Ciao!

JI is a legal entity in Indo - it's not illegal to be a member of the group, despite it's clear involvement in several terrorist attacks. Go figure.

Indo also has the world's largest muslim community. Not that muslims are necessarily terrorists, but that todays brand of terrorist targeting civilians tends to be muslim (esp since the IRA appears to be disarming).

I like this quote from The West Wing:

"Islamic extremists are to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity"

Good quote, but I wonder about the analogy. Is it referring to the KKK vis a vis Christianity in today's social context, or that of society sixty years ago?

And while the slaughter of innocents by Islamists appears parallel to the KKK's lynchings, the closing issue for the KKK was (and is?) obviously race; whereas for Islamists the western world, indeed all infidels - incur their wrath, including their fellow muslims.

My take on it is that the KKK is NOT Christian. It's equally wrong to subsume groups like al Qaeda as representing Islam. Now, the KKK does have some claims to being the "true" Christians, just as groups like al Qaeda, Taliban, IJ claim to be "true" Muslims. And, yes, for one the issue is race & for the other it's religion. But both believe in a twisted utopia that requires all non-members to submit and/or die.

Does the KKK claim to be the "true" christians, or do they claim to be christians seeking a "pure" racial society?

The KKK (as far as I know) believes in a "pure" white christian socity within the borders of the US as utopia, and that everyone else should get out. The islamist groups appear to believe that everyone must live according to the strictest interpretation of the Sharia - worldwide - and that the west, which in their view has wronged the muslim community, must pay. The KKK was in its heyday composed of white men from the south, whereas the islamists are composed of people in radical pockets throughout the world. The KKK sought closure by keeping out what they thought were inferior people, whereas the islamists seek to initiate some sort of all-out war between the west and the muslim world, which they believe only they could win b/c allah is on their side.

I think they believe that they are entitled under quranic dictates to do violence upon the US & Israel et al., as some sort of twisted, allegedly religiously-sanctioned blood feud. They believe that b/c American foreign policy has rained oppression down upon the muslim community they are entitled to strike back; they apparently believe that b/c the US is on "muslim land", their religion sanctions the removal of the infidels by any means necessary, including the murder of people not associated with conflict whatsoever.

There is no doubt that their thinking is off. They're murderous, sick-minded lunatics, that I believe ought to be destroyed, in the interest of saving lives and stability.

But I don't underestimate their zeal about Islam. Their interpretation of it is not mainstream, but I don't think there is any doubt that their leaders believe with absolute conviction in Allah and the Quran. They view life as not something sacred.

For what the anecdote is worth, I remember a friend of mine, a moderate muslim from Syria who, right after 9/11 said something along the line, "America is getting what it deserves." Which brought me to rage at the time, but through dialogue I think I convinced him his view was wrong.

I certainly don't imply that the analogy is perfect. I also think you're reading too much into the analogy. My point was simply to state that groups like IJ, al Qaeda, Taliban, etc aren't representative of Islam (any more than the KKK is representative of Christianity, though for different reasons). That's all.

But. To be fair. If you look at much of the KKK (and similar groups') rhetoric, they do often think of themselves (as twisted as you or I know it is) as a form of Christianity (w/ an Aryan Christ & eveything) -- heck, they even use the cross (burning or otherwise) as their key symbol.

"I certainly don't imply that the analogy is perfect. I also think you're reading too much into the analogy."

>> I know. Just having some forensic fun.

I actually like the analogy.

It's been written that Suharto the authoritarian leader, oppressed hundreds of thousands of people, he was at least "fair" in his oppressions. In chapter I read recently abt violence of the regime, when he was around, certain criminalities went down. He did some things right.

The Indonesian government has been accused of being soft on the issue of terrorism, and much of it has to do with the majority of people being muslims. If the president (not only the current one) gets too vocal, it sounds like he is following the US' commands and therefore isolate the people. Any analysis of terrorism nowadays has associations with islam. And thats a touchy spot.

Personally I think he's too soft and cowardly. I wonder why the fuck someone who brought in marijuana would get 20 years jail sentence, while someone suspected of having terrorist links would get several months' jail. I don't know why the former president's son who was charged with corruption and of having instigated an assassination attempt on the judge who pronounced his sentenced, would stay in a luxurious prison, have nightly visitations from his wife or get as much as a year's off from his sentence. I think Indonesia's such a fucking mess because all the presidents we have had have been such useless wimpy dickheads who make a game out of politics.

My take on JI or abu Sayeed (Filipino) or any other of the other nationally-based terrorists groups is that they are representative of a different sort of problem--and they've co-ordinated with AQ to fit their greater purpose.

I think that these groups feel either unable to work through the system (because they're not popular enough) or that the current system is too corrupt to participate in. Indonesia reminds me a lot of Iraq--not for all the violence, but rather because it really isn't a country, it's more a collection of nations organized under the banner of a single former colony which became a dictatorship--if given a democratic choice much of Indonesia would either go independent or go federal. So, in this respect JI is simply trying to use Islam to force the issue. Obviously, this is the wrong means, but I really don't think there is any connection to either AQ or Islam--both of these are being used for the greater purpose of autonomy.
I think one of the problems with both the Indonesian response and the US treatment of this problem is to lump them all together with AQ and radical Islamofasicm. True, these people are Islamofascists but they are for totally different reasons that the AQ members are--it's a much more national reason than a broader "hate-the-US" reason. However, since the US, Indonesia, and the Phillipines have treated these people as various cells of AQ they have made the problem worse. First, by empowering AQ to make it seem as if the globe is covered with these yahoos with a cell in every country. Second, by mistakenly lumping all Islamists into the AQ camp--it complicates the possibilty of dealing with them on a case-by-case level and solving their highly different problems. Because of this the US is now the position where troops are running around the Phillipines hunting abu Sayeed in the same way that the US is hunting (unsuccessfully) for bin Laden in Afghanistan.

By the way, I like the analogy too--it's pretty fitting.