persian. I can show you the brutality of russians butchering Caucaus people and cutting feet of babies but now whole world calling Chechens '' terrorist '', they are siömply lost on the definition of terrorism

 

[meral]

How does one then explain the terrorists in Non-Arab Muslim countries ?

Chechnya ? Pakistan ? Afghanistan and more.

In fact, one can now arguably say that the Af-PAk region itself has many more terrorists than the entire Arab world.

Some chechen tribes are completely destroyed. The city Sochi which Russians try to present it as a touristic destination was home to Ubich people, their last speaker died in Turkey. Millions were butchered by russia and another million moved to Turkey and more south. In 90's what russians did was not war, they intentionally harmed babies
check this, you just see a few child with no feet but in reality there are much more
ÇEÇEN
And in their helpless time they welcomed any help, including Wahhabis, but they are normally from Sufi İslam and very open minded people. Same happened to some Bosnians too, some turned out to be WahHabis cause when people butcher your mother sister if only one helping you is Wahhabis, even UN Dutch armies handed out your unarmed civilians to Serb butchers there is no need to be a rocket scientist, these people will have a bond with Wahhabis

 

[T-123456]

Sure. Change peoples' minds. Without changing minds and hearts how can there be real peace? That doesn't mean converting people to one religion or another but adopting a peace-seeking set of values that trumps unjustifiable bigotry. When you mess up the process of obtaining justice by accepting willful distortions of truth that means endorsing injustice. Then no real peace is possible. One can keep appeasing the unjust but that will simply lead to more lies and injustices - the path, in short, to tyranny and even genocide.

So calling a race terrorists you make peace?
Or is it just another way of saying Arab=terrorist?
You should know that not all people are naive and can read between the lines.
Try to open a positive thread and show some simularities,common interests,good sides.
Maybe then you could come closer,start here now with you.
What you do is show only the negative side.
Changing minds and hearts starts with reaching out.

 

[Solomon2]

So calling a race terrorists you make peace? Or is it just another way of saying Arab=terrorist?

The record of collective action is what we're talking about. That is not a judgment on an individual.

Try to open a positive thread and show some simularities,common interests,good sides.

Well, I'm not stopping you, go right ahead. You might think of what you'd hope to accomplish by doing so.

What you do is show only the negative side.

False or forced bonhomie neither brings back the dead nor provides justice and it is injustice - or the perception of it - that is used to fuel terror. The injustice and unfairness of accusers, murderers, and would-be murderers has to be challenged and that's bound to be an ugly ego-crushing affair, isn't it?

The exception I've heard of is the Saudi terrorist rehabilitation program which emphasizes counter-terror religious indoctrination, marriage, a house, and welfare payments. The Saudis claim an 80% success rate.

Changing minds and hearts starts with reaching out.

What, you don't think that's why I'm here?

 

[Solomon2]

al-Nakba: the Palestinian "Catastrophe"

RR, you're talking about a site that claims Jews were "invented" in Khazaria two centuries after Muhammed died. There is fantasy upon fantasy in the al-Nakba narrative, all to put the few facts present in contexts that didn't exist at the time they happened. The purpose, of course, is to completely whitewash the crimes, cowardice, and moral failings of Arabs who sought to slay Jews in Palestine and elsewhere.

Ever wonder why the Germans were peaceful after WWII and not after WWI? Because the second time 'round the Allies and Russians realized the Germans had to be punished for their crimes. Nuremberg exposed the crimes. Many surviving German soldiers were shipped off as forced labor to the Soviet Union for a decade. Germany along with its wartime allies lost territory as well.

The Arabs of the middle east were at least partly complicit in WWII: it was the Mufti of Jerusalem who traveled to Germany to encourage the Final Solution, supported terror against Jews in Palestine, and established an underground army that would have sprung into full action once Nazi forces entered the British Mandate.

The Mufti and his followers were supposed to be punished for their crimes but the British and French let them get away. So there was never the clear, official statement there should have been that the Arabs were uniquely and collectively at fault in the Arab-Jewish conflict. Had the Mufti been put on trial, exposed, and executed the Arab-Jewish conflict would likely have stopped right then and there. The British and French wanted to preserve their influence in the absence of their soldiers, figuring that Arabs were less capable of self-government than Jews and would need the services of their former colonial masters.

Even before WWII, the Brits were trying to do this by wiggling out of the Mandate as much as possible for that very reason. If the Brits needed the Jews in Palestine then, it was more to preserve their traditional colonial divide-and-rule formula than for anything else. Muslim Pakistanis of all people should sympathize with the Jews: they were also victims of the same British strategy.

 

[Darth Vader]

Why So Many Terrorists Are Arabs

August 4, 2013: Islamic terrorism has more to do with cultural problems within the Islamic world and Arab cultures than with any “war between Islam and the rest of the world.” Islamic terrorism is actually an ancient problem. Consider that the word "assassin" comes from a group of very successful Islamic terrorists who existed a thousand years ago, who used drugs (hashish) to give suicide assassins a taste of paradise before sending out on missions that would get them killed. These guys were called "hashish eaters", and that word, when picked up by English speakers, emphasized the murder aspect, and was mispronounced as "assassin."

OK, so ruthless men have been using Islamic radicalism to create terrorists for a long time. No argument about that. But the cultural problems within the Arab world have more to do with the popularity of Islamic terrorism today than anything else. Non-Arab Muslims don’t have all the same problems and tend to suffer much less from Islamic terrorism. In Arab countries the cultural poison is so incurable that religion and terrorism seem a reasonable solution to the many problems. It’s not just a struggle between religious and secular reformers.

The result of all these ancient bad habits is a cultural crisis in the Arab world in particular and the Moslem world in general. The crisis is expressed by an abundance of corruption and a lack of economic, educational, and political performance. By whatever measure you wish to use, Nobel prizes, literacy rates, patents awarded, books published or translated, GDP growth, the Arabs have fallen behind the rest of the world. Part of the problem is the Arab tendency to blame outsiders and to avoid taking responsibility. Tolerating tyranny and resistance to change doesn't help either. Those attitudes are shifting and for most of the last decade the war in Iraq became the center of this cultural battle.

The exact nature of this lethal cultural miasma can best be described by enumerating the major components. Let’s start with the fact that most Arab countries are a patchwork of different tribes and groups, and Arab leaders survive by playing one group off against another. Loyalty is to one's group, not the nation. Most countries are dominated by a single group that is usually a minority (Bedouins in Jordan, Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq, Nejdis in Saudi Arabia). All of which means that leadership jobs are assigned not by merit but by loyalty and tribal affiliation. This continues in democratic Iraq, where political parties or powerful politicians strive to control individual police or army units.

Islamic schools favor rote memorization, especially of scripture. Most Islamic scholars are hostile to the concept of interpreting the Koran (considered the word of God as given to His prophet Mohammed). This has resulted in looking down on Western troops that will look something up that they don't know. Arabs prefer to fake it, and pretend it's all in their head. Improvisation and innovation is generally discouraged. Arab government organizations go by the book while Westerners are more likely to rewrite the book and thus be much more effective. Despite years of Western advice on this matter, many Arab officials stick with the old, less effective, traditions.

There is little middle management (like NCOs in the military). The “ruling class” (owners, officers or officials) and everyone else are treated like two different social castes and there is no effort to bridge the gap using what the West calls middle management. “The people” are treated harshly. Work accidents that would end the careers of Western managers, officers or officials are ignored in the Arab world and nobody cares. This is slowly changing, with the steady growth of a proper NCO corps and middle management plus better management attitudes towards their subordinates. But the old ways often return, with disastrous effects on the morale and effectiveness of the average Arab.

Not surprisingly in Arab cultures the ruling class is despised by their subordinates, and this does not bother the leaders much at all. Many Arab leaders simply cannot understand how treating the subordinates (unless they are family) decently will have any benefit. This is another old tradition that dies hard.

Paranoia prevents adequate training. This is made worse by the habit of Arab tyrants insisting that their subordinate organizations have little contact with each other, thus insuring that no subordinate leader can became powerful enough to overthrow the top guy. Subordinate organizations are purposely kept from working together or communications on a large scale. Arab subordinate leaders don't have as broad a knowledge of what their subordinates leaders do as is the case with their Western counterparts. Promotions are based more on political reliability than proficiency and efficiency. Arab leaders prefer to be feared, rather than respected, by their subordinates. This approach leads to poorly trained populations and low morale. A few rousing speeches about "Moslem brotherhood" before a national emergency boils over does little to repair the damage. Many, if not most, Arab leaders now know that the paranoia and parochialism are bad, but ancient traditions are hard to abandon.

Arab leaders often do not trust each other. While an American manager or officer can be reasonably confident that the others they work with will be competent and reliable, Arabs in similar situations seriously doubt that their peers will do their job on time or accurately. This is an inefficient and sometimes fatal attitude. It's been difficult getting Arab leaders to change when it comes to trust.

Arab leaders consider it acceptable to lie to subordinates and allies in order to further their personal agenda. This had catastrophic consequences throughout Arab history and continues to make progress difficult. When called out on this behavior, Arabs will assert that they were "misunderstood." This is still going on.

While Western American middle managers (and Westerners in general) are only too happy to impart their wisdom and skills to others (teaching is the ultimate expression of prestige), Arabs try to keep any technical information and manuals secret. To Arabs, the value and prestige of an individual is based not on what he can teach, but on what he knows that no one else knows. This destructive habit is still around, despite years of American advisors patiently explaining why this is counterproductive.

While Westerners thrive on competition among themselves, Arab leaders avoid this as the loser would be humiliated. Better for everyone to fail together than for competition to be allowed, even if it eventually benefits everyone. This attitude is still a factor in the Arab world.

Westerners are taught leadership and technology; Arabs are taught only technology. Leadership is given little attention as Arab leaders are assumed to know this by virtue of their social status as appointed leaders. The new generation of Arab leaders have been taught leadership, but for too many of them, this is an alien concept that they do not understand or really know what to do with.

Initiative is considered a dangerous trait in the Arab world. So subordinates prefer to fail rather than make an independent decision. Large scale enterprises are micromanaged by senior leaders, who prefer to suffer defeat rather than lose control of their subordinates. Even worse, an Arab manager will not tell a Western counterpart why he cannot make the decision (or even that he cannot make it), leaving Western managers angry and frustrated because the Arabs won't make a decision. The Arab leaders simply will not admit that they do not have that authority. The new generation of Arab managers have been sent to Western management schools, but there's still not a lot of enthusiasm for initiative (which is seen as a decadent and dangerous Western import.)

Lack of initiative makes it difficult for Arabs to maintain modern equipment. Complex modern devices require on the spot maintenance, and that means delegating authority, information, and tools. Arab cultures avoid doing this and prefer to use easier to control central repair shops. This makes the timely maintenance of equipment difficult. Entrepreneurs, often non-Arab Muslims, often handle a lot of the maintenance. This is still a problem throughout the Middle East, where the oil rich nations have most of their non-government operations staffed by foreigners.

Security is maniacal. Everything even vaguely military or government related is top secret. While Western military and corporation promotion lists are routinely published, this rarely happens in Arab organizations. Officers and managers are suddenly transferred without warning to keep them from forging alliances or networks. Any team spirit among officials is discouraged.

All these traits were reinforced, from the 1950s to the 1990s, by Soviet advisors and admiration for the “success” of Soviet socialism and management practices. To the Russians, anything government related was secret, subordinates were scum, there was no functional middle management system, and everyone was paranoid about everyone else. These were not "communist" traits, but Russian customs that had existed for centuries and were adopted by the communists to make their dictatorship more secure from rebellion. Arab dictators avidly accepted this kind of advice, but are still concerned about how rapidly the communist dictatorships all came tumbling down between 1989 and 1991. The Russian influence is still fondly remembered, because the Russians had developed some highly effective police state methods. This made it easier for the police and military to control a country, even if despicable methods were used. While these Russian techniques can work to hunt down terrorists in a police state, it doesn't work in any other useful endeavors and that’s the main reason the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

But where did the current crop of Islamic terrorists come from? Historically, a noticeable increase in violence by Islamic radicals occurred every three or four generations usually in response to corrupt and ineffective local government. Most Islamic countries experienced it, and some got a more lethal dose than others. The terrorists almost always lost, usually when a powerful ruler in the area launched a major military operation against the population (usually a tribe or part of a province) that was supporting the terrorists. Much bloodshed ensued. Today these measures would be described as genocide and war crimes. But in the past, the "massive retribution" approach worked and the terrorists disappeared. So the second lesson learned here is that what worked in the past won't work today because customs have changed. We have become kinder and gentler and must come up with different methods of dealing with terrorists. Where exactly did the current crop of Islamic terrorists come from? Basically, they came from Saudi Arabia in particular and Arabia in general. The Wahhabi sect of Islam had always been among the most strict and intolerant as well as dominant in Arabia. The Saud family owed their power, in large part, to a 19th century alliance with the Wahhabi sect. Holy Warriors from the Wahhabi tribes provided the crucial muscle that enabled the Sauds to conquer Saudi Arabia and establish their kingdom 80 years ago.

The Sauds realized that the more reactionary attitudes of the Wahhabis would hurt the kingdom in the long run. Many Wahhabi clerics were opposed to modern technology (unless it was a weapon). Radio, automobiles and all manner of gadgets were resisted and the Sauds were constantly haggling with the Wahhabi clerics. Finally, in the 1970s, after a serious outbreak of Islamic terrorism the Sauds made a deal with the Wahhabi clerics. The Wahabbis could control education in the kingdom and have their own "lifestyle police" to enforce proper Islamic standards on Saudis, in return for keeping Islamic terrorism under control. This was key in spawning the current outbreak of Islamic terrorism.

Another important element was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Wahhabi preachers saw this as an assault by communist atheists (which is what Islamic conservatives considered the Soviets) on an Islamic state. The Wahhabi declared jihad against Russia. Billions of dollars, and thousands of Arabs (most of them Saudis) went off to help the Afghans fight the Russians. The Pakistanis cooperated because at about the same time the generals running Pakistan had seized on Islamic conservatism as a cure for the corruption that was making the country ungovernable. The Wahhabis and their money were welcomed and exploited.

The Americans were there as well, as the "Afghan Freedom Fighters" were popular in the United States. Meanwhile most of the money and weapons were being supplied by the Saudis. In addition to guns, the Saudis also brought in Wahhabi preachers, to set up religious schools for the millions of Afghan refugees. Pakistanis were allowed to attend these schools as well. The result was that the Pushtun tribes on both sides of the Afghan border, were radicalized with Wahabbi beliefs. At this point Saudi Arabia was also exporting billions of dollars, and thousands of Wahhabi preachers to many other Islamic countries in Asia and Africa. Some of that money went to Moslem communities in Europe and the Americas as well. But in the 1980s, Pakistan was where the Wahabbis were building a new generation of Islamic radicals. In the 1990s, Islamic radicals in the Pakistani military created the Taliban, by arming Afghan students in Wahhabi religious schools in Pakistan, providing some training and technical support, and sending the lads off to end the civil war raging in Afghanistan. The Wahhabi clerics also infected Pakistan and Afghanistan with many of their bad cultural habits and caused all sorts of misery. The Wahhabi oppose education and freedom for women as well as technical education in general. The Wahhabi tolerate technical progress they find useful but don’t encourage it. The same with many of the cultural norms that make the West prosperous while leaving the Arab world a backwater.

When the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan in the late 1990s the Pakistanis began to have second thoughts. In fact, by then the Pakistani generals and politicians had abandoned Islamic conservatism, for it had proved no solution to Pakistan’s problems. Too late. When September 11, 2001 came along American troops engineered the overthrow of the Taliban government two months later. At that point the Pakistanis found Islamic terrorism had become entrenched among their Pushtun tribes and was spreading to urban areas. After al Qaeda was chased out of Afghanistan the terrorist group declared war on the Pakistani government, for siding with the Americans. That war continues, with al Qaeda losing but not yet destroyed.

Meanwhile back in Saudi Arabia the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 set off the Islamic radicals in Saudi Arabia. While the Wahhabi religious establishment did not back the Islamic terrorists, it had to come out against Islamic terrorism once al Qaeda began making attacks inside Saudi Arabia. Within two years all the al Qaeda activity in Iraq, which mainly consisted of killing Iraqis, led to a sharp drop in the popularity of Islamic terrorism throughout the Moslem world. But, because of international media networks, Islamic terrorism was no longer a bunch of separate problems, occurring in different cycles. There was now one, worldwide, movement.

As in the past, the Islamic terrorist recruits came mainly from those who felt most oppressed. These days, that includes the young population in most Arab states, which are all run by dictators or monarchs. The dictators and kings don't want democracy and Islamic radicals consider democracy un-Islamic. So the only way to vote is to set off a bomb somewhere. That somewhere, it turned out, was not at home. These Arab despots had equipped themselves with an efficient police state security apparatus, which has managed to shut down Islamic radicals wherever they have shown up in Moslem nations. That led to al Qaeda's campaign against Western nations. This was seen as an indirect way of bringing down Arab tyrants which al Qaeda now believed were being propped up by the Western infidels. The American invasion of Iraq forced the Islamic terrorists to rush home, and fight against an outbreak of democracy in their heartland. That led to the collapse of popular support for Islamic terrorists.

So how do you fight Islamic terrorism these days? Can't use the old ("kill 'em all") methods, so all you can do is keep the killers out of your own territory, and wait for the madness to die out naturally, as it has done many times before. Changing the poor and misgoverned Moslem nations that generate Islamic radicalism is another option. But that takes time as well, and the current wave of Islamic terrorism may die out before good government (and a lot less corruption) becomes common in the Arab world.

few people acting as radicals In a society , it doesn't mean whole society is mad, Islam is the religion of peace , instead of judging other people do a survey yourself meet many Muslims as possible in your area , and ask them about these So called terrorist group if they like them or not ,Dont go what media says bcz if we go on numerical answer then Your United States will be the biggest terrorist of all times cz of the number of innocents it killed if you check your history Islam says Black , white , male , women are equal On the other hand till 70s and even know many u.s citizen thinks black people have no right to live so now you decide whos the real terrorist

 

[Solomon2]

few people acting as radicals In a society , it doesn't mean whole society is mad, Islam is the religion of peace -

In Pakistan it means the people who aren't committing crimes against non-Muslims won't challenge those who do. That gives criminals peace.

The rest of your comments serve as blather you're employing to cover up this truth. I do not yield to you this sort of comfort.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Some chechen tribes are completely destroyed. The city Sochi which Russians try to present it as a touristic destination was home to Ubich people, their last speaker died in Turkey. Millions were butchered by russia and another million moved to Turkey and more south. In 90's what russians did was not war, they intentionally harmed babies
check this, you just see a few child with no feet but in reality there are much more
ÇEÇEN
And in their helpless time they welcomed any help, including Wahhabis, but they are normally from Sufi İslam and very open minded people. Same happened to some Bosnians too, some turned out to be WahHabis cause when people butcher your mother sister if only one helping you is Wahhabis, even UN Dutch armies handed out your unarmed civilians to Serb butchers there is no need to be a rocket scientist, these people will have a bond with Wahhabis

My post had nothing to do with targeting Chechens or generalising them.

I was making a point by pointing out to Chechnya, Afghanistan and Pakistan that the Non-Arab muslim world probably has many more terrorists or jihadis (whatever you want to call them) than the Arab world and singling out the Arab countries today would be wrong.

 

[Darth Vader]

In Pakistan it means the people who aren't committing crimes against non-Muslims won't challenge those who do. That gives criminals peace.

The rest of your comments serve as blather you're employing to cover up this truth. I do not yield to you this sort of comfort.

Cover Up truth ? That U.s is the biggest Supporter of terrorism , Even these SO called jahidi groups were basically funded from CIA, Taliban which were your best buddies now they are your enemies.
Its not About challenging it has nothing to do with islam , your media is trying to show that Muslims are not humans they are monsters and bla bla , a simple example If a person kills some one Media will say that person killed that person on the other hand if hes Muslim, they will say a Muslim his origin is arab or Pakistani he killed that person isnt that double standards

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

choor mechai shoor.

 

[Solomon2]

Cover Up truth ? That U.s is the biggest Supporter of terrorism -

O.K., so you admit my points, you simply are justifying them on the grounds that you believe there is an even bigger culprit out there, the U.S. What sort of respect does your opinion merit, then?

Its not About challenging it has nothing to do with islam , your media is trying to show that Muslims are not humans

I don't own the media and from what I see of it the major networks and newspapers bend over backwards to portray Muslims as good as or better than non-Muslims. Yet it cannot cover up the truth entirely, which is that those who call themselves Muslims are, today, committing the majority of the intentional evils in the world. The networks do this to preserve their markets and sources in lands where they would be kidnapped or murdered otherwise; you, of course, have a different excuse.

 

[krash]

Why So Many Terrorists Are Arabs

August 4, 2013: Islamic terrorism has more to do with cultural problems within the Islamic world and Arab cultures than with any “war between Islam and the rest of the world.” Islamic terrorism is actually an ancient problem. Consider that the word "assassin" comes from a group of very successful Islamic terrorists who existed a thousand years ago, who used drugs (hashish) to give suicide assassins a taste of paradise before sending out on missions that would get them killed. These guys were called "hashish eaters", and that word, when picked up by English speakers, emphasized the murder aspect, and was mispronounced as "assassin."

Sigh.... The word "assassin" stems from the word 'Hashishi'. 'Hashishi' literally translates into 'the doper'. The Hashishi were ancient Turkish mercenary assassins who were always high. Along with being high they were also involved in many other 'un-Islamic' activities and were dejected by the society. They never painted themselves as religious or Islamic. They went more towards fear through mysticism (The Hasansins in the move 'Prince of Persia' are a depiction of them). They were hired by Muslims, Christians, Jewish people, basically anyone who could afford them and had a purpose suited for their expertise. They were never sent in to die. On the contrary, they were infamous for never getting caught and always succeeding. However, they were expected to get the job done even if it meant loosing their lives (Somewhat like the Ninjas of Japan). They were the most feared and expensive assassins of their times. Their most notorious method of assassination was with a very thin long blade with a barely noticeable hilt; they walked pass the target in a crowded place and with a swift silent motion, pierced the blade through from right under the target's lowest rib upwards cutting nerves into his heart. This left the victim paralyzed for a few seconds after which he fell down and died, leaving ample time for the Hashishi to escape unnoticed. And you thought the Assassin's Creed was cool.

After this the article got very uninteresting and worthless to comment on.