August 02, 2004

A Crime Against Iraqis

Omar at Iraq the Model has an anecdotal report on his country's opinion of the bombing of four Christian churches over the weekend.

Iíve tried to ask as many Iraqis as I could about their feelings and all Iraqis I met showed anger, contempt and bitterness about what happened but noone gave signs of despair. Iíve watched many reactions on the internet and I found that many people considered what happened an aggression against Christians (and that this is what the terrorists want) while we in Iraq see it as a crime against Iraqis and this reaction is the last thing they want.
As much as these terrorists (not militants) try to make this into a religious war, they're having a hard time making the rest of us think about it that way.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 2, 2004 11:26 AM

Well, I'm not at all sure that this war isn't mired in religion. If what we're fighting (as many here state regularly) is Islamo-facisism then this is a war on a religion, or at least a particular subset of a religion.

I think that this is one of the key things many people miss... the complete devotion to dogma that most of these terrorists have. Once dogma enters the mind, rational thought leaves. Many in the Iraqi army surrendered and made nice with the US millitary, because they were hired soliders, deciding life or money is usually an easy decision (esp when the money is coming from a soon to be failed government). However, deciding between your Dogma and your life isn't nearly as easy. Suicide bombers, like the Kamikazi of WWII, seem willing to die because they believe it is the will of their deity.

Religious dogma has historically proven frighteningly resistant to all attempts to quash it. Golbal terrorism, as it exists in the Islamo-Facist guise, is perhaps not religious in its aims (which are likely secular and centered on power grabbing for the leaders), but it is religious in its dogmatic "Cause". Once again, we see religion as an opiate of sorts, lulling people into following an agenda, that perhaps, with clear thinking, they would have avoided.

The question now is, how do we fight such a war, against a religious ideology, a dogmatic belief system that places no value on any life, including their own?

Hitler couldn't quash unfavorable religions in Germany by force, the Russians couldn't do in in the USSR, the Romans couldn't do it throughout their empire. Religious dogma seems to abate, only as time passes and new dogma supplants the old, or until the believers of the dogma die out.


Posted by: Ratatosk at August 2, 2004 11:47 AM

I think this distaff foreign terror group, probably Iranian, are becoming aware that the months of terror attacks have turned the Iraqis against them-- and thus they now attack "infidels" in a deluded belief that the average muslim Iraqi would not oppose it.

It shows how crazy Al Qaeda is: they truly think that their paranoid jihad is what every muslim wants, as long as they choose the 'right' victims.
Thank God we liberated Iraqis, so they can set an example for the people of Jordan, SA, Egypt, and Iran.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at August 2, 2004 12:22 PM


I'm not at all sure that dogma is always such a bad thing. That is, I disagree with your statement, "Once dogma enters the mind, rational thought leaves".

After all, what is that but a dogma? And it's self-contradicting dogma, as well.

The rational mind is by definition rational. It reasons things out. It devises rules and systems by which it understands, explains, and makes valuable decisions about the world. Only the rational mind is capable of choosing or developing a dogma.

Only an irrational mind is incapable of discovering or adopting a set of rules by which to live and think and choose.

The No-Dogma Dogma, while superficially Zen-like in its paradox, is actually a cop-out. Any attempt to embrace it promptly negates it. It's a convenient and thoughtless way to justify any whim or urge, without ever having to explain yourself or reason your way to any sensible conclusion.

In reality, the world presents a wide range of rules and systems to analyze and evaluate. In reality, we are given not the easy task of rejecting them all, but the much more difficult task of figuring out which one works best.

Posted by: stutefish at August 2, 2004 12:40 PM

Tosk --

I'm not sure that dogma is as difficult to combat as you suggest. For example, in WWII, the Japanese initially had a lot of recruits to be kamikazi pilots. After Okinawa (when the largest assault by kamikazi pilots occurred), it became substantially more difficult to find recruits. Why? The US eventually discovered how to defend against the attacks well enough that most were failures. In effect, most pilots were being killed before they could inflict substantial harm. It became apparent that most were giving their lives and not accomplishing anything.

The suicide bombers can be defeated here, but it is a process that will take time and patience. It involves a reasonably good defense, coupled with a vigorous offensive to clear out problem areas, together with showing people that there is a better alternative. We may not be able to do much about changing the minds of those who are already signed on with the Islamofascists, but by killing them, we are doing a lot to convince others not to join.

Posted by: Ben at August 2, 2004 12:58 PM

I disagree stutefish.

A logical mindcan have ideas and ideals. These are very different from Dogma. A person holds to an idea or ideal because its the "best guess" they have at the time. New evidence may change the information and therefore necessitate a rethink and a new "best guess". Ideas and ideals are progressive, they are evolving based on information, they are changable.

Dogma, on the other hand, is not an idea or "best guess". It, to the mind of the dogmatic, is an unshakable truth, unchangable, a "Fact" or something that they "Will Always Believe". This is dangerous, this is why dogmatic individuals can be so difficult to understand.


The Catholic church dogmaticly believed that the sun went 'round the earth, that the earth was at the center of the universe and that it was flat/hemispherical/etc. When people presented evidence to the contrary, they didn't reevaluate, they simply attacked the people with the new ideas. That is Dogma.

On the other hand, democracy tends to permit ideals and ideas room to grow, while doing its best to quash political dogma. The "Unamerican Activities" investigations were dogmatic, but were soon abolished by the logical thinking of others.

One can have ideas, one can fight and die for those ideas, but that does not make them dogma. Dogma, specifically focuses on those who "know they are right" and no amount of evidence (or bullets) will change their mind.

Of course, the statement I used can be paradoxial. However, that's the problem when anyone states a certianty... there is always a logical flaw (which is why most gurellia ontologists use paradoxical statements).

So, in the current situation. The belief that the west is the Great Satan and that dying in a jihad against the west will guarntee you a good spot in the afterlife is a dogmatic belief. Force becomes Persecution to the mind of the dogmatist, ideas become reality and evidence that contradicts the dogma, is dismissed as lies.

Hope I made my thoughts a little more clear.


Posted by: Ratatosk at August 2, 2004 01:04 PM


One hopes that you're right. However, there are a number of historical refrences that disagree with your point. It may eventually boil down to the public relations job ahead of the US. Somehow we must clearly show that we are not opposed to Islam, not even the more strict versions that are distastful to our Western palette.

As long as the Islamo-facists can paint a picture of us, as brute persecutors, I'm not at all sure we will sucessfully marginalize them.

Only time will tell. However, I still stand by my statement that this war is based on religion, particularly the religious dogma of a subset of Muslims.

Posted by: Ratatosk at August 2, 2004 01:09 PM

I think part of the blame lies with the academic and intellectual communities in western europe and america. The 9-11 hijackers were well-to-do and most spent time in western europe where they apparently got fired up for the jihad.

We're at the low point of professionalism in journalism. It's easy to think of america as the great satan when its insinuated in the press in these european countries on a daily basis.

For instance, muslims are still whining about the crusades and many of the 'marxism is groovy' crowd are quick to apologize for them. BS. The crusades were a direct response to several hundred years of muslim aggression. Not complicated, just a historical fact.

Our journalists these days are way too partisan. How easy is it for someone on the left to reinvent his or herself these days? Theresa H.K. portrays herself as this poor little girl out of africa when in fact she was a member of the elites in mozambique. The portuguese were horrible even by european standards as colonialists.

Posted by: Raymond at August 2, 2004 01:22 PM


I agree with you that this is a war of religions. Islam (or at minimum certain forms of it) against the religion of the West. The Dogmatic belief that freedom of speech, religion, the press etc coupled with free elections and capitalism offers mankind his best way of life.

BTW, while I understand your point re: the Church and Dogma? You need to find a different example. Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine's dispute didn't rest on Catholic Dogma, but on whether Galileo had a workeable theory or an indiputeable truth. At the time Bellarmine was seeking to have Galileo agree his was only a theory, Galileo would not. In the words of Cardinal Bellarmine:

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

Posted by: spc67 at August 2, 2004 01:34 PM


Indeed, modern journalism hads a large part to play in the view the world has of Americans. On the flip side, it does damn little to bring into question the politics at home. Our electorate is, for the most part undeducated, not only about the world, but about our on political system. How many of our fellow Americans have heard of Jury Nullification?

But, I digress.

I find that the "Historical Whine Factor" rises in every group that has, at some point been harassed by some other group. The Muslims, African-Americans, Native Americans, etc. etc. etc. These people are still fighting the wars of their forefathers because they have failed to modify their mental programming. No matter what changes, there will be a subset of African Americans who consider the average white guy to be "The Man".

However, while some aspects of the crusade were based on a response to Muslim incursions, it was not as simple as you state (Like most wars). The Catholic church used the political situation to employ a religious extermination campaign.

--- Short History Lesson ---

The first crusade, has its roots in the Byzantine empire, where Comnenus had to deal with Turks raiding Europeans travelling to the Holy Lands. He wrote to Robert, Count of Flanders about the situation, who forwarded it to Pope Urban II. Pope Urban actually began, at that time to promote a Holy Crudsade to reclaim the Holy Land and in 1096 the People's Crusade began as a foreward army to the large contingent of European forces.

No matter what the intent was, be it religio-political or not, the actions of the Crusaders from the very beginning was terrible. Researching the history of the Peoples Crusades, led by a monk known as Peter The Hermit, one sees a trail of blood through Europe to Constantinople (before they even got to the Holy Lands). Peter the Hermit and the People's Crusade were among the first to persecute the Jews living in Europe (even before they got to the Holy Land). Indescriminate plundering, murder and mayhen soon followed. Oddly enough, most of their victims turned out to be Christians.

The People's Crusade met a disasterous end, all of whom ended up on the wrong side of a seige.

The larger forces of the Crusade proper, joined forces in Constantinople, then split off to conquer the Holy Land in segments. While some of the atrocities we see in Hollywood movies are far from any historical information we have. There is plenty of evidence that the Crusades as a force left horrific levels carnage in its wake.

The Turkish raiders may have been the starter, but the Crusades were far more than a simple response to incursions.


Posted by: Ratatosk at August 2, 2004 01:53 PM


Thanks for the correction. It was a "top of my head" example, sorry.

I don't think that we could call democracy, the freedom of speech, religion or the press to be dogmatic. I think that those are ideals based on how we understand political science. We think that these are the best way in which to run a government. So far, evidence supports this idea. However, those ideas may change, as the world around us changes, as our own minds and ways of thinking change and as we come to "Make a More Perfect Union". The founding fathers were not Dogmatists, they were Experimenters. And we are that experiment.

Of course, some people may be dogmatic about those ideas... but the ideas themselves (and the Constitution) are by no means Dogmatic. At least not as I understand them, I could be wrong.

Posted by: Ratatosk at August 2, 2004 01:59 PM

Ratatosk - Islam is comparable to Christianity/Catholicism, but the extremist factions of Islam, (the Wahhabis, Salafis, etc) are not. These extremists have more in common with other extremist cults that control beleivers lives and promise them power - like Jim Jones' cult in Jamestown, Guyana, or the Thousand Year Reich.

The Islamist extremists believe that all Muslim nations (and perhaps all nations) should be ruled by pre-medieval Islamic law (Shariah)

Shariah law allows slavery, requires the subjugation of women, and encourages the murder of people for the 'crime' of homosexuality. Under Shariah, the penalty for converting to another religion from Islam is death. Saudi Arabia, the Taliban and the government of the Sudan live under this extreme form of Shariah.

The only comparable Christian cult is the Lord's Resistance Army, which slaughters and enslaves children based on their 'belief' that the Ten Commandments are the only law that anyone needs.

These cults and the people they attract are only interested in power and gaining control over their enemies. Their primary motivation isn't religion, it's hate. If we make a great effort to show that we are not opposed to the extreme forms of Islam, if we put on a charade of claiming that we're okay with their pro-slavery, pro-genocide views, if we try to make them like us, then our only accomplishment will be to make ourselves look like amoral idiots. That may amuse them for a while, but we won't change their minds.

Public relations wouldn't have been a good weapon against the Thousand Year Reich, and it won't work with this cult either.

Posted by: mary at August 2, 2004 03:05 PM

Raymond, I agree with most of your comment but while "the portuguese were horrible even by european standards as colonialists" may be true for Africa, I think the British and others were worse in India, for example.

Religion is an aspect of the war on terror and must be dealt with on some level. If Islam were off limits for criticism, this war truly would never end.

Posted by: d-rod at August 2, 2004 03:14 PM


I don't think that we could call democracy, the freedom of speech, religion or the press to be dogmatic. I think that those are ideals based on how we understand political science. We think that these are the best way in which to run a government. So far, evidence supports this idea. However, those ideas may change, as the world around us changes, as our own minds and ways of thinking change and as we come to "Make a More Perfect Union".

I think you'd find most Americans dogmatic on these issues. What I mean is, if you proposed an alternative form of government/living that abolished the freedoms we've discussed and replacing our economic approach with another, even if you had documentary evidence that such changes would enhance our "pursuit of happiness" I think you'd lose the election badly...or be committed. I think we are dogmatic with regards to our Constitution, and that such theology is a great cultural binding force for good in this nation, and that the West is bound (in a fraying way) by similar dogma.

The founding fathers were not Dogmatists, they were Experimenters. And we are that experiment.

I agree. But if we change our fundamental approach? We become a different experiment.

On the big issue that started this I agree with you, this is a war of religions (or perhaps cultures/civilizations).

Posted by: spc67 at August 2, 2004 03:26 PM

Sorry, Tosk. I'm still not getting it, I guess.

Are you claiming the role of "guerrilla ontologist" in this discussion? What does a guerrilla ontologist do, anyway? Destroy meaningful debate by a dogmatic commitment to meaningless paradoxical arguments?

There's always a logical flaw in stated certainties? Is this more of that guerrilla ontology you're contributing now?

Being presented with new evidence and being presented with bullets to the head are both equally valid and productive ways of questioning a dogma? I can just imagine the scene in Tutsi households across Rwanda: "Well, there sure are an excessive number of Hutus trying to shoot and dismember me. Maybe I should totally rethink my dogmatic belief in not deserving to die just because I'm a Tutsi."

If history is any indication, encountering violent resistance is unrelated to the truth or beauty of your beliefs.

Also, your entire reply is riddled with dogmatic statements. The whole thing is intended to be a logical argument in favor of your own world view: This is what dogma is, and is not. Rather than follow your own advice, and keep yourself open to the possibility that dogma isn't what you think it is, you've rejected my argument and attempted to refute it using statements of certainty.

It's true, I haven't used much evidence (or bullets) to change your mind, but why must you be so committed to the Dogma of Evidence, anyway?

Is this commitment to evidence just your "best guess", subject to change at any time (based on what, I wonder, if not new evidence)? Or is it an ideal you'll continue to uphold, despite arguments to the contrary? Is your belief in the power of evidence dogmatic, or not?

To return to the topic: My objection to the Islamofascist Dogma isn't based on the fact that it is a dogma. My obection is based on the nature of the specific dogma itself.

Furthermore, I don't think it's helpful to anybody, to adopt a restricted definition of dogma, such that it only means "any belief that the believer is too stupid or insane to reconsider when appropriate". There's more to the word than that. It's possible for someone to be dogmatic without being stupid, crazy, or wrong.

Evidence: The men who signed their names to the sentiment, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Care to venture an opinion on whether or not this Dogma does more for us than the Islamofascist Dogma? Or would that violate your dogmatic commitment to not commit to any dogma?

Posted by: stutefish at August 2, 2004 03:43 PM

Is dogma an issue? Isn't the only issue that the Islamo-Facists have decided they are at war with us and either want to convert us to their brand of Islam or kill us? This is not new. As a recognizable phenomenon, you could trace this back to the latter 1960's.

The main difference is that the present generation is both more effective and more brazen in their attacks. Traditionally, they have only hit soft targets, often in distant regions. Only since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 have they concentrated on hitting us where we live.

We succeeded in ignoring the threat through the 1990's, by treating it as a law enforcement issue. Since September 11, 2003, the present administration rightly recognized that these people were waging an asymmetrical war against us, and responded as if we were at war.

Our opponents are treating this as a religious war, even if we constantly avoid framing it that way. We are not necessarily at war with Islam, but we are at war with this group of radical Islamists.

I agree that the dogma they follow is irrelevant, in many ways. Perhaps, we can respond to the threat, rather than the motivation. At the bottom, they are just a reactionary force that desires to force a 7th Century mindset upon us.

We can continue to deny that there is a religious war, and avoid any mention of such a thing, but what we think is not an issue. The only issue that matters is that these people are waging war against us in the name of their religion.

Posted by: Jim Bender at August 2, 2004 04:38 PM

>>>"As much as these terrorists (not militants) try to make this into a religious war, they're having a hard time making the rest of us think about it that way."

I think of it that way, but it's a one-sided religious war.

Posted by: David at August 2, 2004 05:40 PM

>>>"What does a guerrilla ontologist do, anyway? Destroy meaningful debate by a dogmatic commitment to meaningless paradoxical arguments?"

Basically, yes. It's also called sophistry. Have fun.

Posted by: David at August 2, 2004 05:42 PM

"It may eventually boil down to the public relations job ahead of the US. Somehow we must clearly show that we are not opposed to Islam, not even the more strict versions that are distastful to our Western palette."- Tosk

BUT WE ARE OPPOSED TO THESE ISLAMOFASCISTS !!! This conflict cannot be won be SPIN.No wonder our enemies detest us.NO REAL CENTRE.
'Distasteful to our western palette'.Just another situation,I suppose, where we should learn to be tolerant of the 'different',even if the 'different'are clueless,ignorant,fanatic,and murderous barbarians.Just another taste in the great banquet of life,I suppose.
Your tentative solutions are in fact part of the problem.This is NOT a public relations effort and while I too have no idea of how final victory will be won,I do know that it is VICTORY we should be aiming for not an uneasy hudna with the powers of darkness.
Thanks but no thanks.

Posted by: dougf at August 2, 2004 06:19 PM

When you think about what "losing" the war against the Islamo-Facists, you realize that losing is not an option. I say that we are opposed to those brands of Islam that are "distasteful to our Western palette". Yes, we can be judgmental about others beliefs and values, when those cause people to be oppressed and our lives and country to be threatened by them. Look at what they did to women in Afghanistan. That should not have been allowed to stand for as long as it did.

Posted by: Jim Bender at August 2, 2004 06:35 PM

Obviously this is a religious war, because in the minds of the people who attacked us, it is a religious war. So it is a religious war, regardless what we may think or wish.

I expect these and other types of attacks to continue, and will probably escalate in size and number over the next 3 months running up to the election. The terrorists know the American people are divided about the legitimacy of the Iraq War, thanks largely to the way in which our own media has covered the war. So the worse things get in Iraq, the more the American people will probably turn against our presence there. There is a lot of good news in Iraq, but it is largely unreported.

But of course, we should not be surprised. The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and most of the American media, want Kerry to be elected.

Posted by: freeguy at August 2, 2004 07:26 PM

"We're at the low point of professionalism in journalism."

Raymond, I hope you're right.

Posted by: J Thomas at August 2, 2004 08:59 PM

d-rod, as for the british record in india:
indian governments have struggled heroically since independence against evils like the caste system, burning of widows and female infanticide. but who do you think taught them that these were evils?
v.s. naipaul writes in the prologue to "beyond beief: islamic excursions among the converted peoples," Hindus say that Hinduism is less coercive and more 'spiritual'[than Christianity or Islam]; and they are right. But Gandhi got his social ideas from Christianity." in his earlier book on islam, "among the believers," he quoted an ethnic indian lawyer in (iirc) malaysia who said he'd been imprisoned by the british, the malaysians and the singaporeans, and the only ones who'd done it in such a way that they could be friends afterward were the british.

Posted by: greeneyeshade at August 2, 2004 11:17 PM

Mary (also somewhat in response to dougf),

I wasn't comparing modern christianity with extremist Islam... I think you're in the wrong argument.

If you were arguing my point about being accepting of distasteful sects within Islam, please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that we must accept extremist interpertations of Whabbi, or proponents of hardcore Sharia Law. My comment about PR was that we need to make clear to all Muslims that we are accepting of their faith, and most of the sects within that faith. For example, it is distasteful to me, for women to be forced to worship in the basement, while the men worship in the Mosque. However, I will accept their custom, though I find it distasteful. Remember, on of the key arguments used against the west is that we want to Christianize the Muslims, force them to abandon their beliefs.. by making very clear that all we wish to do is to remove the clear threat (of Islamic Facisism, or Totalarian Regimes) to us and other people, we begin to extricate ourselves from the `dogma we've been tarred with.

Remember, the situation in the Middle East is not a product of 40 years. It is the culmination of centuries of Dogmatic beliefs, including that the West wants to destroy Islam, stamping out their entire religion (and some Americans still talk in a way which supports this dogma). Their dogmatic belief that death in a jihad will send them straight to Paradise, leads to the exploitation of this dogma and results in the suicide bombers we see now.

We must continue to defend ourselves, our troops and the people of Iraq, whom we have taken responsibility for. However, to stamp out Terrorism (at least the Islamic version of terrorism), we must get into the minds of potential recruits. We must combat the dogma, as well as combat the insurgents. Either by themselves, I think, will fail.

You said: "These cults and the people they attract are only interested in power"... and I agree with that, as long as we are talking about the leaders of these groups. The leaders are just like Jim Jones, Do, Koresh etc. The minions, however, are not in this for power... What power did the hijackers during 9/11 gain? They died. How about the suicide bombers all over Iraq (sorry, pun)? Do you think they thought "Gee, I'll have all sorts of power once I set this car off..." Of course not, they thought "Allah, here I come, score one for us". The PR won't budge the leaders, but combating thir dogma will, hopefully, affect the minions and potentially new minions.

Jim Bender,

I agree with much of what you state, but I still feel that we must wage this war on multiple fronts, the physical front and the social front. They have made this a war of religion, particularly a war of a religious sect. If we ignore that completely, trying to frame this as simply the next Nazis, or the next Communists we risk misunderstanding the problem, and solving it incorrectly (and I doubt this is a problem that we solve with 'remainders'). ;-)


No, the constitution is not Dogma. Dogma is an unchangable belief that 'X' is Right, absolutely right and cannot be questioned.

The very quote you give us from the Founding Fathers is a wonderful example. At the time it was written, the idea was that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all caucasian males are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Since that time, our information pool grew, our understanding of freedom an an Idea grew and "all men" grew and changed to become all men and women regardless of race. It wasn't easy, it took time but it changed. (In fact, as these changes were happening, some Americans became violent, tryingto hold on to their unchangable dogma.)

The reason that the creators of this republic defined the process by which one amends the constitution, is because they realized that it needed to be changable based on the evolution of the country.

If the constitution were dogmatic, there would have been no provision for change, because the Founding Fathers would have believed that they had written the TRUTH, unalterable and unchangable.

Do you see the difference?

(as for the contradictory and dogmatic statements, don't let 'em twist your brain... I'm sure you can work it out eventually)

Posted by: Ratatosk at August 3, 2004 07:32 AM

Dogma, pl. -mas, -mata, is belief or doctrine held by a religion or other organization to be authoritative and/or beyond question. Evidence, analysis, or established fact may or may not be adduced, depending upon usage.

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Posted by: jj at August 3, 2004 06:31 PM

Iraqis might see it as nothing more than crimes against Iraqis.

Yet for those of us keeping track there was once an Iraq where religious groups lived in peace and no one was bombing churches, synogogues, or mosques.

I feel less safe in todays world, and would be suprised if Iraqis didn't as well. I can easily point fingers at the Bush regime and their Saudi ties, but indeed there are fundamentalist sects covering the globe trying their best to push the end of the world down everyones throats. For them this is indeed a religious war. To ignore it is to ignore a sickness. It doesn't get better and it doesn't go away.

Posted by: IXLNXS at August 3, 2004 08:10 PM


Nice definations.

Posted by: Ratatosk at August 4, 2004 06:30 AM
Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member


"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere

Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com

News Feeds


Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button


Tip Jar


Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn