August 17, 2004
Hatred, Real and Imagined
Gary Farber and Bjorn Staerk are rightly concerned about anti-Muslim hate in the blogosphere.
This problem is overstated by fools. (And I don't mean Gary and Bjorn.) I have been accused of hating Muslims and/or Arabs solely because I am anti-terrorist and anti-fascist. Pardon me for thinking that is almost explicitly racist right there. When did every Muslim or Arab become a terrorist, anyway? Not while I was looking. Only a bigot or an intellectual and moral idiot would equate terrorism and Muslims to such an extent that being anti-terrorist is the same as being anti-Muslim.
But now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, the other kind of bigotry, the hoary old-fashioned and straightforward kind, is alive, well, and kicking. It hasn’t received the attention it deserves. I’ve had to ban two people from posting in my comments section for racist remarks against Arabs - although I should note that I’ve had to ban more than twice that number for being explicitly anti-Semitic, and I had to boot one person from Germany who bragged about his Nazii grandfather and said both Muslims and Jews are “parasites” and the Children of Satan. I will never allow my own personal Web site to be used as a soap box for hatemongers, even though trolls like to say I “ban people just for disagreeing with me.” This an anti-hate site and will remain so. Thanks for understanding.
I don’t personally have a lot more to add on this subject because I steer clear of this stuff unless it comes my way uninvited. There's some real ugliness out there, though, and it's high time we hawks called out the bigots in the "ranks." (That is not to say such jerks are on any "side" of mine. I refuse to accept them as comrades for or against anything.) Gary Farber and Bjorn Staerk waded into the swamp and get down to brass tacks. They deserve your attention.
Also, please see Marc Cooper for the flip side of the story where PC goons try to prevent any criticism of Islam with their “intellectual blackmail” tactics.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at August 17, 2004 05:40 PMOf course not all muslims are terrorists; but 98% of terrorists are muslim; not buddhists, presbyterians, nor scientologists.
Is it "hate" to state the facts?
Posted by: David at August 17, 2004 06:13 PMDavid: 98% of terrorists are muslim
I don't know if that figures is accurate or not, but I think it's pretty clear most terrorism comes out of the Middle East these days. And no, it is not hate to say so.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 17, 2004 06:22 PMI don't think that you are anti-muslim. But I do believe that you apply a different moral scale to the killing of people in Middle Eastern countries than you would to the killing of Americans.
Posted by: Mork at August 17, 2004 06:23 PMMork,
I'm not one of those who shrug or change the subject when people are mass-murdered in the Middle East. I think that ought to have been made abundantly clear by now. Islamofascists have killed millions of people all over that region and not a lot of Westerners like to accept that particular fact. (See Sudan, Iraq, and Algeria for the highest body counts.) So please save this particular criticism of yours for somebody who really deserves it. Thanks.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 17, 2004 06:28 PMps. but Mork, believe it or not, I cringe when I hear about dead Arabs too. It's bad news.
Posted by: David at August 17, 2004 06:36 PMIt seems to me a differentiation is appropriate. Being anti-Arab is clearly bigotry since Arabs are born and not made. One cannot choose one's ethnicity. But religious convictions are matters of choice, at least among adults (if you believe that such choice isn't available to those raised as Muslims, then the obvious question looms). Since they are matters of choice, it is fair for others to criticize those who make such a choice. Admittedly doing so in a sweeping generalization seems like a poor approach, but I think the following questions of Muslims and Islam are fair (in no particular order):
1. Is terrorism consistent with the central tenets of Islam? If not, what action does Islam require of its adherents to dissasociate believers and the faith from those who terrorize? If nothing, why not? If something, why do we in the West see so little of whatever those actions are?
2. Can Islam be "just another religion" in a pluralistic society, or given Islamic tenets, must its adherents always be striving to make Islam central to all societies through the recognition of Sharia law (for example)?
3. How do Muslims, particularly those in oil-rich countries explain the utter economic failure of those societies to utilize their wealth to create economic powerhouses? Does Islamic belief, and the difficulty with lending money and charging interest (for example) play a substantial role in such failures?
4. In the last five hundred years, can one provide a list of exceptional authors on topics other than Islam (those writers who moved to the West would be excluded), breakthrough scientific advancements from Islamic nations, extraordinary commercial achievements by Islamic nations, the great Muslim man of peace (don't try to shoehorn Sadat into this definition) etc. If a list is short or unimpressive, is Islamic belief a limiting factor?;
5. What is the mechanism in the Islamic world for reformation of the faith? Can such a mechanism be used to engage/fight Wahhabist belief? Does Wahhabist belief require reformation or is it consistent with the basic tenets of Islam?
6. Is the overarching nature of Islam (law, custom, praxis, worship, the state)in contrast to the compartmentalized ways in which Western religions are practiced problematic in achieving a raproachment between the West and the Islamic world? In other words, can there exist a compromise between the notion of Western freedoms and the Islamic notions of virtue?
I could go on and on. The more I read and see, the more I believe that common Islamic belief is a huge part of the problem we face. Compare how we dealt with MacVeigh. We hunted him down, tried him, convicted him and to widespread acclaim executed him. Contrast that to the way many (most, nearly all, I don't know) Muslims view bin Laden and his crew. If all or nearly all Muslims are either supporters, tacit supporters or cowed into silence when it comes to the actions of other Muslims,that is, if the actions of other Muslims against those outside the faith are beyond real sustained criticism that says there is a huge problem with Islamic belief, at least insofar as the West is concerned. Where is the Muslim Dietrich Bonhoffer?
Anyway, if these questions make me a bigot, so be it. Then the appellation simply means one doesn't have the authority to discriminate against others based on the choices they make (as opposed to how they happened to be born). I simply will not live that way.
Posted by: spc67 at August 17, 2004 06:41 PMI've not encountered racists on my site, but I did finally get hit with the realization that stupidity and bad taste are not limited to racism, sexism, and other -isms alone. So I have instituted a ban on all snide and assinine commentary on Rachel Corrie.
But, as one of the blessings of being a low-traffic blog, this stand has not resulted in any additional management headaches.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at August 17, 2004 07:13 PM"...I think it's pretty clear most terrorism comes out of the Middle East these days."
That's rather fuzzy at best, actually, Michael. The Sri Lankan bombers have been carrying on for years, and they're nowhere near the Middle East. Nor was Hambali, orchestrator of the Bali bombing, from the Mideast (Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in the world). Pakistan and Afghanistan are nowhere near the Middle East. Ditto Baluchistan, ditto Kashmir. The Russians seem to have quite a lot of terrorism to deal with in Chechnya -- far more than we do -- and there's been noticable amounts throughout Russia, including in Moscow. Azerbaijan has not been quiet, nor Georgia. Columbia is chockablock with terrorism. Nepal has numerous attacks.
This is just off the top of my head. It doesn't seem so clear to me, though.
spc67 says: "But religious convictions are matters of choice, at least among adults (if you believe that such choice isn't available to those raised as Muslims, then the obvious question looms). Since they are matters of choice, it is fair for others to criticize those who make such a choice."
Sure. Also, this can apply to the Jews, who killed Christ.
Alternatively, it's actually not all that hard to separate out people who are bombing and who are not, or people who support bombing and who don't, or who tolerate bombing, and who don't. Demonstrably, for instance, few American Moslems are out there bombing, and there's little reason to believe most support or tolerate it.
We can discuss cultural problems and religions problems and religious evolution, and all sorts of things, without engaging in false generaliations and presumptions, and without taking our eye off the ball of fighting terrorism, including, specifically, the Islamist extremist terrorism that threatens us.
It's not, actually, hard to do.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 17, 2004 07:40 PM"Anyway, if these questions make me a bigot, so be it. Then the appellation simply means one doesn't have the authority to discriminate against others based on the choices they make (as opposed to how they happened to be born). I simply will not live that way"--spc67
Ditto.This cut and paste routine sure saves me a lot of typing.What concerns me about the 'issue'of ANTI-ISLAMIC bigotry is that I believe the raising of the issue mainly serves the interests of those who wish to minimise the problems that extremist Islam presents to the modern world.I have a problem with an ideology which for all intents and purposes appears to be locked in the past because it has no answers for the future.I have no problem with live and let live,but I don't get the impression that the most vibrant forces in Islamic thought today are very fond of that particualr dictum.If I get called a bigot for that it's just a matter of time before 'bigot'loses its perjorative basis.It certainly won't cause me to lose any sleep at nights.
Posted by: dougf at August 17, 2004 07:49 PMGary Farber,
Yes, points taken. I wrote "Middle East" and thought "Muslim world." Of course there are other places, too, as you mention. Colombia and Sri Lanka for starters. And let's not forget Spain.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 17, 2004 08:12 PMGary Farber writes: Pakistan and Afghanistan are nowhere near the Middle East.
Gary, I know this is a minor part of your larger point, but Pakistan and Afghanistan are fairly close to the Middle East.
They both border Iran. At worst, one could say that they are right next to the Middle East
Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 17, 2004 08:19 PM1. Is terrorism consistent with the central tenets of democracy? If not, what action does democracy require of its adherents to dissasociate believers and the faith from those who terrorize?
2. Can democracy be "just another philosophy of government" in a pluralistic world, or given democratic tenets, must its adherents always be striving to make democracy central to all societies through the mechanism of elections (for example)?
3. What is the mechanism among those of the democratic persuasion for reformation of the faith? Can such a mechanism be used to engage/fight libertarian belief? Does libertarian belief require reformation or is it consistent with the basic tenets of democracy?
Posted by: J Thomas at August 17, 2004 08:31 PMJ Thomas: Does libertarian belief require reformation or is it consistent with the basic tenets of democracy?
I don't understand why you're asking this question.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 17, 2004 08:50 PMI was shifting some of spc67's questions.
If terrorism is not consistent with democracy, why were we funding the Contras?
Do we accept democracy as one form of government coexisting among many, or do we have a mission to spread democracy among the rest of the world? If the latter, we're doing the same thing the radical moslems are doing, right?
Libertarians usually profess democracy limited by libertarian ideals. They are a radical version of democracy that would require a lot of changes to the world. They haven't been doing terrorism that I've heard of, but it seemed like a pretty good parallel to spf67's question. There are implicit assumptions behind the question, that islam should do very effective mind control to get all muslims thinking alike, that there should be explicit mechanisms to change what it is they should all think, etc. But we don't usually think of democracy advocates as needing to all think alike, or having a single faith.
Posted by: J Thomas at August 17, 2004 09:02 PM>>>"If terrorism is not consistent with democracy, why were we funding the Contras?"
The Contras were a guerrilla army operating from the jungles of Nicaragua, not a terrorist organization. Sure, Lefties called them that, but we all know how fast and lose they play with words.
The Contras didn't put bombs in trains and blow up airplanes and schoolbuses or saw the heads off people. They blew shit up true, but no more terroristic than your average Leftist guerrilla movement in Central America.
So are you saying terrorism is consistent with democracy? And before you use the Israeli underground as the same old tired example, the King David Hotel was a MILITARY target.
Posted by: David at August 17, 2004 09:14 PM"...the Israeli underground as the same old tired example, the King David Hotel was a MILITARY target."
This could be taken to imply it was an act of the Haganah, or authorized by the Jewish Agency, when it was not. However, 91 died, 46 injured, and 15 of the dead were Jews. And, yes, warnings were given which the British ignored.
It's difficult to argue that the Irgun did not engage in terrorism, kidnapping, and execution, however, of British "targets," military and political, as well as of the UN. And, whoops, civilians were killed.
Just for the record, since you bring it up, David.
"The Contras were a guerrilla army operating from the jungles of Nicaragua, not a terrorist organization."
The contras were no one thing at all, but were made up of disparate groups, including the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense, FDN); the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE) and its armed wing, the Sandino Revolutionary Front (FRS); and Misurasata. If you want to argue they never killed civilians, good luck. And, of course, there was the drug smuggling.
I'm not clear what "terrorism is compatible with democracy" or "terrorism is incompatible with democracy" means precisely, so I'm not arguing for or against either proposition, by the way.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 17, 2004 09:49 PMI think we can all agree that terrorism is incompatible with small-l liberalism. Yes? The Contras were many things, but "the moral equivalent of our Founding Father's" ain't one of 'em.
And since every libertarian in the world is a small-d democrat, I'm still scratching my head at J Thomas's question.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 17, 2004 10:35 PMHey Gary,
Get a grip. Try reading Tom Wright or E.P. Sanders or JD Crossan or Burton Mack or any of the other historical Jesus scholars before you make embarrassingly inaccurate statements regarding the death of Jesus. Once you've done the research? Then you can imply certain things about me ok? As for your questions, I'll take them in order.
1. Is terrorism consistent with the central tenets of democracy? If not, what action does democracy require of its adherents to dissasociate believers and the faith from those who terrorize?
No. We executed Timothy McVeigh, jail IRA terrorists and looked very poorly on violations of the Boland Amendment. See the difference?
2. Can democracy be "just another philosophy of government" in a pluralistic world, or given democratic tenets, must its adherents always be striving to make democracy central to all societies through the mechanism of elections (for example)?
You've completely changed the parameters from status within a nation to staus across nations.Apples and oranges.
3. What is the mechanism among those of the democratic persuasion for reformation of the faith? Can such a mechanism be used to engage/fight libertarian belief? Does libertarian belief require reformation or is it consistent with the basic tenets of democracy?
Democracy as religion? Um, seperation of church and state anyone? Pretty poor starting point, but let's grant it anyway. reformation in Democracy? Elections, staturtory changes, Constitutional amendments. see the difference? As for libertarian belief, libertarians engage in each of the above mechanisms. Libertarians to my knowledge did NOT embrace Mcveigh. See the difference?
Posted by: spc67 at August 17, 2004 10:40 PMShoot, the questions above were Thomas', not Gary's. My bad.
Posted by: spc67 at August 18, 2004 12:31 AMMJT,
I posted this comment over at WOC. I thought I'd post it here too. I'm sure some will read it and conclude I'm a racist. People who know me know I'm not. I don't hate people for what they are, but I do hate some ideologies. I hate Marxism, Communism, Fascism and I consider Islam to be on par with these ideologies with the added twist that the Islamic belief system is supposedly sent down by God. Anyway here is my comment. I'm interested in what you think:
Help me here.
I'm convinced that Islam in all its signifcant variants is a dehumanizing death cult. I believe that Islamic ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. And I believe that this ideological incompatibility will turn into a violent conflict when Muslims achieve a critical mass of the population. This has been the pattern throughout history, and I see no evidence that things are different this time.
However, I'm senstive to the arguments made here about hatred. The only way that I can see to stop the clash that I see coming is to take actions that are morally repugnant. I feel like I'm being forced to choose supporting actions that are incompatible with my value system in order to ensure that our civilization will survive.
As I look around the Western world, I see a process of Balkanization going on. Muslim populations are moving into Europe in massive numbers. They are forming enclaves and refusing to assimilate into the native societies. Given current demographic trends continue, some Western nations - notably France - will see their native populations become minorities within 2-3 generations. Is this immigration or colonization?
If Europeans were migrating to Islamic countries and behaving the same way, we would call it colonization. And we would be right. Are we so arrogant and perversely racist to believe that only white Christians can be colonizers? Are brown Muslims incapable of being colonizers? The historical record proves otherwise.
My life has been blessed. I came of age at the perfect time and perfect place of late 20th century America. I've had it just about as good as the human condition has thus far provided. But as I look into the future and project trends going on today, I can only conclude that my children and grand-children won't be so lucky. The world they are growing up in will increasinlgy look more like the medievil world than the modern world.
So what do I choose? My values or my civilization?
Posted by: HA at August 18, 2004 03:30 AMIf one takes as a basic tenet that Islam is a force of evil in the world and it can't be reformed, then what could posibly be the solution? Are we going to nuke 1 billion people?
I don't buy the idea that western culture is superior to all others.
I think the problem is that muslim cultures are about 300 years behind western culture in the development of the concepts of civil liberties and religous freedom. One has to remember that it took western cultures hundreds of years to fully develop these ideas, it was only 80 years ago that women gained full legal rights and 40 years for blacks. But now we expect Muslim cultures to make the full transition immediately. It's not that it's not the right transition, it's just that it's going to take time and we need to be patient and nudge it along.
The spread of liberty and democracy has been steady accross the world since the American and French revolutions, but it is still very much in progress. It was only a little over a decade ago that it finally started seeping into the Soviet bloc and China is moving very slowly in that direction. But what is always true is that these transformations require time, social upheaval and very often violence.
I think the obvious difference between muslim cultures and other repressive cultures, say, central african cultures, is oil. Oil brings them 2 problems, western meddling and money. Western meddling pisses them off and money gives them the power to resist us. We barely meddle in African affairs and when we do piss them off they really can't do anything about it.
So after this long winded post, here are my solutions.
- In the short term we have to defend ourselves from the terrorists and hunt them down while causing as little disturbance as possible (i.e not by attacking Iraq).
- In the medium term we have to free ourselves from oil dependance.
- In the long term we nicely and patiently nudge them towards freedom through capitalism and the sheer atraction of freedom.
Unfourtunately these solutions require a certain nuance and long-term outlook that I don't think our current political environment can muster.
Posted by: miguel at August 18, 2004 03:36 AMmiguel,
I don't buy the idea that western culture is superior to all others.
If you believe in "concepts of civil liberties and religous freedom" and the "spread of liberty and democracy" around the world, then implicitly you are stating that Western civilization is superior. These are all central tenets of Western civilization and ONLY Western civilization. You fatally contradict your own argument.
Posted by: HA at August 18, 2004 04:18 AMMiguel:
All due respect but you are stating the obvious but not providing the solutions. All of your points are dead on but you leave off the kicker.
-What do WE do while the rest of the world catches up?
-What actions can we take to minimize our exposure while they figure out it's not ok to kill us?
-How do we "hunt them down while causing as little disturbance as possible" if we don't deal with the states that support the terrorism?
-How do we remove our dependence on their oil? There is no easy solution to that dependence. Can we reduce it? Yes, but it would require we exploit other resources. Resources that just send the Green insane.
Semper Fi
Posted by: RickM at August 18, 2004 04:34 AMHA,
Other cultures can have freedom too, the Japanese for example.
Western culture didn't have freedom until relatively recently. An all encompasing christianity was the dominant defining aspect of European culture for over a thousand years (pope-kings, inquisitions, Galileo improsined, etc.). Just like Islam is the defining feature of muslim cultures today.
What I'm saying is that I think muslim culture could also be truly free someday.
Posted by: miguel at August 18, 2004 05:24 AMIslam is submission.
Just where is the potential for 'free' there?
Posted by: TmjUtah at August 18, 2004 06:59 AM>>>"I don't buy the idea that western culture is superior to all others."
Michael,
you've made an ideological statement; not an intellectual one, much less an intelligent one.
I bet you haven't even considered the possibility that western culture may be superior than say, the child-sacrificing culture of the caananites because you've been told that believing your culture is superior is racist, narrow, xenophobic, etc. So you play along and pat yourself on the back for being "politically correct".
Posted by: David at August 18, 2004 07:10 AMI strongly recommend going to C-Span and doing an advanced serach on Mary Habeck for Aug 2004. She is a an assistant prof at Yale who gives a compelling dissertation on, among other things, how many muslims are part of the problem and why. According to her and other sources I have seen, 20-30% of muslims are Islamist, meaning they see Islam as a political vehicle, and thus form a base of sorts for the much smaller percent who are Jihadis and actively seeking to propogate their idea of Islam via violence. IMO she is brilliant and has done the historical homework. She uses their own pronouncements to define them.
Indispensable video for those who want to understand what we are up against.
this link should work
http://www.c-span.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=Mary+Habeck&StartDateMonth=8&StartDateYear=2004&EndDateMonth=8&EndDateYear=2004&Series=&Organizer=&ProgramIssue=&ProgramEvent=&QueryType=&QueryTextOptions=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch
You need to see these before many more days or they will expire.
Posted by: jdwill at August 18, 2004 07:20 AMjdwill,
thanks. I'll check it out. I look forward to seeing if facts will cut through the haze of political correctness that we're living in. We walk around like horses with self-imposed blinders and we think ourselves the better for it.
Posted by: David at August 18, 2004 07:30 AMDavid,
You're welcome.
PS I recommend the 08/12/2004 video from
the Heritage for more advanced theory.
The 08/15/2004 WJ show is good, but more
of a 101 level.
"Hey Gary,
Get a grip. Try reading Tom Wright or E.P. Sanders or JD Crossan or Burton Mack or any of the other historical Jesus scholars before you make embarrassingly inaccurate statements regarding the death of Jesus. Once you've done the research? Then you can imply certain things about me ok? As for your questions, I'll take them in order."
You're very confused. I didn't ask those questions. I didn't imply anything about you. Please read more carefully; thanks.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 18, 2004 07:57 AMjdwill,
I'm listening as we speak.
I've learned, for one, that the Madrid attack was decided upon BEFORE the war in Iraq, and is part of their Al-Andalus offensive, NOT a protest of Aznar's policies. She's pretty good.
Posted by: David at August 18, 2004 07:59 AM>>No. We executed Timothy McVeigh, jail IRA terrorists
Not sure who "we" refers to here, but as a matter of historical fact, the USA's record on dealing with IRA terrorists was not very good at all. You actually referred to them as "political prisoners" and refused to extradite them.
Posted by: dsquared at August 18, 2004 08:00 AM"If one takes as a basic tenet that Islam is a force of evil in the world and it can't be reformed, then what could posibly be the solution? Are we going to nuke 1 billion people"--Miguel
Without arguing the 'reality'of that tenet or judging the 'morality'of possible responses,I will make the point that IF it becomes the accepted truth that Islam represents a clear and present danger to OUR way of life,we will do what every other group in history has done.No-one chooses defeat;it is always thrust upon them.I think that fact of existence probably answers your question on what will happen should push ever really come to shove,and all nuances are considered to be moot.
Posted by: dougf at August 18, 2004 08:28 AMGary,
You said "The same thing could be said about the Jews, who killed Christ" immediately following a lifted part of my post. If your intent wasn't to either imply I am anti-semetic, or to excuse anti-Semetism based on the death of Jesus, I have no idea what you were saying. I suppose it could just have been poor writing. As for the other questions, I immediately realized that mistake in a follow up post. Please read more carefully, thanks. ;)
Posted by: spc67 at August 18, 2004 08:39 AMdougf,
I agree, preservation of our way of life at any cost is always going to be the ultimate response. But I hope we can also agree that nobody wants it to come to that, all-out-global-WW3 would not be good for anybody.
Posted by: miguel at August 18, 2004 08:41 AMNot sure who "we" refers to here, but as a matter of historical fact, the USA's record on dealing with IRA terrorists was not very good at all. You actually referred to them as "political prisoners" and refused to extradite them.
True enough. The "we" I was thinking of was the West as opposed to just the US. We are horrified by the IRA, the UVF, the ETA as we were by the Red Brigade and Baader Meinhof etc. Do these creatures exist in the West? Sure. Are they approved of/supported by any meaningful minority? No, or at least not over time. But terrorism in or from Islamic lands seems to be almost order of the day. sigh I truly want to be wrong in my views here. I want the true Islamic faithful to rise up and show their goodness and repudiate/turn in/kill those who terrorize in Islam's name. But I've been waiting for that to happen ever since the early 1970's.
Posted by: spc67 at August 18, 2004 09:29 AMBeing a Briton, I'd like to follow this IRA thread. I remember that most Americans, supported by their government, did not regard the IRA as terrorists. They were, as mentioned, political prisoners or freedom fighters.
Certainly the large Irish American community supported their activities, both morally and financially. I recall a Frontline documentary about the flow of arms from the United States to the IRA, movies out of Hollywood glorifying their actions.
My question to Americans (make no mistake, it is facetious): is it okay to blow up civilians, then, if those doing the blowing up are light skinned with blue eyes.
Posted by: The_Truth at August 18, 2004 09:42 AMHA: I'm convinced that Islam in all its signifcant variants is a dehumanizing death cult. I believe that Islamic ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. And I believe that this ideological incompatibility will turn into a violent conflict when Muslims achieve a critical mass of the population. This has been the pattern throughout history, and I see no evidence that things are different this time.
Let me just give you some advice. And I am absolutely serious here.
Buy yourself a plane ticket to Istanbul, Tunis, or Marrakesh when you get some vacation time. Hang around some Muslims for a while. They won't spit on you, they won't kill you, and they will be a lot nicer to you than your fellow Americans are as long as you are nice to them.
Look. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Palestinian suicide-bombers and their basket-case apologists make the news. You do not see headlines that say "Arab Shopkeeper Was Kind to Stranger Today."
I had a friend back in Iowa City who was a Methodist minister. He was absolutely furious at the Christian Right because he said it made everyone in his religion look like a bunch of gay-hating reactionary idiots. When I met him I was in a bad place as far as Christianity goes, and hanging around him what was finally pulled me out of it. Do something similar for yourself. You'll feel a lot better. And it won't turn you into a peacenik or a relativist.
Oh, and read "The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Saud from Tradition to Terror" by Stephen Schwartz. He is a neoconservative American Jew who converted to Islam. And he is also, as Christopher Hitchens put it, "a most articulate opponent of Islamofascism."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 09:46 AMThis issue really pervades all current political discussion (in the sense that we are told that we can't talk about a long list of issues). There is no civility left in political discourse, on any level.
I think that the tact taken by those who want to defend "Arab Americans" by disallowing discussion of terrorism and Islamic fascism, are doing the ethnic group a disservice, in that it would cause others to assume that they are terrorists or Islamic fascists.
I understand why you might want to declare subjects taboo, such as fact-checking John Kerry's Viet Nam service, but it is a similar defense.
I appreciate your tough stand on terrorism from the middle east and south asia. You are obviously not an enemy of Arabs. All we need to do, to know that, is to read your sympathetic account of your trip to Tunisia.
Regards,
Jim Bender
http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/
http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jim Bender at August 18, 2004 09:55 AMJim,
I don't think discussion of Kerry's Vietnam service is taboo just because I haven't written about it myself. The guy is a blowhard who won't shut up about it, and he has it coming as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 09:59 AMMiguel,
Without prejudice to your basic thesis, the relavent fact is that if the culture is some 300 years behind the curve, we still will have to deal with the fact that it's tied into a larger global system. Think long and hard about how things like World War I (a scant 100, not 300 years ago) would have played out with nukes, ballistic missiles, cluster munitions, and cluster-nerve agents.
Michael,
I've spent time in the Middle East and cannot fault your assessment, based on the amount of time you had in region. There are, sadly, a few cultural differences that do get on one's nerves after a while, but that's true if I go to New York.
Since I'm an unoriginal hack, let me just quote a passage from P.J. O'Rourke that I think sums up the heart of the dilemma quite nicely:
"There is a great lack of understanding between the Arab world and the United States just now," said the young man behind the counter."There sure is," I said.
"Why do you think this is?" said the sharp dresser.
The truthful anwer would have been, "Because one by one and man to man Arabs are the salt of the earth--generous, hospitable, brave, wise, and so forth. But get you in a pack and shove a Koran down your pants and you act like a footlocker full of glue-sniffing civet cats."
P.S. This was shortly after the US bombing of Lybia in 1986.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at August 18, 2004 10:04 AMPJ: Because one by one and man to man Arabs are the salt of the earth--generous, hospitable, brave, wise, and so forth. But get you in a pack and shove a Koran down your pants and you act like a footlocker full of glue-sniffing civet cats.
BRD,
Hmm. Yes, well, that seems true sometimes. But I did see "packs" of Arabs in Tunisia. I saw a whole country full of them. When my wife and I took a cross-country bus into the desert we were the only foreigners on the bus. Guess how many times I was scared? (Hint: less than once.) And how worried are you that we'll have a war with Arab Muslim Tunisia?
I am well aware that Tunisia is the Costa Rica of North Africa. But that's just the point, isn't it? It ain't Saudi, but it's just as Arab. In other words, there is nothing about being Arab or Muslim that turns people into bomb-strapping fanatics. There is a totalitarian ideology in the region, and it's not the religion. (Although the religion is extremely authoritarian, that is a separate problem that has already been overcome to an extent in some places.)
Tunisians get a proper Western-style education. Their dictator really is, for real, moderate and benign. And they have a fairly strong economy that doesn't run on oil. Just some things to think about.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 10:13 AM1. Is terrorism consistent with the central tenets of democracy? If not, what action does democracy require of its adherents to dissasociate believers and the faith from those who terrorize?
No. We executed Timothy McVeigh, jail IRA terrorists and looked very poorly on violations of the Boland Amendment. See the difference?
Islamic societies also jail or execute dissidents who oppose them or their allies. Some governments headed by elected officials do finance and arm terrorists against their enemies, as do some individuals who vigorously advocate democracy.
I would have to figure that terrorism is at least as compatible with democratic ideals as with islamic ideals.
2. Can democracy be "just another philosophy of government" in a pluralistic world, or given democratic tenets, must its adherents always be striving to make democracy central to all societies through the mechanism of elections (for example)?
You've completely changed the parameters from status within a nation to staus across nations.Apples and oranges.
Yes? So you figure that islam should not attempt to run national governments and should not attempt to take over the world, while advocates of democracy do run national governments and are attempting to take over the world.
Competing ideologies? Of course we believe we're right and they're wrong. They split the choices differently. We offer people a degree of freedom instead of slavery, they offer people good instead of evil. And of course, to them we appear to be offering people the freedom to be evil.... But we think they aren't really good, and anyway we're right and they're wrong.
3. What is the mechanism among those of the democratic persuasion for reformation of the faith? Can such a mechanism be used to engage/fight libertarian belief? Does libertarian belief require reformation or is it consistent with the basic tenets of democracy?
Democracy as religion? Um, seperation of church and state anyone? Pretty poor starting point, but let's grant it anyway. reformation in Democracy? Elections, staturtory changes, Constitutional amendments. see the difference? As for libertarian belief, libertarians engage in each of the above mechanisms. Libertarians to my knowledge did NOT embrace Mcveigh. See the difference?
Democracy advocacy is a whole lot like a religion, isn't it? "Democracies never have wars with each other." "Democracies with elections are the only way to represent the will of the people."
We have beliefs about good and evil, right and wrong, beliefs about the wonderful time when all governments become democracies, etc.
Islam is similarly not a government but an advocacy. Given they have some extremists, how could they get a "reform" that would eliminate the extremists? Well, advocacies aren't like that. The only reasonably reliable way to eliminate splinter groups is to exterminate them, and that isn't reliable either.
Of course we mostly don't have libertarians in authoritarian societies. But if we did, what would they do? If you were a libertarian living under a kleptocracy, your choices would be to leave (if they let you out and somebody else will take you), or advocate peaceful change (which the armed kleptocracy has a strong economic reason to oppose with armed force), or revolt.
If we study the confused writings of McVeigh and the Unabomber etc, it might easily be possible to consider them as libertarians (or greens etc). If the government wanted to demonize libertarians it would be done. It isn't so much whether libertarians support McVeigh as whether McVeigh supported libertarians....
This is all directly parallel to islamists and al qaeda. The only reason to smear the mass of islamists as not opposing terrorism is because some of us feel that islam is a credible threat to our own ideologies. We don't smear libertarians with McVeigh because we don't consider libertarians that kind of threat to our ideologies.
J Thomas: Islamic societies also jail or execute dissidents who oppose them or their allies.
Timothy McVeigh was not executed for being a dissident.
advocates of democracy do run national governments and are attempting to take over the world.
If every country in the world is democratic, no one has taken over the world. You can only take over the world if you impose a dictatorship on it.
We don't smear libertarians with McVeigh because we don't consider libertarians that kind of threat to our ideologies.
That's because libertarians are not mass-murdering fascists.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 10:49 AMMy question to Americans (make no mistake, it is facetious): is it okay to blow up civilians, then, if those doing the blowing up are light skinned with blue eyes.
An important distinction between the IRA of the Anglo-Irish War in which Michael Collins' Squad and the rest of them went after uniforms, that is cops and soldiers, and the modern despicable IRA. Reasonable political goals, utterly despicable methods. Same with the UVF on the Unionist side.
As for Thomas, Michael beat me to it. Darn.
Posted by: spc67 at August 18, 2004 10:56 AMThe "racist" charge is this year's version of "Nazi", i.e., anyone who disagrees with me.
Evidently, there are still a few true racists out there (who sometimes come out from under their rocks), but people who think terrorists are evil are not racists.
Timothy McVeigh was an evil man, and that's true no matter who says it. Al-Sadr is an evil man, and that's true no matter who says it.
If someone were to call me a racist, I would ask him to define his terms in great detail. At least, until I knew that he understood what he was talking about.
Posted by: Mike at August 18, 2004 11:25 AMIslamic societies also jail or execute dissidents who oppose them or their allies.
Timothy McVeigh was not executed for being a dissident.
So? As we get increasingly pre-emptive with potential terrorists we're heading toward the islamic societies' standards.
advocates of democracy do run national governments and are attempting to take over the world.
If every country in the world is democratic, no one has taken over the world. You can only take over the world if you impose a dictatorship on it.
You guys keep switching the level of abstraction. The USA would take over the world if every nation did as we wanted and none dared oppose us. But democracy would take over the world if every nation in the world became a US state.
What does it mean for an ideology to take over the world?
We don't smear libertarians with McVeigh because we don't consider libertarians that kind of threat to our ideologies.
That's because libertarians are not mass-murdering fascists.
McVeigh was a mass-murdering individualist, if you count the kansas city thing as mass-murder. We don't call him a libertarian mostly because we like libertarians and want to help them maintain distance.
Are you saying that islamists are all mass murderers? Or mostly mass murderers? Or often mass murderers? Or what? There was Saddam, but he was pretty secular. There's algeria, where 10% of the population got killed fighting the french, and another 10% got killed later in political disputes. That says they take their politics seriously more than that they're islamists, though. There was indonesia where Sukarno killed somewhere between half a million and 2 million "communists" in a couple of days. Sukarno wasn't particularly islamist, though. And then the turks. I'll grant you the turks were islamists and mass-murdered the armenians.
Or were you thinking of someone else?
Posted by: J Thomas at August 18, 2004 11:55 AMMJT,
I don't know how familiar with O'Rourke you are, but he is a satirist, and as a consequence prone to a bit of hyperbole now and again.
One of the more paradoxical things I've noticed about the Middle East is that, on one hand, the folks there are truly decent, wonderful, et al.
And on the other hand, I've seen them live up to some of the worst of the stereotypes.
Not unlike la Francais or la Americaine, c'est ne pas?
With respect to being afraid to be in a Middle Eastern country, I've been a lot more afraid for my safety, due to my nationality, in Europe than elsewhere.
And finally, to address the gist of your comments, it seems as if people are making a choice to see the Arab world as one filled iwth riots, suicide bombers, and embasy stormings, or tea, hospitality, courtesy, and a vibrant culture.
As far as the answer to that goes, who are you going to believe, your own lying eyes, or your own lying eyes.
NB: For what it's worth I tend to regard hostility towards the Arab world as being quite similar to anti-Americanism, in that it's a whole lot of hysteria wrapped around some much smaller details
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at August 18, 2004 12:22 PM>>>"Look. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Palestinian suicide-bombers and their basket-case apologists make the news."
Translated: terrorism works.
Posted by: David at August 18, 2004 12:54 PMJ Thomas,
I don't think you know what Islamism is if you think Turkey represented it in any way in Armenia. Islamism did not come into existence until after World War I. See Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism for a very detailed history and dissection of the ideology.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 01:24 PMHey, it's a little off-subject but...
Have any of you guys been keeping up on watching the Olympics, lately? Did anyone hear about the Judo-World-Champion guy from Iran? This guy from Iran is far and away the best in the world but opts to drop out when he's picked to fight a guy from Israel. I understand his logic behind this. The Iranian government doesn't recognize the existence of an Israeli State, so he snubbs the guy by refusing to compete against him. But this just left me thinking, "Wouldn't it of sent a better message to just go ahead and kick the guy's ass?" I think so. Maybe if it was like badminton or something, then you can go ahead and drop out. But it's frickin' Judo! Maybe these countries need to have more Judo ass-whopping contests. It would be healthy competition. It would vent their frustrations. It could help prevent World War 3. Instead of more failed peace talks, this route might actually work.
Just wondering if anyone else has been having the same thoughts.
Posted by: Grant McEntire at August 18, 2004 01:41 PMGrant,
maybe he was scared of losing. Or maybe he just has really bad PR sense.
Posted by: David at August 18, 2004 04:23 PMGrant,
My thoughts are that the OIC has proven to be just as effective as the UN, and in fact is exhibiting UN-ish qualities, by not booting Iran from the Olympics right quick.
The spirit of the games are supposedly apolitical, and sport is supposed to trump this kind of stuff.
If the Iranians can't hack it, they shouldn't show up in the first place.
If the OIC refuses to deal with it, that's shameful as well.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 18, 2004 06:16 PMI just want to note for the record that the Israelis next opponent due to the Mullah-made forfeit was an Algerian, who disposed of the Israeli kid with dispatch.
And if an Arab can compete against an Israeli without whining, so should a Persian.
Say what you will about Algeria, but at least in this Olympics, they know the meaning of sportsmanship.
Algeria has put both Iran and the OIC to shame.
Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 18, 2004 06:19 PM"You said "The same thing could be said about the Jews, who killed Christ" immediately following a lifted part of my post. If your intent wasn't to either imply I am anti-semetic, or to excuse anti-Semetism based on the death of Jesus, I have no idea what you were saying."
Niether. (It's "anti-Semitism," by the way.)
My point was to note that the same (faulty) logic can be, and historically has, applied to Jews. This in no way implies that you are anti-Semitic, at all.
What's interesting to note it that (thankfully), if you said to most educated people in the West these days of Jews: "But religious convictions are matters of choice, at least among adults (if you believe that such choice isn't available to those raised as Jews, then the obvious question looms). Since they are matters of choice, it is fair for others to criticize those who make such a choice," they'd often tend be somewhat shocked or offended, and wonder if you were anti-Semetic.
Yet it's comparatively quite acceptable to say this about Moslems.
The more important point is to note, as Professor Volokh has, that it's not meaningful to speak of what Islam "is," any more than it is to speak of what Christianity "is" or Judaism "is." These are vast bodies with long histories and many divergent sects and beliefs within them. There is no single essence to either criticize or praise.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 18, 2004 06:21 PM"I think that the tact taken by those who want to defend "Arab Americans" by disallowing discussion of terrorism and Islamic fascism...."
Is there anyone in this thread, or any of the comment threads on other blogs spawned from Bjorn's and my posts doing this? If not (and that's the case), what's the relevance?
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 18, 2004 06:25 PM"Evidently, there are still a few true racists out there (who sometimes come out from under their rocks), but people who think terrorists are evil are not racists."
Who the heck would argue otherwise? Who has? (scratches head)
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 18, 2004 06:30 PMAnd, yes, it's "neither." Typo.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 18, 2004 06:33 PM"My point was to note that the same (faulty) logic can be, and historically has, applied to Jews."
I should clarify that, because I made an error. The logic isn't faulty at all. What is at issue is that in our society we have made a choice as a civil society to affirm freedom of religion insofar as it involves no breaking of any laws. People naturally remain free to question and criticize religious beliefs, but we are also free to criticize people when questioning and criticizing escalates into hatred.
None of which has anything directly to do with making criticism of terrorism, or the religious roots of much terrorism, taboo, since it isn't.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 18, 2004 06:38 PMGary,
Volokh and you are wrong. Just because something has a long and complex basis or history doesn't mean it cannot be considered as an entity with a core. If it cannot, then the notions of Christianity and Islam have no meaning at all and usage of such terms should be discontinued. As a matter of fact Catholicism is the same way...so is the American Catholic Church...so is the archdiocese of Boston...so is Star of the Sea Parish in Marblehead Mass. Guess none of them can be described as having an is...right? It's nonsense.
As for condemning Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism etc, when regular occurrences of terrorism are perpetrated in their names and are not repudiated by their adherents, I'll condemn them too. In the 21st century, Muslims pepetrate the lion's share of terrorist acts. They are both rich and poor, educated and not, women and men, young and old, Arab, Persian, African, and Asian, Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, Sudanese, Saudi, American, Shia and Sunni etc. What did they have in common? Only that they were Muslims.
Posted by: spc67 at August 18, 2004 06:53 PMspc67,
They do have one other thing in common besides being Muslim: belief in a totalitarian political ideology. There are two separate totalitarian ideologies we are dealing with here - Baathism and Islamism.
Muslims who don't subscribe to either of these ideologies don't commit acts of terrorism or war unless ordered to do so by the tyrants who rule them.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 07:02 PMI should say they usually don't commit acts of terrorism or war. What Indonesia did to East Timor does not fit this model, for example. That was a whole different story and, in any case, is in the past.
Off the top of my head, the only Islamic terrorist groups I can think of that aren't explicitly Baathist or Islamist are separatist groups in Kashmir, Chechnya, and in Yasser Arafat's little proto-state. But plenty of them are Islamist, too.
You don't see Tunisia, Qatar, Bahrain, or Morrocco churning out terrorists. But there are plenty from Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Gaza for example. And I think this sort of thing needs to be taken into account.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 07:11 PMMichael,
Aren't most of the Madrid bombing suspects Morroccan?
Posted by: brad at August 18, 2004 07:55 PMBrad: Aren't most of the Madrid bombing suspects Morroccan?
Not to my knowledge. Are they?
I recall in Morrocco after the Casablanca attacks thousands took the streets in massive anti-terrorism protests. That doesn't happen in Gaza or Saudi, or at least not that I've ever heard about.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 18, 2004 09:06 PMMorocco has a sizeable problem with Islamist groups, but many of their Afghan/al-Qaeda trained terrorists are no longer in Morocco.
This was a big story in Europe 3 weeks ago:
Morocco 'lost track of 400 islamic militants'
MADRID: Morocco has warned Spain that it has lost track of 400 Moroccan Islamist militants who trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia or Chechnya, Spanish newspaper El Pais reported yesterday.Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 18, 2004 09:24 PMMoroccan authorities gave the warning to Judge Baltasar Garzon, Spain's leading Al Qaeda expert, in Rabat earlier this month, El Pais said, citing a person who was present at the meeting.
Spanish Interior Minister Jose Antonio Alonso, asked about the report, neither confirmed nor denied it but said Spain and Morocco were co-operating closely in the fight against Al Qaeda and there was a constant flow of information between them.
"The media report you refer to is connected to co-operation between Spain and Morocco that has been going on for a long time and is yielding very good results," Alonso said.
"We're going to continue in this route as it is essential to co-operate with Morocco and the other Maghreb countries in the fight against Islamic-based terrorism." Spain and Morocco have worked together on the probe into the March 11 train bombings that killed 191 people and injured 1,900 in Madrid.
Investigators blame the attacks on Islamist militants acting in the name of Al Qaeda.
Authorities in Rabat told Garzon they knew of 600 Moroccan nationals who had trained at Al Qaeda camps but only knew the whereabouts of 200 of them, El Pais said.
MT,
They do have one other thing in common besides being Muslim: belief in a totalitarian political ideology. There are two separate totalitarian ideologies we are dealing with here - Baathism and Islamism.
Perhaps. My concern (I hope to be wrong) is that those two philosophies derive from Islam and are viewed as consistent with the tenets of Islam.
Muslims who don't subscribe to either of these ideologies don't commit acts of terrorism or war unless ordered to do so by the tyrants who rule them.
But they certainly seem to tolerate them coming from their midst. They also seem to tolerate tyrants. Where is the Islamic Civil War?
God I'm in a crummy mood when I think about this stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: spc67 at August 18, 2004 10:12 PMBaathism derives from Islam? Are you kidding?
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 18, 2004 11:52 PMMJT,
Buy yourself a plane ticket to Istanbul, Tunis, or Marrakesh
Bad examples Michael.
Today's Turkish, Islamic city of Instanbul was of course formerly the Greek, Christian city of Constantinople.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521398320/qid=1092910245/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/104-6143571-3950327?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Likewise, Tunis and Marrakesh are Arab and Islamic by conquest:
697 - 98 Arabs destroy Byzantine city at Carthage in North Africa; new city of Tunis built nearby
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~neils/africa/africa-history.htm
The Almoravids (al-Murabitun) underYusuf ibnTashufin conquer Morocco, founding their capital at Marrakesh in 1062.In 1086 they cross the straits of Gibraltar and conquer Spain. The Almoravid Yusuf ibn Tashufin, after suppressing the petty rulers of al-Andalus becomes sole ruler of Muslim Spain in 1090.
http://www4.gvsu.edu/wrightd/Honors%20216/MulismJewishChronology.htm
I have no doubt of the hospitality of Arabs and other Muslims. But so what? Southerners earned their reputation for hospitality during the height of Jim Crow. My concern isn't with Arabs as human beings. My concern is with the Islamic ideology they created and imposed on other peoples by conquest. And I see no evidence in the historical record or in contemporary events that followers of Islam have forsaken conquest. On the contrary, their ideology demands it of them.
Posted by: HA at August 19, 2004 03:49 AMIslamofascists have killed "millions" in Iraq? You sure 'bout that?
Posted by: kc at August 19, 2004 12:11 PMBaathism derives from Islam? Are you kidding?
I didn't really say that...did I?
Posted by: spc67 at August 19, 2004 05:22 PMGary: Baathism derives from Islam? Are you kidding?
Who said that? Not me (unless I was being sloppy.) Baathism is a European import.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 19, 2004 08:51 PMI don't think you know what Islamism is if you think Turkey represented it in any way in Armenia.
OK, strike turkey. Where is the list of islamist mass-murders? Is it just algeria? I'm having trouble finding examples where the death toll is over half a million. Compare islamists against US client states and who's worse?
Posted by: J Thomas at August 19, 2004 11:59 PMMichael, as one who has occasionally been very tough with you (and on at least one occasion, unfairly very tough), I can attest that you don't ban for disagreement.
Posted by: Brainster at August 20, 2004 01:44 PMBaathism derives from Islam? Are you kidding?You said, regarding Baathism and Islamism (Posted by spc67 at August 18, 2004 10:12 PM):I didn't really say that...did I?
Perhaps. My concern (I hope to be wrong) is that those two philosophies derive from Islam and are viewed as consistent with the tenets of Islam.If "[Baathism] derives[s] from Islam" doesn't mean "Baathism derives from Islam," I need new glasses. I'm perfectly willing to believe you intended to write something else. Posted by: Gary Farber at August 20, 2004 06:23 PM
Yup, I said it, smacking self in head
Posted by: spc67 at August 21, 2004 12:05 AM
