How can the USA discourage Jihad terrorism?

Other than by giving in and holding a mass conversion to Islam, which isn’t happening because most Americans don’t want to become monotheistic pagans, how can America cause a reduction in Jihad terrorism against Americans, and hopefully a reduction in Jihad terrorism overall?

If we follow the usual formula for determining the number of extremists, capable of unusual levels of violence, within any society, we come up with about one percent. The Hells Angels and other motorcycle gangs have long called themselves one percenters because they agree with this number. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. One percent of that is 12 million. So without any special training or propaganda in the Muslim world there would be 12 million Jihad terrorists ready to launch themselves against anyone who pops his head up. These are the hardest of the hardcore. But there are more than just hardcore bad-guys involved.

In addition to these hardened criminals, the madrassas and masjids of Pakistan are churning out thousands of newly trained Jihadists every month to go to war in Afghanistan and India against infidels, and a certain number of American and European traitors prepared to unleash Jihad terror against their home countries. Would kindness slow them down as effectively as killing them would slow their deployment and the recruitment of replacements?

The 2007 Pew world-wide poll taken among Muslims reveal that between 20% and 30% of Muslims have a lot of confidence that Bin Laden is doing the right thing. These numbers have gone down from over 50% five years ago. Is that an increase or decrease in support for Jihad terrorism? That works out to 240-360 million Muslims who contribute either money or sons or both in support of Jihad terrorism. That’s a lot of Jihad terrorism supporters worldwide, and a big problem! But it’s less than 600+ million, like it used to be!

Who says that the battle of Iraq is increasing the number of terrorists?

Are you sure?

This post was inspired by the comments in the responses to this post at Winds of Change.


Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Miss Beth’s Victory Dance, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati Tags: , ,


3 responses to “How can the USA discourage Jihad terrorism?

  1. If 1% is a societal invariant (ie. that it will always be there no matter what the society) then the question is: what is the form that invariant takes?

    In the 19th century it was Anarchism, along with lesser numbers of socialists, that formed that 1%. That shifted as the nihilism of Anarchism drew together with socialism over the last decade of the 19th century, and gave rise to Progressivism, National Socialism, Communism and associated destructive groups. While post-WWI Germany was a hotbed of this due to diminished societal cohesion, that is not a stable state, so the influx of individuals on a broader scale to violent movements (both the Reds and the Browns drew heavily upon societal unrest), more stable societies did not see that dramatic shift upwards. Post-WWII shifts to Communism became a de facto home for such movements, although Fascist ones in those areas that the Fascists fled to (Middle East and South America) would also arise and strengthen after the 1950’s.

    Openly National Socialist (as opposed to International Socialists which are Communists) arose in Syria, Iraq, Egypt and utilized a pan-Arabist disenchantment that fused with Wahabbi doctrine that had been pushed by the Saudis since the start of the 20th century. In Egypt pan-Arabism was confronted directly by Saudi backed Sunni extremism fused with socialist doctrine and redefining the inward group as Islam. That change was witnessed from the purely National Socialist views of the radical pan-Arabists (Arafat, Sadat, Assad, Hussein) to those of Fascist doctrine radical Islam (here marrying up in-group Nationalism based on religion and socialist doctrine). While the National Socialists of the pan-Arab sort prospered on poverty disenchantment, the Fascist Islamic groups went towards the traditional haven of the Communists in Academia. That fertile soil led to a spread of radical pan-Islamic views that bifurcated into the Sunni/Wahabbi type and the Shia/Khomeini type. These do not draw upon the poor, save for the Brown Shirt equivalent of ‘muscle’, but upon the affluent and disenchanted middle class.

    By having left that unconfronted for decades this form of religious based identity socialism spread wildly across the Middle East, North Africa and into South America and even the Far East to Oceania. It draws upon those that have education, funds, and intellect to create an internally coherent radical group very like the Communists in exile during the early part of the 20th century (1890’s to 1910).

    Thus the rejection of radicalism by Iraq, today, is not that of the poor, but of the *middle class*: this is an astounding feat to see post-war and is wholly due to Iraq-based Nationalism pushed by the Fascistic Ba’ath party: religious extremism was only given haven when it suited the ruling elite for specific purposes. Those purposes (mainly against the Kurds and for some extra-national work) only had limited recruiting within Iraq pre-war, although those recruits were spread about evenly across Iraq. Post-war the appeal by al Qaeda was not to the *poor* but to the relatively middle class Sunni Arab populations. Likewise Moqtada al-Sadr appealed to the middle class Shia population that was relatively well educated, but soon brought in thuggish under group that was not that well educated. The repudiation of al Qaeda by the Sunni *middle class* and of the Shia extremists by the *middle class* are vital to cutting off the ideological appeal of these radical views.

    The question is, as an invariant, where do the violent members head to? Currently the traditional haven of employment that has always been available, even and especially during the last decade of Saddam’s regime, is organized crime. The people making money off of al Qaeda and Iran are not the bombers, but the middlemen who funnel arms and explosives to them… that is why the ripping up of Moqtada’s organized crime syndicate via the Kazali brothers was so important: it tracked his supply lines down and took out the secondary haven of violence that supported Moqtada. The late 2005-06 Riverine campaigns did this exact, same thing to al Qaeda and within a year Anbar had *flipped*. These two, inherently COIN, operations did more ‘paving of the way’ to change in Iraq than merely killing off radicals – it made those poor people heading to violence re-analyze the cost/benefit ratio with more being added to the cost end with a flat or decreasing benefit.

    Today it is non-radical supporting organized crime that is the problem. This is yet another multi-decadal unaddressed problem of the West as purely ‘business’ organized crime has been a hard and ready supplier to radical groups globally. The analysis done by Interpol, FBI, MI5 and others in the 1990’s clearly demonstrates the fusion of radicalism with organized crime which has upped the ante of violence in both spheres. Post-Soviet Russia in fusing organized crime into a 1/3 partnership in industry, now finds it damned impossible to rid itself of billion dollar plus organized crime figures. These men made it a lucrative business to trade with terrorists, especially men like Mogilevich and his ties to the central asian ‘stans and to Syrian figures like Monzer al-Kassar who has the virtual rolodex of ‘who’s who in terrorism’. By this analysis the greatest threat to Iran is not the US, not Iraq, not radicalism, but to the Group Dmitri Firtash that controls 5% of the imports of natural gas to Iran via Turkmenistan. Mogilevich and Firtash made it their business to gain control over those resources and then operate them as a crime front organization that was highly profitable all by itself. Iran is suffering sudden shutdowns of that 5% supply (during winter!) and having to now pay full market prices for natural gas… and are faced with men who have tens of billions of dollars and ties to radical groups globally. Iran cannot threaten them as they are the ones who can shut down supplies to the exterior Hezbollah operations! Iran is ‘getting an offer it can’t refuse’ and the instability inside Iran is increasing. Iran is now facing a post-WWI Germany scenario, save its middle class is not adhering to Islamic radicalism as that is the *problem*.

    “Just give me your northern oil fields and I’ll make your ‘uprising’ problem ‘go away’.”

    Al Capone would be green with envy.

  2. “The 2007 Pew world-wide poll taken among Muslims reveal that between 20% and 30% of Muslims have a lot of confidence that Bin Laden is doing the right thing.”

    Ah, but how many of those respondants were practicing al taqiyah “holy deception” of the kafir?

    That’s the sticking point in any Q/A or negotiation with Muslims: following the explicit example of Mohammed, the Butcher of Medina, true disciples of that mass murdering rapist, pedophile, slaver and thief extraordinaire, will lie without the slightest qualm if they believe it will serve the purposes of weakening the dar al harb or strengthen the dar al islam.

    It’s almost enough to make one embrace the view of the infamous (non-christian, though he claimed to be) papal legate to Bezier, “Kill them all; God will know his own.”

    Aside: Interestingly enough, Western Civilization in general, and the catholic (not Catholic, though that as well) church all now recognize such 13th Century behavior as non-christian, uncivilized, barbaric. Anyone who would say (and mean) such a thing–and especially one who would then cause to have such a command carried out!–would be universally recognized today as NOT a follower of the Nazarene.

    Not so with the Muslim world. In fact, the Muslim new year is still marked by a celebration of Mohammed’s butchery of 900+ Jewish men at Medina, the rape and enslavement of their women and children and the looting of their goods. All are well-established moral good for Muslims to inflict upon non-Muslims wherever it can advance the cause of Islam, which is the subjugation of all mankind to the hate cult of Islam. Any Muslim who today, as in the day of Mohammed, would sincerely follow in the footsteps of the founder of their cult of hate can legitimately, honestly and with full backing of his holy books–the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith–commit all kinds of atrocities against the kafir in the name of Mohammed’s moon god. After all, they are just honestly and sincerely emulating their “prophet”.

  3. I suspect that many Muslims are not devout Muslims. They are social Muslims, Muslims in prophylactic self defense from murder for apostasy, Muslims for lack of an alternative. This includes Jihadists, many (but not all) who are psychopathic murderers and born criminals, too stupid for productive work, programmed by the drumbeat of Jihad propaganda throughout their whole lives, who latch on Jihad as an excuse to exercise their perverse and perverted inner monsters.