There's a book out that puts the Islamofascists in a different light. It says that the Islamic world is concerned primarily with honor. With the opinions of "those who matter". In the West, we are concerned with freedom, democracy, wealth. In Muslim countries, they are concerned with saving face.
Honor, for Bowman's purposes, means "the good opinion of people who matter to us." The basic honor code requires men to maintain a reputation for bravery, women a reputation for chastity. If a man is insulted, injured, or disrespected, he must avenge the offense and prove that anyone who messes with him (or "his" women) will be sorry.
Americans are baffled that Western appeals to freedom and prosperity get so little traction in the Arab and Muslim worlds. America's example as the "shining city on a hill" inspired liberalizing movements from Eastern Europe to Tiananmen Square; why should the Middle East be different? One answer is that traditional honor cultures value vindication over freedom and wealth. Militant Islamism and Baathist-style national socialism offer narratives of restored greatness and heroic resistance. Ballot boxes and shopping malls offer neither. If freedom brings humiliation, what good is it?
So the point here is that Americans truly can not understand the Islamic mindset. For example:
Most wars are waged between combatants who share similar honor codes or at least comprehend each other's honor codes. This time, there is no communication across the battlefield. To Americans, it is patently clear that the attacks of September 11 were acts of unprovoked aggression; in a traditional honor culture, however, violence to protect one's honor is just as self-defensive as violence to protect one's person.
So Americans, myself included, view the attack of Sept 11 as an unprovoked act of terrorism, Islamofascists view it as self defense:eek: Even the Islamofascist tendency to lop off the heads of unbelievers is addressed:
In the post-honor West, the first rule of honorable combat is not to target noncombatants. From biblical times on down, by contrast, many traditional honor cultures have made a practice of killing and enslaving civilians, whom they regarded as enemies and spoils. In a primitive honor culture, the combatant-civilian distinction is less important than the boundary between one's own honor circle -- one's self, clan, tribe, or religious co-believers -- and outsiders, whose fate is largely a matter of indifference. Modern jihadism appears to have embraced this atavistic ethic.
What about WMD's? Everyone thought Saddam had them. After all, if he didn't, all he had to do was let the inspectors prove it and he'd be off the hook? So why the uncooporative attitude? Why the posturing?
More consequentially, Americans assumed, in 2002 and 2003, that Saddam Hussein would not pretend to hide weapons of mass destruction that he didn't actually possess. Why would he lie to bring about his own downfall? What seemed inexplicable to a post-honor culture would seem, in a traditional honor culture, too obvious to need explaining: Saddam was more concerned about saving face -- preserving his reputation for being fierce and formidable -- than about his office or even his life. Indeed, he could not feel otherwise and still count himself a man.
http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm
It's a good article. I wonder what our Muslim members think about it? And what strategy would it suggest? I would think a PR campaign painting the jihadists as traitors and cowards for attacking civilians might be quite effective. If all they want is honor, take the honor out of it.

no war is honorable.

Did you read my post or the link? I'm using honor in a specific, well defined way here. Your response sounds like a bumper sticker.

ummm...yeah it is a bumper sticker. As for ur post, I would say its not about honor, its about Americans taking oil/resources out of places were islam nations are, and people in these islam nations retaliate.

ummm...yeah it is a bumper sticker. As for ur post, I would say its not about honor, its about Americans taking oil/resources out of places were islam nations are, and people in these islam nations retaliate.

wouldn't it be easier to just buy the shit? oh Fu** we do the now dont we!:p um well not mw perse'

wouldn't it be easier to just buy the shit? oh Fu** we do the now dont we!:p um well not mw perse'

oppressors, Americans, control prices on oil inderectly in islam countries => oppressed ones retaliate => oppressed ones who retaliate are called islamofascists => oppressed ones look for support in Koran => Koran, teaching of Islam, linked to terrorism.

arrogance is not "honour", islamofascists should start there first.

oppressors, Americans \ islamofascists

well no matter what happens you, i or those who look for support in Koran are not gonna have the money, the power or the oil i can guarantee that.

This definition of "honor" places a high importance on revenge. Revenge is the most evil of all human emotions because it sets up a death spiral in which each party must continually take revenge on those who have just taken revenge on him, as a matter of "honor." As each act of revenge recruits more participants, so are there more people to take revenge on in the next cycle, until an entire region is embroiled in a dispute so old that no one can even explain it articulately.

Revenge is the one emotion which, if left unchecked, could bring about the collapse of civilization. This is the reason why capital punishment is wrong: it is an instance of revenge being taken. Any society which defines "honor" this way is a threat to civilization itself.

This is an interesting post, anyone from the ME care to comment?

This is an interesting post, anyone from the ME care to comment?

Well, I'm not from the ME, but here goes,

Its common in patriarchial societies.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html

Most honor killings occur in countries where the concept of women as a vessel of the family reputation predominates, said Marsha Freemen, director of International Women's Rights Action Watch at the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights show that honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda. In countries not submitting reports to the UN, the practice was condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan, and has been reported in Iraq and Iran.

But while honor killings have elicited considerable attention and outrage, human rights activists argue that they should be regarded as part of a much larger problem of violence against women.

In India, for example, more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Crimes of passion, which are treated extremely leniently in Latin America, are the same thing with a different name, some rights advocates say.

"In countries where Islam is practiced, they're called honor killings, but dowry deaths and so-called crimes of passion have a similar dynamic in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable," said Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

The practice, she said, "goes across cultures and across religions."

And is forbidden in Islam (ironically)

Contrary to stereotypical beliefs, honor killing is forbidden in Islam. [17] There is no specific mention of the practice in the Qur'an or Hadiths. An honor killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against the woman, and is technically forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Some Islamic religious authorities and Muslims, disagree with extra-legal punishments such as honor killing and prohibit it, since they consider the practice to be a cultural issue. [18] They believe that since certain pre-Islamic cultures have influence over a number of Muslims, murderers of females use Islam to justify honor killing, even though there is no support for the act in the religion itself. However, honor killings cannot always be punished according to many interpretations of Islamic law, as murders are a type of "qisas" ("retaliation") crime. This means that the deceased's family should be offered the choice of capital punishment or "diya" ("blood money") and no execution can take place without them opting for death. Because a relative(s) is responsible for the honor killing, it is unlikely that the deceased's family will punish one of their own for the crime. wiki

And is forbidden in Islam (ironically)

Strange how so many things practiced by muslims are forbidden (ironically)

Michael:

Stop Honour Killings:

http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&catid=8

Its common in patriarchal societies.There is something seriously amiss with the Y chromosome!!!

Shiite Militiamen Attack Town Killing 27 Sunni Arabs (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=8110)
On Friday, 17 Shiite laborers who had been hired to prune date palm trees in Duluiya were kidnapped, police said. The workers' headless bodies were found outside the town later that day. Shiite leaders in Balad said they responded to the farm workers' killings by asking a Baghdad office of Moqtada al-Sadr, an influential Shiite cleric, to send militiamen and weapons. "It is necessary to take a strong stand, so that such killings will not be repeated, and so we can take our revenge," said Taysser Musawi, a Shiite cleric in Balad. I fail to see why killing innocent people is just revenge?

That said, I've heard a few Americans (well, American men) say similar things about Muslims just post-9/11. It must be built into our Y chromosome DNA to be violent arse-holes? :o


There must be more to it though. Japanese structure their entire language and facial expression, or lack there of, around the concept of honor. Or at least traditionally did. I don’t think it was common for them to honor kill their women? Or was it?

Another example, Tibetans and their Buddhism, exist in a Patriachrial society - yet I am fairly certain they do not honor kill the female members of society (hell they don't even kill worms!)?

So it must be a combination of a patriarchal society + culture + Y gene + (perhaps) monotheism ;) .... OK religious belief ... oh all right just moral upbringing... :) and possibly economic depravity.



Michael

hormone regulation is the key to violence.

There is something seriously amiss with the Y chromosome!!!

Shiite Militiamen Attack Town Killing 27 Sunni Arabs (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=8110)
On Friday, 17 Shiite laborers who had been hired to prune date palm trees in Duluiya were kidnapped, police said. The workers' headless bodies were found outside the town later that day. Shiite leaders in Balad said they responded to the farm workers' killings by asking a Baghdad office of Moqtada al-Sadr, an influential Shiite cleric, to send militiamen and weapons. "It is necessary to take a strong stand, so that such killings will not be repeated, and so we can take our revenge," said Taysser Musawi, a Shiite cleric in Balad. I fail to see why killing innocent people is just revenge?

That said, I've heard a few Americans (well, American men) say similar things about Muslims just post-9/11. It must be built into our Y chromosome DNA to be violent arse-holes?


There must be more to it though. Japanese structure their entire language and facial expression, or lack there of, around the concept of honor. Or at least traditionally did. I don’t think it was common for them to honor kill their women? Or was it?

Another example, Tibetans and their Buddhism, exist in a Patriachrial society - yet I am fairly certain they do not honor kill the female members of society (hell they don't even kill worms!)?

So it must be a combination of a patriarchal society + culture + Y gene + (perhaps) monotheism ;) .... OK religious belief ... oh all right just moral upbringing... :) and possibly economic depravity.



Michael

You missed education, lack of.:)

Its also found more in closed rural societies, where family solves all disputes, rather than the law.

And there have been instances of self-immolation in Buddhist monks (honor suicides?), but again have nothing to do with the religion.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/self_immolation.htm

Violence against women is unfortunately all too common.

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/386987

Violence against men is unfortunately all too common.
http://www.mencrytoo.homestead.com/
http://www.survivingthememories.com/id67.html
http://www.dvmen.org/
http://www.malesurvivor.org/

Violence against men is unfortunately all too common.
http://www.mencrytoo.homestead.com/
http://www.survivingthememories.com/id67.html
http://www.dvmen.org/
http://www.malesurvivor.org/

I had no idea! :eek:

It says that the Islamic world is concerned primarily with honor. With the opinions of "those who matter".
A Democrat with some actionable advice. (http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton101506.html)

A Democrat with some actionable advice. (http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton101506.html)

So apparently, it has been a War against Terror all along then.

Alongwith natural human tendencies of er, expansion, migration and grabbing resources on the part of the persecuted West.

age-old, universal human practices of migration, conquest, and appropriation of other people’s resources are now transformed into the peculiarly Western sins of “imperialism” and “colonialism,” which are then turned into the primal crime of the West against humanity, the wicked source of all our current woes.

Islam is an aggressive faith justifying and energizing violent conquest and imperialist ambitions.

Interesting perspectives.

A Democrat with some actionable advice. (http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton101506.html)
Good article. Some quotes:
Islam’s first victims recognized this fanatic energy, one still troubling the world today: “We have seen a people who love death more than life, and to whom this world holds not the slightest attraction,”
That could have been said today, who said it?
some Byzantines in Egypt said of the invading Arabs. The continuity of this destructive zeal from the seventh century to the jihadists in Iraq today should disabuse us of the lie that the terrorists are created by a lack of economic opportunity, political freedom, or progress in creating a Palestinian state.
The seventh century!
In short, bin Laden has not “highjacked” or “distorted” Islam, as Islamic propagandists and Western apologists for jihad have it, but rather has acted consistently with its traditional beliefs.
Contrary to widespread assumptions, these attacks [of September 11], and for that matter Arab Muslim anti-Americanism, have little to do with U.S. international behavior or its Middle Eastern policy. America’s position as the pre-eminent world power blocks Arab and Islamic imperialist aspirations.
What this all means for us in our battle against the West’s most formidable historical enemy is that creating a Palestinian state, fostering democracy in the Middle East, or improving economic opportunity for young Muslims is not in the long run going to do much good: “The House of Islam’s war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.” Such spiritual imperatives are rarely bartered away for material goods. Only an overwhelming demonstration of the destructiveness that follows from pursuing those imperatives will convince those who believe them to change their minds.So the "actionable plan" is that we have to kick their ass so hard they finally realize jihad isn't worth the trouble?

One of the Axis of Evil countries, Iran, used to be a thriving democracy and a symbol for the Middle East. Unfortunately, because of our (American) need for oil, we got rid of that democracy and replaced it with a corrupt Shah.

If we're SOOO intent on spreading democracy in the Arab world, why not pressure Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Kuwait for their anti-democratic processes like we pressured Iraq and like we now pressure Iran?

The fact is, deep deep deep deep deep down inside our hearts, we fundamentally want to support freedom and liberation in the Middle East. But, if freedom and liberation will be a hindrance to us (and our economic needs), then we'd much prefer a "friendly" king, military dictator, or a group of emirs over any democratically elected head-of-state.

If we're SOOO intent on spreading democracy in the Arab world, why not pressure Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Kuwait for their anti-democratic processes like we pressured Iraq and like we now pressure Iran?

You're right, especially with respect to Saudi Arabia. But I think practicality demands that we concentrate first on the undemocratic countries that are seeking our destruction before making enemies of those willing to work with us.

I agree, it's a deal with the devil. But there aren't many angels in the middle east, and we have to have someone on our side.

terryoh, madanthonywayne is right sometimes you have to survive today to change things tomorrow, that is the way of the world, these type deals have been going on as long as the history of mankind, and they will go on as long as mankind exist, perfection only exist in heaven.