Being Realistic about Terrorism - Part 2

In my last blog I established what I think is an obvious fact. The problem of terrorism is one that is linked to individuals motivated by Islam. I am not saying that Islam, in and of itself, is the problem but it is the source of legitimization that most of the dangerous terrorists are using to justify their attacks against us. The fact that there are terrorists who are not Muslim does not eliminate the reality that most of the danger of terrorism is our society today is due to Islamic-based terrorism. The propensity for some individuals to ignore this can be attributed to a misplaced sense of political correctness.Now I want to look a little more carefully at this source of terrorism. The way I see it, as it concerns terrorism, there are three types of Muslims. There are Muslims who are dedicated to terrorism and can not be reformed. Come on. Does anybody seriously think that we can convince Osama Bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki to renounce violence? They cannot be reformed. They can only be killed or imprisoned. Let’s call them Type A Muslims. Second there are Muslims who will never engage in violence. No matter what happens they are dedicated to peaceful methods of change or do not worry about trying to change society at all. Some of my friends are such Muslims. They may be sympathetic to some of the causes enunciated by Type A Muslims but they would never engage in the violence the Type A Muslims will use. Either their interpretation of Islam emphasis non-violence or they have some other non-violent ideology that keeps them from being a threat. Let’s call them Type B Muslims. Finally, there are Muslims who do not engage in violence but could become violent under the right circumstances. They are sympathetic to the causes that animate Type A Muslims but for some reason are not willing to take the same violent measures that they engage in. But they could be convinced to engage in violence. The United States invasion of a country or a family tragedy that turns them violent but the capacity for violence is there. Let’s call them Type C Muslims.

It is important to recognize these different types because unfortunately we have a tendency to stereotype Muslim as all the same. We know a few Type A or Type B Muslims and we think that all Muslims are like that. But there are different solutions depending on who you are dealing with. We have to stop Type A Muslims with some form of violence be it military or police based action. Type B Muslims are no threat and we can just treat them like everyone else. Type C Muslims must be nurtured so that they do not turn to violence. But too often we attempt to find some overarching solution that is inadequate for the different types of Muslims. A “War on Terrorism” approach can neutralize some of the Type A Muslims but will convince some of the Type C Muslims to turn violent. An attempt to provide economic aid to Islamic countries can prevent many of the Type C Muslims to stay peaceful but the Type A Muslims will continue to wreak havoc on our society. Simple solutions that address only one type of Muslim group will not work.

But there is a possible solution. The group that we are overlooking may be the salvation for those of us who are concerned about terrorism. I believe the key is the Type B Muslims. I will conclude this series with how I think they can be helpful for us to create a useful strategy to use against terrorism.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Being Realistic about Terrorism - Part 1

Time for another series. First a disclaimer. I am not a police detective nor do I play one on TV. But I am a thoughtful person and I do think about the problems in our society. So I have some thoughts about terrorism which is clearly one of the big problems today. I am not interested in political correctness but in merely thinking clearly about such problems. So let us see where we can go with this series.

The foundation of dealing with terrorism is to be completely honest, even if that foundation is a controversial statement. That statement is that Islamic terrorism is the biggest source of terrorism that threatens our society and our world. To me this statement is so obvious that I should not have to defend it. But in our politically correct world I already know that some readers are already objecting. They are saying that I am trying to pick on Islam. I am not. I just know how to read a newspaper and follow world events.

Okay what about terrorism based in other religions? Compared to Islamic terrorism there are relatively few terrorism based on other religions. Timothy McVeigh was not religious. A few abortion doctors have been killed by what can be called Christian terrorists but these heinous crimes do not create near the amount of damage that Islamic terrorists have created. We should not ignore terrorism from other sources. But we have to be honest about the relative damage that Islamic terrorism has created.

Am I saying the Islam leads to terrorism more than other religions? All religions have had their dark days. I am not in a position to state that Islam is any more dangerous than other religions. But it is reasonable to argue that most of the other major religions have had their violent times in the past. For whatever reason, Islam is more likely to provoke violence today.

What about governmental sources of violence? Some may contend that the United States government is a terrorist given the way we have waged war. I do not like some of the wars we have gone into. But if terrorism is defined as the deliberate attempt to kill civilians in order to create terror then we are comparing apples to oranges. There is little reason for our military to gain by targeting innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 9-11 was a direct attempt to kill innocent people to create terror. It is not accurate to call the military terrorists unless you want to change the meaning of the word terrorists.

Why is it important to get through the PC BS to make what I think is the obvious statement about the Islamic source of terrorism? It is important because until we understand the nature of the problem then we will not be about to deal with the problem. The solution is not to demonize Muslims, but to understand how those relatively few Muslims who are terrorists can be stopped. In the next few blogs I will speculate as to how we can do this and hopefully address terrorism in a realistic way.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Ruin a good thing!!!

Okay, time for a sports rant. Why did the NCAA ruin the best sports tournament in the world. Of course I am talking about March Madness.
Remember when it was just the 64 teams. That made every league championship exciting because to win it meant that you got to go to the 'Big Dance." Then once the tournament started you get the Cinderella stories of a 15th seed upsetting a 2 seed. Man it is great stuff.
It is still good but then they added that stupid play-in game. Now if you win your conference they may ship you off to play the winner of another scrub league before going to the "Big Dance." And if that is not bad enough now there are four play-in games. WHY. The original 64 team set-up was great. Allowed everyone to have a shot, but the better teams got easier games early. Sets up the possibility of the exciting upset. What a way to choose a national champion.
I guess we can never be satisfied when something is good. Maybe it is a good thing that we are trying to make things better. But sometimes we have to know when things can not be made better. They probably think that they can make a little more money adding those four extra games. But in my mind they just cheapened the tournament a little. It is still great but not as great as it once was.
You know this started as a sports rant, but it clearly has implications in other parts of life. How many people ruin a good relationship thinking that there is someone better waiting for them? Or move to a new job before realizing how good they had it at the old one? Or move to a new city and miss all their old friends? Change is good and sometimes necessary. But sometimes the best change is no change.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Going Nuclear?

I have made my prayers for the poor souls in Japan. I hope that many of you have done likewise. The pictures of Japan are heart-wrenching. How can anyone not have sympathy for those who have suffered and continue to suffer from this natural disaster.
Now on to unnatural disasters. Trouble-maker can not help but notice the discussion that has risen from this tragedy concerning nuclear power. Already there are opponents of nuclear power who are passionately arguing that Japan is evidence that we have to avoid using it. And there are proponents of nuclear power who argue that Japan teaches us no such thing.
I have one question for both groups. How do you know this? They have not even gotten the fires under control yet and people are telling me that they know what went wrong. This does not pass the smell test. I have a novel idea. How about we get the tragedy under control, then do an investigation and see what went wrong. Wow. Having information before drawing a conclusion. Who would have thought of that?
To often political pundits use their own paradigm to develop conclusion that support those paradigms regardless of what the evidence says. We would be better off if we look at these pundits with a great deal of skepticism. Instead we tend to automatically dismiss those we disagree with and unconditionally accept the rantings of those we agree with. Until we learn to escape this mentality and think for ourselves we will always be vulnerable to making big decisions without having collected all of our evidence. Just a little advice from a little trouble-maker.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Public Unionization

Okay let's be honest. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed into law rules that are not just there to balance the budget. They are there to break up the public unions. To say otherwise is to pretend that reality does not exists. It is not just the removing of the right to collectively bargain. It is also the removal of the requirement of employees to deduct union dues and the requirement for the unions to be recertified by vote every year. Maybe those are good measures for Wisconsin to have but those measures are not about saving the state money, but they are about breaking the power of unions.
If we are honest about the attempt to break up the unions then the next question is whether that is a good thing. Most Americans, this one included, believes that people should retain collective bargaining rights. On the other hand, collective bargaining means something different when we are looking at a public union as opposed to a union for a private company. When a union bargains with a private company you have a true adversarial relationship. If the company agrees to concessions with the union then that company has to pay the union out of its own pocket. But a public union is bargaining with someone who is not going to have to ante up for any concessions. In fact, because unions are so politically active, there is a real possibility that their "adversary" has more interest in keeping the union members happy than in saving money.
Some conservatives have argued that because government officials are less likely to bargain in a way to protect the interest of the taxpayers the way a company will protect the interest of the share holders that we should outlaw public unions. I acknowledge that, just as we had to be honest about Governor's Walkers intention to break the union, we have to be honest that this is a legitimate concern. But do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Can we not keep the public unions and neutralize this concern?
I think we can. My compromise is that we allow public unions to bargain for whatever they can get. However, they are not allowed to become involved in politics. They can not endorses or donate to campaigns, set up get out the vote drives, or help to do political organizing. This way they do not directly help to determine who they will bargain with. This will put public union more on the same footing as private unions.
Will we ever reach such a compromise. Not if we are just calling each other names. Not if we take advantage of a temporary political advantage, like what the Republicans are doing right now, to put for all that we want. Not if we run away from our obligations to debate and vote, like what the Democrats did, if we do not get our way. In short, we will not find solutions that solve the problems that Republicans and Democrats both point out as long as we do politics like we have always done. But what else is new?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Balance Part 4 - When Societies go bad

I have noticed something about oppressive societies. I have noticed that usually they are build around admirable values. For example, much of the oppression connected to the Dark Ages is based on the desire to create a moral Christian order. Morality is a desirable quality for a society. It is clearly better to have a moral society than one that is chaotic. But the imposed morality in the Dark Ages led to a great deal of bloodshed and oppression.

Or what about the terror visited upon us due to Stalinism and other communist societies. A lot of people died due to the laudable desire to create equality. These communist societies are built around the notion of promoting economic equality. Nothing wrong with that. Except that these efforts to promote equality led to millions send to gulags, or being executed.

A desire to be patriotic to one's country is a good thing. But such loyalty allowed Hitler to create his own version of Hell. Islam has some commendable qualities in it. But forcing everyone to accept those qualities has created many of the Islamic tyrannies we see today. As you can see trying to impose some good quality to the rest of society is a big reason why we see the development of oppressive and cruel societies.

This is tied to my discussion of balance. Balance forces us to recognize that any good quality can be used to justify horrible actions. If we remember the importance of balance then we will not be persuaded by the next would-be dictator who asks us to sacrifice it all for a sacred principle. We can agree the principle is good without throwing away our rights and freedoms.

I love my country. I believe we have a right to protect ourselves against terrorists. But my love for my country does not lead me to do anything to protect it. There must be a balance where we do have rules that protect us against a very real threat but we also balance those rules with efforts to maintain our freedom. I neither completely agree with the ACLU nor with conservative talk show host as it concerns the measures to protect ourselves. Rather I will look for a balanced approach that allows us to protect ourselves with a maximum protection of our freedom. I find that on most issues such a need for a balanced approach is best.

Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker