[geeks] FYI: CompUSA is offering OS X 10.5 for $99 (after rebate)

[Mike Meredith]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:44:00 -0400, Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
> However, they did use something close to modern terrorism even back
> then, frequently hitting targets much of the rest of the world
> thought was dishonorable.  The Mongols did the same thing.

In fact a great deal of warfare at the time involved 'dishonourable'
targets. As an example, Portsmouth (where I live) first acquired
fortifications during those period episodes when the English and French
were having a disagreement. It didn't work; the French sacked the town,
burned the fortifications to the ground, and sold much of the
population into slavery.

Very similar in operation to how the Barbary Pirates later operated.
And in fact how Danes going 'viking' operated a few centuries earlier.

> Also, if you want an interesting read, study the Hashishin.  It's
> too bad we don't have much information about them.

I've encountered them a fair few times over the years (in books!), and
yes they're an interesting group.

> Right, but the Barbary Pirates were funded by islamic governments,
> and one of their functions was terrorism, or the support of people

They probably didn't do any more then help a few get started ...
specifically Wikipedia (yes I know, but I'm not going to spend *too*
much time on this and it isn't that bad) mentions one (OruC') was given
galleys "and charged with fighting against the Knights of St. John
who were inflicting serious damage on Ottoman shipping and trade". The
trouble with hiring a rabid dog as a privateer is that he isn't likely
to go back to his kennel when you've finished with him ... especially
when he sees he can make plenty of cash by piracy.

Many of the early pirates were refugees from the re-conquest of
the last remnants of muslim Spain; whilst there may have been some
initial oversight from the Ottoman empire, apparently by 1659 there was
very little in the way of effective government in the area except that
provided by the pirates themselves.

And even if the 'islamic governments' were funding the Barbary Pirates,
they weren't doing anything that European governments weren't also
doing ...  look at Francis Drake, and Andrew Barton (Henry Martin). It
isn't terrorism ... it's either (in the case of piracy) robbery with
violence at sea, or (in the case of privateers) a way of waging
economic warfare.

> Is that a question or a statement?

Rhetorical question.

> That's part of it, but part of it was also the same as today: if we
> just pay them off or ignore them, they'll go away.
>
> They didn't then and they won't now.

I don't doubt that *some* people paying them to 'go away' believed it
was going to work (you'll always find idiots). But the story of
danegeld originated in Europe, and those making the decisions were
descended from those who had either paid danegeld or had collected it
(and probably both). Nobody was going to be under the impression that
paying danegeld works in the long term.

By coincidence I happened to be skimming the history of my
grandfather's regiment (Coldstream Guards) and re-discovered that their
first battle honours were for garrisoning Tangiers in 1680, and had
been involved in fighting "Algerian Pirates". In addition there are
mentions that the French had sent punitive expeditions.

What everyone was probably wary of, was exciting a large and militarily
aggressive empire that had nominal control over the region. Putting up
with a few pirates was a small price to pay for avoiding stirring up
more trouble in an already troubled region.

> >> Thomas Jefferson sent a fleet to North Africa to deal with the
> >> problem with some success.
> >
> > Only after offering them money.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Jefferson was against sending money.  Congress decided that, not him.

Jefferson was against sending money, but before he was president was
instructed to send the money by Congress. So we're both right.

And by the way you were implying that the US didn't resort to sending
'danegeld' to pay off the pirates ... they did.

> I didn't say it was stopped, I said we had some success, and the
> rest were doing nothing until we went over there, because at the time
> some leaders were saying it was not possible to take concrete action
> against them.

Maybe so. Or perhaps Jefferson demonstrated that the Ottoman empire
wasn't going to react; at least to a small nation across the atlantic.

But we're getting distracted. Your first email implied that the craven
Europeans were too terrified to do anything other than pay the pirates
off and only the US was courageous enough to fight them and not pay
them off. Not really so was it ?

>
> > It is foolish and ignorant to portray islam as a terrorist religion.
>
> It's foolish and ignorant to ignore the fact that a lot of islam
> *IS* a terrorist religion.
>
> Sure, a lot of them are not like that, but that doesn't mean it is
> wise to ignore those which obviously are.

The trouble with bringing the religion into the terrorist problem is
that it confuses the issue and alienates the very people whose help we
need in preventing new 'angry young men' being radicalised into
becoming terrorists. If you cherry-pick from the Koran, you can show
that it encourages terrorism; if you cherry-pick from "Mein-Kampf" you
can show that Hitler was really a cuddly fellow who wouldn't harm a fly.

Most imams (and at least one de-radicalised muslim) say that those who
use terrorism in the name of islam are not islamic, because terrorism
is not islamic.

Even the wahhabi sect (which has been mentioned as terrorist here)
which whilst probably sufficiently conservative to make the christian
right look like wishy-washy liberals doesn't condone terrorism. In fact
wahhabi scholars were the *first* islamic scholars to unconditionally
condemn suicide bombing. The wahhabi sect gets a bad reputation because
it is conservative, and there is an inner-sect that claims to be
representative of the wahhabi way that is responsible for terrorism.

One of the things that has come out after 7/7 (and 21/7) is that
terrorists target 'angry young men' to radicalise using a distorted
kind of islam that emphasises the militaristic and eliminates the
pacifistic. The key to stopping 'angry young men' from becoming
terrorists is to attack that radicalisation process. And saying things
like 'islam is a terrorist religion' *helps* the radicalisation process.

> In some ways, sure.
>
> But only as long as you obeyed their rules, which included
> recognizing you were inferior to all muslims and subject to
> restrictions they opposed on all tolerated infidels.
>
> If you didn't follow their rules, they got barbaric very quickly.

And this differs from early European behaviour how exactly ? It is
interesting to note that populations following pre-islamic religions
survive in the islamic world whilst pre-christian religions didn't fare
so well.

> I'm not sure the numbers matter as much as the fact they are
> tolerated, actively encouraged and funded by islamic governments,

The numbers matter because it indicates that the problem is *not*
islam, but a tiny minority who claim to speak for islam. I'm not sure
that most islamic governments do like terrorists ... some do, but most
are suffering more from the terrorists than we do.

> It's a difficult problem to crack no matter how you approach it, and
> unfortunately one that is not going away.

Indeed. Personally I think the only real long-term solution is going to
come from inside the islamic world itself ... any action by outsiders
is going to be viewed by extremists as an attack on islam and make it
easier for terrorists to recruit.

--
Mike Meredith (http://zonky.org/)
 "Why are we hiding from the police, daddy?"
 "Because we use vi, son, and they use emacs."