Thought Provoking?
A friend of mine forwarded me this article this morning under the subject heading “Thought Provoking.” Read it and tell me what you think...
Why the Left doesn't blame Muslims for Muslim violence
Feb 28, 2006
by Dennis Prager
There's a certain consistent pattern regarding the worldwide Left's assessment of culpability for Muslim terror. It is the fault of the murdered.
The most recent example is the blaming of Denmark, or at least the Danish newspaper, for publishing cartoons of Muhammad. From Kofi Annan to The New York Times -- and the other American newspapers that declared respect for religious symbols a new journalistic virtue -- liberal and leftist opinion always condemns violent Muslim demonstrations, but always with a "but." The "but" is that in the final analysis, it was the Danish and other European papers' faults for insulting the Muslim prophet.
This is only the latest example of finding the victims of Islamic violence responsible for that violence.
For a decade or more, it has been a given on the Left that Israel is to blame for terror committed against Israelis by Palestinian Muslims (Palestinian Christians don't engage in suicide terror). What else are the Palestinians supposed to do? If they had Apache helicopters, the argument goes, they would use them. But they don't, so they use the poor man's nuclear weapon -- suicide terror.
The same argument is given to explain 9-11. Three thousand innocent Americans were incinerated by Islamic terrorists because America has been meddling in the Middle East so long. This was bound to happen. And, anyway, don't we support Israel?
And when Muslim terrorists blew up Madrid trains, killing 191 people and injuring 1,500 others, the Left in Spain and elsewhere blamed Spanish foreign policy. After all, the Spanish government had sent troops into Iraq.
When largely Muslim rioters burned and looted for a month in France, who was blamed? France, of course -- France doesn't know how to assimilate immigrants, and, as the BBC reported on Nov. 5, 2005, "[Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy's much-quoted description of urban vandals as 'rabble' a few days before the riots began is said by many to have already created tension." Calling rabble "rabble" causes them to act like to rabble.
If you wish to test the thesis that the Left blames those blown up for being blown up by Muslim terrorists, have your son or daughter at college ask some liberal arts professors who is to blame for 9-11 or Muslim suicide bombers in Israel, etc.
In fact, one way to describe the moral divide between conservatives and liberals is whom they blame for acts of evil committed against innocent people, especially when committed by non-whites and non-Westerners. Conservatives blame the perpetrators, and liberals blame either the victims' group or the circumstances.
We Americans are used to this. For decades, liberals have blamed violent crime in America on racism and poverty, i.e., on American society far more than on the murderers, rapists, arsonists and muggers themselves. Conservatives blame the criminals.
During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, black mobs murdered innocent Korean shopkeepers and burned sections of the city. The liberal response in America was virtually universal: We must understand the anger of these people at American racism. The daily special section on the riots in the major local newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, was titled, "Understanding the Rage."
Though Thomas Friedman, the New York Times foreign affairs correspondent, has been among the few prominent liberals to support the Iraq War, he regularly blames Islamic terror on unemployment in the Arab world.
Since examples of liberals refusing to blame criminals and terrorists for their behavior are legion, let's try to figure out why this moral inversion is so common.
Here are three hypotheses:
One is that liberals tend to blame outside forces for evil. This emanates from the secular humanistic view of people as basically good -- and therefore human evil must come not from the bad choices and bad values of the evildoer, but from the unfortunate socioeconomic and other circumstances of the person's life.
The second explanation is that as you go further left on the political spectrum, it becomes increasingly difficult to blame the "weak" for any atrocities they commit. The Left does not divide the world between good and evil nearly as much as it does between rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Israel is stronger and richer, so Palestinian terror is excused. White America is stronger and richer than black America, so black violence is excused. The West is stronger and richer than the Muslim world, so Muslim violence is explained accordingly.
And third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil. That's why the liberal newspapers of America refused to publish the Danish cartoons, probably the most newsworthy cartoons ever drawn, but have never had any hesitance about showing cartoons and photos that mock Jewish and Christian symbols. Christians and Jews don't kill editors.
We don't know who will be the next target of Islamic or other murderers from poor or non-Western or non-white groups. All we can know is that liberal and leftist thought will find reasons to hold the targeted group largely responsible.
This guy tips his hand early and often.
By continuously saying terms like "The Left" "Good and Evil" "Innocent" and "Blame," he succeeds in creating an "Us against Them" argument that, emotionally, usually wins, but, intellectually, renders his point of view pointless and mute.
What exactly is The Left he keeps talking about anyway?
Actually, the question should not be WHAT but WHERE? All I can see are ultra-reactionary religious types, (Like Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, Bin Laden) hardcore laissez-faire capitalists (Like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Prince Doobie-Woobie bin al Cinder of Dubai) and Assholes (Fernando Ferrer).
Consider that we are a country:
Where a large portion of the country pound their fists on tables and huff and puff till they are red in the face about that “Flaming Liberal” Hillary Clinton.
Where the concept of socialized medicine is demonized by WORKING PEOPLE, much to the delight of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, whose executives congratulate themselves on being able to “sell ice cubes to Eskimos” and ejaculate in their pants every time they think of how much money they make every time they take a shit.
Where scientific research is retarded and/or prevented because “there are some things Man was not supposed to know.”
Where the population is so afraid of sex and their own sexuality that the sight of a woman’s bare breast caused an “outrage” so expansive that grown men and women, cultured citizens of a “progressive” society, applauded loudly as censors went to work on taking away our most primary human quality: The ability to express ourselves
Pondering the current state of our culture, it is not so much of a stretch to say that we skew wildly to the right and to talk about “left wings” is patently absurd.
And if we must play the Bill O'Reilly/Karl Rove patented "Blame Game,"I blame that crazy radical religious cult for this sorry state of anti-humanism. The ones whose dogmatic ways placed them squarely at odds with Western style Democracy. The ones who waged holy wars against their infidel neighbors, singing about God while giving a wink and a nod to genocide. The ones whose society was controlled by maniacal religious zealots who would kill or maim women for adultery and publicly humiliate and torment anybody who wore the wrong clothes. The ones who hated their more enlightened neighbors for their freedom.
Of course, I am talking about The Puritans.
Certainly, and I can’t believe I have to say this, I do not blame the victims of any terrorist attacks and, furthermore, anyone who does is wrong. But Mr. Prager thinks that what is, and has been going on in the world is a question of "good" and "evil." I suggest that view is childish. Does he think that the United States is Little Red Riding Hood, innocently traveling through the woods to Grandma’s house with a basket of freshly picked Strawberries, minding our own business, when all of a sudden the Big Bad Wolf attacked us? I am sure that is not the analogy this guy would use but isn't that what he is actually saying?
Isn't that fairy tale...and that is a very apt description of what this gentleman purports to believe in...the basis of any attacks upon "The Left," or really any adult who understands that we live in a world of 5(?) billion people? Isn’t this Pollyannish idea the ammunition which is consistently used against any adult that merely suggests the possibility that a thousand years of European colonial foreign policy...a policy that was continued by the Post War United States producing such sweethearts like Ngo Dinh Diem, Manuel Noriega and The Shah of Iran...and the exploitation of their natural resources, might have something to do with the resentment that many people feel towards us?
Why wouldn't we think there would be horrific violence as a result, did you expect them to yell “Trick or Treat” at us?
I can understand a ten year old being taught American History for the first time believing that but a mature adult?
But I do agree with his opinion about newspaper editors and publishers. I believe there is a double standard when it comes to mocking religious icons with the primary reason being fear. As Mr. Prager points out, publishers shy away from offending Muslims but do not care about offending others because, “…Christians and Jews don't kill editors.”
Well, not any more.
And there in lies the rub.
Political and social strife IS a matter of haves and have-nots. Unrest is usually a product of, a reaction to, an enforcement of or a rebellion against the current system. A system that non-progressive, status quo type people champion as if the human spirit can be reduced to a cash register, a Nielsen rating or a sales demographic chart. A system that makes the United States of America, and white people in general, a have and places like Africa, South America and large swaths of Asia (Condescendingly referred to as “The Third World”) a have-not. How long is the current situation going to last? China, a nation with roughly five times our population, is still under an even more reactionary totalitarian regime so it is a safe bet that it will be for at least the length of Mr. Prager’s lifetime.
I seriously believe that is all that he is really concerned about anyway.
But if he wants to explain the global situation…or any situation…in terms of good and evil, I’m not going to stop him. Millions of people around the world believe in these mystical forces. For that matter millions of people also believe in Voodoo hexes, Talking Snakes and The National Enquirer, so who am I to argue? But, as a practical matter, I would like to suggest that he remove himself from the discussion, take his Oodles of Noodles and go back to the kiddie table. Let the grown-ups deal with things. All I ask is when are we going to be treated like adults?
I guess, probably, when we start acting like one.
Starting with the Republican takeover of Congress in the mid-nineties, we have now had roughly twelve years of this kind of fear-based, hate mongering, politics of division which is the true sub-text of Prager’s article. I know chronologically twelve years is less than the tiniest speck, of the tiniest grain of sand on the infinite beach of time and space. But, in terms of Washington politics, twelve years represents an eternity and definitely qualifies as a “track record.”
After assessing this Administration’s track record, their total lack of accountability and responsibility for the score of failures on their watch and the sum total of their practical policies as well as the spiritual road that their “leadership” is driving us down…after considering all of these factors…you can honestly…and I mean honestly…say to yourself
“Right on brother!”
Then all I can say is God Speed.
But, again, the position he described as "The Left" does not apply to me because, I try, to think for myself.
In other words:
I yam what I yam.
Larry
posted by Larry B | 2:13 PM
12 Comments:
The most important things to notice in the article are that 1) he is attacking the very process of rational thought and 2) he provides no clear alternative to the process of “excuse making” he sees.
1) The author equates the search to understand terrorism with placing blame on the victims’ themselves. This is simply an attack on the rational thought process. The world is a complex place where people don’t just become terrorists overnight for no reason (note: I, unlike the author, do not consider their “being evil” a legitimate reason). Attempting to understand the real world events that create a market for terrorism is not the same thing as blaming the victims. It is also not the same as making excuses for guilty terrorists.
Evaluating American foreign policy to understand why people might get angry enough (deranged enough, if you prefer) to fly planes into our buildings is the rational thing to do after someone flies planes into our buildings. Pointing out possibilities such as flaws in American foreign policy, unemployment and totalitarianism in the Middle East, and the rise of religious zealots worldwide (including right here at home) is not tantamount to pointing fingers at victims or turning blind eyes to culprits. Any reasonable member of “The Left” (that vague, amorphous American whipping boy) would never suggest that the working people of New York City deserved to die that September morning. Nor would they be quick to suggest that the US deserved to be attacked. But, attempting to understand why terrorism has become so rampant is a legitimate and necessary step in the effort to undermine terrorism worldwide. Some might say that it is the logical first step. Those some are certainly not influencing American foreign policy at the moment.
Similarly, no reasonable “liberal” would suggest that individual terrorists not be held accountable for their individual actions. Saying that sometimes Israeli policy (see the building of a “security fence” eerily similar to the Berlin wall) might spark terrorism must not be interpreted as issuing a “get out of jail free card” for terrorists. Regardless of any provocation that may exist, those who throw grenades through windows or burn embassies or crash jets into buildings are completely guilty of their crimes. Meaning: they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (note: it is unlawful to detain prisoners indefinitely without providing them due process). I want Osama bin Laden’s balls on my wall as much as anyone else, my attempt to understand terrorism as something more complex than a “good” versus “evil” condensation of the world does not change that.
And it does not make me unpatriotic either.
2) What alternative to this “Lefty pussyfooting” does the author suggest? Other than demanding that full culpability be placed on the terrorists themselves (which itself is a ridiculous attack of a claim never leveled). Instead, he continually resorts to his “good” and “evil” interpretation of events. And this, I would suggest, is a most dangerous way of seeing the world. If we, a modern, educated democracy, allow ourselves to see all those on the other side of the fence as “evil” then we might have already lost the battle. Equating “the other” with “the evil” creates a narrow approach to foreign policy, and one that quickly spreads into all aspects of live. Pretty soon its not just Iran that’s evil, but Joe “the baby killer” Liberal down the street is too. That threatens the very fabric of democracy, a system built on discourse and discussion and differing opinions, a system built on the tolerance of those differences.
Bear with me:
Terror is an idea. Therefore, the “War on Terror” must be (can be) no more than a war on ideas. You can’t, as the current administration believes, simply crush terrorism under tanks or annihilate it with a few Patriot missiles. You can’t, as some of the more ridiculous “Lefty Lefties” assert, circumvent it by simply giving away more and more aid or censoring newspapers so as not to offend radicals. Again, the world is simply not that simple. Simple as that.
Instead, a “War on Terror” is a war of ideas and, luckily, we have the strongest weapon in the battle…if we’ll only use it. Democracy is, without question, the greatest achievement of mankind’s political aspirations. The best chance America has in getting rid of the terrorist threat is to strengthen our own democracy here at home. Becoming, as we were intended, the “city on the hill” for the world is critical: where free speech is truly respected, where equal opportunity actually exists for all, and where politics is guided by the wishes of the masses and not corruption and dirty money and tyrants masquerading as modern-day messianic marvels.
Then we will be well on our way to bankrupting the appeal of terrorism for good. Of course, we’ll have to fight a few bad seeds along the way. Of course, we’ll have to lend a helping hand to fledging democracies (not everyone has the benefit of possessing essentially an entire continent as testing grounds for the democratic experiment). And of course, it isn’t easy.
But think about it. How has repressive religious zealots (who aspire to be little more than modern-day monarchs) monopolized the grassroots movement (and, at the fundamental level, terrorism is little more than a grassroots movement)? Freedom is universally (read, UNIVERSALLY – regardless or religion, race, sex, etc.) more appealing than totalitarianism and repression. We have to deflate the appeal of the radicals by inflating the appeal of democracy. We can start to do that only by first strengthening our democracy at home.
I know all of this may sound a little pie-in-the-sky. And I know none of it is likely to happen. And I know that I don’t have all the answers. But I also know that narrow-minded fearmongering and attacks on the very process of rational thought by assholes like this author are not the answer to our problems.
Didn't Kanye West get all Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stone recently? I don't remember their offices being flamed and publisher murdered. I don't remember what the outrage was in that case at all. Was there any?
If someone is intent on killing another because their religion has been slighted or mocked, I can't honeslty believe that person is religious in the first place. Fanatical yes. Spiritual, no.
That's probably not the point of your blog of course, but I just wanted to state my opinion.
Excellent comment Justin!
The attack upon intellectualism by the powers that be is revolting. The attitude Justin speaks about is nothing new. The Soviet Communists immediately murdered any scholars, lawyers and doctors...the intellectual and professional class...as soon as the Red Army entered Poland in 1939 as a result of Stalin's agreement with Hitler. Poi Pot immediately murdered anybody who spoke French(Their Former Colonial Rulers)when he took power in Cambodia in the 1970s.
Why did they do this?
If you want to say because they were evil then fine. But I think they targeted these groups because they were the thinkers of the country. As such, they would most likely question and to control a people you need to destroy the ability or the want to question. Docility and conformity gets rewarded while curiosity and reason punished. The State has know need for scholars. The State needs beasts of burden.
Now I am not suggesting that the current administration is murdering people who question or think.
They don't have to.
We are doing to ourselves.
And on religion...
The problem is that the three western religions, Judism, Christianity and Islam are right now being controlled by radical militant minorities who are actively trying to bring about Armeggedon. They are embracing the idea of Doomsday because they all feel they are right.
My own religious beliefs are irrelevant and well known to anyone who reads this blog. The question I place to the average follower of these three religions is:
Do you feel that the direction the leaders of your faith are taking you is in anyway congruent with the core beliefs of faith itself?
If your answer is yes, then either do some reading or find a new religion.
Thanks for reading and thanks for the comments!!
I wish everybody would read the book from Bruce Bawer "While Europe Slept" to understand what is happening in Europe and will happen here if we do not keep our eyes open.
When I rip into Islamo fascists I am not insulting Islam or Muslims who live in peace in America, those who accept the idea of religous pluralism. I may have theological disputes with the cleric but these disputes would never rise to violence. Most faiths have abandoned the notion of faith by submission. Unfortunetly there are large segments of the Muslim world, individuals and governments, who have not rejected that concept.
The recent attacks on Christians in Nigeria is solid evidence of the lie of the "men of the book" myth. What did those Churches and 15 dead men in Nigeria have to do with the Danish cartoons? Not a thing. It shows that the notion of dhimmihood is still valid in these Muslim countries. Non-religous cartoonists in Denmark print offensive cartoons in a foreign paper. Because you are not Muslim and you share a faith that was important in the founding of that now largely secular country that you have no connection to and probably have never been to, it is just to kill you and burn your houses of worship.
This is the worldview of a large section of the Muslim world. There are Muslims and there are infidels(sub humans). Your faith that is non muslim so you are subject to our anger at people that you do not support or have any connection to and we reserve the right to punish you for others who we think have offended us. And we reserve the right to go past our borders to ennact our revenge. And muslims who live in other countries have the right to live under our laws, even if they conflict with the core values of the countries that they have migrated to. And even if these ex-pats do not share our understanding of the Koran we reserve the right to punish them in our own fashion.
Look at the 60 Minutes program. That nut compares the pre- meditated violence of the cartoon pograms to car accidents. He thinks this is a good thing. And he would get the heroes treatment in many, not all, Muslim countries.
American Muslims bear no responsibility for these actions. But if they try to rationalize them or shift blame to the cartoonists, then they are missing the big picture, or they possibly share a type of sympathy for that form of logic. I have read and seen untold numbers of print, movie, book, and news papers that have insulted many faiths and worldviews. I particpate in the fair electoral process so I can contribute my views into the process. But when I am in the minority I don't resort to murder to change the outcomes, and when I talk to someone who thinks I am a deluded fool I take it with a grain of salt. And if someone decided to spit on my Church I would not kill them. The thought never crosses my mind. This is happening daily in the Muslim world and any Muslim who is offended by this should take a look in the mirror and talk to his partners in faith and quit blaming others for these actions.
I don't think this is the only outcome possible for the World of Islam. Christianity went through the reformation and Islam could too. But those who call for it have to fear for their lives and supporting or rationalizing these governments and Imams who support these violent reactions is a sign to me that there could be some sympathy for this worldview from those who defend them so passionately.
It is a fact that in America you are allowed to practice whatever faith one chooses or to have no faith at all. It is not true in large sections of the Muslim world. And that is the problem. Faith by submission is still practiced. I don't care what the Koran says about it. The reality of submission overwhelms whether it is proper theology or not.
I remind myself that the Church used to burn people at the stake, persecute Jews and that Catholics and Protestants fought pitched battles...and somehow Christianity reformed. Now western states are secular.
If Islam can not learn to leave other people alone I fear for the future. Their paranoia, together with a sense of entitlement, is making it more and more difficult for the world to ignore their growing dysfunction.
In fact I think the cartoon frenzy is actually making people less tolerant of Muslims. I know it makes the mad mullahs seem more sinister.
In regards to Islamic reform, there are pessimists and optimists. I think Pope Benedict XVI and Dennis Prager are pessimists.
Apart from President Bush, the optimists are tougher to identify. Many support Bush policy in Iraq, despite understanding that the road to reform is hugely conditional. That being the case, even "optimists" are made up of a range.
This is only wise, because the challenge is enormous. But what is the alternative? Admit that a nuclear exchange and further Islamic-West war is inevitable? This may be more realistic, but how many American's can embrace such pessimism? Relatively few.
On the 60 Minutes program, Bob Simon did the show on the cartoon publication in Denmark. He interviewed the editor of the paper [and conveniently trashed him by getting other opinions from competitors about the stupidity of the publication], and, then he interviewed the Imam, who lives in Denmark, who gathered up all the cartoons, packaged them [they had not been published apparently on the same day, some were not even published in that paper], carried them en masse to the Mideast where he disseminated them to the Moslem press to get a reaction.
Simon asked him if, in light of all the deaths, he regretted his action. The Imam answered in effect in a snarky way; "Collateral damage, consequences are consequences."
Simon, having gotten his answer, moved quickly through the piece to reinforce his criticism of the brave editor who published these cartoons, never challenging this Iman whose quote about collateral damage should send any normal reporter into the stratosphere.
But then I realized that the American mainstream media, (and I already can hear you saying WHO is this "Mainstream Media, just like when you ask, "WHO is the author referring to when he refers to a certain group?"), is not going to dump on these extreme Imams because they are afraid of them. Secondly, it is clear that 60 Minutes is "hell on wheels" when it catches some $200 a week used car salesman ripping off an unsuspecting buyer, "you just watch old Mike rip Jasper a new one." But let fearless Bob Simon come face to face with a real live Imam and he turns to jello.
The Christian reformation happened hundreds of years ago and took hundreds of years. Can you imagine the 100 years war in Europe? A European then might have said "My father and his father fought. I fight. So it will be for my sons and their sons - - all will fight".
Reformation was as much a result of exhaustion as anything else. After centuries of bloody strife and persecution, growing numbers of Christians finally concluded that only by depriving the churches of access to the coercive and repressive powers of the state, AND by depriving the state of the power to intervene in the affairs of the church, could they achieve any tolerable coexistence between people of differing faiths and creeds. The bloody religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries almost compelled Christians to secularize their states and societies in order to escape the vicious cycles of persecution and conflict.
The Muslims encountered no such problem and so needed no such solution (See Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong?").
The idea that ANY group of persons, ANY kind of activities, ANY part of human life is, IN ANY SENSE, outside the scope of religious law and jurisdiction is alien to Muslim thought. This is the foundation why Muslims only have a single law, the Sharia, accepted by Muslims as of divine origin and regulating ALL aspects of human life; civil, commercial, family, criminal, constitutional, as well as matters religious in the more limited (not secular) Christian sense of the word.
So, where does that leave us? We are at a particular intersection of WMD technology availability and Islamic Fascism bent on world domination (nothing less) or martyrdom. Islamic Fascism is a ruthless enemy with no moral compunction about killing innocent civilians (even including children!!?!?). We can ignore the problem, hoping for the best, or we can try appeasement since it worked out so well for Neville Chamberlain, OR we can engage the enemy NOW and perhaps avoid a nuclear exchange.
The current experiences with Moslem populations mixing with "infidels" is not good. India had to be partitioned. We are into 60 years of Palestinian terror, and even Europe with the revenge "ethnic cleansing" of Moslems has a history filled with Islamic conflict.
I am going to take a leap and say doing nothing and hoping for the best, is NOT a good option.
In Denmark, Muslims make up only 5% of the population but receive 40% of welfare outlays. But in addition, many of these immigrants are told by their leaders that Muslim law (Sharia) gives them the right to "cheat and lie in the countries that harbor them." They are told to view the benefits they receive as Jizya--the tributes that "the infidel natives of Muslim-occupied countries are obliged to pay to Muslims in order to preserve their lives." And the welfare offices in Denmark can be the setting for violence--termed "culture clashes" by Danish journalists. Some clients lay waste to social security offices and hit social workers--not out of frustration but because they've learned that bullying gets them what they want.
The absence of a native secularism in Islam and so no attendant free market capitalism, free press, rule of (secular) law, and independent judiciary means the only rational option is to engage and defeat the enemy NOW as hard and as fast as we can. We must act now. There is not enough time for the Islamic society or the Fascists to evolve on their own. The decadent and demographically declining (non Muslim) European societies will either not be much help or very late to the game.
The moral imperative of millions of (Moslem and non-Moslem) deaths demands we must settle this conflict as fast a possible.
Otherwise count me a pessimist.
I don't think that change is impossible for anybody or any group. But change in the radical muslim world will not happen by ignoring their current fascist worldview or trying to understand them. And certainly not by abandoning our own values out of fear or lack of spine. I am not hoping for a bloody war. But backing down to a bully does not stop them. It only encourages them to continue their actions. If we start self censoring our cartoonists they will go after the writers next. The mistake they made with Rushdie was they went after him instead of using the tactics they used with the cartoonists. I wasn't fond of the cartoons. But the insane actions of the Islamo fascists makes me want to buy a t-shirt with one of the 'toons and buy a Danish beer. If we don't respect our values, they will feel free to continue their jackboot tactics.
Who edits 60 Minutes?
Why,the producers of 60 minutes,of course.
Would these producers EVER show their white knights careening down a false alley, to a bumbled conclusion?
Doubtful.
Would they EVER follow up on a
story the white knights got 180 degrees wrong??
Not on your life.
Once one realizes this,
it's insulting to watch
the "drama" of their heroic "exposes" unfold.
The other aspect of the 60 Minutes model is the "trial by media" game that gets played.
In order to build their rep/street cred as defenders
of the public, they bully and harass their victims on camera, but, of course, only allow a modicum of conflicting evidence to be presented...just enough to allow their coup-de-grace
to seem hard-won and righteous.
Now you’re talking.
I agree with you that most faiths have abandoned the idea of conversion by submission but you also have to remember that it was not voluntarily. The Reformation took at least 100 years of barbaric bloodshed for the splinter groups of Christianity (Roman Catholics and the Protestant Sects) to even recognize the others. As the enlightenment swept across Europe as a result, more and more, people began to not only suggest the Separation of Church and State, but actually demand it. The Papal States, the land that the Pope actually governed, existed as late as 1860 when Italy was finally unified under one secular Government.
So it took well over three hundred plus years for the followers of Christ, the Prince of Peace, the teacher of Love and Tolerance, to repudiate the idea of enslavement and genocide.
But that is just pointing to the hypocrisy of our own history and, in my estimation, is too easy and a bit unfair because we live in the present and not in the past.
But, I ask you, why is it, in the year 2006, I can’t lawfully hire a prostitute? Or shoot dice? Or buy alcohol before noon on Sundays? Or commit Sodomy, in some states? If I meet a 28-year-old woman who willfully wants to have sex with me for cash, we risk the possibility of arrest and imprisonment.
I just mention these things because they are prime examples of activities I am prevented from doing simply because the majority think that they are "wrong," even though nobody gets hurt. Any hurt that currently exists from the above activity comes exactly because of the outlaw status, be it abusive pimps or the funding of organized crime. And I understand the gray area when it comes to what it means by getting hurt, such as destroyed families and friendships. But, as an adult, we have the right to make our own mistakes and, God willing, learn from them.
Hell. Some of us become better people from the experience.
If morality is still legislated, and it is most certainly is, it is not such a stretch that the more extreme of us who buy into a particular creed or morality will attempt to make all others follow it, by hook or by crook. There is no question that the Republican Party is at this moment is being controlled or at least held captive by, this wing of the population. Those three million Evangelicals who Karl Rove "targeted" in the last election, who voted specifically on "God and Gays," thinking that the current Administration represented a Higher Power which, by definition, is anti-reason.
That is why, although I agree with you that faiths have abandoned the idea of submission, people haven't, and we should never think of ourselves as above it all because once we do we have the possibilty of becoming what we supposedly despise.
With that being said, you are absolutely right that the Islamic world is full of theocratic despots that are more in tune with our Middle Ages than a modern world where, again supposedly, might doesn't make right and justice is to be cherished. And I also agree that the time maybe right now to confront this situation head on, irradiating such arcane thinking head on, deploying all of the western industrial resources against it. That of course includes hard military assaults against certain "Islamo-Fascist" governments who are beyond the point of reason. 9/11 was the catalyst for my thinking.
But who should we attack and where?
The answer to that basic question should have everybody…EVERYBODY…no matter if you agree in aggressiveness, support Chamberlainism or just are a passive consumer, saying that the people who are leading us are utter disgraces.
Osama Bin Laden, who is the number one leader of a, most likely, highly organized and disciplined group of murderers who are the epitome of what the anonymous quote described, was allowed to get away and is functioning in the same capacity as he did in 1996.
Saudia Arabia, and all the Gulf Arab States, countries that can only be described as Medieval in their oppressive ways and thinking, are not only allowed to exist unencumbered, but also share most cordial status with the current administration. They think that these guys are such, "vital allies in the war on terror" which I am assuming is what is being described in the anonymous quote, that they are considered worthy enough to guard our ports! They are the same people whose social evolution over the last thousand years can be described as snaillike.
Iran and Syria, who are simply not cool but because of our diplomatic bungling, can walk into any embassy in any part of the world and find a friend.
Instead we invaded Iraq who, for the most part, was being held together by a secular cut throat dictator who gave lip service to the Islamic Fundamentalism stuff but killed anyone who got our of line. In other words, a man very similar to the hundreds of other guys we have propped up over the years in the "Third World," who we never felt a need to dethrone because they kept the Bananas flowing to the American Fruit Company. Now that he is gone, there is nobody to hold the different groups together except the American Military who the Administration has placed in an impossible situation. What has resulted is chaos, controlled in some parts, rampant in others. The choice to invade was disastrous.
And this conclusion, becoming obvious to even the most die-hards, is not a product of hindsight. Many people, not just low-end common citizens like myself, but Generals and Intelligence Officers said the same thing. The President's father, former President H W Bush, had the same opinion and, I suspect, is the reason why he didn't "finish the job" back in the early 1990s. When the current President was asked by Bob Woodward if he sought his father's advice during the run-up to the invasion, he replied 'No…I spoke with a higher father."
Comforting.
My point is if you believe it is justified to wage a war against Islamo-Fascim, and it certainly is not a crazy idea, you can not possibly have any confidence in any of the choices or actions of the current administration. Would not a relatively secular dictator, one of Bin Laden's sworn enemies, a person who used his Islamic ties the same way our greasy politicians use church appearances, (The current President excluded because the one thing I feel is that he is not faking it when it comes to being "Born Again." Rove does that for him.) be a much better ally in the "War on Terror" than a bunch of Sultans, Emirs and Princes whose decadent barbarism create pockets of unemployed, poor and wretched who are the fodder for the cannons of terrorist recruiters who exploit the absurd lack of opportunity and hope? These Islamic recruiters use the same techniques as the Crips, Bloods and Skin Heads.
As you suggest, it is certainly "too late" to try to understand a certain sect of Islam which embraces Jihads and absurd fundamentalism but it is never too late to try to heal the misunderstandings and cultural alienation that exists between the west and the overwhelming majority of peaceful/co-existent Muslims who we share this planet with. If we don't, we are dooming ourselves to constant war and bloodshed.
Besides, the ultimate solution to crime is not building more jails, but it is the erradication of the NEED or WANT to commit crime.
If we continue this policy of shoot first and ask questions later, we are in danger of reversing the current situation and the overwhelming majority of Muslims will be Jihadists and, no matter how right will be, the world will be a much worse place to be.
I am sorry I did not respond sooner and I am glad you commented on my blog anonymous. You provided a very thought provoking essay.
Thank You
Larry
I agree with your writings in reponse to my last entry, except for one thing that I think is a very big misconception amongst the general public. And this has to do with the "guarding" of our ports. This Dubai company that is looking to buy the present company that is working the ports, is not going to be guarding the ports. The guarding of these ports will always be done by the United States. President Bush may do some whacky things, but he surely is not going to allow a foreign company to guard the ports. This is not what is happening now, and is not going to be happening in the future. In other words, in speaking of the two leading parties, the democrats and the republicans, the democrats are always saying how the republicans are scaring the people by saying certain things, but this is exactly what the democrats are doing now with this port issue, trying to make the general public believe that the ports will be guarded by a foreign entity, when, in fact, this is not what will be happening. The ports are guarded by the United States, (U.S. Coast Guard, etc.,), and always will be.
Blogger's quote: "Besides, the ultimate solution to crime is not building more jails, but it is the erradication of the NEED or WANT to commit crime."
You've got to be kidding. Typical liberal thinking; so perhaps all criminals should be given therapy so as to "eradicate" the NEED or WANT to commit crime. No, as you say when you mention that people make their own choices in life, so do these criminals, and they should pay for their crimes....whether it be by building more jails, simply eradicating these criminals themselves, (the most violent of them), and whatever else means there are to eradicate what these criminals do.
In your words, the people should "eradicate" this need and want to commit crime, and I ask, why? They know they are committing a crime; going against the laws of the states, etc., and yet you say they should be given therapy so as to eradicate their actions? No, I know you don't use the word of therapy for them, but this has the same meaning.
The bottom line of your thinking is this: Let's not condemn the criminal, the enemy, etc...let us try to understand why they committed such a crime, such as to be empathetic to them. It was this type of "reasoning" that was one of the ultimate reasons why John Kerry lost his election bid.
You latched on to a very minute element of Larry’s response, and you misunderstood even that. Again, attempting to understand and eliminate criminal (or terrorist) motives is not the same thing as being “soft on crime” or granting wrongdoers a free pass. Or even empathizing - although I always thought that to be a virtue and not a vice.
Nobody here is saying that a prison or a military strike has no place in the curbing of crime (both domestic and terrorist). What I think Larry is saying, and what I definitely am saying, is that America should use all of its resources in fighting both crime and terrorism.
At the root of this entire argument is Americans’ desire to feel safe. Period. It is a national security issue. I believe that our national security, and the safety of individual Americans, would be better protected by a broader understanding of national security than is currently employed.
I think everyone can agree that the Republicans do a much better job selling their party as being serious about national defense (and hard on crime). Therefore, it seems incongruous that those same Republicans immediately attack statements in support of a broader approach to national security.
The fact is that the current administration, as well as previous administrations (both Republican and Democrat), have viewed national security in pretty limited terms. How do you ensure your country is protected? They say: build a strong military, and be able to use it effectively when the time comes…
But, the trouble is that this is generally a reactionary protection; meaning that it can only hope to prevent threats from actualizing harm. It does little to see that threats never emerge.
(The domestic analogy has prisons taking the place of the military: the threat of a prison sentence looms over potential wrongdoers, but it actually does very little to eradicate the various contributors to the criminal impulse.)
There is a concept in Political Science called “soft power,” which essentially includes all elements of national security beyond actual physical power (as manifest in the form of armed forces). America’s soft power is a vast resource made up of traditional elements like diplomacy and trade leverage (which we have a lot of), as well as harder to quantify (but still powerful) elements like the appeal of American democratic and capitalistic ideals and even our pop culture.
(In the domestic example, preventative measures to the very impulse for criminal activity come from building a quality education system, a strong economy, and effective communities nationwide.)
Yes, the military (or hard power) can occasionally deter threats from developing, but it certainly can’t do as well as if it were accompanied by a genuine attempt to employ soft power as well. Again, you can’t bomb ideas. But, you can use threats of economic sanctions to get Middle Eastern countries to tighten the reigns and crack-down on terrorists and violent extremists themselves. You can (wisely) invest in “difficult” parts of the world: governments with strong economies providing dependable services to the citizenry are extremely effective in preventing homegrown terrorism. You can undermine an enemy by strengthening democracy at home and broadcasting it to the huge majority of freedom-hungry young people living in Iran. You can be smart and not see each of these things as mutually exclusive. We use this power some, but certainly not enough.
The point of all this is: all Americans (including us “typical Liberals”) want to be safer. Why should we, who are critical of the current approach to things, be vilified for suggesting America do everything it can to ensure its citizens’ safety?
Somehow, it has become unpatriotic or even effeminate to suggest that possible solutions to the threat of terror exist beyond (or even in addition to!) the use of brute military force.
But…
It’s now clear that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 nor possessed WMDs. Rather than exercising our soft power, or any patience (which is certainly a virtue), to learn this fact, we destroyed a stable (albeit loathsome and corrupt) regime and created a hotbed for terrorist activity. If you say that the citizens of the United States are safer now from our having invaded Iraq, then you are simply ignoring facts. Before we went in, there was no al-Queda presence in Iraq. Today, al-Queda calls Iraq home for operations within that country, as well as the region more broadly. Before we went in, there was basically no sectarian violence in Iraq. Sunni and Shi’ite then lived in relative harmony; while today Iraq is on the brink of a civil war.
I’m no bleeding heart. The invasion of Afghanistan made sense because the Taliban were an illegitimate regime that harbored and aided terrorists that posed direct threats to the United States. They needed to be taken out, immediately.
Dropping more bombs and building more prisons may very well be necessary in the fight against terrorism and domestic crime. But, they are no panacea.
There is a lot going on in this “war on terror.” It is important to at least try to understand it.
Don’t buy into the fear and hatred that is becoming more and more rampant. The more it spreads, the more we’ll all have to pay for it later. Too many people look at the Middle East and judge all of its inhabitants as hopelessly and naturally incapable of democracy, as hopelessly and naturally prone to violence and extremism. Those are dangerous sentiments with no possibility of producing anything positive. Instead, they cause us to attribute problems to all the wrong and ridiculous reasons like skin color and religion, and fail to miss the bigger picture.
And don’t you realize that attributing the violence to something innate in Arab blood or something fundamental to Muslim teaching does nothing but put more wind in the sails of the terrorists? It’s like purchasing a billboard for them to use in recruiting.
Now that’s unpatriotic…
Final comment on this.
#1: "Again, attempting to understand and eliminate criminal (or terrorist) motives is not the same thing as being “soft on crime” or granting wrongdoers a free pass." This is exactly what this means. It is exactly this type of thinking that shows a softness on crime or even "granting" wrongdoers a "free pass."
#2: "It’s now clear that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 nor possessed WMDs." I will never unerstand how anyone can still say that Hussein did not have WMD's. Because he DID have WMD's...but yet people such as yourself continue to "latch" on to the idea that there were never WMD's. Of course there were..and they were moved, hidden, etc., before the U.S. invaded. Yeah, the weapons inspectors did such a good job in finding these WMD's...that was a pussyfooting around job of inspection. But yet, when the "invasion" occured, and no WMD's were found, right away this gave people who follow your train of thought, to right away say, You see, Bush was wrong, there were no WMD's in Iraq..na na na na na." And this is the most ridiculous statement ever made. Forget the fact that Hussein moved the weapons BEFORE the invasion; before the U.S. went into Iraq. Instead, continue to say the same thing over and over and over again, that there were no WMD's found in Iraq. Yes, part of that statement is true, but be real. The weapons were moved, hidden, etc., before this "invasion" of the U.S. military. So I just sit here and continue to realize what a preposterous statement is made whenever somone like yourself continues to say there were no WMD's. Hussein DID have WMD's...there is no doubt about this.
#3: "...to learn this fact, we destroyed a stable (albeit loathsome and corrupt) regime and created a hotbed for terrorist activity." Are you kidding me by saying this? Or is this just perhaps your attempt to show hubris. A STABLE regime? Well, I guess you are right, as we could also say that Hitler had a stable regime as well. So what is your point?
#4: "The point of all this is: all Americans (including us “typical Liberals”) want to be safer. Why should we, who are critical of the current approach to things, be vilified for suggesting America do everything it can to ensure its citizens’ safety?" I understand you want to be safer, and so do the rest of us. And no one, especially me, is attemtping to villify you for suggesting America do everything it can to "ensure" its citizens' safety. President Bush is doing everything possible to ensure this safety. It's just that no matter what the current administration does, people with your train of thinking will always be negative on what this administration does. Just think for a moment, what the difference would be in today's world if there would have been a John Kerry administration. Yeah, there probably wouldn't have been an "invasion," instead, the U.S. would have been tied up in court trying to "understand" why these terrorists commit such atrocious crimes. Your current trend of thinking is that if we treat these people good, then they will treat us good. But, sorry, this is not the way it works.
#5: "And don’t you realize that attributing the violence to something innate in Arab blood or something fundamental to Muslim teaching does nothing but put more wind in the sails of the terrorists? It’s like purchasing a billboard for them to use in recruiting." I don't know what to comment on this final statement you have written. But this is fundamental teaching to most Muslims. They are born, and from almost day one, they are taught to hate everyone who does not follow their mode of thinking...hence, a lot of them are brought up to become terrorists...this is in their blood, (by means of what they are taught), and no amount of trying to "understand" why they are this way, is going to change this.
Since anonymous seems to have put his last two-cents in, it looks like I will get the last word:
On any issue, problem or policy, John Kerry would have been a far superior President than George W Bush.
For that matter, so would Grandpa Al Lewis.
Thanks for the interest and comments!
Oh, yeah, I guess this is "true." Just like the majority of people who voted in the last presidential election, voted for John Kerry. I don't think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home