There are plenty of middle class gangsters too, and if you look simply at lifestyle alone you can probably look at all sorts of organized crime figures and go “Gosh, they’re doing pretty well for themselves, why don’t they stop?”

No offense (though I’m sure you’re going to take some), but I agree with you. In fact, my comment states as much.

I tend to agree more with him that it’s not a problem of poverty and desperation as it is a problem of extremist religion.

And as far as Christians go, I said:

I have no doubt there are some Christians who would strap on a bomb and go blow up an abortion clinic if they thought it was a one way ticket to heaven…

Let me elaborate.  Nobody has twisted Bible verses enough to convince Christian fanatics that a suicide bombing will get them into heaven.  I said “some”, and I think the only reason we don’t see “some” Christians doing suicide bombings is that they lack the motivation.  After all, most churches say that suicide is a sin.  While not a hell-worthy trespass in all churches, it is still a sin.  Not a glorious ticket to 72 virgins and rivers of milk and honey.

And I agree with you on blowing people up not being the solution:

However, all evidence would suggest that blowing up innocents to get at possible terrorists does nothing except breed more hatred and resentment towards those dropping the bombs, and ultimately creates more terrorists.

I was ultimately just making the point that religious fanaticism is the biggest, and most problematic cause.  Fanatics will do everything in their power to prevent being enlightened out of their ignorance and superstition.  Not only that, they will do everything they can to stop their families and friends from being “corrupted” as well.

So while I agree with you that killing isn’t the answer, and that speaking to people (on a personal basis) will eventually help, extreme religion is going to prevent this from happening on an effective level. The issue is far more complex. Good luck reaching people in a place like Saudi Arabia, where most people believe the religious dogma, and actively support the theocratic regime that oppresses them.  I’m not sure how we should or even could begin to do something about it.  It’s definitely not going to go away.

I think we sometimes have oppertunities to prevent people in everyday life being radicalised on ground level (minimising long-term pain for all), but sometimes there’s not much you can do, they need to live out the hate for a little bit and realise for themselves.

Anyway, the best we as citizens can do is try to prevent it from reaching the police stage (also a lot of murders and suicides could be avoided), I’m not talking social policy, more along the lines of everyone understanding others and trying to get them to understand, but obviously we do still need some way of dealing with those that pose a threat.

Sure, but the problem is a global one.  Here at home, or in Britain, we don’t experience religion on the all encompassing level that they do in theocracies, or theocratic monarchies.  Solutions we use here on a one on one basis or with small groups simply will not work when you are dealing with a sovereign nation ruled AND populated by fanatics.  Obviously not all citizens of a theocracy are fanatic, but it really just takes a small group of fanatics, and relative indifference from the rest of the population to be effectively the same as the whole population being fanatics.

I’m all for live and let live, but it’s just ignorant to believe that everyone, especially those who show every sign to the opposite, will share that philosophy and leave us be.  I don’t think the great majority of people, religious or otherwise truly want to perpetrate a fanatic lifestyle, all it takes is a small handful to make it really bad for the rest of us.

Solutions we use here on a one on one basis or with small groups simply will not work when you are dealing with a sovereign nation ruled AND populated by fanatics.

See, that’s what I disagree with - we’ve got issues with “small group” criminality and sovereignty here at home too. We’ve got more flavors of ethnicity and political strife in our organized crime than you can shake a stick at, as a matter of fact and sometimes they’re supported halfway across the world in places that are just as propped up by criminal enterprise as a theocracy is by loyalists to their subscribed religion. I mean, you’re waving at whole countries on one hand saying “See, the problem is too large. You’ve got a problem with your scale on your solution;” and with the other you’re whispering words like “small handfuls.”

The problems are of similar scale. Religious fanaticism is a problem, but it’s no more of a problem than the racially derived loyalty and fanaticism of the various White Power organizations. The fact that some of these guys implicitly have the support of national identities as well only makes things simpler too: Once a nation takes a deliberate and explicit step on the order of what the criminals do, you’re absolutely in the right in the allowance for appropriate responses on a national, defending sovereignty level. That’s the difference between the appropriateness of the response for some random guy blowing up a building in your country versus some nation training, outfitting, and funding them to commit an act of war.

It might seem to be a vague nuance, but I think especially when you’re talking about countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia you’ve got to continually hammer it in as a strict policy nuance. There’s really no doubt that the United States could put a world of hurt on any nation that decided to commit an act of war against it, but we’re wasting our military effectiveness on a failed, false policy right now.

That’s the other thing about pushing for a law enforcement response - it allows you to withdraw the military and commit it to the role that it played so effectively in the Cold War, as a sort of Sword of Damocles looming over bad behavior threatening the worst of all possible consequences if sovereign states step across the line.

Tafka - It’s controversial, but those living under the opression may be in a better position to do something about it, because they’re nearer the source. Obviously not if there’s personal cost (ie excecution/job loss/general scorning), but in terms of providing emotional feedback to the perpetrators. They will do this to some extent automatically, for themselves or simply not knowingly.

Unfortunately the door of reason has to be a little open in the first place to open it a little more; those determined to reject critical thought cannot be penetrated until circumstance forces them to, or they simply run out of steam (hate is described as analagous to a feul, one that is obtained from others)

And sure, the extent of our influence as a small thinktank is very limited in comparison to that of many people, and some are hard nuts to crack, but as the one-to-one change gradually wins people over, it should snowball (in theory, if birth and death stopped resetting things). In part, people take these views because they were conditioned to hate or believe in strict theolgy, but if we can condition children to think…

Even if small, and even if it doesn’t snowball or we lose influence, the one-to-one change that we have achieved and continue to strive for should make some people’s lives a little easier. Just as fundamentalism will never be completely eliminated, neither will critical thought, because thought can be born of strife, and strife can be born from ignorance.