My Favorite Lefty: a Vash Strike

19 thoughts on “My Favorite Lefty: a Vash Strike”

1. It’s interesting that you bring this up. I’ve been pondering a similar question since the London attacks. I may write a longer post about it, but it may take a couple days to work out in my head.

   When we look back at the attacks in Bali, Madria, the US, and London (to name a few) we see two things: 1) the attacks are carried out by Islamists; and 2) Muslims in the “free countries” react mostly with silence.

   What I wonder is, what happens after the next attack which, as things stand right now, will surely happen? I can’t imagine that we will continue as we have – it’s more likely that we will demand stricter security measures (though I thought that after 9/11 also, but we don’t seem to be demanding all that much) than we already have.

   But what measures are left? Right now the big bullet we’ve yet to fire is that of looking directly at Muslims in our nations as potential security threats. I can see the next step involving aggressive profiling of young Muslim men and, if the attack is sufficiently heinous (like an atack that kills a few thousand more people, or an attack that kills a couple hundred school children) I could imagine internment gaining real and perhaps inexorable traction.

   I’m not advocating either of those things (though I’ve advocated profiling in the past and still think it’s a workable solution) but I would be able to understand the thought processes behind those demands.

   Is that what Muslims in the US, Britain, and other free countries want? I’d say right now that their silence, which looks like tacit acceptance of terrorism to a goodly number of Americans, is nudging them closer and closer toward a place where they’ll get no sympathy from us when the next attack happens. I wonder if the Muslim community realizes that.

   It’s still a developing thought, but it’s been very heavy on my mind lately.

2. This deportation of moderate Muslims (and I see no need to put the modifier in quotation marks) idea…you mention that nations will no longer be able to “tolerate” the death of innocent people. May I ask what makes the moderate Muslims any less innocent? I am interested in what you see as “enabling” and appeasing”. If evidence is found that anyone–publicly Muslim or not–is in cahoots with the terrorists then by all means, charge them accordingly.

   What’s the criteria here? If any innocent Muslims are killed in a terrorist attack (and I’d like to point that I’ve read that one of the attacks in London occurred in an area well-populated by Muslims) then they miss the deportation boat this time around?

   Of course I haven’t even ventured into the territory of the different Muslim sects, tribal influences of culture rather than religion, all of their different interpretations blah blah blah.

   I don’t know I’m just completely puzzled by the attitude of one frowning on detainment but being quite comfortable with deportation. Or maybe you’re just throwing ideas out there? Or something?

3. Oh and another thing: what is this silence from moderate Muslims that people are always constantly referring to? I can recall two reports on the BBC that dealt with Muslims leaders (one of which was a general report on the major religious leaders in England) condemning the attacks. I remember the same with Qu’ran abuse debacle where a Muslim had an Op-Ed in L.A. Times (but it’s left you know, and a “M.S.M” at that so who knows who read it) highlighted the uselessness of violent reactions. The Daily Star had condemndations (I think the link is dead, but I’ll go search when I have the time). I can look to my own Muslim Students Association on-campus, or heck even that Muslim feminist blog I sometimes read for occasional comments on it.

   Maybe it’s because I’m in Canada (or something).

4. Oh and another thing: what is this silence from moderate Muslims that people are always constantly referring to? I can recall two reports on the BBC that dealt with Muslims leaders (one of which was a general report on the major religious leaders in England) condemning the attacks. I remember the same with Qu’ran abuse debacle where a Muslim had an Op-Ed in L.A. Times (but it’s left you know, and a “M.S.M” at that so who knows who read it) highlighted the uselessness of violent reactions. The Daily Star had condemndations (I think the link is dead, but I’ll go search when I have the time). I can look to my own Muslim Students Association on-campus, or heck even that Muslim feminist blog I sometimes read for occasional comments on it.

   Maybe it’s because I’m in Canada (or something).

5. I put comments around the word moderate because it is commonly used to describe what is supposed to be the majority of Muslims. I am not convinced, thus the quotation marks.
   Predicated on this: as long as you support jihad, you support the actions we see that are termed “fundamentalist”, you are then complicit in their acts. Aiding and abetting.

   You put quotes around innocent, now why would you do that? Aren’t the people and children who have been blown up by jihadist Muslims innocent of being condemned to that fate?

   ” the attitude of one frowning on detainment but being quite comfortable with deportation. ”
   I was discussing what I see as the probable outcomes as pressure builds to resolve the problem of terrorism. I do not see internment camps for two reasons, one is past history which in retrospect was a wrong choice in the case of the Japanese. Enough people see that so they will not view this as an alternative. The second reason is cost. It would be prohibitive. That means that we will see deportation. I don’t foresee the criteria or the extent. I do see it coming.

   The vast majority of Muslims are either supportive or silent in the face of atrocity done in the name of their religion, purposely to promote it. There are a few voices, but that is not sufficient to produce a control from within the Muslim community. When you are not self-controlled and you produce terrorist outlaws, there will be pressure and control from without. There must be convinced action on the part of those who advocate coexistance with others. It isn’t happening, Arethusa. A few TV shows don’t make a difference in the many who are joining the jihadist cause. Can you face this?

   Do you honestly believe that terrorists could be as successful in infiltrating Western countries as they are without complicity on the part of many in the Muslim community at large? Eventually something more than nicely asking Islamists to please not kill our children, please try not to invade schools and restaurants and malls to kill, please please don’t put anymore bombs that bury people alive and blow them to bits on buses ….will have to be done.

   I think the trouble with people who are having such a hard time facing all this are people that remain unconvinced that there is such thing as real evil.

6. I find your ideas on what makes a moderate Muslim telling. I’m just going to assume that we’re not using it in the same manner because I would think even a cursory look at Islam in general, and then readings on the differences among the fundamentalist to more modern/moderate manifestations sects would have the differences jumping out right at you. In fact reading about the various meanings of Jihad as written in Qu’ran and espoused by clerics and prophets (from the mystics to the militants) would be an obvious indicator.

   “You put quotes around innocent, now why would you do that? Aren’t the people and children who have been blown up by jihadist Muslims innocent of being condemned to that fate?”

   I have no idea what you are referring to actually. I’ve read my two comments (sorry for that double one btw) and can’t at all find that word in quotation marks, but it is early for me (weekend you know 🙂 ).

   I’m sure quite a few Muslims are American, exactly where are they going to be deported to?

   Ilona, I’m sorry, but I find your expectations and criteria for how loud, unified, or frequent the protests from moderate Muslims to be rather bewildering. Of course there are a few voices: isn’t it typically the leaders of Muslim organizations that make these public statements? I’m just really unclear on your expectations on this point. I remember in a previous post you wanted some sort of Muslim blogring where they could lay your fears to rest–but how does that practically qualify as a convincing action anymore than a few tv shows? (I also must point out that the “tv show” mention was my response to your take on the “silence” of the Muslim community, and nothing else.)

   Would you like to see maybe, workshops or schools erected that are the antithesis to extremists ones where young Muslim youth are…well going through whatever rigours you deem necessary that will supposedly convince them not to become extremists? What is your idea of convincing “actions”? Who or what is your source that has a) assured you that the majority of Muslims are in cahoots with Al-Quaeda (or manifestations thereof) and that b) in general the average Muslim is pro-actively helping them along.

   “Do you honestly believe that terrorists could be as successful in infiltrating Western countries as they are without complicity on the part of many in the Muslim community at large?”

   Correct me if I’m wrong but before 9/11 the (what is in retrospect now seen as) pitiful security North America had was far more helpful than leagues of accomplices for the terrorists. In Britain it is looking as if they were home-grown. Isn’t it true that AFTER 9/11 the visas of two of the hijackers (or others of similar character) were renewed? We could have a field day with immigration policies (of Canada moreso than USA I’m sure). So I’m sorry but I’m just not buying that. You’re making it sound as if flyers were handed out.

   “Eventually something more than nicely asking Islamists to please not kill our children, please try not to invade schools and restaurants and malls to kill, please please don’t put anymore bombs that bury people alive and blow them to bits on buses ….will have to be done.”

   That’s lovely but what has that got to do with the average citizen (Muslim or not)? Do you wish members of the Muslim communities to become self-vigilantes? Heck the wider society? I’d like to think that you’re pushing for more of a war for the “hearts and minds”.

   And goodness you don’t think more is being done about terrorism or is that the actions of the American government and others are only representative of your non-Muslim citizenry?

   “When you are not self-controlled and you produce terrorist outlaws, there will be pressure and control from without.”

   This is…I’m not sure how to…are you saying that the worldwide Muslim community is responsible for causing this heightened terrorist activity and have the sole means of obliterating it? Isn’t that just a tad too simplified take on the situation? I am the last one to lay all the blame of this matter on the West, but people seem to be solving this by going wildly in the opposite direction, ignoring all contributing factors in it besides the Qu’ran. (And of course as a Christian yourself, surely you know that religions are never that easily or simply comparmentalised, presented and explained?)

   I’m puzzled by your last statement most of all. Are you implying that the average Muslim is evil? Look, to me your argument basically amounts to a concentrated form of “guilty before innocent” and there are, of course, a host of arguments as to why this situation demands that sort of attitude. It’s all well and good but that’s also a wonderful recipe for stirring justified resentment; I don’t see how that gets us out of our current problems. I am not naive and am quite aware that there are undoubtedly extremist enclaves in Western countries. How that translates into the average Muslim community being a hub of terrorist activity with everyone in the know, winking at each other and cheering at the depressing death toll is sooo less clear to me.

   I am at least reassured that you’re not for the deportation.

   Anyway here’s some food for thought: http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2005/07/the_moral_failu_1.php (see, Muslims have blogs too!)

   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050716.wxmuslim0716/BNStory/National/

   http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1124/p06s01-woeu.html

7. Here’s another article: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7daaf170-f496-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

   I’m not nearly as at odds with your view as one would naturally assume from my comments, but it just seems as if you’re on the outside looking in and not especially interested in going any further. Of course if you’re resistant to the idea that the average Muslim doesn’t want you dead (and a Muslim convinced that you believe this merely because he worships Allah) well…we’ve got the major obstacle right there.

8. You’re bringing up some interesting questions.

   But what is the definition of persecution as regards your statistic? For example, is it considered persecution when a Christian has to pay a tax that Muslim doesn’t? Or does persecution only refer to actual physical harassment?

   I don’t deny that there are some nasty “Muslim” governments in the world. I used to work for a Sudanese Christian refuge, and I know what horror his family survived in Sudan and Uganda. However, “persecution” is a very vague term and can refer to an almost infinite number of practices, not all of which I necessarily disagree with.

   An example is that the US tops Amnesty International’s list of human rights abusers. Their number one point is Gitmo. While I generally like to think of myself as the kind of person who favors human rights, in this case, I’m all in favor of Guantanamo Bay. “Human rights,” like “persecution,” are vague terms that people throw around to get political and rhetorical points.

   The West has sown some very nasty seeds in the Middle East. Colonialism is not without its cost. We’ve reaped the benefits for a century or more, and now comes the backlash. That’s not to say that I empathize with terrorists; I don’t, particularly. But when I’m trying to be an objective observer of history, rather than an American patriot, I can see very clearly that these people have a lot to be ticked off about.

   Consequently, it is unfair to expect Muslims to run around assuring everyone that they’re “good” Muslims and not “bad” ones. I thoroughly expect that the Muslims I meet condemn terrorists; almost all people do. I thoroughly expect, on the same note, that the vast majority of white people I meet do not support the KKK. I expect that most blacks are not virulent Black Panther supporters. That most ethnic Germans aren’t secretly hoping for the return of the third reich.

   There are white people who like the KKK, black people who love the Black Panthers, and neo-Nazi Germans. But I don’t assume that everybody who falls under the categories white, black, or German should have to go out of their way to assuage my most negative perceptions. I don’t think Muslims should have to either.

   Sure, some Muslims are “bad.” If it were the average Muslim, however, the world would be engulfed in flames right now. This is a very large religion after all. We would be talking mass revolt in the streets, not an attack on transit every year and a half or so. Since we know it’s not the average Muslim, it’s unfair to expect the average Muslim to bend over backward appeasing us. We wouldn’t expect that out of a white guy, a black guy, or a German.

9. While our society may be vague about defining persecution, I do not believe we have so much trouble really. Is persecution just some irritant – some little fly in the ointment that stinks up the place? I think we know. For our better information it wouldn’t take long to work up the definition based on the human rights compilations of both cold statistics and heartbreaking real life stories. Read a few, and come back to me on this if you are not overwhelmed with the understanding of it. It is not “an infinite number of practices”, and I’m surprised you diminish the meaning with that statement.

   Human rights are equally clear and not vague. I think you confuse human rights with citizen rights and both with the forfeit of both should you commit serious enough crimes. You kill enough people with enough horror you forfeit right to your existance. Even God’s law says the same. Almost all human ones do.

   “The West has sown some very nasty seeds in the Middle East.” I’m sorry. If you are talking about sowing and reaping…. just how far back in history are you willing to go, and how much of this are you willing to include? Remember the Ottoman Empire? Maybe you forgot that in your reference to Colonialism.

   “I thoroughly expect that the Muslims I meet condemn terrorists; almost all people do.” You are wrong in this, and this is the change being called for.”unfair to expect Muslims” How about this? How about acting in accordance to what supports the humane and tolerant stance? How about castigating those who are killing little children? Is that fair?

   None of your named fringe groups are waging worldwide coordinated networks of jihad, of terrorism.None. And all are castigated and repudiated loudly by their correlating creedal, national, and racial groups.”under the categories white, black, or German should have to go out of their way to assuage my most negative perceptions” I think they do. Especially the German and white groups, if the black groups had longer and more widespread violence…we would see more distancing and repudiation. Black Panthers were short-lived in social impact.

   “We would be talking mass revolt in the streets, not an attack on transit every year and a half or so. Since we know it’s not the average Muslim, it’s unfair to expect the average Muslim to bend over backward appeasing us. We wouldn’t expect that out of a white guy, a black guy, or a German.”

   Oh. so since *you* don’t live in Darfur, or Indonesia, or Iraq of the recent past…it is all just sort of a few little blow-ups and we can all sort of think this is OK? I think you are willfully ignoring what inspires the terrorism. I really hope you aren’t saying we should just accept the events until there is some really BIG success at large areas and huge numbers of people dead? You are not saying that are you?

   And yeah, we do expect that out of the white guy, the black guy, or the German. And now the Muslim.

   http://www.persecution.org/newsite/index.php
   http://www.persecution.org/whitepapers/immigrat.html
   http://www.ecatholic2000.com/sj/persec.shtml
   http://jihadwatch.org/

   And thanks, Sarah, for your comments, although I had to strongly disagree with you.

10. Is Gitmo a major human rights abuse? If not, why does AI say it is? Is the US the most terrible abuser of human rights in the world, before China, the USSR and Syria? If not, how can AI, and other otherwise reputable agencies, claim that it is?

    Bottom line: human rights is a vague, and relatively new, philosophical concept. In the US we don’t consider it a human rights abuse to execute mentally deficient criminals or juvenile offenders; elsewhere in the free world, they most certainly do. Why the disparity? Because we’re not talking 10 Commandments here; it’s not that clear. Likewise, one man’s persecution is another man’s minority religious status.

    As I said, I worked for a professor from Sudan who was a witness to the horrors of the Islamo-terrorist government there. I’m not saying that no Muslim government has ever done anything wrong in the history of the world. I’m saying: what’s the definition of persecution as regards this statistic? For example, does the non-Muslim tax figure in as persecution? In my opinion it shouldn’t. However, it very probably does. There’s a big difference between: Convert or I’ll sell you as a sex slave; and, I don’t care if you’re a Christian, you still must study Arabic in school. Are both being figured in here?

    I didn’t forget the Ottoman Empire. Actually, I was referring to its collapse. The Ba’th Party, for instance, formed and gained power out of the mess that we in the West made out of the Middle East in that time period. Particularly in Syria, which is the intellectual base of the Ba’th, we did a rotten job. If jolly old England had avoided the Suez Crisis, we might not have the problems of confidence that we have today in the Middle East, just to name one collosal mistake we’ve made. And France was really brilliant in Syria before them. And just check the American trackrecord; our CIA was out attempting assassinations to influence elections; what a bastion of democracy!

    The Black Panthers still exist. The KKK still exists. There are definitely neo-Nazis with a worldwide reach; check Austria and France’s most recent elections. While the first two groups are US specific, they’re still active here. And neo-Nazis do have a worldwide reach. As nasty as, for instance, 9/11 was, WWII was an awful lot worse. Germans have an awful lot to answer for; but I don’t ask every random Herr Schmidt on the street to justify it to me. I don’t expect every “—burger” I meet to be a neo-nazi; it would be hypocritical for me to suspect that every girl I see that happens to wear a scarf is secretly preparing to kill the infidel.

    Osama bin Laden and his ilk are very new to Islam. They are the fringe, even if they’re a fringe group with some currency right now. Iraq was always a very secular Muslim country actually; Ba’th ideology is more influenced by Communism than Mohammedism. The nihlism of the Middle East is a very Western import. Indonesia is an interesting case; I admit to not knowing a heck of a lot about it. But I understand that it’s more like a war there than a one-sided persecution. And there’s an awful lot of class warfare going on inside of that, too. It’s not all crescent or cross.

    I’m not saying that we can’t take radical Islam seriously until it becomes widespread and extremely effective. What I am saying is that radical Islam has to become mainstream Islam before it’s okay to suspect the average Muslim just because he’s a Muslim. If KKK membership was the norm in a society, I’d be pretty okay with suspecting that the average white guy I ran across belonged, too. However, radical Islam still is radical Islam and not mainstream Islam. Most white folks don’t belong to the KKK, and no matter how disgusting it is that some still do, the fact remains that John Q. Public probably does not.

    And by the way, hey, we couldn’t agree on everything 😛 I actually like a respectful disagreement. It keeps life interesting.

11. 1st, the fact that KKK, etc, exist is a red herring. The point is that they while they do they also are held in disrepute by the larger correlative group. No more red herrings, it’s a time waster.

    “Is Gitmo a major human rights abuse?” It is questionable enough that it is being investigated. It is receiving lots of attention and that in itself is a deterrent to any abuse becoming policy. This argument is comparable to those which try to use the quality vs. quantity idea. That a little badness is the same as lots of atrocities of badness, so the atrocity bad is not so bad. Because it’s all bad. I don’t buy this.
    But I will say this: if our country is guilty of abuse and human rights violations, it should repent and change those things.

    “Bottom line: human rights is a vague, and relatively new, philosophical concept. ”
    Philosophical point. OK. In government recognition, yes, it is recent… but is it unknown in scripture? Are there ancient values that we should treat our fellow man in a humane way? There are.

    “Ottoman Empire” -they rise and fall; the story of meddling in the Middle East is one of abysmal decisions, but this does not explain away the oppressions of centuries of Islamic rule. So you can’t say that sowing and reaping by the West is causing all the problem. It’s not.

    “Osama bin Laden and his ilk are very new to Islam.” I don’t believe you can make a case for that given the history of jihad within Islam. They are fringe in present day Islam, and what is hoped for is that Muslims would unify against this way of living their religion. We’ll see, but not soon because the pressure has not reached critical mass yet.

    “before it’s okay to suspect the average Muslim just because he’s a Muslim.”
    Hmmm. Did you hear that from me? This isn’t what I advocate… I am saying that as a society we are moving towards that, and that it is up to the Muslim community to exert the pressure on their own renegades to the rest of society. Otherwise they will all suffer. That’s just how things go. we should recognize this possibility.

    “However, radical Islam still is radical Islam and not mainstream Islam.” I’ll agree to this with the caveat that it is worrisome how much mainstream Islam is silent and aiding through complicit approval by not moving or speaking strongly against it.

    I personally feel they don’t because they can’t. I say that from what I know of the Koran and of history. Time can prove me wrong and I would like it to, I just doubt that it will.

12. “”I thoroughly expect that the Muslims I meet condemn terrorists; almost all people do.” You are wrong in this, and this is the change being called for.”unfair to expect Muslims” How about this? How about acting in accordance to what supports the humane and tolerant stance? How about castigating those who are killing little children? Is that fair?”

    “”However, radical Islam still is radical Islam and not mainstream Islam.” I’ll agree to this with the caveat that it is worrisome how much mainstream Islam is silent and aiding through complicit approval by not moving or speaking strongly against it.”

    You puzzle me ilona, you really do. I pick up my local, national and student newspapers and see Muslim reporters and citizens writing in condemning the acts. My Muslim friends condemn it. Religious leaders from several countries (including Muslim) have condemned it. Canadian national organizations have condemned it. American Muslims are buying tv ads to condemn it. British muslims have gone on tv, written to newspapers and MARCHED to condemn it. In fact, google news “British Muslims” and you’ll get a host of articles reporting on politicians whose public statements amount to “Alright already, every time this happens you decry it, we’re past that now, we need y’all to do something!”

    Yet you and Jimmie, somehow have heard nothing and are still waiting. “He who has ears let him hear”.

13. We are talking about a situation in flux. I hope to see sustained, growing and collective move in the Muslim community to face the challenge.

    If you look at Islamic culture aside from the warfare, you will see deep fissures that represent dissenting goals. I think this is very obvious in the female portion of society, but also in those who desire the freedoms of a secular government. I would expect for these subgroups to overcome their hesitancy to be critical of the mindless killing that jihadism advocates.

    It isn’t that we have not heard it, but that we are weighing what is necessary for change against what is given, and watching the events with interest.

    Is it enough? We’ll see, but yes, there is a start of coalition moving towards coexistance. To change a society or culture you need a mass of movement in specific directions. What you have described are only the stirrings, and they are somewhat late, but we can be thankful for them nonetheless.

    When you have a large group of people, such as the Muslim group, of course you have many people who desire to live peacefully simply living their lives and raising their families. That is true of so many of us, but the fact is that there are times we must unite and work for that. Because that is what we would all like to see victorious: the decency of common everyday living, honestly and respectfully.

    I do appreciate the voice of each of you, Vash, Sarah, and you, Arethusa. The point is that we think about these topics, we will be advocating and voting for the policies that they generate. We want neither foolish appeasement nor violent backlash. We want to know how our measured responses and vocal expressions should track.

    That is the power of the public forum.

14. heh, I initially wrote a response that was more on topic, but the box wouldn’t let me post it because it said it had questionable content. Because I can’t post specifically about the things I wanted to, in the way I wanted to do it, I’m just going to shave off some parts of my argument entirely.

    Ilona,

    I’m not saying Islamic governments are pure and innocent. Many of them, and I already mentioned Sudan, are not. But there’s a difference between persecution and Persecution. There’s a difference between making Christian students study Arabic and learn Islamic history and selling non-Muslims into slavery, wouldn’t you say? I’m asking what the paramters of the statistic are. I think it’s a fair clarification.

    I believe that some persecution is worse than other persecution. If 83% of Muslim governments mandate the teaching of Arabic in schools, I’m not terribly concerned. If 83% of Muslim governments deny non-Muslims the right to an education, I’m much more concerned. If 83% of Muslim governments deny non-Muslims the right to life, I’m horrified. What does persecution mean in this statistic? That’s my question.

    The concept of Human Rights is very new. I do believe that the Bible has a standard for how we’re to treat our fellow man, but I don’t think it’s the same thing as the concept of Human Rights. The Bible says to love your neighbor as yourself, but that’s not the same thing as ensuring that everyone has Human Rights. If we listen to the Human Rights types, we find that every woman has a right to a government subsidized abortion because every woman has a right to privacy and a right to her own body. That’s not the rule of Love your neighbor as yourself, though. Human Rights demands that we have socialized government and a progressive tax; Love your neighbor as yourself requires that we do our best to meet everyone’s spiritual and physical needs, be they weaker or stronger or richer or poorer than ourselves. Human Rights are very *me* centered; the Biblical mandate is only concerned with *me* insofar as it has to do with ensuring that *you* are taken care of.

    The West did do awful things in the past few centuries that predicate our current troubles. Colonialism was awful. I don’t think it makes me an anti-American to say that slavery was wrong, and was always wrong, and that as a country we were evil to ever have partaken in it. I don’t think it makes me anti-West to say that colonialism was wrong – always – and that we, as Westerners, were wrong to benefit from it.

    My specialty in the Middle East is Syria and to a lesser degree Iraq. They’re good examples of how bad we bungled the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which we (the West) orchestrated. Ba’thism was born from the struggle to identify after the collapse of the Empire. It gained a foothold in politics largely because people in general got so tired of being lied to and manipulated by the West. Very few Ba’th politicians ever would have gotten elected had the Suez Crisis never occurred. Middle Easterners might have been more open to the promise of American-style democracy had our CIA not been caught red-handed attempting to orchestrate the assassination of Syrian politicians right before an important election, just to name one example.

    Ba’thism was much more heavily influenced by Western ideologies, like Marxism for instance, than they ever were by Islam. Many of the first Ba’thists weren’t even Muslims at all. Michel Aflaq, the chief intellectual behind early Ba’thism, was a Christian. Marxism and nihilism are Western imports; they’re not native to Islam or to the Middle East. The problems they’ve caused are at least partially our doing. When you destroy an ancient civilization, you’re kind of responsible for the havoc you leave behind. What did we leave them to pull them out of the mess they were in? Marxism, militancy, a chip on their shoulder? If that’s our legacy, we have a problem.

    Out of curiousity, what about life in the Ottoman Empire do you find so oppressive? Through most of history, it was actually quite a bit more liberal for most people than life in the West ever was. Muslims traditionally have done a much better job of taking care of their religious minorities than Christian nations have; it’s only in the past hundred years we’ve seen a shift in that, and I think that a lot of it has to do with anti-Western resentment because we’ve treated dark-skinned countries so badly.

    Radical Islam is Radical Islam, and not mainstream Islam. If Radical Islam becomes mainstream, I don’t believe that it will be because the majority is too silent, it will be because the majority has been converted. And they will be converted only if the underlying issues which created Radical Islam in the first place – anti-Imperialism, anti-Westernism, poverty, poor governance, poor education, disillusion with less divisive paradigms, etc. – are not addressed and are aggravated.

    Guys like Osama bin Laden are new to Islam. Whatever the history of jihad and its shifting meaning over time, it’s never been acceptable for just some guy to issue a fatwa. It’s as curious to Islam as it would be curious to Christianity if Bill Gates rose up and issued a crusade one day. Radical Islam is not traditional, and it has its own brand new, curious theology. Most Muslim scholars aren’t big on bin Laden’s theology, even if they are won over to him because he represents the destruction they’re craving. No matter how terrifying Radical Islam is, it’s still fringe. It’s still strange.

    I don’t think you’re advocating that we suspect Muslims just because they’re Muslims. I am afraid that you’re being a little too tolerant of that attitude, however, and partially justifying it by default. I think that prejudice is the fault of the person who holds the prejudice, and not the person that they’re prejudiced against. Bigots will dislike Muslims whether they take up arms against Radical Islam or not. It’s not the job of Muslims to appease the bigots, but the bigots job to repent, reform and love their neighbor, treating everyone equally as children of God.

    _______

    Arethusa,

    The formatting of the comment box is kind of strange. I’m not entirely sure that you were talking to me, but if you were, I thoroughly do believe in the punishing of anyone who kills children. I do not believe in punishing those who do not kill children, however. I believe that there is a distinction between the two groups, and that the latter group should not have held against them the former’s sins. I believe that this is the only humane, just or fair viewpoint.

    P.S. Pardon any rambly-ness or unclearness, I’m dead tired right now. And quite frankly, I’m prone to both of the above vices even on my best days, much less the really sleepy ones…

    P.P.S. I butchered my post for nothing! Your spam blocker blocks the word: “c*al*s,” with the *s representing “i”s. Problem being, that’s a principle part of the proper name for somebody who believes in Marxism.

15. wow-sorry about the comment censor- maybe you could put in * for some of the vowels and override it. I should put a warning about the word soc*l*st – it keeps making trouble for us here.
    =====
    On parameters I would say like equals like. I think that best represents the environments. The levels will be different in different countries. There are levels of descent, rather like Dante’s hell, but it is all hell and a matter of how deep you go. So persecution is in opposition to tolerance. At different levels. Force is force and mind control is as much a problem as that of the body. I don’t think we can compare taking classes with the rape and enslavement, no. That is simply common sense. But having forced teaching and discerning what the intent and method is, you may have grounds to call it persecution. It is like the difference between ideas of mortal and venial sins.

    It is not a case of moral equivalence and I wouldn’t make it so. However, I think that there is an actual slippery slope. Persecutors will persecute to the degree they are permitted and it will escalate. Thus the vigilance of the anti-Semitic groups. So I am not sure you have a case for dividing it up, in the comparisons of societies. What would be your point in doing so? If we are looking for punishable offenses I can see the point, but if we are looking at rates of tolerance, not so much.

    >”I don’t think you’re advocating that we suspect Muslims just because they’re Muslims. I am afraid that you’re being a little too tolerant of that attitude, however, and partially justifying it by default. I think that prejudice is the fault of the person who holds the prejudice, and not the person that they’re prejudiced against.”

    I appreciate your statement and will give your cautions some consideration. I agree with you.

    I would make distinctions between slavery and colonialism that you do not. and perhaps I would be wrong, but that is a different argument and I’d need to focus my thoughts on that.
    In my new post I look at the idea of radical versus fanatical jiahdist. I give you that there are elements of radicalism in todays Islamic jihadists, but there is also the older fanaticism, and I do not think that can be explained by responses to political Western policy .

    You could be right in the idea that this is a new form for Islam. I won’t say you’re wrong yet. but sects are not always completely new, they often are the ‘same old’ in new clothing. I still think we are seeing some of that.

    “it’s still fringe”
    For some reason that does not reassure me. I think it has something to do with the Nazi’s holding that place in their society at one time.

    This would be all the more reason to prod the Muslims to deal in-house with this. Before its power base is more than a fringe in its power and influence. Numbers are not everything in such a case.
    I am grateful for your views here. It is important to balance the slate on seeing clearly and not through circumstances alone.

    Lots more terrorism throws the balance my way on this, however. And that is basically what I was looking at- where this thing is headed. I don’t see real peace within Islam. Moderation would be good however.

    That is one weak way to end my side of it, but I am no apologist for our mistakes in the West, and there are points of serious bungling. This in no way excuses the centuries of oppression and wrongdoing in the name of Islam that are practiced fully up into this very day. It concerns me that the citations you use are often excuses given for overlooking the continued support for atrocities.

    That would be a great mistake on our part. Can you agree with that? maybe not- but I will remember your cautions on not trespassing against the Muslim.

16. Hmm! A post with my name in it 😉

    Although I’m sure what I’m about to say has been said (I haven’t read all the comments yet)…..

    “The trouble with this history lesson is that it manages to edit out the religious tenets. This is the whole point. You cannot edit out the religion, as much as secularists like to do this. It is not sufficient to blame policies for the these terrorists.”

    No, true – a radicalized brand of Islam is the ideology that the terrorists adhere to. It’s a mistake to think they are driven by opposition to Western foreign policy alone.

    However, Mr Thomas makes the more dangerous mistake when he tries to edit out the politics. That instantly puts us in a position where all we can do is throw up our hands and exclaim in shock at the evil that is Islam, make mad plans to blow up a few more of them to teach them a lesson, and when the suicide bombings increase say “Oh hasn’t the world’s evil quota increased of late.”

    “What is the purpose of the terrorism? To get the West to stop their policies? Or to overwhelm the world with Islam? You have to ask this. You have to honestly answer it.”

    Are you sure these are the only two choices?

    I think a fire has started, and we have to put it out (when I say we, I mean people collectively.) As you no doubt know from fire prevention lessons at school, fire needs both oxygen and fuel – remove one and you stop the fire. The two things driving this fire are ideology and a real sense of grievance. It’s, er, difficult to prevent people holding ideologies. It’s easier to prevent the fire spreading in this case by removing the fuel.

    “You’ve seen the Taliban, Vash, you’ve seen how it oppresses women and circumvents literacy and education, how it excuses the oppressions of those not in the acceptable ethnic group …how can you support that? How can you tolerate that?”

    I don’t, and I’d be intrigued to hear why you think I do. This sounds like a leftover bit of the “You’re either with us or with the terrorists!” nonsense.

    To prove my non-Talibanic credentials, I’m an atheist and one of those thingys your editor won’t let us post ;), I’ve got a job, in fact I’m a trade unionist, and also I’m sat here in gear which would cause any hardcore Taliban member to shoot me on sight as an incredibly immodest person. The Taliban would not like me, and indeed the feeling is mutual.

    I don’t see how rejecting some of the forms US and UK foreign policy has taken means embracing the Taliban – as if those were the only two choices in the world – or why saying “This cannot be separated from politics” is “excusing tyranny” or even “supporting” it.

    To get even more political, you’re going to have to find the amazing people who DON’T excuse oppression of “non-acceptable” ethnic groups. Why do you think we have minutes of silence across the EU for the London bombings and if a similar amount died in an attack in an African country, it would make one line somewhere in the paper, if you were lucky?

    (Actually, that is more a national group than an ethnic one, but the point holds.)

17. We agree that there are more than one component, but I think we have to look at the balance of weight and placement we give each.

    “Mr Thomas makes the more dangerous mistake when he tries to edit out the politics. That instantly puts us in a position where all we can do is throw up our hands and exclaim in shock at the evil that is Islam, make mad plans to blow up a few more of them to teach them a lesson, and when the suicide bombings increase say “Oh hasn’t the world’s evil quota increased of late.”

    He wasn’t editing out, only voicing that which was not dared to be spoken for too long, and for the very reason you provided. Although I have to say it is the Islamists who go round “blowing up”, going to war is not the same thing. It is a directed aggression for a specific purpose. It’s not done to “teach a lesson”, but to procure an end.

    The response you mention is how the secular mind responds to the problems that rise from religion. If there is evil in a religion or ideology then it must be faced. The frightening thing about this is that the usual reaction to that is fury. So it is avoided whenever possible. It is an irrational in the thinking of the secular mind.

    We are in the position of having to deal with the religion if that is found to be causal in creating terrorism. It is a different manner and procedure than simply fighting a physical war, in that case.

    “Are you sure these are the only two choices?”
    It wasn’t a false dilemma, it is a matter of what are the important questions here.

    “The two things driving this fire are ideology and a real sense of grievance. It’s, er, difficult to prevent people holding ideologies. It’s easier to prevent the fire spreading in this case by removing the fuel.”

    This is the point: the problem in this is that you are looking at the wrong fuel source. That is why the questions…if the West removed all source of grievance ( in the hypothetical, which is not possible) would this stop the fire? I think we have to face that it wouldn’t and it serves almost to further the power of the other source: the ideology, because it strengthens the perceptions that the cause is right. Peripherally.

    Does this mean maintain a false pretence of innocence? No, recognize the wrong, but understand that is a secondary level of what is at work. Right what we can in our policy by all means. We are still left with the ideology. It is not true that war is not waged on the ideological front. Expose the factors, convince moderation of action, come to a stabilized coexistance. It is a very old situation that has not always been handled. But that is what is before us.

    “I don’t, and I’d be intrigued to hear why you think I do. This sounds like a leftover bit of the “You’re either with us or with the terrorists!” nonsense.”

    It’s not that I think you do, but for you to face the situation at hand. Because that forced position has been misused doesn’t mean it has no moral force at all. Sometimes there is the complicity of the inert ( sins of omission in churchy language). I’m not accusing at all, I’m saying look carefully to your position.It could become something unwanted at some point.

    I do think you fully see your own opposition to institution of Sharia.

    I don’t see how rejecting some of the forms US and UK foreign policy has taken means embracing the Taliban – as if those were the only two choices in the world – or why saying “This cannot be separated from politics” is “excusing tyranny” or even “supporting” it.

    Perhaps it is my view of the forces at work. Another way to couch the question is, what else would you do?

    “To get even more political, you’re going to have to find the amazing people who DON’T excuse oppression of “non-acceptable” ethnic groups. Why do you think we have minutes of silence across the EU for the London bombings and if a similar amount died in an attack in an African country, it would make one line somewhere in the paper, if you were lucky?”

    You might make a good point, but I scoop it up for my position. There ought to be a more united and consistant concern for blocking oppression and terrorism. It has gone on for quite awhile with apathetic response. Who mourns the Israelis, for that matter? Where is the minute of silence for their dead? We are all too callous, but that isn’t reason to enable and promote more.

18. Nice! It worked. I couldn’t see that in…well, you know my technical problems.

    “He wasn’t editing out, only voicing that which was not dared to be spoken for too long, and for the very reason you provided.”

    Who scared Mr Thomas so much that he shied away from saying what he wanted to say? Conservatives always use this “gagged” motif, but realistically, who’s stopping you?

    He didn’t voice anything apart from his wish for us to “get tough” in some unspecified way. What prevented him?

    “Although I have to say it is the Islamists who go round “blowing up”, going to war is not the same thing. It is a directed aggression for a specific purpose. It’s not done to “teach a lesson”, but to procure an end.”

    If that were true, the “War on Terror” would make no sense. As terrorism is a tactic, not a nation or a group, then the idea of a “war on terror” is not “directed aggression for a specific purpose”. It’s not possible to defeat a tactic as one defeats a nation.

    If it comes to that, the “specific purpose” of the war on Iraq has undergone a number of changes, no? First it was because “Iraq has WMD it’s going to kill us all with”. Then it turned into “Because this is an evil regime!” although we don’t seem to have a problem with masses of civilians dying or evil regimes elsewhere (cf Chechnya, Uzbekistan), and international law prevents us from overthrowing regimes “just because”. Now it’s floundering around, switching from justification to justification depending who its defenders are speaking to.

    “The response you mention is how the secular mind responds to the problems that rise from religion. If there is evil in a religion or ideology then it must be faced. The frightening thing about this is that the usual reaction to that is fury. So it is avoided whenever possible. It is an irrational in the thinking of the secular mind.”

    I don’t understand what you mean here. Please explain a little. Who’s avoiding what? Is it the “secular mind” avoiding the reaction, facing the evil, the particular ideology or…? Is something else avoiding something else altogether?

    “We are in the position of having to deal with the religion if that is found to be causal in creating terrorism.”

    Say this in simpler terms, and we will get closer to the way you see things. I suggest “If Islam is found to be a reason why some people carry out terrorist activities, then we have to deal with that.”

    However, we are still at the stage of Thomasesque vagueness here. Nearly all ideologies or beliefs have served as a “reason” for violence. I don’t see how one can “deal” with this in any meaningful way.

    “This is the point: the problem in this is that you are looking at the wrong fuel source. That is why the questions…if the West removed all source of grievance ( in the hypothetical, which is not possible) would this stop the fire? I think we have to face that it wouldn’t and it serves almost to further the power of the other source: the ideology, because it strengthens the perceptions that the cause is right.”

    So this fire arose out of nowhere? Nothing caused it? The evil which is militant Islam spawned it, and that’s all there is to it?

    These young men in Yorkshire were mysteriously infected by evil, and even if relations between Muslims and non- Muslims around the world were in an idyllic state of peace, they still would have blown up the Tube because they caught the evil bug?

    You’re thinking in spiritual terms about a practical problem, in my opinion. For you, it makes sense to say “this is caused by evil forces” because that is a reasonable judgement for you, and you expect to battle it on a different plane than the everyday…I know my terminology is off, but you get the picture 😉

    For me, it doesn’t help. It’s like holding an animated discussion about how hot fire is while burning to death. The thing is to put out the fire.

19. Cont. so as not to overload your comments box…

    “Sometimes there is the complicity of the inert ( sins of omission in churchy language). I’m not accusing at all, I’m saying look carefully to your position.It could become something unwanted at some point. ”

    Again, please go into more detail. If you seriously think my position could become support for Islamic fundamentalists, I must be at fault – as I have obviously not explained myself correctly.

    “Another way to couch the question is, what else would you do?”

    Hmmm. “Neither Washington nor Moscow” allowed people to point out the truth about both. (I am not taking a party position here.) Maybe “Neither Washington nor Kabul” would be a good slogan now 😉

    I can’t answer this question properly because your comment editor has an unreasonable objection to some “isms”.

    “There ought to be a more united and consistant concern for blocking oppression and terrorism. It has gone on for quite awhile with apathetic response. ”

    It’s been pointed out here that while we all look at Muslims accusingly, there is still a large amount of US support for the “Real IRA/Continuity IRA”. Terrorism is OK if you know it’s never going to affect you….

    However, this isn’t a contest as to “who’s suffering the most”. The winners wouldn’t be the Israelis anyway, compared to the Palestinians. (Look at the death tolls.)

    The vast majority of terror is state terror. We persist in seeing “proper terror” as performed by outside agents of the state. If we do not come to a correct understanding of terrorism as performed by states and individuals, “concern”, “protests against terrorism” and all of that kind of feelgood stuff will achieve precisely nothing.

Comments are closed.